Home/BlogYesterday I posted a critique of Lord Christopher Monckton’s latest explanation of why he believes climate sensitivity is low. At issue is his claim that researchers have somehow neglected that the feedback response to a climate perturbation (e.g. how much warming occurs from adding CO2 to the atmosphere) needs to include the feedback response to the total emission temperature of the system, which he claims then greatly reduces the system “gain factor” and thus calculated climate sensitivity. I maintain that this is not how climate sensitivity in climate models is determined — only actual physical processes are modeled — and I used clouds as an example of why the system response to small perturbations cannot be determined by including the response of a cold (e.g. 2.7 Kelvin) Earth to solar heating (this is what I claim his argument amounts to when he includes the total system temperature in his system gain calculation). While he and I agree sensitivity to increasing CO2 is likely to be low, I laid out my explanation of why his reasoning is faulty. I invited him to respond, and I present that response, below, without comment. At a minimum this exchange might help us better understand exactly what Christopher is saying from a physical process standpoint, rather than a “system gain” standpoint.
I am most grateful to my friend Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the world’s foremost and most expert meteorological researchers and commentators, for the attention he has kindly devoted to our conclusion that official climatology has an insufficient understanding of control theory and has, therefore, led itself into a persistent and grave error.
I am still more grateful to him for this opportunity to reply to his latest posting on this topic, so as to set the record straight. Roy talks of my “feedback arguments suggesting a very low climate sensitivity”. Let me begin my response to that posting by clearing up the misconceptions that are evident in that thought. First, the arguments we make are not my arguments alone. My team includes many experts more than usually competent in both theoretical and applied control theory.
Secondly, our arguments do not “suggest a very low climate sensitivity”. Consider the position at the temperature equilibrium in 1850. The reference temperature that year was the 267.1 K sum of the 259.6 K sunshine or emission temperature and the 7.5 K directly-forced warming by, or reference sensitivity to, preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases; and the observed HadCRUT equilibrium global mean surface temperature was the 287.5 K sum of 259.6 K and the 27.9 K total natural greenhouse effect, which itself comprises the 7.5 K reference greenhouse-gas sensitivity and 20.4 K total feedback response.
Early papers on equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (ECS) based on explicitly quantifying feedback response, from Hansen (1984) onwards, show that the original reason why climatology imagined ECS to be of order 4 K was that the system-gain factor (the ratio of equilibrium sensitivity after feedback response and reference sensitivity before accounting for feedback response) was 27.9 / 7.5, or 3.7 (or, using the round numbers in vogue at the time, 32 / 8, or 4). Since midrange reference doubled-CO2 sensitivity (RCS) is 1.05 K, it was thus imagined that midrange ECS was 3.7 times 1.05, or about 4 K.
Once Hansen and others after him had repeated that midrange estimate often enough, it became impossible for the climatological community to move away from it. They were stuck with it. The whole shoddy house of cards would collapse if they revised it significantly.
The correct system-gain factor for 1850 was not 27.9 / 7.5, or 3.7. It was (259.6 + 27.9) / (259.6 + 7.5), or 1.08. In effect, climatologists had forgotten the Sun was shining and had, therefore, forgotten that there is a feedback response to emission temperature. They had overlooked that large emission-temperature feedback response, and had added all of it to the actually small feedback response to preindustrial greenhouse-gas reference sensitivity. They had thus reached their high midrange ECS of about 4 K by imagining, incorrectly, that the feedback response to emission temperature was zero, which is nonsense.
In reality, such feedback processes as subsist in the climate system at any given moment (such as 1850) must, at that moment, necessarily respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature. Feedbacks do not, repeat not, respond solely to perturbation signals, the reference sensitivities. They also respond to the base signal, the emission temperature that would prevail even if there were no greenhouse gases in the air, because the Sun is shining.
Roy says that the underlined words are not true. [“Feedbacks do not, repeat not, respond solely to perturbation signals, the reference sensitivities. They also respond to the base signal, the emission temperature that would prevail even if there were no greenhouse gases in the air, because the Sun is shining.”] When I first realized that climatologists — on both sides of the debate — simply did not understand enough control theory to appreciate the truth of the underlined words, I discovered that a control theorist who was a friend of one of my distinguished co-authors did not realize they were true either. But he had his own lab. So he built a feedback amplifier circuit and tested the matter for himself. That was not easy, because so small is the true unit feedback response that he had to run wires into the next room so that his body temperature did not affect the readings. To his surprise, he found that the underlined words are correct.
Another control theorist, also a co-author, suggested that we should consult a national laboratory of physical engineering to put the point beyond doubt. So we did, and the lab came to exactly the same conclusion, after months of delay because the operator’s body temperature again interfered with the readings, and he had not thought to run wires into an adjacent room. So the matter is not in doubt.
Next, Roy incorrectly assumes that we maintain that “the climate system’s response to a small perturbation from its current state might be discerned from its response to the presence of solar heating assuming an initial cold Earth”.
In reality, we start not with “an initial cold Earth” but with the climate of 1850. We do not need to know what might have happened at 2.73 K ambient temperature. In 1850, when the equilibrium temperature was measured to a respectable precision, the system-gain factor — the ratio of equilibrium to reference temperature — was 287.5 / 267.1, or somewhat below 1.08. All we say, therefore, in relation to 1850 (we go back no further than that) is that ECS based on climatology’s original method adjusted to take account of the fact that in 1850 the feedback processes then extant had to respond equally to each Kelvin of reference temperature regardless of its origin is 1.08 times the 1.05 K RCS, or about 1.1 K.
We then demonstrate via a detailed energy-budget calculation that using mainstream midrange initial conditions it is perfectly possible that the system-gain factor following a CO2 doubling compared with 1850 remains somewhat below 1.08 and that, therefore, ECS is about 1.1 K.
However, we also draw explicit attention to the fact that, precisely because feedbacks respond to the entire reference temperature, and precisely because the base signal, emission temperature, is 30 times larger than the perturbation signal, reference sensitivity to natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gases, even a very small change in the feedback regime compared with the equilibrium in 1850 would exert a disproportionately large influence on ECS. In fact, a mere 1% increase in the system-gain factor at a new moment of equilibrium compared with 1850 would push ECS up by 300% to the 4 K that is the CMIP6 models’ current midrange projection. Therefore, our method does not prove that ECS is low: instead, it shows that it may be low, but proves that ECS is not reliably constrainable.
We draw the conclusion, applying standard feedback analysis, that it is simply not possible to derive ECS as climatologists now do, by diagnosing feedback strengths from the outputs of the general-circulation models and then deriving ECS therefrom. Or, to put it another way, the interval of system-gain factors implicit in IPCC’s current 3 [2, 5] K ECS interval is only 1.10 [1.09, 1.13], an interval so tiny as to fall well within the published uncertainty envelope of feedback strengths, rendering any attempt to predict ECS no better than guesswork.
Albeit by an entirely different method, we reach the same conclusion as Pat Frank in his important paper of 2019, in which he demonstrated that the envelope of uncertainty in ECS arising from propagation of the published uncertainty in a single climatic variable — the low-cloud fraction — was so large that all projections of ECS that have ever made fall within that envelope and are, therefore, mere guesswork. They have no predictive validity at all.
Roy devotes much of his article to the question of clouds. However, in the entire posting by my to which his piece is a response, the word “clouds” occurs only once, and in a context peripheral to the central argument. We point out, in common with Professor Lindzen, that at emission temperature, when by definition there are no greenhouse gases in the air, there would be no clouds either, wherefore, by the Professor’s calculation, emission temperature would not be 259.6 K but more like 271 K, which would of course reduce ECS still further. However, we explicitly point out that we take no account of that fact at all. Our analysis does not depend on the value of the cloud or any individual feedback. Roy says our analysis implies that further warming will not be mitigated by an increase in cloud cover. But our method carries no such implication, for it takes no view on ECS, other than to point out that on the basis of mainstream, midrange data it is possible that ECS may be as little as 1.1 K.
Roy then says climate sensitivity does not depend upon feedback analysis. Indeed, models do not implement feedback formulism directly. Instead, feedback strengths are diagnosed from the models’ outputs (see e.g. Soden & Held 2006 or Vial et al. 2013 for the method). However, the climate is a feedback-moderated dynamical system. Therefore, feedback formulism in control theory is applicable to it and we may, as we have done, apply feedback formulism to the published ECS interval. We may, as we have done, show that in this as in any system where the base signal exceeds the perturbation signal by orders of magnitude it is not possible reliably to predict the output signal in response to a given small perturbation in the total input signal where, as in the climate, the envelope of uncertainty in feedback strength grossly exceeds the interval of uncertainty in the absolute system-gain factor.
It is for this reason that it matters that climatologists had, in effect, forgotten that the Sun is shining and that, therefore, at any time in the industrial era, in the presence of the greenhouse gases, some 29/30ths of total feedback response is feedback response to the emission temperature — i.e., to the surprising fact that the Sun is shining.
It is simple to deduce, again from mainstream, midrange data, that each $1 billion spent on attempting to reach global net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 would abate between one five-millionth and one millionth of a Kelvin of future global warming, at a total cost potentially exceeding total global corporate profits over the next 30 years (and indefinitely thereafter). Even if there were a real “climate emergency”, the expenditure would not be justifiable, because it would purchase an abatement amounting to only 3/8 K (if you believe IPCC’s midrange ECS estimate) or 1/7 K (if instead we note that since 1990 the world has warmed at little more than a third of the originally-predicted rate). In short, there is nothing we can do to abate future global warming other than reverting to the Stone Age — the decision that the UK Government under the unlamented Boris Johnson had in effect taken.
But there is no rational or legitimate excuse for doing anything about global warming on the basis of any current predictions, because, as Pat Frank has already demonstrated in his way and as we have demonstrated in ours, all predictions of global warming are mere guesswork. Would you trash the Western economies, and continue the inexorable transfer of industries, jobs, profits, wealth and global economic and political hegemony from the democratic, Judaeo-Christian, freedom-loving West to the grim oligarchs of Communist-led China and Russia on the basis of forecasts that are proven guesswork and are not borne out by events? We wouldn’t. I do hope that this has cleared up some misconceptions about our result.
— Christopher Monckton (4 October 2022)
> as Pat Frank
Not the propagation of nonsense again:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/propagation-of-nonsense-part-ii/
And from Christophers favorite commentor:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2019/09/how-errors-really-propagate-in.html
Willard is clearly in favor of ‘trashing the Western economies, and continuing the inexorable transfer of industries, jobs, profits, wealth and global economic and political hegemony from the democratic, Judaeo-Christian, freedom-loving West to the grim oligarchs of Communist-led China and Russia on the basis of forecasts that are proven guesswork and are not borne out by events’.
What else to expect from a boring troll?
Kennui needs to vent from time to time.
Here’s what I stand for:
– naming collaborators;
– citing manuscripts with proper URLs;
– providing data and code;
– addressing arguments.
Roy said that Christopher’s feedback arguments were wrong. He explained why. That criticism has yet to be met. It stands.
Figure skating while whinging makes for bad Climateball stunts.
Roy Spencer’s criticism of our research is answered in the head posting.
I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~px130~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
the given stats system https://fixjob11.blogspot.com
Nothing in that post addresses the criticism Roy made.
All you did is to try to sway Roy by appealing to his Luckwarm sensitivity.
The furtively anonymous “Willard” continues to be spitefully irrelevant. He maintains that I have not answered Roy Spencer’s points, but does not provide a list of points not answered. Pathetic!
Rosa’s brother still pontificates instead of owning the fact that his response simply regurgitates the empty assertions offered in his first post. Both are better characterized as political infomercials than scientific communications. His skill as PR stuntman might be to blame.
But let’s be sport and hightlight him some of Roy’s points that still seem to fly above his head:
If Rosa’s brother were to actually investigate what meteorologists and climate scientists already know of atmospheric processes, he would not still be pushing his current theory.
More clouds on one region can actually cause fewer clouds elsewhere
You cannot use the observation that “clouds cool the climate system” as a basis for determining cloud feedbacks in response to adding more CO2 to the atmosphere.
The fact that sunlight shining on a theoretical cold, dark earth creates warming which creates clouds is not relevant to climate sensitivity – and even the climate models themselves (run from a cold, dark Earth state) will produce the process which Rosa’s brother imagines controls climate sensitivity.
Perhaps one day he’ll get a paid job. Let’s hope he won’t mind if it’s under the minimal wage.
Willard continues to fail to supply a proper list of points made by Roy Spencer and allegedly not answered by me.
Our Arful Dodger falls on the first swing.
It is true that we’re past his bed time.
Tomorrow, perhaps.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376733
Crickets.
More crickets.
Chirp, chirp, chirp.
And so Christopher has not and will not recognize that I was quoting Roy almost verbatim.
I must have missed it. Where is your list of points not addressed by this post?
Indeed you missed it, Bill.
Read the thread on which you commented again.
You can also compare with the post Roy wrote.
refrain from copying and pasting your list below to not destroy your image as a habitual bald faced liar.
Monckton of Brenchley:
May I suggest that you read these two comments (even though addressed to others) as you should find them informative
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379582
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379596
Also read my third (and latest) climate website at
http://climate-change-theory.com
Refrain from reading the sub thread to which you reply, Bill.
Then ask to be spoon fed.
Obviously you have no desire to promote your claim. So why post it?
That of course assumes you ever did provide a list and extremely improbably aren’t a bald faced liar as suggested and simply can’t promote it.
Obviously insulting me should make me work for you, Bill.
I hope you don’t boss anyone.
Willard you would have been fired a long time ago for not producing any work as this is hardly the first instance of you making claims you can’t back up.
And thats not to speak of how hilarious it is for you claim that backing up your own bullshit should be a compensated job. . . .obviously you contribute absolutely nothing here at all except garbage and trolling.
The only correct physics relating to the role of water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane is in seven papers linked on my Home page which can be read in three minutes and is available in eight languages.
http://climate-change-theory.com
I already supported my claim, Bill, but you like Christopher cannot get that I just quoted Roy.
From Willard’s link back to the mother ship:
‘As in CFD, GCMs solve the Navier-Stokes equations.’
Really? At the level required to resolve clouds?
Do you often JAQ off like that, Frank?
Willard is ignorant. It is accepted in climatology that clouds are one of the most significant sources of uncertainty in the general-circulation models, which are indeed incapable of resolving the behavior of clouds. Even the sign of their influence on global temperature is in doubt. One has only to look at the Navier-Stokes equations to realize their limitations, not the least of which is that no closed-form solutions are known.
If our UKIP frontman fears incompleteness like he fears God, he should stop using arithmetic.
A cursory glance at an encyclopedic entry would save him the embarrassment of not realizing that there are plenty of solutions to the NS equations. That is, if he can be embarrassed, a conjecture that may not be warranted considering his persiflage.
“Willard” cannot resist inserting snide and inaccurate irrelevancies. When Britain left the EU, UKIP’s job was done, and I rejoined the Conservative Party.
See elsewhere in this thread for a discussion of the difference – of which, like much else, “Willard” is blissfully unaware, of the difference between the “solution” to an equation or system of equations and the “closed-form solution”.
A solution is a solution is a solution. No true Scotsman will change that. Neither will fake ones.
Meanwhile, he should edit his own Wiki entry to correct the mistakes therein.
“Willard” continues to be woefully ignorant of the underlying mathematics. Precisely because temperature is so sensitive to small changes over time in feedback strength, ECS (which was indubitably 1.1 K based on the 1850 data) could have any value from there to 10 or even 20 K. In short, outputs from the models, however much they purport to “solve” the Navier-Stokes equations”, are no better than guesswork; and it is elementary control theory that tells us that.
Our titled peacock is on fire, displaying the profoundity of his grasp of one of the Millenium Prize problems while failing to recognize my close paraphrase of Roy’s points.
Like, very close paraphrase.
Read https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376733
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Interestingly the very same cloud issues are found in numerical weather models. The must develop cloud parameterization models to predict the weather.
Even so, I think we can agree that weather models have been very successful at predicting the weather.
Willard is no doubt expert in Marxism-Leninism, but he is certainly no mathematician. If he were, he would know that finding “solutions” to an equation or system of equations is possible where the data are sufficiently well-resolved and the system of equations is sound (which in climate they are not), but that finding “closed-form solutions” has a particular and distinct mathematical meaning.
For instance, consider an infinite series of powers of H, the fraction of equilibrium temperature represented by feedback response. Under the convergence criterion H < 1, the closed-form solution to the series is 1 / (1 – H). Therefore, one does not need to go to the labor of summing the series: one merely takes advantage of the closed-form expression.
No such handy shortcut has yet been found for the Navier-Stokes equations. If "Willard" were able to find closed-form solutions, he would make himself a million dollars the richer. See Clay Institute millennium prizes.
He should cease to advertise his hate-filled ignorance here.
Christopher has undoubtedly misplaced his comment.
The fact of the matter is that climate models routinely solve the NS equations. As Nick said, and as he mocked. That he ignores that fact reveals more about his self-inflating proficiency than it prevents scientists from working with them.
The furtively pseudonymous “Willard” continues to parade his ignorance and hatred. He says that the climate models “routinely solve the Navier-Stokes equations” but does not deal with the argument presented here, which is that because a very small perturbation in feedback strength has a disproportionately large impact on ECS, ECS is not realistically constrainable by the models. Therefore, for all that they purport to have “solved” the Navier-Stokes equations, their estimates of ECS are no better than guesswork. Therefore, given the staggering cost and negligible benefit of attempting to mitigate global warming, the West is squandering its cash to no useful purpose, harming itself and advantaging the Communist dictatorships with which “Willard” aligns himself.
There is nothing to counter, Derelict Dude, for your point is utterly irrelevant. Here is Nick’s post again, this time with the quote that started this furious armwaving:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2019/09/how-errors-really-propagate-in.html
Wave your arms faster, perhaps it will change that fact.
The poisonous “Willard”, having been caught out not knowing what closed-form solutions are, and having been caught out again not realizing that the models, though they purport to “solve” the equations, are for several reasons incapable of doing so to a sufficient resolution properly to constrain ECS, resorts to mere Communist bluster. Not an adult approach. He is out of his depth and gasping.
Everybody knows about the Millenium prize problems, merry-andrew.
It does not prevent climate models to solve these equations routinely.
How the hell do you think they would preserve momentum and mass otherwise?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Pat Frank’s paper remains unrefuted in the peer-reviewed journals. Before publication, it was reviewed by Professor Wunsch. He knows what he is talking about, and is willing to be fair, while the two bloggers mentioned by “Willard” have no credibility whatsoever.
Williard’s a leftist Chihuahua (yap, yap, yap, yap). As you know, leftists are Narcissists who respect no one, especially those who disagree with their agenda.
Apparently this is a predatory journal article.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161127152107/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/27/reviewer-to-frontiers-your-review-process-is-merely-for-show-i-quit/
The Third fails to click on links, and thus fails to realize that I am not the one who wasted time on correcting Pat on that matter.
By the logic he defends, estimating GDPs through history would be a Herculean task.
Willard again distracts from the main point of the head posting by wittering on about matters of which he understands little or nothing. The problem of estimating past events is paucity of data. Propagation of uncertainty concerns models where data are available but uncertain. The two are clean different things.
Christopher again arfully dodges the fact that Patrick, AT, and Nick are more than competent enough to judge a rudimentary blunder. He also fails to appreciate that GDP ain’t random.
“Willard” is incapable of identifying any blunder, elementary or other, in the head posting. Therefore, he perpetrates yet another logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. And GDP is not the topic of the head posting.
The guy Richie Tol once called a “swivel-eyed loon” in a version of a draft I asked him to change is starting to ask for room service.
Base state error. Response error. Even he should be able to grasp the difference.
“Willard” is now reduced to open gibberish. He fails to produce any coherent objection to the head posting.
Our Pompous Pontiff requests something, but what?
Richie Tol, that guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol
Modeerators: The pseudonymous “Willard” has perpetrated disability discrimination by describing me as “swivel-eyed”. Please ban him from the site and let me have his email address so that I can report his crime to the police.
Stop whining, Christopher.
I told you I asked Richie to change his formulism.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Pat Franks paper remains unrefuted in the peer-reviewed journals.”
It also remains basically unreferenced in the peer-reviewed journals. People know how to filter out nonsense.
Mr Stokes is merely spiteful. Pat Frank’s paper stands unrefuted. The fact that it is also not often referenced is a depressing indication of the lamentable state to which climate “science” has sunk.
Our Guy-Who-Only-Identifies-Himself-with-His-Family-Name simply repeats himself instead of acknowledging the fact that Pat’s paper has yet to be cited.
Customers vote with their feet, and scientists with their citations.
No amount of multisyllabic latinism will change that fact.
It is difficult discussing these matters with those who are ignorant of logic and unconcerned for the objective truth. “Willard” yet again perpetrates an argumentum ad verecundiam.
You’re not here to discuss at all, charlie.
And now you’re playing the ref, which is a form of whining.
Please stop whining. It gives you a bleak tone.
“Willard” has still made no discernible scientific point.
That scientists vote with their cites is a scientific fact, glorious harlequin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientometrics
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
And you LORD MONCKTON cannot refute what I have explained …
How we can calculate expected global mean surface temperatures for any planet with an atmosphere is summarised in this comment above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376251
Applicants for the AU$10,000 reward need to read that first and post their attempt at refutation on the scientific website for Researchgate having studied my 2013 paper or my book.
The head posting concerns itself with control theory as it is applied to climatology’s attempts to constrain ECS. If “D’ug Cott’n” wishes to advertise his wares, this is not the place.
Perhaps, however, he would inform me of the firm of lawyers to which he has transferred into escrow the $10,000 he promises, and of the court which, at an independent hearing, will judge the application of anyone claiming the escrow fund.
Your control theory MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY is based on the false assumption that radiation from the IR-active gases in the cool troposphere can have any significant effect on the already-warmer surface temperature either by causing heat into that surface (in violation of the Second Law) or slowing the overall surface cooling which is by both radiation and non-radiative processes. The latter cooling will accelerate if back radiation has any significant effect on the rate of radiative cooling. Back radiation cannot slow non-radiative surface cooling and that will increase so as to compensate for any slowing of radiative cooling.
When you Sir can explain (as I have) why the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is hotter than Earth’s surface (and how the necessary thermal energy gets down there to support such temperatures) then, and only then, will you be onto the correct, relevant physics for all planets – namely that in my papers and book.
When the multi-billion dollar class action by major companies against the CSIRO in Australia commences by late next year you will hear plenty about the law firms involved through news channels worldwide I suspect.
Regarding the reward, whether or not you believe it would be paid, you are welcome to try to post a refutation of my 2013 paper on Researchgate or here in an article I’m sure Roy would publish. I’m sure saving face for you would be more important than such money. So I throw down the gauntlet to you, Lord Monckton.
If the furtively pseudonymous “D’ug Cott’n” believes the drivel of those who prefer to imagine there is no greenhouse effect, he should read the calculations for 1850 in the head posting and explain what the 20.4 K feedback response is if it is not a feedback response, and what the 27.9 K total natural greenhouse effect is if it is not a natural greenhouse effect. But he should not explain these things to us – he should explain them to official climatology.
We accept, ad argumentum, all the tenets of official climatology except those we can disprove. Therefore, it is to official climatology that “Cott’n” must address his whingeing, and not to us. Ours is an argument within the framework of the scientific method. If he has reason to doubt those of official climatology’s premises upon which ad argumentum we rely, then let him badger IPCC, not us.
Dug is Dug, dingbat:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
The IPCC, NASA, various academies of science, head physicists in about 30 universities and the CSIRO in Australia have all been challenged and, in particular, the CEO of the CSIRO (Dr Larry Marshall) who is qualified in physics is currently having to respond to my fourth FOI which will give me the last piece of evidence needed for court action by numerous companies who are adversely affected financially by legislation based on information provided by the CSIRO and their failure to check what is fictitious, fiddled physics emanating from climatology circles. It’s a pity you have been fooled by such. Read what this physicist wrote:
http://climate-change-theory.com/physicist.jpg
Monckton needs to read https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376733
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Congratulations! You’ve discovered (rediscovered) the square root dependence on time of the uncertainty in a random walk. Since random walks occur in systems with no feedback, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Try this, Bart:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=random+walk+feedback
And, now you’ve discovered Google will hunt for any words you throw into it. Congratulations again, Willard. You’re learning so much.
I also discovered that there could be feedback in random walks, Bart.
Not that your point has any relevance to the issue at hand.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Don’t be silly. It is Pat Frank, not I. who wrote the paper showing that the uncertainty envelope in climate is so large as to prevent any constraint of ECS being anything better than guesswork. And, since feedback is in reality very small, his argument would not be impugned even if it were true (which is not) that propagation of uncertainty cannot occur in a feedback-moderated dynamical system.
Bart was responding to me, old chap.
Settle down.
Don’t whine. Try to produce an intelligent argument of your own against the head posting.
An argument to counter would be a great idea, Guy-Who-Disproved-Atavism-Every-Days-of-His-Existence.
An ad nauseam does not count.
Also, try to read back Bart’s barb, it should help you understand Patrick’s points. One day at least.
LORD MONCKTON – Go to ..
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376748
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Ultimately, climate sensitivity is determined from observations. There are experiments, like response to volcanic eruptions, and the response to the sun dimming during the Maunder minimum, and CO2 changes.
It is difficult to reconcile Monckton’s proposed value of 1.08 with observations.
The cold period during the LIA in response to the Maunder Minimum is particularly problematic.
> It is difficult to reconcile Monckton’s proposed value of 1.08 with observations.
Crickets.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Please see this comment regarding the REAL climate sensitivities:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377415
Thanks, Christopher:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/10/10/how-to-lord-comment-sections/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. (aid-30) Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
After reading this article:>>>> https://jobopportunity22.blogspot.com
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to Haa start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> http://Www.Topnet8.com
As a chemical engineer with over 30 years of process work experience, the climate system can have no feedbacks. Climate change occurs infinitesimaaly with time, that is equilibrium states differentially apart. When there are states of equilibrium, there can be no feedbacks. ECS is just a concept, which does not necessarily exist in the real world.
Mr Swedan is no expert on climate, or on the mathematics of feedback. The relevant function is the sum of an infinite series – the first such function for which a closed-form solution was derived, more than 200 years ago. Where the feedback fraction (the fraction of the output signal represented by feedback response) is less than unity, it is perfectly possible for feedback response to have formed part of an equilibrium state in a dynamical system.
Our research shows that, because uncertainties in feedback strength are far larger than the envelope of uncertainty in the system-gain factor inherent in IPCC’s ECS interval, it is impossible to constrain ECS, and all predictions thereof based on the diagnosis of feedback strengths from the outputs of GCMs are no better than guesswork.
That does not mean ECS does not exist. It does.
M,
There is no equilibrium climate sensitivity. Pure nonsense.
The atmosphere is chaotic, and hence any future states can only be guessed at, not meaningfully predicted. Chaos does not need any external input at all.
If you don’t want to accept that, you arrive at precisely the same practical result based on the uncertainty principle, and quantum electrodynamics.
If you don’t want to accept that the most rigorously tested theory in the history of the world is credible, that is your right.
Climate is the average of historical weather observations. Nothing more, nothing less.
No GHE. No equilibrium.
If “Swenson” is ignorant enough to imagine that there is no such thing as equilibrium sensitivity, his complaint lies not with me but with official climatology. Our approach is that of formal logic: For the sake of argument, we accept all of official climatology except what we can prove to be false.
So do you Lord Monckton, accept the false Climatology claims that
(1) the troposphere without IR-active (so-called “greenhouse”) gases would have been isothermal (or tended towards that state) rather than tend towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy) with its associated non-zero temperature gradient, as first explained by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt in the 1870’s and proven to be correct with valid physics supported by experiments and data throughout the Solar System.
(2) that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation gives the correct temperature that could be achieved by two or more sources of radiation using the arithmetic sum of the relevant fluxes, despite the obvious fact that the combination of the two Planck functions would not have the required peak wavelength as would a single source in accord with Wien’s Displacement Law and the fact that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is derived from the integral of a single Planck function and only ever applies for a single source, as simple experiments confirm.
M,
There is no such thing as “equilibrium sensitivity”.
There is no such thing as “official climatology”, so you are making the most bizarre oblique appeal to authority I have seen for some time.
Logic, formal or otherwise, fails in the face of fact.
The fact is that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so – your pretentious and patronising “logic” notwithstanding.
Argue away, see how much good it does you. If you believe you can predict the future better than a 12 year old, you are more stupid than you think you are. When you can demonstrate that you have accepted reality, you might find rational people prepared to value your opinions.
Carry on.
“Retired physicist” is off topic. The head posting is not about the crackpot theories of the “Dragon-slayers”: it is about mainstream climatology and mainstream control theory, and the incompatibility between the two.
M,
“Mainstream climatology”?
You jest, surely! Climate is the average of historical weather observations, and as the IPCC has stated, it is not possible to predict future climate states.
Duh – predicting the future based on the average of the past is the province of fools – and self styled “climatologists”.
Keep dreaming.
‘mainstream climatology’ is fantasy land based upon a fundamentally flawed paradigm. For example this:
“of 259.6 K and the 27.9 K total natural greenhouse effect, which itself comprises the 7.5 K reference greenhouse-gas sensitivity and 20.4 K total feedback response.”
is ludicrous.
the Earth isnt some cold blackbody warmed by the sun and some atmospheric feedback effect.. the Earth is rather a hot ball of rotating gases, metals and other matter that has been cooling over 4 billion+ years as entropy demands.. it will continue to cool until all its atmosphere is lost and its just a cold dead hulk like Mercury or the Moon..
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376333
A system with a recycle is at equilibrium. If it is a fixed orifice, increasing the feed flow will increase the recycle, and yet it will return to a new higher equilibrium due to the conservation of mass.
JamesD is right. Provided that the fraction of equilibrium temperature represented by feedback is less than unity, there will be no “runaway warming” and, after a perturbation such as a greenhouse-gas forcing, feedback will respond and the climate will settle to a new equilibrium. Indeed, after eight years with no warming at all, it is evidently not that far from equilibrium already.
“Indeed, after eight years with no warming at all, it is evidently not that far from equilibrium already.”
You could have said the same thing with the previous pause… and you would have been just as wrong then as you are now.
You have to remember that in any dynamic system, equilibrium is only momentary.
“Skeptikal” is incorrect. The climate is indeed very close to equilibrium, which is why the world is warming so very slowly (and, in the past eight or nine years, not at all).
Perhaps you do not know, Christopher, but the Monckton pause is a monthly source of amusement on this website.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Even though the atmosphere, containing 90% of the system heat, continues to warm.
This shows that ‘pauses’ cannot stop the atmosphere from continuing to warm once ENSO and PDO return to positive values.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/
Arrgh “Even though the atmosphere, containing 90%”
should have been ‘containing < 10%'
All messed up…
The point is the ocean, containing > 90% of the system heat, has continued to warm during the last 7 y, even though the atmosphere has not.
This suggests Mr. Swedan has no idea what a feedback is. He appears to be applying Zeno’s Paradox (a famously fallacious argument) to the evolution of systems.
Of course I do. But when the incoming energy fluxes are exactly equal to outgoing ones, then why a controller is needed?
Nabil Swedan appears ignorant of the concept of radiative imbalance in the climate.
What imbalance? At equilibrium every year it is in balance. Outgoing radiation is decreasing, which is observed. What makes you think that the energy absorbed by the earth is not decreasing equally?
“In short, there is nothing we can do to abate future global warming other than reverting to the Stone Age”.
Careful here. The feedback analysis does not rule out direct anthropogenic impact to surface emission temperature. A direct perturbation to the land-biosphere-hydrologic systems by human hands. It has not been attempted to parse out this variable. It is merely assumed such changes are consequent feedbacks to GHG forcing only. I differ there. The base reference temperature may well have changed.
CAD seems to have missed the point of the head posting completely. It is there carefully explained that direct forcing of temperature by greenhouse gases exists. It is quantifiable, and is quantified, and is taken explicitly into account in the analysis.
As to CAD’s assertion that the “base reference temperature may well have changed”, the base signal – the 259.6 K emission temperature – does not change. Reference temperature is the sum of the base temperature and the reference sensitivities to natural and anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings. As the forcings increase, so the reference temperature increases.
M,
You wrote –
“It is there carefully explained that direct forcing of temperature by greenhouse gases exists. It is quantifiable, and is quantified, and is taken explicitly into account in the analysis.”
Only in your fantasy.
The Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, in spite of all your “greenhouse gas” “forcing”.
Dream on, or produce something to support your contention that the Earth has actually warmed over the last four and a half billion years or so, due to measurable and quantified forcing by greenhouse gases.
Good luck with that.
“Swenson” continues to parade his ignorance. We are not concerned with states of the climate before 1850. Since 1850, the world has warmed. If “Swenson” disagrees, it is not to us that he should whine. Let him approach the keepers of the temperature datasets and tell them they do not know their business.
I have been having trouble getting a reply to come through.
The analysis presented does not rule out anything to do with the myriad of factors that might impact the virtual reference temperature. It only deals with the feedback response of the virtual emission temperature + forcings imposed by non-condensing GHG. There is nothing there to support the contention that “there is nothing we can do to abate future global warming”. The only conclusion is that it’s possible the feedback response to the summed reference temperature is small.
… or more precisely, the feedback response to a perturbation on the summed virtual reference temperature may be small.
In this framework, the feedback response to additional non condensing GHG could even go negative, I suppose. I’m not sure if the framework of the analysis rules this out.
In response to the CAD, the reason why we can do nothing to abate global warming is, as explained in the head posting, that even if one did not correct climatology’s silly control-theoretic error, and even if the whole world went to net zero emissions (which it will not, for 70% of recent new emissions come from nations wholly exempt from any obligations under the Paris and related treaties), only 3/8 degree of global warming would be abated by 2050. But the cost of that abatement would be $400-800 trillion.
Since our result shows that there is no basis for the current error-based belief that there will be large and dangerous rather than moderate and net-beneficial warming, there is no point in squandering a sum equivalent to more than all global corporate profits over the next three decades to achieve nothing beneficial at all.
Your calculation is wrong Monckton of Brenchley because it is based on an incorrect application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law when you add separate fluxes from separate sources, because that law applies only for a single and hotter source.
Real world data shows water vapour cooling. The proof and the study are referred to at http://climate-change-theory.com and I suggest it is time you joined over 150,000 others who have viewed my correct physics without a single person proving me wrong. Where’s your attempt? You haven’t a clue what is in my papers. Show the hundred or so silent readers that you are prepared to debate my physics openly right here. I throw down the gauntlet. Let’s see what you know and understand about maximum entropy production just for starters.
Please see my partial published work on earth science and climate (11 papers)under ORCID ID 0000-0003-1976-5516
Mr Swedan is out of his depth here, as well as off the topic.
I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~px140~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
the given stats system…. https://fixjob11.blogspot.com
Moderators, please refer the email from “Gloria” to the police as fraudulent span in the usual way.
Moderators, please report the posting by “Gloria” to the police as fraudulent spam in the usual way.
Please, Christopher.
Call him Graham.
“Willard” still has no recognizably scientific point to make, then.
Our pseudo-moderator is Graham, silly putty.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Here he is.
Christopher, Graham.
Graham, Christopher.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I agree. The impact of green matter, deforestation, and population growth have been completely neglected. These have been the center of my climate research and focus. ORCID ID 0000-0003-1976-5516
Lots to correct in there.
Firstly,
“3.7 times 1.05, or about 4 K.
Once Hansen and others after him had repeated that midrange estimate often enough, it became ”
Well before Hansen in 1984, the Charney report in 79, had estimated the sensitivity range that has persisted for decades after.
Nate is incorrect. The Charney report, which preceded the Hansen paper by only five years, gave 2.6 K as its midrange ECS estimate, which was then rounded up to 3 K. Hansen’s paper gives 4 K, based on his error. Charney did not provide any workings to show how his estimates were arrived at. But it is quite possible that he made much the same mistake as Hansen.
Perhaps our persistent peer might profit from quoting and citing properly:
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/charney.1979.report.pdf
A best estimate amounts to more than mere rounding.
How he talks of the Hansen paper also deserves due diligence.
Charney had two GCMs in 1979. There are now 38 and counting, with little to no narrowing of the estimate range.
Manabe derived ECS of 2 degrees C. Hansen found 4 degrees. Charney added an arbitrary margin of error of 0.5 degree, for a range of 1.5 to 4.5, with a central value of 3.0.
That estimate range has not improved since 1979. Actual observation rather than computer gaming shows the range more like 1 to 2 degrees, if not in fact 0 to 1, in the plausible case of net negative feedbacks. The no feedback ECS figure is around 1.1 degrees C.
> Actual observations
I doubt you can actually observe the future, John. Even direct evidence is in some true sense from the past.
What you actually call actual observations is often mere extrapolation from energy balance models. Only one recent paper diverged from this luckwarm tradition. But then its author does not pretend it is observation-based anymore. He is more into objectivity these days.
The actual limits of justified disingenuousness gives a central estimate above 2C. To reduce the usual rsnge, information had to be thrown away. Less information, less uncertainty – luckwarm objectivity is an addictive drug.
“Willard” again shows elementary ignorance of the scientific method. It is necessary to study what has happened so as to estimate what may happen. On the basis of the data for 1850, as John Tillman has correctly pointed out, ECS is 1.1 K (and, for 1850, that included feedback response). However, as our paper correctly points out, even a small perturbation in the feedback regime compared with 1850 leads to a very large perturbation in ECS, because any change in feedback strength acts not only upon reference sensitivity to greenhouse gases but also upon the emission temperature, which is 30 times larger. It is for that reason that models’ outputs cannot reliably tell us anything about ECS.
I was not talking about your paper, twat.
“Willard” seems unwilling to grasp the simple concept that a “best estimate” that is expressed as “of order 3 K” is a ballpark best estimate, and that that ballpark encompasses the rounded-up 2.6 K that was the actual midrange estimate.
Christopher insists, he really insists to interject in an exchange he has not read.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Willard” should try getting his kindergarten mistress or Komsomol commissar to read him the Charney report, which is not very long. I had correctly stated that the midrange ECS estimate in the report was 2.6 K, which was rounded up to 3 K.
If “Willard” knew any mathematics, he would know that “of the order of 3 C” does not mean “3 C”: it means 3 C is a ballpark. The actual estimate made by the committee, which was 2.6 C, falls in that ballpark.
*Our best estimate* refers to a central estimate, Precious Plum.
It comes with margins of uncertainty.
You blatantly misrepresented Charney 1979 and Hansen & al 1984.
Stop whining, and suck it up.
The problem with trying to argue with Communist non-mathematicians is that they are wilfully, invincibly ignorant of the nomenclature used by mathematicians. The use of the term “of order” to qualify a midrange estimate indicates that the midrange estimate is a ballpark estimate.
“Willard” seems no more aware of the meaning of “of order” than he has shown himself to be aware of the meaning of “closed-form” with respect to the solutions of equations or systems thereof.
He is out of his depth here, and should perhaps stop digging.
Christopher clearly has no idea what an estimate is.
So we can forgive him if he misunderstands best estimates.
Perhaps he should return to formulism.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
It is perfectly satisfactory to analyze electronic amplifiers by IGNORING the biasing required to achieve a quasi linear state. One in which the small input is a perturbation on that state and feedback is applied to that perturbation to obtain the gain.
Why is that ok for electronics which are based on nonlinear devices, and NOT ok for Earth’s climate which is based on nonlinear properties?
This seems to be much ado about nothing.
“Why is that ok for electronics which are based on nonlinear devices, and NOT ok for Earths climate which is based on nonlinear properties?”
Indeed. The post at https://naptownnumbers.substack.com/p/power-of-obscure-language depicts an electronic circuit that illustrates the point.
Mr Born persists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, in setting up a mendacious and invented straw man by saying we insist the system response to forcings must be linear. Yet the head posting here, as well as several other head postings that Mr Born has inexpertly and mendaciously commented upon, makes it explicit that we do not treat the climate system as linear.
Lord Moncktons premise: In 1850, when the equilibrium temperature was measured to a respectable precision, the system-gain factor the ratio of equilibrium to reference temperature was 287.5 / 267.1, or somewhat below 1.08.
His conclusion: ECS . . . is 1.08 times the 1.05 K RCS, or about 1.1 K.
That is a non sequitur: he conclusion does not follow from the premiseunless the intervening verbiage, the feedback processes then extant had to respond equally to each Kelvin of reference temperature regardless of its origin is interpreted to mean that equilibrium temperature has to be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback.
So there are only two choices. First, Lord Monckton requires linear proportionality, which feedback theory does not. Second, his conclusion is a non sequitur. In both cases his proof fails.
It appears that not all the punctuation showed up in that last comment. I’ll try it again:
Lord Monckton’s premise: “In 1850, when the equilibrium temperature was measured to a respectable precision, the system-gain factor the ratio of equilibrium to reference temperature was 287.5 / 267.1, or somewhat below 1.08.”
His conclusion: “ECS . . . is 1.08 times the 1.05 K RCS, or about 1.1 K.”
That is a non sequitur: the conclusion does not follow from the premise–unless the intervening verbiage, “the feedback processes then extant had to respond equally to each Kelvin of reference temperature regardless of its origin,” is interpreted to mean that the equilibrium temperature must be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback.
So there are only two possibilities. First, Lord Monckton requires linear proportionality, which feedback theory does not. Second, his conclusion is a non sequitur.
In both cases, his proof fails.
The wilfully ignorant and mendacious Mr Born, a retired shyster with no knowledge or experience of control theory, has been told many times that the fact that at any given moment (such as 1850) the feedback processes then subsisting must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin of reference temperature does not imply that at some subsequent date the unit feedback response would be identical to that of 1850.
In 1850 the temperatsure was in (or near enough to) equilibrium. Therefore, the system-gain factor 1.08 was an equilibrium system-gain factor. And it applied equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature. Therefore, the equilibrium sensitivity based on 1850 data was indeed the product of the system-gain factor 1.08 and the reference sensitivity of 1.045 K.
However, as the head posting explains, even a very small perturbation in the feedback strength between 1850 and the present – say, a 1% increase – would entail a 300% increase in ECS from 1.1 K to 4 K, because any increase in feedback strength applies at any moment, such as today, not only to reference sensitivity but to the entire reference signal, which is 30 times larger.
It is for this reason that we are able to say that, on the basis of the data for 1850, and with remarkably little uncertainty, ECS was 1.1 K; but that any estimates of ECS today, when we are not at equilibrium, are mere guesswork because of the extreme sensitivity of global temperature to very small changes in feedback strength.
Therefore, the official 3 [2, 5] K interval of ECS in IPCC (2021) is not “very likely”: it is merely a region, and not a particularly likely region, of a broad spectrum of possibilities.
For this reason, there is not, after all, any certainty, or even particular likelihood, of global warming large enough to be dangerous. Therefore, squandering $400-800 bn to bring about net zero emissions globally by 1850, which would consume all corporate profits for the next 30 years, is not at all likely to be necessary. And, even if it were necessary, and even if no correction were made for climatology’s control-theoretic error, the most that we could purchase by the ending of capitalism worldwide and the general bankruptcy that would follow is an abatement of 3/8 C.
Do try to be honest for once, and open-minded enough to see the wood for the trees.
It’s a spanner in the works that real-world data shows water vapour cooling, as can be explained with the valid physics in my 2013 paper and book. The CSIRO could produce no counter study and nor can you.
http://climate-change-theory.com/study-15-locations.jpg
GOOD LORD MONCKTON
We are both in unison fighting the actions taken by foolish politicians (especially now the Labor Party in Australia) because they are so ignorant of basic physics that they are fooled by the IPCC and the media focus on climate activists.
But can’t you see that you are scoring own goals?
You need to attack their false physics, not endorse it. If you ignore my correct refutations of their fictitious, fiddled physics you are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
One last try – read and digest:
Nearly 1,500 have downloaded this:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2884148
Over 1440 have read this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False
Over 2,780 have read this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915619_Cogent_and_irrefutable_reasons_why_carbon_dioxide_cannot_warm_Earth
“Cot’n” is off topic. The head posting is not about the nonsense peddle by the “Dragon-slayers” to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect. The elementary mathematics of the climate at the 1850 shows that there is a greenhouse effect. Besides, our approach is to accept ad argumentum whatever official climatology proposes except where it can be proven wrong. Climatology was wrong about its implementation of control theory as it applies to feedback response in the climate. It is that subject that is the topic of the head posting. Stick to that topic or go elsewhere.
But this just ad hominin and doesn’t address the issue.
Why is it ok to apply feedback to the perturbation (small input) to obtain gain in an electronic amplifier (which you agree is an analog to climate) but NOT OK to do so for climate?
This is simply not clear.
This isn’t a very good analogy because electronic amplifiers use components which are designed specifically to provide a nearly linear response at a particular bias set point.
You do have a point that if you are dealing with a linear response in a particular region, you can do this. However, there is no basis to presume this system is linear or nearly so. In fact, if we take the data and suppositions at face value, it appears the gain was increasing with CO2 concentration.
But, we cannot take the data and suppositions at face value. There are confounding influences on the temperature measure. The entire exercise falters on the fallacy of a single cause.
“it appears the gain was increasing with CO2 concentration.”
Where do you see that?
To use the perturbation to T, and find sensitivity from that doesnt mean the system is linear.
It just assumes that for small perturbations, a linear response is a good approximation.
Of course, as the perturbation in T grows larger, linear response may no longer be a good approximation.
“Bart” should perhaps try to get some to read the head posting to him before he attempts to comment on it. It is precisely because global temperature is extremely sensitive to very small changes in feedback strength (i.e., temperature response is very nonlinear with respect to changes in feedback strength) that the present method of attempting to diagnose ECS from models is doomed to fail. The uncertainties in the feedback strengths are far too large to allow such constraint. It only appears possible to constrain ECS if one continues, as some commenters here seek to do, to rely upon the erroneous notion that feedbacks do not respond to emission temperature. In objective fact, they do; and, at any moment, they respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature, including emission temperature.
Once again it seems the only argument is that all feedbacks must be proportional to the entire reference temperature, because that’s what Control Theory dictates.
So I’ll again ask for a reference for Control Theory saying that all feedbacks must behave linearly, regardless of whether they are caused by an electrical circuit or atmospheric water vapour.
Then I’ll ask why anyone thinks that just because a mathematical model describes all feedbacks in a particular way, that means that nature must follow the model? All models are wrong, as the saying goes.
The furtively pseudonymous “Bellman” is out of its depth here. It is readily demonstrable either from the equations governing feedback in dynamical systems, whether linear or nonlinear, that at any given moment the feedback processes then extant must perforce respond equally to each unit of the entire reference signal, comprising the base signal (in climate the 259.6 K emission temperature) and the perturbation signal (the 7.5 K natural and 1 K anthropogenic reference sensitivities).
That fact – and it is a fact – does not in any way imply that the dynamical system in question must respond linearly to a forcing.
Finally, climate is a feedback-moderated dynamical system and feedback formulism is no less applicable thereto than to any such system.
“that at any given moment the feedback processes then extant must perforce respond equally to each unit of the entire reference signal, comprising the base signal (in climate the 259.6 K emission temperature) and the perturbation signal (the 7.5 K natural and 1 K anthropogenic reference sensitivities).”
But it doesn’t have to do it equally for all temperatures. Monckton’s entire claim is based on the assumption that if you divide the feedback response by the base temperature, you will get a value that can be used to predict future feedback response. But you cannot do that if the feedback response is not proportional to the absolute temperature.
Monckton calculates the gain in 1850 by dividing 287.5 / 267.1, to get 1.0764 (ignoring all uncertainties). The assumption here is that because there was 20.4K of feedbacks on the back of 267.1K base temperature every 1K rise in the base temperature added an extra 0.0764K from feedbacks.
But if the feedbacks are not increasing linearly, you cannot simply assume that the 0.0764K will apply to the next K rise in temperature. If, say the feedback response was close to zero up to 250K and only then started increasing linearly once the earth had warmed up enough for feedbacks to have an effect – all of the 20.4K feedback response was happening due to the rise from 250 – 267.1, and if it continues linearly the feedback response to the next 1K rise would be 20.4 / 17.1 = 1.2K.
The furtively pseudonymous “Bellman” should read the head posting rather than making up a straw man and then tearing it to pieces. That misconduct is known to logicians as the argumentum ad ignorationem elenchi, the most fundamental of all the logical fallacies.
The head posting makes it explicit that one cannot extrapolate from the 1.1 K ECS that is readily and reliably derivable from the data for 1850. As the feedback regime stood in that year of temperature equilibrium, ECS was 1.1 K.
However, as the head posting (and numerous previous postings at WattsUpWithThat) makes explicit, once climatology’s error of control theory is corrected it becomes visible that the global temperature is far more sensitive to small perturbations in feedback strength over time than climatology (which implicitly assumes a linear feedback response over time in the industrial era) had hitherto realized.
The head posting explains that a mere 1% increase in the system-gain factor compared with 1850 would engender a 300% increase in ECS compared with 1850. Anyone even half educated would realize that that calculation is not describing a linear system response.
Precisely because any feedbacks present at any given moment must at that moment respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference or pre-feedback temperature then obtaining, any increase in feedback strength and hence in the system-gain factor applies not only to the perturbation signal (reference sensitivity to greenhouse gases) but also to emission temperature.
For that reason, all attempts to constrain ECS by diagnosis of feedback strengths from the models are no better than guesswork. The reason is that we simply do not know the total feedback strength to a sufficient precision to derive a well-resolved current ECS therefrom.
We shall only be able to determine the current system-gain factor when the climate has settled to equilibrium – i.e., 30 years with no global warming trend. It may then be derived as we have derived it for 1850.
Because the climate, though close to equilibrium, is not at present at equilibrium, we cannot know what the system-gain factor is. Therefore ECS is unconstrainable. Therefore the large warming predicted by the usual suspects has no legitimate basis in science. It is merely a guess, and not a particularly likely one.
“The head posting makes it explicit that one cannot extrapolate from the 1.1 K ECS that is readily and reliably derivable from the data for 1850. As the feedback regime stood in that year of temperature equilibrium, ECS was 1.1 K.”
You are correct – I missed that important change. My apologies.
So to be clear – you are now no longer claiming you know that the ECS is 1.1 to a high level of precision, but are saying you have no idea what the true ECS is, and it could be as large or larger than IPCC estimates?
“The head posting explains that a mere 1% increase in the system-gain factor compared with 1850 would engender a 300% increase in ECS compared with 1850.”
Which seems a good argument for your method being wrong. I also think you are getting this the wrong way round. The ECS shouldn’t be changing like that. What you are really seeing is that whatever the actual ECS you will see very little difference in the system gain based on the entire temperature.
I really can’t see how people aren’t getting this. It has nothing to do with linear or non linear. The argument is simple: feedback is based on the entire signal, not the perturbation. Period.
James D has summed up the matter admirably. But it is not that the Forces of Darkness don’t get it: it’s that they are paid not to get it, or they are ideologically committed to not getting it, or both. They had even misled Roy Spencer as to what we were actually asserting. For instance, he had been told (of all people, by a retired shyster of no moral standing or scientific competence) that we were asserting or implying that the temperature response to forcings was perforce linear over time, when on just about every occasion on which we have written about our result we have made it explicit, and sometimes repeatedly explicit, that this is not, repeat not, the case.
He had also been misled by third parties into believing that we imagined the models incorporated feedback formulism directly. They do not: instead, they unsuccessfully attempt to solve the Navier-Stokes equations for several million individual atmospheric cells over multiple time-steps, and from the messy outputs of the models attempts are made to diagnose the feedbacks implicit in those outputs.
Not JamesD, darling.
The furtively anonymous JamesD.
M,
You wrote –
“the temperature response to forcings was . . . ” – precisely less than nothing, literally.
It may have escaped your notice that the Earth has actually cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, no doubt due to “the temperature response to forcings”.
No GHE. No ECS, no TCS.
Climate is just the average of historical weather, whether it suits you or not.
You don’t need to write a paper explaining the role of “forcings” in cooling. The physics are well known.
But feel free to humour me, and others.
If you feel that you can predict the future better than I, go your hardest. You predict first. Ill tell you if I agree. You have to be lucky every time, I only have to be lucky once.
Maybe you could go away and preach to the converted – better for your self esteem, I woukdnt guess.
Swenson is not only discourteous but also off topic. It has been explained to him that we accept, for the sake of argument, all of official climatology except what we can disprove. He is entitled to his uninformed opinion that there is no greenhouse effect, for he has no understanding of mathematics or science and is therefore in a state of childlike, invincible ignorance.
One despairs of rectifying invincible ignorance, and in Judaeo-Christian theology we are taught that it very seldom works. However, if Swenson were to spend less time shouting discourteously and more time getting someone slowly to read the head posting to him, he might care to explain what the 27.9 K difference between the measured temperature of 287.5 K in 1850 and the emission temperature of 259.6 K is if it is not a natural greenhouse effect.
Fairy-dust, perhaps?
Monckton.
“They do not: instead, they unsuccessfully attempt to solve the Navier-Stokes equations for several million individual atmospheric cells over multiple time-steps, and from the messy outputs of the models attempts are made to diagnose the feedbacks implicit in those outputs.”
You think this is too complicated and cannot possibly work?
Yet, again, this is exactly what weather models do, rather successfully. It works to solve the very hard problem of predicting the intrinsically chaotic weather.
In response to Nate, it is all too clear that the models’ approach is not working. All of them, except the Russian model (whose chief modeler I briefed on climatology’s error some years ago when I visited Moscow at the invitation of the city government), are running hot, as Roy Spencer has brilliantly and repeatedly demonstrated in his column. In fact, there has been little more than a third of the warming originally predicted by IPCC in 1990.
It was that large and growing discrepancy between prediction and reality that led us to investigate what had gone wrong. We focused on feedback strength for two reasons. First, in the official understanding feedback response contributes between three-quarters and nine-tenths of all warming. Secondly, climatology says direct forcings are well constrained, and, since we cannot prove otherwise, we accept that contention ad argumentum.
It is very plain from reading paper after paper on climate sensitivity that climatologists simply do not understand control theory. Thanks to our work, they are slowly beginning to understand it. It is now far more widely realized than it was that any feedbacks that exist at a given moment respond not only to the perturbation signal, reference sensitivity to greenhouse gases, but also to the base signal, emission temperature.
It will take a little longer to get them to understand that at any given moment feedbacks must respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference signal then obtaining, and still longer again to get them to understand that that fact does not necessarily entail linearity of system response over time. But, by little and little, we are getting there.
> All of them, except the Russian model
Please leave true Scotsman fallacy to true Scotsmen, Christopher.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Actually, we all get his contention that feedback is based on the entire signal. But those of us who know feedback recognize that low feedback doesn’t necessarily follow from that contention as he says it does. To get it to follow requires a further, invalid assumption, which is that the output has to be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback.
Lord Monckton repeatedly denies that this is his assumption, but his conclusion follows only if he makes that assumption–which he imposes in all his numerical examples. To see that graphically, see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/12/refutation-of-the-forgotten-sunshine-theory/ or https://naptownnumbers.substack.com/p/power-of-obscure-language.
It is a mistake people often do make. E.g., I have seen many people try to model the CO2 cycle as though our additions had completely separate dynamics from the natural inflows. You can’t do that because nature has no way of separating and treating natural flows differently from anthropogenic ones.
Here, however, we do have a regime change – two separate potential influences. So, you can indeed treat them as though they have different sensitivities.
The problem with the entire exercise, however, is the fallacy of single cause. CO2 concentration is not even remotely the only thing that influences global temperatures.
Mr Born continues wilfully and mendaciously to misrepresent our result. It is self-evidently true, now that Mr Born has at last accepted that feedback processes must at any moment respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature then obtaining, that as matters stood in 1850 ECS was indeed low. It was 1.1 K.
Likewise, he now understands that official climatology, having derived its original 4 K midrange estimate of ECS from its erroneous application of control theory to the data for 1850, continues to maintain that ECS today is 4 K, implying a near-perfectly linear system response throughout the industrial era. It is to official climatology, then, not to us, that Mr Born should be addressing his notion that the system-response may prove to be nonlinear.
In reality, though, climatology is reasonable in its implicit assumption that the system response is linear: for, as we have shown, one may adopt midrange values for the relevant climatic data for the industrial era and show that ECS today may still be 1.1 K, just as it was in 1850.
However, since the head posting contains an explicit, written warning that an increase of only 1% in the system-gain factor compared with 1850 would lead to an increase of 300% in ECS, from 1.1 K to 4 K, even he, ignorant of elementary mathematics and physics though he has shown himself to be, must surely understand that he is making himself look even sillier than before, if that be possible, by continuing to pretend that we insist the system response is linear.
It is quite likely to be linear, but, precisely because ECS might adopt just about any value if it is not linear, the current method of attempting to constrain ECS by diagnosis of feedback strengths from the outputs of the models is doomed to fail. It is mere guesswork. And once that fact has been accepted, there subsists no rational or logical basis for squandering hundreds of trillions to purchase practically no abatement of global warming.
Perhaps an argument with so many stages as this is beyond Mr Born. If so, he should ask a logician to explain it to him.
“lab came to exactly the same conclusion, after months of delay because the operators body temperature again interfered with the readings, and he had not thought to run wires into an adjacent room. So the matter is not in doubt.”
This sounds made up. It makes little sense to this experimentalist.
Maybe you can provide details.
Nate will have to wait for our paper to be published. The details of the experiments are set out therein.
Wouldn’t it have been better not to mention it until the paper was published then?
I can just imagine the response if someone had spent 5 years claiming they had proven using an electrical circuit that ECS was really 8K, but that they couldn’t give any details until the paper was published.
One understands that “Bellman”, a paid totalitarian, does not understand or enjoy the concept of free speech. But we are fully entitled to give an outline of our research, including an outline of the experimentation that confirmed one of the steps in the argument. He can read and whine about that research when it is peer-reviewed and published.
And, when he has learned to read, he will realize that we have not spent 5 years claiming that ECS has any particular value. The head posting, and several postings before that, makes it explicit that we do not consider ECS to be constrainable by current methods, precisely because any change in feedback strength must be applied to the entire reference signal, including emission temperature.
So, hearsay.
Is there an old name for that kind of fallacy?
As a believer in free speech, I have never said you should not be allowed to publish whatever you like, just as I’m free to point out when your are being disingenuous, or using a strawman argument, or lying about me.
“And, when he has learned to read, he will realize that we have not spent 5 years claiming that ECS has any particular value.”
From the 19th of March 2018.
“Therefore, I am at last free to reveal what we have discovered. There is indeed an elementary error of physics right at the heart of the models calculations of equilibrium sensitivity. After correcting that error, and on the generous assumption that official climatology has made no error other than that which we have exposed, global warming will not be 3.3 1.2 K: it will be only 1.2 0.15 K. We say we can prove it.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warming-on-trial-and-the-elementary-error-of-physics-that-caused-the-global-warming-scare
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Maybe you can provide details.”
As you can see, Lord Monckton’s modus operandi is evasion. But I really don’t think we need details. The circuit probably differs little from the one in his draft paper at https://cornwallalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/sen.pdf.
And a critical perusal of that draft’s results shows that the experiment he touts actually refutes the basis of his proof.
In his slide at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/02/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-7-years-10-months/ the “corrected” calculation is an extrapolation through the origin: it imposes the requirement that the equilibrium temperature be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback. But the measurements set forth in the draft paper show that linear proportionality is not a feedback requirement.
Sure, that circuit is set up for linear operation. But consider the first two rows in row set 3 of Table A.2. They show that the experimenter simulated nonlinear operation by so adjusting a potentiometer when he changed the input E_0, which in Lord Monckton’s work represents what the equilibrium temperature would be without feedback, as to make beta (the feedback coefficient) vary with the input E_0 and thus with the with-feedback-temperature-representing output E_R. Since beta is not independent of input (or, for that matter, of output), the simulated system is nonlinear.
Not surprisingly, the ratio that the output with-feedback-temperature representing output E_R bears to the no-feedback-representing input E_0 changes: the equilibrium temperature doesn’t have to be linearly proportional to what it would have been without feedback.
Using a nonlinear element in the feedback network, I illustrated the same thing at https://naptownnumbers.substack.com/p/power-of-obscure-language.
Indeed, Joe. You make clear that his argument is looney-tunes.
Monckton says:
“In logic, climatologists position cannot be correct. For the feedback processes that subsist at any given moment in a dynamical system such as the climate are inanimate. They have no freedom to decide that they will not respond at all to the first 29/30 of the 263.5 K total reference temperature in 2020, but that they will respond only, and suddenly, and very vigorously, to the final 1/30. Where is the sense in that?”
Where is the sense in that?
Its just what a highly nonlinear system does! As you point out it’s just what a diode does, or transistors do.
And it’s what the Earth does. When it is very cold, there will be NO water vapor feedback and NO ice-albedo feedback.
But he oddly insists:
“Therefore, at any specified moment, such as the present, the feedback processes subsisting in the dynamical system of interest, the climate, must perforce respond equally to each degree of the 263.5 K total reference temperature.”
So this makes absolutely no sense. For the real Earth, NO Feedback need apply for the first 250 of the Earth’s degrees K.
Joe Born
Thanks for
The Power of Obscure Language
You Can Fool Some of the People All of the Time
I have been a simple software engineer, lacking any math skills to adequately reply to the Third Viscount’s often superficial and discrediting prose, as have done many scientists since years.
Your reply was the best I read until now, not only because you wrote it in a manner understandable, but also because you managed to follow his ‘theory’ through many of posts.
Today, as usual, I have more and more the impression that his ‘publications’ do not reflect his own knowledge but rather that of those people in his background Frogs love to name ‘petites mains’.
Merci beaucoup / Vielen Dank
“I have more and more the impression that his publications do not reflect his own knowledge but rather that of those people in his background Frogs love to name petites mains.”
Maybe; I can’t see into his mind.
But here’s the hypothesis I favor. I think what he writes mostly reflects theories he concocts himself, and he is able to dupe people into embracing them by using ambiguities to mask the fact that he deals mostly in non sequiturs.
Lord Monckton seems to have a flypaper mind: his memory seems to be excellent, and he seems able to call up all manner of facts effortlessly. But so far as I’ve seen he’s hopelessly unable to reason from those facts. He knows all the puzzle pieces, but he has no concept of how they fit together. He’s absolutely certain that round peg fits into that square hole. People are impressed (or at least entertained) by his command of facts and as a result erroneously assume that the inferences he draws from them must be correct.
They rarely are.
Mr Born continues wilfully, mendaciously and malevolently to misrepresent what we have said and done.
He continues deliberately to pretend that our correct assertion that at any moment the feedback processes then extant must perforce respond equally to each Kelvin of reference temperature necessarily implies that system response must be linear.
The head posting, and several others before it, has made it explicitly clear that linearity is not only not implicit in our result: our result shows just how potentially (though probably not actually) nonlinear the system may be.
The chief purpose of the experiment at the lab was to verify that feedback processes extant at any moment must respond equally to each unit of the entire reference signal.
If Mr Born were to wait until our paper is published, or if he were at least to read the current head posting, he would be disabused of his self-deluding nonsense.
“Once Hansen and others after him had repeated that midrange estimate [4K] often enough, it became impossible for the climatological community to move away from it.”
Yet every IPCC report has suggested ECS is probably lower than 4C. Latest report gives a best estimate of 3C, with a high confidence that it’s between 2.5C and 4C.
The furtively pseudonymous “Bellman” is, as so often, in nit-picking mode. ECS based on the data for 1850 is not the 4 K imagined by Hansen and so many others on the basis of the data for that year: it is 1.1 K. But official climatology, having made its error, cannot admit that ECS may be that low. Therefore, it continues to maintain that ECS is of order 4 K. For instance, the midrange ECS in the CMIP6 models is 3.9 K (Zelinka et al. 2020, supplementary matter).
> “we reach the same conclusion as Pat Frank”
Frank’s method of dealing with uncertainty is not consistent with established methods defined in JCGM 100:2008 (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) or even his own citation from Frank 2010 of Bevington 2003 (Data Reduction and Error Analysis). For example, using the Frank 2010 method the UAH uncertainty would be evaluated as approximately +/- 2.40 C (95% CI) based on the data in Christy et al. 2003. Note that you assessed the uncertainty as +/- 0.20 C in that publication. The Frank 2010 method 1) uses a formula for the propagation of uncertainty of unknown origin (it is no where to be found in Bevington 2003 which Frank listed as the source) and which is inconsistent with established methods and procedures including Bevington 2003 and 2) ignores the propagation of uncertainty through the gridding and averaging step. My point is that given the disagreement between your and his approaches to dealing with uncertainty that go back at least 12 years you should probably be more critical of Frank 2019 as well.
It may be worth mentioning that you were critical of Frank 2019 back in 2019. What changed?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/critique-of-propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-predictions/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/additional-comments-on-the-frank-2019-propagation-of-error-paper/
bdgwx, as usual, makes stuff up. I was and remain supportive of Pat Frank, a good friend, and of his result. I was present in 2016 at the annual planetary-emergencies conference of the World Federation of Scientists in Sicily when Pat first presented his results to a bitterly hostile audience. i spoke for him then, and have continued to do so since.
bdgws, as usual, is confused. In particular, Frank (2019) concerns itself not with uncertainties in the temperature record but with uncertainties in the derivation of equilibrium temperature sensitivities in the general-circulation models.
I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~px150~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
the given stats system. https://fixjob11.blogspot.com
Moderators, please report “Gloria’s” posting to the police as fraudulent spam in the usual way.
Moderators, plesae report “Gloria’s” posting to the police as fraudulent spam in the usual way.
> In particular, Frank (2019) concerns itself not with uncertainties in the temperature record
Hence why the example is prefaced with “for example.” It is a simple “by your logic” argument. Simulation or measurement uncertainties, it should not matter. One can be the extension of the other.
What goes for the goose goes for the gentile, more so when they share the same properties.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“What changed?”
The author. The quoted text is written by Lord M. Purveyors of nonsense flock together. I don’t think Dr Spencer has changed his view.
Nick Stokes, please stop trolling.
Pseudomod
When are you going to stop your stupid, nonsensical “please stop trolling”, which, by the way, you only address to people whose comments don’t suit you?
You behave like a stubborn child.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
“When I first realized that climatologists on both sides of the debate simply did not understand enough control theory to appreciate the truth of the underlined words, I discovered that a control theorist who was a friend of one of my distinguished co-authors did not realize they were true either. But he had his own lab. So he built a feedback amplifier circuit and tested the matter for himself. That was not easy, because so small is the true unit feedback response that he had to run wires into the next room so that his body temperature did not affect the readings. To his surprise, he found that the underlined words are correct.”
hearsay. this is all lord has.
“When I first realized that climatologists on both sides of the debate simply did not understand enough control theory to appreciate the truth of the underlined words, I discovered that a control theorist who was an employee of mine who had his own lab. So he built a feedback amplifier circuit and tested the matter for himself. That was not easy, because so small is the true unit feedback response that he had to run wires into the next room so that his body temperature did not affect the readings. To his surprise, he found that the underlined words are false.
then, I gave the problem to my chip designer friends. they also confirmed
the words are false.
then i published a open invitation with a million dollar prize to prove the words true.
every spice specialist in my linkedIn list applied
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPICE
guys at cadence, synopsis, SMIC, TSMC,
samsung.
none could prove the lords false words true.
the good lord is welcome to post instructions for his friends Experiement.
100 million dollar prize if he’s right
Mr Mosher does not possess $1 million, still less $100 million. Once he has placed the relevant sum in escrow I shall submit our argument to a suitable court of law, where both sides can scrutinize it, and the court will then decide to award me the amount held in escrow, plus costs.
If Mr Mosher does not in fact possess either $1 million or $100 million, then in offering to pay it he is perpetrating a fraud, in which case the public authorities, who are already investigating various scams by believers in the Party Line on climate, will be informed. He would, therefore, be wiser either to place the money in excrow or admit that he does not have it.
Do you even leverage, bro?
Mosh was into crypto before it was cool, which means he most prolly holds a few hundred if not thousand baggers. And that is after his previous gigs, like at Creative Labs.
In contrast to you, he means business, not burlesque braggadocio.
More mere hate speech from the ugly “Willard”. No scientific point to make, just childish trolling. Grow up.
More ridiculous bravado from our Viscount.
Steven Mosher, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The arrogant and rude Monckton from Brenchley is acting a lot more like a troll in this thread than all those you accuse of it.
When will you finally stop to exclusively address your stupid, nonsensical “please stop trolling” to people whose comments don’t suit you?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
the climate is not a circuit.
repeat after me. the climate is not a circuit.
and can’t be modelled as a circuit.
this is a category error. full stop
Agreed.
Modeling climate as an electrical circuit with a linear amplifier and linear feedback ignores the fact that there are multiple processes involved, many of which are highly non-linear, particularly the atmospheric radiation (T^4) and the phase changes of water, which result in the Arctic Amplification thru changes in snow and ice albedo.
Also, there are known time constants which make it difficult to compare present data with historical data, such as the long term circulation in the world’s oceans, such as the THC in the high latitude North Atlantic. It’s been claimed that the flow of sinking waters around the Antarctic require some 600 years to flow to the Equator.
Mr Mosher, whose prejudice is exceeded only by his ignorance, is blissfully (or perhaps deliberately) unaware that feedback formulism is applicable to any dynamical system on which feedback processes act, whether or not that system is a circuit.
A circuit is an analogy that may be applied to any feedback-moderated dynamical system. Mr Mosher should look up the word “analogy” and, in future, think before he shouts.
> formulism
Good grief.
Formalism.
Formulism is pejorative.
You are not supposed to rain on your own parade, even if vain.
“You are not supposed to rain on your own parade”
A lord may surely reign on his own parade.
Even if he can’t rein in his own parade.
Ugh, homophones. “Piss” is clearer.
I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~px270~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
the given stats system https://fixjob11.blogspot.com
Steven Mosher, Little Willy, Nick Stokes, please stop trolling.
“Willard” continues to display his ignorance, this time of the use of language. The pejorative meaning of “formulism” is metonymic. That does not prevent me from using it in its original meaning. To anyone capable of reading rather than shouting Communist slogans, the distinction between the original and the metonymic meaning is readily discernible from the context.
Christopher seems to ignore that the word comes from theological philosophy.
Upper-crusters are not what they used to be.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The problem is that of all the climate models using feedbacks to project their scenarios of impending doom.
As I understand it, Lord Monckton is saying is the feedback value used in the climate models is much too large and may in fact be negative.
The matter of whether there are feedbacks in climate isn’t the question. There certainly are valid comparisons to electronic circuits as well as any other process where feedback is inherent.
“In short, there is nothing we can do to abate future global warming other than reverting to the Stone Age”
That a cute idea, but it’s not possible, rather all we doing is increasing the chance of wars. And no chance of the side trying to revert to Stone Age of winning that fight.
The Left is at war with reality. The Left has caused wars, and will always want more wars. It’s what they do- cause wars.
Or rather than say the Left, let’s just say, politicians.
If allow politicians to do what want to do, they are Lefties or lets say, mad totalitarian freaks- power corrupts.
Give them emergency powers, and they will show their true colors.
But back to dull topic of global climate, I had hoped we would be able measure the effect increased CO2 levels, but other than 1 C,
it seems that was just wishing thinking.
But why we even worried about 5 C increase in global temperature is yet another mystery.
It seems a near certainty that if global average temperature were to increase by 5 C, the Sahara Desert would become grasslands and forests. And it seems a green sahara would cause more global warming than any CO2 levels.
Or we in an Ice Age, we can’t escape it. We in coldest time of this 33.9 million year Ice Age which called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
So adding 5 C is impossible- though we still would, perhaps, be in the cooler part of this 33.9 million year Ice Age.
One thing about 5 C warmer world, is it is warmer, but it isn’t hotter.
So, NASA and NOAA say that, more than 90% of all warming global in modern era, has warming the entire ocean.
And assume warming 3.5 C average ocean is important in terms of global air temperature.
Anytime the ocean has been 4 C or warmer, it been the warmest the world has been in the last couple million years- and always has green
Sahara desert.
So, if warm, get green Sahara, and it seems a green Sahara increases
global air temperature.
Also ocean which is 4 C or warmer, has ice free arctic sea ice, and greatest forest in the world, gets greater.
The only downside seems to be, is could might make the Russians happier. Though we can’t say there is downside to making the Africans happier.
Or maybe I will give argument to Lord Monckton.
NASA and NOAA have different argument these days,
they say increased CO2 level have caused the 3.5 C
to warm.
And I would say a warmer ocean is the amplifier.
In terms of PR, the unseen CO2 gas could scare the
uneducated, and PR is all about moving the stupid.
But an Ocean warming from about 3.5 C to about 3.6 C
is understandable to even the dumbest- and quite correctly
they don’t see it as a problem.
They might even ask why don’t measure the ocean more precisely
and we didn’t you do it sooner.
And people don’t like trying explain why they have been so stupid.
But since NASA and NOAA have changed the argument, isn’t Lord Monckton giving a strawman argument.
Or we have moved on.
After wasting a vast amount of time and trillion dollars of the people’s money.
GB,
We might revert to the Stone Age, sooner rather than later.
Well I think tens of millions of people should be encouraged to revert to Stone Age.
Because due to lack of education, that is what they seems want.
So rather than fight about it, we should help them live in a Stone Age.
Or we should recognize it is already here, rather some in future, it will come.
So there are many advantages to having ocean settlements, and one
of them is place for people who want to be primitive can live.
Get them off the sidewalks and they can drag their tents with them,
or they put all in the trash, and give something a lot better.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2022-0-24-deg-c/#comment-1376380
Roy Spencer and Christopher Monckton do not understand the concept of feedback as it applies to such a complicated ‘system’ as the earth receiving energy from the sun and discharging it to outer space, in both by electromagnetic radiation.
I hardly need say that I esteem Roy as knowing perhaps 1,000 or perhaps 100,000 times as much as I do about meteorology. (Do I hear you say he knows 1,000,000 times as much about meteorology? I won’t contest that.) But the present topic is primarily mathematical, and I think I can contribute there.
The error that Roy and Monckton share is that they let the discussion go on in the nonsensical single feedback loop terms dictated by the arch warmists Hansen and his henchman Michael Schlesinger, who cite the oversimplified Bode model, also known as the asymptotic feedback model. Monckton takes the bait, hook, line, and sinker; Roy crab-walks around it by saying ‘Oh, the forcing and feedback formalism is just a rhetorical or diagnostic device, not used in the AOGCMs themselves. But it’s a handy way of explaining the AOGCMs to people who don’t understand the situation.’ Both are losing strategies, conceptually inadequate for a system with many interlocking feedbacks. And, yes, it’s an inadequate diagnostic device.
Not even a simple physical electronic amplifier can be fully and accurately described by the HansenSchlesinger 19841985 scalar scenario. A real physical electronic amplifier needs a formulation explicitly in terms of both voltage and current for every branch of the circuit. The transmission of the signal is to be described by a matrix, not a scalar such as Roy and Monckton cripple their accounts with, bluffed by the aura of the warmistas. Yes, of course, the Bode model that Hansen and Schlesinger cite is excellent for the restricted purpose that Bode advertised it for. But he didn’t advertise it for the earths energy flow problem.
The proper matrix of rate coefficients for the earths energy flows is of higher rank than the rank two matrix that covers simple real amplifier circuits. For the earths energy flow problem, the stability is to be examined in terms of the eigenvalues of the matrix of rate coefficients, not in terms of the single loop gain formulation of Hansen and Schlesinger following Bode.
There are many things about the HansenSchlesinger forcing and feedback formulation that are nonsensical, too many to expound here and now.
A summary of the situation is that man-made added CO2 should be treated primarily as a catalyst of transduction of energy between radiative and material forms, not primarily as a substantial energy flow in itself. A catalyst manifests itself directly in the matrix of rate coefficients, and only indirectly in the list of energy flows. I have tried and tried to get Roy to see this, but at least till now I have failed, as far as I can work out. Monckton dismissed me in a flash.
Once one understands the need to use a higher rank matrix of rate coefficients to express the many interacting feedbacks of the earths energy flow process, the many failings and nonsenses of the scalar single feedback loop ‘forcing-and-feedback’ model become obvious.
Dear Roy and Lord Monckton, the lesson here is ‘Don’t let your opponents dictate the terms of the debate.’
> a real amplifier
Richard, now is your time to shine!
By the way, a point. “feedback formulism in control theory is applicable to it”. No, it isn’t. Control theory usually assumes unilateral circuit elements. The present problem is about a dissipative system, devoid of unilateral circuit elements. That’s just one point. There are many more.
Mr Game is, as usual, more than somewhat confused. If he were aware of the norms of logic, he would know that to convince an opponent of his error it is advisable to adopt as much of the opponent’s case as may reasonably be held to be comsistent with objective truth, and to dissent only from those points that cannot legitimately be held to be consistent with objective truth.
It is objectively true that the climate is a feedback-moderated dynamical system. The calculations for 1850 set out in the head posting make this explicit. It is objectively true, therefore, that feedback formulism in control theory is applicable to the climate.
It is also objectively true that because the interval of system-gain factors falls well within the interval of uncertainties in feedback strength, any predictions of ECS based on diagnoses of feedback strengths from the outputs of general-circulation models are no better than guesswork.
It is precisely because the uncertainties in feedback strength are so large that our argument has force.
Thank you, Lord Monckton for your reply. I interpret it as your trying to lure me into making the same strategic error as the one I warned you and Roy not to make: letting one’s opponents dictate the terms of the debate.
When one is responding to nonsense such as that of the HansenSchlesinger forcing and feedback formalism (please let me abbreviate it as the FFF), it is practically impossible to reasonably follow the admirable mediaeval tradition of setting out one’s opponent’s case before answering it.
Yes, the earths energy flow system is moderated by many interlocking feedbacks. But, as I just pointed out, and you just ignored, control systems theory is not the right kind of feedback theory for it. For control systems theory usually assumes unilateral circuit elements, while the atmosphereocean system is devoid of those, because it is entirely dissipative, with much internal reciprocity. For example the Helmholtz reciprocity of radiative transfer makes nonsense of the main “gain” element of the HansenSchlesinger model that you have till now espoused.
Of course I agree with you that the AOGCMs are practically useless for the present purpose, but they are not my present target, which is the FFF, that I want you to liberate yourself from, so that you will be able to use instead a proper general dynamical systems model and so to present your case without the nonsense inherent in the FFF.
In response to Mr Game’s second unfortunate comment, several of my co-authors are eminent control theorists. Whether Mr Game likes it or not, feedback formulism is applicable to all, repeat all, dynamical systems moderated by feedback processes, without exception. Mr Game’s term “unilateral circuit element” is void for uncertainty of meaning. And he should understand that the use of circuit diagrams in feedback analysis is merely an analogy to make the underlying mathematics more readily understandable.
The underlying mathematics of the infinite series in the feedback loop dates back more than 200 years. It is well established. Time for Mr Game to study a little number theory, so that he can understand the mathematical background to control theory.
Thank you, Lord Monckton, for your prompt reply.
I accept that the term ‘unilateral circuit element’ is found only in specialist texts on electronic circuit theory and suchlike. But it is essential to the physics here. A unilateral circuit element is the contrary of a reciprocal circuit element. A unilateral circuit element is devoid of internal feedback. A reciprocal circuit element is rich in internal feedback. This distinction makes nonsense of the FFF as a model for the earths energy flow process. Again, control systems theory (including the FFF) relies heavily on unilateral circuit elements, even if its exponents don’t much articulate that fact; they just presuppose it.
I am well aware of the geometric series calculation to which you refer, but my point is that it relies on a dominant unilateral circuit element, such as is not present in our system. In particular, again, radiative transfer obeys the Helmholtz reciprocity principle.
By clinging to the FFF, one lets a simple but inappropriate mathematical formula blind one to the underlying physics, which must guide and lead the mathematics.
Time for Lord Monckton to study the history of the planet, and explain how his mathematical maunderings were unable to prevent the cooling of said planet from an initial molten state to its present tolerably acceptable temperature range.
Resorting to analogies is generally the patronising approach of propagandists who either don’t understand what they are talking about, or hope their audience will fall for their illusions.
Maybe Lord Monckton can use his vast knowledge of physics and mathematics to explain why Prof John Tyndall’s 19th century experiments are invalid. Tyndall showed that increasing the amount of CO2 (for example) between a heat source and a heat measuring device, resulted in less heat reaching the measuring device – recorded as a fall in temperature, naturally enough.
Reproducible experiment – anathema to Lord Monckton, and his crew of “more than competent” “senior climatologists”. Stomping around, waving a non-existent “paper” at people, just makes Lord Monckton look like another climate crackpot – all mouth and no trousers.
Of course, my opinion is worth what you paid for it.
“The underlying mathematics of the infinite series in the feedback loop dates back more than 200 years. It is well established. Time for Mr Game to study a little number theory, so that he can understand the mathematical background to control theory.”
Number theory relates to the study of integers, and has no application here. Summing a geometric progression was known to Euclid and Archimedes, but it also has no sensible application here. True, there is a primitive line of reasoning that goes something like, you get some heating, then some evaporation, which causes more heating, which causes more evaporation etc. You can sum that as a geometric series. But that is just a thought experiment, it doesn’t actually happen that way. Instead, you should just write a linear equation which balances fluxes. This gets immediately to the result, with no infinite series. That is what Hansen and Schlesinger do (and Bode).
Hi, Nick.
Yes, as you say, number theory is about integers. On the other hand, we learnt to sum such series as schoolboys, as I guess most schoolboys did; but more generally, sums of infinite series are usually taken as belonging to analysis, not number theory. And yes, as you say, summing an infinite series is not a great way here; as you say, it is far better just to write a balance equation.
M,
You wrote –
“If he were aware of the norms of logic, he would know that to convince an opponent of his error it is advisable to adopt as much of the opponents case as may reasonably be held to be comsistent with objective truth, and to dissent only from those points that cannot legitimately be held to be consistent with objective truth.”
Part of Richard Feynman’s summing up after the Rogers report –
“. . . nature cannot be fooled.”
As someone once said “A sucking chest wound is Nature’s way of telling you that you made a mistake.”
Logic does not apply to the quantum double slit experiment. The universe doesn’t care what you or I think.
Keep dreaming that fantasy can supplant fact if you just believe intensely enough.
Always remember that a UN IPCC CliSciFi climate modeler openly states they tune their models to achieve an ECS that “seems about right.” Parametrization leads to much mischief. And politicians will get the results they pay for.
“|several senior and more than competent control theorists and climatologists, who are co-authors in our paper”
No citation. It isn’t true.
Sorry, wrong quote. What isn’t true is
“Always remember that a UN IPCC CliSciFi climate modeler openly states they tune their models to achieve an ECS that seems about right.”
Nick Stokes, please stop trolling.
Christopher,
“Not even a simple physical electronic amplifier can be fully and accurately described by the HansenSchlesinger 19841985 scalar scenario. A real physical electronic amplifier needs a formulation explicitly in terms of both voltage and current for every branch of the circuit. The transmission of the signal is to be described by a matrix, not a scalar such as Roy and Monckton cripple their accounts with, bluffed by the aura of the warmistas.”
True, and worth remembering, about electronic amplifiers. But Hansen and Schlesinger did not say anything about electronic amplifiers. That is a local enthusiasm, taken to an extreme by Lord Monckton. H&S followed the linear algebra sequence used by Bode, which essentially amounts to manipulating N equations in N+1 variables to get one equation in an input and an output, expressed with a gain coefficient. The algebra was appropriate for their system, and the reference to Bode may have been helpful for some, but was in no way required. The algebra is self-contained and elementary.
I have set out the proper relation of feedback to climate maths here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/demystifying-feedback/
nick…in your junction transistor example, if you hold the base at 0 volts while the emitter is at ground, which is normally 0 volts, the transistor will not turn on. You would need to define ground as a more negative voltage than ground, by 0.8 volts, given a silicon transistor. That’s because the transistor is NPN and needs to be biased positively on the P (base) terminal wrt the emitter.
It would be a lot easier to use a bias resistor from base to the +ve supply with the resistor designed to limit the current via emitter-base and use a capacitor in the feedback circuit to block D*C.
Any feedback circuits I have encountered in audio amplifiers use a capacitor from the output stage to an input preamp. Feedback is normally AC hence frequency sensitive. And, it is always negative in an amplifier otherwise it would run away, unless you seriously damped it.
Oscillators use positive feedback but in a controlled manner. They sent a pulse back to an oscillator tank in the input side so as to keep the oscillation going but not enough to cause the output signal to increase without bounds.
Gordon,
The voltages marked there are the signal voltages, not bias. I put the same diagram here with the operating point voltages marked. Also, as I said, the capacitors which would normally allow separate bias and signal circuitry are omitted.
Bias from the collector has stability merits; the negative feedback also helps, for example in minimising thermal change.
Nick,
From your link –
“Example 3 Climate feedbacks
Again, its just a matter of writing down linear equations, resulting here from equilibrium flux balance. Ill follow this 2006 article of Soden and Held. Unfortunately, they dont actually quite write the flux equations, but Ill do it for them.”
Hopefully, you didn’t really mean to imply that you can model a chaotic system with linear equations.
That would make you look deranged, wouldn’t it? Or supremely ignorant, because I don’t think you are particularly stupid.
Time to appeal to your own authority, perhaps.
Mike Flynn,
Any function can be decomposed into a series of linear ones, at least insofar as we are looking to compute anything.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Hi Nick. Thank you for your comment. Sorry I am a bit late in responding. I didn’t notice it till now. I will need a bit of time to read carefully what you posted at wattsupwiththat, and then get back to you.
Hi Nick. Step by step. First, before I directly examine and consider your wattsupwiththat post, a few preliminary comments on your post right here in this thread: “But Hansen and Schlesinger did not say anything about electronic amplifiers. That is a local enthusiasm, taken to an extreme by Lord Monckton. H&S followed the linear algebra sequence used by Bode, which essentially amounts to manipulating N equations in N+1 variables to get one equation in an input and an output, expressed with a gain coefficient.”
I guess one can consider context as well as literal text. Bode’s book that they cited was all about amplifier design. If all that H&S meant was to refer to straight linear algebra, they might have chosen to cite a straight linear algebra source?
An amplifier is essentially a dynamic device. Hansen 1984 talks about the time constant, suggesting that he is thinking in dynamic terms. They use the term gain, that is nearly specific for amplifiers.
The concept of feedback is essentially dynamic, at least to some degree. To identify feedback, one usually finds a point in the circuit where one can actually cut the feedback, and one considers the system with and without feedback. That isn’t a continuous-time kind of dynamic scenario, but it does involve a sequence of observations at two times. Feedback is about causality. The output or the load quantity actually feeds back to the input of the power gain element, and that takes time, because it is causal. For a feedback scenario, I expect to see some definite way of cutting the feedback. It’s not just about timeless linear equations.
I am not sure what kind of linear equations you are referring to. Considering the context indicated by Hansen 1984 and Schlesinger 1985, I assumed that they had in the background of their minds linear ordinary differential equations, which can also be represented by Fourier transforms that look like plain scalar linear equations. My reading (subject to revision) of their work is that its natural interpretation is about dynamical systems, at first glance linear dynamical systems. A magnifying glass magnifies but doesn’t amplify. In my mind, timeless relations hardly qualify as dynamic or as calling for such terms as ‘amplification’.
As I see amplification, it necessarily and essentially involves adding power to a signal, in a more or less linear way. A magnifying glass selects a part of the input and magnifies it, and discards the unselected part. That isn’t power gain. It’s just selective magnification. Linear algebra doesn’t necessarily indicate adding power.
Usually, part of the specification of an amplifier is its frequency response, as part of its dynamic character.
More of your comment on this thread: “The algebra was appropriate for their system, and the reference to Bode may have been helpful for some, but was in no way required.” Perhaps. But why bring in Bode if he was irrelevant? My reading is that H&S are playing tricks on the word ‘amplification’, with the aim of sneaking in stories about ‘positive feedback’, with the wonderful payoff that people will then feel confident in talking about ‘runaway climate change’; and it worked a treat. I think that if H&S were in good faith, they would have cautioned about this. The stability of an amplifier is determined by its dynamic characteristics, for example analyzed by Nyquist’s procedure. Not providing a fair account of this seems to me like mauvaise foi on the part of H&S.
This is just my preliminary comment, and perhaps when I get to your wattsupwiththat post I will see why this my comment right here is off-beam or mistaken?
Now, coming to your post;
“I have set out the proper relation of feedback to climate maths here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/demystifying-feedback/”
It’s hard to deal with your whole wattsupwiththat post while respecting fair allocation of space here in this comment thread of Roy’s blog. So I will need to be summary.
Your bottom line: “So what is the outcome here? Mainly that you can talk about feedback, signals, Bode etc if you find it helps. But the underlying maths is just linear algebra, and the key thing is to write down correct perturbation equations, and manipulate them algebraically if you really want to. Or just solve them as they are.”
I have to say that you seem to be a pure mathematician without the least regard for the physics of the scenario. My view is different: I put the physics first, every time, always. Your post shows no attempt to examine the real physics of the problem. You airily dismiss it as a bit of abstract algebra. We are looking at a physical problem.
I didn’t see anything in your wattsupwiththat post to make me think you had dynamics in mind. Nor causality, nor real feedback. No hint of Nyquist, nor of the stability-determining rate coefficients summarized in eigenvalues of a matrix of rate coefficients. Your diagram from Wikipedia shows a triangle indicating a device that looks for all the world like a unilateral circuit element, such as is not to be found in the atmosphere or oceans.
It seems to me that you make some of the same mistakes as do Roy and Lord Monckton, not even trying to come to grips with the physics. Not all of the mistakes that Monckton makes, but some of them. Forgive me for being blunt, but I think you, all three, have been sucked in, chewed up, spat out, and trodden on by the fancy pseudo-mathematical tricks and prestige of H&S, whose presentation, I have to acknowledge, is the finest confidence trick that I have ever seen. It takes in nearly everyone.
Christopher,
“If all that H&S meant was to refer to straight linear algebra, they might have chosen to cite a straight linear algebra source?”
All that they did was straight linear algebra. None of it relies on any Bode results, and they didn’t say it did. What they said was:
“We use procedures and terminology of feedback studies in electronics (Bode, 1945) to help analyze the contributions of different feedback processes.”
The procedures are set out on the page – just linear algebra (no source needed). I expect they felt that some readers would find them easier to follow if Bode’s well known analysis was mentioned.
“Its not just about timeless linear equations.”
It is. Across a resistive pathway, voltages are equilibrated at about the speed of light, which is usually far faster than any signal changes (in Bode’s time, anyway).
But anyway, the equations of Hansen’s analysis are explicitly timeless, because they relate to equilibrium temperatures and climate sensitivity.
“I am not sure what kind of linear equations you are referring to.”
I set it out in the WUWT article, third example. I used Soden and Held’s more explicit formulation,
ΔR = λ_TΔT + λ_wΔT + λ_CΔT + λ_aΔT
where ΔR is the change in forcing, and ΔT is the change in equilibrium temperature. The RHS sums the fluxes due to changes T itself (Planck), water vapor, clouds and albedo. The forcing relates to T
ΔT=ECS*ΔR
where ECS is sensitivity, and so the dependence of those fluxes on ΔT makes it a feedback issue. No dynamics are implied. And the “procedure of Bode” is just the elementary
ECS=ΔT/ΔR=ΔT/(λ_TΔT + λ_wΔT + λ_CΔT + λ_aΔT)=1/(λ_T + λ_w + λ_C + λ_a)
And again, that is all he seeks from this analysis. Just that the feedback coefficients can be added.
Hi Nick. It seems that we are at the end of the thread, so I hope this reply of mine will appear in a readable sequence. Thank you for your careful reply. It clarifies some things for me. I am hopeful that we may clarify more.
Perhaps it might be wise to check that we are talking about the same papers. I have been slap-dash about that here till now.
By Hansen 1984 I have meant to refer to J. Hansen, A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, J. Lerner (1984). Climate sensitivity: analysis of feedback mechanisms, ”Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity”, Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Volume 5, pages 130 – 163. I think we share this, for I get from it these words “We use procedures and terminology of feedback studies in electronics (Bode. 1945) to help analyze the contributions of different feedback processes.” just as you have quoted. That seems a good check?
By Schlesinger 1985 I have meant to refer to M.E. Schlesinger (1985). APPENDIX A. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS FROM ENERGY BALANCE AND RADIATIVE-CONVECTIVE MODELS, pp. 280 – 319 of ”Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide”, by M.C. MacCracken, DOE/ER – 0237. I guess perhaps you mean that too?
Let’s check that before going further.
Hi Christopher
The Hansen paper is the same. I think it was his only mathematical venture into feedback talk.
I have paid less attention to Michael Schlesinger; he was a minor figure whose papers would not receive much attention nowadays if not for the enthusiasm of contrarians. But his treatment of feedback was more sustained, and generally consistent. I had in mind this review paper.
Ok, thank you, I have that Schlesinger & Mitchell 1987 paper. I guess I can say that the relevant part of it is Section 2, pages 761 – 762 .
Hi Nick. Little positive steps coming up. But first, a step in retreat.
I have to admit that I was immoderate in saying that you had been sucked …. My apology is that I was reacting to talk, by many others, of “amplification by positive feedback through water vapour”. You didn’t say or suggest such a thing. But that’s what I was reacting to. I think it fair to say that such talk does occur, is powerfully and widely influential, and can be traced to the FFF. Such talk is why I jack up about the FFF. For clarity, I repeat that you have distanced yourself from such talk by distancing yourself from Bode. But, in apology, I think it fair to say that such talk is partly due to Hansen’s and in Schlesinger’s citation of Bode’s text on amplifier design, and in graphs such as Schlesinger’s showing a virtual explosion due to ‘positive feedback’. I can’t prove that such citation and graphing is disingenuous or of ill intent, but I can suspect it. I don’t read too many strenuous repudiations of such talk; but then I don’t read too much.
Now to a couple of little steps where we can agree.
“the dependence of those fluxes on ΔT makes it a feedback issue.” I am very happy to talk in terms of feedback. I have an idea that Roy thinks I reject the idea of feedback; well, I don’t reject that idea.
“All that they did was straight linear algebra.” I am very happy to talk in terms of linear algebra within its scope.
Enough for today.
Another step: “But anyway, the equations of Hansens analysis are explicitly timeless, because they relate to equilibrium temperatures and climate sensitivity.”
For me, this is a matter of essence. You are right that the equations you consider are timeless. But I think that the FFF is nevertheless gravely defective and faulty. To justify this thought, I need a broader perspective, involving time.
Hansen 1984 does admit an aspect of time, though you may contest how deep that goes, or how relevant it is: “Feedbacks modify the response time since they come into play only gradually as the warming occurs, the initial flux of heat into the ocean being independent of feedbacks.” Their equations (22) and (23) are about time constants.
Exactly how do we define or identify ‘feedback’?
I think we need three elements. (1) The externally imposed factor. (2) The eventually assessed response. (3) An internal factor.
As to (1). Its definition isn’t always too clear. Ideally, one may try to say that it is the ‘source signal’.
In our context, one might propose ‘the externally imposed factor is the increase in atmospheric CO2’. The FFF doesn’t see it that way. It sees it as a ‘forcing’, defined, for example, as ‘the no-feedback increase in OLR due to the increase in atmospheric CO2’. It defines the ‘externally imposed factor’ in terms of the concept of feedback, which is defined by (3). It assumes knowledge of the inner workings of the system, its intestines, in order to know how to prevent the feedback.
So, in the thinking of the FFF, to define (1), it is necessary to define (3). I think that this necessarily brings in a time aspect, implicit, tacit, or explicit.
Christopher
“Hansen 1984 does admit an aspect of time”
Most of the paper, including the feedback algebra, concerns equilibrium changes. The equations you mention are in a section near the end headed “transient response”. This calculates an RC like time constant. The C is heat capacity of sea, and the R is the apparent resistance of the S-B radiation, 1/(4σT). It then claims that this can be multiplied by the feedback coefficients to get their contribution. I’m not sure if that is true.
But it is important to see this in time context. In 1984 GCM’s were just starting and reasoning if this kind was perhaps the best way to anticipate what the might say. But a few years later, the transient effects were directly calculated by GCM. That is just one reason why the papers of Hansen and Schlesinger represented something of a dead end.
“Exactly how do we define or identify feedback?”
I tried to demystify feedback. I think you are pushing the other way. In my interpretation, you have a system that is governed by a linear equation. If you introduce extra variables, with extra relations to match, those are feedback terms. The effect of the feedback is shown by what happens when you algebraically manipulate to get back to a single equation in two unknowns (the gain equation).
Thank you, Nick, for your careful thoughts. Your post has many threads for me to trace, but I will go with only some now.
A preliminary comment. My main target is the FFF. I think that Monckton takes it way too seriously, and Roy takes it too seriously. You have distanced yourself from it by writing that “the papers of Hansen and Schlesinger represented something of a dead end.” So, here I think you and I are not too far apart.
You write: “Most of the paper, including feedback algebra, concerns equilibrium changes.”
We are concerned with a physical problem. Being much concerned with physics, I will pick up first on the word ‘equilibrium’. It is often used, and I think often enough it carries traps of meaning. In this case it has at least two possible meanings. Ostensibly here, it seems to refer to energy balance models. But really, equilibrium climate sensitivity is about stationary states. Stationarity requires not just one arbitrarily nominated energy balance, but every balance. For stationarity, any one nominated energy balance is necessary, but, in general, not sufficient. An example is given by North 1975, who found a clutch of three stationary states, two stable ones about an unstable one between them, a common enough scenario with dynamical systems.
So I say that time is essential here. Stationarity is essentially a time concept. A reliable account of the climate sensitivity will use time as an independent variable for a dynamical system described (with finitely many state variables) by a system of ordinary differential equations. Stationarity is then defined by all of their time derivatives vanishing at once. A mere single balance is not enough. The FFF does not do a good job there.
So I accept that, as you say, most of Hansen 1984 is explicitly about timeless formulas. But I don’t accept that as justifying the FFF. I would like to put it up as a weakness of the FFF, that it is being discussed here as timeless. And I don’t accept that feedback can be dismissed by timeless talk. The word ‘feedback’ carries a dynamical significance, distinct from ‘feedforward’, and distinct from ‘balance’, which may be static. Our good friend Lord Monckton has talked here of dynamical systems, so I suppose he may partly agree about this. The word ‘feedback’ came into the language early in the twentieth century. It is about propagation of signal energy, in the context of amplification, with causality prominent. Causality requires time. Likewise, I think that amplification is about adding energy, aka power gain, to the propagation of signals. I think use of the word ‘feedback’ cannot easily dismiss a time aspect.
Your WUWT post uses dependent increments such as dx1 and dx2. But to make sense of that, I think it implicit that in the background is a common independent increment, obviously enough dt, a time differential.
And you write of “the gain equation”. I would say that the word ‘gain’ implies a signal, a source and a load quantity, or an input and an output, with power gain, a causal link, and a time for propagation. I think one can’t ignore that. If one wants to ignore it, one should choose some word other than ‘gain’. You go for ‘algebra’; ok.
As I see it, the process we are talking about has change in CO2 level as source signal, and change in surface temperature as output signal. I don’t see exactly what is meant by ‘power gain’ there. I would be more inclined to call it something like ‘transduction’ than ‘amplification with power gain’. You have distanced yourself from the ‘amplification’ story, I think I can safely say. I wish Roy and Monckton would join with you in that.
“I will pick up first on the word equilibrium. It is often used, and I think often enough it carries traps of meaning. In this case it has at least two possible meanings.”
Well, the one Mr Withers taught us about was dynamic equilibrium, where a forward and back reaction happen essentially independently, and the equilibrium point is the ratio of the rates (hence the Law of Mass Action). I think the generalisation of that is time scales. You have one that you want to focus on; slower processes are treated as invariant, and faster ones are treated as already completed, hence equilibrium. You can correct for “almost complete”. Here we do envisage change, on some climate time scale, but faster processes including implementation of feedbacks, are assumed to be instantaneous. That takes out the time aspect (else you have to decide what the alternative time scale actually is).
Your stationarity only partly has this. You don’t assume the time derivatives are small; they usually are not. Instead, you assume that the equations invoilving them have been solved.
An idea of the timescale issues comes from aircraft flight. A plane flowing subsonically establishes a pressure field which causes the air to flow smoothly around it. This field is established by stress waves, which can be thought of as primarily sound. And that happens fast enough that the field can be thought of as already established as the air flows past. That is an equilibrium solution.
But this assumption fails with supersonic flow. The air has no warning of the coming of the plane, and no pressure field has been established. So there is a discontinuity in pressure, and hence a shock.
Normal air travel is only just subsonic. That means that the pressure field is significantly different from equilibrium, but can be calculated by correcting the equilibrium solution, and it is still enough to allow the air to flow smoothly around the plane.
Hi, Nick. Thank you for your comments. Shocking !! We are actually engaging in civil conversation !! Amazing !!
There are two aspects that I would like to consider here.
One. I want to distinguish between an energy balance and a stationary state. You have seemed, at least on occasion, to interpret the FFF as an energy balance model, without time dependence. I would like to distinguish that from a stationary state of an often dynamically changing system. The conditions for those two are distinct and I want to insist on the distinction. I am very unhappy with using the word ‘equilibrium’ as it is often used, to fudge that distinction.
Two. We can now talk about a dynamical scenario. I think that the FFF by its intrinsic structure admits just one ‘time constant’ (shall we call it?), while I think that the earth’s energy transport process has to be thought of in terms of at least several different ‘time constants’. The single loop postulated by the FFF doesn’t admit that.
Hi, Nick. Focusing more closely on your post.
I like to think of stationarity as stipulating the time derivatives of all dynamical variables to vanish.
Hi, Nick. Focusing again more closely on your post. It has taken me a little while to focus.
You write:
“Your stationarity only partly has this. You dont assume the time derivatives are small; they usually are not. Instead, you assume that the equations invoilving them have been solved.”
Perhaps we may think of being more precise about which model or models we are talking about. My present interest is in what I like to call the ‘forcing and feedbacks formalism’, which I acronym the FFF.
I have to admit that my main ideas about the FFF are based on my reading of Schlesinger 1984, because that proposes a relatively detailed mathematical account.
Schlesinger 1984 considers several models. He distinguishes amongst several kinds of energy balance models (EBMs). He starts with several ‘surface energy balance models’ (SEBMs).
A.2.2.1 Callendar. This does not consider feedback and perhaps we may bypass it.
A.2.2.2 Moller. Schlesinger 1984 says nothing about time in his discussion of Moller’s three SEBMs. But Schlesinger does use the language of feedback in his discussion.
A.2.2.3 Newell and Dopplick. As for A.2.2.2.
A.2.2.4 Summary. As for A.2.2.2.
Then to Schlesinger’s Planetary Energy Balance Models (PEBMs).
A.2.3. Schlesinger says nothing explicit about time, but he does write “Thus, PEBMs also have the same problem as SEBMs, namely, the need to treat the behavior of the climate system away from the energy balance level.”
This seems to me to suggest that you are right to distance yourself from EBMs?
On page 131, Hansen et al. 1984 write: “Over a sufficient length of time, discussed below, thermal radiation from the earth must balance absorbed solar radiation.”
On page 132, they write: “The 65m maximum depth is sufficient to make the mixed layer thermal response time much greater than one year and provide a realistic representation of seasonal temperature variations, so the mixed layer depth limitation should not significantly affect the modeled equilibrium climate.”
On page 134, they write: “Both experiments were run for 35 years. … The time dependence of these experiments is discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section concerned with the transient response of the climate system. ”
On page 144, they write: “… confirmation requires improved ability to accurately model the physical processes as well as empirical tests of the climate model on a variety of time scales.”
On page 154, they write: “Although water vapor, cloud and sea ice feedbacks respond rapidly to climate change, the speed of the climate response to a changed forcing depends on the rate at which heat is supplied to the ocean and on transport processes in the ocean.”
I won’t try to summarize their further more detailed thoughts on timing. One could say that, even by examining the above parts of Hansen et al. 1984, I have gone off topic, which is mainly aspects of the FFF.
Mr Stokes should realize that, whether or not Hansen et al. were using the electronic analogy with which he has shown himself to be obsessed, control theory is of universal application to all feedback-moderated dynamical systems, from electronic feedback amplifiers to the climate.
It is evident from Hansen’s 1984 paper, and from numerous other papers throughout the literature on climate sensitivity, that it is widely imagined in climatology that there is no feedback response to emission temperature, and, therefore, that by implication the large feedback response to emission temperature is part of the actually minuscule feedback response to reference greenhouse-gas sensitivity.
The sole reason why one of our co-authors first built a circuit to emulate the climate was so that he could test the proposition that feedback necessarily responds not only to the perturbation signal but also to the base signal. It is precisely because of the needlessly confusing formulism presented by Bode that even experienced control engineers do not always realize that this is the case.
In our paper, we present a simplified formulism, with the accompanying system of equation, to make the situation clear. When our work was recently reviewed by a group of control engineers in Australia, their convenor wrote to me and said he had never seen a feedback amplifier so simply or so clearly described.
Those of our co-authors who are control engineers or academic specialists in the field are more than competent to give dispassionate advice untainted by any prejudice.
Dear Lord Monckton, you write “control theory is of universal application to all feedback-moderated dynamical systems”.
By using the term ‘unilateral circuit element’, I meant to convey something that I think important. You dismissed it thus:”Mr Games term unilateral circuit element is void for uncertainty of meaning.” If I remember one of the mediaeval rules of debate, you might have asked what it meant to me. Above I have put that into words: “A unilateral circuit element is the contrary of a reciprocal circuit element. A unilateral circuit element is devoid of internal feedback. A reciprocal circuit element is rich in internal feedback.” I added “In particular, again, radiative transfer obeys the Helmholtz reciprocity principle.” Above, I gave the reason that I referred to these concepts: “control systems theory usually assumes unilateral circuit elements, while the atmosphere-ocean system is devoid of those, because it is entirely dissipative, with much internal reciprocity.” I was trying to indicate a distinction between the theory of control systems and the theory of dissipative systems.
You say that control theory covers “all feedback-moderated dynamical systems.” Now that I have clarified what I see as a distinction between control systems theory and dissipative systems theory, may I ask how that distinction appears in control theory as you define it?
Dear Lord Monckton, you write “feedback necessarily responds not only to the perturbation signal but also to the base signal.”
Yes, indeed, feedback will come from the base signal, and from the perturbation signal. I think the point of Roy’s article is that, in a system that may have substantial non-linearities, things may be expected to look different, depending on the placement of the origin of coordinates for the dynamical variables. The usual procedure is to move the origin of coordinates to the operating point; that is usually assumed in the present context. My reading of your thesis on this topic is that you prefer, instead, to leave the origin of coordinates far from the operating point? Do I read you aright? What would you expect to follow from moving the origin of coordinates to the operating point?
Dear Lord Monckton, you write of “the needlessly confusing formulism presented by Bode”. I agree that Bode’s presentation is not too lucid.
There is a big problem in Bode’s presentation: he thinks about only a voltage-to-voltage amplifier.
Bode was writing in 1945 and he pretty much stuck to the original conception of feedback as discovered by H.S. Black in 1927. Black’s idea assumed a unilateral circuit element as the medium of power gain. That way, Bode was able to present a nice simple picture, scalar in, scalar out, with the gain a dimensionless number. But it slights the other circuit elements, which, in general, may much affect the performance of the amplifier, in particular its input and output impedances, and how the source and load impedances play their parts. As perhaps you found out when “one of our co-authors first built a circuit to emulate the climate”, for practical amplifier design (at least if one wants high accuracy), one needs a 2 x 2 matrix formulation showing both voltage and current, in and out. The simple model described by Black and Bode has simply a scalar gain, as does that of Hansen and Schlesinger, though theirs is not dimensionless.
I refer to Bode’s account only because Hansen and Schlesinger do. The above is one of the reasons I don’t like their account.
“It is evident from Hansens 1984 paper, and from numerous other papers throughout the literature on climate sensitivity, that it is widely imagined in climatology that there is no feedback response to emission temperature, and, therefore, that by implication the large feedback response to emission temperature is part of the actually minuscule feedback response to reference greenhouse-gas sensitivity.”
Nope this is a FALSE PREMISE. There is simply nothing stated along these lines in Hansen, 1984. The paper only calculated sensitivity from modeling and observation of the T rise due to CO2 ADDED to the preindustrial level, or due to a small increase in solar constant.
Whatever ‘feedback response to emission temperature’ there is, is already accounted for in the preindustrial temperature, and doesnt need to be further considered for any additional forcings.
So the entire enterprise Monckton is presenting is built on a strawman. That “there is no feedback response to emission temperature” included in analysis.
Hi Nate. Yes, I am inclined to agree. I will try here to express in other words how Monckton is arguing. I think it worth an effort to do this because he seems to me to have an idiosyncratic terminology, but perhaps it isn’t his invention; I haven’t read enough to be confident of that? Roy doesn’t seem to use Monckton’s terminology, but he doesn’t seem to discuss it. It seems to me that perhaps Roy may not quite have deciphered it? If I may be so bold, I incline to see both of them as terrible mathematicians, because they do not make themselves clear in ways that a mathematician would do.
Monckton’s diagram in green in his WUWT post is his “corrected” version of what he regards as the “incorrect” diagram in red, placed to its left on the page. These diagrams are distinctly different from the thoroughly conventional diagram in Schlesinger 1985 and Schlesinger & Mitchell 1987, but let’s try to follow along as best we can.
The little circles at the top right hand corner of Monckton’s circuits seem to denote a sort of unilateral (no internal feedback) transducer that converts a radiance input to a temperature output.
He then imagines a circuit element, indicated by a square box, that converts the temperature output to a “feedback” radiance, another unilateral (no internal feedback) transducer I suppose one might say.
(By the way, I think an atmospheric no-internal-feedback transducer is an impossible figment of the imagination of a non-physicist. But for the moment, let us pass this without stopping now, and reconsider it later.)
I think Monckton’s transducers have mutually reciprocal dimensionalities, differing in magnitude. Let us say that the little circle’s conversion factors have dimensions K/(Wm^(-2)). The red and the green diagrams have different numerical values, say cred and cgreen. Then the boxes’ conversion factors have dimensions Wm^(-2)/K, with numerical values, say Cred and Cgreen.
Then as I understand him, Monckton says that
cred x Cred = lgred > 1 and
cgreen x Cgreen = lggreen > 1. As I read things, these lg quantities would be ‘loop gains’. In my simple mind, for a loop gain greater than 1, the circuit needs a positive power input, such as might be supplied by a battery for an electronic amplifier, but this is not shown in Monckton’s diagrams. Perhaps one should imagine it?
Both lgred and lggreen signify ‘positive feedback’, because each is greater than 1.
‘Negative feedback’ would be signified by lg lggreen, and still more pointedly that
lgred – 1 >> lggreen – 1,
and that lggreen is right and lgred is wrong.
I will pause at this point, to let you comment on the above. I am quite ready for you to say that I have misunderstood, or for any other comment or correction that you might make? I am just trying to get our terms straight at this stage. If we can reach agreement up to this stage, then perhaps we can make further progress?
PS. I ought to have included that the little circles at the top left hand corner of Monckton’s circuit diagrams seem to denote unilateral additive nodes. The physical possibility of such things I will not comment on here.
Oh, dear, I have somehow scrambled things in the above. Sorry.
Where the above says
Both lgred and lggreen signify positive feedback, because each is greater than 1.
Negative feedback would be signified by lg lggreen, and still more pointedly that
lgred 1 >> lggreen 1,
and that lggreen is right and lgred is wrong.
I intended as follows
Both lgred and lggreen signify positive feedback, because each is greater than 1.
And more pointedly, I read Monckton as saying that
lgred 1 >> lggreen 1,
and that lggreen is right and lgred is wrong.
Negative feedback would be signified by lg < 1. This would not require a 'battery'. It would be like a resistor with Joule heating, the heat being radiated to outer space, again not explicitly shown in the diagrams.
I hope this emendation will be clear.
Christopher, There is nothing wrong with working with perturbations away from energy balance, IMO. I dont see what illness Moncktons model is curing, and until that is explained, in simple logic, I see no need to get into the details.
Hi Nate. You and I think we don’t need to get into details, but in order to persuade others, I suppose we do need to do so.
The great deception in the FFF is to suggest that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is equivalent to adding energy, or injecting energy into, the system. That deception is sneaked in by use of the term “forcing”.
Adding CO2 to the system isn’t adding energy or injecting energy, into the system. Adding CO2 is injecting a catalyst that alters the transducer conversion coefficients c and C. The FFF hides that alteration, which is the only real effect. In FFF terms, there is zero signal perturbation. It is only the conversion coefficients that are changed. The catalyst speeds up the interconversion between radiative and material energy. Usually, a catalyst doesn’t alter the position of an equilibrium: no, it just speeds up the rate of approach to equilibrium.
The choice to try to capture the effects of added CO2 by looking only at its immediate direct effects on OLR (an energy flow) is a convenient trick to guarantee from the outset that the result will be warming. Added CO2 has many immediate direct effects that are not consequences of changes in OLR, and so are not recognised in the FFF. It’s not just for fun that it’s called the ‘forcing and feedback’ formalism. It’s for distracting the audience from the sleight of hand. And it works a treat at that.
There are two bits of news here. Monckton and the warmistas think that the loop gain cC > 1. They disagree on the magnitude of cC. Roy at least recognises that cC < 1 when he says that "a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback." And even Roy still hasn't noticed the trick that takes the added CO2 perturbation to be something added in the signal energy, when in physical reality the added CO2 perturbation is a change in the rate coefficients c and C. When he notices that, he will see that the whole FFF collapses.
Typos above. Sorry. The copy-and-paste didn’t work. Obviously, I meant
lgred – 1 >> lggreen – 1.
Hi again Nate. Because I have messed up above, for the convenience of the reader I will here post a corrected version, this time I hope without typos:
Moncktons diagram in green in his WUWT post is his corrected version of what he regards as the incorrect diagram in red, placed to its left on the page. These diagrams are distinctly different from the thoroughly conventional diagram in Schlesinger 1985 and Schlesinger & Mitchell 1987, but lets try to follow along as best we can.
The little circles at the top right hand corner of Moncktons circuits seem to denote a sort of unilateral (no internal feedback) transducer that converts a radiance input to a temperature output.
He then imagines a circuit element, indicated by a square box, that converts the temperature output to a feedback radiance, another unilateral (no internal feedback) transducer I suppose one might say.
(By the way, I think an atmospheric no-internal-feedback transducer is an impossible figment of the imagination of a non-physicist. But for the moment, let us pass this without stopping now, and reconsider it later.)
I think Moncktons transducers have mutually reciprocal dimensionalities, differing in magnitude. Let us say that the little circles conversion factors have dimensions K/(Wm^(-2)). The red and the green diagrams have different numerical values, say cred and cgreen. Then the boxes conversion factors have dimensions Wm^(-2)/K, with numerical values, say Cred and Cgreen.
Then as I understand him, Monckton says that
cred x Cred = lgred > 1 and
cgreen x Cgreen = lggreen > 1. As I read things, these lg quantities would be loop gains. In my simple mind, for a loop gain greater than 1, the circuit needs a positive power input, such as might be supplied by a battery for an electronic amplifier, but this is not shown in Moncktons diagrams. Perhaps one should imagine it?
Both lgred and lggreen signify positive feedback, because each is greater than 1.
And more pointedly, I read Monckton as saying that
lgred – 1 >> lggreen – 1,
and that lggreen is right and lgred is wrong.
Negative feedback would be signified by lg 1. They disagree on the magnitude of cC. Roy at least recognises that cC < 1 when he says that "a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback." And even Roy still hasn't noticed the trick that takes the added CO2 perturbation to be something added in the signal energy, when in physical reality the added CO2 perturbation is a change in rate coefficients such as c and C. When he notices that, he will see that the whole FFF collapses.
Let's hope I haven't made other mistakes in this version.
Sad to say, there are still big mistakes. Is it something to do with the copy-and-paste, or am I just affected by lack of sleep? Perhaps I will try to fix later.
“The great deception in the FFF is to suggest that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is equivalent to adding energy, or injecting energy into, the system. That deception is sneaked in by use of the term ‘forcing’.”
No one is claiming it is simply adding energy to the system. It is adding insulation to the atmosphere, which is blocking outflow of IR, and causing a NET energy flux imbalance. It is quite similar to having the oven on initially with the door open, then closing it. It will warm to a higher equilibrium T. The physics behind this is absolutely solid.
” Adding CO2 is injecting a catalyst that alters the transducer conversion coefficients c and C. The FFF hides that alteration, which is the only real effect. In FFF terms, there is zero signal perturbation.”
No, I disagree. As noted above, the physics is solid, there is actually a perturbation in W/m^2, resulting from adding insulation.
“It is only the conversion coefficients that are changed. The catalyst speeds up the interconversion between radiative and material energy. Usually, a catalyst doesnt alter the position of an equilibrium: no, it just speeds up the rate of approach to equilibrium.”
This makes no sense to me.
There are also solid reasons to expect feedback to any warming that the added insulation has caused. The ice-albedo effect is absolutely real, and there are measurements of enhanced solar abs*orp*tion in the arctic to back this up.
There are also solid physics reasons to expect water vapor to increase with warming and cause, additional insulation (forcing) under clear skies, that produces additional warming.
Cloud effects are less certain.
Hi Nate. It seems to me that we may actually be having a civil conversation. Not too common on this blog!!
I will try to address your comments, which make sense to me, though I will disagree with a part of them. It’s a miracle that we seem to be able to make sense to each other!!
In feedback questions, it is vital to get straight which are the model’s dependent and independent variables, and which are model parameters. Terminologies can differ, which can lead to miscommunication. We can navigate around such difficulties if we are patient.
It is of critical importance to get this straight in our minds: For a simple model, the gain of an amplifier is a ratio. One term of the ratio is the externally imposed source signal, which is regarded as determined independently of the intestinal workings and power supply of the amplifier. The other term of the ratio is some load quantity, such as say the load current, or the load voltage, or the power absorbed by the load; this is dependent directly on the intestinal workings of the amplifier, and only indirectly on the externally imposed source signal, which is independent.
I agree that “there is actually a perturbation in W/m^2, resulting from adding insulation.”.
I agree that “There are also solid reasons to expect feedback to any warming that the added insulation has caused.”
I agree that “There are also solid physics reasons to expect water vapor to increase with warming and cause, additional insulation (forcing) under clear skies, that produces additional warming,” though I am not happy with the term ‘forcing’ that you wisely write in parentheses.
But I say that these two effects are changes in internal state variables of the model, which are dependent, not in the independent externally imposed source signal.
I can understand you finding no sense in “It is only the conversion coefficients that are changed. The catalyst speeds up the interconversion between radiative and material energy. Usually, a catalyst doesn’t alter the position of an equilibrium: no, it just speeds up the rate of approach to equilibrium.”
Usually, in thermodynamics, the word ‘catalyst’ refers to a chemical reaction. I am using the word in a slightly different and perhaps new way. A chemical reaction is a process of interchange of chemical constituents. I am thinking of an interchange of forms of energy, and extending the meaning of the word ‘catalyst’ for it. Some of the energy in the atmosphere and oceans is as radiation, and some of it is as the motions and excitations of material particles, such as molecules. The radiation energy can be converted into material particle energy, and vice versa. Carbon dioxide is one of the catalysts of such conversion. Water vapour is another. Methane is another. Jointly, such catalysts are called ‘greenhouse gases’; no surprise there.
I will assume that you are happy with “Usually, a catalyst doesn’t alter the position of an equilibrium: no, it just speeds up the rate of approach to equilibrium” ? If not, let’s discuss it further.
The point at issue here for me is ‘what is the externally imposed perturbation?’
I argue that the externally imposed perturbation, as such, is addition of CO2 by emissions from such things as coal-fired power stations. The consequent changes in such things as “outflow of IR, and causing a NET energy flux imbalance” are changes in the dependent internal system state variables; they are not externally imposed variables as such. The effect of adding CO2 as such is the actual target of our interest, not “a NET energy flux imbalance” as such. We don’t actually directly impose a change in IR outflow. In your oven example, the externally imposed perturbation as such is the opening of the oven door, not the resulting air flow.
The FFF in effect in your analogy supposes that the perturbation is like turning on a pair of fans that drive a flow through the oven. Those fans take a continuous supply of energy to operate. Opening the oven door is not like that. You just open the door, and leave it open, and don’t need to supply energy to make the air move; so the air movement is driven directly by the dependent internal workings of the oven, and only indirectly by the opening of the door, which is the independent externally imposed factor, and is like a catalyst, as distinct from an energy flux as such.
Opening the oven door in effect just increases the already present natural leakage rate from the oven, it doesn’t in itself act as driver of a flow. The distinction is crucial to the logic of the story.
Nate
CG
1) The sun can not be both the source of power and an input signal.
2) Too often in these scenarios physical quantities get all jumbled together. If you start with W/m^2 from the sun, then you must carry this through all that occurs. The output is in power and the feedback is in power, and not temperature. You can’t “double” the concentration of CO2, you must use the increase in W/m^2 that a doubling of CO2 causes.
3) CM argues that a world w/o GHG’s establishes the output and gain of the system. In other words, in = out, and a gain of 1. Feedback can not alter the gain of the system directly without additional energy coming from somewhere, i.e., the atmosphere is not on fire.
4) If in = out, and no “extra” energy is available, then the feedback power can only be subtracted from the output. When feedback is added back in, you get the same output as no feedback.
5) What conclusions? A system with feedback using Bode is impossible. There is no extra power in the system to form an amplifier, so it is an inappropriate analogy. In other words, it is a passive system. I visualize it as using nothing but power splitters and power combiners.
6) Lastly, try and visualize N2/O2 as a thermal capacitor being charged by conduction with the surface and with CO2. The charge value is limited by temperature of the surface. The capacitor begins to discharge as the sun passes zenith. That’s why afternoon temps can continue to warm and stay warm. It also keeps Tmin at a higher value.
I haven’t worked all this out but my starting point is thermodynamics with conduction and radiation. Both the land and ocean are thermal storage units, i.e., capacitors. The daytime temps look like a sin wave and nighttime temps look like an exponential decay, i.e., a capacitor.
Best of all energy is conserved in the process but is time shifted which a feedback amplifier does not do!
Christopher,
I agree with some of this.
The concept of forcing is that all the mechanisms produce a radiative imbalance in W/m^2 at the TOA.
An increase in the solar constant (modeled also by Hansen 84) does that. A CO2 rise does that. An albedo change does that. A volcanic aerosol does that. All different mechanisms, but in the end they all produce a forcing in W/m^2. And to first order, the same resulting warming. Obviously a spatially nonuniform forcing will produce a different result than a uniform one.
I agree that an insulation increase is not a direct energy input.
You could make an analogy to a transducer. However some of these forcings are direct energy input while others are indirect, and have various mechanisms, but in principle produce the same result.
“”I will assume that you are happy with ‘Usually, a catalyst doesnt alter the position of an equilibrium: no, it just speeds up the rate of approach to equilibrium ? If not, lets discuss it further.’
Yes, thats what a catalyst does. Not sure that is appropriate here. Since I don’t see an increase in insulation speeding up any return to equilibrium. It produces a disequilibrium. And the time to return to equilibrium is determined by other Earth properties (eg ocean heat capacity).
Jim,
“3) CM argues that a world w/o GHGs establishes the output and gain of the system. In other words, in = out, and a gain of 1. Feedback can not alter the gain of the system directly without additional energy coming from somewhere, i.e., the atmosphere is not on fire.”
Well, the problem I have with that is that the climate sensitivity or feedbacks are not likely to be the same in that ‘climate state’, (an iceball Earth), as they are when Earth surface is mostly liquid water and the atmosphere full of water vapor.
That is why Hansen 84 starts with Earth in 1880 with preindustrial GHG concentrations, which is quite close to the current ‘climate state’ and thus it CAN be used as base state to find the current climate by adding small perturbations to it.
It is useful to describe all possible perturbations, whatever the mechanism, with the same units, and that turns out to be in W/m^2, and is called a forcing. I don’t really see a problem with that.
Forcings in W/m^2 will add/subtract energy to/from the system and result in warming/cooling, due to the First Law of Thermodynamics. The warming results in feedbacks (additional forcing)
I have received an error message. This is a try at a short post.
Nate,
But you missed my point. Ignore conduction, and only look at radiation. W/O GHG’s, in = out, it can’t be anything else. The sun provides all the energy. It is the signal that generates an output.
In this scenario there is also no “power supply” that can be used to obtain additional energy. Any feedback must be directly subtracted from the output. When summed with the input, you simply get the original power output. It’s one reason this analogy is inappropriate. Any thing else violates conservation of energy.
Hi, Jim Gorman. Trying to reply to your valuable post of October 12, 2022 at 11:31 AM. I am getting error messages. Perhaps I have reached a size limit?
Hi, JG. It seems I can post only very short replies. As to your point 1), I agree, but some others may not.
Hi, JG. As to your 2), that is fair and reasonable but depends on the way one defines one’s model. For example, Monckton seems not to accept it, as I read him.
Hi, JG. As to 3): As for CM’s story, no comment. With a reservation, I agree that “Feedback can not alter the gain of the system directly without additional energy coming from somewhere, i.e., the atmosphere is not on fire.” My reservation is that feedback can reduce the gain of a system by dissipating power as heat or somesuch. But, yes, the atmosphere is not on fire !!!
Hi, JG. As to 4): I agree.
As to 5): I agree that “There is no extra power in the system to form an amplifier, so it is an inappropriate analogy. In other words, it is a passive system.” But supporters of the FFF will say ‘Oh, we don’t actually use Bode’s work, we just cite it for the benefit of those whom we deem unlikely to understand the notion of feedback’ or some other such evasion.
Hi, JG. More on 5): As for “I visualize it as using nothing but power splitters and power combiners.” That is fair and reasonable, but some will admit transducers as well, according to their tastes.
The rest of your post is too complicated for me to try to reply to in detail here. But in short, the FFF is a cunning word game or snow job to distort the real situation.
Hi Nate. Short post. “The concept of forcing is that all the mechanisms produce a radiative imbalance in W/m^2 at the TOA.”
Yes, that’s the concept of forcing. The problem is that its use makes the “input” due to CO2 into an internal state variable when the actual CO2 source factor is an externally imposed change. This destroys the logic. It has the effect of making the CO2 signal into an energy flow, which is nonsense.
Hi, Nate. I can post only short posts.
“while others are indirect, and have various mechanisms, but in principle produce the same result.”
The same numerical result, but with a radically different logical status. “in principle produce the same result” is illogical. It airbrushes out the distinction between an externally imposed factor and an internal state variable. A fatal error of logic.
Hi, Nate.
“Since I dont see an increase in insulation speeding up any return to equilibrium.”
CO2 speeds up the interconversion between radiative energy and material energy.
Hi, Nate. Responding to your reply to JG.
“It is useful to describe all possible perturbations, whatever the mechanism, with the same units, and that turns out to be in W/m^2, and is called a forcing. I dont really see a problem with that.”
It is useful to use the same units for some purposes. But it blots out the logical distinction between added CO2 as an independent externally imposed factor and the consequent change in the energy flow which is an internal state variable.
Nate
I need to say that “forcings” can not ADD energy to the system over an interval of time. That would violate the conservation of energy. CO2 may MOVE energy into a storage media, N2/O2, but it can’t do that forever or the earth would go up in smoke. At some point in time that stored energy must be released, and if you download some 2 minute temp data for late afternoon and night you’ll see an exponential decay as the energy dissipates via CO2 and other GHG’s.
The feedbacks shown here do not include any heat storage, just immediate operation. Again, that is not a physical description of what goes on.
Christopher
Thanks for your comments. I have been trying to piece together a better conceptual system for quite some time. It pretty soon dawned on me that the BASIC concept of a two body system, one hot and one cold was the simplest one thermodynamically. From that, came a source (the surface) and an insulator (the atmosphere). It makes more sense to define gradients for the different pieces which is what we did in college.
I’m just an old retired EE that doesn’t have the time to work on everything so I try to simplify as much as possible. To me feedback just doesn’t fit well into the system. The other pet peeve is the use of so much averaging. The sun doesn’t shine based on an average. It varies both in time and latitude using trig functions. Trying to average radiation simply ignores the non-linear T^4 relationship.
Christopher,
“CO2 speeds up the interconversion between radiative energy and material energy.”
I don’t see how you conclude that. As I explained why above, the time of converting the forcing to atmosphere T rise is determined by heat capacities.
” It airbrushes out the distinction between an externally imposed factor and an internal state variable. A fatal error of logic.”
No airbrushing just formulating the problem in a tractable and useful way.
The inputs to the electronics box here must have common units. Those units are W/m^2, ie Forcings. We can then apply feedback factors on the output, Temperature (K), and add these to the input in the same units W/m^2.
Insulation R-value or or CO2 ppm are not useful as inputs.
Is the problem that the forcing arising from CO2 rise comes from modifying the TOA IR output?
It certainly does, but it is possible to calculate, and verify by measurement, the resulting forcing in W/m^2 for a given CO2 rise in ppm.
So I just don’t see a problem here.
Jim,
“I need to say that ‘forcings’ can not ADD energy to the system over an interval of time. That would violate the conservation of energy.”
The forcing units are Watts/m^2. Power per unit area. So certainly that means energy is being added to the system at that rate. Why not?
Adding more GHG, is like adding extra insulation to your attic in the winter.
with the furnace on, less heat escapes thru the attic, and the house will end up a bit warmer (with the same furnace input).
“W/O GHGs, in = out, it cant be anything else. The sun provides all the energy. It is the signal that generates an output.”
I think you missed my point, Jim.
There is no reason to start from a state with NO GHG, to understand what will happen when we add to the existing GHG.
It is easier to start with the Earth in a state close to ours, perturb it a small amount, and see what happens.
It is a given that the sun provides all the energy. Still, the Earth we started with has a balance of solar input and output. Zero net, so it can be ignored, and we can work with perturbations away from balance.
Hi, Nate. ad October 13, 2022 at 3:23 PM.
“No airbrushing just formulating the problem in a tractable and useful way.”
To define a ‘feedback’, we need three elements. (1) The externally imposed factor. (2) The eventually assessed response. (3) An internal factor to mediate the feedback.
(1) by definition must be externally imposed, independent of the internal state, and can also be called a ‘signal source’. The OLR change is internally generated. It is an internal variable; it is not a signal source; it is an internal response. It is this that is airbrushed out by treating the ‘forcing’ as if it were a source signal.
Amplifier gain is load quantity / source quantity, aka (2)/(1) The load is the thermometer. The load quantity is the surface temperature. The unit of gain is K/[CO2], temperature increment per CO2 increment. The so-called “amplifier” is really a transducer.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that your objections to the forcing/feedback concept are rather formal, philosophical, rather than having any practical significance.
In science, ideas that arent useful tend to die a natural death. They don’t get used, or they get replaced when others find a better way.
The forcing/feedback concept apparently has turned out to be useful and continues to be used. AFAIK no one has found a better alternative.
“To define a feedback, we need three elements. (1) The externally imposed factor. (2) The eventually assessed response. (3) An internal factor to mediate the feedback.”
Ok fine. Currently what is done is step (1) and (2) are combined to find the input in W/m^2. Same for all other forcings, like Methane, Ozone, So2 in the stratosphere, solar cycle. All are put on an equal footing and described in terms of their radiative forcing.
Hi, Nate. Continuing ad October 13, 2022 at 3:43 PM.
The FFF takes the change in OLR as the ‘forcing’. That doesn’t include all the effects of added CO2, which is the true signal source. Hansen et al. 1984 write: “Feedbacks modify the response time since they come into play only gradually as the warming occurs, the initial flux of heat into the ocean being independent of feedbacks.” The “initial flux into the ocean” is a distinct and other response to the source signal; it is utterly ignored by the FFF when it treats the OLR ‘forcing’ as ‘the input’. These distinctions are essential to the logic.
Hi, Nate. ad 5:01PM.
“Currently what is done is step (1) and (2) are combined to find the input in W/m^2.”
Exactly. That fails to make the distinction between source signal and internally generated response. A fatal logical error.
Well, not quite exactly. (2) in my statement is the output temperature, the eventually assessed response, that is sampled by the feedback network.
Hi, Nate. ad 4:51 PM.
For high performance electronic device design, these distinctions are practical necessities, not mere philosophical quibbles. That there isn’t a better way isn’t a reason to airbrush out the problem. If we don’t recognise the problem, we won’t think about solving it.
We are doing science here. “Nature cannot be fooled.”
Hi, JG. ad 2:16 PM.
“To me feedback just doesnt fit well into the system.”
The AOGCMs don’t explicitly use the concept of feedback.
But the notion of feedback has its uses in simplified or ‘back-of-an-envelope’ models, and for pedagogy.
The are various ways of describing feedback. Some people around here seem to think that H.S. Black’s 1927 way, more or less as Bode renders it, is the one and only way. There are other much more powerful and flexible ways, for example in the general theory of dynamical systems. My beef here is that the FFF is pretty much the Bode way, and is inadequate, and gravely misleading. Bode’s way was ok in 1945 when he was writing, but amplifier design has progressed since then. And, more to the point here, the scope of feedback thinking has broadened.
Hi, Nate. ad October 13, 2022 at 3:43 PM.
“CO2 speeds up the interconversion between radiative energy and material energy.”
The total energy of the atmosphere may be analyzed into two components, (1) the radiative energy, and (2) the material energy.
A little clarification is in order for (2). The main usual account of the internal energy of a body of matter is in terms of its particles that have rest energy, such as atoms (e.g. argon) and molecules (e.g. nitrogen, oxygen, water). In a gas, such particles have motion, with velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy. They also have gravitational potential energy, which is a component of their total energy, but, strictly speaking in thermodynamically defined terms, not of their internal energy. In a liquid (e.g. rain drops) and in a solid (e.g. snowflakes), the molecules also have intermolecular forces which are responsible for intermolecular potential energy, contributing to the internal energy.
As to (1), infrared radiation enters the atmosphere from the condensed matter of the earths surface. Quickly, most of that radiation is absorbed by excitation of water and CO2 molecules. Quickly, by inelastic collisions, those molecules pass most of that excitation energy to nitrogen and oxygen molecules’ kinetic energy. That is conversion from radiative to material energy.
Occasionally, two gas molecules will collide inelastically so as to excite one of them; that excited molecule will quickly shed its excitation energy as radiation. That is conversion from material energy to radiative energy within the atmosphere. Some of that radiative energy travels only within the atmosphere, and some of it leaves the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases catalyse interconversion between atmospheric infrared radiation and molecular kinetic energy. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Christopher,
“That there isnt a better way isnt a reason to airbrush out the problem. If we dont recognise the problem, we wont think about solving it.”
You havent made a convincing case that there is any ‘airbrushing’ going on here, or that there is a real problem here.
All is done out in the open. The Forcing efficacy for CO2, Methane, O3, H20, has to be calculated with optics and atmospheric physics. See Modtran, you can try this yourself.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot
The point is that all the various GHG and aerosols have different efficacy at producing a forcing. So 1 ppm of CO2, Methane, H2O all have different GHE strengths.
We need to calculate their effect in common units, and that is W/m^2. This is a required step in the process.
Once that step is done one can then treat these forcings as inputs, on an equal footing.
Maybe you could respond to my post above about the continued usefulness of the forcing/feedback approach in climate science?
Hi, Nate. Continuing.
Christopher: CO2 speeds up the interconversion between radiative energy and material energy.
Nate, October 12, 2022 at 4:58 PM: “Yes, that’s what a catalyst does. Not sure that is appropriate here. Since I dont see an increase in insulation speeding up any return to equilibrium. It produces a disequilibrium.”
I agree that CO2 does not tend to produce a normal full equilibrium. It tends to produce only a special kind of equilibrium, as follows.
The kind of equilibrium towards which CO2 catalyses is called ‘local thermodynamic equilibrium’ (LTE). Local thermodynamic equilibrium is quite distinct from global thermodynamic equilibrium. LTE does not have to be spatially uniform, and it can occur when there is substantial local air movement such as in a wind. Ordinary thermodynamics presupposes global thermodynamic equilibrium within each system; it is spatially uniform within the system, and there is no local wind within the system; the system is allowed to move as a whole body.
Local thermodynamic equilibrium means that, in a small local parcel of atmosphere, there is a definite temperature, and that the molecules obey the Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, and the source function for the radiation is the Planck distribution. It means that all properly calibrated thermometers read the same temperature.
LTE prevails in most of the atmosphere. This is because intermolecular collisions are relatively frequent, and they maintain the Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. It prevails practically up to 70 km altitude, except in the path of a bolt of lightning.
Greenhouse gases serve to deal with incident and emitted radiation from a parcel of air. The greenhouse gas molecules bring the radiative energy and other gas molecules towards Maxwell-Boltzmann-Planck equilibrium statistics.
Above 100 km altitude, LTE is substantially departed from. There are two main factors that cause this. One, the air is so rarefied that intermolecular collisions are relatively rare. The molecules just fly past each other without colliding. The molecules do not obey the Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. Sound does not propagate in the ordinary way. The radiative source function is not the Planck distribution. The gases are then said to be in the Knudsen gas regime. In this situation, the measured temperature depends on exactly what kind of thermometer one is using; properly calibrated thermometers of different kinds return respectively different temperature readings from one and the same place. The next factor is that sunlight causes chemical reactions such as ozone formation, and this is fast enough to keep the gases substantially out of chemical equilibrium, again because intermolecular collisions are rare.
Christopher,
Getting into lots of details here, but not sure where this is leading? What is the takeaway?
I think you need to return from looking at the trees back to looking at the forest.
Hi, Nate. ad October 14, 2022 at 4:58 am.
“You haven’t made a convincing case that there is any airbrushing going on here, or that there is a real problem here.”
Thank you for your post. It’s good that we can talk this over.
Perhaps this may help. The source signal is the cause of all changes in our scenario.
The forcing that is considered by the FFF is a change in OLR, directly and immediately caused by the added CO2.
But, as Hansen et al. 1984 remark, added CO2 also immediately and directly causes other changes entirely independent of the changes in OLR; in particular, it immediately and directly causes substantially increased back radiation, which is not taken into account by the FFF calculation of feedback because it is not caused by the FFF forcing, which is entirely specified by the change in OLR.
So the distinction, between (a) the independently imposed source signal, and (b) the FFF forcing, is substantial and physical. The true gain has the whole source signal as denominator. Neglecting the distinction between the source signal and the forcing entails that the FFF will, in general, return a wrong answer, because it uses the wrong denominator, because it takes into account only one of the several immediate and direct effects of the source signal, the added CO2.
You mention different greenhouse gas additions. Each gas has its own distinct ‘ECS’. The usual ECS is that to added CO2.
There is a remedy for this, but I will not try to fit it into this post. I am in favour of the remedy.
“Exactly. That fails to make the distinction between source signal and internally generated response. A fatal logical error.”
You keep asserting that this is ‘a fatal logical error’.
Im sorry but I just havent seen any convincing evidence from you either that there is a logical error here, or that it is fatal.
And if it were a fatal error, then surely by now it would have failed to thrive as such a useful concept in climate science, and somebody would have found a better alternative.
Hi, Nate. Responding to October 13, 2022 at 4:51 PM.
“The forcing/feedback concept apparently has turned out to be useful and continues to be used.”
Well, I am challenging its correctness and its accuracy. I have tried to get Roy and Monckton to understand this, but I think neither of them really has an adequate understanding of my reasons.
Nick Stokes has in this blog page distanced himself a bit from the FFF, saying “But a few years later, the transient effects were directly calculated by GCM. That is just one reason why the papers of Hansen and Schlesinger represented something of a dead end.” Nick is not saying that the FFF is wrong, but he is also not championing it very vigorously.
In my just previous post of 6:42 AM, I give a reason why the FFF is actually wrong in principle.
I am happy with the concept of feedback. It’s that I think it is not properly exercised in the FFF. There are better ways to exercise it.
I don’t object to the term ‘forcing’ when it is used within its proper scope of applicability. But I think it is most often used beyond its scope of applicability; that’s why I jack up about it. And it is essential to the FFF.
Hi, Nate. Responding to October 14, 2022 at 6:36 AM.
The takeaway is that the move from FFF back to AOGCM was made with good reason. The FFF needs to be radically revised or replaced.
I am looking at the trees to make sure that we are looking at the right kind of forest. Should we be lumbering in a pine forest, in an oak forest, in a Huon pine forest (the best for boatbuilding, but now sadly practically extinct), or in a eucalypt forest?
I am ready to propose a replacement for the FFF, but that isn’t quite yet called for at this moment at this place.
Hi, Nate. Responding to your post of October 14, 2022 at 6:49 AM.
I think my recent posts have presented about as good a case as I can muster in answer to your post. Perhaps we can think it over a bit?
You write: “surely by now it would have failed to thrive as such a useful concept in climate science.” Hmm. Yes, it has been used a lot. I don’t think that is enough to plaster over its faults. I think it needs replacing.
“added CO2 also immediately and directly causes other changes entirely independent of the changes in OLR; in particular, it immediately and directly causes substantially increased back radiation, which is not taken into account by the FFF calculation of feedback because it is not caused by the FFF forcing, which is entirely specified by the change in OLR.”
I think what you are getting at here is the direct warming that occurs at the surface as result of the OLR change at the TOA is not simple to calculate. The simple approximation is that dT/T =(1/4)*dF/F, is not really accurate for the dT at the surface. It assumes a constant lapse rate, and is some sort of average of dT at the surface and dT of the atmosphere, after reaching equilibrium.
That is really where climate models, especially GCM models are needed, coupled with observations.
That is really what happens inside of the electronics black box to determine the output delta T at the surface, and in the atmosphere.
The Earth is more complex than the cartoon GHE.
“In my just previous post of 6:42 AM, I give a reason why the FFF is actually wrong in principle.”
I think you are referring to this:
“But, as Hansen et al. 1984 remark, added CO2 also immediately and directly causes other changes entirely independent of the changes in OLR; in particular, it immediately and directly causes substantially increased back radiation, which is not taken into account by the FFF calculation of feedback because it is not caused by the FFF forcing, which is entirely specified by the change in OLR.”
Hmmm.
Again, you can play around with Modtran. You can increase CO2 concentration. You will see that it produces a decrease in OLR Flux, which they call Upward diffuse @ 100 Km. It also produces a smaller increase in surface back radiation, what they call Downward Diffuse 0 Km.
And the problem with this is what?
This is part and parcel of the process of warming the surface and the atmosphere that ultimately must continue until the OLR at the TOA is restored to its original value.
So in the end the OLR change is the signal that matters.
Hi, Nate. ad October 14,2022 at 7:30 AM.
“I think what you are getting at here is the direct warming that occurs at the surface as result of the OLR change at the TOA is not simple to calculate.”
No, that’s not what I am getting at. What I am getting at is what Hansen et al. 1984 say is not a result of the OLR change. The increase in back radiation in question is a direct and immediate consequence of the added CO2. There may be other changes to back radiation that are a result of the OLR change, but they are not what I am getting at.
“That is really what happens inside of the electronics black box to determine the output delta T at the surface, and in the atmosphere.”
No, the change in the back radiation in question is not the result of what happens inside the black box. It’s a direct and immediate result of the change in the source signal. It is as if the black box has two input ports, A and B. The FFF considers the effects of input to the port A that leads directly to increase in OLR, but it ignores the input to the other input port B. So the FFF does not provide an account of the eventual effect of port B on the output where the feedback is sampled from. That is what I mean by saying that the denominator is wrong. It’s not just that the magnitude of the denominator is wrong. It’s that the dimensions of the denominator are wrong. The denominator has the dimensions of change in atmospheric CO2, not the dimensions of a flux density.
“The Earth is more complex than the cartoon GHE.” Now you’re talking, if by ‘cartoon’ you mean ‘FFF’.
Hi, Nate. Thank you for your post of October 14, 2022 at 7:54 AM.
“And the problem with this is what?”
The problem with it is that the FFF recognizes the decrease in OLR flux as a ‘forcing’, aka an ‘input’, a candidate for the denominator of the ‘gain’, but that does account for all of the effect of the source signal, which must include also the increase in surface back radiation, what they call Downward Diffuse 0 km, which is not admitted by the FFF as part of the ‘input’ aka ‘forcing’.
“This is part and parcel of the process of warming the surface and the atmosphere”
I agree that it is part of the process of warming the surface, but I don’t agree with saying it is ‘parcel’. I insist that it is a distinct part, and belongs to a different parcel, namely that it comes from input to port B, ignored by the FFF.
“So in the end the OLR change is the signal that matters.”
No. The signal source is the added CO2, and the output that is eventually assessed is the surface temperature change. The OLR change that is recognized by the FFF is only one part of the effects of the source signal. The other part of the effects of the source signal is ignored by the FFF. This affects the denominator of the ‘gain’ aka the ECS.
Christopher,
“I insist that it is a distinct part, and belongs to a different parcel, namely that it comes from input to port B, ignored by the FFF.”
Hmm, interesting.
The CO2 rise produces an increase in the overall insulation effect of the atmosphere. That results in a reduction in the OLR. It has been described by Hansen and others, in over-simplified way, as an increase the height of the highest radiating level, the average level at which the radiation leaving the atmosphere is coming from.
When that level rises, assuming the lapse rate remains constant at first, the radiation to space is from a colder level in the atmosphere, and thus is reduced (by SB law). So the OLR drops initially. With that drop in OLR there is now an imbalance. The imbalance as an input of energy to the system.
To me, that input of energy to the system can arrive at the surface (by DWIR) or at other levels in the atmosphere by extra abs*orp*tion, and as the surface warms, there is greater radiation and convection from it into the atmosphere (and thru the IR window all the way to the TOA, leading ultimately to increase in T from the surface all the way to the TOA. At that point, the top radiating level is now warmed and the OLR is restored to its original value. All of the warming that has occurred has acted to restore the balance at the TOA.
In my view this is all inside the black box, part of conversion of the energy imbalance to a warmer surface and atmosphere.
Perhaps you can view as a catalyst facilitating the ultimate T rise, IDK.
Hi, Nate. ad October 14, 2022 at 1:01 PM
“I insist that it is a distinct part, and belongs to a different parcel, namely that it comes from input to port B, ignored by the FFF.
Hmm, interesting.”
Can I put it like this:
I have proposed that your black box has two separate and distinct input ports, A and B.
Port A immediately and directly drives a virtual change in OLR. That virtual change is explicitly defined as the entire concern of the FFF. It leads to a virtual change the surface temperature, which leads to feedback in the FFF. Those changes combine to produce the eventual output as recognized the FFF, the actual eventual change in surface temperature as recognized by the FFF, which is a planetary energy balance model (PEBM) as considered by Schlesinger 1985.
Port B immediately and directly drives a virtual change in back radiation. It is entirely ignored and denied by the FFF. But physically it still contributes to the eventual output, the actual eventual change in surface temperature. Port B is the sole concern of the surface energy balance models (SEBMs) considered by Schlesinger 1985.
The FFF does not have the conceptual or logical apparatus to combine the effects of Ports A and B. It therefore cannot support a valid calculation of the true ECS.
This is because the source signal for the true ECS is the added CO2, which actually drives both A and B (and quite possibly other effects, say C, D, … which for the moment we can ignore). The true ECS is defined by the combined effects of the true signal source, the added CO2. The logical structure of the FFF cannot accommodate this.
My opinion is that an SEBM cannot be expected to give a valid calculation for the ECS. But the FFF’s ignoring of signal source B disqualifies it too.
Christopher,
The point is that these papers like Hansen 84, are actually modeling the whole atmosphere, its vertical structure, and energy transfer within it.
For example it states:
“The global mean heat flux into the planetary
surface and surface air temperature are shown in
Fig. 3 for the So and CO2 experiments. The heat
flux peaks at -3 w m-2 for both experiments; the
radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere
is essentially the same as this flux into the planetary
surface, since the heat capacity of the
atmosphere is small.”
This is the point, the extra CO2 abso*orp*tion is throughout the atmosphere. Even in the IR window, this is happening near the surface. But this results in an imbalance at the TOA which is the ONLY entry point for added energy. That energy makes its way to the surface, and most of it has to enter the ocean.
But as the simulation shows the flux at TOA essentially matches the flux into the surface, because the atmosphere, with little heat capacity, is mostly a conduit.
Hi, Nate. ad October 15, 2022 at 2:39 PM
“The point is that these papers like Hansen 84, are actually modeling the whole atmosphere, its vertical structure, and energy transfer within it.”
Yes, that’s what the Hansen et al. 1984 paper is doing. I agree with that.
My present concern, however, is with a narrow and specific question: ‘Does the FFF accurately account for that whole atmosphere process?’
My answer to that question, narrowly and specifically about the FFF, is ‘No’.
Hi, Nate.
I ought to have been more precise.
When I wrote “My present concern, however, is with a narrow and specific question: Does the FFF accurately account for that whole atmosphere process?”, I ought to have written ‘My present concern, however, is with a narrow and specific question: As a means of calculating the ECS, does the FFF accurately account for that whole atmosphere process?’
Hi, Nate. I am getting messages that I am posting too fast.
I ought to have been more precise.
When I wrote “My present concern, however, is with a narrow and specific question: Does the FFF accurately account for that whole atmosphere process?”, I ought to have written ‘My present concern, however, is with a narrow and specific question: As a means of calculating the ECS, does the FFF accurately account for that whole atmosphere process?’
“As a means of calculating the ECS, does the FFF accurately account for that whole atmosphere process?”
Are you demanding too much from it? The whole atmospheric process, and ECS, are only found from from modeling, as in Hansen 84, and better still from GCMs.
Hi, Nate. ad October 16, 2022 at 6:07 AM. Thank you for your response.
“Are you demanding too much from it?”
Well, as I read Hansen et al. 1984, and Schlesinger 1985, and many widely read subsequent papers, the FFF is advertised as a means to calculate the ECS, or at least as sketching, or showing the basic structure of, such a calculation, perhaps only for pedagogy. The burden of my posts here is that I think it can’t live up to that advertisement.
“The whole atmospheric process, and ECS, are only found from from modeling, as in Hansen 84, and better still from GCMs.” That is beyond the remit of my posts, which concern only the FFF.
Hi, Nate. Further ad your response of October 16, 2022 at 6:07 AM.
You ask about the FFF “Are you demanding too much from it?
I now reply by saying that I think your question is a good one. In other words, I think it is indeed too much to expect, that such a simple scheme as the FFF could do the job: a more complex scheme is necessary. For what is needed, you suggest something such as “modeling, as in Hansen 84, [or] better still [something such as] GCMs”. A fair suggestion, but both are very big steps up in complexity.
I ask, ‘can we come up with a model a smaller step up from the FFF that might do the job? How much more complex a scheme is necessary?’
Monckton at times talks about ‘dynamical systems theory’, which, according to me, is not quite the same thing as the ‘control systems theory’ of his anonymous experts. Monckton doesn’t actually deliver the goods on his talk about dynamical systems theory, but, instead, apparently imperceptive of its fundamental inadequacy, he persists with the FFF.
I think orthodox dynamical systems theory is a fair candidate for smaller steps up from the FFF. I think that orthodox dynamical systems models quite likely still won’t do all that we want, but I think they might perhaps be able to make a helpful contribution towards clearer understanding.
There are countless ways to go with dynamical systems models, and they might be worth trying. I would think of empirical, data driven models (as distinct from fundamentally physically a priori deduced models). Quite likely they still wouldn’t work, but still they might be worth a try.
“think it is indeed too much to expect, that such a simple scheme as the FFF could do the job: a more complex scheme is necessary. For what is needed, you suggest something such as ‘modeling, as in Hansen 84, [or] better still [something such as] GCMs”
To do modeling, as Hansen does, is not an alternative to FFF. Hansen is clearly doing both. He is using the modeling to find the feedbacks in the FFF scheme. No need to abandon FFF.
Hi, Nate. ad October 17, 2022 at 6:50 PM
“To do modeling, as Hansen does, is not an alternative to FFF. Hansen is clearly doing both. He is using the modeling to find the feedbacks in the FFF scheme. No need to abandon FFF.”
As I see it, perhaps Hansen’s modeling is right, and delivers right answers. But feeding them into a conceptually and logically wrong scheme such as the FFF would turn gold into lead.
“would turn gold into lead.”
Thats a bit hyperbolic.
As you say, the modeling approach is good. If modeling results are good, then it is difficult to see how putting them into this framework changes them into bad results.
The framework, again, simply makes clear that if the SYSTEM has warmed it must be as a result of new energy input. This is a FACT.
And the only entry point for new energy is at the TOA. This is a FACT. Furthermore, there ARE real feedbacks in the system that need to be understood.
The main challenge is get the modeling right with respect to things like cloud feedbacks.
Hi, Nate. ad October 18, 2022 at 6:00 AM.
Thank you for your comment. I guess we have gone about as far as we can along this path. Cheers.
Drax Is Burning Virgin Forest
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/04/drax-is-burning-virgin-forest/
So, burning stuff to make CO2 and water vapor, but doesn’t make the world hotter, but getting rid of virgin forests could make it a little bit hotter in region. Or making desert makes it hotter, and making a desert into virgin forest makes it warmer [not hotter].
But we live on world with 70% ocean surface. Having 70% of surface ocean, makes Earth warmer, not hotter.
Ocean warms, land cools. But land can be hotter. It heats up and cool down, faster.
Land regions heat up faster, oceans in a 24 hour period change air temperature by less than 1 C. Deserts can swing by 30 C or more.
Deserts are the hottest, but also can cold at night.
What prevents land from getting colder at night, is the average air temperature. The global average air temperature is controlled by 70% of surface of Earth which is ocean.
What also controls global air temperature is 40% of ocean at and near
the tropical ocean. So warm water which is 40% of Earth surface absorbs more than 1/2 of sunlight reaching the Earth surface.
Or 60% of the Earth surface gets less than 1/2 of sunlight reaching the surface.
So 60% of ocean surface is colder as receives less sunlight, but it is warmer than the land in that 60% of the world.
Or average Ocean surface is about 17 C and average land is about 10 C. But the 60 percent ocean surface is about 11 C.
Europe is warmed by the ocean [Gulf Stream] by about 10 C.
The warming of Europe by the gulf stream is why European wondered
why they were warmer, than they “should be”. They are warmer because the ocean. But all land area is warmer because of the ocean- one could say Europe is warmed 10 C warmer than other land area.
Or without the Gulf Stream, the ocean would warm Europe, with Gulf Stream it warms it by at 10 C.
And then the tropical ocean [is a ocean] and warming the atmosphere with warms Europe and warms Antarctica and Greenland or the entire world. So, Europe gets a lot global warming from the oceans.
And if Ocean was 4 C rather than 3.5 C, Europe get a lot more global warming from the ocean [which is still quite cold]. But also the rest of land regions, such as Canada or China or Russia get more warming from the Ocean.
But more important is 4 C ocean causes more global water vapor.
One thing is perfectly clear, Lord Monckton’s slef believe of infallibility is not perturbed by any amount of feedback.
The furtively anonymous “Mark M” is as ignorant as he is discourteous. The control-theoretic considerations in our result are supplied and curated by several senior and more than competent control theorists and climatologists, who are co-authors in our paper.
One realizes that our result, simple and compelling though it is, strikes fear and thus hatred into the hearts of those who, like “Mark M”, adhere to the Party Line on the climate.
If “Mark M” is incapable of producing any arguments other than mere yah-boo, he should go back to his kindergarten sandpit and shriek at his teacher.
M,
Senior and more than competent “climatologists”? You jest, surely!
Climate is the average of historical weather observations – most which are quite pointless.
Piss-poor appeal to authority. What is “more than competent”, anyway? Are you implying that some “senior climatologists” are barely competent, or maybe even completely incompetent.
Maybe you could name some “senior climatologists” who are less than competent, and tell everybody why you hold that view – and why anyone should value your opinion.
Your “paper”, like many others, will no doubt be completely unsupported by reproducible experiment. As 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.”
I’ll wait for papers which relate to science, rather than unsupported assertions.
In the meantime, carry on with your silly attempts at standover thuggery, and appeals to your own authority. Nature will win in the end.
If you think I can be offended, insulted, or annoyed, give it your best shot. I generally decline to let words upset me, and I can’t think of a single reason to make an exception for you.
Carry on.
In response to the venomous “Swenson”, such assertions as are made in the head posting are not “unsupported”. Try reading it. If you disagree with any particular point in the head posting, then try to make a scientific response to that point rather than indulging in mere futile yah-boo. There are some very senior figures watching this thread, and your conduct, among that of others who support the Party Line, has attracted no little interest for its absence of credible – or any – scientific content.
My Lord provides more evidence that my claim is correct.
It is sad to think of a man of such immense intellect, wealth, fame, and accomplishment rabidly typing insults on an obscure comment board for hours on end.
Think of the lost opportunity cost the world is incurring while our Lord is not focusing his enormous brain on the great problems facing our society.
Or maybe he pays ill-tempered pre-teens to do it for him while he is busy agreeing with himself.
> Or maybe he pays ill-tempered pre-teens to do it for him while he is busy agreeing with himself.
That might explain this enigma:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/03/why-it-matters-that-climatologists-forgot-the-sun-was-shining/#comment-3613507
At least one of these six workers’ job is secure.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
“Willard” is sticking his long, Communist nose into a business that is well beyond his meagre capabilities. More importantly, he is not only wrong but off topic.
Perhaps Roy will do what Anthony Watts does, and ban personal attacks on named contributors by those who cower poltroonishly behind furtive anonymity.
If he was old and wise, Christopher would realize that he should not tell porkies about public information.
Alas Christopher is unwise.
No scientific point from “Willard”, who remains off topic.
Scientists publish their results, post their code, and name their co-authors, Christopherino.
You just parade in contrarian outlets and lord comment sections.
Or at least you try.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“several senior and more than competent control theorists and climatologists, who are co-authors in our paper”
They seem to be even more furtively anonymous than Mark M. Certainly we never hear from them. I think they would be embarrassed to put their names to this nonsense.
Nick Stokes, please stop trolling.
As usual, Mr Stokes is merely petty, and has no scientific point to make. Nothing he says is worthy of consideration. He is wasting his time here. He has tried and failed on many occasions to derail us, but here we still are, and he is showing himself more and more clearly to be as ignorant as he is malevolent.
Oh, Christopher.
Nick merely emphasizes your hypocrisy.
Quite a trivial task, I admit. But sometimes it needs to be said.
No scientific point from “Willard”, just spite.
Whining about pseudonyms is not exactly scientific, marvellous martlet.
Please stop.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~px160~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
the given stats system. https://fixjob11.blogspot.com
Moderators, pl;ease report the posting by “Gloria” to the police as fraudulent span in the usual way.
What moderators? This is the last bastion of the first amendment. This is the Wild West. Think Deadwood.
Not Deadwood, Troglodyte.
Westwood.
There is nothing real here. The best contrarian honey trap.
Thanks, Roy.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
Gloria needs your attention, Mike or Graham.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Please stop trying to imitate me.
DREMT Impersonator, please stop trolling.
Mike, Graham,
Gloria is waiting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
M,
“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” – Churchill.
Not entirely appropriate, but if people want to believe Gloria, let them.
If people want to believe you, let them.
Or if people want to believe me, what’s wrong with that? Particularly if facts support my views?
No GHE. Neither you nor anybody else can describe this mythical creature, in any way which agrees with observed facts, and theories supported by rigorous experiment.
“Swenson” should get someone to read the head posting to him. He will notice that the relevant values for 1850 are given. Equilibrium temperature in that year was 287.5 K or thereby. Emission temperature, which would have obtained in the absence of any greenhouse gases, was 259.6 K. What is the 27.9 K difference, if it is not the natural greenhouse effect?
LORD MONCKTON
You are SADLY MISTAKEN is assuming that the surface temperature of Earth is determined primary by radiation in and out of that surface.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI
Dug,
The surface temperature is determined by measuring it, or would be if anybody actually measured the temperature of the surface, which nobody does.
Presumably you are referring to the same fantasy “surface temperature” as others do?
In any case, the Earth has cooled from its initial molten state to its present reasonable temperature, which of course means that energy has been lost to a cooler environment.
Obviously, you don’t like the concept of hot things cooling all by themselves.
Have you conducted any reproducible experiments to support your strange speculation?
The persistently ignorant and ignorantly persistant “Cot’n” has failed to grasp what has been repeatedly explained to him: that for the sake of argument we accept all of official climatology except what we can prove to be false. He is entitled to his own nonsensical, anti-scientific opinions. It’s a free country. But he is off topic here. We are talking about the inconsistency between control theory and the erroneous manner in which climatologists apply it.
If “Cot’n” wishes to convert anyone to his religion, then let him approach official climatology. He is wasting his time here, because he is entirely off topic.
Monckton of Brenchley
You need to understand what is in my two comments starting here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1375781
CM…we do it differently, we don’t feed the trolls.
C’mon, Gordo.
Sometimes you get a response, sometimes you don’t.
Think.
Who’s “we”?
Governments are always the last bad actor.
Troglodytes say the darnedest things:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/no-climatologists-did-not-forget-the-sun-was-shining/#comment-1374883
Perhaps you should have a word with monetarists who entertained strange beliefs regarding austerity.
Willard bathes in a sea of irrelevant obscurity.
A sample – “Troglodytes say the darnedest things:”
Wait till you reach “monetarists,” Mike.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
Gloria needs your attention, Mike or Graham.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
Swenson,
Please stop trying to imitate me. This is irritating.
DREMT Impersonator, please stop trolling.
Graham, please ask Mike Flynn’s impersonator to stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Perhaps you should understand the difference between government and free markets……Chihuahua.
Perhaps you should tell Kennui that you are fine with trashing Western economies and traditions as long as Freedom Fighters do it, Troglodyte.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
In response to the climate-Communist “Willard”, the tough medicine of the early Thatcher years was very successful in restoring stability to the economy, reducing the national debt, increasing resources for the National Health and other public services and increasing prosperity throughout the economic system.
She successfully withstood a Communist-led miners’ strike, and it was that success that led the Communists to capture the environmental movement and eventually to adopt and promote the global-warming nonsense, greatly to the detriment of the hated West.
Christopher does not waste time trying to understand the point to which he responds.
Kennui was deploring that the policies of his favorite scapegoat would destroy Western economies.
Yet by historical fact the man of the hour favours reactionary decisions that did exactly that.
Perhaps he should stop whining and start reading harder.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
CO2 is 410 parts per million, or basically 1 out of every 2,500 molecules. CO2 thermalizes 15 microns LWIR. 15 microns thermalized has the energy of a -80 C black body. Does anyone honestly think that vibrating 1 out of every 2,500 molecules with the energy of something -80 C can materially impact the thermal energy of the other 2,499? That is the CO2-driven Global Warming Theory in a nutshell. Basically, it is a complete joke.
It’s Dark Matter.
CO2islife should read the head posting. There he will discover that in 1850 the equilibrium surface temperature was 287.5 K, while the emission temperature, that would have obtained in the absence of any greenhouse gases, is 259.6 K. The 27.9 K difference is the natural greenhouse effect. Therefore, it is impermissible to seek to maintain that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. It is small, and is far less influential on temperature than official climatology (misled by its control-theoretic error) imagines, but it is real.
Monckton of Brenchley, you must have misunderstood the point I was making. No one denied the GHG effect, or that the atmosphere holds heat energy. Yes, the atmosphere holds and transfers energy through Conduction, Convection and Radiation. Yes, without an atmosphere earth would be colder. My point was specifically directed at CO2 being the cause of the warming. H2O thermalizes the vast majority of IR emitted by the earth. No one denies that CO2 thermalizes a very very narrow band of LWIR at 15 microns. Take an IR Meter and point it at dry ice and it will show 15 microns and -70 to -80 C. Wavelengths are associated with temperature, and 15 microns is associated with -80 C. CO2 isn’t warming anything, H2O is. That is my point, the quantum mechanics simply don’t support the claim that CO2 is the cause. H2O can be 4 parts per hundred and absorbs wavelengths above 18 C or 10 microns, H2O is a great atmospheric insulator, CO2 isn’t. ALso, 15 microns won’t penetrate or warm water. The oceans are warming. What warms the oceans? Warming visible radiation. Has more visible radiation been reaching the oceans? Yes, look up the data on cloud cover over the oceans. Explain the warming oceans and you explain the warming temperatures, and it has nothing to do with CO2, nothing, nada, zip. I love your work, so don’t think I was disagreeing with you. I’m just pointing out the basics of the quantum mechanics of CO2 and 15 micron LWIR.
I think the uncertainty in any calculation or computer simulation model is greater than the published result. It could go either way, although the climate system is most likely more stable to human influence than sensitive. The effect of ENSO on the short term is very noticeable. Do we really understand the combined effect of the world’s ocean current cycles, and how does the current science explain the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age?
Tim,
ENSO is just a pattern of observations. Affects nothing – just recorded figures.
Weather, and hence climate, its average, is unpredictable in any useful sense.
If it looks like its going to rain, take an umbrella. If you are sufficiently concerned about the possible effects of an observed tropical storm 100 km distant, run away. Don’t depend on the best and the brightest (backed up by the finest supercomputers) to be able to peer into the future better than you can.
It’s your life.
Roy, do you agree with Christopher’s recent observation that :
The Mandelbrot set is at once the simplest and the most complex of all chaotic objects… which is why contrary to what is generally reported in the Marxstream media in recent decades there has been a decline in just about every indicator of severe weather worldwide.” ?
I neglected to ask Mandelbrot when I had the chance some decades ago , so the ball is in your court.
Both Mandelbrot and aristocratic sets contain hyperbolic components, Russell.
Roy cannot be expected to respond unless “Russell” gives him the full quotation, properly set in context.
Click on the name, dummy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
LORD MONCKTON and Dr ROY SPENCER
Sadly you are both mistaken, because the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt was right in the 1870’s when he explained that gravity acting on individual molecules forms the tropospheric temperature gradient in every planet with a troposphere. Centrifugal force does likewise in vortex cooling tubes and in experiments such as that at http://climate-change-theory.com.
THE FACT THAT GRAVITY DOES THIS is now easily proven with a correct understanding of entropy, because it is a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which should be stated:
“The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.”
The law applies to the single process of radiation from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. There are no other “interacting thermodynamic systems” and so no “net effect” can excuse the violation of the law when climatologists assume that back radiation from IR-active molecules causes heat into the already-warmer surface. It doesn’t.
The CORRECT explanation of surface temperatures is in my papers, book and videos linked from the above website and visited by over 150,000 without anyone ever proving me wrong, even for the AU $10,000 reward on offer.
MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY also (like ROY SPENCER) needs to understand that entropy is affected by changes in all forms of internal energy, not just kinetic energy determining temperature.
“The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases. A common corollary of the statement is that heat does not spontaneously pass from a colder body to a warmer body.”
The above quote is from Wikipedia / Laws of Thermodynamics and I have suggested in the Talk page that after “corollary” should be the words “which does not always apply in a force field.” The proof is in my 2013 paper and book published on Amazon in 2014.
There is no reference any longer to “isolated” or “closed” systems. There is no reference to temperature or heat in the first sentence above. The law applies to “a .. process” (singular) and only “interacting” systems can be considered when determining overall entropy changes, these having to be increases.
Thus the law is operating when, for example, a creek flows down a mountainside from a lake at the top. If climatologists were right in their assumption that there can be heat via radiation from the cold troposphere to the already-warmer surface provided more thermal energy exits the surface they are sadly mistaken. It would be a similar application of their “net” effect to say that water could flow up that creek provided that it flowed further down another creek on the other side.
So you need to scrap your conjecture that radiation from IR-active (so-called “greenhouse”) gases can help the Sun to raise the surface temperature on a clear and calm sunny morning. It can’t. Its energy is “pseudo” scattered as Prof Claes Johnson explained over a decade ago, my first peer-reviewed paper in 2012 citing his work.
You will be able to learn about the ONLY correct physics that explains surface (and even core) temperatures in 15 minutes at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BEN3iJzlrI&feature=youtu.be
Dug,
You wrote –
“You will be able to learn about the ONLY correct physics that explains surface (and even core) temperatures in 15 minutes at: . . . ”
Apart from planets being created in a molten state, and subsequently cooling, of course.
You don’t believe that planets were created as roughly spherical, at absolute zero, and have since been heated to their present temperatures, molten cores and all, do you?
Maybe the simplest answer is the correct one?
I do NOT reply to responses that show no evidence of having read my papers or watched my video. So don’t bother to write to me until you know what is in such, thankyou.
Dug,
Feel free not to reply as much as you want.
Your mind reading skills are about as defective as your knowledge of physics.
Just accept that some people, having read your papers, think they are rubbish.
You don’t need to reply if you don’t want to. I’ll survive.
I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~px280~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
the given stats system https://fixjob11.blogspot.com
Swenson (ctd) … except to say that a location on the equator on the surface of Venus warms by about 5 degrees (732K to 737K) during four months on the sunlit side. That is before it then cools by about that much in four months on the dark side, indicating that, without solar radiation, the planet could cool 15 degrees per year.
You don’t believe this warming is due to the less-hot atmosphere causing heat via radiation into the already-hotter surface do you? Such would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So you don’t believe this do you … when a cogent proof is available based on that law and explaining just how precisely the required new thermal energy gets into the surface – obviously NOT by radiation from any source. Thousands have read this proof at …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
and
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
Take your pick – then publish your attempt at refutation on Researchgate in order to be considered for the AU $10,000 reward.
Dug,
You donkey. I suggest that the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so, from a molten state.
You start blathering about Venus.
Science is not about “proving” something correct.. As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
You have precisely no experiments to support your speculations, in any case. No testable hypothesis, so nobody can refute anything.
Demanding that people provide you with evidence about something otherwise you will stop trying to inflict your fantasies on others might be less of a threat than you might imagine.
Keep trying.
The FACT (measured) that Venus can cool by 5 degrees in 4 months PROVES you wrong.
No evidence for “heat creep” ??? Really ????
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/evidence.html
Dug,
As I said, I mention Earth reality, you blather about Venus. Gee, an arid desert can cool by more than 40 C overnight!
That is supposed to prove some nonsensical fantasy of yours?
So what is your fantasy telling you about four and a half billion years or so of cooling – Earth, not Venus, although Venus has cooled from its molten state as well.
Reverse heat creep, is it?
Maybe you should waste some money, and pay to publish nonsense in a predatory journal. There are plenty about, I hear.
On your website, you wrote –
“The surface temperature is not determined by radiation, but rather by the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient resulting from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”, which is complete nonsense. As a matter of, surface temperatures can vary between about +90 C and -90 C. Not dictated by gravity at all.
You are delusional, but of course that is just my opinion, so you free to ignore it.
Maybe you can convince yourself that I care what you think about me. Just more delusional thinking, I can assure you,
If Earth (with its existing atmosphere) once had a surface temperature of 735K that surface would emit about 16,500w/m^2 which is far more than the solar constant of about 1,360w/m^2 and so there would be very rapid global cooling in a few days until equilibrium with the solar flux was obtained, as it is now and has been probably from within a few days of when it came into orbit with the Sun for one simple reason – it is not a star itself and its major source of energy comes from the Sun. So much for Fourier’s analysis of the situation!
And of course I was talking about the global MEAN surface temperature. For Earth and all planets that temperature can be calculated if one knows the distance from the Sun, the height of the so-called radiating altitude (at which there will be radiative balance with the solar radiation, thus anchoring the tropospheric temperature profile at that altitude) and one can then calculate the tropospheric temperature gradient which will be in magnitude just a little less than the quotient of the acceleration due to GRAVITY and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases.
These calculations work for Earth and all planets and the reason why they do (and the reason for the small reduction in magnitude) are in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures”* (and my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” on Amazon) which any reader is welcome to attempt to refute by publishing a paper on Researchgate.
There’s a AU$10,000 reward for the first to prove “heat creep” doesn’t happen (despite the evidence in every vortex cooling tube and throughout the Solar System) and that water vapor warms rather than cools the surface despite the evidence of cooling in my study** of real-world data and the correct physics in my paper and book explaining why this is so.
*https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
** http://climate-change-theory.com/study-15-locations.jpg
D C
I think that there is some truth to what you say and have published. But what other planets have to do with climate change? They do not experience changes for they are void of life. It is thus imperative to focus on living matter as a cause of climate change. I invite you to readhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2019.12.003
“A common corollary of the statement is that heat does not spontaneously pass from a colder body to a warmer body.”
***
If you read Clausius on the matter, he first develops the 2nd law, claiming heat can never, by its own means, be transferred cold to hot. Then he defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers in a process at temperature T. Stated mathematically, that becomes…
S = 1/T (integral dq).
He explained entropy as being zero for reversible processes and +ve for irreversible process. Although he alluded to the fact that most processes in the universe are irreversible, hence moving toward disorder, entropy is a measure of heat, not disorder.
Gordon, you need to catch up on research in the 1980’s about maximum entropy production. I do NOT make false statements. The statement I quoted is (at last) on the Wikipedia “Laws of Thermodynamics” page.
Entropy can now more correctly be understood as a measure of progress in the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials, such energy taking into account all forms of internal energy, not just kinetic energy which is associated with temperature.
Maximum entropy (that is, thermodynamic equilibrium) is the state with no remaining unbalanced energy potentials. The Second Law tells us that a natural thermodynamic process (including interacting thermodynamic systems) will tend towards that state. Until you understand this you will never understand the process which determines planetary core and surface temperatures.
How we can calculate expected global mean surface temperatures for any planet with an atmosphere is summarised in this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376251
Applicants for the AU$10,000 reward need to read that first and post their attempt at refutation on the scientific website for Researchgate having studied my 2013 paper or my book.
You could also do well to study ..
Guggenheim, E. A. (1949). Thermodynamics an Advanced Treatment for Chemists and Physicists. North-Holland Publishing Company.
http://www.fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/474/Guggenheim%20E.A.%20Thermodynamics%20(NH,%201967)(400dpi)(T)(ISBN%200444869514)(412s).pdf
“Cot’n” is off topic.
“Cot’n” remains off topic.
“Cot’n” is wasting everyone’s time here. His endless self-promoting posts are off topic here. He has made no attempt to grasp the subject of the head posting.
A few notes on the “Hansen paper.”
First, I suppose our feedback theorist is referring to Hansen & al 1984:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07600n.html
That’s more than a “few years” after the Charney report. Five years is a lot in science, even at the time.
Second, I gather that the authors are: James Hansen, Andy Lacis, David H. Rind, Gary L. Russell, Peter (?) Stone, Inez Fung, and Reto Ruedy, and Jean Lerner. Finding these names took me a while. And I’m not sure I got everyone of them right.
Abbreviating first names never was a good idea. For starters it is imminently sexist as we tend to masculinize scientists. Ideally we should have an ID for each researcher, including past ones.
Third, the caveat contrarians always seem to forget:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1984/1984_Hansen_ha07600n.pdf
So it’s not like climate scientists could reduce their answer to a single number. That number comes with lots of uncertainty on both sides of it. And uncertainty is nobody’s friend.
Willard,
Climate is the average of historical weather observations.
“Climate science” is an oxymoron.
You appear to be a garden variety moron.
Have you managed to accept that your stupid GHE resulted in global cooling for four and a half billion years or so?
Mike,
Do you really want me to spoon feed you with Hansen & al 1984?
If yes, please respond to this comment.
Willard,
Climate is the average of historical weather observations.
Climate science is an oxymoron.
You appear to be a garden variety moron.
Have you managed to accept that your stupid GHE resulted in global cooling for four and a half billion years or so?
Is the “Hansen” to whom you refer the delusional James Hansen, who seems to think that a process which resulted in the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so, suddenly changed direction and started to heat the Earth, or some other climate nutter named Hansen?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Thanks, Mike.
Here’s how Hansen & al 1984 continues:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1984/1984_Hansen_ha07600n.pdf
If you want more, you know what to do.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard
“Abbreviating first names never was a good idea. For starters it is imminently sexist as we tend to masculinize scientists. Ideally we should have an ID for each researcher, including past ones.”
–
This is the most sexist post you may have made, Willard.
You may tend to masculinize scientists but I assure you that the rest of the world does not and has not.
Your 1980’s approach to science and scientists went out of fashion for everyone else in the 1980’s.
Not to mention the more recent me too flareup.
You then go on to want to label everyone with an identity number.
Not politically correct since the 40’s and in Australia from the 1990’s.
–
Finally I would note that abbreviating first names has been in fashion for ever and for very good commonsense reasons.
You know, a consensus approach that has developed over the years.
Perhaps a good talk about this with some female acquaintances would put you straight?
Try it and see.
Wllard
Third, the caveat contrarians [and CAGW ]always seem to forget:
Particularly Hansen and Willard but not Spencer.
Is this the best that you can do?
” A more precise statement requires the ability to analyze and verify the cloud feedback on a regional basis.
So its not like climate scientists could reduce their answer to a single number. That number comes with lots of uncertainty on both sides of it. And uncertainty is nobodys friend.”
Or one could say since the uncertainty is so extreme that James Hansen obviously made it all up?
Assure me all you want, Doc, the rest of the world actually does:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5421378/
Is Jean a boy or a girl?
Good question.
But so binary of you.
The world has evolved to multi choice.
(Never choose a. for the answer to the first question).
Did you know that at least one woman helped author one of the most famous papers in the history of Climateball, Doc?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
It is clear from Hansen’s paper that he had made no allowance for the feedback response to emission temperature, and had implicitly added it to, and miscounted it as though it were part of, the actually minuscule feedback response to greenhouse-gas reference sensitivity.
Hansen’s paper is predicated on the calibration assumption that because directly-forced warming was at that time about 8 K but the total greenhouse effect was about 33 K the system gain factor was of order 4, implying ECS of order 4.
The calibration assumption, however, was incorrect. It is readily proven that at the equilibrium in 1850 ECS was 1.1 K or thereby. It is also readily proven that even a very small perturbation in the feedback strength compared with 1850 would lead to a very large change in ECS – which, however, has not been observed.
There has by now been a total anthropogenic forcing broadly equivalent to a doubled-CO2 forcing: yet there has been less than 1.1 K global warming. There remains a small radiative imbalance; but, as the most recent posting on this topic at WUWT shows, it is possible to find a set of mainstream, midrange values of the industrial-era parameters that keep ECS at about 1.1 K. Hansen, and many others since, have been misled by their erroneous calibration assumption, and have tuned their models to fit it (which is not difficult, since the perturbation of the system-gain factor since 1850 sufficient to push up ECS by 300% to 4 K or thereby is only 1%.
The reason for that extreme sensitivity of the system response to minuscule changes in the feedback strength is that at any moment, such as the present, the increased feedback strength does not amplify only the reference greenhouse-gas sensitivity: it also amplifies the base signal, emission temperature, which is 30 times larger than the reference sensitivity.
Hansen had no understanding of these matters. His account of the relevant control theory is a mangled mess.
Thank you Roy and thank you Christopher [Chris].
I look forward to going over the details of both arguments and commenting when done.
It is great to have information and I will help look after Willard for you.
Oh, Doc. You are too sweet.
In return, may I suggest a zone defense? One-on-one coverage does not seem to work very well so far. Reading the original article and the response by Roy might also help.
Missed your reply but see above.
I do not like others helping me out so I suggest we play hockey instead.
You would make a good forward striker.
I was more the centre half back with the title of hacker.
Before computers of course.
We might both end up going to the tribunal?
Of course you don’t like others helping you out, Doc. Just like you don’t seem to like emotionality. Makes you look weak. Defeats your offer to busy me with baits.
Zone defenses in hockey are common:
https://blog.purehockey.com/hockey-drills-training-tips/three-fundamentals-to-playing-defense-in-your-own-zone/
And I already told at AT’s that I’d prefer midfield defense:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/curry-for-dinner/#comment-32227
In any event, think of a simultaneous exhibition. The guys sitting are not directly helping each other. But at least they don’t inhibit one another, as happens usually in Climateball.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
On one hand, CM talks about control theory and on the other he talks about a feedback amplifier. The latter is not an example of control theory, feedback in an amplifier is used to control gain.
In control theory related to electronics, otherwise known as servo system theory, there is no amplification required to control the output. For example, to control the speed of a motor, a tachometer could be attached to the motor shaft. Whenever the tach exceeds a preset RPM, it might send a negative signal back to the motor speed controller to tell the controller to send less current to the motor, hence slowing it down.
If the motor slows down, the tach indicates that and a signal with a positive sign is sent back to the motor speed controller to send the motor more current. This is part of motor control theory and the sign of the signal fed back is all that matters.
It strikes me that servo theory is closer to climate situations.
With a feedback amplifier, feedback is related to gain by…
G = A/(1 + AB)
where G = overall gain or gain with feedback
A = amplifier gain or gain with no feedback
B = amount of feedback signal returned from output to input.
Note…B is actually the ratio of Ef/Eo = E feedback/E output.
It should be noted that Wikipedia has the sign in 1 + AB wrong. They use 1 – AB, whereas electrical engineering textbooks use 1 + AB. I guess it shouldn’t matter as long as the derivation of B is understood and correctly related to Ein.
Obviously, the sign of AB is related to the difference between the sign of the input signal Ein and the sign of Ef, the feedback voltage. We could be dealing with currents, depending on the feedback configuration.
In a feedback amplifier, an applied signal Ein is multiplied by A to give Ein.A at the output. That output signal is then multiplied by B to give the feedback signal. The feedback signal is then mixed in a difference network where Ein is combined with (Ein.A.B) and multiplied by -1.
This represents a loop from the input, through the amplifier, through the feedback network and back to the input.
The produce -AB is called the loop gain or return ratio. The difference between unity and the loop gain is called the return difference, D = 1 + AB.
There is a key point here that must be understood…
If A = 0, the output signal must be 0. It needs to be understood that B is a passive network with no means of amplification on its own. That point seems to be missed and/or taken for granted in some climate theories. It seems to be presumed that positive feedback can amplify a signal on its own. It can’t. A passive network like a feedback loop can only attenuate.
Also, for G = A/(1 + AB), the determining factor between positive and negative feedback is the sign of AB. That is, if |1 + AB| < 1, G increases with each cycle and the feedback is positive. Otherwise, it is negative.
I don't see any way such feedback theory can be applied in the atmosphere.
typo…
“The produce -AB is called the loop gain or return ratio”.
should read…
The product -AB is called the loop gain or return ratio.
Servo system theory does describe the apparent stability of our climate better than Monckton’s force feedback.
The only problem is that servo systems are designed to maintain a stable state chosen by the engineer.
Natural systems are not preset. Probably the best model is complexity, aka chaos theory.
Climate is a complex system in which conditions vary around a strange attractor. This is an equilibrium state subject to stochastic variation. Random variation moves conditions away from the equilibrium while negative feedbacks returns conditions to the equilibrium.
Forcings move the strange attractor.
Apply this to global average temperature. The global average temperature indicates the position of the strange attractor.
Forcing is increasing the amount of energy in the system and hence increasing the global average temperature. This has moved the strange attractor. There is still variation around the SA, but lower temperatures are becoming less likely and high temperatures more likely.
EM,
You wrote –
“Forcing is increasing the amount of energy in the system and hence increasing the global average temperature.”
I suppose you think that this “forcing” cooled the Earth for four and a half billion years or so, or would that be a different “forcing”?
Dodge, weave, duck.
See how you go.
Mmmmmm …..
Venus can cool at the rate of 15 degrees a year, as measured by the rate of cooling on the dark side, namely 5 degrees in four months.
Let’s calculate the original temperature 4.5 billion years ago …
67,500,000,000 C
Actually the rate of cooling would have been far faster at these temperatures, so the figure is a huge underestimate.
Do you have some evidence for this kind of temperature Dear Swenson?
And if the original thermal energy came from the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago we also have a lot of your cooling before these last 4.5 billion years.
I suppose you’ll continue to bluff a few with your contention Swenson, but not those who have calculators.
And, as for Earth, its dark side can easily cool 10 degrees in 12 hours, so if the Sun’s energy is not maintaining current temperatures (perhaps after some rapid cooling down to such temperatures in the first few hundred years after the Solar System formed) then we’ll all be dead rather soon.
BUT, the Sun’s direct radiation reaching the surface is only of the order of 170w/m^2 which, by Stefan-Boltzmann, cannot support a global mean surface temperature above about minus 40C, so there is OBVIOUSLY a need for a regular daily input of more thermal energy which CANNOT come as RADIATED heat from the cooler troposphere because that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
What REALLY happens (supported by experiments, studies and other evidence throughout the Solar System) is explained from the laws of physics for the first time anywhere in world literature in my 2013 paper and 2014 book.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
Dug,
I’m talking about the Earth, but you don’t seem to want to accept reality.
Your “calculations” demonstrate that you haven’t a clue about physics, but if you want to stick to physically impossible figures, feel free to look as stupid as you like.
You might like to similarly calculate the effects of four and a half billion years or so of “heat creep”, and tell me that the Earth is not really the temperature that it is.
Here’s one speculation, widely shared –
“At its beginning, Earth was unrecognizable from its modern form. At first, it was extremely hot, to the point that the planet likely consisted almost entirely of molten magma. ”
Seems to fit with current knowledge and physics, and if so, makes your heat creep idea look delusional.
But no matter, reality continues, whether you agree with it or not.
Carry on.
Heat creep happens – experiments with vortex cooling tubes confirm such.
I suppose you think the sub-surface regions of Earth somehow “know” to regulate their rate of cooling depending on whether it’s day or night up on the surface above, summer or winter, Equator or Pole.
What brilliant sub-surface matter you have invented! And where is your evidence for the above temperature and where is your response to at least two other comments of mine above that you probably haven’t read? Over and out. I have work to do.
Mmmmmm ..
“Venus can cool at the rate of 15 degrees a year, as measured by the rate of cooling on the dark side, namely 5 degrees in four months.”
–
Please.
–
Venus does not cool because it is being constantly irradiated by the sun.
It loses more heat on the sunny side than it does on the dark side anyway
The only heat gain or loss it has is due to how far away it is from the sun
I suggest you read comments in context. We were talking about what it would be like without radiation from the Sun warming it back up on the sunlit side.
Next time you are contemplating trying to prove me wrong, give up before you make a fool of yourself. What I write is correct.
Retired Physicist says:
October 7, 2022 at 3:30 AM
I suggest you read comments in context. We were talking about what it would be like without radiation from the Sun warming it back up on the sunlit side.
–
No.
You made a comment about the temperature of the whole planet based on the behaviour of only the colder side of the planet.
Which was poor mathematics, poor premises and therefore delegitimises your other views as no one will know when you are joking or not.
What I write is correct.
It was a joke, wasnt it?
ent…”The only problem is that servo systems are designed to maintain a stable state chosen by the engineer”.
***
That’s true, but the components are well defined and their operation is well understood. I can see things like clouds affected weather in a similar manner to a servo system but as you say, the overall system of weather and climate is likely too complex to understand fully. I recall John Christy saying that.
I don’t regard a weather system as being all that chaotic. If it was, meteorologists would not be able to predict the weather. According to one meteorologist, weather forecasting is based on a large database of weather systems and their driving factors. He claimed when a system moves through, they predict several outcomes based on not only the conditions but upon historical conditions/outcomes. They are always prepared to adjust the outcome to suit the actuality.
Climate prediction could prove to be chaotic. A good example is the current three year La Nina. LN and EN are claimed to interchange on a regular basis but the PDO has a say in the matter. Problem is, PDO theory has only been developed since the 1990s. It’s possible this 3 year LN is related to a change in the PDO.
The current extended LN is creating havoc around the globe. Our rain forest climate here around Vancouver, Canada has not seen much rain for quite some time. Apparently that is related to a system parked along the west coast up to Alaska and seems to be caused by La Nina.
No doubt it will suddenly switch and we’ll experience flooding, like last November. At least we didn’t have a heat dome parked over us like last summer.
Mr Robertson starts from the premise that control theory does not govern the functioning of a feedback amplifier. However, feedback formulism is of universal application to feedback-moderated dynamical systems, from electronic feedback amplifiers to climate. The principles are the same.
Mr Robertson seems unaware that a positive feedback does not attenuate the signal: it amplifies it. It is a negative feedback that attenuates it.
Finally, Mr Robertson says feedback theory cannot be applied in the atmosphere. Then he should address his complaint not to us but to official climatology.
Before he does so, though, he should examine the position in 1850 as set out in the head posting. There, he will find that if there were no feedback some 20.4 K of the measured temperature in 1850 has no explanation.
Of course, then, the climate is a feedback-moderated dynamical system. Of course, then, the principles of control theory are applicable thereto.
Mr Robertson is fatally muddled. First, feedback formulism in control theory is no less applicable to climate than to any feedback-moderated dynamical system. Of course feedback theory can be applied to the climate system. If he disagrees with that proposition, two conclusions follow. First, he should address his belief not to us but to official climatology, which, like it or not, recognizes that the climate is a feedback-moderated dynamical system. Secondly, if there were no feedback response in the system, ECS would be only 1 K, proving our point a fortiori.
If Mr Robertson imagines feedback theory cannot be applied to the atmosphere, two conclusions follow. First, he should address his complaint to official climatology, where it is “settled science” that the climate is indeed a feedback-moderated dynamical system. Secondly, if there is no feedback response in the climate (and it is very easy to prove that there is, and it is proven in the head posting), then ECS is only 1 K, proving our result a fortiori.
“First, he should address his complaint to official climatology, where it is settled science that the climate is indeed a feedback-moderated dynamical system.”
You are a bureaucrat, not a scientist.
Christopher is no bureaucrat, Nabil.
For better or worse, they work.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“In reality, such feedback processes as subsist in the climate system at any given moment (such as 1850) must, at that moment, necessarily respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature. Feedbacks do not, repeat not, respond solely to perturbation signals, the reference sensitivities. They also respond to the base signal, the emission temperature that would prevail even if there were no greenhouse gases in the air, because the Sun is shining.”
Roy says no, and he is right. Lord M’s assertion here encapsulates the basic error. If the system were in equilibrium in 1850, how does it respond to that “base signal”? Does it get warmer because of it? And go on warming forever? What would stop it?
It might be perturbed from equilibrium in 1850, and respond proportionally to the perturbation. But that is not a response to the base signal.
The fact is, as Roy says, insofar as the state in 1850 is in balance, it is so including the effect of the Sun shining (or the emission temperature). No further response is required, or could in fact be sustained.
If you want to REALLY understand why back radiation from the cold troposphere does NOT cause heat into the already-warmer surface (and so both Spencer and Monckton are wrong) you have only to read my peer-reviewed 2012 paper at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2883465
(over 2,800 Abstract views)
and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317997916_Radiated_Energy_and_the_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
(over 1050 reads)
> The fact is, as Roy says, insofar as the state in 1850 is in balance, it is so including the effect of the Sun shining (or the emission temperature). No further response is required, or could in fact be sustained.
Crickets.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Mr Stokes has little understanding either of control theory or of the number-theoretic closed-form solution to the sum of an infinite series of powers of a variable <1. Were he to understand these concepts, he would appreciate that at an equilibrium, such as 1850, the feedback processes then extant had done their work, the feedback response was fully evident, and the system had resettled to equilibrium.
Of course our result is a threat to the Communist Party line on the climate question, to which Mr Stokes has been handsomely paid to adhere. But Mr Stokes makes a fool of himself by trying to muddy what are actually quite clear waters. The infinite series of powers was the first of the number-theoretic infinite series for which the closed-form solution was fond and proven, some 200 years ago.
Mr Stokes needs to do some reading before he makes a fool of himself any further.
“Mr Stokes has little understanding either of control theory or of the number-theoretic closed-form solution to the sum of an infinite series of powers of a variable <1."
In fact, my PhD was in the mathematics of control theory. The sum of a geometric progression has nothing to do with number theory, which is about integers.
“Were he to understand these concepts, he would appreciate that at an equilibrium, such as 1850, the feedback processes then extant had done their work, the feedback response was fully evident, and the system had resettled to equilibrium.”
Exactly so. That has been my point all along. The reference temperature, and whatever other state variables you like to think about, have been balanced. They are not providing a signal which can then be fed back. That is what happens to new perturbations.
I agree with Nick on this point.
Mr Stokes has insufficient knowledge of either control theory or the underlying number-theoretic concept of the closed-form solution to the sum of successive powers of a feedback fraction <1 that is the feedback loop.
Roy Spencer, insofar as he had been misled by intrusive but ill-informed third parties about our result behind the scenes, came to the incorrect conclusion that at a given moment the feedback processes then subsisting do not, at that moment, respond equally to each unit of the reference signal, regardless of whether the unit in question is a unit of the base signal or a unit of the perturbation signal.
However, in a control-theoretically simple dynamical system such as the climate, where there is no differencer to force feedback processes to respond differently to the base signal and the perturbation signal, it is a truism that at any given moment the feedback processes then subsisting must perforce respond equally to each unit of the entire reference signal, without distinction.
I am sorry that some of my comments here are appearing twice. Intermittently the rather rickety comment operating system appears to have deleted the posts: then it restores them again.
Don’t be sorry, antiquated doorknob.
Be relevant.
And if you could drop the red baiting, that’d be great.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Referring to Nick’s post of October 6, 2022 at 12:26 AM.
I agree with Roy and Nick on this point.
Nick Stokes says:
October 6, 2022 at 12:26 AM
In reality, such feedback processes as subsist in the climate system at any given moment (such as 1850) must, at that moment, necessarily respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature.
If the system were in equilibrium in 1850, how does it respond to that base signal? Does it get warmer because of it? And go on warming forever? What would stop it?
Thank you Nick for shooting CO2 warming in the foot.
If feedbacks must, that is beautiful, at any given moment respond equally to each CO2 you rule outfee3dbacks for CO2 as well.
–
Look, it is a long time since I read the arcane musings of Christopher but the message I thought was implicit was that previous changes were always being incorporated into the current assumed settings.
I’m probably wrong but if right it would mean you have not bothered to read his past work when carping about and like me , not have come up to speed on his current statement.
That would not be like you so I can only assume you are deliberately misrepresenting him?
–
Sorry Willard,
Nick gets a bit emotional with attention.
Try paragraphs, Doc.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
angech…”Or one could say since the uncertainty is so extreme that James Hansen obviously made it all up?”
***
I think Hansen got waylaid by Sagan’s theory that the atmosphere of Venus is due to a runaway greenhouse effect. That has been disproved since the surface temperature of Venus was measured by a probe to be about 450 C. There is no way an atmosphere like that of Venus could transfer heat to such a hot surface.
BTW…Velikovsky predicted that. People can regard him as a nutter all they want but that theory he got right. Besides, his theories are entertaining. You don’t have to believe them to enjoy them.
Hansen was sold on Sagan’s theory and tried to apply it to Earth’s atmosphere and increasing levels of CO2. Problem is, a real greenhouse does not warm due to trapped CO2, you could remove all the CO2 and water vapour from a real greenhouse and it would still warm the same amount.
A real greenhouse heats when SW solar heats soil and infrastructure through the glass and heated air molecules trying to rise are trapped by the greenhouse glass. There is no way trapped infrared will raise the temperature of a greenhouse with the piddly amount of WV and CO2 in the air. So, Hansen’s theory was wrong from the start because he bought into Sagan’s theory about Venus, and the theory was wrong.
To make the theory work, Hansen had to alter science as we know it, and NASA GISS carries on with the same propaganda today created by Hansen.
Yes, well explained Gordon as to why radiative forcing is garbage
BUT
What is YOUR explanation (and quantification) for the observed global mean surface temperature – after reading my comment above at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1375948 ????
In response to “Cot’n”, even if radiative forcing is “garbage” that is off topic here. GO and complain to IPCC.
An atmosphere is warmer with GHG in it.
Full stop.
W
A surface is hotter without GHG at all.
Moon.
No.
One step at a time.
Cold surface.
No.
One step at a time.
Cold surface.
Turn on the sun.
Hot surface.
Moon or earth.
Black-body temperature (K) Moon 270.4 Earth 254.0
Why ?
Because the albedo of the earth being higher means less energy gets to the earths surface layer.
They both get the same energy as they are the same distance from the sun.
Get up in the morning and breathe in some of that 254 K air.
Refreshing is it not?
Wait.
What is the temperature on average, on the earth surface?
Swenson 288K
That seems somewhat warmer than the moon surface or are you on the Australian part of the earth?+
Moon max 127 C no GHG.
Earth max 90 C? GHG.
Cold?
–Swenson says:
October 6, 2022 at 4:30 AM
Moon max 127 C no GHG.
Earth max 90 C? GHG.
Cold?–
Earth is cold. 15 C water or air temperature is cold.
Earth is in an Ice Age.
If Earth wasn’t in an Ice Age, Earth would still be cold.
The Moon is not significantly warm or cold. Or space environment
[or a vacuum] has no temperature.
So you could standing on 127 C lunar surface and one assumes
you wearing shoes, therefore rather needing heating, when in
a spacesuit, regardless of 127 C surface or -100 C surface you need to cool the spacesuit, as the human body generates heat.
If you were lizard, it would different.
Also when standing a 127 C lunar surface, one meter below the surface
it’s around -30 C.
Or only place in Moon where you have uniform temperature is 1 meter or lower under the lunar surface and that is cold.
And in that sense Earth is warmer than the Moon.
But rather than looking at atmosphere, the Earth Ocean has far more heat. And earth ocean is above, the Earth’s rock surface. Or the ocean is the Earth’s surface temperature if one can live in the
Ocean. The human are too incompetent to live in the ocean is not too important, the ocean is the surface of Earth. And it’s average temperature is about 3.5 C.
“At its very centre, the Moon has a solid iron core with a temperature of between 1,327C and 1427C.”
I can explain why. You can’t.
http://climate-change-theory.com
At its very centre, the Moon has a solid iron core with a temperature of between 1,327C and 1427C.
Not even wrong.
Scientists speculate
The core may ( horrible speculative word) have nickel and sulphur in it .
It may be molten in part.
It might be made of Ubik
Or not.
Explaining why you know so much when others know so little, since they only speculate, is easy to do but impossible to prove.
Some comments.
Gravity has a relation to temperature and pressure
It is why the sun is so hot.
Some truth, wrong assumptions.
The earth has a lot of innate energy and is cooling,
Some truth wrong assumptions.
CO2 and other GHG cause all the temperature changes
GHG certainly are associated with temperature and pressure changes.
But which came first?
Clouds certainly change albedo, as well as having GHG properties.
Roy is right in saying that cloud changes affect the amount of energy able to enter the earth system and are one of the major players in our temperature changes.
Christopher Monckton is quite correct in saying that it is scientifically alright to offer a circuit board and feedbacks as an analogy, a way of considering temperature changes on the earth.
The number of people who disagree with such an obvious, simple and correct fact is incredible.
All there arguments are facile word twisting.
Of course he can do it.
The second point ignored by some is the question of if he is right to take the total energy of the earth into consideration with the smaller energy inputs and feedbacks claimed for CO2.
Of course he is.
Hence you will not find any useful comment on this by others
They cannot refute it so have to deny it by never mentioning it.
Zeno’s paradox, mentioned, refutes large ECS.
It does not take hundreds of years for for energy processes to adjust.
They happen in milliseconds, which is an eternity for energy at the speed of light.
Feedback process resolve in milliseconds, or shorter.
The earth’s atmosphere does not say, when a new day arrives, I better put all the energy into the deep ocean and bring out out in a hundred years, rather than warming up to the temperature dictated by the presence of CO2 and H2O when the sun arrives today.
The earth has an enormous reservoir of energy, which has ever been due to the sun. This energy has always been the remainder of the mass and energy of formation of the earth and the newly forming nuclear.
The sun provides a small amount of energy to the atmosphere and planet surface which has to go out again.
This energy is just enough to keep the ocean surface and the land surface warm on the sun side directly and on the dark side by the IR radiated from the lit side.
Christopher Monckton, as some have pointed out, may not have treated the concept of energy and temperature quite correctly.
There is a lot of difference in a temperature change from 0-5 Kelvin and 280-285 Kelvin.
I presume his maths takes this into account but if it does not a 1 degree warming may be a bigger percentage of the energy and hence a higher sensitivity than he calculates.
I may have misread him.
Like a lot of other commentators on ECS different pet theories, all of them have elements of truth and should all link together whether we describe the energy flows as circuits, turbulent flow [which can not be seen when reduced to Laplace equations [pp], gravity or pressure.
Roy provides a unique perspective which I think is absolutely correct for what he is describing in terms of albedo.
Its relationship to everyone else’s concept of ECS is relevant because it is a separate way of trying to assess the problem.
I think I would like Christopher’s putative explanation but it is a little too deep for me.
It is a delight to read Angech’s comment, because, unlike the trolls that are handsomely paid to disrupt these threads, he has done his best to understand what we are saying, and then has the courage to say he agrees with most of it.
He remains hung up on just one point of substance: his suggestion that “there is a lot of difference in a temperature change from 0-5 K and 280-285 K”.
That potential objection is easily dealt with. We do not need to go back further than 1850. At that time, the reference temperature, the sum of the 259.6 K emission temperature that would be present without greenhouse gases and the 8 K reference sensitivity to preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases, was 267.1 K. The equilibrium temperature was 287.5 K. Therefore, the system-gain factor was 287.5 / 267.1, or less than 1.08.
Today’s temperature is about 288.5 K. So it is easy to see that the perturbation compared with 1850 is minuscule. That is one of many reasons why it is likely that ECS based on the equilibrium in 1850, which was indeed 1.1 K, may well continue to prevail today.
Certainly, the increase of little more than a third of a percentage point in global mean surface temperature since 1850 has only warmed the world to date at about one-third of the originally-predicted decadal rate, suggesting that there has been no net change in the total feedback strength and thus in the system-gain factor and thus in ECS since 1850.
CM
Thank you for your response and further explanation.
One of the best parts of your articles and replies is that you do address the queries that other people raise.
Climate Sensitivity is an extremely relevant and controversial part at the nub of a lot of the issues.
The reason their are a lot of the usual people who defend high sensitivity lined up here attacking you personally rather than the science they claim to espouse is the fact that their range of values is so wide and so unsure as to be meaningless.
.
You can take it as a mark of respect when you get attention from so many including the mathematically astute but ideologically malaligned crew who ditch their objectivity rather than their biases.
–
I see you and Roy come to the same conclusion in different ways.
His point may be more on the uncertainty range in climate models being too large to allow meaningful detection and comment on human effects on climate change sensitivity.
I may be wrong.
His criticism of your method of estimating climate sensitivity may be along the lines of well if one set of assumptions cannot prove it then another ste of assumptions should not be able to do so with the great error range
Ie the problem is intractable in his view.
I may be wrong.
–
The greatest argument for a low climate sensitivity is the survival of life for several billion years.
If the system has a high sensitivity the there have been enough genuine events to cause a runaway high temperature scenario in the past that we could not be here now.
–
Im sure Roy has access to a number of great mathematical and physical minds at coffee breaks at the university of Alabama.
Perhaps some of them might discuss your views with him and validate it or not.
Gravity – under 10 km of 1000 atm. or so, water, temperature is just above freezing. Enormous pressure, not much heating, is there?
Air temperatures vary widely on Earth – say plus or minus 50 C. 1 atm pressure, gravity has little variation.
The Earth has been cooling for four and a half billion years or so.
Christopher Monckton does not know what he is talking about, and so resorts to irrelevant analogies.
You may disagree with Fourier, who pointed out that during the night, the Earth loses all the heat it received during the day, plus a little of its primordial heat. I’ll wager you have to resort to either magic or pointless and irrelevant analogy to support your disagreement.
Facts are facts, whether you like them or not.
By the way, the Sun is an uncontrolled fusion reactor, somewhat constrained by gravitational forces. The gravitational force is not creating the heat.
No law in physics says high pressure maintains high temperatures.
Cooling from many trillions of degrees I take it, seeing that the dark side can cool 10 degrees in 12 hours ???????
And Swenson, precisely how does the Earth “receive” all the necessary thermal energy (for which you incorrectly use the word “heat”) during the day? Not all by radiation to the surface my friend, as the laws of physics tell us could not be the case. But there is never any physics in your comments, so I guess you don’t understand the process of maximum entropy production which we physicists abbreviate MEP.
Why should I believe an assertive statement by Fourier? If he were right there would be no upward trend in any of Roy’s monthly graphs.
You’ll learn how the Earth’s surface (and that of Venus) “receives” the necessary thermal energy if you read my 2013 paper on planet core and surface temperatures – well at least 70 silent readers will learn, because more than that have clicked my links to it in the last 48 hours. Thank you for the opportunity to link it once more ….
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
or
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
Dug,
What are you babbling about?
The Earth was created as a big molten blob. It has cooled to its present state. If you dont want to accept reality, be my guest. Be as delusional as you like.
You wrote –
“And Swenson, precisely how does the Earth “receive” all the necessary thermal energy (for which you incorrectly use the word heat) during the day? Not all by radiation to the surface my friend, as the laws of physics tell us could not be the case.”
What necessary thermal energy are you talking about? The Earth has been losing energy for four and a half billion years or so, and nothing at ll stopped it. maybe you dont accept that big molten blobs in space can get colder, but thats because you are delusional.
Your “heat creep” is just specious nonsense – a product of your imagination, unless you can provide experimental support, which you cant. Banging on about Venus or anything else wont turn fantasy into fact.
Accept reality.
Reality is that when the surface beneath your feet starts to get warmer on a clear sunny morning (or even under thick cloud cover) it is because there is an input of energy which increases the kinetic energy of molecules and thus causes the warming. On a relatively small portion of the Earth’s surface the Sun’s direct radiation to the surface supplies some or all of that energy, but for most of the surface (and all of the Venus surface) the required energy needed to raise the surface temperature that morning comes from the non-radiative process I called heat creep which can only happen in a force field.
http://climate-change-theory.com
And so when the Earth (with its existing atmosphere) was, say, at Venus temperatures (about 735K) radiating about 16,500w/m^2 you and Fourier apparently think the Sun’s radiation (being only a very small fraction of that outward radiation) would somehow be capable of warming it back up during the day by nearly as much as it cooled with that 16,500w/m^2 during the night. In fact it would be still cooling on the sunlit side my friend.
You really don’t think about what “famous” people bluff you into believing, do you?
You and silent readers can learn why Venus is still much hotter than Earth, and it’s not just because it receives about twice as much solar radiation at the very top of its atmosphere. I have been first in the world to correctly explain the quantification of the Venus surface temperature and how the necessary thermal energy gets down there. It’s not a good idea to assume I’m wrong, but there is AU$10,000 for the first to do so.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
That last sentence should read “… there is AU$10,000 for the first to PROVE me wrong”
Dug, there is some truth of what you say, not everything though.
And of what relevance was your last sentence “The gravitational force is not creating the heat.” ???? No force CREATES energy. That’s basic physics.
(Actually, because Jupiter is collapsing there is a CONVERSION of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy which explains why measurements show more outward radiation than inward.)
But none of this is remotely relevant to my 2013 paper which is what you cannot prove wrong. You certainly won’t do so with assertive statements, irrelevant statements or calls to authority, so don’t bother to write to me again – just post your paper refuting what is actually in my paper on Researchgate because only any such attempts at refutation will be considered and responded to, pointing out the errors their authors have made.
CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON also cannot prove me wrong, nor can the CSIRO in Australia whose CEO is aware of my research. But I can prove them wrong.
Dug,
You havent produced any experimental evidence to support your “heat creep” nonsense.
Maybe if you state the phenomenon which you claim cannot be explained using current physical laws, and then propose a testable hypothesis, you will be able to devise experiments to support your hypothesis.
At the moment, your assertions are back up by precisely nothing, and do not eve address the possibility that the Earth was created in a molten state.
So carry on appealing to your own authority.
In the meantime, more than seven billion people apparently dont value your speculations any more highly than I.
“You havent produced any experimental evidence to support your heat creep nonsense.”
What a joke coming from you who hasn’t read a word of my seven papers nor my website which presents the evidence you mistakenly claim I haven’t provided.
http://climate-change-theory.com
And a second joke: “which you claim cannot be explained using current physical laws,”
Heat creep is proven to be a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in my 2013 paper which is about core and surface temperatures.
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
Swenson.
There is a lot of heating there at that pressure.
Freezing of water is different to the coldness or freezing of -273 K.
No sun down there yet at that pressure it is 273 K warm.
How if there is no heat around?
Note I do not say gravity is a heat source.
I said there is a relationship between pressure temperature and gravity.
Air temperatures vary widely due to the sun primarily at 1 atmosphere of pressure.
1000 atmospheres of pressure keeps water from freezing solid.
The earth has been cooling for four billion years .
Ok.
Still has a lot of momentum mass being transformed into energy.
In the early parts it might have been heating up as cold space mass debris collided and aggregated.
Christopher Monckton is a very smart man, as is Roy.
It would not seem smart to disparage either of them.
You commit the same error as the physicist re interpreting Fourier.
The earth loses energy that it creates now due to its primordial input.
Shades of Dylan Dog.
It does not selectively lose heat from a dark side that it gained during the day
It lose the heat much more from the day side.
A lot less from the night side and what it loses during the night is the energy conveyed by IR constantly through the atmosphere at night from the day side.
Yes it puts out all the energy that it is given from the sun and 2.7 K from space every 24 hours.
The sun is a fusion reactor because at the enormous pressures generated by its mass {gravity} there is an associated temperature which is enough to initiate and continue said fusion reactions.
Swenson yet again resorts to mere yah-boo. The control theorists on my team have all the relevant experience, so that it cannot be fairly said they do not know what they are talking about. He shuold cease to waste any further time on trying to disrupt these threads. He is not up to the job.
This is like arguing over the color of unicorns. Are they pink or purple?
There are no unicorns.
There is no “feedback” to CO2, because there is no “forcing” from CO2. CO2 “forcing” would require that CO2 add more energy to the system. CO2 does NOT add more energy to the system.
Yes Clint – all so-called “greenhouse” gases cause the global mean surface temperature to be COOLER but only the extent to which water vapor does so is measurable in practice, as in this study …
http://climate-change-theory.com/study-15-locations.jpg
The full methodology and data are in the Appendix of my 2013 paper linked above and in my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” on Amazon – but don’t feel you have to buy the book because it is only a summary of the paper in simplified language.
There aren’t any unicorns, and there ain’t any “heat creep”.
There are plenty of unicorns , they’re just not uniformly distributed between the real and null sets.
Same is true of Christopher’s M Model and many objects of existential threat inflation :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/09/is-climate-crisis-rigid-designator-in.html
I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~px290~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
the given stats system https://fixjob11.blogspot.com
Arguing over unicorns is nothing, Pup.
Wait till you argue with Graham over anything.
Well, Little Willy…it’s your own fault. You choose to argue with me over things that I literally know that I’m right about. Like this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1368998
I argued what Entropic Man said in those quotes, you ferociously argued against me, for months. I was right. You now acknowledge that it is correct. You even pretend you never argued against it!
Then there’s the moon issue. bob believes that the “moon on the left” in the below GIF cannot be described as rotating about an external axis whilst not rotating about an internal axis. I argued that it can. You supported bob, for months, even though I was right, again. The MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis, whilst not rotating on its own internal axis. Once again, you even agree with that, now. Or in fact you would probably say you agreed from the very beginning. So why you spent months arguing against me, who knows?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Similarly with my argument that the moon issue transcends reference frames. There are people commenting here who believe the moon issue is simply resolved by a choice of reference frame. Those people are wrong. Yet, once again, you have supported them whenever the argument arises. If you keep choosing losing battles, don’t be surprised when you get beat.
So now it’s my own fault if you can’t take the L, Graham? That’s just great.
You are still wrong about what EM said, and what that implies:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1368227
He accepts averages. You don’t. In fact, you don’t even get that my push-and-pulls were there to make spell your misunderstanding of them. You still are clinging to the fact that making the Earth spin will dispense it from requiring greenhouse gases.
As for Bob, you also still fail to understand what he’s saying. You simply can’t understand a “by your logic” argument even if your life depended on it.
73 months of obdurate trolling like that.
Well done, and welcome back!
"You are still wrong about what EM said, and what that implies"
Wrong.
"He accepts averages. You don’t."
Wrong.
"In fact, you don’t even get that my push-and-pulls were there to make spell your misunderstanding of them."
Nonsense.
"You still are clinging to the fact that making the Earth spin will dispense it from requiring greenhouse gases."
Am I?
"As for Bob, you also still fail to understand what he’s saying."
Wrong.
"You simply can’t understand a “by your logic” argument even if your life depended on it."
Wrong.
Quote fests are for losers, Graham.
Find another technique.
Everything you said was a lie. You are simply human filth.
Incorrect, Graham.
You were trolling before I arrived here, and you still have to clean the Sky Dragon Cranks room with Gordo, Pup, and Mike.
I award you no point and may God have mercy on your soul.
You are simply human filth.
No U, dearest Graham.
#2
You are simply human filth.
You can say that again, cute boy.
Prove my point.
#3
You are simply human filth.
Willard,
Please stop trolling
Thank you, Graham.
Perhaps one more time?
Just to make sure I win again.
Yes, you win the “who’s the pettiest” competition.
Read that sub thread again, Graham.
#4
You are simply human filth.
DREMT
I was reading your past exchange between you and Willard. You support the crackpot lunatic Joe Postma (sorry he sucked you in with his nonsense). You claim he has many things against GHE and so do others. Then you claim only one has to be right. Well NONE of these idiots are right. Postma has a little cult following on a small blog that he keeps any intelligence away by banning anyone other than loyal cult “bootlickers”
You say you a thinking person. I will accept that. I will show you evidence that proves Postma and all others are idiots and wrong. There is no convincing them otherwise. Hopefully facts have meaning in your mind.
Here:
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-dni-2018-01.jpg
If you look at the units in this graph you can convert them to W/m^2 and this graph is for actual average solar energy reaching the surface in those areas, used to determine how much solar energy is available in any given location.
The highest numbers are above 312 W/m^2 and the lowest are less than 166.7 w/m^2.
These values are real and all you get from the Sun. This energy can be used to turn into electricity, grow plants, or heat the surface. It is far less than 480 average you believe. These solar graphs do not take have the loss by albedo, they are just measuring how much energy can reach the surface. With a loss from albedo effect the numbers above would each be about 23 w/m^2 less than what can be used by solar cells. Give up on the cult of science deniers who think GHE is false. They are the same as the Flat Earth morons. They reject evidence and facts and are highly unscientific to the core. Science is based upon evidence and facts, that is it foundation.
“If you look at the units in this graph you can convert them to W/m^2 and this graph is for actual average solar energy reaching the surface in those areas, used to determine how much solar energy is available in any given location.
The highest numbers are above 312 W/m^2 and the lowest are less than 166.7 w/m^2.”
Yes, presumably because they are averaged over a day or longer.
The 480 W/m^2 that Entropic Man agreed on is the incoming flux received by the lit hemisphere at any given moment.
As you are well aware, actual values of solar energy reaching the surface can be in excess of 1,000 W/m^2 at some locations at some times of the day.
So beautifully resounding unresponsiveness, Graham.
The Earth cannot receive more than it emits. Ask me why.
…and the Earth is not receiving more than it emits, with 480 W/m^2 input over the lit hemisphere, and 240 W/m^2 output over the entire sphere. As Entropic Man explains:
“Fluxes do not have to balance.
For example, the incoming energy from the Sun is absorbed by the dayside half of Earth’s surface. The outgoing energy is radiated from the entire surface area. For a stable climate incoming total energy and outgoing total energy should be equal.
Since the incoming energy warms half the surface while outgoing energy radiates from the whole surface, you would expect the incoming flux to be twice the outgoing flux.”
and
“The simplest way to calculate the total incoming energy is to start with a disc the diameter of the Earth uniformly illuminated with 960 W/m^2.
The daylight hemisphere receives 960W/m^2 at the subsolar point and nothing at the terminator. Because it has twice the area of the disc the dayside receives an average flux of 960/2 = 480W/m^2.
Outgoing radiation transmits the same total energy to space from the whole of Earth’s surface, though intensity will vary with local temperature.
Since the whole surface has four times the area of the disc the average OLR flux will be 960/4 = 240W/m^2.”
Nothing to do with what Norman said, Graham.
You are just using his comment as an excuse to return to your old ways.
I was responding to your comment, “the Earth cannot receive more than it emits”. I had already responded to Norman. He had nothing to say in response, so I guess that’s that.
You are not really responding to my comment either, Graham.
You are using it as a springboard.
Good afternoon, BTW.
All you have to offer are false accusations. That’s partly why “you are simply human filth”.
My observation that you have not been responsive to Norman is clearly true, Graham. So is my observation that you have been using my comment as a springboard.
As if you were trolling or something.
Both are false accusations. I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
Both are true observations, and your denial only proves one thing –
you are trolling right now, Graham.
Please desist.
…are false accusations. I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
Trolls repeat the same comments over and over again, Graham.
A responsive comment would acknowledge that if the Earth emits 240W/m^2 on average, it can’t receive more than 240W/m^2 on average.
Which means that Norman is right – Joe is running a con.
See how much we can accomplish with forthrightness?
…false accusations. I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
Thank you once again for proving that you are the worst troll here, Graham.
Slimy, vindictive, and tone-deaf.
…accusations. I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
No you were not responsive to Norman, Graham, for he asked you to make an inference that you did not make. Instead you plugged your current vendetta, which you also pretend is responsive to my comment, which is clearly false.
If the Earth cannot receive more than 240W/m^2 on average, Joe is running a con, for he claims that his savant accounting allows him to bypass that limitation.
…I was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
Being responsive to Norman is telling how Sky Dragon cranks such as Joe can bypass the Earth emission limits, Graham.
This is where you have to show courage and tell him about how second by second the Earth spins, therefore greenhouse gases are not needed.
Courage, Graham. Ever heard of that?
…was responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
Looks like you’re rediscovering how to duplicate your comment by changing a letter, Graham.
Just like Mike did recently.
…responsive to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
[this is a good demonstration of what Little Willy is. He just keeps going, even though he knows he is only going to keep receiving the same comment over and over again. He is the purest troll you will ever encounter, driven entirely by sheer, relentless, malevolence]
(A very good demonstration indeed. Graham whiffs the same weak jabs while I keep adding to the score.)
…to Norman, and I did not use your comment as a springboard. You are simply human filth.
Clint R
Your post is incorrect. You are making a false statement in need of proper logical and scientific correction. In thousands of posts you have made you never actually stop and think about anything. You just post on and on.
YOU: “There is no feedback to CO2, because there is no forcing from CO2. CO2 forcing would require that CO2 add more energy to the system. CO2 does NOT add more energy to the system.”
Incorrect. CO2 causes forcing because it reduces the rate heat leaves the surface. With the same input energy the temperature rises until the rate of surface heat loss is increased to the point it is equal to the solar incoming energy.
You are not capable of logically understanding this. People have explained it is like insulation, you deep adding the same input heat but reduce the outgoing heat and the temperature goes up until the outgoing heat equals the input heat.
It is not physics you need to study. You need to learn logical thinking. I tried to help you on this but you refused. I guess you hate rational logical thinking in preference of your cult thinking process, (Declare something true and it is…you did mention unicorns. It is how you actually think, magical and illogical). I suggested you play Sudoku or other logic games to help you with your limited logic abilities.
Norman, you keep regurgitating your same cult nonsense, hoping something will stick. Logic is NOT logic if it’s built on a false premise. Your premise results in ice being able to boil water. That ain’t reality.
You understand neither logic, not physics.
Found any valid technical reference for all your previous nonsense yet?
Please stop trolling, Pup.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
While Dr Roy Spencer and Christopher Monckton futilely argued about how climate sensitivity is calculated from climate models, this happened…
Exxon will not be pleased.
One definition of insanity is to eliminate a source of energy without a valid replacement. Just exactly how many new solar panels and wind turbines do we need to replace fossil fuels? The bigger question is how much energy will be needed to replace solar panels that lose their efficiency over time and wind turbines that wear out?
The bigger question has already answered itself.
Extant solar power – over a terawatt globally, already dwarfs the energy requirements of global elemental silicon and photovoltaic panel production combined.
I suspect the same is true of wind power , and in both cases economies of scale continue to grow- perhaps you can investigate and give us some stats.
Paraphrasing professor Wally Broecker:
Burning fossil fuels is not bad; what is bad is dumping the waste into the atmosphere. There is a direct analogy to eating food, which is also not a bad thing. When we burn food in our bodies, we create waste too, and for centuries we simply dumped it wherever we liked. We endured not just foul smells but epidemics of typhoid fever and cholera until eventually we built sewers and sewage treatment plants.
We need to figure out how to build the equivalent of a sewage system for carbon dioxide.
Cleaning up sewage is a big job. A lot of the infrastructure for doing so, which we now take for granted, is more recent than young people might realize. In America, most sewage still flowed raw into rivers and the sea as late as the 1960s.
In the mid-nineteenth century, when the first municipal sewers were being built in America, there were plenty of sewage skeptics. For a while the science demonstrating the connection between sewage and disease remained uncertain.
Even after the science was settled, however, and even after many thousands of people had died, some people still argued vehemently that the good old cesspools were good enough. But eventually the sewage skeptics faded away, a few no doubt from cholera and typhoid fever. People in the United States, as in other developed countries, came to accept that they had no fundamental right to dump their waste where they pleased, and that they should be willing to pay to dispose of it properly.
Where did Wally publish this reasonable view?
Do send a copy to Lord Lawson !
Fixing Climate
Wow, comparing CO2 to sewage! That’s REAL desperation.
When the science isn’t on your side, go with fear-mongering. It works every time.
Clint R
On this post I agree with you.
Broecker’s argument is not quantitative. It is not, therefore, scientific. It is a political opinion. Since we cannot abate more than 3/8 degree of global warming by 2050 even if the whole world moves in a straight line to net zero emissions by then. And that is before correcting both climatology’s error and McKinsey’s costings. Before correction, each $1 billion we spend will abate a millionth of a degree of global warming. After correction, make that a five-millionth of a degree, and only 1/7 degree would be abated by 2050 anyway.
The fact that Broecker has made no attempt to carry out the elementary calculations underlying the above figures shows how howlingly unreasonable his opinion is. It is mere virtue-signaling.
It sounds as if you are not familiar with Professor Broecker’s work. Your loss! Here, educate yourself: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=LmaL6okAAAAJ
I suggest Lord Monckton that you read …
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376733
Dear Lord Monckton
You simply can’t say this: “Before correction, each $1 billion we spend will abate a millionth of a degree of global warming.”
That’s because you have no valid way of quantifying the observed global mean surface temperature using radiation calculations.
You cannot add the flux of back radiation to the solar radiation and then use the sum (less non-radiative surface cooling) in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Radiation simply does not work that way. My peer-reviewed 2012 paper explains why.
You should agree that if you don’t have the function (or method) of correctly explaining surface temperatures then neither do you have the function (or method) to quantify any increase or decrease in that surface temperature. But that is what climatologists think they can do using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations when they simply don’t apply. A cheap experiment confirms what I am saying.
The missing energy needed to supplement the solar radiation to the surface is a non-radiative heat process which only occurs in force fields. Its existence is proven and, by the way, it provides the only correct explanation for temperatures and heat on Venus and other planets as well – not just for Earth.
You can read the proof here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
> Cleaning up sewage is a big job.
I’m doing my part.
…to create it in the first place.
You, Pup, Gordo, and Mike were here first, Graham.
Only one of them still has his nick, and it is not you.
Yes, we were here first, clearing up the mess made by people like you.
Nothing new.
You were here before I was, Graham, and it was a mess.
Time flies like an arrow and fruitcakes become sockpuppets.
Yes, people like Fatvid App.ell made it a mess, before…but he eventually got banned. He was arguably the biggest troll on here. Then you showed up.
I already told you, Graham –
You are the troll. I am the slayer.
Why are your tears so salty?
Yes, you say that often…most here recognize you as a troll though, whatever they might think of me.
If you really cared about what people say, delicate Graham, you would have returned to the land of Sky Dragon Cranks a long time ago.
It is almost 3 AM where you are. Get some sleep.
Yes, exactly, so obviously I don’t care what people say about me. The point I was making is that they say you are a troll. Try to focus – this is about you, not me, for a change. It is widely acknowledged and understood that you are a troll.
No, it is not 3 am where I am. Perhaps you don’t know where I am, after all, you creepy little freak?
I did not say that it was 3 AM, dearest. Your eyes must be getting heavy. And the point I’m making is that you’re an opportunistic, manipulative, and toxic.
The three main trolls of this website are Pup, Mike, and you.
Gordo is more like a fixture, forced to spend his evenings here because the Canadian health system fails him.
It is not past 3 AM now. It was not “almost 3 AM” when you said it was “almost 3 AM”. You are completely out with the time at my location. You are wrong, Willard.
You are one of the main trolls here. Your self awareness is zero.
Soon enough it will be 3AM, Graham. But I said almost, which was indefinite enough not to reveal anything. And it gave you some time to bring this sterile exchange to a halt, something that always takes an eternity with you.
If you do not care about what people think of you, why should anyone care about what you think of otters?
It’s not a question of what I think of others, Little Willy. It’s really nothing to do with me at all. Why can’t you get that? It’s about you, not me.
Many here have pointed out that you’re a troll. Because that’s what you are.
Well, Graham, you did mention self-awareness, and you keep refusing to admit that you are trolling.
Perhaps you could tell us whos not trolling here. According to your PSTs, that must not include many commenters.
Oh, and hurry up to respond! Tick tock, tick tock ⌛
We’d be much better off without your pointless maunderings, troll.
I love you too, Kennui.
<3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I asked you a question, Graham.
…and I will never answer any of your questions, ever again. You have wasted enough of my time. Thank you.
You actually just did, Graham. In the other thread where you failed to be responsive to Norman.
That is, you pretend to have responded to my comment.
You are not answering my question because you will have to admit that you are not PSTing most of the trolls here.
Do you at least know what is a honey trap?
I said I wouldn’t answer your questions, not that I wouldn’t respond. Anything to do with who I ask to stop trolling is utterly irrelevant. This sub-thread has nothing to do with me, at all. It is entirely about you. You are a troll. It’s as simple as that.
Asking you who you think is trolling is quite relevant, Graham.
Perhaps it’d be easier the other way around –
Who do you think is not trolling here?
You are a troll. It’s as simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
You did you say I was a troll, Graham.
You said I was the worst one.
So you have a troll chart somewhere.
Where is it, and is Tim on it?
…are a troll. It’s as simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Where’s your troll chart, Chartmaster?
Perhaps you can opine on bdgwx – is he a troll?
…a troll. It’s as simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Repeating the same thing over and over again is what Dug does, Graham. It is also what you do too. In both cases this is trolling.
And that creates health problems for you.
How about Norman – is he trolling?
…troll. It’s as simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Read this comment by Nick Stokes, Graham:
Is this trolling?
…It’s as simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
So Graham seals himself into his usual schizoid scheme.
Other readers might appreciate how he constantly ignores his fellow’s trolling:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376896
…as simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
When was the last time that Graham asked Mike Flynn to stop trolling?
I do not recall he ever did.
Some Troll Detector, that Graham.
…simple as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Has our Troll Detector ever asked Dug to stop trolling?
I bet not. It somehow helps him.
…as that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Not a very good Troll Detector, that Graham.
…that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“…as of 1 April 2023…”
At least they picked an appropriate date….
Munich Re have long been too close to Communism for comfort. Their virtue-signaling will cost them dear as new coal, oil and gas opportunities are developed worldwide once people realize that windmills and solar panels don’t work on still nights.
Discussion between scientific researchers is, in any event, not futile. Roy and I have been discussing this matter on and off for a year or two now. It is debate that leads to the truth, not the enforcement of a Party Line by Munich Re or any other corporate shills for Communism.
> Munich Re have long been too close to Communism for comfort.
Drink!
However, you are not formally trained in science, no?
.
.
.
MONCKTON’S “PHYSICS” IS WRONG,
.
as is that of Pierrehumbert and other climatology writers.
.
.
.
That’s because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not give valid temperatures for the sum of radiative fluxes from different sources.
If I place an electric bar radiator at a certain distance such that it just warms my cheek to a comfortable 315K, then, according to climatology “science” sixteen such radiators should roast me at double the temperature, namely 630K.
They don’t. I’d stake my life on it.
Study NASA’s energy diagram and my comment below it …
http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg
Little Willy, Tyson, please stop trolling.
How we can calculate expected global mean surface temperatures for any planet with an atmosphere is summarised in this comment above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376251
Applicants for the AU$10,000 reward need to read that first and post their attempt at refutation on the scientific website for Researchgate having studied my 2013 paper or my book.
PS: You could also do well to wade through ..
Guggenheim, E. A. (1949). Thermodynamics an Advanced Treatment for Chemists and Physicists. North-Holland Publishing Company.
http://www.fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/474/Guggenheim%20E.A.%20Thermodynamics%20(NH,%201967)(400dpi)(T)(ISBN%200444869514)(412s).pdf
Please notify us of the solicitors’ firm that is holding the $10,000 in escrow, and of the court that will hear and decide any claim independently. And then get back on thread.
Go back to these two comments:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376394
And read
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376748
and the comment just written at the end of the thread.
PS: ALl would do well to read this comment ..
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376267
My future responses need only to be links to comments already written on this thread, so I suggest that anyone wishing to write to me first read all such comments or, preferably, my papers and website http://climate-change-theory.com already visited by over 51,900.
La Nia is working and will continue to work.
“Recent downpours have pushed Sydney, Australia, to its wettest year on record, as more than 7 feet (2,134 mm) of rain has inundated the region so far in 2022.
On Friday morning local time, Sydney’s Observatory Hill weather station recorded more than 87 inches (2,200 mm) of rain since January 1, 2022, eclipsing the previous annual record of 86 inches (2,194 mm) set 72 years ago in 1950. A deluge that unleashed more than 3.50 inches (91 mm) of rain across the city Thursday morning into Friday was responsible for stamping a new mark in the weather history books. Weather records have been kept on Observation Hill since 1858.
To put that amount of rain into perspective, Sydney, the capital of New South Wales, averages about 39 inches (1,000 mm) a year.”
Mr Palmowski points out the record rainfall in Australia. But when I was there a decade ago a “Professor” Tim Flannery was telling anyone who would listen that because of global warming there would never be water in the Murray-Darling Basin ever again.
M,
Rather like the idiot Met Office wanker Dr David Viner (PhD and all – how smart must he be) who said “children just arent going to know what snow is” some years ago.
Just before record snowfalls closed Heathrow Airport, and the operators had sold much of their snow clearing equipment as a result of the Met Office prediction.
Dr Tim Flannery, (another PhD – just as smart as Viner), said in 2007, even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems. After that, record flooding, dams overtopping, whole towns underwater, people dying – whod have thought?
What a pair of donkeys!
And I have refuted Monckton of Brenchley in this comment above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376333
Mr “Cot’n” has not refuted anything. He has merely shouted. Understanding the head posting requires a minimum of scientific knowledge, an open mind and the ability to read and think.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376363
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376394
And Lord Monckton can do nothing but make assertive comments and calls to the very authorities that Prof Claes Johnson, Physicist Josef Loschmidt, myself and physicist Klaus-Eckert Puls* and many others have proven wrong.
Just like the CSIRO, he has no proof that water vapor warms when evidence shows it cools us, and just as well.**
And he has no evidence (like the CSIRO) that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law gives correct temperatures when using the sum of fluxes from two or more different sources, such as what is implied in climatology energy diagrams.***
I present facts, evidence and correct physics, none of which he has ever even addressed, let alone proven wrong.
It is the arrogant, narcissistic attitudes of many scientists and academics which assist in perpetuating what Dr Tim Ball (sadly recently deceased) called the biggest deception in history.
* http://climate-change-theory.com/physicist.jpg
** http://climate-change-theory.com/study-15-locations.jpg
*** http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg
Dug
I try an ignore your comments as a waste of time. I used to try and educate you but you are single-minded and not thoughtful. You should not be asking others to refute your theory (if you want to call it such) you should be doing it yourself, finding everything you can that might be wrong with it. You are not a scientist unless you can do this.
The point were you are wrong: YOU: “Just like the CSIRO, he has no proof that water vapor warms when evidence shows it cools us, and just as well.”
Water vapor is a warming effect. In your study you only verified what most accept (including NASA): “The net effect of clouds on the climate today is to cool the surface by about 5C (9F). One can calculate that a higher surface temperature would result from the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the consequent slowing of heat radiation from the surface, provided nothing else changes. But what happens to the radiation balance if, as part of the climatic response, the clouds themselves change?”
From: https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
Here you can see for yourself.
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-dni-2018-01.jpg
Water vapor clearly has a warming effect. The cooling is not from the vapor form but the liquid form in clouds. You need to get your facts correct.
I am presently raising another $33,000 or many months from home by doing terribly honest and easy on-line sports activities from home. The month comes from this interest at home.~px310~ im currently interacting in short throughout this interest and creating plenty of cash online victimization the usable helpful resource of by using the balance at intervals
the given stats system https://fixjob11.blogspot.com
And this question will tie Monckton in knots – just watch! I repeat it below:-
So do you Lord Monckton, accept the false Climatology claims that
(1) the troposphere without IR-active (so-called “greenhouse”) gases would have been isothermal (or tended towards that state) rather than tend towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy) with its associated non-zero temperature gradient, as first explained by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt in the 1870’s and proven to be correct with valid physics supported by experiments and data throughout the Solar System.
(2) that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation gives the correct temperature that could be achieved by two or more sources of radiation using the arithmetic sum of the relevant fluxes, despite the obvious fact that the combination of the two Planck functions would not have the required peak wavelength as would a single source in accord with Wien’s Displacement Law and the fact that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is derived from the integral of a single Planck function and only ever applies for a single source, as simple experiments confirm.
Dug,
You wrote –
” . . . the troposphere without IR-active (so-called greenhouse) gases would have been isothermal (or tended towards that state) rather than tend towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy) with its associated non-zero temperature gradient, . . . ”
Complete nonsense.
A column of gas which is hotter at one end than the other (regardless of direction or gravity), will show a temperature gradient along it.
An example would be the Earths atmosphere. The air at the surface is hotter than the air at the limits of the atmosphere, and there is a temperature gradient – from hot to cold. No chance at all of thermal equilibrium, as long as the Earths surface is hotter than the nominal 4 K or so of space.
Loschmidt performed no physical experiments. His gravitothermal effect is as nonsensical as your heat creep.
So carry on burbling, but without experimental results to support you, dont be surprised if ‘m not the only one having a laugh at your ideas. Experimental results supporting your speculation will no doubt make me cry – only joking.
I didn’t say thermal equilibrium. I said thermodynamic equilibrium.
The proof is here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
and you can’t prove Loschmidt wrong because every functioning vortex cooling tube exhibits the same effect due to radial centrifugal force, as does every planetary troposphere my friend.
You display no correct understanding of maximum entropy production or papers in the 1980’s about such.
Dug,
You wrote –
“I didnt say thermal equilibrium.” I didn’t say you did, you ninny. Learn to read and comprehend.
Who wants to prove Loschmidt wrong? Who can prove a fantasy “wrong”?
Loschmidt was unable to support his fantasy with experiment. “Radial centrifugal force” has nothing to do with gravity. Some physicist you are! You seem confused between an apparent force (centrifugal) and a real one (centripetal). “Radial” is redundant in any case.
But hey, who cares?
The Earth cooled to its present temperature whether you like it or not. No heat creep or GHE required.
Accept reality.
Dug got a bit bent out of shape, apparently.
He took exception when I used the word “heat”.
He wrote –
“And Swenson, precisely how does the Earth receive all the necessary thermal energy (for which you incorrectly use the word heat) during the day?”
This from a guy who talks about “heat creep”?
Dugs exceptionally flexible – right up there wth the SkyDragons – inconvenient truths are stepped around, facts are discarded in favour of fantasy, and all the rest.
Just another looney.
Oh well.
The word “heat” as used by physicists like myself refers to a TRANSFER of thermal energy, not a property of matter.
I have had nothing to do with PSI SkyDragons since 2013 when I wrote the page on my website proving their paper by Joseph Postma to be a load of garbage.
http://climate-change-theory.com/PSI.html
Dug,
As I said, you are just like the SkyDragons who define things to suit themselves.
You wrote –
“The word “heat” as used by physicists like myself refers to a TRANSFER of thermal energy, not a property of matter.”
I suppose you are going to complain about Wikipedias statement –
“The term “thermal energy” is used loosely in various contexts in physics and engineering. It can refer to several different well-defined physical concepts. These include the internal energy or enthalpy of a body of matter and radiation; heat, defined as a type of energy transfer (as is thermodynamic work); and the characteristic energy of a degree of freedom . . .”
Appealing to your own authority as a physicist like yourself, you might care to enlighten Wikipedia and others with your authoritative definition of thermal energy.
Not so easy? How hard can it be?
However, I digress.
The Earth has been transferring energy to the depths of outer space for four and a half billion years or so. Strange enough, this is called “cooling”.
The rate of cooling is asymptotic, but I suppose from your previous ridiculous calculations that you are unaware of such physical and mathematical matters.
The Earth has cooled asymptotically for about four and a half billion years, as far as is known. Yes, you can find peer reviewed papers in prestigious journals supporting me, if you can pulll your head out of the strange place in which it currently seems to be.
I quote: “Heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter”
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Whatever cooling of the Earth occurred would have to have been nearly all in the first few days (maybe months at the most) after it entered the Solar System, or, more likely, it cooled below existing temperatures in the billions of years it may have existed in outer Space beyond the influence of any nearby star.
For Earth to exist in its existing orbit in the Solar System with its current atmosphere even for something less than 50 years at temperatures such as those on Venus (~735K) would be impossible because the outward radiation at that temperature would be about 16,500w/m^2 totally overwhelming the inward radiation from the Sun and thus causing cooling probably at about 15 degrees a year, as I have explained in an earlier comment.
Yes, I am quite aware of the downward overall far slower cooling trend in the last few thousand years after the warming since the last glacial period. It does not refute my hypothesis. There’s even been a graph of that cooling on my website for years here:
http://climate-change-theory.com/hco-rwp-mwp.jpg
Enthalpy is the “heat” that is transfered when that happens. Thermal energy as you call it includes sensible heat and latent heat. Both types are involved in “heat transfer” which occurs any time there is a difference in temperature. The rate of heat transfer depends on a “property of matter” called thermal conductivity. The amount of Enthalpy in the material at any given temperature is most definitely a “property of matter” and is different for different chemicals. It also depends on the physical state (i.e. solid, liquid, or vapor).
So once again, not only are you completely wrong, but as I stated in a different topic, spam posts by “Gloria” are more interesting and informative than anything you have posted.
When and where did I write about enthalpy? What I wrote about is here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
and you haven’t even discussed anything at all in that paper.
Dug,
Nice try at evasion.
How are you getting on with your definition of “thermal energy”?
Obviously, with your ability to redefine things on the run to suit yourself, it’s hard to know why you are complaining about my statement that the Earth has merely cooled to its present temperature.
I don’t really care about your definition of thermal energy, but you do seem interested in avoiding acknowledging that the Earth was once molten, and is now not (molten).
This, by definition, would seem to be as a result of “cooling”, however you want to define the term.
So Dug, what temperature was the Earth four and a half billion years ago, do you think?
If you don’t believe it was a big molten blob, what does your vast knowledge of physics tell you its temperature was, and why?
Time for more SkyDragon style bobbing, ducking, weaving, and general denial of reality?
Carry on.
When Dear Swenson did I ever say the Earth was not once a molten blob? I’ll thank you for not misquoting me.*
If you prefer I can (and often have) referred to the mean molecular translational kinetic energy, that being proportional to the temperature of a gas.
In the state of maximum entropy (not enthalpy!) that state being thermodynamic equilibrium (not thermal equilibrium!) the sum of the mean molecular kinetic energy and the mean molecular gravitational potential energy is constant over altitude. It HAS to be or there would be unbalanced energy potentials. There are no such potentials at maximum entropy. And since only the kinetic energy relates to temperature and since the PE varies with altitude there must be a non-zero temperature gradient, as you could have read in my 2013 paper.
* Go back to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376431
Dug,
Thanks for that. If I quote you, I put your words in quotation marks. If you can’t show where I did that, then others might think you are just whining about something that doesn’t exist.
The Earth was a big molten blob, and is still more than 99% big molten blob. If you disagree, say so, or forever hold your peace, as they say. No coming back later, and saying you really didn’t mean what you said, like SkyDragons do.
The surface has cooled by some thousands of degrees, the interior not so much.
The present temperature is whatever it is.
Blathering about entropy, enthalpy, and all the rest, for example, when you wrote –
“In the state of maximum entropy (not enthalpy!) that state being thermodynamic equilibrium (not thermal equilibrium!) the sum of the mean molecular kinetic energy and the mean molecular gravitational potential energy is constant over altitude. It HAS to be or there would be unbalanced energy potentials. There are no such potentials at maximum entropy.”
– is irrelevant, meaningless, and completely erroneous in parts. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and continues to do so.
Accept reality.
The significance and relevance of the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect cannot be emphasized enough. The fact that it is proven to exist is sufficient to refute the whole “greenhouse” conjecture.
This article I wrote in 2019 will help silent readers understand why, even though Swenson won’t deign to study it.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False
Perhaps Swenson hasn’t noticed the word “Core” in the title of my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
Abstract
Josef Loschmidt was a brilliant 19th century physicist who was the first to make a realistic estimate of the size of air molecules: quite a feat in those days. In 1876 he explained his “gravito-thermal” effect wherein gravity forms a non-zero temperature gradient in the lower region of the atmosphere that is called the troposphere. This fact is verified from the laws of physics and quantified. The quantification is found to be applicable in all planetary tropospheres now that we have data for such planets in modern times. The temperature gradient is called the “lapse rate” by climatologists, but it has nothing to do with any “rising parcels or air” that are supposedly warmed by conduction at the surface interface. The important thing to remember is that the temperature gradient forms locally in the atmosphere and does so at the molecular level. There does not even have to be a surface. Because this gradient forms autonomously and tends to repair itself when disturbances occur, there is no need for atmospheric radiation to assist the solar radiation reaching the surface, and it cannot do so anyway. Hence the whole radiative forcing conjecture is refuted and this totally new and different paradigm represents reality in all planets.
For the full paper click …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False
Dug,
You wrote –
“The significance and relevance of the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect cannot be emphasized enough.”
There is no gravito-thermal effect, except in the minds of its believers.
Just like the GHE.
Loschmidt was wrong. Just like the scientific consensus who believed in the caloric theory of heat (including Lord Kelvin – who at least changed his views when confronted with Joule’s experimental results, which confirmed Baron Rumfords earlier claims that the caloric theory was a load of rubbish.)
Loschmidt’s speculation fails in the face a reality, which is why no experimental support exists.
Same for the GHE, which is equally ridiculous.
You reject one, I reject both, which means we are in agreement 50% of the time. Just goes to show how stupid logic can be, when faced with reality.
I will only respond now to people who have read my papers and are constructively commenting on the content.
My seven papers may be read with these links
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 for the first three, then:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338356357_Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915619_Cogent_and_irrefutable_reasons_why_carbon_dioxide_cannot_warm_Earth
“Loschmidts speculation fails in the face a reality, which is why no experimental support exists.”
You are sadly mistaken. There is extensive, cogent and compelling evidence and it is a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
http://climate-change-theory.com
Dug,
You wrote
The significance and relevance of the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect cannot be emphasized enough.
There is no gravito-thermal effect, except in the minds of its believers.
Just like the GHE.
Loschmidt was wrong. Just like the scientific consensus who believed in the caloric theory of heat (including Lord Kelvin who at least changed his views when confronted with Joules experimental results, which confirmed Baron Rumfords earlier claims that the caloric theory was a load of rubbish.)
Loschmidts speculation fails in the face a reality, which is why no experimental support exists.
Same for the GHE, which is equally ridiculous.
You reject one, I reject both, which means we are in agreement 50% of the time. Just goes to show how stupid logic can be, when faced with reality.
It is fascinating how considering sunshine as a forcing seems to be a mental challenge. Yet it is no suprise, as I know how people fail on the most simplistic logical issues. The easiest way to overcome this problem here is in imagining the orbit of Earth could be moved. Moving Earth closer to, or further from the sun, would obviously mean a forcing. Once we can agree on that, we can then question what this should do to the climate of Earth, and how it would compare to other celestial bodies.
From there on it becomes increasingly easy to see how feedbacks are most certainly not a real thing..
https://greenhousedefect.com/about-the-physical-impossibility-of-feedbacks
You bring up an interesting point about distance to the sun. Does anyone know the difference is heat coming from the sun on January 3, versus July 3.
Closer in January, dingaling.
Nope. The main effect is because in summer the Sun passes more directly overhead. The effective solar flux striking a horizontal surface has to be multiplied by the sine of the angle which the radiation makes with the horizontal.
Uranus is more than 20 times the distance from the Sun than we are, but the base of its 350Km high nominal troposphere is hotter than Earth even though no solar radiation reaches down there and there is no solid surface there either.
You could learn a lot about climate change reading this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
Dug,
Nope. The sun is about 3% closer at perihelion. Fact. If you claim that the Earth absorbs equal amounts of energy regardless of distance from the Sun, you are probably ignorant of physics, and that radiative intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. (From memory.)
Only a bit, but every bit helps!
You’re probably thinking about seasons changing, due to the inclination of the Earth’s axis to the plane of the ecliptic. Nothing to do with Uranus, unless your head is firmly embedded in yours for the moment.
The Earth has cooled from the molten state to its present temperature, and will no doubt continue until it is in equilibrium with its surrounding environment. Reject reality all you want – it won’t turn your “heat creep” fantasy into fact.
What about the distance, Dug?
I said the MAIN effect has to do with the angle the Sun’s orbit makes being different between summer and winter. A 3% variation in distance from the Sun would be in opposite seasons in the two hemispheres anyway. You really don’t think about such basic facts do you?
Seasonal effects are not considered climate change for the globe as a whole, which is what Roy’s graphs are. You should only watch the red line.
There is a cycle of about 100,000 years caused by variations in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit, the annual mean distance from the Sun thus varying. But that is not cooling over millions or billions of years.
All observed climate change in the last 9,000 years can be explained by variations in cloud cover and location such that reflection by clouds varies roughly in the range from 19% to 21%. Cosmic rays assist cloud formation.
It is blatantly obvious, when you consider the glacial periods, that there can be warming coming out of such and even coming out of Dark Ages Cooling and the Little Ice Age. There is no evidence of the Earth being hundreds or thousands of degrees hotter in the last 4 billion years or so. Such would be an unstable situation and rapid cooling of at least 15 degrees a year would have occurred. We have been at approximate equilibrium with solar radiation that gets past the clouds for most of that 4.5 billion years and you have no proof otherwise. The laws of physics prove your conjecture wrong.
Dug,
You wrote –
“I said the MAIN effect has to do with the angle the Suns orbit makes being different between summer and winter.”
Fine, except the poster didn’t actually ask a question. He pondered about the effect of sunshine if the Earth was closer to, or further from, the Sun.
Your comment has nothing to do with that, as far as I can see.
You might not know that the Sun does not actually travel around the Earth, so you might want to rephrase “I said the MAIN effect has to do with the angle the Suns orbit makes being different between summer and winter.”
You might have intended to mention the Earth’s inclination to the plane of the ecliptic, but you didn’t.
Maybe “heat creep” has affected your brain.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915619_Cogent_and_irrefutable_reasons_why_carbon_dioxide_cannot_warm_Earth
I suggest you note the words “Distance from the Sun” in my comment here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376251
This is yet another assertive statement you’ve made based on your guessing what my papers say without reading them. You don’t even fully comprehend my valid explanations based on correct physics which you have never disproved in comments, let alone in my seven main papers and articles.
Go and argue with Prof Claes Johnson about the radiation issue. His writings are cited in my peer-reviewed 2012 paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317997916_Radiated_Energy_and_the_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics
You just proved you know absolutely nothing. LOL
A 3% variation in the distance from the Sun alters the flux in the order of the difference in the squares of the greater and lesser distance. However, the temperature achieved (based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) varies only as the difference in the fourth root of the two fluxes. That is two orders of magnitude less. In contrast, at latitude, say, 40 degrees south (in New Zealand for example) when the Sun can be directly overhead at 20 degrees North then the effective flux striking a horizontal plane is halved because sine 30 = 0.5. That’s a far more significant factor determining the difference in temperatures between summer and winter than is the above fourth root.
Again, you carry on with your attempts at personal smears and mockery without a moment’s careful thought or a word of correct physics. When did you last name and apply ANY law in Physics in your comments?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376555
The retiree seems to have stumbled again. Is it the difference of the squares or the square of the difference. Wikipedia will not help you with that! Strictly speaking, the only two factors are temperature difference and projected area. When the earth is further away, the sun has a smaller projected area. That is why the energy density coming from the sun is less. Done with you!
It is roughly 3.5% up and down. If we assume an average 342W/m2, it would be 354W/m2 in early Winter and 330W/m2 in early Summer. Potentially it would be a spread of ~5K.
I seem to recall Dr. Spencer commenting that we do not see a seasonal variation. Could it be that the further distance in northern hemisphere distance in summer is offset by greater land mass having some kind of effect.
Don’t know which effect you’d expect. A larger winter/summer spread in the SH than in the NH? Sure, land masses or continental vs. maritime climate are a far stronger factor.
Interestingly, Earth is about 1K cooler when close to Sun (perihelion). And about 1K warmer when at the other extreme (aphelion). It’s evidence of Earth’s energy storage capability, oscillations, and lags.
Earth knows what it’s doing. It’s not chaos — it’s thermodynamics.
The Lord is so confused, he cannot tell the difference between meteorological and climate thermodynamic processes. Meteorological processes are short term: hours, days, or weeks. The heat of the sun and clouds are the major thermodynamic parameters. We see that all the time. After a hot sunny day or two, soon clouds form and rain pours to maintain surface temperature from rising indefinitely. Of course these meteorological events have feedbacks. However, these events cancel out at the completion of one year. It is a repeatable cycle, and every year (one revolution of the earth around the sun), equilibrium is reached. The average temperature of the month of March is about the same every year. No directional change in climate parameters occurs. Not so for climate processes, climate parameters have a trend. The average annual sea temperature increases every equilibrium year. The sun and clouds can have nothing to do with climate change process and there can be no feedbacks because at the conclusion of every year, thermodynamic equilibrium is reached.
What causes climate change is living matter size variation. It is an inherent subjective property of living matter to multiply and increase in size when conditions are favorable (Vernadsky). This has been the case throughout the history of the earth. When there is no life, there can be no climate change, and James Lovelock research work implicitly implies this conclusion. For the present warming trend, the causes are deforestation, surface greening, population growth, and the resulting energy consumption. This process is an internal heat exchange within the climate system, and the sun has nothing to do with it. For more details, please see my published papers on this subject, ORCID ID 0000-0003-1976-5516
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324664270_Comprehensive_Refutation_of_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis
Dug,
Orbital eccentricity cannot change climates. Only living matter can. The ‘creep heat” concept is a better one, and I believe that this heat is equal to the net heat of carbon conversion to carbon dioxide resulting from deforestation, surface greening, and energy consumption.
I only respond now to people who have read my papers and are constructively commenting on the content.
https:/ssrn.com/author=2627605
My seven papers may be read with these links
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 for the first three, then:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338356357_Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915619_Cogent_and_irrefutable_reasons_why_carbon_dioxide_cannot_warm_Earth
Dug,
Wonderful. Don’t respond to anyone who disagrees with you.
Maybe reality will ignore you if you ignore it.
Good luck with that.
Feel free to discuss anything that is actually in my papers. So far you have failed to refer to even a single sentence, let alone the cogent proofs of everything I have said and the experiments, studies and data that support such. I guess the HUGE problem for you is to deign to actually read the papers.
Hang on there Dug,
You wrote –
“I only respond now to people who have read my papers and are constructively commenting on the content.”
Do you really think I have read your papers and am constructively commenting on them?
You are more deranged than I thought, and have a very strange idea of constructive criticism. I think you are dreaming, but if you think that is constructive criticism, who am I to disagree?
I think you are delusional. I suppose that is constructive criticism, according to you, but it wasn’t intended as such,
Your rudeness does not impress me. Silent readers (of whom there are scores) will form their own opinion of you.
Trying to put this question in a nutshell:
Roy is saying that it is often convenient to move the origin of coordinates to the operating point of the process? And he is saying that this move affects the rate coefficients; I think Monckton is saying that it doesn’t?
My take is that it depends on whether or not the whole system is globally and precisely linear?
CG,
I may be misunderstanding, but if you are referring to an “attractor”, then yes, the dynamic atmosphere is chaotic, and is subject to the vagaries of one or more “strange attractors”.
The goalposts keep shifting, so to speak.
No equilibrium, no predictability better than guessing.
Not accepted by many, even Einstein, who rejected much of quantum physics on the basis that God does not play at dice. As Richard Feynman said “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment.”
Good enough for me.
swenson….”Not accepted by many, even Einstein, who rejected much of quantum physics on the basis that God does not play at dice. As Richard Feynman said Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment”.
***
To be fair to both Einstein and Feynman, quantum theory has escalated from its initial simplicity into a consensus where much of it does not agree with experiment. Nothing new, catastrophic climate theory is based on the same consensus.
GR,
You wrote –
“quantum theory has escalated from its initial simplicity into a consensus where much of it does not agree with experiment.”
If you are perhaps referring to the later quantum electrodynamic theory, to my knowledge, every prediction has been confirmed by experiment, to the limits of practical measurement.
Maybe you could point me to reproducible experimental results which do not agree with predictions?
There have been many such claims in the past, but all have proved to be wishful thinking and experimenters fooling themselves.
So far, reality remains intact
swenson…electrodyamics is the field of Feynman. I was referring more to the quantum theory of Bohr, after his breakthrough discovery of the quantum nature of electron orbitals, in which he went off into sci-fi like entanglement theory. That’s when Einstein and Schrodinger split from Bohr and his theories.
As Einstein put it, he could not support science based on speculation rather than physical reality. Then he went and defined a reality (space-time) based on the speculation of time as a physical reality.
Einestine is the last to adhere to physical reality. Much of his work has not or cannot be validated by the public.
Time is an observable reality. If Mr Robertson were to read Einstein’s work for the layman, Relativity Explained, he would understand why it is that we know time exists.
christopher game…”As I see amplification, it necessarily and essentially involves adding power to a signal, in a more or less linear way. A magnifying glass selects a part of the input and magnifies it, and discards the unselected part”.
***
Amplification with regard to a transistor is simply a small signal between base and emitter (BJT), or source and gate (FET), controlling a much larger current from the power supply between emitter/collector, or source/drain. The transistor behaves like a variable impedance.
Nothing is actually amplified in the sense that something is added to the input signal to increase its power. The semiconductor material is arranged in junctions whereby a smaller current through one junction can control a larger current through another junction. Ultimately, the amplified power comes from the power supply.
That’s why it is ridiculous to talk about a positive feedback in the atmosphere. When you see what is involved with positive feedback in a real amplifier circuit, it’s ingenuous to claim a PF in the atmosphere without clearly explaining how it is possible.
You cannot explain PF using a mathematical series, Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician could not explain it using a series. The irony is Schmidt is the head of NASA GISS and he cannot explain PF, even though it’s an integral part of his model.
It’s covered in the following link under ‘Gavin Schmidt On Positive Feedback’.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180819052432/http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
Why would a government agency do climate science in the first place? Governments are not good at any thing except governing. When they do climate science, rest assured that their internal cut throat politics will be in their version of science.
Nabil,
Most Governments are absolutely dreadful at governing, as far as I can see. Maybe you live in a country which is different to any I know of.
Only joking?
Good point Nabil. Why would NASA, and NOAA, want to become involved in politics? The head of NASA wanted to fire Hansen based on his political ideology and actions and the US government intervened, likely Hansen’s buddy, Al Gore.
GISS has made NASA look foolish.
Mr Robertson continues to misinform himself. He should begin his education by reading a textbook of number theory, with particular reference to the closed-form solution to the sum of an infinite series of powers, under the convergence criterion that the fraction of the output signal represented by feedback response shall be less than unity.
Once he has mastered the relevant formula, and has perhaps learned how it was proven some 200 years ago (indeed, it was the first infinite series whose sum was expressed in closed form), he will realize what nonsense it is to suggest that there cannot be positive feedback in the atmosphere.
Two conclusions follow. First, if he considers official climatology is wrong about positive feedback, then he should address his complaint to official climatology, and not to us. He will deservedly get short shrift.
Secondly, if there is no positive feedback in the climate system then ECS is of order 1 K, proving our point a fortiori.
You live in a world of theory.
The problem is that of all the climate models using feedbacks to project their scenarios of impending doom.
As I understand it, Lord Monckton is saying is the feedback value used in the climate models is much too large and may in fact be negative.
The matter of whether there are feedbacks in climate isnt the question. There certainly are valid comparisons to electronic circuits as well as any other process where feedback occurs.
Point is, Ken, feedbacks can be demonstrated in electrical circuits and measured. That is not the case in the atmosphere where positive feedback is an assumption that no alarmists can correctly define.
All the climate models have a positive feedback written into the code.
Exactly, that’s why their predictions are so high and unrealistic. There are no positive feedbacks in the climate, remove them and everything is normal again.
Also, remove the hypothetical warming factor for CO2, of 9% to 25%, built into the models and voila, catastrophic warming is gone.
Mr Robertson repeats himself to no good effect. There are indeed positive feedbacks in the climate system, as well as negative feedbacks. It is easy to demonstrate that such feedbacks exist, and it is demonstrated in the head posting that the net feedback strength is weakly positive, and not, as official climatology imagines, so strongly positive as to require a quadrupling of any reference sensitivity to derive equilibrium sensitivity.
Do you think that you can convince the audience with colorful wording instead of facts and sound arguments based on established and recognized science?
Dear Lord Monckton, replying to your above post of October 7, 2022 at 11:32 AM.
You write: “There are indeed positive feedbacks in the climate system, as well as negative feedbacks.” I think that is a lazy or careless misuse of language. It fails to make, or fudges, or glosses over the important distinction between a net effect and a contributory component effect. This fudging leads the unwary to misguidedly speak of “amplification” as a feature of the earth’s energy transport process, over-all sunlight in, intestinal mechanisms, infrared radiation out.
You write: “It is easy to demonstrate that such feedbacks exist.” It is not clear what you mean by ‘demonstrate’. But, in general, such over-all features of the earth’s energy transport process are not easy to measure, and the notion of feedback is poorly or ambiguously defined, so that it would be hard to match measurement to a precisely and rigorously defined notion of feedback.
One may talk in a facile way about ‘feedback’, but that is far from ‘feedback’ being easily demonstrated empirically. Of course, it is easy to talk about ‘feedback’ in a mathematical model, but hard to match the model safely or precisely to empirical measurement.
You write: “the net feedback strength is weakly positive.” I think that statement is close to meaningless unless you give a better account than is found in the head posting. I much prefer the statement that Gordon Robertson attributes to Roy: “a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback.”
You write: “as official climatology imagines, so strongly positive as to require a quadrupling of any reference sensitivity to derive equilibrium sensitivity.” I am not a mind reader and I don’t know who is the imaginer of “official climatology”, and I don’t know what they imagine. But I do believe that there is no sound argument that the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” is at all greater than 1.2C
“But I do believe that there is no sound argument that the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ is at all greater than 1.2C”
Speaking of lazy claims, Christopher, where o where have you made that case?
Hi Nate. Thank you for your comment.
ken…”As I understand it, Lord Monckton is saying is the feedback value used in the climate models is much too large and may in fact be negative”.
***
If that is correct, then CM is correct. Roy once stated that a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback. That too makes perfect sense…everything related to feedbacks is negative.
A positive feedback strength will lead to a positive feedback response, amplifying, not attenuating, the reference signal.
Dear Lord Monckton, your comment is hard to decipher for sure.
But whatever you might mean by it, I disagree with the idea that the word ‘amplify’ is suitable to describe a substantial feature of the earth’s energy transport process, over-all sunlight in, intestinal mechanisms, infrared radiation out. More particularly, I am saying that it is a mistake to think that the forcing-and-feedback formalism justifies the idea that the earth’s energy transport process involves amplification in a proper sense of the word. Instead, I commend the statement above that Gordon Robertson attributes to Roy: ‘a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback’
I think that unguarded or unqualified or unmodified use of the words ‘positive feedback’ or of the word ‘amplify’ in this context is a cause of grievous mischief.
Hi Gordon Robertson.
My memory isn’t good enough to check your statement “Roy once stated that a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback.”
Whether or not Roy once stated so, I can say that I think it a good statement: ‘a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative negative feedback.’
This talk of a climate system positive feedback actually being a less negative negative feedback puts me in mind of the acidification of the oceans, which is actually less alkaline.
If the positive feedback is actually less negative negative feedback then it is still negative feedback. Surely if it were really positive feedback then would make the system unstable wouldnt it?
John:
Yes, there always has to be net negative feedback or any system would be unstable to forcing. Climate researchers muddle things by not mentioning that the Planck effect (emitted IR increasing with temperature) is not called a “feedback” even though it acts like one, and it is what stabilizes the climate system. Supposed positive feedbacks such as clouds, water vapor, etc., cannot sum to be more than the Planck effect negative feedback.
-Roy
Relatively speaking, they are better at governing than writing the climate science.
e.schaeffer….”It is fascinating how considering sunshine as a forcing seems to be a mental challenge. Yet it is no suprise, as I know how people fail on the most simplistic logical issues”.
***
What is logical about the word forcing? Why is sunshine a forcing?’
Sunshine is electromagnetic energy, that is logical. Sunlight is energy. It doesn’t have to force anything, it is just there.
The word forcing is terminology from climate models which are programmed based on differential equation theory. In DE theory, an equation is said to be forced to respond to another equation as input where the input is called a forcing function. However, in mathematics, there is no physical way to force an equation to respond.
One type of forcing function is a unit impulse function. It models a square wave in the real physical world, and when a square wave is applied to an amplifier, it forces the amp to react in a certain manner, namely, it causes the amp to oscillate briefly due to the sharp rising edge of the pulse.
What is it sunshine does when it is said to be a forcing in the Earth atmosphere, oceans, and surface? It doesn’t force anything in particular rather than causing things to rise in temperature. Would it not be better to use the logical word ‘warming’ rather than the illogical term ‘forcing’?
“Would it not be better to use the logical word warming rather than the illogical term forcing?”
No. Not unless you are continually wanting to be bogged down in pointless semantics. (You do have a problem there)
No, Ken, I don’t have a problem, I see physical reality as it is, not through the eyes of a climate modeler. The word forcing makes no sense other than in a differential equation used in a climate model. The actual climate system is not a differential equation.
You are a bit too thick to get that, so why do you bother making comments about matters you don’t understand?
Incoming solar irradiance is rather obviously the largest forcing acting on the Earth’s climate. Forcings are denominated in Watts per square metre of net incoming radiative flux density at the planetary characteristic emission altitude.
Correct!
Sun adds energy to Earth. Solar irradiance is a “forcing”.
That’s why adding CO2 to the atmosphere is NOT a “forcing”. It adds no energy to Earth.
“Thats why adding CO2 to the atmosphere is NOT a ‘forcing’. It adds no energy to Earth.”
Oh? So a volcanic eruption is placing sulfates in the stratosphere, changing Earth’s albedo, but its not a forcing?
Show us a definition of ‘forcing’ from any legit source that agrees with you.
I predict you will make excuses, toss ad-homs, and offer nothing to support your claims.
“The furtively pseudonymous Willard continues to parade his ignorance and hatred.”
Best line of the day.
Hard to tell, Kennui. There are so many gems. I will collect a few and write a post on How to Lord Comment Sections.
My favorite comment remains Mark M’s:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1375737
He sure figured you out fast.
“Willard is no doubt expert in Marxism-Leninism, but he is certainly no mathematician.”
John Gummer, who was Environment Minister under Thatcher, figured out our Viscount earlier than that, Kennui:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
The poisonous climate Communist “Willard”, having been repeatedly trounced on the few occasions when he has attempt, disastrously, to make scientific points, now resorts to the default position of those paid by the Kremlin to destroy the West’s energy supplies: reputational assassination.
Gummer, who profiteers by the ownership of windfarms, is frightened of me, and has always been so. He was not present during the sessions when I advised the Prime Minister and, therefore, is in no position to know what advice I gave. It is as simple as that.
And as for Wokipedia, it is justly excoriated as “the encyclopedia that any idiot can edit but only a cretin would credit”.
Here is the source:
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/british-mp-calls-for-a-carbon-tax/3014168
Christopher sure knows how to lord comment sections with sanctimonious madness.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Kennui,
Just for you:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/10/10/how-to-lord-comment-sections/
So many lines. You *will* like that.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Roy Spencer comment
Thus, more clouds on one region can actually cause fewer clouds elsewhere. This shows than even an expert in atmospheric radiative transfer (Ramanathan) could be misled without an adequate understanding of atmospheric circulation systems.
This statement is semi provable by considering the fact that the average humidity of the earths atmosphere is remarkably constant year in and year out.
This is common sense given that the water vapour, like CO2, is in equilibrium with its sources and dependent mainly on temperature , pressure and availability
Roy Spencer
At issue is his claim that researchers have somehow neglected that the feedback response to a climate perturbation needs to include the feedback response to the total emission temperature of the system.
I maintain that this is not how climate sensitivity in climate models is determined only actual physical processes are modeled and I used clouds as an example of why the system response to small perturbations cannot be determined by including the response of a cold (e.g. 2.7 Kelvin) Earth to solar heating (he includes the total system temperature in his system gain calculation).
I fail to see all the logic involved in this refutation.
We all agree that there may be feedback responses involved.
(This in itself validates an analogy to a feedback circuit or loop).
Climate models determine climate sensitivity by modelling actual physical processes.
Your words.
This means the climate sensitivity obtained is a direct output of the assumptions used in modelling physical processes, not the actual physical processes.
It is all algorithms which may or may not represent the actual physical processes because some of the assumptions, as you illustrate with clouds, may not be correct.
One of these assumptions is that the perturbations are only acting on a small part of the temperature base rather than the whole amount of energy represented by that energy base.
If he is correct in his assertion, something that one hopes most physicists would have taken into account in their calculations then presumably you would agree that it would be both an egregious and a terrible error to make.
Is he wrong or are people hiding?
The cold 2.7 K earth is not a correct claim on your part.
You are talking about the temperature of an earth formed of material that has lost all its innate energy of formation to space eons ago.
Physically this is not possible.
Only matter that has no contact with other matter can be at true absolute zero.
When it coagulates, compresses, constricts forming aggregates of matter it will produce some energy constantly as a meteorite, an asteroid, a planet a star or a galaxy.
With energy from all that accumulating, which is still going on, needing to be lost over time.
While not understanding his argument as well as I would like I do feel that he is correct in asserting that the energy equation might not be being used correctly?
Sorry to be a pain.
Angech,
The Earth is still more than 99% molten.
Maybe any calculations which indicate otherwise are incorrect?
Up to you, but fact is superior to fantasy as far as I am concerned.
What about you?
The earth has a thin crust but certainly solid.
Molten is a bit like acidic as a term.
What would be molten to us if extruded on the surface is solid to physicists and chemists under the constraint of pressure from gravity at depth.
Certainly a lot more solid than you assert but it is very definition bound.
What amazes me is the concept that a solid bit of earth has no energy.
People talk of heat hiding in the deep ocean.
How much more energy is in 6 x 10^24 kilograms of matter hurled together from different directions and moving through space at colossal velocities .
Yet Roy prefers to think of it as being at 2.7 K.
Ignoring the massive intrinsic energy generated by its incorporation into a solar system.
99% molten?
No.
4 Billion years of energy formation and drain and still at at least 273K with a whiff of solar energy warming the surface faintly.
Hope that helps
Angech,
Fair enough. Maybe I should have said “above the temperature of molten rock”, if you would prefer.
More than 99% of the volume of the Earth is above the temperature of molten rock.
Better?
I like your concept of 99 % of the earth volume is above the temperature of very hot rocks, a lot of them molten.
The 99% figure is far too high and dependent on your definition of molten.
But yes,
We forget how much heat we are being kept away from by the crust and how impossible it is to have got any of that energy from the sun.
–
Or why its got there in the first place.
–
We will just have to disagree on everything else.
A,
You say 99% is far too high, do you?
Why is that?
Someone told you, perhaps, or you had a fantasy where you could bend inconvenient facts to your will?
Maybe you prefer if I use fluid rather than very hot? For example, no hole has ever been drilled deeper than 13 km into the crust. At that depth, the rock is not remaining solid enough to drill through. It moves continuously, and is quite hot. How about “not solid”?
On the other hand, molten magma oozes continuously from the mid-ocean ridges which collectively divide the solid crust into separate parts. At such places, the depth of the crust is zero.
It doesn’t matter. The Earth still has an extremely hot interior, much to the dismay of SkyDragons who are “sure” it can’t be so! And if the Earth is hotter than the environment which surrounds it, it must continue to cool. No GHE, no spontaneous heating.
Just physical laws at work, no matter what your firmly held beliefs are telling you.
99% molten?
No.
Reason?
Part of the core is also solid.
not much but added to crust <99% is molten.
Would accept about 99% on reading the thickness of the crust.
I thought it was closer to 35m Km deep.
Thanks.
Mea culpa.
“The cold 2.7 K earth is not a correct claim on your part.
You are talking about the temperature of an earth formed of material that has lost all its innate energy of formation to space eons ago.
Physically this is not possible.”
The issue for climate is always the SURFACE temperature, not the average temperature of the interior. Without sunshine, the ~ 0.1 W/m^2 geothermal energy flow up from interior would produce a surface temperature of ~ 40 K. The initially molten earth of 4.6 billion years ago would long since have formed a frigid, solid surface.
It really doesn’t matter if the interior is 5,000 K. The hot core does not need to “lose all its innate energy” for the surface to be COLD!
So, yes, 2.7 K or 0 K is an exaggeration, but not by much. And none of that influences the core argument about how to calculate feedbacks.
“4 Billion years of energy formation and drain and still at at least 273K with a whiff of solar energy warming the surface faintly.”
No. At the surface there is a ‘whiff or geothermal energy’ (0.1 W/m^2) and a flood of solar energy (240 W/m^2). And the surface is what matters for climate.
Tim,
You’ve hit it on the head! Congratulations!
Many GHE enthusiasts assess the average temperature of the Earth due to the Sun alone, to be 255 K.
My calculation of the sunless Earth’s present surface temperature are more or less the same as yours, so 40 K will do nicely.
It seems non intuitive to many, but the energy input to raise a body to a certain temperature is dependent on the initial temperature. For example, less energy is required to bring water to boiling point (say 273 K), if the initial temperature is 272 K, rather than 200 K.
Starting with the earth at 40 K, add the energy which would bring it to 255 K from 0 K (absolute zero), and hey presto!, 295K. Of course this calculation is merely meant to demonstrate that no GHE is required to explain whatever temperature the surface might be, from its original possible 5,500 K or so, to its present temperature.
Just simple application of physical laws to measured reality.
“Starting with the earth at 40 K, add the energy which would bring it to 255 K from 0 K (absolute zero), and hey presto!, 295K.”
Tee hee hee, funny guy.
Swenson is determined to lower our expectations of his intellect.
“Starting with the earth at 40 K, add the energy which would bring it to 255 K from 0 K (absolute zero), and hey presto!, 295K. Of course this calculation is merely meant to demonstrate that no GHE is required to explain whatever temperature the surface might be, from its original possible 5,500 K or so, to its present temperature.
Just simple application of physical laws to measured reality.”
There are two seperate, fundamental errors in your ‘simple application of physical laws’.
1) The issue is not about ‘bringing it to’ 295 K from a given starting point, but ‘holding at’ 295 K. This requires adding power continuously, not adding energy once. You seem to be imagining a calorimetry experiment in a perfectly insulated container.
2) The power required is not a linear function.
0.1 W/m^2 will hold at ~ 36 K (rounded to 40 K earlier). Adding 0.1 W/m^2 more will warm just 7 K more (not 40 K more).
240 W/^2 will hold at ~ 255 K. Adding 0.1 W/m^2 more will warm just 0.026 K more (not 40 K more)
Tim,
Don’t be stupid, Tim.
The Earth is not “holding”, it’s “cooling”.
The Sun is unable to “hold” the temperature, any more than it has been able to “hold” it for four and a half billion years or so.
You are confusing W/m2 (radiative intensity) with energy.
For example, to raise the temperature of 1 g of water by 1 C, 4.184 joules of energy is required. Not any number of W/m2, but you are too ignorant to admit that you don’t know what you are talking about.
Go away and learn some physics.
Or not – keep looking stupid. I’ll help you out.
> The Earth is not “holding”, its “cooling”.
What are you rambling about, Mike?
“The Earth is not “holding”, its “cooling”.”
The surface (the only part we are interested in for climate discussions) has been “holding” close to current temperatures (+/- about 5 C) for about 30 million years. This is because there has been a rough balance between incoming sunlight and outgoing IR over that time. (With a TINY bit of geothermal thrown into the mix).
So yes, the surface of the earth is HOLDING its temperature pretty darn well. (And in fact, the surface has actually been *warming* over the past 50 years, and also warming over the past 15,000 years. Not cooling. Not even holding. But warming!)
“For example, to raise the temperature of 1 g of water by 1 C, 4.184 joules of energy is required. ”
Yes, that is a part of the discussion. But once the water or soil or air has warmed due to a one-time input of energy, it will emit more thermal IR. To STAY at that higher temperature requires a continued increase in energy. Otherwise it would cool back to it’s original temperature.
Since the amount of energy emitted each second by IR depends on the surface area emitting the IR, the energy per second required to hold the higher temperature will all depend on the surface area. Hence W/m^2, not W and not J. W/m^2.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A powerful wave of Arctic air from Canada is coming into the central US. Temperatures will drop below zero C at night and there will be snowstorms in places. The temperature drop will be dramatic.
Cooler air to finally return to much of western US.
Forecasters say a big change will begin Monday. A dip in the jet stream is expected to move into Washington before dropping even farther south Tuesday and Wednesday. Although the West Coast will cool down, the biggest effects may be felt farther east.
Some locations could see nearly a 20-degree drop within 12 hours, said Massey.
This is not the end of rainfall in southeastern Australia. More cold fronts from the south will arrive there soon.
There are still three months left in the year, and SOI is high.
You can all learn sooooooo much from what happens on the planet Uranus. Read my latest paper (written two years ago) here …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
I will only respond to those who have demonstrated knowledge of the content therein and who treat me with respect, for this is all about a very major breakthrough in our understanding of temperatures and heat in planetary systems right down to the core. It totally and utterly refutes the radiative forcing conjecture invented by climatologists and promoted by Raymond Pierrehumbert whose textbook is riddled with errors in physics.
You all need to face the fact that “heat creep” happens in force fields for there is evidence in experiments with centrifugal force as well as in data throughout the Solar System. I know it is surprising, which is probably why I have been the first in the world to explain it from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but it is increasing entropy. My 2013 paper has the proof. It provides the ONLY correct explanation of temperatures and heat everywhere.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905
“Retired physicist” is using this thread for self-promotion. His fanciful theories are off topic here.
Monckton of Brenchley is using this thread for self-promotion. His fanciful theories are off topic here.
I think that there is some truth to what you say and have published. But what other planets have to do with climate change? They do not experience changes for they are void of life. It is thus imperative to focus on living matter as a cause of climate change. I invite you to readhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2019.12.003
LORD MONCKTON
Please go to
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1376748
A good test for any climate model of Earth would be to start it from two temperature extremes, say 270K and 310K. If the model doesn’t settle to about 288K, then it’s wrong.
Morning temperatures (in C) in the Dakotas.
https://i.ibb.co/HpKWZPf/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-10-07-144325.png
Compare and contrast two Merchants of Doubt and one scientist.
From Christopher Monckton’s headline post:
“But there is no rational or legitimate excuse for doing anything about global warming on the basis of any current predictions…”
Julie Green September 2022:
https://youtu.be/nZkdQfr-eHE
“Something in those waters is being used against you, and you will see it because I will expose it. But some of these storms were man-made.”
Kerry Emanuel 2018:
TM, compare your desperate attempt to pervert reality with rational science.
Earth oscillates between warm and cool periods. Earth is in a warming trend. A warming trend will likely cause more intense hurricanes, as the waters are warmer.
All that is reality and science.
Believing you can boil water with ice cubes is anti-science. You suffer from over exposure to anti-science.
Hey, Graham –
Isn’t Pup trolling with that comment?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-679401
“…I’m not a real moderator.
…I’m just having a bit of fun. When I write ‘please stop trolling’, it doesn’t actually have any effect. People are still able to say whatever they want to say, and it will be posted and there for posterity, no matter how many times I repeat my ‘please stop trolling’.
…
I think what people are really upset about by the ‘please stop trolling’ is…they don’t get to have the last word.“
Exactly. Thank you.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-679512
With Little Willy, he is absolutely devastated not to get the last word.
I’m not the one who tilts when you can’t, Graham.
You forgot to opine on Pup’s trolling.
Nah, I just hold up a mirror to others’ behaviour. In order to do so, it is sometimes necessary to keep responding for long periods of time. This can be frustrating, and sometimes exhausting. But, it’s necessary, to show you people for what you are.
That excuse does not float anymore, Graham, and I ignore most of your PSTing.
And you still fail to opine on Pup’s trolling.
No excuses here. Just the truth of the matter. In my opinion, Clint R is not trolling.
Yes, Graham. Excuses. What you do is on you.
People don’t like being trolled. You troll them. Then you complain that they’re the trolls. And then you hide under false irony.
Just holding up a mirror.
No excuses here. Just the truth of the matter.
People troll, I ask them to stop, they are upset that they don’t get the last word.
Oh well.
[TYSON] “My colleagues and I have shown that hurricanes should become more intense and produce much more rain as the planet warms, and observations are beginning to show such trends.”
[PUP] TM, compare your desperate attempt to pervert reality with rational science. […] Believing you can boil water with ice cubes is anti-science. You suffer from over exposure to anti-science.
[GRAHAM] Not trolling.
The full comments are already there, for anyone to read.
Everyone can see that Pup is simply trolling with that comment, Pup. And right now you’re trolling by trying to defend the indefensible. Unless you count repeating the same thing over and over as a defense. Which might be what’s coming.
When was the last time you directly admitted to trolling?
Tyson only quoted an indirect admission.
We aren’t the trolls here. You are.
Of course you’re not trolling, Graham.
You’re just “having a little fun”:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016
Believe me, there’s no fun in talking to you.
I’m just holding a mirror, Graham.
Yes, like many narcissists, you like mirrors.
Graham, please stop trolling.
There is nobody here commenting by that name.
#2
I’m just holding a mirror, Graham.
…and there is still nobody commenting here by the name Graham.
Correct DREMT, correcting the cult nonsense is NOT trolling.
Trolling is having NOTHING, but seeking attention anyway.
Pup, please stop trolling.
Yes, Clint R, as we can see, they don’t even possess originality.
That is your opinion, Graham.
And we just tested its worth.
…Clint R, as we can see, they don’t even possess originality.
It was an important test, Graham.
…as we can see, they don’t even possess originality.
Very important test, Graham.
Perhaps the last one.
…we can see, they don’t even possess originality.
“But, its necessary, to show you people for what you are.”
Ok the message has been sent, 47,000 times, now it is just white noise.
…can see, they don’t even possess originality.
The irony and morony that the guy who has posted the IDENTICAL message 47,000 times moans of a lack of originality from others.
…see, they don’t even possess originality.
Literally everyone visiting here can see you being a hypocrite here. That doesn’t bother you?
That’s how we recognize trolling
…they don’t even possess originality.
Mr McGuffin is in fact comparing two merchants of science with one merchant of Communism, whose allegation that warmer weather worldwide should increase the frequency, intensity and duration of hurricanes and other tropical cyclones is not borne out by events. There has been small but not insignificant warming in recent decades, yet the accumulated cyclone energy index does not show the increase in the frequency, intensity or duration of hurricanes and suchlike cyclonic storms that the climate Communists have long predicted.
You’re too young to remember, but the hurricane of 1815 was a lulu. There has been nothing like it since.
> Mr McGuffin is in fact comparing two merchants of science with one merchant of Communism
Drink!
Not true, tropical cyclone count is increasing at 4 percent per decade. Go to previous post by Dr. Spencer for details.
Mr Monckton is unaware of Kerry Emanuel’s work and rather than familiarize himself with it chooses the ad hominem route.
I also note that Monckton dishonestly inserts the “frequency” strawman to suit his purpose, even though that was neither implied nor explicitly a part of the original quote.
To further Monckton’s education I provide the following quote from Emanuel’s 2005 article in Nature:
Monckton fancies himself a man of science but can’t be bothered to read the research.
Tyson fancies himself so much he writes his own name in capital letters.
Graham, please stop trolling.
…they don’t even possess originality.
Graham, please, stop trolling.
…don’t even possess originality.
Graham, please, stop, trolling.
…even possess originality.
Your physics is wrong Lord Monckton.
You can’t add fluxes from different sources and assume Stefan-Boltzmann calculations give the achieved temperature.
http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg
The blocking phenomenon begins high in the stratosphere.
2022/10/07/1800Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa
https://i.ibb.co/6P36ZWk/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-10-07-191911.png
From Wikipedia (a web site discredited by most Pseudoskeptics but to which they endlessly refer to when it fits their narrative):
” In 2009, John P. Abraham criticized Monckton’s claims in a lecture at Bethel University, and Monckton filed disciplinary charges alleging academic dishonesty against Abraham.
The University of St Thomas’s lawyers wrote to Monckton that
‘The University of St Thomas respects your right to disagree with Professor Abraham, just as the University respects Professor Abrahams right to disagree with you.
What we object to are your personal attacks against Father Dease, and Professor Abraham, your inflammatory language, and your decision to disparage Professor Abraham, Father Dease, and The University of St Thomas. ‘
The latter was in response to an interview in which Monckton characterized Abraham as ‘a wretched little man’, the university’s president Dease as ‘a creep’, and the University of St. Thomas as ‘a half-assed Catholic bible college’. ”
This is incredible.
Off topic. Dont blub.
Christopher, please stop whining.
Heat creep happens, Lord Monckton.
If it didn’t you’d be frozen to death. If it didn’t then no vortex cooling tube would function. If it didn’t there is no other valid explanation for temperatures in planets, even down to the core.
I have provided both the proof and the evidence. You need to look into it and realise that your radiation explanations are irrelevant and you are scoring own goals endorsing the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology which violates or ignores at least three long established laws of physics. Click the link to my seven papers on my website linked below.
I’ve also provided evidence that water vapour cools, and I have provided the correct physics to explain why this happens. You can’t prove me wrong, reward or not. Nobody has in nearly a decade. That’s because the physics I present is the correct science.
http://climate-change-theory.com
” Off topic. Dont blub. ”
That’s the harshest expression of denial since a while.
What does such a guy have to do here ???
Binny,
Is that the jack boots and riding crop fantasy taking over?
You don’t support free speech, I know, but there is nothing you can do to prevent it here, should Dr Spencer choose to allow it.
Winston Churchill said –
“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
I believe in unfettered free speech. For example if you see a fire starting in a theatre unbeknownst to anyone else, you should alert the audience by shouting “Fire!”. They should then proceed in an orderly fashion to the mustering point which is clearly shown where patrons enter the theatre.
You don’t seem to agree with free speech.
Maybe that’s the nature of a sauerkraut.
You are quoting a journalist who won beauty contests, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
binny…as CM states, don’t blub. Henceforth we may refer to you as blubberer.
C’mon, Gordo.
Binny has a point. Christopher’s Wiki leads to marvelous memories, e.g.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110720192325/http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
Granted, our Viscount is a walking contradiction himself.
That’s still no excuse.
Think.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
It would be my pleasure to share with you my recently published papers as well as other papers presently being submitted to journals. Your comments and critique would be valuable to me if you have time. My email address is nabilswedan@yahoo.com.
I would appreciate it if Dr. Spencer would separate his regular UAH reports on the lower troposphere from all these main and guest contributions, which ultimately do little more than add to the level of unnecessary polemics that we regular posters already contribute to.
You’re just sore, Binny, because you’re not smart enough to participate. With major appeals to authority you are dead in the water.
Fan mail:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/no-climatologists-did-not-forget-the-sun-was-shining/#comment-1375495
More crickets from our trainee-in-classical-logic.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
MONCKTON’S PHYSICS is WRONG because, just like climatologists, there is an implicit assumption that the Stefan Boltzmann Law can be used for the sum of solar and atmospheric physics.
Ironically Lord Monckton is scoring own goals, effectively endorsing this false physics in climatology textbooks such as that by Pierrehumbert.
Monckton needs to heed what I have explained using the Second Law of Thermodynamics which implies that a non-zero temperature gradient will tend to form in the troposphere of any and every planet, as we observe. This then facilitates the “heat creep” process which supplies the missing energy that climatologists just guessed must come from back radiation.
I once challenged Michael Mann face-to-face on this but he is too entrenched in the scam to which he contributed deliberately with his “hockey stick” graph for which he could produce no calculations in court. After all, in leaked emails they had to “get rid of the Medieval Warming Period” now didn’t they?
Folks! This is the biggest scientific scam in modern history and I predict it will be defeated, hopefully by 2025 at the latest.
Monckton and Spencer need to realise that.
Ooops! It should read:
MONCKTON’S PHYSICS is WRONG because, just like that of climatologists, there is an implicit assumption that the Stefan Boltzmann Law can be used for the sum of solar and atmospheric radiation.
Originally IPCC authors produced energy diagrams which did not show back radiation. They spoke about carbon dioxide supposedly “trapping” outward energy and acting like a blanket (despite being only one molecule in about 2,500) rather like the roof of a greenhouse. Then they realized there was no evidence for this hypothesis and, furthermore, there was a huge blunder in the energy diagrams because the solar radiation into the surface (averaging no more than about 170w/m^2) was nowhere near sufficient to explain the observed global mean surface temperature – not be a long shot.
So, as Roy Spencer once admitted, they just calculated the back radiation figure so that everything balanced. It is not a measured figure.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law tells us that for a temperature of about 288K (15C) the associated flux is about 390w/m^2. But that law only applies for true blackbodies and such bodies do not gain or lose energy by any process other than radiation, rather like a small, black copper marble in Space. If such a marble circled the Sun in Earth’s orbit it would get to about 120C like the hottest spot on the Moon. So the issue was, why is the mean surface temperature of Earth far hotter than the Sun’s direct radiation to that surface could make it?
The answer does not have anything to do with back radiation and the figure shown in current energy diagrams is impossibly high and needs false assumptions such as showing molecules radiating more downwards than upwards. The fallacy becomes even more apparent for Venus because there the solar radiation to the surface is less than 20w/m^2 and does no significant surface warming at all. No matter how much carbon dioxide is in the Venus atmosphere, radiation from the less-hot atmosphere cannot explain the warming of the Venus surface on the sunlit side which compensates for equivalent cooling on the dark side, actual about 5 degrees over the course of four months. After all, why wouldn’t a location passing through darkness cool?
So this leaves a huge mystery. Nowhere in world literature was there a correct explanation as to what happens on Venus, and the same applies to Earth even though in a small portion of the surface solar radiation may well do the warming on a clear day in summer. But, when considering the whole surface, there must be additional input of energy in the form which increases the mean molecular kinetic energy and thus increases the temperature mostly in the morning, even under thick cloud cover, as we can all observe. That extra energy is explained for the first time in my 2013 paper and subsequent book.
See the NASA energy diagram at
http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg
and watch the 15-minute video and read the seven linked papers at
http://climate-change-theory.com
The average global temperature increase has been measured. The measured temperature increase is the net result of ALL forcings and feedbacks. The WV increase resulting from temperature increase is easily calculated, see Sect 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com The measured WV increase is substantially more than from just feedback as seen e.g. at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FsGOBIRZ5b3VmKapPpwUC12iGeQWZvmT/view?usp=sharing . This demonstrates that humanity’s contribution to climate change has been from WV increase, not CO2 increase.
You CANNOT add atmospheric radiation (feedbacks) to solar radiation (then deduct non-radiative surface cooling) and use the net total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations (as NASA does) because that law only ever works for a SINGLE source and that source must be hotter than the target and, if the source is at a distance, the attenuated flux must be greater than the flux being emitted by the target.
The linked NASA diagram in my comment above has a note below it which you should read. In any event, real world data shows water vapor cooling* and the correct physics in my 2013 paper explains why that is so.
It’s no use feeding me what is in climatology textbooks – I’ve studied what they write extensively and done a massive amount of research these last 12 years. The radiation issue was explained in my peer-reviewed paper in 2012. The first three papers are at:
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605.
As the red line on Roy’s graphs shows, there has been net global cooling since 1998, so your comment about “average global temperature increase” is getting out of date because the RATE of annual increase since earlier last century is obviously decreasing. From later this century the world will start to experience about 500 years of global cooling, just as it did after the Medieval Warming Period which was hotter than the present, though not as hot as the Roman warming period. So we also have net global cooling over the last 3,200 years at least as shown here.**
* http://climate-change-theory.com/study-15-locations.jpg
** http://climate-change-theory.com/hco-rwp-mwp.jpg
And, Dan Pangburn, in regard to your paper on water vapor, if water vapor were causing a rise in the global mean surface temperature then it would be increasing the absolute value of the temperature gradient between the radiating altitude and the surface. It would be doing most of the IPCC’s “33 degrees” of supposed warming by IR-active gases at its average concentration of just over 1%. But it is well known that an increase in water vapor reduces the magnitude of that temperature gradient (aka “lapse rate”) and, besides, how much warming would it then do where its concentration could well be three times as much?
Six years ago I asked the CSIRO in Australia (as a Freedom of Information question) to produce a study contrary to that I did and published in my 2013 paper and my book. They had no evidence what-so-ever of water vapor warming the surface, and nor is there any to my knowledge anywhere. Studies which just show more downward radiation are begging the question and incorrectly assuming such radiation can be added to solar radiation.
Generally speaking, back radiation can only slow radiative cooling of the surface, not the non-radiative component. The latter will usually increase, often enough to compensate for (ie negate) the slowing of radiative cooling. To be sure, when there is a high concentration of water vapor in thick, low cloud, there can be net slowing of cooling. However, in regions where that is likely to happen (rarely in deserts, for example) the overall mean temperatures are lower (other factors like latitude and altitude being equal) because the average concentration of water vapor is higher. My study shows that. Also, think about humid Singapore where the high humidity tends to cap maximum daily temperatures such that they rarely exceed 33C. Obviously the maximum temperature where there had been thick cloud cover would have been lower during the day when the water vapor in the clouds slowed night-time cooling.
Considering the scattered nonsense and downright falsehoods in the above it is clear that you do not understand this stuff very well.
Failure to account for measured water vapor (which has been increasing substantially faster than possible from just feedback) is at best a mistake and perhaps science incompetence. Measured WV increase can account for all of climate change attributable to humanity. CO2 has no significant effect. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316885439_Climate_Change_Drivers
In the future, hopefully not too distant, this laws of fizzix breaking back radiation model of ground eating back its own radiation and adding it up will be looked at as just another Ptolemaic system that has no basis on reality.
maguff…”From Christopher Moncktons headline post:
But there is no rational or legitimate excuse for doing anything about global warming on the basis of any current predictions”
***
I may not agree with everything CM writes or for that matter everything the late Fred Singer wrote. However, both have/had their hearts in the right place, just as with Roy and John Christy, and I back CM on the statement above.
It is absolutely futile to follow this nonsense about catastrophic global warming/climate change. Michael Moore has made an excellent video demonstrating clearly the hypocrisy, naivete, and lies of climate alarmists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE&ab_channel=MichaelMoore
Salient points…
1)All Green initiatives like wind and solar power are heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Wind and solar cannot replace fossil fuels or come anywhere close to replacing them.
2)Alarmists are chopping down trees to burn them (biomass) and claiming it as a renewable process, hence clean. Absurd as this practice may be, green trees don’t burn well, in fact coal burns much better producing less CO2. So, the idiots are adding accelerants to the wood like shredded rubber tires.
3)Climate alarmists are seriously mistaken and naive in thinking addressing climate change will solve any problems we face today.
4)Huge profits are being made by pigs like Al Gore who are working both sides of the fence.
mark m…”Monckton of Brenchley is using this thread for self-promotion. His fanciful theories are off topic here”.
***
Au contraire…Roy has personally invited CM to comment. Try reading Roy’s article.
maguff…”Compare and contrast two Merchants of Doubt and one scientist”.
***
Maguff is appealing to the authority of Naomi Oreskes, who divines that consensus is a valid form of science. She performed a study of 1000 scientists and claimed 90% of scientists agree with the anthropogenic theory.
Oreskes, in her not-so-brilliant book, Merchants of Doubt, tried to assault a few deceased scientists who could not defend themselves. Really classy.
GR,
Michael Mann, faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, sought to have the foolish Naomi Oreskes admitted as an expert witness in his defamation action against Mark Steyn.
Here’s part of Judge Irvings comments about the silly SkyDragon posturing of Naomi Oreskes –
“When asked about the methodologies that she used in this case, Dr. Oreskes responded: “If you want me to tell you what my method is, it’s reading and thinking. We read. We read documents. And we think about them.”
The judge was scathing in his condemnation of such silliness, and explained his reasons in his written decision to dismiss her, and another five dimwits, as being “expert witnesses”.
Others may read the Court’s order dismissing the bizarre attempt by Mann to get nitwits like Naomi Oreskes admitted as “expert witnesses” in a court of law.
Courts tend to favour facts over SkyDragon fantasies, and so they should.
Others will indeed read, Mike:
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/27/judge-strikes-all-of-michael-manns-expert-witnesses-from-libel-suit/
Willard,
You have quoted another journalist expressing a journalistic opinion.
I suppose that’s not as idiotic as Naomi Oreskes thinking a judge should value her opinions any more than he would a random member of the public.
Carry on appealing to the opinions of anyone you wish.
You are a donkey, Willard.
Mike Flynn,
I have quoted the important bit to show what happens when rational people think properly,
As for what happens within Sky Dragon Cranks such as you, who knows.
Probably as much as with the pitch drop experiment!
Willard,
Quoting a journalist’s opinion is about as scientific as a SkyDragon like you gets.
Might as quote the opinion of a pretentious dimwit like Dr Naomi Oreskes.
Neither is worth a cracker in a court of law.
Volokh is not exactly a journalist, Mike, and I could not find Keith Richards.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Speaking of “SkyDragon fantasies” I’m with you on that:
http://climate-change-theory.com/PSI.html
Dead link.
This is worth repeating…from Monckton of Brenchly re Willard…aka Dullard.
***
The poisonous climate Communist Willard, having been repeatedly trounced on the few occasions when he has attempt, disastrously, to make scientific points, now resorts to the default position of those paid by the Kremlin to destroy the Wests energy supplies: reputational assassination.
Gummer, who profiteers by the ownership of windfarms, is frightened of me, and has always been so. He was not present during the sessions when I advised the Prime Minister and, therefore, is in no position to know what advice I gave. It is as simple as that.
And as for Wokipedia, it is justly excoriated as the encyclopedia that any idiot can edit but only a cretin would credit.
And this is worth repeating:
And you, my dear Gordo, are just sore, because &c.
Willard,
Well blow me down!
The trustee of a climate change charity (I didn’t know that climate change needed charity), and the duly elected winner of a beauty contest, says that Lord Monckton isn’t taken seriously by anybody!
I assume that Lord Monckton, at least, takes himself seriously, and if he does, it demonstrates Lord Gummer is nothing more than an ignorant bullying blowhard.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here is John Gummer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gummer
As for blowing you, perhaps you should negotiate that with your spouse.
Willard,
As I said, the winner of a beauty contest, and the trustee of a climate change charity.
As to the rest of your nonsense, you are just peeved because I have rejected your homosexual protestations of love, and laugh at your masturbatory fantasies!
Keep trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Perhaps you prefers losers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
Elective affinites, no doubt.
Willard,
As I said, Gummer was the winner of a beauty contest, and the trustee of a climate change charity.
As to the rest of your nonsense, you are just peeved because I have rejected your homosexual protestations of love, and laugh at your masturbatory fantasies!
Keep trolling.
I know, Mike. You prefer losers:
Factional infighting is right up your alley.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Now there is “A time to tear apart and a time to sew together;
A time to be silent and a time to speak.” Ecclesiastes 3:7
The suffering and potential financial ruin in countries aiming for “net zero” is only just beginning unless scientists come clean, recognise that climatology “science” is false and humbly, like Physicist Klaus-Eckert Puls, acknowledge shame for having taught the IPCC’s “sheer nonsense” which was “not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements.”
Click and read the whole quote, then think about how you could really save the world by about-facing, tearing apart this fictitious claim about human warming and speaking – speaking to everyone from Kings and Presidents down.
http://climate-change-theory.com/physicist.jpg
Dead link
We need to get it that the word forcing is nothing more than climate alarmist jargon that comes from climate models. The source in climate models are differential equations used to model the atmosphere.
The Sun warms the Earth it does not force it. However, if we want to model the Sun/Earth system we set up a differential equation and use a separate equation to force the modeled equation to respond. Such an equation is called a forcing function.
You force a model not the reality.
At NOAA’s site, climate dot gov, they introduce then define a forcing as follows:
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/climate-data-primer/predicting-climate/climate-forcing
“Sunlight energy heats land and water at the surface, and in turn, they emit heat. This heat provides further warming of the atmosphere. The mix of gases in our atmosphere keeps some of the heat energy from escaping directly to space, similar to the way a blanket keeps warmth near your body. This process is the naturally occurring greenhouse effect, and it keeps Earth warm enough to support life”.
***
This is utter jargon. The Earth’s surface does NOT emit heat. It emits electromagnetic energy in the infrared band and heat is lost in the conversion. No heat is emitted to space because EM has no means of carrying heat. The surface does conduct heat to the atmosphere and that heat rises due to convection. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and can only exist in a mass or as a movement of a mass, as in convection.
Radiation cannot transfer heat from one body to another, rather heat is lost in one body and gained in another body of lower temperature. The heat loss and heat gain is done locally via electron transitions in the atoms of the bodies, no heat moving between bodies.
Atmospheric gases cannot prevent heat from escaping because they lack the means to do so. Glass in a real greenhouse can prevent heat escaping because it blocks MOLECULES of air physically, and GHGs cannot do that.
NOAA is talking absolute tommy-rot.
****************************
Then they define forcing…….
“In accordance with the basic laws of thermodynamics, as Earth absorbs energy from the sun, it must eventually emit an equal amount of energy to space. The difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is known as a planets radiative forcing (RF). In the same way as applying a pushing force to a physical object will cause it to become unbalanced and move, a climate forcing factor will change the climate system. When forcings result in incoming energy being greater than outgoing energy, the planet will warm (positive RF). Conversely, if outgoing energy is greater than incoming energy, the planet will cool”.
This is unmitigated jargon. They are talking here only about radiation while ignoring the effect of conduction and convection. Sure, the only way energy can escape into space is via radiation, but heat is retained in the system by conduction and convection. The effect of both warming the atmosphere far outweighs anything radiation can do since it terrestrial temperatures, radiation is highly ineffective.
When solar energy heats the surface, the heated surface warms the atmosphere adjacent to the surface. That air rises and is replaced by cooler air from above. The cycle repeats. However, the heat that rises via convection dissipates itself naturally as air pressure is reduced. That natural dissipation of heat is not accounted for in NOAA’s theory.
The point is, the Sun has been warming the Earth for millions of years and the amount of radiation to space has lagged behind a straight energy in – energy out rate. Therefore the Earth is much warmer than it should be since energy is stored the bodies of water, and the surface, especially in the Tropics, where it is distributed elsewhere on Earth.
As Christos claims, we have a rotational rate that does not allow us to cool much between solar appearances and that has a great deal to do with the current temperature of the Earth. No need for a greenhouse theory, the warming is well explained in other manners.
**************
The part about the Sun warming the Earth is not jargon but the definition of radiative forcing as the difference between radiative energy in and radiative energy out is jargon. There is no comparison whatsoever between a force applied to a mass and radiative energy applied to the Earth.
At one time, we talked about the Sun warming the Earth and we know that a body heated to a temperature, T, must dissipate its heat via conduction, convection, and/or radiation. The only time the laws of thermodynamics become involved is if there is a negative temperature difference between the body and its environment. That is, the body is warmer than its environment. That implies that back-radiation cannot warm the surface because the source is colder than the target.
With the advent of climate models in the 1960s, differential equation theory began to replace actual physics terminology with its inane terminology. Warming has become forcing and systems that cannot possibly exhibit positive feedback suddenly develop a positive feedback.
Anyone is welcome to use this jargon but at the expense of supporting idiotic climate alarmists and their butchery of physics.
Well said, Gordon.
Gordon,
Addressing the climate based on your understanding is the correct thermodynamic methodology. It is complex but not impossible. I have a paper that is presently under review based on this understanding. It is lengthy. Climatologists made a short cut concept of radiative forcing, apparently they have not tried hard enough. With time, It has been forgotten as a concept. Please see chapter 8 of ipcc 2013 report. It is only a concept. Unfortunately, the concept has not been useful, and it is time for an alternative.
Nabil…circa 1909, R. W. Wood, an expert on gases, including CO2, stated that he did not think CO2 in the atmosphere could warm it. Wood was no lightweight, he was consulted by Neils Bohr re sodium gas.
Wood reckoned the cause of the warming we call greenhouse warming is actually due to air being heated at the surface via conduction, then convected naturally in a vertical direction. Wood pointed out that nitrogen and Oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere, being unable to radiate away the heat, retains it, hence the warming of the atmosphere.
That means that the pithy 0.04% f CO2 is forced to the temperature of the N2/O2, and the ever diluting surface radiation will be unable to warm it further.
steven m mosher…”the climate is not a circuit.
repeat after me. the climate is not a circuit.
and cant be modelled as a circuit.
this is a category error. full stop”
***
No one has tried to model the atmosphere as a circuit, it has been used only to demonstrate the true meaning of positive feedback and that it requires an amplifier.
Why can I describe positive feedback perfectly as per the mathematical definition using an electrical circuit but no one can begin to explain it in the atmosphere without resorting to obfuscation and innuendo?
Look up any definition of positive feedback in climate circles and all you get are obscure inferences and no absolute description that meets the criterion that a positive feedback increases the gain in a system.
The closest climate alarmists can come is claiming that back-radiation from GHGs can increase the surface temperature to a higher level than it is warmed by solar energy. Still, this implies an increase in the level of heat (temperature) via some kind of amplification.
To achieve that amplification, alarmists have changed the 2nd law to suit their inane theory. The 2nd law is absolute: heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer bodyt. Alarmists have introduced an undefined parameter called a balance of energies, claiming the 2nd law is not contradicted if a balance of energies is positive.
That is malarkey. Sheer bs.
Lord M, in a fit of hubris, wrote –
“Mr Robertson repeats himself to no good effect. There are indeed positive feedbacks in the climate system, as well as negative feedbacks. It is easy to demonstrate that such feedbacks exist, and it is demonstrated in the head posting that the net feedback strength is weakly positive, and not, as official climatology imagines, so strongly positive as to require a quadrupling of any reference sensitivity to derive equilibrium sensitivity.”
There is no feedback. The Earth has demonstrably cooled, ruling out any positive feedback. Lord M cannot demonstrate any negative feedback, despite his protestations to the contrary.
Neither wishful thinking nor self praise can make fact out of fantasy.
Lord M may reject reality if he wishes. Reality just keeps on keeping on.
They are wrong right at the outset in saying “Sunlight energy heats land and water at the surface, and in turn, they emit heat.” That word “sunlight” and “at the surface” condemn them, because NASA energy diagrams* show such “sunlight” (solar radiation) entering the surface as of the order of 170w/m^2 (it varies over the years apparently) which will not heat “the land and the water” on a global basis because, by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the global mean surface temperature would be colder than minus 40C as I have pointed out many times. Their energy diagrams add about twice as much “back radiation” (over 320w/m^2) which is fictitious and, laughably, means they are showing more energy coming out of the base of the atmosphere via radiation than the Sun delivers at the top, even before reflection.
So that’s the First Law of Thermodynamics violated.
Then they ignore the fact that the observed temperature gradient in the troposphere tends to form (and repair itself) at the molecular level, not due to rising parcels of air from the surface that solar radiation hasn’t heated in the first place, but due to the action of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
They clearly must be assuming that they can add the fluxes of solar and atmospheric radiation for use in Stefan Boltzmann calculations, but that is an incorrect application of such calculations because the Law only applies for a single source that is hotter than the target and is delivering more flux than the target (the surface) is already emitting.
When they do add these different fluxes they ignore the fact that the combined function is not the same as would be a Planck function for a single source delivering the total flux (like a sun about three times as powerful as ours) and so that function would not have the required peak wavelength for the assumed temperature generated, and thus would not be in agreement with Wien’s Displacement Law.
So that’s four long-established laws of physics broken or ignored which is why I call it fictitious, fiddled physics.
Is that enough to convince you Lord Monckton (and Roy) that you are barking up the wrong tree and implicitly supporting the false concepts climatologists promulgate regarding back radiation and forcing?
I have given you the correct science. I’ll willingly email you my phone numbers if you have any difficulty in understanding my papers or book.
Don’t kill the goose that laid you this golden egg.
* http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg
monckton of b…Just want to be clear CM, I am on your side. I support you, I just think you should modify some of your theories. My background is in electrical engineering and I have applied feedback theories in the field both in control theory and with feedback amplifiers.
So, can we work together on this to inform the public as to the nasty scams of climate alarmists?
**************************
“[CM]Mr Robertson starts from the premise that control theory does not govern the functioning of a feedback amplifier. However, feedback formulism is of universal application to feedback-moderated dynamical systems, from electronic feedback amplifiers to climate. The principles are the same.
***
Actually, what I said is there is a major difference between control theory vis-a-vis servo systems and the feedback in feedback amplifiers. In the former, the feedback is of voltage sign only re +ve and -ve and in feedback amplifiers, the feedback is used to control the overall gain of an amplifier employing feedback. Not all amplifiers use feedback.
In the atmosphere, I presume the theory is related to a runaway condition, or a tipping point, and that involves only feedback amplifier theory. Control system theory is not related to that since amplification in such systems is not important wrt the overall gain, which is of no interest.
*******************************
Mr Robertson seems unaware that a positive feedback does not attenuate the signal: it amplifies it. It is a negative feedback that attenuates it.
***
That is etched into my brain, I don’t know where you got the idea I think otherwise.
****************
Finally, Mr Robertson says feedback theory cannot be applied in the atmosphere. Then he should address his complaint not to us but to official climatology.
***
You say ‘us’, I am part of ‘us’, here on Roy’s blog. I am submitting my complaints to the correct medium.
I did not mean to imply all feedback theory cannot be employed in the atmosphere, which involves only negative feedbacks. My point is that positive feedbacks, re tipping points and runaway greenhouse effects, cannot exist in the atmosphere since there is no amplifier.
G = A/(1 + AB)
Where is the A in the atmosphere and where is the B? If (1 + AB) < 1, the input signal is amplified each cycle leading to a runaway situation. Without an amplifier it won't work.
Oh the amplifier in the atmosphere is there all right, according to NASA energy diagrams* that show more energy coming out of the base of the atmosphere via radiation (solar + back radiation) than the Sun delivers at the top.
Venus apparently has a bigger amplifier with about 2,600w/m^2 of Solar radiation entering (even before reflection) and, apparently, over 16,500w/m^2 coming out of the base of its atmosphere in order to warm the surface from 732K to 737K over the course of four months on the sunlit side, as observed happens. /sarc
May I humbly suggest you read my comments from this one
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377211
Then stop endorsing false “science” that violates or ignores four laws of physics, as I explained above.
We’re all on the same side, fighting the biggest scam in history, but stop scoring own goals for goodness sake!
* http://climate-change-theory.com/sb168-NASA.jpg
Well said, Gordon.
Off topic.
You cannot win. You are mud wrestling with pigs, and the pigs do not mind getting dirty. None of the people who habitually argue with each other are very talented or knowledgeable, and this fool who has been banned from just about every site is back in full force. I think that both you and Dr. Spencer make intellectually sound arguments, but as I stated somewhere, the uncertainty in climate modelling is still very large due to the complexity of the climate system.
Christopher and Roy contradict each other, Tim. At least of them has an unsound argument. Perforce, one might add if one feels like using old words.
Unlike many of the fools who argue on this site, they both are making sense using sound arguments. Neither is proven right or wrong because they are both based on theory and factors that are difficult to measure.
A sound argument has true premises, Tim.
The only cases where both Roy and Christopher could infer conclusions that are not contradictory would be if their premises would not conflict.
They obviously do. Sometimes clouds warm, sometimes they don’t. Hard to model that using a linear apparatus.
My earlier claim was therefore too strong: they *could* contradict each other and both be right, for instance if they were in violent agreement.
They obviously are not, at least not regarding what climate scientists do and presume.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Very much on topic …
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377211
Your “science” Lord Monckton is PROVEN wrong. Pity you didn’t offer a reward.
Monckton of Brenchley:
Please read these two comments (addressed to others) which you should find informative
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379582
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379596
as well as my third (and latest) climate website at
http://climate-change-theory.com
The only correct physics relating to the role of water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane is in seven papers linked on my Home page at http://climate-change-theory.com. This page is available in eight languages and the papers have never been proven wrong by anyone.
So none of the thousands of publications on these topics contain correct physics?
I doubt very much you’ve read all of them, or even 1 % of them, so I think we can safely disregard this comment.
The issue of climate sensitivity has been misunderstood for many decades. The core problem is the CONFUSION that the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) was caused by long-wave atmospheric radiation. This is not the case, since the LW radiation is a mere consequence of atmospheric temperatures, which are determined by diabatic heating from the Sun and adiabatic enhancement of the absorbed solar energy by atmospheric pressure. There has been a profound misunderstanding of the adiabatic atmospheric heating in climate science… Since ATE is not caused by atmospheric LW radiation, there is NO climate sensitivity to variations of atmospheric LW opacity, i.e. to radiative properties of so-called “greenhouse gases”.
For a proper calculation of climate sensitivities to REAL forcings such as TSI, cloud albedo, and the absorbed solar radiation by the system, please read this article:
“Exact Calculations of Climate Sensitivities Reveal the True Cause of Recent Warming”
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/05/02/ned-nikolov-karl-zeller-exact-calculations-of-climate-sensitivities-reveal-the-true-cause-of-recent-warming/
No! I dispute the claim about “adiabatic enhancement of the absorbed solar energy by atmospheric pressure.”
Pressure can do nothing. It cannot add net energy over a period wherein it returns to its original value. It is a response to variations in density and temperature. The Ideal Gas Law basically says …
Pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density.
As a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics gravity forms the density gradient and, simultaneously, the temperature gradient because the values towards which these gradients tend is the one and the same state of maximum entropy. The pressure gradient is then just a result of these other two gradients, not the cause.
This is easily understood with the Kinetic Theory of Gases as used by Einstein and many others.
High pressure does not maintain high temperatures. There are high temperatures in the thermosphere, but very low pressure. There is high pressure in the depths of the ocean but cold temperatures. There are similar pressures in deep bore holes but high temperatures. Pressure does not vary in any sort of correlation with night and day or summer and winter.
What really happens is in my 2013 paper on surface and core temperatures at
https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
Apparently, you have retired too soon. You should go back to school and study some basic Thermodynamics and atmospheric physics, specifically learn why temperature decreases with altitude in the troposphere. You can start with this video:
https://vimeo.com/602819278
The good news is that real Physics does not care about uneducated opinions like yours, which also does not agree with observations.
Good luck in your re-education!
Typical attempt at personal smears by those who can’t prove me wrong. Water off a duck’s back, because my physics is correct.
Prof Claes Johnson was right.
The brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt was right too.
Post your refutation on Researchgate because about 3,000 have read my refutation of your Unified Theory of Climate.
Correction: It is your “Universal Theory of Climate” that has had over 2,920 reads.
You can’t prove Josef Loschmidt wrong Ned Nickolov because the gravitationally induced temperature gradient is a direct consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In other words it is the state of maximum entropy we physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium.
You can’t explain the necessary input of thermal energy that makes the Venus surface warm on the sunlit side because the solar radiation is less than 20w/m^2 at the Venus surface and radiation from the less-hot atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the hotter surface. Only “heat creep” can and does do that.
Then explain why it’s hotter than Earth at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus. You can’t; I can
(continued)
That density gradient is thermodynamic equilibrium because entropy is a function ofall forms of internal energy including gravitational potential energy. At maximumentropy in any small region the sum of molecular kinetic energy + gravitationalpotential energy is constant so that there are no unbalanced energy potentials. Thetemperature gradient can then be quantified. [1]And so, in a planet’s troposphere …(1) Gravity redistributes mass and accelerates or decelerates molecules so as totend to form the stable state of thermodynamic equilibrium, namely maximumentropy wherein there are no unbalanced energy potentials. Assuming no phasechange or chemical process, that state is achieved in a local region when, at variousheights, the sum of mean molecular (gravitational potential energy + kinetic energy)is homogeneous. Hence, when PE is greater at the top the KE is less and sotemperature is cooler, and vice versa.(2) That state has a non-zero density gradient.(3) That state also has a non-zero temperature gradient.(4) The Ideal Gas Law tells us pressure is directly proportional to the product oftemperature and density.(5) Hence the non-zero pressure gradient is a result of the temperature and densitygradients formed by gravity.Variations in pressure result from variations in temperature and density. They are notthe cause of a variation in temperature.High pressure does not maintain high temperatures as you know when the air in yourvehicle’s tires is warmed by friction when you are driving, but the air in the tires coolsin your garage overnight probably right down to the ambient temperature in yourgarage. But the pressure does not match the ambient pressure in your garage.It is because this temperature gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium thatthe non-radiative heat transfer process described in my 2013 paper occurs,transferring new thermal energy absorbed from solar radiation in the middletroposphere and above down to the base of the troposphere and into any solidsurface. If this did not happen, then the temperature at the base of the 350Km highnominal troposphere of Uranus would not be hotter than Earth’s surface and, indeed,would be close to absolute zero, and likewise for the Venus surface. Earth’s meansurface temperature would be colder than that for the Moon which is probably colderthan -15C.So, it is not back radiation which climatologists have just guessed must be supplyingabout twice as much thermal energy to Earth’s surface as does the direct solarradiation, but rather it is this heat creep process that I have explained.[1]The solar radiation determines an anchoring temperature at a certain altitude in aplanet, and then the temperature gradient allows quantification at any altitude in thetroposphere as in my paper. [1]Nikolov and Zeller [2] as well as Jelbring [3] incorrectly asserted that high pressuremaintains surface temperatures.
(3) (PDF) Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338356357_Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate [accessed Oct 09 2022].
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338356357_Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate
ABSTRACT
I’ve noticed that many science students and graduates from recent decades become “formula” people without understanding the limitations and conditions under which such expressions are applicable. This has led to scientists like Drs Jelbring, Nikolov and Zeller all publishing papers in which they point out a kind of correlation (not linear) between pressure and temperature in planetary tropospheres, but then they incorrectly deduce that it is high pressure that is maintaining high temperatures such as at the surface of Venus. They think this is a result of the Ideal Gas Law (IGL) but they confuse cause and effect. For example, people know from undergraduate physics that the IGL tells us that pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density. So, if we have a sealed, perfectly insulated cylinder full of gas and, using an inserted electric element, we raise the temperature (by adding kinetic energy to the gas molecules and making them move faster between collisions) then, since the density remains constant, the pressure will indeed increase in proportion to the absolute (K) temperature. For temperature to increase we must have a source of energy which raises the mean kinetic energy of the molecules. If some external source of energy is used it to increase the pressure then what it is really doing is increasing the density and/or the temperature. So the increase in pressure is just a result of external energy being applied that may well have increased the temperature. The point is that it was not the increase in pressure that caused the increase in temperature but vice versa. The relevance of this is that we see many attempts to explain why the surface temperature of planets is greater than that which direct solar radiation to the surface could achieve. So some people say the high pressure is causing the temperature to be hotter. That is simply not the case. Correlation does not imply cause. What actually happens occurs at the molecular level in every small parcel of air at every altitude, as was explained by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt in 1876 but totally ignored by climatologists. As a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says entropy will tend towards a maximum (by diminishing unbalanced energy potentials) we find that gravity forms a stable density gradient in the troposphere of every planet. Simultaneously it forms a temperature gradient, this being represented by the same state of maximum entropy which in physics is called thermodynamic equilibrium.
Continued above at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377726
Your explanation is simply DELUSIONAL! There is no other term to characterize your assertion that, in planetary atmospheres, higher temperature causes higher pressure. Apparently, you are clueless about the fact that planetary atmospheres are ISOBARIC systems governed by Charles’s law, where surface pressure is set by atmospheric mass and gravity (independently of temperature) and atmospheric volume is proportional to surface temperature. Atmospheric volume is a result of surface temperature and pressure (that’s basic atmospheric physics). This is a totally different system from a cylinder full of gas with rigid walls and fixed volume, which represents an ISOCHORIC systems governed by Gay-Lussac’s Law. Pressure is proportional to temperature ONLY in isochoric systems, which planetary atmospheres are NOT!!
Also, you don’t understand a fundamental thermodynamic truth that the gas density is NEVER a driver of temperature. Density is ALWAYS a consequence (result) of pressure and temperature. This is so because pressure is a FORCE and, by definition, energy cannot exist without a force. Temperature is simply an intensive property of the kinetic thermal energy of a gas. In other words, temperature requires energy, while energy requires FORCE or pressure to exist. Even electromagnetic radiation has pressure, because the unit W m-2 = Photon pressure X speed of light. Do you realize that, in the Gas Law, the product PV = Joule (thermal kinetic energy)??
Like I said, you are fundamentally confused about basic aspects of Thermodynamics, and you also show no understanding of the meaning of physical units.
You haven’t studied my 2013 paper at all. You have tried to guess what it says. You are apparently ignorant of the fact that entropy is affected not only by changes in mean molecular kinetic energy (i.e. temperature) but by changes in any form of internal energy including gravitational potential energy. You fail to think at the molecular level using the Kinetic Theory of Gases such as Einstein did successfully. You are not displaying any evidence of a real understanding of how the mean kinetic energy of molecules in the surface of, say, Venus increases on the sunlit side, or how the required such energy gets down through 350Km on Uranus from the top of the atmosphere to the base of that nominal troposphere where there is no surface, but making it about 320K. The solar radiation at the TOA of Uranus can only support less than 60K. There has to be heat from cold to warm downwards to balance upward losses by radiation and, mostly on the dark side, by upward free (or “natural”) convective heat transfer.
Such “heat creep” from cold to hot by molecular collision processes can ONLY happen in a force field. It happens, for example, radially in a vortex cooling tube due to the centrifugal force. It happens in every planetary troposphere and it supplies the energy (i.e. causes the necessary heat from the mid and upper troposphere absorbed from solar radiation each morning, for example, down to the surface) – yes, it supplies that energy which you think pressure magically creates without any help from the Sun I assume you think. Just switch off the Sun!
This is continued in my refutation of your paper on Researchgate which has had over 2,930 views with a research interest score of 12.7. It is linked from http://climate-change-theory.com which has had nearly 52,000 hits.
Truth will prevail and I will continue to fight false physics such as yours that effectively claims pressure creates energy, rather cleverly only on the sunlit side it would seem, especially where it happens to be near a tropical desert in mid summer. Clever pressure! Try finding a correlation between pressure and temperature all over the world in all seasons!
Good luck with that!
I suppose you just think you’re more brilliant than Josef Loschmidt who was first to make a realistic estimate of the size of molecules in the 1870’s. He thought at the molecular level.
You fail to understand how the temperature gradient in the troposphere of any planet (Uranus being a good example) forms at the molecular level and is close to the calculated value based on the quotient of the acceleration due to the planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. Even climatologists get the right answer for their dry adiabatic lapse rate. But intermolecular radiation between IR-active gases at different altitudes has a temperature levelling effect that reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient, as climatologists also know for water vapor. On Uranus I calculated the reduction as only about 5%. So I could calculate the temperature within 15K of the 320K published elsewhere.
And that’s why water vapor cools – as in the study in my 2013 paper linked at http://climate-change-theory.com
I write this as much for the dozens of silent readers as for you, Ned Nikolov. Yes, it’s decades since I taught physics and marked undergraduate assignments, but I do teach carefully and, hopefully clearly, with examples.
Charles law is nothing more than the Ideal Gas Law with restrictions. There are no such restrictions in the troposphere. You misquoted me in this regard. I said quite correctly (in accord with the IGL) that …
Pressure is proportional to the PRODUCT of density and temperature. (Both density and temperature can be altered by external processes such as warming devices, pistons etc, as is obvious.)
In the troposphere gravity forms the density gradient which, in calm conditions, tends towards the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which is maximum entropy. In other words, it is stable. Heating air at the top of a sealed vertical cylinder of air will not reverse the density gradient, nor will cooling that air at the top. There may be minor second order changes only.
Likewise, if you SLOWLY force a piston half way down a horizontal sealed cylinder then, to first order at least, you merely double the density and (approximately) double the pressure. The molecules are moving at about 500m/sec which is far faster than the slow movement of the piston. Granted the piston could make second order changes in molecular velocity, but, by the Kinetic Theory of gases …
Temperature is proportional to the mean molecular kinetic energy.
Temperature does not increase unless that KE increases. Temperature does NOT increase due to the increase in density if that mean molecular KE does not change, and why would it do so significantly? The energy you apply is primarily converted to potential energy similar to that when you wind a clockwork spring. The potential energy will be mostly regained when you release the piston.
My point is that the energy you applied in compressing the gas in the cylinder merely doubled the density and, in accord with the IGL, the pressure would be approximately doubled with only a very small second order increase in mean molecular KE, namely temperature, due to the piston giving some molecules a relatively minor push at a far slower speed than they are already moving – about 1,800 Km/hr.
Dr. Nikolov,
You’re not making any sense. What you’re saying is exactly the opposite of what is taught in US physics classes. What physics classes in what University teaches what you’re saying?
Here is my refutation of other writings by Nikolov and Zeller:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338356357_Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate
Tonight the frost will reach Illinois and Indiana.
This is why I have recommended that you all read my 2020 paper, not only so that you can understand why climatologists are wrong, but also why all other conjectures as to what causes temperatures to be what they are in surfaces and cores of planets and moons are wrong, especially those claiming pressure somehow warms the base of the troposphere. Just because I mention gravity does NOT mean I am a pressure proponent.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
It’s winter all over Siberia. Due to the pattern of the polar vortex, air will soon begin to flow into Canada directly from Siberia.
https://i.ibb.co/1THkMxR/plot-anom-sdep.png
https://i.ibb.co/r5mQpWK/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png
” Its winter all over Siberia. ”
As so often, ren is kidding us all here.
Winter?
Let’s take as example Jakutsk, with an entry in GHCN daily
RSM00024959 62.0167 129.7167 98.0 JAKUTSK
It is located at the Baikal sea, with 61N a somewhat ‘meridional’ place in Siberia compared to places like e.g. Tiksi or Werchojansk, places so cold in the winter that the lower troposphere is way warmer than the surface.
It’s now a bit over 10:30 PM there, -4 C temperature.
And so do winters look in Jakutsk.
1. 5 lowest temps
RSM00024959 60-123 1891 2 5 -64.4
RSM00024959 60-123 1898 1 19 -63.0
RSM00024959 60-123 1900 2 3 -62.8
RSM00024959 60-123 1898 1 20 -62.6
RSM00024959 60-123 1898 1 21 -62.6
2. 5 lowest temps since 2000
RSM00024959 60-123 2021 1 24 -51.2
RSM00024959 60-123 2021 1 19 -50.9
RSM00024959 60-123 2012 1 13 -50.3
RSM00024959 60-123 2012 1 11 -50.1
RSM00024959 60-123 2012 1 14 -50.0
Yeah.
I’m beginning to believe that climate scientists don’t even understand how to read their own charts.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Transmission-of-shortwave-solar-irradiation-and-long-wavelength-radiation-from-the_fig1_330671036
In this graphic, there are clearly 3 black body curves, 210 k to 310 k. 210 k = -63 C. The graphic clearly highlights that CO2 absorbs and thermalizes a very narrow band of LWIR of 14.9 microns. If you go to SpectralCalc and use their blackbody calculator you will see that 14.9 microns is associated with -80 C. That is consistent with the graphic showing that the 210 K BlackBody Curve lines up with the peak of the CO2 spectrum at 14.9 microns. That graphic is all you need to know, and proves CO2 isn’t going to warm anything. Ice emits higher energy 11 micron LWIR, so CO2 won’t even melt ice let alone warm the oceans.
Either I and the chart are correct, or the climate scientists are correct, but we both can’t be correct. Are my eyes lying to me, and is that chart published in every climate text book wrong?
I’m beginning to believe that climate scientists don’t even understand how to read their own charts.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Transmission-of-shortwave-solar-irradiation-and-long-wavelength-radiation-from-the_fig1_330671036
In this graphic, there are clearly 3 black body curves, 210 k to 310 k. 210 k = -63 C. The graphic clearly highlights that CO2 absorbs and thermalizes a very narrow band of LWIR of 14.9 microns. If you go to SpectralCalc and use their blackbody calculator you will see that 14.9 microns is associated with -80 C. That is consistent with the graphic showing that the 210 K BlackBody Curve lines up with the peak of the CO2 spectrum at 14.9 microns. That graphic is all you need to know, and proves CO2 isn’t going to warm anything. Ice emits higher energy 11 micron LWIR, so CO2 won’t even melt ice let alone warm the oceans.
Either I and the chart are correct, or the climate scientists are correct, but we both can’t be correct. Are my eyes lying to me, and is that chart published in every climate text book wrong?
CO2IsLife
You have been corrected many times but didn’t change your mind.
Your problem!
The real problem you deliberately ignore is that with this increase of CO2 far above the Tropopause (up to 50 km above ground), more and more IR radiation emitted by Earth in response to solar SW radiation is intercepted by CO2.
At best half of it is re-emitted out to space, but with that energy corresponding to the molecules’ altitude, and not with that energy the IR radiation originally had.
I know: you will deliberately continue to ignore that, and continue with this fully misunderstood ‘backradiation’ which, though existing and whose existence is demonstrated by devices, doesn’t play any really valuable role in comparison with the radiation imbalance.
Bindidon, you have never corrected that graphic. You can claim I’m wrong all you want, but you can’t claim the graphic, Spectralcalc, the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule, or show me one single experiment where 15 micron can warm water. Claiming I’m wrong won’t change the real science behind the GHG Effect. Simply explain how CO2 and 15 microns can warm water or how 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can materially impact the kinetic every of the other 2,499. You can’t. Either the graphic is wrong or you are wrong, and I believe the graphic.
Yes, greenhouse gases in the stratosphere, such as water vapor and CO2 absorb radiation in certain bands, the problem is that this has no effect whatsoever on the temperature in the troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2022.png
Ireneusz Palmowski, I’m pretty sure if you look up the data you will see that where H2O is in the atmosphere you will find warm air…pretty much by definition. NASA charts water vapor and temperature and the charts pretty much replicate themselves. Water vapor is a great insulator. CO2 not so much.
On the other hand, ozone production through UV photolysis of the O2 molecule determines the temperature of the stratosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_05_nh_f00.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
Bididion Says: The real problem you deliberately ignore is that with this increase of CO2 far above the Tropopause (up to 50 km above ground), more and more IR radiation emitted by Earth in response to solar SW radiation is intercepted by CO2.
Once again, you don’t know the real science.
1) CO2 in the lower atmosphere is totally negated by H20. You don’t even see a CO2 signature until you are up about 3km and H2O has precipitated out of the atmosphere
2) Identify a location without water and the UHI effect and you discover that an increase in CO2 hasn’t resulted in any warming (Antarctica and other dry hot or cold deserts)
3) As the air thins, radiation more effectively removes heat than it traps heat, that is why the stratosphere actually cools as CO2 increases
You do understand radiation is by far the fastest way to remove heat from the system right? It literally transports energy at the speed of light, and the thinner the air, the less resistance to moving that energy from the system. You do understand that basic concept right?
In fact, the temperature in the stratosphere is not rising at all.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/100mb2525.png
Ireneusz Palmowski, I think if you find a longer term data set you will see that temperatures in the stratosphere is actually falling. ONce again, radiation is great for removing energy from the system. CO2 actually acts to COOL the system. Radiation rapidly removes energy from the system. Conduction and convection are much slower. The higher the altitude and thinner the air the less resistance to removing energy from the system.
The tops of hurricanes in the tropopause radiate in the infrared at a temperature of -80 degrees C. These are the lowest temperatures in the tropopause.
Hurricane Julia.
Sorry
https://i.ibb.co/w0NSNZX/f763a405-904b-4b09-bc85-8b0c6a6670a8.jpg
Ireneusz Palmowski, yep, now you see the true impact of CO2, it puts a temperature FLOOR in the system, it doesn’t warm the system. That is why the stratosphere bottoms at -80 C, that is the temperature at which CO2 thermalizes LWIR of 15 microns. In reality because the air is so thin there it is much colder but to an IR camera, it is -80 C. An astronaut would freeze to death in the hot thermosphere.
Bindidion Says: The real problem you deliberately ignore is that with this increase of CO2 far above the Tropopause (up to 50 km above ground), more and more IR radiation emitted by Earth in response to solar SW radiation is intercepted by CO2.
Why would I ignore that? It has nothing to do with temperatures near the ground. When the air is that thin, CO2 acts to COOL the atmosphere by rapidly transporting energy out of the system. Once again, radiation moves at the speed of light. Help me understand how the thermosphere, named thermosphere for a reason, somehow warms the surface of the earth. Answer, it doesn’t.
I was at an event and the destruction of North Korea was blamed on climate change. I approached the expert for more insight, and asked the obvious question, why weren’t S Korea, Japan, China and Russia, whose borders are in the same vicinity, suffering the same climate change-related problems? The conversation immediately ended. I guess climate change and CO2 can read maps and know where borders are to stop its impact.
CO2…we know climate change is about propaganda geared at scaring people to follow a belief system.
I was at an event and the destruction of North Korea was blamed on climate change. I approached the expert for more insight, and asked the obvious question, why weren’t S Korea, Japan, China and Russia, whose borders are in the same vicinity, suffering the same climate change-related problems? The conversation immediately ended. I guess climate change and CO2 can read maps and know where borders are to stop its impact.
Funny how injecting logic into the conversation seems to unsettle them to no end. A lack of knowledge and logic is a real destructive force.
I don’t see why the conversation ended.
South Korea, Japan, China and Russia are experiencing the same climate problems as North Korea.
The difference is that North Korea has very little margin. Any drop in food production puts them into immediate famine.
The others have reserves and resources which allow them to ride out the bad years, at least for a while.
Though one wonders why Russia chose this year to try and take over the Ukraine.
The Ukraine is the second largest grain producer in the world behind the American Midwest. Is Russia anticipating food shortages?
You’re perverting reality again, Ent.
Russia invaded Ukraine because Biden was weak.
Russia invaded Crimea because Obama was weak.
It had nothing to do with your cult beliefs that ice cubes can boil water and passenger jets fly backwards.
I often respond to Pup and the conversation ends there.
A lack of knowledge and logic is a destructive force.
Keep whining and crying Pup.
Maybe DREMT will have some time to babysit you today.
Pup is trolling once again.
Oh noes!
Stop, please.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Russia invaded Ukraine because Biden was weak.”
Well that didnt work out, did it..
ent…Russian did not try to take over the Ukraine they tried to take over a couple of provinces in the East and they succeeded.
The Russian are cooperating with the Ukrainians to allow their grain to get out the Ukraine. Meantime, the Ukrainians show a lack of good faith by bombing a bridge to Crimea.
C’mon, Gordo.
You must be trolling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre
Communism is why the people are starving, not climate change. Simply study the history of communism. It is the most murderous political system in world history. North Korea is simply destroying its country through its policies. Simply look at S Korea. No problems with climate change there. Funny how climate change knows where borders are and it only impacts non-capitalist Nations.
CO2IsLife
Why do people like you always ‘forget’ to name their sources?
1) I’m not into doxing people and embarrassing
2) Do I strike you as the type of person that would make us stories?
3) Converging Crisesin North Korea:
Security, Stability & Climate Change
https://climateandsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Converging-Crises-in-North-Korea_Security-Stability-and-Climate-Change_CSR_Woodwell.pdf
4) Natural disasters drive North Koreas embrace of international climate goals
https://www.ft.com/content/d637c465-fc9e-4254-8191-193ac5eae30e
Vornas, Pangburn, Co**on, Nikolov, Monckton.
Fascinating to see so many of the authors of alternative global warming theories on the same thread.
It gives me an opportunity to compare their effectiveness.
Figure 6 here is the energy budget of probably the most extreme planet, Venus.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704
Viewed from space and accounting for albedo it shows a net shortwave input of 160W/m^2 and longwave output of 160W/m^2.
From the surface it shows a net input of 22W and a net output of 22W.
The gross energy budget for the surface shows an output of 17,000W/m^2 and a return from the atmosphere of 17,000W/m^2.
The conventional explanation is that the surface emits by Stefan-Boltzman radiation, returned from the atmosphere by back radiation.
I would be fascinated to read and compare links or calculations by which you explain this energy budget using your theories.
Theoretical calculations are simple pplication of the law of radiation. What lack are correct measurements and validation of backradiation. They are the absolute truth, not math. As of now, no one has ever observed or measured radiative forcing, ipcc report of 2013, chapter 8.
Ent couldn’t get it right if he observed something. He’s known for his perversions of reality.
Pup, stop trolling please.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Nabil Swedan
“What lack are correct measurements and validation of backradiation.”
Downwelling radiation is routinely measured. See here: https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
Yes TM, DWIR can be measured. For example, a couple of days ago, the 24-hr average on 10/6 was about 290 W/m^2. Do you realize that is less than emitted by ice?
The sky was colder than ice, yet your cult believes it can warm Earth.
That’s why this is so much fun.
You’re still trolling, Pup.
Please stop.
Cult Leader grammie pup, Of course, as has been clearly demonstrated to you, fluxes add. The result is a warming of the lower atmosphere and the surface. The absorbing surface has no way to discriminate whether the source temperature is below or above that at the surface, only the wavelength matters.
Sorry willard junior, aka “Swanson”, but all you demonstrated was your ignorance of physics. In fact, you couldn’t answer ANY of the simple physics problems I presented. You don’t understand ANY of this. You’re just another braindead cult idiot.
Want another chance? Here’s a problem that involves your blue/green plates. So, you should want to attempt an answer.
A blue plate (surface area one side, equals 1 m^2) with emissivity 1, receiving 400 Watts, will reach a temperature of 244K at steady state, emitting 200 W/m^2 from both sides. That is science.
But, you cult believes that bringing in a green plate (same size, compostion) will results in the blue plate increasing its temperature to 262K! THAT ain’t science.
So, here’s your problem:
The blue and green plates are at steady state. Another green plate is placed on the other side of the blue plate. Everything else remains the same. What is the temperature of the blue plate at the new steady state?
See, Pup?
*That* is baiting.
Baiting is trolling.
Stop, please.
Cult Leader grammie pup thinks repeating his idiocy makes it true, perhaps to gaining respect from others. For example, he wrote above that:
grammie appears to believe that said rate of energy supply is from a black body and concludes from S_B calculations that the emission temperature is “colder than ice”, what ever that means. grammie pup is hopelessly ignorant of the physics of IR radiation heat transfer of gases, which emit at discrete wavelengths, not with a continuous spectrum of a black body. His claim that the emission temperature is less than ice has no connection to reality, indeed, he doesn’t bother to provide any other information, such as the source of his data.
Poor willard jr. demonstrates again he understands none of this. He can’t even follow the discussion that included the link.
With his dad’s help, he gets even stupider.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Eric refutes your point and all you got is trolling, Pup.
One has to wonder what would happen if you did not troll and tried to meet his argument.
Try it.
As expected, cult leader grammie pup can’t answer a simple question about the flaming obvious fact that fluxes do add, causing an increase in the temperature of a body receiving those fluxes. He can’t admit that the physics is correct, since it sinks his entire argument. Silly boy…
willard junior, here’s some more reality for you to avoid:
1 You can’t follow the discussion.
2. You didn’t ask a question.
3. Your bogus demonstration doesn’t even apply to the issue.
4. You can’t answer the simple physics problem.
But, your continuing desperate effort to pervert reality is amusing.
That’s good, Pup.
Christopher is showing you how to pontificate.
Here’s why it’s trolling:
[NABIL] What lack are correct measurements and validation of backradiation.
[T] Downwelling radiation is routinely measured.
[PUP] Yes TM, DWIR can be measured. But flux…
[W] Please stop trolling.
[ES] It has has been clearly demonstrated to you that fluxes add.
[P] All you demonstrated was your ignorance of physics. But plates…
[W] See, Pup? *That* is baiting. Baiting is trolling.
[ES] His claim that the emission temperature is less than ice has no connection to reality, indeed, he doesn’t bother to provide any other information, such as the source of his data.
[PUP] ES can’t even follow the discussion that included the link.
[W] ES refutes your point and all you got is trolling, Pup.
[ES] As expected, cult leader grammie pup can’t answer a simple question about the flaming obvious fact that fluxes do add
[PUP] Let me evade with a listicle. Lulz.
See?
All you did was to troll.
Systematically.
Please stop.
Also Junior, a couple I missed from one of your previous comments:
5) Yes, 290 W/m^2 is less than ice at 273K emits..
6) Terrestrial IR can NOT return to raise Earth’s average temperature.
You don’t understand any of this.
Clint R
You seem so unable to think.
You are correct with the amount of DWIR but you have never understood the GHE and how it works. Posters have attempted to correct your invalid POV but your cult mind snaps into robot mode (which is why you seem a BOT, you are extreme cult minded only allowing a very small amount of information in your mostly closed and limited mind).
You got your data from here:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6341f578eb7c5.png
YOU:
“5) Yes, 290 W/m^2 is less than ice at 273K emits..
6) Terrestrial IR can NOT return to raise Earths average temperature.”
You can’t see the whole picture so I linked you to more information. If you had logical rational thinking (which you don’t) you could grasp the reality.
The DWIR is around 290 W/m^2 in this sample. But look at the UPIR, around 400 W/m^2. Without the DWIR being absorbed by the surface (which it is despite your unscientific declarations based upon cult belieif) the HEAT loss from the surface would be around 400 w/m^2. But the reality is the HEAT loss (note it is still a loss with the DWIR) is around 100 w/m^2.
Logic would help you but you do not possess any. You could see that if you reduce the HEAT loss of a surface but keep adding the same input energy the surface will reach a higher temperature. You could understand that does not mean “ice cubes boil water” or violates the 2nd Law. The image clearly explains it, easy for rational logic people to understand. You will not understand it or even attempt to try. Your cult program dominates you thinking and is highly unscientific. I call you a denier of reality, science and Truth.
Norman, if you had any science you would present it without insults and false accusations. But, you have no science.
In this latest perversion of reality, you’re ignoring Sun! Do you understand where the ground/sky energy comes from? Ever heard the phrase “It’s the sun, stupid”? You’re still trying to boil water with ice cubes. You’ll never learn.
Found any valid technical reference to support your previous nonsense yet?
You’re right, Pup –
Sun, please stop trolling.
Clint R
You cult minded idiot! You cannot understand anything. If you were g/e/r/a/n in a previous life and idiot J/D/H/u/f/f/m/a/n posting under those names you are just as dumb now as you were then.
You keep posting your cult minded garbage. Many take the time to point out the errors in your thoughts. Nothing but stupid responses from you.
I clearly gave you valid evidence showing your posts are stupid brain-dead cult fantasy and you still can’t think logically enough to figure it out. You are a complete idiot. Go back to you brain dead chants. Ice cubes can boil water…ice cubes can boil water…ice cubes can boil water….fluxes don’t add….fluxes don’t add…fluxes don’t add. You braindead cult minded idiot!
Norman, it’s not my fault you can’t support your made-up nonsense, now is it?
Likely no one enjoys your frantic, quixotic meltdowns more than I do. You’ve got to save your cult — science and reality be damned!
science and reality be damned!
Pup is just having a “little fun,” Norman.
He should stop trolling, but he can’t.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Reduced cooling is still warming.
“In this latest perversion of reality, youre ignoring Sun! Do you understand where the ground/sky energy comes from? Ever heard the phrase ‘Its the sun, stupid’? ”
Yes the NET Solar is ~ 300 W/m^2 on average.
As Norman noted “look at the UWIR, around 400 W/m^2.”
Clint:
You don’t see a problem with the sun supplying 100 W/m^2 less than the amount emitted?
Tyson
The link, Backradiatin is not directly measured by IR sensitive cells, it is through wrong calibration of Thermopcouples. Take your IR camera, point it to the sky and see if you can capture back radiation photo, you will not because it does not exist.
Nabil,
Are u saying that all detectors used to detect sky radiation have bad calibration?
ALL these too?
https://geosciencebigpicture.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/all-up.png
C’mon, that is a bit implausible.
Nikolov has been proved wrong in my refutation on Researchgate read by over 2,920. Go to this comment above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377722
The main premise of Monckton’s Post is completely wrong.
“Early papers on equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (ECS) based on explicitly quantifying feedback response, from Hansen (1984) onwards, show that the original reason why climatology imagined ECS to be of order 4 K was that the system-gain factor (the ratio of equilibrium sensitivity after feedback response and reference sensitivity before accounting for feedback response) was 27.9 / 7.5, or 3.7 (or, using the round numbers in vogue at the time, 32 / 8, or 4). Since midrange reference doubled-CO2 sensitivity (RCS) is 1.05 K, it was thus imagined that midrange ECS was 3.7 times 1.05, or about 4 K.”
I read the Hansen 1984 paper carefully, and NOWHERE in the paper is that reasoning used.
They NEVER estimate climate sensitivity from 32K/8K, the ratio of preindustrial Surface Temperature – emission temperature to the ‘directly-forced warming’
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1984/1984_Hansen_ha07600n.pdf
On the contrary, all of their climate sensitivity calculations are based on observations and modeling of the preindustrial rise in T up to that year, or for the Co2 doubling or a 2% rise in solar constant.
“Observations and modeling” mean NOTHING if you don’t know what you’re doing. Cults can observe something and then completely pervert it, as they’ve done with the lunar rotation nonsense.
Or, they can model anything to be anything. See John Von Neumann’s elephant.
See, Pup?
*That* is trolling.
Please stop.
Translation from Clint-speak:
“you dont know what youre doing.”
-to use science to obtain results contrary to Clint’s erroneous beliefs
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Measured data shows very clearly that the models overestimate warming from CO2. Hansen is the one who is personally and solely responsible for the satellite data set being developed by Roy and John. As soon as he saw that it contradicts his theories, he rejected it instead of adjusting his models. What does that say about the reliability of his published work?
” the satellite data set being developed by Roy and John. As soon as he saw that it contradicts his theories, he rejected it instead of adjusting his models”
Their initial data set that showed no warming turned out to be highly flawed…RSS team found the flaw.
The models are constantly adjusted in any case to improve agreement with observations.
The models do not agree with measured data, and you know it. There are enough reasons to be concerned about rising CO2 and the depletion of non-renewable fossil resource without people being dishonest. Science should be about being honest and skeptical. That is the only valid science. Medical studies are done double-blind for a very good reason!
I didnt say the models are fully in agreement, yet. But they are informed by observations. Just as weather models 40 y ago werent very accurate, but are now.
FYI Tim,
Here is Hansen response to satellite data, the controversy about its difference from surface data, and then discovery of the flaw in the data.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_Hansen_ha06100c.pdf
25 years later all of that has been resolved, so who are you trying to fool? The thing you people do not like is the fact that ENSO shows up so well as the dominant year-to-year effect. This completely destroys the narrative about continuous warming due to continuous CO2 accumulation. Once again, honesty in the science will do a lot more to inform the public than hype which causes people to doubt the honesty of the scientists. Data smoothing by NASA GISS to erase ENSO is a form of dishonesty.
In epistemology, the veracious inquirer is most likely to have justified beliefs that are true. Since knowledge is founded on having true beliefs, a dishonest scientist is just a different kind of fool. People who argue science to deceive rather than inform dishonor the whole profession — especially scientists who are regarded as being authoritative. Once again skepticism and humility are needed for good accurate science.
I am sorry to break it to you, Tim, but the knowledge as true belief thesis is on shaky grounds these days:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#GettProb
Dishonesty does not imply being wrong, btw. Think about how doctors sometimes conceal information from their clients.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“The thing you people do not like is the fact that ENSO shows up so well as the dominant year-to-year effect. This completely destroys the narrative about continuous warming due to continuous CO2 accumulation.”
Nobody is claiming there should be continuous warming, nor that CO2 is the only source of T variation. So this is a strawman.
Climate scientists are fully aware that ENSO is a dominant source of SHORT-TERM T variation, but not long term.
It is odd that you left out the most important point. Hmmmmm
“Data smoothing by NASA GISS to erase ENSO is a form of dishonesty.”
Uhhh…
Here’s GISS with and without their usual 12 month smoothing.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/offset:0.5/plot/gistemp/from:1970/mean:12
To me, ENSO variation is easier to see with the 12 mo. smoothing.
In meteorology, climate is typically determined from a 30 y average.
Of interest for the Climate Change issue is definitely long-term change. So I see nothing wrong with smoothing over 5 or even 10 years to isolate the long-term change.
Pretty standard in data analysis.
What the new “Climate Declaration” doesn’t tell us (nudge nudge, wink wink)
“So, there’s a lesson in this, if you decide you want to oppose a scientific conclusion that you know very little about and start a petition, the first step is to at least find out what the scientific conclusion is. Otherwise you find yourself opposing something that doesn’t even exist.
…
In place of Doubt which has been the mainstay of the anti-science lobby, we now have something far more wussy, ambiguity.
…
I guess catching up to the science of 1955 is progress, right?”
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/WCD-version-100122.pdf
More and more people are speaking out as your cult collapses.
Please, Pup, stop trolling.
Pup, I correct trolls. I’m “anti-trolling”. You’re the troll, I’m the anti-troll.
I noted your 2-minute response time to my last comment. You may be an ignorant and immature troll, but at least you’re prompt….
That line and that role are already taken, Pup.
Please, very please, stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Monckton of Brenchley
Have you read chapter 8 of IPCC 2013 (AR5)? In the Chapter it clearly says that Radiative Forcing has never been observed or measured, it is just a concept. So why are you treating the subject as a science?
Asking our Sudoku Xpert about the IPCC will lead you nowhere, Nabil.
But I do like to RTFR.
Here it is, FYEO:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
What is difficult is usually not impossible.
Hope this helps.
Oh, and have you ever observed gravity or causation by any chance?
Apparently, your version of Chapter 8 IPCC (in bold letter) is different than what I read, unless IPCC revised their initial version. What about measurements of Radiative Forcing? Any publications you know of?
Nabil,
Without a link to your version it is difficult for me to compare.
As for your whataboutism, are you referring to EF or ERF?
> EF or ERF
RF or ERF, that is.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Even most ignorant SkyDragons understand that “radiative forcing” is just SkyDragons redefining sunlight as something else.
I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
You must be a really, really, stupid SkyDragon.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop trolling.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Even most ignorant SkyDragons understand that radiative forcing is just SkyDragons redefining sunlight as something else.
Im surprised you didnt know that.
You must be a really, really, stupid SkyDragon.
#2
Mike Flynn,
Please stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Oh, and have you ever observed gravity or causation by any chance?
Reply”
We feel and measure gravity, it is 9.8 m/s2. We have been unable to measure ECS even with hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure and counting. It is like chasing a gost.
Correction: ghost instead of gost.
> We feel and measure gravity
Well, Nabil, you might have produced a scientific breakthrough:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobservable
That you can feel something may not imply that it is observable.
Just a thought.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
Hush, Clint. I don’t want to waste this opportunity.
Five of the main proponents of different alternative global warming theories are on the same thread at the same time. I want to hear them debate.
There are many ways to debunk your cult beliefs, Ent. Some are better than others, but the end result is always the same. Your cult beliefs are nonsense.
> Some are better than others
So you agree with EM, Pup.
Yet you still are trolling.
Stop.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
EM,
You wrote –
“I want to hear them debate.”
And someone is supposed to care what you “want” because . . . ?
I prefer to base my opinions about the physical world on facts, rather than pointless and irrelevant debates.
SkyDragons obviously disagree.
Mike Flynn, Sky Dragon Crank extraordinaire,
Please stop trolling.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
(Although I do appreciate the flattery – as in “Imitation is the sincerest form . . .”.)
By the way, how are you going with explaining the GHE being responsible for four and a half billion years or so of global cooling?
How hard can it be?
You idiot!
#2
Mike Flynn, Sky Dragon Crank extraordinaire,
Please stop trolling.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
(Although I do appreciate the flattery as in Imitation is the sincerest form . . ..)
By the way, how are you going with explaining the GHE being responsible for four and a half billion years or so of global cooling?
How hard can it be?
You idiot!
#3
Mike Flynn, Sky Dragon Crank extraordinaire,
Please stop trolling.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
(Although I do appreciate the flattery as in Imitation is the sincerest form . . ..)
By the way, how are you going with explaining the GHE being responsible for four and a half billion years or so of global cooling?
How hard can it be?
You idiot!
#4
Mike Flynn, Sky Dragon Crank extraordinaire,
Please stop trolling.
Willard,
Please stop trolling.
(Although I do appreciate the flattery as in Imitation is the sincerest form . . ..)
By the way, how are you going with explaining the GHE being responsible for four and a half billion years or so of global cooling?
How hard can it be?
You idiot!
#5
Mike Flynn, Sky Dragon Crank extraordinaire,
Please stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I was simply Mike to stop trolling, Graham.
Are you suggesting that you PSTIng people can be a form of trolling?
This was the trolling:
“Mike Flynn, Sky Dragon Crank extraordinaire”.
Mike is indeed a Sky Dragon crank, Graham.
Just like you.
But, extraordinarily so.
Please stop trolling and ask me why.
1) Name-calling your opponents (“Sky Dragon Crank”) is trolling.
2) Endlessly going on and on and on and on about how you think Swenson is Mike Flynn is also trolling. We all get it. You think Swenson is Mike Flynn. So what? Do we really need you to keep saying it repeatedly hundreds of times under every article? At this point I couldn’t care less if he is or is not Mike Flynn. I just want you to stop going on about it.
Name calling is not trolling, Graham, otherwise we should consider that you were lying when you said that Pup was not trolling.
Mike is an very special Sky Dragon crank insofar he believes in the greenhouse theory. It just happens that he does not know it. Do you recall when he explained it Bob?
Clint R did not call his opponents names in the comment where you asked me if he was trolling. I have absolutely no interest in your ongoing obsession with Swenson.
Your denial that Pup calls people names if just delicious, Graham. It only shows you trolling once more.
Oh, and speaking of handles, yours is one of a pure troll.
I don’t deny that Clint R name-calls. I said that he didn’t in the comment where you asked me if he was trolling.
The difference between a typical Clint R comment which contains name-calling and your comment to Swenson is, there is also some substance to the Clint R comment. That’s why I don’t ask him to stop trolling. He generally has a point to make. You are just here to irritate and inflame.
What you said only works if you presume that trolling happens with name calling alone, Graham. As soon as we notice that name calling has very little to do with trolling, your whole argument falls down. Which is par for your trolling course.
Also, there are ways to label people using substantives, like the *obsession* you just used. The whole idea that I am trolling Mike because I am using the first handle he used in Climateball is simply preposterous. And you are wrong – I do not only believe that he is Mike Flynn. I know he is Mike Flynn, and everybody here knows that. We have enough evidence, and you denying that fact is just more trolling,
Most of the comments Pup makes are content-free, and no comment made by Mike in this thread carry content. So you are burdening yourself with a constraint that will lead to the demise of the kind of trolling you served this website for 73 months already.
At this point of the exchange, you usually fall back to repeating what you said. Total unresponsive walling. Good old trolling by the Graham we know and love.
I am not asking you to stop trolling, for you just cannot. It is part of your nature.
Down-thread we go, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379199
Endlessly going on and on and on and on with last-wording and PSTs is trolling. We all get it.
We all get it. You think people want the last word and ALL who disagree with you must be trolling. So what? Do we really need you to keep saying it repeatedly hundreds of times under every article? At this point we couldnt care less that you think that. We just want you to stop going on about it.
Funny how people are always ready to complain about their behaviors by other people.
” there is also some substance to the Clint R comment. Thats why I dont ask him to stop trolling. He generally has a point to make. ”
C’mon, don’t be ridiculous!
…down-thread we go, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379199
You already said that, Graham.
Please stop trolling.
thread we go, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379199
At this point of the exchange, you simply repeat what you said, Graham.
Whoops, it left off the three dots. Let’s try that again:
…thread we go, Little Willy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379199
Correction ” ghost instead of gost”
Nothing panicked will help. La Nia will continue for many months, as indicated by the steady trend in the western Pacific.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202210.gif
CO2IsLife
” Once again, you dont know the real science. ”
Aha. Interesting! Only those I name the ‘Pseudoskeptics’ say that. Others don’t.
*
But… Did I not write above:
” The real problem you deliberately ignore is that with this increase of CO2 far above the Tropopause (up to 50 km above ground), more and more IR radiation emitted by Earth in response to solar SW radiation is intercepted by CO2. ”
*
Don’t you see that you are so fixated on your own thoughts that you are repeating them here even though they have NOTHING to do with what I wrote?
” 1) CO2 in the lower atmosphere is totally negated by H20. You dont even see a CO2 signature until you are up about 3km and H2O has precipitated out of the atmosphere ”
See emphasized text.
*
” 2) Identify a location without water and the UHI effect and you discover that an increase in CO2 hasnt resulted in any warming (Antarctica and other dry hot or cold deserts) ”
You have been endlessly told since years that this is a perfect non-sequitur:
– look at your own (1);
– Antarctica is a land where nearly surface is way colder than the atmosphere above it, what results in inverted CO2 effects;
– even where there is no water vapor, the effect of CO2 at the surface is absolutely non-existent; CO2’s effect begins in the stratosphere.
Thus, deserts are warm, but don’t show as much warming than do places where water vapor is present.
*
” 3) As the air thins, radiation more effectively removes heat than it traps heat… ”
Radiation never traps any heat: that is the greatest nonsense I ever read. Nor does CO2.
Anybody somewhat informed knows that this ‘CO2 traps heat’ has been brought by people trying to explain science by transforming it into trivial statements.
” … , that is why the stratosphere actually cools as CO2 increases ”
This is utter nonsense.
The stratosphere has numerous reasons to warm or cool. CO2 is one agent among many others.
Real world data shows that water vapor cools the surface. Correct physics can be used to explain why…
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
See the study results at …
http://climate-change-theory.com/study-15-locations.jpg
Dug
Wrong again. Water Vapor warms the surface. Wetter areas are cooler because the water vapor condenses into liquid or solid form forming clouds. The clouds are what have the cooling effect but only because they block sunlight from reaching the surface. No matter how many times people rationally explain things to you there is nothing in your brain other than some fanatic drive. You really don’t care about science or integrity. You are an obsessed fanatic. Nothing will change your path, many have tried. Fanatics and cult minded people (like Clint R) never care about evidence or science. You fanatics just drive on with ths same old BS over and over.
Norman, you ARE Dug. At least you’re as confused as he is. You believe in nonsense, and you can’t learn. So, you lash out at others.
Found any valid technical reference to support your previous nonsense yet?
Norman,
Does the atmosphere warm or cool the surface? You can have as many guesses as you wish.
Bindidion, answer this very very simple question. I made the simple hypothesis that if you control for the UH and Water Vapor and isolate the impact of CO2 on temperature, you will find you get no warming. I then went to the GISS website and identified many sites that fit that description and have a BI under 15. There are literally hundreds of locations around the globe that show no warming over the past 60 to 120 years. Why are there so many locations that have shown no warming as CO2 increased? Do the laws of physics cease to exist in those locations? How is it possible that locations do not warm when CO2 increases? Also, where is your evidence that CO2 and 15 micron LWIR can warm the oceans? Simply show me one single experiment that demonstrates that foundational fact?
Ned Nikolov (who wrote upthread) has been proven wrong in my refutation on Researchgate which has been read by over 2,920 at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338356357_Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate
Nikolov was just randomly trying equations to do curve fitting … I tried to refute it by using a standard model (as you describe) to fit all known planetoids, and instead I realised that the temperature of planetoids were estimated using the standard model. So, all I would be doing is modelling a model and showing the model produces the model result.
It was however an interesting exercise.
Correct.
Try your model on Venus at Earth distance.
That would be predicting something with your model.
Sorry, but winter in North America starts earlier.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/10/08/2200Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-79.31,66.34,446
ren…maybe it has started earlier elsewhere but here in the Vancouver, Canada area it’s still like summer.
Any idea when it will cool off here and start raining?
Gordon, at least five more days of summer in Vancouver.
To those who still believe in the biggest scientific scam of all time, namely the claim that carbon dioxide and methane warm us:
You cant prove Josef Loschmidt wrong because the gravitationally induced temperature gradient is a direct consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In other words it is the state of maximum entropy we physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium. This single fact refutes climatology preaching that radiation from IR-active (so-called “greenhouse”) gases forms the gradient.
With your “science” you cant explain the necessary input of thermal energy that makes the Venus surface warm on the sunlit side because the solar radiation is less than 20w/m^2 at the Venus surface and radiation from the less-hot atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the hotter surface. Only heat creep can and does do that.
Then explain why its hotter than Earth at the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus. You cant; I can
http://climate-change-theory.com
Dug
Loschmidt was wrong. There is a layer of atmosphere above the Troposphere (where the circulating atmosphere has stopped) that is isothermal. It is about 10 km in thickness.
I debated this with you before. You are a crackpot mentality driven by a sense of grandeur. No evidence will ever convince you of your errors.
I cannot access that site.
Dug,
Don’t look more stupid than you have to.
Loschmidt provided precisely no experimental support for his fantasy.
There is no gravitationally induced temperature gradient. Maybe Loschmidt did not know about things like Brownian motion, and why diffusion occurs.
The atmosphere is hotter at the bottom than the top, and as a consequence possesses a temperature gradient. Without heat input of any sort, the atmosphere condenses to the solid state, theoretically absolute zero.
You really aren’t going to be so stupid as to claim that matter at absolute zero spontaneously warms up due to the force of gravity?
It doesn’t even seem to happen under 10 km of seawater – the bottom is colder than the top!
A reproducible experiment would help your cause, but of course there aren’t any because you’re talking nonsense.
Maybe you could divert attention by blathering about Venus – or Uranus, if you can remove your head long enough.
Forty years ago…
Remarks by E. E. David Jr. President, Exxon Research and Engineering Company at the Fourth Biennial Maurice Ewing Symposium held at Palisades, New York, October 25 – 27, 1982.
The focus of the symposium were climate feedback processes and climate sensitivity.
This was the same symposium at which James Hansen presented his seminal paper titled “CLIMATE SENSITIVITY: ANALYSIS OF FEEDBACK MECHANISMS.”
The symposium was made possible by a generous grant from the EXXON
Research and Engineering Company.
maguff…”The question is how do we get from here to there while preserving the health of our political, economic and environmental support systems”.
***
I await your answer, Maguff.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/28/196355493/economists-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change
It takes one page.
C’mon Willard,
Surely you can find a better authority to appeal to!
A SkyDragon journalist?
Is that really the best you can do?
Rhetorical question, of course.
Mike Flynn,
All you had to do is to read a URL.
That’s pathetic trolling.
Do better or stop.
Cmon Willard,
Surely you can find a better authority to appeal to!
A SkyDragon journalist?
Is that really the best you can do?
Rhetorical question, of course.
One one URL, Mike.
Please stop being so dumb.
Willard,
You wrote –
“One one URL, Mike.”
How dumb is that?
Or do you glory in how inept and incompetent you can be?
Four words, two idiotic mistakes!
Oh well, if you are only demonstrably stupid 50% of the time, it’s better than 100% stupidity, I suppose.
Have you managed to accept that four and a half billion years of cooling was the result of the SkyDragon GHE yet?
No? Colour me unsurprised!
Off you go now, practice your whining and “silly semantic games”. Make sure you keep your hands out of your pockets, so you won’t be tempted to play with yourself, and get even dumber!
One one URL, Mike.
Please stop being so dumb.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Nabil Swedan at 8:20 PM
Dear Nabil,
You say you are not an idiot, yet you are unable to separate policy from science. Science and policy have different goals, different attitudes toward information, languages, accountabilities, and career paths. There is a high level of distrust and lack of respect between scientists and policy makers. But I digress.
If you believe that the measured downwelling radiation reported by the SURFRAD instruments is an artifact of the calibration protocols, then you should take that up with the manufacturer of the Eppley pyrgeometer as well as with the World Infrared Standard Group. Please report back with your findings; but be forewarned that this is a fool’s errand.
Regards.
TM
P.s. Please do not read this post by Dr Spencer: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/imaging-the-greenhouse-effect-with-a-flir-i7-thermal-imager/
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Climate Scientists Respond to Christopher –
https://www.tiktok.com/@rogerskaer/video/7147844411915783470
Wee Willy Wanker,
“Climate scientists”?
No such thing, you donkey. Climate is the average of past weather observations.
The concept of the scientific method is obviously beyond your understanding.
Mike Flynn,
The video demonstration is less than one minute long.
Please watch it, and stop trolling.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Climate scientists?
No such thing, you donkey. Climate is the average of past weather observations.
The concept of the scientific method is obviously beyond your understanding.
Mike Flynn,
You are illustrating perfectly well the lesson of the video demonstration.
Please watch it, and stop trolling.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Climate scientists?
No such thing, you donkey. Climate is the average of past weather observations.
The concept of the scientific method is obviously beyond your understanding.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop trolling.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Climate scientists?
No such thing, you donkey. Climate is the average of past weather observations.
The concept of the scientific method is obviously beyond your understanding.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop trolling.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Climate scientists?
No such thing, you donkey. Climate is the average of past weather observations.
The concept of the scientific method is obviously beyond your understanding.
Have you worked out how four and half billion years of GHE caused global cooling yet?
Maybe you can reject the fact that the surface is no longer molten, and claim that some stupid equation says that it has actually heated up!
About as stupid as Dr Naomi Orestes thinking a judge would accept her nonsense as “expert testimony”! Or maybe even more stupid?
You decide.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop trolling.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Climate scientists?
No such thing, you donkey. Climate is the average of past weather observations.
The concept of the scientific method is obviously beyond your understanding.
Have you worked out how four and half billion years of GHE caused global cooling yet?
Maybe you can reject the fact that the surface is no longer molten, and claim that some stupid equation says that it has actually heated up!
About as stupid as Dr Naomi Orestes thinking a judge would accept her nonsense as expert testimony! Or maybe even more stupid?
You decide.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
After two days, Graham, you must have found the time to watch the video.
Have you?
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The amazingly reality-resisting Willard wrote –
“Oh, and have you ever observed gravity or causation by any chance?”
Hmmmmmm. Off with the fairies?
This from an idiot SkyDragon who believes CO2 causes heating!
Mike Flynn, Sky Dragon Crank extraordinaire,
Nabil believes that we can observe gravity.
Please go troll him.
The amazingly reality-resisting Willard wrote
Oh, and have you ever observed gravity or causation by any chance?
Hmmmmmm. Off with the fairies?
This from an idiot SkyDragon who believes CO2 causes heating!
#2
Mike Flynn, Sky Dragon Crank extraordinaire,
Nabil believes that we can observe gravity.
Please go troll him.
The amazingly reality-resisting Willard wrote
Oh, and have you ever observed gravity or causation by any chance?
Hmmmmmm. Off with the fairies?
This from an idiot SkyDragon who believes CO2 causes heating!
#3
Mike Flynn, Sky Dragon Crank extraordinaire,
Nabil believes that we can observe gravity.
Please go troll him.
The amazingly reality-resisting Willard wrote
“Oh, and have you ever observed gravity or causation by any chance?”
Hmmmmmm. Off with the fairies?
This from an idiot SkyDragon who believes CO2 causes heating!
Thank you for trolling Nabil, Mike Flynn:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377895
The amazingly reality-resisting Willard wrote
Oh, and have you ever observed gravity or causation by any chance?
Hmmmmmm. Off with the fairies?
This from an idiot SkyDragon who believes CO2 causes heating!
Thank you for trolling Nabil, Mike Flynn:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377895
The amazingly reality-resisting Willard wrote
Oh, and have you ever observed gravity or causation by any chance?
Hmmmmmm. Off with the fairies?
This from an idiot SkyDragon who believes CO2 causes heating!
Do you think Graham noticed your little trick to repeat the same comment, Mike?
The amazingly reality-resisting Willard wrote
Oh, and have you ever observed gravity or causation by any chance?
Hmmmmmm. Off with the fairies?
This from an idiot SkyDragon who believes CO2 causes heating!
Do you think Graham noticed your little trick to repeat the same comment, Mike?
Willard,
Dodge, duck and weave.
People will still notice that all your attempts to avoid the reality that the Earth has cooled after four and a half billion years of your mythical GHE aren’t working too well.
You may not be as clever as you think.
Carry on being a reality denying nitwitted SkyDragon.
Oh, Mike.
I noticed your little charade with Tim earlier.
After all these years of trolling this website, you still did not know about the SB law?
Silly Sky Dragon Crank!
Weak Wee Willy,
What are you blabbering about, idiot?
Mike Flynn,
You are playing dumb.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tyson
The link, Backradiatin is not directly measured by IR sensitive cells, it is through wrong calibration of Thermopcouples. Take your IR camera, point it to the sky and see if you can capture back radiation photo, you will not because it does not exist.
Nabil,
People point a IR thermometer at enough air to exert a pressure of 1 bar at the surface, and are amazed it has a temperature.
If they point it at the ground, or the side of a house, they are not similarly amazed.
All matter above absolute zero emits radiation. This is perceived as temperature.
A thermometer is designed to measure temperature, but SkyDragons are astonished that air seems to have a temperature.
Meteorologists try to measure this temperature with varying degrees of success. Not surprisingly, it is called “air temperature”, although SkyDragons generally try to convince people it is “surface temperature”.
Foolish SkyDragons, eh, Nabil?
Dear Nabil,
Are you a frigging idiot?
Regards.
TM
P.s.: Whatever you do, do not read this! https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/observational-evidence-of-the-greenhouse-effect-at-desert-rock-nevada/
Tyson,
I am well aware of that post and participated in it. Not an idiot, Sir.
True, Nabil:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/observational-evidence-of-the-greenhouse-effect-at-desert-rock-nevada/#comment-221050
You did participate!
Willard,
Even Dr Spencer used quotes around forcing to indicate he really meant something else. Heat output, for example.
Obviously, the “greenhouse effect” which is mentioned is also a reference to something else, whatever it may be. Nothing to do with greenhouses, and effective only in reducing the surface temperature of the Earth after four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight.
Dream on laddie.
You may as well keep acting the fool – you don’t provide anything factual or useful.
Mike Flynn,
Stop trolling.
Willard,
Even Dr Spencer used quotes around forcing to indicate he really meant something else. Heat output, for example.
Obviously, the greenhouse effect which is mentioned is also a reference to something else, whatever it may be. Nothing to do with greenhouses, and effective only in reducing the surface temperature of the Earth after four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight.
Dream on laddie.
You may as well keep acting the fool you dont provide anything factual or useful.
Mike Flynn,
Stop trolling.
Willard,
Even Dr Spencer used quotes around forcing to indicate he really meant something else. Heat output, for example.
Obviously, the greenhouse effect which is mentioned is also a reference to something else, whatever it may be. Nothing to do with greenhouses, and effective only in reducing the surface temperature of the Earth after four and a half billion years or so of continuous sunlight.
Dream on laddie.
You may as well keep acting the fool. You don’t provide anything factual or useful.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
nabil…”I am well aware of that post and participated in it. Not an idiot, Sir”.
***
That’s true, but Maguff is an idiot. Stupid, arrogant, and an idiot.
Willard the idiot implored –
“You are illustrating perfectly well the lesson of the video demonstration.
Please watch it . . .”
Wonky Wee Willy grovels at my feet in supplication, begging me to dance to his discordant jangling, and waste my time “watching” some Willard idiocy or other.
Bad luck for the Witless one.
I watch what I choose, and the chances of me watching some Willardese nonsense is remote, to say the least.
Geez, these SkyDragons are a strange lot. Their mythical GHE apparently resulted in global cooling for four and a half million years, but they refuse to accept reality.
Are they deranged, or just stupid?
Mike Flynn,
For the love of Keith Richards,
If you want to find out something.
Anything.
You have to do what is in the video.
Do you understand?
Otherwise you’ll remain the sad, pathetic, Sky Dragon Crank that we all know and love.
Please.
Stop trolling.
Go watch that video.
Whacky Willard,
And if I don’t, will you promise to poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle?
Ooooooh, I’m scared.
Good thing you are incompetent, impotent, and irrelevant, isn’t it? Otherwise, people might value your opinions.
Carry on demanding.
All I want for Christmas is Willard to be banned.
Kennui, please stop trolling.
Ken,
You don’t have give the slimy little troll hope that you might be able to achieve what he can’t!
He’s been trying to get himself banned, but he is so incompetent he can’t even organise that.
He’s good for a laugh, even when he is reduced to imitating his betters, attempting to look clever.
Oh well, you have to do as you wish.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop trolling, you will make Kennui sad.
Ken,
You dont have give the slimy little troll hope that you might be able to achieve what he cant!
Hes been trying to get himself banned, but he is so incompetent he cant even organise that.
Hes good for a laugh, even when he is reduced to imitating his betters, attempting to look clever.
Oh well, you have to do as you wish.
You are responding to me, Mike.
Spamming is trolling.
Please stop.
Willard,
You could always try grovelling, but then I’d laugh all the harder!
Your opinions about anything at all are worthless.
You are a fact free zone, but who cares?
Keep at it.
Mike,
You could try to stop trolling.
Just once.
Swenson, I’m not here for shits and giggles. I’m here hoping to learn something about climate.
Its really disheartening to find at least two thirds of the ‘discussion’ is shallow pates exchanging insults with the troll.
Meanwhile there is a Green Fascist move to take away our rights and freedoms as they pertain to access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels.
Stop feeding the buniak troll because I’m starting to consider that you are a troll too.
I’m glad that you may consider the possibility that maybe, perhaps, there’s a remote chance that you threaten to start to think that Mike Flynn is a troll, Kennui.
It might have taken you more than ten years to entertain this wild hypothesis, but it means a lot to me.
Thank you.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
IR thermometers are thermocouples as well. What they measure depends on the calibration curve. There is no way to explain what they measure when pointed to the sky. They are not infrared sensitive elements like infrared camera pixels.
nabil…IR thermometers used on high temperature sources use thermocouples, which detect heat and react to heat directly. The IR thermometers used to measure sky temperatures can’t measure heat directly, as you know, they measure IR frequencies.
The frequencies measured are correlated to frequencies generated by known heat sources in a lab and stored in the memory of the unit. Problem is, these kinds of thermometers are only good over a small area of focus, so I don’t see how they can say much about the temperature of the sky.
Other types of handheld IR thermometers depend on the response of semiconductor material to EM frequencies. Some materials respond to a narrow band of IR frequencies but cannot respond over the entire IR band of frequencies. The semiconductor materials generate currents equivalent to the frequency detected.
No hand-held infrared device measures heat directly unless the source temperatures are very high…several hundred degrees C.
No disagreement, Gordon.
The issue is with pyrgeometer calibration equation. It assumes the existence of backradiation, which defeats the purpose of the experiment. The calibration equation creates backradiation that otherwise would not exist.
Nabil…I did not post to contradict you, I was merely adding information. We are in agreement.
AFAIAC, the phrase back radiation is a misnomer. Nothing is coming back, certain air molecules radiate isotropically and some of it naturally is intercepted by the surface. It can have no effect on the surface because it emanates from a colder source and its frequency cannot affect surface atoms with their electrons at higher energy levels (quantum theory and 2nd law).
The point missed in all this is losses. Only 5% of surface radiation is absorbed by CO2, if that, and when the heated CO2 molecule radiates, only a fraction of it is returned. Even if it could be absorbed, the amount of surface radiation captured and returned is not nearly enough to make up for the losses.
Back-radiation is a hair-brained theory that makes no sense on several levels. Even if it had credence, it represents perpetual motion. We are being asked to believe that heat created by incoming solar in the surface is being recycled from surface to atmosphere and back to increase the quantity of heat in the system. Just plain silly.
Gordon,
I am not against concepts like radiative forcing, climate sensitivity, or other concepts as long as they address the issues at hand. In the history of science, we had concepts that were acceptable for a while before being abandons. As of now, the concept of radiative forcing is costing us a lot of money. Even proponent of the greenhouse gas effect are now feeling that the concept is taking us way south. They are objecting artificial carbon dioxide sequeztration as being untested and should be abandoned. Well, the whole climate science is untested. I believe that it is time for an alternative.
nabil…”I am not against concepts like radiative forcing, climate sensitivity, or other concepts as long as they address the issues at hand”.
***
I am opposed to the perversion of physics by modernists. There are modernists claiming heat does not exist, that it’s only a measure of ‘energy’ transfer. I ask them what kind of ‘energy’ is being transferred, and it can only be thermal energy, therefore they are now defining heat as the transfer of heat.
There is no need to change terminology if it serves no purpose. And when the terminology is redefined without proof it is utter arrogance. What’s the point of using terms like forcing and climate sensitivity when there is not a shred of scientific evidence that CO2 is warming the atmosphere or the surface? Warming work for me, and climates are sensitive to precipitation, solar input, etc.
One problem with radiation is it has no measure. It is usually measured in watts/m^2, which makes no sense. Show me a watt-meter that can measure EM without first converting EM to electrical energy. Watt-meters don’t run on EM, they run on electrical current while measuring the applied voltage. The product of E (volts) and I (amps), of course, are watts. On a watt-meter there are actually input terminals for voltage and current.
What I am trying to say, Nabil, is that we take far too much for granted in physics. We think we know what terms mean when we actually don’t.
There is an equivalence between electrical energy and mechanical energy. An electric current through a conductor produces a magnetic field and that magnetic field can drive a motor armature to produce work when the magnetic field interacts with permanent magnets or electromagnets.
However, that is classified as near-field EM and it is effective only close to a conductor wound on an armature. The clearance between an armature rotor winding and the surrounding magnets (stator) can b as low as 2.5 mm. That’s how close the conductors needs to be to the magnets to get a decent, regular torque.
EM through space lacks that ability to do work by moving a mass through a distance (work). So, why is it measured in w/m^2? EM in a motor winding is not measured in W/m^2 but the motor output power is measured in HP. Some motors are measured in watts but in both cases we are talking about the work the motor can do.
If EM, as light, had the ability to affect a mass, it would interfere with the needle on a compass. There is enough of it to raise the surface temperature of the Earth in a locale on a given day, after conversion to heat, so why could it not affect a tiny needle on a compass? Of interest in a an electric motor is the current running through the armature windings. No one cares about the EM field unless it is causing EMI problems.
The watt is actually derived from the horsepower. It is a measure of mechanical energy. However, circa 1840, Simon Joule demonstrated an equivalence between heat and work. He set up a small paddle rotating in water and measured the number of joules of mechanical energy required to raise the temperature of water so many degrees C. From that, he established an equivalence between the measure of heat, the calorie, and an equivalent measure of mechanical energy, the joule.
Today, modernists have arbitrarily redefined the calorie in terms of joules, even though the joule is a measure of work, not heat.
Although the joule and the calorie have an equivalent they cannot be used together in an equation involving heat and work. A watt is defined as the work done at the rate of 1 joule/second. If you measure the equivalent amount of heat, it can be declared in watts or in calories. However, in the 1st LOT, one must keep the measures the same, so both heat and work are measured in watts.
EM has no heat and it does no work. It has a capacity for being converted to heat or to do work but that is a potential form of energy unrelated to heat or work. It must first be converted to another form of energy before it can be declared in watts/m^2.
When we claim that solar EM has so many w/m^2 at TOA, we are essentially claiming it ‘IS’ doing work or creating heat. It is doing neither until it encounters a mass of lower temperature than its source.
This may sound like nit-picking but unless we are precise in science, pretty soon people begin talking of EM as heat and being transferred through space by radiation. That leads to silly concepts like a positive balance of energy, all because people don’t really understand the true meaning of heat, EM, and work.
In other words, a good deal of modern physics is garbage. It is going to take us a long time to undo much of the current nonsense being preached.
“There is no need to change terminology if it serves no purpose. And when the terminology is redefined without proof it is utter arrogance.”
Agree with you, Gordon.
The problem is that the climate science is so broad and multidisciplinary, and academic setting is exactly the opposite. Academics resorted to shortcuts by introducing concepts, which I understand after spending 17 years and counting on the subject. Deviation from established science and terminology is wrong, but it looks to me that climatologist either did not try hard enough or had little choices. The private sector on the other hand has not been interested because there is no money in the climate “business.”
Nabil says: “There is no way to explain what they [IR thermometers] measure when pointed to the sky.”
IR thermometers measure the flux arriving their sensor. Depending on the type of IR thermometer, the flux is processed so it can be measured, either with a thermocouple, or as Gordan says, with a combination of a p-n junction and a look-up table. An inexpensive handheld IR thermometer uses the latter technique.
So a handheld IR thermometer, pointed at the overhead sky, measures the incoming flux from the sky. It’s the same flux that would be impacting the ground. A clear sky usually measures between 210K and 240K. That means a clear sky can NOT heat a surface at 288K. A simple handheld IR thermometer is solid evidence the GHE is nonsense.
Some people over simplify the situation by stating “there is no back-radiation”. What they should be saying is “there is no back-radiation that can warm Earth’s average surface temperature”. Back-radiation from the sky exists, it just has less heating ability than ice (about 270K).
Those are called spectrophotometers.
Thermocouples are a piece of metal attached to electrodes that varies current as the metal expands or contracts.
To be more exact, there are TWO dissimilar metals used in a thermocouple. And the movement of the metals is not involved.
For more in-depth info, study the Galvani Potential and the Seebeck Effect.
yes…but the expansion/contraction is due to the direct exposure to heat.
Gordon, does a thermocouple require movement to produce a voltage?
No, they are called “IR thermometers”.
Spectrophotometers are used to generate a spectrum, usually in the study of absorp.tion. IR thermometers only measure temperature.
My website http://climate-change-theory.com has just been redesigned and some of the images referred to in earlier comments may be seen on the “Images” page http://www.climate-change-theory.com/images.
Following upon the rude personal slurs without a word of physics coming from Ned Nikolov upthread I have added a link to my paper:
REFUTATION OF NIKOLOV and ZELLER’S “UNIVERSAL THEORY OF CLIMATE”
on the new Home page at http://climate-change-theory.com
They get it all totally wrong when they attribute warming to pressure just because they found a correlation. Correlation does NOT prove cause.
To raise a temperature there has to be a net input of energy which takes the form of molecular kinetic energy in the target. Pressure is not the source of such energy each morning when and where the surface temperature is rising. It does not increase the mean kinetic energy of molecules in the surface. How could it?
On Venus (to which they claim their conjecture also applies) it is SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE to explain the necessary input of energy that must exist because the surface temperature does indeed rise on the sunlit side, as for Earth and other planets. Pressure cannot create such energy. An attempted analogy with compression heating is irrelevant because such heating is not a natural thermodynamic process. All such processes must not violate the laws of thermodynamics: they must be increasing entropy.
That is why (in my 2013 paper) I meticulously prove that the “heat creep” process is just such a natural process which is indeed increasing entropy (or it would not occur) and is thus a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
NIKOLOV & KELLER’S conjecture doesn’t even get off the ground for it assumes a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics as well as the Second, much like the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse conjecture does likewise.
To support my proof that they are sadly mistaken I quote from their Abstract:
“A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric greenhouse effect currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition.”
PRESSURE DOES NOT INITIATE THERMAL ENHANCEMENT (i.e. warming)
My refutation is at this link, viewed by over 2,920
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338356357_Refutation-of-Nikolov-and-Zeller-universal-theory-of-climate
This is for the benefit of silent readers and Ned Nikolov if he deigns to read it. If he does read it he had better not misquote me again regarding my statement of the Ideal Gas Law.
Imagine a theoretical tall vertical cylinder that is perfectly sealed and insulated but has removable dividing panels at one third and two thirds of the height. Initially there is only air in the middle section, those molecules moving at about 500m/sec which may be easier to think about as being 1,800 Km/hr. This is typical of air molecules at the base of the troposphere, whereas at the top of the troposphere it is more like 1,400 Km/hr.
Now, slide out the two partitions simultaneously. Let’s say that the mean velocity of the molecules that move into the top section is slowed by gravity to, say, 1,799 Km/hr whilst those that go downwards are accelerated to 1,801 Km/hr. Since kinetic energy is a function of the square of the velocity, and temperature (in K) is proportional to the mean kinetic energy (and not affected by anything else) then we have the temperature gradient, cooler at the top, about which the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt taught in the 1870’s and has never been proven wrong, because he wasn’t wrong.
Now gravity also forms a density gradient in that cylinder. This is how to understand how it does so: think about 60 different molecules bouncing off collisions in the middle section. Suppose there is one setting out in the direction of each of the 60 minute marks on a clock face. Because of gravity there will be some curvature in their paths if there is any horizontal component in their velocity. So, suppose one sets out in the direction of 14 minutes past the hour, but its motion is curved so that, by the time of its next collision it is where the clock hand would point at 16 minutes past the hour. This should help you to understand how gravity pulls a small proportion of the molecules above 50% into a net downward movement – maybe 51% go downwards and 49% upwards. This will happen at all levels and it demonstrates how gravity forms the density gradient.
SO WE SEE GRAVITY FORMING BOTH THE TEMPERATURE AND DENSITY GRADIENT WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL ENERGY (OR PRESSURE) AFFECTING THE CONTENTS OF THE CYLINDER.
The Ideal Gas Law may be stated in the form …
Pressure is proportional to the PRODUCT of density and temperature.
It’s not hard to comprehend if you think about the way we can understand pressure as the result of the molecules striking the walls of that cylinder. There will be more force in the lower section due to the higher density. There will also be more force down there due to the greater kinetic energy of the molecules in the lower section, that is, the higher temperature.
So pressure is the result, not the cause of either the density or temperature gradients.
If the tube were horizontal (and so temperature and density would be homogeneous along its length) then applying pressure externally to one end of the cylinder (which we might assume to be a little pliable) will not warm that end above what the other end would be at equilibrium, and nor would the density end up being more at one end at equilibrium. All that happens is that there is a slight increase in overall density due to the small indentation in the cylinder, but there is no reason to assume that the average velocity of the molecules would increase – they just get a little closer together.
This is a good and realistic demonstration as to what happens in the troposphere of any planet. We tend to think of the “weight” of a column of air pushing down and applying pressure at its base. But, at the molecular level, all “pressure” is really just what is conveyed via molecular collisions. That column is just like that extra pressure applied to one end of the horizontal cylinder. Gravity has already determined the density and temperature down there. That, by the way, is why even when surface cooling stops (and starts to reverse into warming) around dawn, the temperature gradient has remained intact (at least in calm conditions) even without any sunshine, so it is still about 6 to 7 degrees cooler a kilometre above the surface. In ideal circumstances on a calm night that gradient tends towards the state of maximum entropy which exhibits the temperature gradient (as in the vertical cylinder) because, for those who understand entropy, there are then no unbalanced energy potentials simply because the sum of mean molecular kinetic energy plus mean molecular gravitational potential energy is constant over altitude.
And that, folks, is why it is NOT back radiation that is supposedly helping the solar radiation to warm the surface each morning, thus creating a temperature gradient from nothing – the temperature gradient has been there since the formation of the atmosphere due to gravity, just as Loschmidt said. All attempts to prove him wrong overlook the effect of gravitational potential energy and its role in affecting entropy by affecting the differences in energy potentials which will tend to reduce in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy may be thought of as a measure of progress towards the state wherein all unbalanced energy potentials have dissipated. Only then do we have maximum entropy (within the constraints of the system) which is thermodynamic equilibrium – quite a different thing than thermal equilibrium, by the way.
That makes perfect sense. Real physics is intuitively obvious. Ed Berry also used the ideal gas law as the basis of his hypothesis that outflow is proportional to atmospheric concentration. He used that to falsify AGW on the basis that most of the CO2 rise since 1750 is due to nature and not humans. He also falsified IPCC’s carbon cycle model. Have you read his three papers?
P.S.-And not proportional to some level above a baseline level like Dr. Spencer keeps using in his model. Somehow though I think Dr. Spencer uses that model because he wants to show that even using their model there is no crisis.
By the way, did you take that photo on your webpage?
On all planets with a sufficiently dense atmosphere, the temperature gradient occurs in the troposphere, and the pressure in the tropopause is about 100 hPa. How does this relate to your theory?
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.8585&rep=rep1&type=pdf
To IP and others:
Please don’t waste my time writing if you have not read the explanation of the “heat creep” process that I have been first in the world to discover and explain from the laws of physics and for which to show evidence in experiments, studies and data throughout the Solar System.
So, read my 2013 paper so that you realize it is not about either pressure or what happens in the tropopause and above where the density is too low for heat creep to dominate, nor in the depths of the oceans
All seven papers are now linked on the new home page at
http://climate-change-theory.com
Please do NOT reply or write until you have read the paper on temperatures in the surfaces and even sub-surface regions of planets. If you don’t understand the relevant physics pertaining to entropy you may be able to after reading the paper as I explain everything in great detail.
I have long pointed out that a global temperature change near the surface can only occur if the vertical temperature gradient changes. It is very interesting that the gradient in dry air is constant and must be related to gravity (it varies on different planets). I also always thought that high clouds raise the temperature near the surface in winter. To quote from your article:
“Imagine what must happen when the sun rises and begins to warm the tops of the clouds, thus disturbing the equilibrium that was strictly maintained the night before. Now there is more energy, but the temperature gradient will tend to restore the previous value. This means that the entire thermal profile (graph) will rise to a higher (but parallel) position, with the need for heat exchange downward toward warmer regions.”
Thanks for the support, Stephen.
That photo came with a website template at homestead.com.
There are some photos of mine at
http://tasmania-holiday.com
http://UKeuropeViews.com.
Agree with you , Clint.
Nice photos. I have a 6D2, a couple of L lenses (24-70&70-200), and a Zeiss Distagon 501.4. Very much an amateur.
Nabil Swedan at 8:20 PM
Dear Nabil,
You say you are not an idiot, yet you are unable to separate policy from science. Science and policy have different goals, different attitudes toward information, languages, accountabilities, and career paths. There is a high level of distrust and lack of respect between scientists and policy makers. But I digress.
If you believe that the measured downwelling radiation reported by the SURFRAD instruments is an artifact of the calibration protocols, then you should take that up with the manufacturer of the Eppley pyrgeometer as well as with the World Infrared Standard Group. Please report back with your findings; but be forewarned that this is a fool’s errand.
Regards.
TM
P.s.: Please do not read this post by Dr Spencer: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/imaging-the-greenhouse-effect-with-a-flir-i7-thermal-imager/
I did take it to Epply engineers. They just simply follow the World Meteorolgical Organization instructions on using the calibration equation. Take a look at Epply user’s guide. By the way, the engineers said that without the calibration equation bpyrgeometers would read -200 w/m2 of backradiation. The comunication with Epply engineers is saved in my record.
Corrections: Eppley instead of Epply, pyrgeometers instead of bpyrgeometers.
So are you saying, contrary to your post here, that yes there is downwelling radiation at the rate of 200 W/m^2 but the calibration…?
You sound very confused.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Tyson,
You are a desperate person. The internet is littered with infrared images of the sky day and night. If 340 w/m2 of backradiation downwells from the sky we would see yellow to Orange sky day and night. But we do not. It is black, gray, or slightly blue. See for your self.
Please explain, since we’re talking about IR (0.7 – 1000 micron) downwelling radiation, why would we see it as yellow (0.58 – 0.59 micron) to Orange (0.59 – 0.62 micron)?
Nabil Swedan
Please stop with the very stupid line of thought that there is no “back radiation” from the atmosphere.
As an engineer you must know that all things with temperature emit some IR the atmosphere is not exception.
The reason the atmosphere does not show up in IR cameras is quite intentional. The instruments do not use wavelengths the atmosphere emits well in as the you would not get good readings if that were not the case. Not sure why you keep posting these very poor opinions of yours or what product of logic are you using to infer that the atmosphere (which can be quite warm) does not radiate energy to the surface.
Anyway please stop, even Clint R accepts the atmosphere radiates. You want images of the atmosphere radiation look at satellites from above. They are trying to gather all the IR emitted from the Earth.
Look an see and please just stop. It is embarrassing to read!
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia22823-airs-captures-polar-vortex
Thanks for mentioning me, Norman. That means I’m in your head. That’s good, because you might learn something.
Found any valid technical reference to support your previous nonsense yet?
Pup, please stop baiting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Norman,
I have no problem with the backradiation concept that exists in the mathematical formula, not strong enough in the physical world to do surface warming.
Nabil Sweden
It does not just exist as a mathematical formula, it is measured.
It does not cause surface warming. It acts as an insulator, lowering the amount of heat the surface loses. With GHG the surface loses energy via emission, it regains some from the atmosphere (not enough to warm the surface). The GHE is just a lowering of the Heat loss rate. The solar input is what adds the heat. If you have the same input energy (solar) but you reduce the amount lost having radiative insulating gases present, you will arrive at a higher surface temperature (which is exactly what happens).
I do not know why you are on the false and bad logical path of some ignorant skeptics. You can do much better than that. Think it through and leave the idiot skeptic view that there is no GHE. There is and it is provable.
So now you’re reneging on your “fluxes add” nonsense and going with the atmosphere is an insulator. As you give up your “fluxes add” nonsense, you give up your GHE nonsense.
Welcome to reality.
You are back to trolling, Pup.
Let go of that.
And if he doesn’t, what then, you impotent nitwit?
If Pup continues is useless trolling, Mike, he will continue to troll uselessly.
You would not want Pup to spend a decade to troll a website uselessly like you did, Mike, would you?
Silly Sky Dragon crank!
And if he doesnt, what then, you impotent nitwit?
I already told you, Mike.
I am starting to think that you are not really asking questions.
Norman,
Backradiation subject is highly debatable and contested. It is a futile subject as Gordon Robertson concluded. Whether it exist in reality or just a concept is immaterial. It has done science and us no good and it should be abandoned.
nabil…the entire exercise is desperate and futile. S-B applies to black-body radiation. When Stefan derived the original formula, he based it on an electrically-heated platinum filament wire (in an experiment by Tyndall) with temperatures between about 500C and 1500 C. The wire was glowing colours and that’s how the correlation between temperature and radiation intensity was derived.
We know only very hot bodies can emit colours, therefore S-B was derived from very hot bodies. The T^4 value only exists in the range of 500C to about 1500C.
Gerlich & Tscheushner, both from the field of thermodynamics, have argued that the density of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere in a cubic centimeter can in no way be regarded a blackbody surface. A glowing filament approximates a BB but not a cc of CO2 molecules.
Anyone who claims a 450 w/m^2 radiation from back-radiation is not dealing with a full deck. S-B cannot be applied at terrestrial temperatures since it gives ice a radiation of about 260 W/m^2 which is clearly absurd.
https://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html
Gordon Robertson
You just made me puke in my mouth when I looked at your link. Again with the crackpot Gary Novak. He is NOT a source of anything useful. He posts a bunch of terrible junk science. Provides NO support for any of his bizarre and illogical thoughts and you link to this crackpot? Why do you want your credibility so low?
On your Putin love affair, here is evidence from people who live in the region and know about this asshole tyrant liar. You are obsessed with lying crackpots like Putin, Lanka, this idiot Gary Novak and you reject hundreds of years of rigorous lab tested ideas in favor of the latest crackpot or liar. Your choice of human heroes is a strange one.
https://news.yahoo.com/years-being-ignored-countries-know-085300145.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
You missed the minus. It is -200 w/m2 of backradiation.
Oh no, I didn’t miss that. However, since you wrote “The comunication with Epply engineers is saved in my record,” if you want to discuss a negative flux you will need to show the referenced document for context.
Tyson,
If you have access to a pyrgeoer or know someone who has, ask them to remove the calibration equation and see what backradiation they get. I assure you they will get none. Try it.
Nabil,
An uncalibrated instrument measures absolutely nothing.
Witless Willard,
Imaginary instruments measure even less. Worse, idiot SkyDragons pretend that radiative intensity measured in W/m2 measures temperature!
What a pack of delusional fools!
Hasn’t anybody told the ignorant donkeys about thermometers?
Mike Flynn,
You’re playing dumb once again.
Please desist.
Witless Willard,
Imaginary instruments measure even less. Worse, idiot SkyDragons pretend that radiative intensity measured in W/m2 measures temperature!
What a pack of delusional fools!
Hasnt anybody told the ignorant donkeys about thermometers?
Why are you repeating the same trolling comment, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Nabil,
I seem to remember you saying that you were a Chemical Engineer. Here in the US you would lose your license for using an uncalibrated instrument just to score [political] points.
Have you ever heard the word fiduciary?
Tyson, please stop trolling.
“It is -200 w/m2 of backradiation.”
What this means, of course, is simply that there is +200 W/m^2 of net upward IR. More IR is LEAVING the meter than ENTERING the meter. Backradiation is weaker than “forward-radiation”.
But since the meter is probably around 20 C, then by Stefan-Boltzmann, it should be emitting ~ 415 W/m^2 upward. The fact that it is *only* losing 200 W/m^2 says there is a downward flux of 215 W/m^2 counteracting part of the 415 W/m^2.
The downward flux is real. Just 200 W/m^2 weaker (in this case) than than the upward flux.
Of course that is nonsense as different radiative fluxes don’t add/subtract.
But, it if were true, 215 W/m^2 arriving a 20 °C surface can NOT warm it, unless you believe ice cubes can boil water.
And yes, there are idiots that believe ice cubes can boil water, huh Folkerts?
Pup,
You’re baiting again.
Baiting is trolling.
Please stop.
Different radiative fluxes do add, when you know how to properly add them.
For example, if the floor in a room is 20 C, it will be emitting ~ 415 W/m^2 based on the well-known S-B Law. If all the walls and ceiling are ALSO 20 C, then the floor will also be also receiving 415 W/m^2.
* The net flux is zero.
* -415 W/n^2 + 415 W/m^2 = 0 W/m^2
* there is no net transfer of heat.
* everything is in equilibrium.
It’s really not that difficult. It makes perfect intuitive sense no matter how you think about it. Read any text on the subject.
Experiments prove you wrong Tim.
See http://climate-change-theory.com home page and the images page linked in the Home page text. Adding the Planck functions for two different sources of radiation (Sun and atmosphere) does not produce a Planck function with a peak wavelength that has the same value as the Planck function for a single source emitting the total flux. Since, by Wien’s Displacement Law, the temperature relates to the peak wavelength my point is proven.
You never learn Tim Folkerts because you are unteachable.
“BigWaveDave” told you six years ago that gravity forms the tropospheric temperature gradient and I have proven why that is the case using the Second Law of Thermodynamics which I doubt that you could even quote correctly, let alone understand the associated process of maximum entropy production explained in papers back in the 1980’s.
It’s not a good idea to assume my physics is incorrect, because that is not the case.
Read my detailed explanation of what happens at the molecular level in a comment I wrote a few hours ago upthread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1378140
Folkerts, two walls at the same temperature radiating at each other is an example of you finding an example to fit your opinion. That ain’t science.
The fluxes from the walls aren’t canceling each other, as you imagine. The fluxes arriving at the walls are not able to raise the temperatures. The photons just get reflected. Fluxes are composed of photons, and photons do not cancel each other. Two photons colliding just keep going, unaffected. Photons are bosons and are oblivious to Pauli-Exclusion. They do NOT add/subtract.
Dug, Pup,
Please trolling.
“Experiments prove you wrong Tim.”
So you have an experiment showing that walls at 20 C are NOT in equilibrium? That perhaps they are all emitting 415 W/m^2 but none are absorbing 415 W/m^2?
“Adding the Planck functions for two different sources of radiation (Sun and atmosphere) does not produce a Planck function with a peak wavelength that has the same value as the Planck function for a single source emitting the total flux. ”
I never made that claim (or anything even vaguely like it). Furthermore, there is nothing in this discussion about adding radiation from different sources. So this is a complete red herring atm.
Years ago Tim and Clint I wrote about IR thermometers on this blog:
https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com/
under the heading about Roy Spencer.
The sensor is NOT WARMED by the back radiation. The machine estimates the temperature of the source from the rate of COOLING of the sensor. Back radiation can slow ONLY the radiative component of surface cooling, but that from carbon dioxide has a minuscule effect because it is only in a few spectral bands and nothing like the full spectrum radiation from the surface. Furthermore, as I explained in my peer-reviewed 2012 paper on radiation (linked at http://climate-change-theory.com along with my other six papers) the non-radiative component of surface cooling increases and tends to compensate.
The key issue is explaining how the surface acquires the necessary energy to warm in calm conditions most mornings, even under thick cloud cover. Then we need to be able to quantify the observed temperature with correct physics. If one cannot correctly quantify the observed temperature then neither can any changes in that temperature be quantified with similar calculations.
Climatologists do NOT correctly quantify the surface temperature of Earth, let alone that of Venus with correct physics. It can’t be done assuming that the only input is via radiation. That is not the case. There is additional input via the non-radiative process you can read about in my second paper published in 2013 or in my book published the next year.
Dug is simply trying to redirect the exchange toward his pet theory, Tim.
It’s like what Pup does, but with 10,000% more spam.
Yep. Thanks Willard for the opportunity to redirect silent readers to
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1378140
and the new Home page at
http://climate-change-theory.com
Tim,
The main hurdle to any of this nonsense is that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature over the last four and a half billion years or so.
No only that, but the solid crust of the Earth still comprises less than 1% of its total mass.
Unless Dug’s heat creep (or a miracle) is responsible, a temperature gradient exists from the centre of the Earth (the hottest), to outer space (the coldest). The Sun warms part of the surface during the day, to a maximum of maybe 90 C, and as the surface rotates away from the Sun, all the heat of the day flees to outer space.
Nothing stopped the Earth from cooling. Not the GHE, not “back radiation”, not “climate science consensus” – nothing.
By the way, exposing an object to a known radiative intensity gives no information at all about the object’s temperature. Nor does measuring the radiative intensity emitted by an object tell you it’s temperature.
This is nonsense promulgated by climate crackpots (many with PhDs) who should know better.
You can’t explain why the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years or so without demolishing your mythical GHE (which you can’t even describe), can you?
Carry on rejecting reality, if you prefer your fantasy.
> for the opportunity to redirect
I call that *Peddling*, Dug:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/peddling/
“The sensor is NOT WARMED by the back radiation.”
Listen to yourself.
You admit that radiation causes warming.
You admit that back radiation exists.
You admit a sensor exists whose purpose is to detect warming.
You then claim that despite a sensor existing,
back radiation occurring
radiation warming things,
that magically the sensor is incapable of being warmed by warming back radiation
“The machine estimates the temperature of the source from the rate of COOLING of the sensor.”
The rate of cooling and heating would be more appropriate surely?
“Back radiation can slow ONLY the radiative component of surface cooling,”
Which again admits that back radiation exists, heats and can quicken up the radiative component of the surface heating as when a source is first introduced.
You deliberately omit that the overall amount of energy radiating from the surface is increased due to the back radiation adding a small effect to the original heating.
There is more energy going out, the rate of energy output is higher.
Like a circuit with feedback actually.
” but that from carbon dioxide has a minuscule effect because it is only in a few spectral bands and nothing like the full spectrum radiation from the surface.”
There are other GHG in much larger amount.
Temperature is a measure of the amount of energy being emitted,
not from an atom of CO2 but from a surface emitting the equivalent energy of billions of CO2 atoms.
It takes a layer of all the CO2 and H2O at ground level at 1 Atmosphere of pressure from ground to 10 meters of atmosphere height to produce the energy that the sensor is reading.
Not the temperature at which the frequency is being emitted.
The temperature is the measurement of the combined energy of all that radiation.
Not the individual IR photon.
Angech,
You wrote c
“You deliberately omit that the overall amount of energy radiating from the surface is increased due to the back radiation adding a small effect to the original heating.”
What nonsense. You might notice that the temperature drops at night. Slower cooling is not heating. That’s SkyDragon nonsense.
Throw ice into hot soup. Use a lot of it. You have added lots of energy. I don’t usually bet, but I will wager your hot soup won’t get any hotter because of the extra heat energy you have added!
Just as placing a few kilometers of ice over the highly volcanic Antarctic continent (the ice emitting far more “back radiation” than a puny atmosphere ever could), doesn’t make the surface hotter at all!
Are you really ignorant and stupid, or just pretending?
D says: “The sensor is NOT WARMED by the back radiation. The machine estimates the temperature of the source from the rate of COOLING of the sensor. ”
Yes, this is all true. (At lease when pointing at an source cooler than the sensor; a warmer object could naturally warm the sensor).
“Back radiation can slow ONLY the radiative component of surface cooling …”
That is a legit way to express what is happening.
But since the sun CAN warm the surface, and back radiation can slow the cooling later, the net result is a warmer planet than without the ‘slowed cooling’.
“but that from carbon dioxide has a minuscule effect because it is only in a few spectral bands and nothing like the full spectrum radiation from the surface. ”
No, those few spectral bands for CO2 absorb about 10% of the upward IR. This not huge, but it is also certainly not “minuscule”.
“The key issue is explaining how the surface acquires the necessary energy to warm in calm conditions most mornings, even under thick cloud cover. ”
That is pretty easy. Low, thick clouds are close to black body radiators and are close to ground temperature. For the sake of argument, the ground might be 20 C and the cloud base 500 m up might be 17 C. That corresponds to ~ 418 W/m^2 up and 401 W/m^2 down, for a net radiative loss of about 17 W/m^2. Clouds don’t block all the sunlight. If only 2% of the incoming sunlight gets through the clouds, that would still be on the order of ~ 20 W/m^2 — enough to compensate for the lose and hold a steady temperature. Anything more than ~ 2% would lead to warming.
Tim,
You wrote –
“But since the sun CAN warm the surface, and back radiation can slow the cooling later, the net result is a warmer planet than without the slowed cooling.”
After four and a half billion years of sunlight, how much colder do you think the Earth “should” be? Should it be hotter, due to the GHE?
Who cares? For myself, it seems that the surface is exactly what it is – whether or not you think it “should” really be some other temperature.
You are obviously deranged.
Carry on – your contortions and general silliness trying to avoid accepting reality are interesting to behold.
Tim: remember when Bid Wave Dave told you gravity forms the gradient …
Here’s the comment …
http://www.whyitsnotco2.com/BigWaveDave-comment.jpg
“Tim: remember when Bid Wave Dave told you …”
Lot’s of people say lots of things on the internet. That doesn’t make them true. I don’t actually remember this specific comment because it is not particularly memorable. He give no justification for a non-conventional scientific position other than some secret, personal knowledge that scientists have overlooked. Oh, and the fact that he was married to someone with a PhD.
Yes, temperature gradients commonly exist. Scientists know this. They ALSO know that those gradient exist *because* the system is *not* in equilibrium. All planetary tropospheres have temperature gradients because all planetary tropospheres are heated from the bottom (by sunlight and/or geothermal energy) and are cooled at the top (by IR radiation).
“For myself, it seems that the surface is exactly what it is whether or not you think it should really be some other temperature.”
What a terribly unsatisfying, unscientific view!
Why is it 50 F today? It is what it is. I don’t care why it should be that temperature.
Why is copper a metal? It is what it is; I don’t care why it should be a metal.
Why does the sun shine? It is what it is; I don’t care why it should glow.
If you can’t say why something *should* be the way it is, then you don’t understand the science behind the pertinent phenomena.
Yes Tim Folkerts
Lots of people know Loschmidt was right because what he said is a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I quote:-
“A good account of how to apply thermodynamics including the second law in the presence of a gravitational field strong enough to create gradients within the overall system is given in Guggenheim[1]
1 Guggenheim, E.A. (1949/1985). Thermodynamics. An Advanced Treatment for Chemists and Physicists, North-Holland Publishing Company., Amsterdam, fifth edition, Chapter 9, pp. 327332.”
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laws_of_thermodynamics#Entropy_is_not_always_a_measure_of_disorder
I’m still waiting for your refutation of my refutation of Robert Brown in his article thread where BigWaveDave posted the final comment ten years ago – and you still haven’t learned enough about entropy to understand how the gravity gradient forms. There’s a very clear explanation in the second paper that is linked in the left column at
http://climate-change-theory.com
Got any link to that thread, Dug?
No adding of fluxes eh Tim? You wrote:
-415 W/n^2 + 415 W/m^2 = 0 W/m^2
It is not correct even to subtract fluxes and the difference does NOT enable a correct calculation of the rate of heat from a hot source to a colder target. We do NOT use the difference and a single Stefan Boltzmann calculation using that difference. To get the correct answer we find the difference between S-B calculations for each of the source and target.
The discussion of Planck functions (obviously over your head) was explaining why the IPCC and climatology authors are totally incorrect when they add solar and atmospheric radiation. This comment is continued at http://climate-change-theory in six languages for the benefit of some silent readers including one from Denmark visiting my website as I noticed recently.
There is a convention that incoming radiation has a positive sign and outgoing radiation has a negative sign.
Thus solar insolation is +ve and outgoing longwave radiation is -ve.
By this convention back radiation is +ve.
And that “convention” serves to support your cult’s belief that back-radiation is the same as solar insolation.
That ain’t reality, but it fools many.
And that “reply” only serves to troll, Pup.
Please stop.
And yet you can’t say why, can you, donkey brain Willard?
Pup is simply repeating one of his Sky Dragon Crank tropes, Mike.
And you’re simply acting like a schoolyard bully once again.
Please stop, it never ends well for you.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Oh dear, playing the “poor me” card again, are you?
Keep evading reality – as a good SkyDragon should. You are a fool, but who cares?
Maybe you could demonstrate to everyone your vast knowledge, and explain how the GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling!
Or whine about being bullied, if you prefer. Do you think that will make people value your opinions?
You are about as factless as you are clueless.
Carry on being an idiot.
Mike,
You asked a silly question. I answered it.
Troll as much as you like. It won’t work.
So I suggest you stop.
Please.
For your own good.
Willard,
For my own good?
Really? You are impotent and powerless to affect my “good”.
By the way, contrary to your assertion, you have not volunteered a cogent response to my invitation –
“Maybe you could demonstrate to everyone your vast knowledge, and explain how the GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling!”
Best keep on with your meaningless implied threats. Good for a laugh, but not much else.
Have you accepted that climate is just the average of past weather observations yet?
It doesn’t “change” anything, you ninny!
Mike,
Yes, I do care about what’s best for you.
And your trolling ain’t it.
Please stop.
<3
Willard,
For my own good?
Really? You are impotent and powerless to affect my good.
By the way, contrary to your assertion, you have not volunteered a cogent response to my invitation
Maybe you could demonstrate to everyone your vast knowledge, and explain how the GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling!
Best keep on with your meaningless implied threats. Good for a laugh, but not much else.
Have you accepted that climate is just the average of past weather observations yet?
It doesnt change anything, you ninny!
Mike, Mike,
You’re the only one who can stop you from trolling.
I can only remind you that you should.
Willard,
For my own good?
Really? You are impotent and powerless to affect my good.
By the way, contrary to your assertion, you have not volunteered a cogent response to my invitation
Maybe you could demonstrate to everyone your vast knowledge, and explain how the GHE was unable to prevent the Earth from cooling!
Best keep on with your meaningless implied threats. Good for a laugh, but not much else.
Have you accepted that climate is just the average of past weather observations yet?
It doesnt change anything, you ninny!
You are spamming, Mike.
Please stop boring Kennui.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ent…you can use all the signs you want, they don’t affect the facts…
1)Back-radiation cannot be absorbed by the surface since it comes from a cooler source.
2)It can’t be added to incoming solar because its off the end of the solar spectrum and solar comes from a source with T = 5000C or so, and back-radiation from a source of equal temperature to the surface to a source of cooler temperature than the surface.
3)Your +ve and -ve rankings mean nothing even though some alarmists have claimed a mysterious positive balance of energy that has no existence.
1) and 2) are wrong; They do not agree with experiment or observation.
3) is correct. The measured absorbed sunlight has an average power of 240W/m^2 and the OLR is -239W/m^2.
The energy imbalance is therefore 1W/m^2, adding 10^22 Joules/year to the climate system.
You’re messed up again, Ent.
1) and 2) are correct.
In 3), you don’t know the fluxes. Your values are guesses based on your cult’s beliefs. And radiative fluxes do NOT balance, anyway. You still don’t understand the basic physics.
Incompetence and false beliefs ain’t science.
Not the FLUX DO NOT ADD troll again, Pup.
Please stop using it, for when you do it means you are trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
It is blatantly obvious that the surface temperature of Venus cannot be explained as being supported by radiation either from the Sun, there being less than 20w/m^2 of the solar radiation reaching that surface, nor by radiation from the less-hot atmosphere. Just like Earth, a location on the equator of Venus cools on the dark side and warms back up on the sunlit side, but NOT due to solar radiation reaching the surface because it would need about 16,500w/m^2 to support 735K yet the solar constant there is only about 2,600w/m^2 – roughly double what Earth receives.
The proof of what actually happens is in my 2013 paper about temperatures in the surfaces and cores of planets. All my seven papers are linked from the new Home page at
http://climate-change-theory.com which page only takes less than three minutes to read.
It is just as blatantly obvious that Earth’s surface temperature cannot be explained solely with radiation calculations and the reasons are in several of my seven papers.
So it is blatantly obvious that those who don’t look into it all have been obviously fooled by the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology and the greenhouse garbage for the gullible.
Dug,
The surface temperature of an object is what it is.
Whether it is Venus or Earth.
Temperature is measured with a thermometer, calibrated in degrees of hotness. If calculations give a different answer, and the thermometer is correctly calibrated, then the calculations are wrong.
No GHE, no gravitothermal effect, no heat creep, just a molten blob in space, well loaded with radiogenic isotopes, providing a deceasing source of internal heat after a few billion years.
“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.” – Richard Feynman.
You obviously don’t agree, so keep rejecting reality, and see where it gets you – nowhere.
Carry on.
I’m sure Kennui appreciates all of your contributions, Mike.
Including your trolling.
In his name, I thank you.
Swenson, Im not here for shits and giggles. Im here hoping to learn something about climate.
Its really disheartening to find at least two thirds of the discussion is shallow pates exchanging insults with the troll.
Meanwhile there is a Green Fascist movement to take away our rights and freedoms as they pertain to access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels. The discussion of what to do about that is impossible here due to the trolling.
Stop feeding the buniak troll because Im starting to consider that you are a troll too.
The only place to learn the truth is at
http://climate-change-theory.com
PS: I’ve just added pages in Swedish and German
Ken,
I appreciate your request.
However, one way to demonstrate the foolishness of Green Fascists and SkyDragons, may be to expose their inability to accept reality, here, so that lurkers may make up their own minds about the “expertise” of climate crackpots.
Witless Willy, more masturbator than master baiter, trolls away. I’ll feed him until he gags on it, if I feel like it.
His most recent example of fact free trolling –
“Im sure Kennui appreciates all of your contributions, Mike.
Including your trolling.
In his name, I thank you.”
What a puerile nitwit! Who would value the opinion of such a slimy grub? Not me, but others may form their own view.
To each his own.
Mike,
Kennui asked you to stop trolling, yet you persist.
He actually believes in the greenhouse effect, unlike you and other fellow Sky Dragon cranks.
His aim is more political, but he needs to hide it under a veneer of scientific contrarianism. Such is the way of Troglodytes.
Your constant inanities do not help him. They do not help you either. Wonder why?
Read Kennui’s request again.
Enjoy your evening.
Swenson is not trolling, he explains his MO…
“..one way to demonstrate the foolishness of Green Fascists and SkyDragons, may be to expose their inability to accept reality, here, so that lurkers may make up their own minds about the expertise of climate crackpots”.
Every so often, Swenson will post an interesting scientifically-based post. You on the other hand seem interested only in taking a contrary position. Not once have I seen you try to engage in a meaningful scientific discussion.
If I say ‘black’, you will run off to the Net to find a contrary argument that supports ‘white’, even if it makes no sense whatsoever.
Willard,
And why should I care about your opinions?
Are you a very important person, perhaps? Or do you believe that your opinions are to be given a value exceeding zero, due to some mental condition from which you suffer?
Nah. You are just an idiotic SkyDragon troll, trying to avoid the reality that the Earth has cooled a bit (the solid crust being less than one percent of the Earth’s mass), in spite of all all your stupid GHE!
Keep up the avoidance, dummy!
You are so pathetic that you can’t even be gratuitously offensive.
Go on, give it a try. Try to annoy any rational person. You can’t, can you?
People like Ken (why you are so stupid as to call Ken “Kennui” is beyond me) can think as they wish. If you think he needs help to make up his mind, you are even more witless than you appear.
Off you go now, try and avoid some more reality.
I’m not Kennui, Mike.
He just told you that he’s ready to throw you under the bus. Why? Because as an enforcer you have become useless.
In fact, you have become more than useless. You are becoming harmful. You are boring Kennui.
There is little worse in this world than to bore Kennui.
Have you considered to become a birthday clown?
Enjoy your evening.
Willard,
And why should I care about your opinions?
Are you a very important person, perhaps? Or do you believe that your opinions are to be given a value exceeding zero, due to some mental condition from which you suffer?
Nah. You are just an idiotic SkyDragon troll, trying to avoid the reality that the Earth has cooled a bit (the solid crust being less than one percent of the Earths mass), in spite of all all your stupid GHE!
Keep up the avoidance, dummy!
You are so pathetic that you cant even be gratuitously offensive.
Go on, give it a try. Try to annoy any rational person. You cant, can you?
People like Ken (why you are so stupid as to call Ken Kennui is beyond me) can think as they wish. If you think he needs help to make up his mind, you are even more witless than you appear.
Off you go now, try and avoid some more reality.
MF,
You are spamming.
Spamming is trolling.
Please stop spamming.
Willard, you idiot.
Why should I care for the opinion of a SkyDragon cultist?
Ho! Ho! Ho!
What a strange dingaling you are. How are your attempts at bending Dr Spencer to your will going?
You are so incompetent that you can’t even get yourself banned. How pathetic is that, Willard?
You told Kennui that you appreciated his request, Mike.
Are you suggesting that you were insincere?
That would be trolling.
Please stop.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ken…”Im here hoping to learn something about climate.
Its really disheartening to find at least two thirds of the discussion is shallow pates exchanging insults with the troll”.
***
I appreciate your concern, however, you contribute in your own way by slamming people like me for using too many words. I have never set out to pick a fight with you but you have picked fights with me rather than explain your objections to what I have written.
I simply ignore trolls but when you slam me without explaining your problem with my comment, other than verbosity, you are participating in trolling.
I have encountered real trolls, especially in the old Newsgroup format. They are so determined to get their own way they will post scads of unrelated material to literally drown the group out. The only recourse is appealing to the Internet provider but they are usually more interested in the money they get from the troller than doing anything about it.
If you are serious about learning about climate then try joining the discussions with scientific information or criticism rather than resorting to scorn.
Besides, I don’t get the impression that anyone posting here over the years has been out to interfere with the operation of the blog. What you call trolling, say between Swenson and Willard, I find amusing. It’s comic relief from an often dour subject.
> you contribute in your own way by slamming people like me for using too many words.
C’mon, Gordo.
Not people like you.
You.
Have you ever heard him talk about Dug?
Never.
Thank you for the kind words, but if you really are concerned about Mike, you should ask him to stop trolling.
Willard, you wanker,
No word from you on the inability of the GHE to prevent the Earth from cooling?
Tut, tut.
Reduced to telling people what to do, are you?
And if they don’t? Ooooooh! Going to hold your breath until you turn blue?
You idiot.
Still here, Mike?
Go ask Keith Richards, and please stop trolling.
Willard, you wanker,
No word from you on the inability of the GHE to prevent the Earth from cooling?
Tut, tut.
Reduced to telling people what to do, are you?
And if they dont? Ooooooh! Going to hold your breath until you turn blue?
You idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Have you forgotten all the times you tried to bait me with your silly request, and failed miserably?
Please, for your own good, stop trolling.
Willard, you wanker,
No word from you on the inability of the GHE to prevent the Earth from cooling?
Tut, tut.
Reduced to telling people what to do, are you?
And if they dont? Ooooooh! Going to hold your breath until you turn blue?
You idiot.
Spamming bores Kennui, Mike.
Please stop.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Ken says: “I’m here hoping to learn something about climate.”
Ken, there is little evidence of that. Instead, there is plenty of evidence you support the cult nonsense. You are on record as supporting the nonsense that ice cubes can boil water. As Gordon pointed out, you attack skeptics readily.
If you had been paying attention you would have noticed the GHE nonsense has been completely debunked. The lunar rotation nonsense has been completely debunked. The cult idiots here have been reduced to the level of worthless willard. Norman can’t do anything but attack and falsely accuse. Same with Bindidon. A year ago, both spoke out against worthless willard. Now, they are climbing in bed with him. Have you heard the phrase “politics make strange bedfellows”?
Will you soon be sharing a pillow with worthless willard?
You should not respond like that to Kennui, Pup.
One day he might realize that you are trolling,
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
swenson…”Temperature is measured with a thermometer, calibrated in degrees of hotness”.
A space probe measured the surface temperature of Venus at around 450C. That rules out greenhouse warming or any other fictitious theory.
Although Velikovsky has been slammed for his theories, he predicted the correct Venus surface temperature based on his theories. He felt Venus was a young, moulten planet.
In Roy’s article before this one, he provided a link to Christopher Monckton’s article on feedbacks.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/03/why-it-matters-that-climatologists-forgot-the-sun-was-shining/
CM includes a graphic representing a feedback loop in green. He has the gain factor, H, in the feedback loop, as if the feedback loop is providing the gain. The output E1 is connected directly to the input, therefore it must remain at the same level as the input. A signal fed back from E1 to the input would increase the input signal if the phase was additive, and E1 would follow.
In the article, CM explains, “…the absolute closed-loop gain H is the fraction of the corrected output signal, equilibrium temperature E1, represented by the total feedback response B1”.
Can’t work CM. CM needs to explain a few things…
1)Where does the gain come from in H? It is obviously a heat amplifier, how does it work?
2)For positive feedback, this circuit will not work. The H gain mechanism must be located between input and output. In that case the feedback would modulate the overall loop gain slightly, reducing the output when negative and increasing it when positive.
It should be noted that positive feedback of this type is highly unstable and if it existed in our atmosphere, there would have been a runaway condition long ago.
If I am correct in assuming the R1 is the solar input, then the output being tied to it will always be at the level of the solar input.
Sampling the output and sending it back through an amplifier is ingenuous because the amplification cannot be explained. With positive feedback, the feedback signal is not the amplifier. That’s a serious error committed by climate alarmists.
What if it could work, what do you have? You have an artificial heat source being combined with solar energy somehow, as an input, with the output connected directly to it. Makes no sense.
Feedback in a positive feedback situation is only a fraction of the output signal. It has to be in order not to swamp the input signal. In this case, the input signal is the main source of energy and the feedback loop is immaterial.
Now, suppose you could vary the input signal somehow. Suppose to dropped it’s intensity. The output would drop with it. We’d have a Little Ice Age. When the intensity returned, as it did in 1850, the output would rise again.
No feedback required.
Hi Gordon Robertson.
I am not endorsing your comments in general, but this time, I can agree in a measured way.
Lord Monckton’s diagram that you reference apparently uses a notational convention that he finds convenient. I will try to guess how his convention works, as follows.
It is not logically necessary that power gain lie in a more or less unilateral power gain circuit element such as Nick Stokes shows by the triangle in his WUWT post cited above. It is possible to put power gain elements in the ‘feedback’ circuit element, though it is not so often done.
Monckton’s diagram doesn’t seem to settle that question. What is the little circle at the top right of his square? Perhaps he intends it to signify a passive unilateral junction, or perhaps he intends it to signify a more or less unilateral power gain element itself?
If neither does the little circle signify a power gain element, nor is the feedback circuit element a power gain element, then indeed Monckton’s diagram doesn’t seem to have a true amplifying effect. Monckton does however use the word ‘amplify’.
It isn’t clear whether Monckton distinguishes ‘amplification’ from ‘magnification’. For me, they are distinct. For me, amplification involves physical power gain, while ‘magnification’ is merely in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. In magnification, as the magnification increases, so the field of view decreases: there is no true amplification.
Christopher,
I hope you agree that the Earth has cooled since its creation, and no amount of GHG, GHE, TCS or ECS was able to prevent it.
Neither magnification nor amplification have stopped the Earth from cooling at night, during the winter, during a solar eclipse . . .
No amount of argument, logic, erudite diagrams, consensus, or mysterious and abstruse formulas can overcome fact.
The fact is that nobody has managed to perform an experiment using a heat source, a thermometer, and CO2 between the two, showing that the thermometer will be hotter due to the CO2 somehow magnifying, amplifying, or performing some other miracle related to increasing the amount of heat reaching the thermometer.
It’s complete nonsense of course, which is why the climate crackpots can’t even describe the GHE which they profess to worship.
If doesn’t exist!
MF,
Kennui will blame me again for this comment you just made.
Please stop trolling.
Willard,
Bad luck for you, then.
Dimwitted troll.
Thank you, Mike.
I will need it.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The problem is that propaganda is saying global warming means hotter temperature.
The hottest daytime temperature ever recorded was over 100 years ago- that disproves the propanganda, but doesn’t disprove global average temperature has risen. Because global warming is about making a more uniform global temperature.
Also the tropics disprove the propaganda- the tropics gets the most sunlight and it has the most greenhouse gases. And a characteristic of tropical is a more uniform temperature. Or to make more simple- warmer nighttime temperatures. And of course doesn’t have winters or summers- it’s roughly always summer- it’s seasons are wet and drier seasons.
The Little Ice Age period was colder than it is now. And more than 20,000 year ago, it was colder than it is now.
Global warming was basically we had ice sheets and it warmed and melted it,
Or problem or mystery was how did earth cool, and then warm up again.
Or global warming was the warming period which resulted in being in an interglacial period. Or it was massive and fast “global warming” with sea levels rising a meter in a year.
And whole cargo cult of global warming was based on idea, that higher CO2 caused this massive and abrupt warming- and it didn’t,
It’s like Communism- it never worked and will never work- it’s just wrong.
Touching up my post of October 9, 2022 at 10:40 PM to Gordon Robertson.
I ought to have mentioned also the little circle on the left, evidently summing junction. I don’t exactly know what it signifies, whether it denotes a passive junction, or more likely an active unilateral summing junction, perhaps with power gain thrown in. I guess perhaps that Monckton may intend it to signify something such as that?
christopher game…”It is not logically necessary that power gain lie in a more or less unilateral power gain circuit element such as Nick Stokes shows by the triangle in his WUWT post cited above. It is possible to put power gain elements in the feedback circuit element, though it is not so often done”.
***
What purpose would it serve putting a gain element in a feedback loop? The basic premise behind feedback is to sample a small portion of the output after amplification and feed it back to the input in order to control the overall gain of an amplifier stage.
My overall complaint with CMs model is its vagueness. I don’t get where he is getting the terms he uses, especially not the feedback loop representing the atmosphere.
What is the point of connecting the input directly to the output then adding a feedback loop alone, never mind with gain?
With servo systems, that is done but without an amplifier in the feedback loop unless the feedback loop is remote and needs to be amplified to make up for losses in the conductors. With a wireless system you may need to jack up the wireless signal due to transmission losses.
With a servo system, you are interested only in the sign of the signal, which will be D*C through a conductor. The feedback signal is sent to a controller like a programmable logic controller or perhaps a variable frequency drive controller for a motor. The PLC will control an external amplifier via relay contacts that controls current to a device while a VFD varies the pulse modulation to an AC motor hence the power it receives.
I get the feeling CM is confusing the two different types of feedback. My suspicion is heightened when he talks about creating a mathematical series to represent a feedback loop. Good luck!!!
In my experience with a series, they were used to represent a single function like y = e^x or y = sinx. I don’t see how they could be of much use representing a feedback situation since a series often tends toward zero or infinity. That’s what you want with a runaway positive feedback but you cannot reach that condition using a series.
Your incredulity regarding how to formalize feedback is actually relevant, Gordo. Try this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019995876903909
The PDF is accessible, and it is not too obscure. You can skip the proofs. The idea is that flowcharts can be formalized. From there you could try to read:
https://girard.perso.math.cnrs.fr/feedback3.pdf
This is a big ask. But the point here is that indeed feedback can be formalized. In fact the idea of trying to model programs with loops (feedback is just a kind of loop, as should be obvious when looking at a flowchart) leads to a program to generalize logics.
If you really want to take a plunge, you may need to dig category theory:
https://www.site.uottawa.ca/~phil/papers/pps.talk2.pdf
Being a ninja, I deny knowing anything about this.
Replying to Gordon Robertson’s post of October 10, 2022 at 7:49 PM.
Electronic amplifiers can be designed to satisfy various requirements, such as specified input impedance, or specified output impedance, or …
There are four kinds of feedback for electronic amplifiers: voltage to voltage, voltage to current, current to voltage, and current to current. They can be deployed to fulfil the various requirements without putting impedances in the signal path. You can read about this in textbooks of amplifier design.
Interesting read but likely more speculation than proof.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/huge-ocean-beneath-the-earth-s-surface-discovered-by-scientists/ss-AA12LMhl
The premise seems to be that certain material absorb water and store it deep within the Earth. If that is the case, then such water should be insulated like a thermos and maybe warmed from the core.
The interior of the Earth seems to be a giant sponge.
Just want to make sure you have read
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1378217
Nabil…I did miss that reply. Thanks.
Gordon Robertson
But do you know what keeps the cores of planets and satellite moons at current temperatures, even the core of our Moon at “between 1,327C and 1427C.”?
I’m amazed that some people think temperatures like these could not have cooled right down in a few billion years in the absence of radiation from the Sun. Of course they could have, especially surface temperatures of planets like Venus.
It is blatantly obvious that solar energy is maintaining these temperatures – and it does so mostly via the “heat creep” process which only happens in a force field, such as it does radially due to centrifugal force whenever someone starts a vortex cooling tube.
Earth is the only planet with a significant atmosphere for which the Sun can raise the surface temperature with radiation when it is nearly directly overhead on a clear day. But even around 21st June the exposed rocks on the top of Mt Everest do not warm to the kind of temperature Stefan-Boltzmann calculations give for what would be over 1,100w/m^2 on a clear day there, it being only 4 degrees of latitude outside of the tropics.
It’s all PROVEN to happen in my 2013 paper at
http://climate-change-theory.com
Dug,
Maybe, like Lord Kelvin, you are unaware of radiogenic heat.
In any case, the Sun’s heat is incapable of maintaining the current temperature. That’s why it is still cooling – losing energy at a rate of about 44 TW.
So no, the Earth is still only about 1% solid crust.
Even devout SkyDragon cultists accept that sunlight is incapable of maintaining a more-or-less isothermal Earth above 255 K, and not even the surface has cooled that much.
You’re dreaming, but who cares? In your case, not many, I suspect.
I won’t waste my time any more answering people like you who have not read my peer-reviewed paper on radiation let alone any of my other six papers, have not had the background in tertiary physics to understand maximum entropy production or even to understand its relevance, have no idea what global mean surface temperature the direct solar radiation could achieve without heat creep, don’t understand that surface temperatures cannot be quantified without the “heat creep” process being taken into account, don’t understand why such heat creep can only occur in a force field, don’t understand the relevance of Wien’s Displacement Law and don’t know what “heat creep” is anyway, and have no idea why every functioning vortex cooling tube confirms that the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt was right and thus climatology “science” is false.
This reply will be copied and kept to reply to all future comments such as yours which display no ability on your part to be taught. Silent readers and those who are teachable (rather than narcissistic) can now click ‘Retired Physicist’ above to view (and study) my new Home page that can be read in less than three minutes.
Dug,
You don’t need to refuse to answer my question, because I didn’t ask one.
I just pointed out that facts don’t support your nonsensical “heat creep” fantasies.
I have quoted some of your more bizarre statements from your papers, so your attempt to convince people that you have amazing mind reading powers falls a little flat. Of course I have read your papers – that’s how I conclude they are nonsensical!
You have previously promised not to respond to me, but you obviously lack self control. Don’t blame me for your inability to practice what you preach. Any of your personal failings are yours, and yours alone.
Serve up more word salad about force fields, entropy, and “heat creep” if you wish. Reality will not be affected.
Carry on.
I’m struggling here.
I’ve looked through your papers and you seem to be asserting
1) That the surface of Venus is radiating 17,000 W/m^2 into the atmosphere, which promptly disappears.
2) The surface of Venus maintains about 430C because 17,000W/m^2 is being moved to the surface from below by “heat creep”.
Please explain.
“Please explain.”
Sounds explainable- perhaps guy doesn’t believe greenhouse gases
thinks CO2 has powerful warming properties.
Venus is heated in it’s upper atmosphere and the warmed air gets warmer due to lapse rate of about 8 C per 1000 meter.
And 50km up is 8 times 50 = 400 C and where it warmed is about 70 C
so 470 C or so at surface- the rocky surface as various elevations and will hottest at lowest land elevations.
This also why you find hottest air daytime air temperature on Earth at lower elevation- Death valley is below sea level. Though it high temperature also has to do weather effects, and weather effects could make quite cold in winter in Death Valley.
Though I would guess in average it’s warmer- though it’s a dry desert which don’t tend to have high average temperature.
Obviously Entropic answers are in my papers, notably the second one mentioned in the left column at http://climate-change-theory.com.
If you are teachable Entropic I will help you on one point:
I have always stressed that the warming of a location on the equator of Venus by the non-radiative process of “heat creep” takes place over the course of four months on the sunlit side. The warming has been measured as being about 5 degrees, reversing the cooling from about 737K to 732K in a similar period on the dark side.
Once you understand that such cooling by five degree in four months is possible and realistic, then you should also realise that the reverse process can be achieved in four months on the sunlit side.
Your referring to such warming in terms normally used only for radiation demonstrates to me that you need a paradigm shift in your way of thinking. In regard to the radiation from the surface, just like on Earth, some (in fact most) will be absorbed by the Venus atmosphere and some will get through the “window” to Space. There’s no mystery involved.
But you need to read carefully the explanation of the “heat creep” process and the related Second Law process of maximum entropy production.
To those who are still arguing about radiation my peer reviewed 2012 paper (mentioned first in the left column at http://climate-change-theory.com) contains the correct physics extending the cited research of Prof Johnson in that it explains what happens at the atomic level and how Nature ensures every one-way passage of radiation obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as it must because there are no other “interacting” systems such as are mentioned in that law which reads:
“in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.”
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
Please continue reading (for just three minutes) by clicking the brown ‘Retired Physicist’ heading.
PS: I am well into writing a comprehensive paper on the Second Law of Thermodynamics which will be linked below the other papers that are named and linked in the right column of my newly-designed Home page.
“In regard to the radiation from the surface, just like on Earth, some (in fact most) will be absorbed by the Venus atmosphere and some will get through the window to Space. Theres no mystery involved. ”
The temperature of the atmosphere is stable, so it must be losing heat at the same rate at which it is absorbing it by radiation from the surface.
But where is it going? It is not escaping to space in anything like the quantity required to maintain equilibrium.
Your heat creep only accounts for seasonal variations of 5C.
Thermodynamically your hypothesis makes no sense.
I downloaded your 2013 paper and tried to calculate the heat flow through Venus surface and atmosphere. No luck. Could you put up a worked example?
The Venus atmosphere absorbs and reflects solar radiation (like Earth’s atmosphere) and the so-called radiating altitude is really a weighted average altitude where there is radiative balance. You can read about such in my 2013 paper because that is where the temperature profiles for all planets are anchored and temperatures in the whole planet system (right down to the core) are stabilized because the solar radiation is reasonably uniform.
We don’t have to quantify non-radiative processes in the way radiation is quantified. If you fill your bathtub with hot water you know that the sides of the bath will reach the same temperature as the water. Likewise with the effect of heat creep that raises the whole temperature profile to a higher but parallel position. The surface will reach the temperature of the adjacent air or gas.
Climate change on Earth is primarily controlled by variations in cloud cover and all such change in the last few thousand years can be explained if the reflection by clouds varied by less than 2% such as between about 19% and 21%. Cosmic rays assist cloud formation and sunspot activity affects the intensity of cosmic rays over the course of a natural cycle of about 1,000 years, there being also a superimposed natural cycle of about 60 years. Read about such in my first climate website linked in the right-hand column at http://climate-change-theory.com.
The ONLY correct physics and explanation of heat and temperatures throughout the Solar System is to be found at http://climate-change-theory.com and in my seven linked papers which nobody in over ten years has ever correctly refuted.
Further explanation is contained in this comment below:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379596
Time for a reality check…
You believe you have discovered a basic error in the accepted Physics. Which is the most likely explanation?
(A) You have discovered something that all the PhD Physicists have missed.
(B) The Physicists are involved in a massive conspiracy to hide the truth.
(C) The Physicists know something you don’t know.
In reality what usually happens is that you’ve looked at a popular description, a simplified explanation, taken it as literal and then gone down a logical rabbit hole where the only conclusion is that Physics is broken and you’ve found the break. Generally speaking, that’s not what’s happened. What’s happened is you didn’t get the full technical explanation because you don’t know the physics.
Sorry TM, but your cult “PhDs” often don’t even understand the basic physics.
If you’re paying attention here, you’ll see plenty of examples.
You are paying attention, aren’t you?
Paying attention is good, Pup.
Your mindless trolling is not.
Stop.
YOU are the troll, Pup.
But your ineffective flak always encourages me. And your incessant effort to follow every one of my comments indicates your desperation. Your beliefs are being shattered right before your eyes.
That’s a good thing.
Oh, I see, Pup. You used caps lock so you must be right. Right?
I do not think so. I have another theory. ALL of your comments to which I am replying are trolls.
Check your latest one. You simply assert that you, among all Sky Dragon cranks, know better than the doctors on this website. More than that, that this is basic physics.
What would be the odds of that?
That is the question Tyson asked. You simply begged it. Why?
Let me guess – you are setting up another of your riddle, are you not?
Please stop trolling.
I know:
1) Different radiative fluxes do NOT simply add.
2) Sun can NOT heat Earth to 800,000K.
3) Ice cubes can NOT boil water.
4) How to find the energy of a photon.
5) A hot vacuum tube does NOT prove CO2 can heat Earth.
6) Gravity can NOT create torque on Moon.
7) Gravity can NOT create tangential velocity
8) The difference between orbital motion and axial rotation.
9) Insulation is NOT proof “cold” can heat “hot”.
Your cult PhDs don’t know these basics.
I don’t have time to babysit you today Pup. so I won’t be responding to your usual nonsense.
Get a job!
I’m not Tyson, Pup.
Please stop trolling.
Clint R
You make a mindless declaration with zero evidence or support of any type….
YOU: “6) Gravity can NOT create torque on Moon.”
And the people that are considerably more intelligent than you could possibly imagine show how wrong you are and they do it with equations (which you are unable to develop to support your false declarations).
https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestial/node54.html
Yes Norman, you found another link you can’t understand.
Earth/Moon gravity works on center of masses. That’s why gravity can NOT produce a torque on Moon. See “Tidal Locking Debunked”.
Have you found any valid technical reference for your other nonsense yet?
You are trolling again, Pup.
Do you recall what Joe said of items 6-8?
Your listicle can be reduced to three talking points, btw.
Please stop trolling.
Norman, here’s the debunking if you’re unable to find it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-555062
And I see your new pal has trolled in trying to help you. How cozy. You two deserve each other.
His ineffective flak inspires me to update the debunking. There’s a lot more to it. Since I’m hitting the target I might as well keep demolishing the cult nonsense. Maybe I can find time this weekend.
Norman,
Pup is baiting you. Baiting is trolling. Pup is trolling you.
Here is how Joe proceeded to stop Pup’s trolling:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-63901
Notice the dates and his last cite and this link.
Pup can’t resist trolling people.
He should stop.
One way is to ask him.
That’s called a “false accusation”, worthless willard. That’s what Norman does. That’s why you two make such a great couple — no science, just insults and false accusations.
Wrong again, Puperino.
Your listicle is pure bait. It has nothing to do in response to Tyson. It has been refuted a thousand times. It has nothing to do on this website.
Please heed what Joe said about your trolling, and stop.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The right hemisphere of Clint’s brain is filled with with feathers.
TM,
Maybe you can explain how the Earth managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so with an atmosphere containing higher levels of CO2 than now.
Do you think the GHE is a recent phenomenon, perhaps?
Or are the PhDs who claim that CO2 heats the planet deranged?
Of course, there is no reproducible experimental support for the GHE, because no PhD holder can actually describe the GHE in any sensible way.
How silly does that make you look for believing in a GHE which can’t be described, has no experimental support, and obviously couldn’t even stop the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so?
Are you simple, gullible, or just ignorant?
Not the molten earth again, Mike Flynn.
How many times will Tim have to correct you until you stop trolling with that one?
Please stop. This has nothing to do here.
Wily Wee Willy,
Denying reality won’t help you, dummy.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years – nothing, GHE, atmosphere, climatological prayers and magic spells – managed to hat this process.
Appealing to the authority of the singularly dim-witted Tim Folkerts (brighter than you, but that’s no high recommendation) won’t make you appear any less stupid than you are.
Carry on denying reality.
Mike,
That the Earth has been cooling for billions of years has no bearing on greenhouse gases.
So nobody denies the reality to which you appeal.
Please stop trolling.
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“That the Earth has been cooling for billions of years has no bearing on greenhouse gases.”
You managed to get it ass-backwards, as usual.
Greehouse gases had no bearing on the fact that the Earth has been cooling for four and a half billion years or so, and continues to do so.
I’m not appealing to reality, you nitwit, I’m just pointing it out.
Feel free to deny reality if you wish. If you believe that the GHE has made the Earth hotter over the past four and a half billion years, just say so.
Whether you are greeted by stunned silence, or derisive laughter, is moot.
Go on, tell everyone about the miraculous heating powers of the GHE!
Idiot.
Mike, Mike,
You might as well argue that your coat cannot keep you warm because the Earth is slowly but surely reaching heat death.
Calling me names will not help you not being classified as a troll, at least according to Graham.
Be on the safe side, stop trolling.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“You might as well argue that your coat cannot keep you warm because the Earth is slowly but surely reaching heat death.”
Coats?
I’m not arguing anything, you drongo, I’m just stating observable fact. As I said, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years nothing, GHE, atmosphere, climatological prayers and magic spells managed to halt this process.
Keep blathering about overcoats, stoves, insulation – anything you like.
Just be a SkyDragon idiot, and keep denying reality, if you wish. It won’t make any difference.
Swenson’s name-calling is worse than Clint R’s, but again, there is substance to the comment besides that…and anyway, you richly deserve everything you receive from him, Little Willy.
Yes, Mike – coats.
Would you prefer blankets? It is the usual item that Sky Dragon cranks like you debate ad nauseam.
Do you recall when you explained the greenhouse effect to Bob?
***
Never forget what Jon Snow said, Graham –
Whatever comes after that kind of *but* is trolling.
He said bullshit, for to speak of trolling would have been anachronistic.
Please stop trolling with your silly special pleading.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
You might as well argue that your coat cannot keep you warm because the Earth is slowly but surely reaching heat death.
Coats?
Im not arguing anything, you drongo, Im just stating observable fact. As I said, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years nothing, GHE, atmosphere, climatological prayers and magic spells managed to halt this process.
Keep blathering about overcoats, stoves, insulation anything you like.
Just be a SkyDragon idiot, and keep denying reality, if you wish. It wont make any difference.
Mike Flynn,
Spamming is trolling.
Playing dumb is baiting, which is trolling.
Spamming a comment in which you play dumb doubles your trolling.
Please reduce your trolling.
If you really need to troll, go troll Dug. Nobody cares about Dug.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
You might as well argue that your coat cannot keep you warm because the Earth is slowly but surely reaching heat death.
Coats?
Im not arguing anything, you drongo, Im just stating observable fact. As I said, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years nothing, GHE, atmosphere, climatological prayers and magic spells managed to halt this process.
Keep blathering about overcoats, stoves, insulation anything you like.
Just be a SkyDragon idiot, and keep denying reality, if you wish. It wont make any difference.
Mike,
You’re just spamming like Dug does.
No, I take that back – you are spamming like Gloria does.
Spamming is not cool. It is the cheapest trolling there is.
Please stop spamming.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
You might as well argue that your coat cannot keep you warm because the Earth is slowly but surely reaching heat death.
Coats?
Im not arguing anything, you drongo, Im just stating observable fact. As I said, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years nothing, GHE, atmosphere, climatological prayers and magic spells managed to halt this process.
Keep blathering about overcoats, stoves, insulation anything you like.
Just be a SkyDragon idiot, and keep denying reality, if you wish. It wont make any difference.
You can even whine about trolling and spamming, if you think it will make people ignore the fact that the GHE was unable to even prevent the Earth from cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so.
It won’t make inconvenient fact disappear.
You can spam that fact all you want, Mike.
Nobody denies it, and it is utterly irrelevant.
One day you’ll make an argument.
Or rather one day you’ll correct the argument you tried on Tim.
That one got to sting, no?
Please stop trolling.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
You might as well argue that your coat cannot keep you warm because the Earth is slowly but surely reaching heat death.
Coats?
Im not arguing anything, you drongo, Im just stating observable fact. As I said, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years nothing, GHE, atmosphere, climatological prayers and magic spells managed to halt this process.
Keep blathering about overcoats, stoves, insulation anything you like.
Just be a SkyDragon idiot, and keep denying reality, if you wish. It wont make any difference.
You can even whine about trolling and spamming, if you think it will make people ignore the fact that the GHE was unable to even prevent the Earth from cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so.
It wont make inconvenient fact disappear.
No special pleading, Little Willy. You can’t just decide a comment is trolling simply because it contains name-calling. It depends on the ratio of name-calling to substance, among other factors. For example, a lot of Norman’s comments strictly-speaking contain so much name-calling and abuse compared to substance that I could classify them as trolling…but I stopped asking Norman to stop trolling a while ago when I realised that he might actually be genuine. Misguided, certainly, but I think he is genuine in his beliefs. I used to think that he couldn’t possibly be serious, so I asked him to stop trolling quite a lot. Then, after a while, he convinced me that he did actually believe what he was saying. So now I give him a lot of leeway with his comments.
Of course you are special pleading, Graham, and of course trolling has nothing to do with any magical ratio between name calling and substance, One can troll without name calling at all. One can only call someone names without trolling at all.
You just are fiddling your criteria as you go along. That is special pleading,
Please stop trolling.
“…of course trolling has nothing to do with any magical ratio between name calling and substance”
Exactly…as I said, it involves many factors. It’s a complex subject. Don’t worry, I’ve got it covered.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
You said that trolling “depends on the ratio of name-calling to substance,” Graham. It simply does not. It’s not a factor at all.
It’s just an imaginary metric you invented to support your silly claim that Pup was not trolling. Which is ridiculous. Just as your idea that mentioning Mike by his original handle was trolling.
Your own handle is a troll, Graham. You should stop using it.
…so you don’t think the ratio of name-calling to substance in a comment is even a factor in whether someone is trolling or not. Maybe that explains why you’re such a bad moderator.
It’s not necessarily the case that calling Swenson "Mike" is trolling in and of itself, as I explained at the time, it is more your incessant need to try to "out" him as "Mike Flynn" at every single opportunity, repeatedly, under every single article. It’s like…does anyone really care any more?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Nice baits, Graham.
Tell me – have you ever seen Gloria insult anyone, and do you think that Dug would be less of a stupid spamming sock puppet troll if he was not insulting anyone?
I am calling Mike Flynn Mike Flynn because that is his first handle in Climateball. I am calling you Graham because your actual handle is a troll.
Your actual handle is one of a troll, Graham.
Keep trying to ignore that.
You might have a point if I was saying that the ratio of name-calling to substance in a comment was the only factor in determining if somebody was trolling. I’m not, though. I’m just saying it’s a factor, and it’s a silly one for you to pretend is not a factor. But, you will automatically take up the opposing position to what somebody you have decided you don’t like is saying, no matter what position that leaves you with and how indefensible it is. That’s part of what makes you a troll. I believe Gordon pointed that out before.
You are deliberately missing the point on the whole "Mike Flynn" thing because you know you have no decent response to that.
My name is not "one of a troll". Simple as that. You’ll just respond that "of course it is…", blah, blah, blah. Boring.
Your imaginary ratio is simply irrelevant, Graham. Name calling is a non-factor. You troll while trying to hide your sly jabs. Pup goes all in, quixotically.
You repeat content without explicit insult. Yet you are trolling right now, trying to grind the exchange to a halt.
I call Mike Flynn because that is his Climateball identity. I am calling you Graham because your handle is one of a troll.
Your handle is one of a troll, Graham.
Try again to ignore that fact with sly, silly trolling.
You’re just repeating yourself over and over again. You were wrong the first time.
1) Name-calling and insults are a factor in trolling.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trolling
“the act of leaving an insulting message on the internet in order to annoy someone”
2) As I already explained, you calling Swenson “Mike Flynn” is not the problem so much as you repetitively trying to “out” him as Mike Flynn under every single article. Nobody cares any more. Stop going on about it.
3) I just said that I don’t agree my handle is “one of a troll”. So stop pretending I’m ignoring it. I just disagree. Since it’s a matter of opinion, and not fact, what is the point in discussing it?
4) Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Here goes the listicle. Graham, you are a pearl.
You glaze over the last part of that misconstrued definition. Perhaps you should think about what that implies.
Calling Mike by his original handle does not out him, and is not meant to. He himself wrote on Climateball blogs for a decade or with that handle. He needs to keep it.
I could not care less what you believe – your handle is a troll. You are not our moderator. You do not sincerely believe that you are. You are using the handle ironically.
This is annoying. You seek to annoy. You are trolling.
73 months of trolling this website with three silly talking points, Graham.
73 months!
Do you recall your first handle here? Another ironic one. Anther trolling one.
“You glaze over the last part of that misconstrued definition. Perhaps you should think about what that implies.”
You have to also judge whether the name-calling/insults is/are intended to annoy. That is another factor, certainly. In your case, I think it’s safe to conclude that your intention is always to annoy. Everything you write contains some attempt to irritate others.
“Calling Mike by his original handle does not out him, and is not meant to.”
Hmmm…
“I could not care less what you believe – your handle is a troll”
I could not care less what you believe – my handle is not a troll.
Graham, you goose.
Of course your ironical moniker is annoying. It insults and mocks your host. It does not identify you in a neutral manner.
Trolling has nothing to do with what is being said. Trolling has everything to do with what is being done. It is an act, or rather an interpretation of one.
As Pup would say, you have NO idea what trolling is.
Return to its origin. A fisherman trolls with baits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing)
What are baits?
The discussion is over. You lost, again.
It has been a pleasure to slay you once more, troll.
Please come again!
…discussion is over. You lost, again.
Fluxes in space do not add. A mistake is made by people like Tim when he compares the effect of fluxes on a surface. Once absorbed by the surface, they are no longer fluxes but have been converted to heat.
Quantities of heat can add but we have to be careful there. If the electrons in the atoms of a surface that absorbs EM fluxes are already raised to a certain orbital energy level, bombarding them with the same intensity of flux will raise them no further.
When we talk about heat quantities adding we might be referring to two acetylene torches being applied to the same spot on a piece of metal. The temperature will remain the same but twice the thermal energy is being applied.
The two means of heating metal use different processes.
Come on, Gordo.
Please leave that trolling to Pup.
It has nothing to do with the plausibility argument offered by Tyson.
No Gordon No,
“If the electrons in the atoms of a surface that absorbs EM fluxes are already raised to a certain orbital energy level, bombarding them with the same intensity of flux will raise them no further.”
There are always some electrons in the ground state.
Always.
Define ground state and its temperature.
The ground state is the lowest available energy level for an electron in an atom.
Single electrons don’t have a temperature, neither do individual atoms.
Heck…even the best make mistakes. Einstein claimed time is the hands on a clock. That has lead thousands if not millions of sheeple to believe him. So, if a rusty old alarm clock with weak springs changes time in an aircraft, it is interpreted as time dilating.
How much total work will be needed to turn the electric dipole of an atmospheric water molecule by 180 degrees if the EM field has an electric field component magnitude of 35.6 N/C if the electric dipole moment is 2.58×10^-25 C-m and the initial angle is 33.4 degrees.
(A) 1.53×10^-23 J.
(B) EM through space lacks that ability to do work.
(C) Meanwhile there is a Green Fascist movement to take away our rights and freedoms as they pertain to access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels. The discussion of what to do about that is impossible here due to the trolling.
(d) The problem is that propaganda is saying global warming means hotter temperature.
Hints:
(1) Potential Energy of an Electric Dipole = -(electric dipole)x(electric field)
(2) Work done = change in potential energy
(E) 1.0110^-23 J, if I understand your set up, TM.
Symbol got dropped, should be — 1.01 * 10^-23J
“How much total work will be needed to turn the electric dipole of an atmospheric water molecule by 180 degrees if the EM field has an electric field component magnitude of 35.6 N/C if the electric dipole moment is 2.5810^-25 C-m and the initial angle is 33.4 degrees”.
***
Moot point, EM has no force measurable in Newtons or any other measure of force. It’s all about electric charge on the electrons holding the water molecule together. The electrons absorb EM and convert it to kinetic energy. Adding heat to water will do the same thing, or bombarding the water with microwave energy, which is EM.
There is no force involved wrt to EM, it’s about dipole action in the water molecule and how forcefully the charges on the water molecules can interact with each other. Obviously the charges vary with temperature and are related to a change in kinetic energy/temperature of the electrons en masse.
EM is obviously involved, but only to make the electrons more energetic IF they absorb the EM. Obviously. EM from ice has no effect on the water molecules re increasing dipole action.
Gordon,
Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.
“Moot point, EM has no force measurable in Newtons or any other measure of force.”
Bullshit, photons have momentum, NASA knows this, and took it into account when they sent Viking 1 and Viking 2 to land on Mars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Not to mention some recent Nobel prizes.
bob d…”photons have momentum…”
***
Momentum with no mass!!! That’s a good one, Bob. Ooooohh, every time I get pelted with light photons I get tiny bruises all over.
Let’s face it, a photon is a definition, just like time. With sound, you do have particles, air molecules, and they can be compressed and rarefied by sound pressure. The boys in the EM lab became jealous and wanted their own particles, so they invented them, but with no mass. Clever!!!
Radiation pressure contradicts Einstein’s theory of relativity. Dayton Miller claimed their is an aether through which light must travel and Einstein claimed, if Miller is right, then E. is wrong.
If there is a radiation pressure, there should be a compression wave as an object moves through space and a trailing lack of pressure behind it.
It’s amazing how these clowns come up with theories based on nothingness. The Big, Bang, black holes, and time dilation, to mention a few. Even more amazing what you can do with math when no one can prove it right or wrong.
Yes, photons have momentum, that’s an observation that confirms the theory.
Did you read the wiki, Viking would have missed Mars if there was no radiation pressure. NASA put that factor in their projected navigation plot.
Photons have energy also with no mass.
Photons have been observed, if you haven’t figured out that yet, not just a definition.
“If there is a radiation pressure, there should be a compression wave as an object moves through space and a trailing lack of pressure behind it.”
Measuring that would be a little difficult, as the compression wave would be tiny.
The correct answer is (A) 1.53×10^-23J.
One error commonly made is overlooking the fact that the final angle of the dipole moment is 213.4 degrees (33.4 + 180).
Here is a video of a [grade school level] lab experiment demonstrating an electric field doing work on a stream of water: https://youtu.be/VhWQ-r1LYXY
kids love this.
Again TM, if I understand your set up, the correct answer is (E) 1.01 X (10)^-23 J.
I’m thinking you used cosine instead of sine. The vector cross product results in the scalar product of magnitudes and the sine of the angle.
If you meant something else, maybe you could provide a sketch.
Thanks.
Are you saying that potential energy is a vector? It isn’t; it’s a scalar.
That’s not what I’m saying, TM. But your new confusion helps me understand your previous confusion. That’s why a sketch would have been nice. Any time a problem involves vectors, a sketch is most helpful to avoid confusion.
So now that I understand your initial conditions, your answer is correct. The work required is the sum of the vector cross products across the electric field. Or in your case:
W = (PE @ 33.4° + PE @ 213.4°) = PE (cos 33.4° – cos 213.4°) = (35.6 X 2.58 X (10)^-25) X (0.835 – (-.835)) = 1.53 (10)^-23 J
Now, what was your purpose in all that?
maguff…”Here is a video of a [grade school level] lab experiment demonstrating an electric field doing work on a stream of water:”
***
You are a seriously confused individual. Where in that video is a beam of light bending a stream of water? They are using a static electric charge. It works because the have charged an object with a negative static charge and it attracts the positive end of the water molecule dipole. If you used a positive static charge it would likely due a better job since the negative end of the molecule is stronger, where the oxygen resides.
If you shone a flash light on the stream of water would it bend? If you brought a 100 watt light bulb near it would it bend?
To summarize, the dipole moment is the lever by which the electric field does work on a molecule.
GR correctly points out that a static electric field is being applied in the lab experiment of the linked video.
In an EM wave however, the electric field component is not static, it oscillates with a definite frequency. The water molecule is thus continuously rotating itself to align its dipole with the electric field and adding to its kinetic energy.
P.s.: The linked video which was first uploaded over 13 years ago, has had 400 new views since I linked to it yesterday. Are there that many lurkers on this site?
Kennui,
I dedicate this post to you:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/10/10/how-to-lord-comment-sections/
Thanks Willard, nice prose.
The darts all landed quite near the middle of the target.
Reminds me of a few similarly disastrous guest posts on WUWT a few years back, written by the Third Viscount on the subject of feedback as well.
His responses to many comments were consistently delicious:
” Mr X1 / X2 / … / Xn now becomes disingenuous… ”
He was absolutely unable to provide a technically valuable answer to qualified remarks, which of course were all made by real engineers / scientists.
The time lag between the statements and ‘his (*)’ reaction to them was also interesting.
(*) It really felt like he had to email the comments and questions to some tech savvy ‘petites mains’ in the background, and then wait for their replies.
I forgot to add that I don’t know anything about feedback myself, but would of course never dare to publish any guest post on the subject.
My pleasure, Binny. Christopher learns a bit late that his taunts reached their cultural limit:
https://youtu.be/cG-AYVb3LGA
The wordology we have been served is mere smoke and mirrors.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Regarding entropy, my comments on Wikipedia Talk may help some:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laws_of_thermodynamics#Entropy_is_not_always_a_measure_of_disorder
Dug,
The observed fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, may help others.
The observed fact that the Earth’s surface cools in the order of 10 degrees during about 12 hours on the dark side and then warms again the next day may help you to understand why the “heat creep” process is what keeps you alive rather than being frozen to death if it had continued cooling 10 degrees per 12 hours also on the sunlit side.
Maybe you should turn your attention to the planet Uranus which is notable for the FACT that, at its top of atmosphere, there is no compelling evidence of any cooling what-so-ever with outward flux equal to inward flux. The solar radiation maintains temperatures just under 60K near the top of the Uranus atmosphere, but 350Km below at the base of the nominal troposphere where there is no solar radiation or solid surface it’s hotter than Earth’s surface as I can and have explained due to heat creep and nothing else – no cooling of its core that is about 55% the size of Earth far further down and far hotter still, also due to heat creep.
Given that the surfaces of Earth and Venus can cool so quickly then, if the Sun had not been radiating energy, they would have kept cooling like that, do please explain what delayed this rapid cooling in the (approx) 8 billion years between the Big Bang and when our blob of earth found its way into the Solar System – at last nice and cosy with a Sun to keep it warm.
Dug,
The observed fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, may help others.
You wrote –
“Given that the surfaces of Earth and Venus can cool so quickly . . . “.
It’s obvious that neither Venus, nor more particularly the Earth, have cooled “so quickly” at all – unless you call four and a half billion years or so “quickly”.
You might consult a geophysicist who has researched the amounts and types of radiogenic sources which have provided internal heat since the Earth was a molten blob. At present the Earth is cooling at a rate of about one to four millionths of a Kelvin per annum, with possibly equal amounts of radiogenic and primordial heat energy in the 44 TW which the Earth loses continuously.
As to solar radiation, even Wikipedia agrees “This renders solar radiation minimally relevant for processes internal to Earth’s crust.”
No “heat creep” or GHE necessary. Just “ordinary” physics.
Good try with your gotcha about the 8 billion years before the formation of Earth. I neither know, nor care particularly.
What happened to your decision not to respond to me? Can’t control yourself?
Tut, tut, Dug.
Do you seriously expect Wikipedia to be up with my world-first discovery of the “heat creep” process which you can’t prove wrong?
Apparently you can’t comprehend that a location that is warmed to, say, 25C during the day could cool to 15C that night. What world do you live in? That’s the Earth cooling 10 degrees in 12 hours which is a rate of 140 degrees per week. How much in 8 billion years then my friend?
If you want to trust Wikipedia then read what I wrote on Wikipedia, not those who don’t understand entropy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laws_of_thermodynamics#Entropy_is_not_always_a_measure_of_disorder
There you go! It’s on Wikipedia so you’d better believe it.
Dug,
You wrote –
“Apparently you cant comprehend that a location that is warmed to, say, 25C during the day could cool to 15C that night. What world do you live in? Thats the Earth cooling 10 degrees in 12 hours which is a rate of 140 degrees per week. How much in 8 billion years then my friend?”
What are you blabbering about?
Are you quite mad? That’s as stupid as saying that a desert which warms from freezing just before dawn to 45 C by noon is heating at a rate of 90 C per 12 hours, which is a rate of 1260 degrees per week!
Apparently, you can’t comprehend that as surely as night follows day, night follows day – and vice versa.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so. It was molten, and now it’s not. Blathering about everything else is just stupid. No GHE, no “heat creep”.
You weren’t going to respond to me, remember? What’s the matter – scared that people might discover that I’m presenting facts?
[laughs at delusional Dug]
The correct physics and explanation of heat and temperatures throughout the Solar System is only to be found at http://climate-change-theory.com and in all of my seven linked papers which nobody in over ten years has ever correctly refuted.
from your wiki entry…
“Thus the Clausius (hot to cold) statement is merely a corollary of the Second Law that applies in a horizontal plane because we can only claim that heat transfer is always from hot to cold if there is no other change in any other form of energy such as gravitational potential energy. The Second Law is not just about temperatures, and entropy is not just about disorder”.
***
Nonsense.
Clausius created the 2nd law and declared it in words, stating that heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body. Then he defined entropy AFTER declaring the 2nd law as the sum of infinitesimal quantities of heat at temperature, T, during a process. Entropy adds a mathematical explanation for the 2nd law and it is devised so that heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body.
If you understand that you can edit your wiki article to reflect the real meaning of entropy.
His equation…S = 1/T(integral dq) makes it clear that entropy is a measure of heat and has nothing to do with measuring disorder. Clausius did note that entropy is zero for a reversible process and positive for an irreversible process.
Since the universe involves mostly irreversible processes, it means that entropy can offer an indication of disorder but only if heat is released in the irreversible action. I hardly think that weathering of rock due to wind and/or water is an example of entropy, yet it leads to disorder.
What I state is correct. Otherwise a vortex cooling tube would not cool and the base of the Uranus troposphere would not be hotter than Earth’s surface and you’d be frozen to death.
Obviously the PROOF is in the second paper linked in the left column at http://climate-change-theory.com
The equation you quoted is that for the corollary my friend. It is specifically stated in physics texts that this simplified expression for entropy is developed with the understanding that there is no change in gravitational potential energy – i.e. for a horizontal plane in a typical lab experiment for example.
And, Gordon, give up trying to make out that my physics is wrong because that is not the case.
Based on evidence in experiments, studies and especially in data we now have for other planets the probability of heat creep not being the reason for observed temperatures is at least billions if trillions or more to one against.
Consider this comment continued from Page 5 of the first paper in the right-hand column at http://climate-change-theory.com but it would be best to read the whole paper which you’ve had over six years to do.
If the Second Law was only to be about heat from hot to cold then why bother with inventing the term “entropy” at all?
Entropy is all about the process of unbalanced energy potentials always tending to reduce (dissipate) towards zero (maximum entropy) in a natural thermodynamic process which may be stand-alone or a combination of interacting systems, but not independent systems.
Those energy potentials involve the sum of all forms of internal energy including phase change energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, kinetic energy (to do with heat) and potential energy in a force field or in things involving compression like springs and pistons.
Physicists have gained a better understanding of entropy written about in papers in the 1980’s and I have extended this in my discovery and explanation of the “heat creep” process.
This is cutting edge science but not hard to understand if you study carefully my detailed explanation (along with diagrams) in the second paper in the left column at
http://climate-change-theory.com.
PS: Why did you bother writing about the old concept of disorder which I had already dismissed in my comment on Wikipedia? Of course “disorder” is irrelevant to what entropy is really all about. When a lake of water is settling after a heavy storm entropy is increasing but most people would consider the calm lake (maximum entropy) less disordered than the stormy one.
You need to look up the relationship between disorder and entropy.
It looks to me like you have it wrong.
“When a lake of water is settling after a heavy storm entropy is increasing but most people would consider the calm lake (maximum entropy) less disordered than the stormy one.”
This statement leads me to believe you are mixed up with respect to entropy and its relationship to disorder.
Crack a textbook.
The ONLY correct physics and explanation of heat and temperatures throughout the Solar System is to be found at http://climate-change-theory.com and in the seven linked papers which nobody in over ten years has ever correctly refuted.
Of course they haven’t refuted them, they haven’t bothered to read them in depth, because they recognize crackpottery right away.
Since you don’t seem to grasp entropy and disorder correctly, I wouldn’t waste my time reading your creep.
“In reality, such feedback processes as subsist in the climate system at any given moment (such as 1850) must, at that moment, necessarily respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature”
I’m still somewhat confused. Is this asserting that feedback changes linearly with temperature?
In his description of feedbacks, CM seems to be indicating feedbacks produce a gain in heat, which is contrary to feedback theory of the type involving gain. That is a mistake held by many describing feedback in the atmosphere, that feedback actually produces heat in the atmosphere. Not possible.
The feedback equation involving gain is…
G = A/(1 + AB)
where G = overall gain with feedback
A = gain of an amplifier without feedback
B = feedback quantity
In an amplifier, B = Ef/Eo = voltage of feedback divided by output voltage. It is fed back to the input signal Ei and mixed with it, therefore B must be a tiny proportion of the output voltage in order to merge with the smaller input signal.
I am offering this only as an example of how feedback should work in a real world situation. It is not intended as a model of the atmosphere.
In CMs block diagram of such a system, he has the amplifier in the feedback loop, therefore he is sampling the larger output signal then amplifying it to produce a feedback signal. The input signal is connected directly to the output signal, which makes no sense if gain is involved.
It not only makes little sense, the amplification factor A in the feedback loop is never explained in the atmosphere.
There is a link to CMs theory in Roy’s article previous to this one about CM.
There are three messages for you Gordon starting at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379100
nabil swedan…”Tyson, If you have access to a pyrgeoer or know someone who has, ask them to remove the calibration equation and see what backradiation they get. I assure you they will get none. Try it”.
***
Nabil, most people don’t understand the scam inherent in IR detectors that are claimed to measure heat by pointing them at an IR source.
I was recently reading an article on one such IR thermomemter and they claimed to use a modified version of the S-B equation. How convenient. They not only ad a factor to allow for the temperature of the thermometer body, which uses a lab-based coefficient, they present S-B as…
P = k.sigma.T^4
The K coefficient is artificially derived by them in a lab. Why?? Obviously, S-B does not work at terrestrial temperatures. They need to modify it to make it match what they think it should read.
With regard to the sensors, they are claimed to be thermopiles based on the Seeback effect. However, real thermopiles respond to real heat at high temperatures, where the radiation intensity is strong enough to be significant. A device measuring IR at lower temperatures cannot detect the heat at the IR source therefore the use of the word thermopyle is ingenuous.
What you have are semiconductors that respond to certain frequencies of IR that causes electrons to flow. That’s closer to Einstein’s photoelectric effect. When electrons flow through the resistance of a semiconductor slab, a voltage is produced. Similar to the Seebeck effect but not exactly as defined.
Still, at this point, no temperature has been determined. That involves comparing the electrical current produced in the sensor to currents produced in lab sensors under modeled blackbody conditions.
There is no way heat can be transferred via radiation from a distance body to an IR instrument. The level of heat, aka temperature, is related to the generated IR only by a manipulation of the S-B equation using an artificial coefficient.
As Nabil claimed, remove the calibration equation in the device and you get nothing.
Years ago Roy Spencer admitted that the back radiation figure of around 324w/m^2 in NASA energy diagrams was not measured but only calculated. It leads to climatologists constructing such diagrams perhaps without even noticing that their knowledgeable “GH” molecules know that they must radiate far more downwards than upwards and that, overall, there must be far more energy coming out of the base of the atmosphere than enters at the top. Simple Stefan-Boltzmann calculations indicate that even a perfect blackbody could not radiate a global mean flux of 324w/m^2 from regions in the atmosphere around 3Km in altitude where most of the water vapor tends to be concentrated. In any event, the electro-magnetic energy in the downward atmospheric radiation is not converted to kinetic energy in surface molecules that are at higher temperatures than those around the source.
That’s why my “heat creep” hypothesis is the only correct explanation. You should read about it one day. It’s not hard to understand why it happens and why it has to happen to keep you alive on this otherwise-frozen planet.
Dug,
You wrote –
“It’s not hard to understand why it happens and why it has to happen to keep you alive on this otherwise-frozen planet.”
Nonsense, of course.
The Earth is still only around 1% solid crust. Molten magma from the interior erupts from volcanoes, and continuously oozes through the mid-ocean ridges. The Earth hasn’t finished cooling yet.
Additionally, the Sun exists. During the day, surface temperatures do not exceed 100 C, or drop below – 100 C at night. This is due to the presence of an atmosphere, which results in cooler daytime maxima, and warmer nighttime minima. The Moon possesses no atmosphere, and achieves 127 C during the day, and falls to – 170 C at night.
See the ameliorating effects of an atmosphere?
No need for “heat creep” or GHE.
Just reality – feel free to ignore it if you wish.
Day after day, Flynnson becomes dumber and dumber.
Just reality: the atmosphere itself is our ‘greenhouse’, not more not less.
Feel free, Flynnson, to tell us how it would look on Earth if there was no water vapor in the atmosphere because Earth had no water!
78% N2, 21 % O2, 1% Ar.
Dites-nous tout!
Correct Bin, non-radiative gases act as a blanket, helping to maintain Earth’s temperature. Radiative gases emit energy to space, cooling the system.
See how simple it is? Even you should be able to understand it….
The graphic of my comprehensive study of 30 years of temperature data over three continents shows WATER VAPOR COOLING in accord with what I proved would be the case with the “heat creep” hypothesis – see my new “Images” page at
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/images
Then go back to the Home page (or click my name here) for a link to “Planetary Core & Surface Temperatures” published 2013 lower left on that Home page.
PS: My Home page is now in English, German, French, Swedish and Italian.
” Correct Bin, non-radiative gases act as a blanket, helping to maintain Earth’s temperature. Radiative gases emit energy to space, cooling the system. ”
*
Utter nonsense. I was speaking about an atmosphere without H2O & CO2, but Clint R evidently overlooked that tiny detail.
As usual, ball-on-a-string genius Clint R does his very best to appear even a bit dumber than Flynsson, what in fact is not quite easy.
But as we all know, Clint R is a major proponent of the lex laborandi called ‘KISS’ (Keep it simple, Stupid).
Any matter requiring an argument above ball-on-a-string level will be automatically ignored.
That’s the reason why he endlessly repeats his claim about ‘Radiative gases emit energy to space’, instead of correctly considering that they also emit half of what they absorb back to surface.
*
Let us look at HITRAN16 data (scaled by atmospheric abundance, of course) for the 0-10µ range:
H2O
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cuYglukXTe0OF_Y2TobIiJrZLDbZJ9EF/view
N2 & O2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b4ZzkPH6ZYoC_aT2VOOPs0ytY99Fb0ti/view
N2 lets everything pass thru.
O2 has tiniest absorp-tion/emission lines in the near IR, absolutely negligible in comparison with H2O’s activity in the SW-near IR below 5 µ, which is 1,000 times higher.
*
Means: Zero dot zero blanket without H2O, CO2, NH4, N2O, CFC etc.
Point final.
Bindidon, maybe you need a reminder of your exact words…
“Just reality: the atmosphere itself is our ‘greenhouse’, not more not less.”
And…
“78% N2, 21% O2, 1% Ar.”
Yup, the non-radiative gases act as a blanket, helping to keep Earth comfy.
Welcome to reality.
In the Sky Dragon Crank universe, non radiative gases have the best radiative properties.
This is how Pup trolls.
Welcome to the real reality, Clint R: that one you namely deliberately ignore.
H2O
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cuYglukXTe0OF_Y2TobIiJrZLDbZJ9EF/view
N2 & O2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b4ZzkPH6ZYoC_aT2VOOPs0ytY99Fb0ti/view
Zero dot zero blanket without… do you remember the list?
*
Denial requests some mental abilities you seem to thoroughly lack.
That is the reason why all what you write looks like the ball-on-a-string.
*
I know you will reply to this again, at your usual mental niveau.
But I do stop here, Clint R. I gets too boring to me.
“In the Sky Dragon Crank universe, non radiative gases have the best radiative properties.”
Perfectly wrong, Little Willy. Non-radiative gases are the planetary insulators because they have the worst radiative properties…thus, they “hold onto the heat” better.
Bin, it’s no trouble for me to reply. I enjoy correcting troll nonsense.
Non-radiative gases make an effective “blanket” for Earth, with their heat transfer to upper levels providing the lapse rate. Radiative gases emit energy to space, providing cooling. Their emissions back to the surface can’t provide warming, unless you believe ice cubes can boil water.
(Found a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, yet?)
In Sky Dragon Crank universe, gases that are non radiative *hold* onto heat.
Graham is a freaking genius. He forgets that last time he presented the idea it was merely hypothetical, nevertheless he is a genius.
***
Pup, please stop trolling.
That’s right, Little Willy. Non-radiative gases most effectively “lose heat” through collisions. Radiative gases can “lose heat” through collisions, and via radiation. So which of the two “holds onto heat” the best?
If worthless willard know about specific heat capacity, he wouldn’t say such stupid things.
But, he knows NOTHING about science.
That’s why he’s so worthless.
(I won’t be responding to his usual upcoming nonsense.)
If Pup was not simply trolling he would realize that he is basically arguing that non radiative gases are the true greenhouse gases.
But his baiting fizzles, so he needs to bait more.
Pup should stop baiting.
…right, Little Willy. Non-radiative gases most effectively “lose heat” through collisions. Radiative gases can “lose heat” through collisions, and via radiation. So which of the two “holds onto heat” the best?
The ONLY correct physics and explanation of heat and temperatures throughout the Solar System is only to be found at http://climate-change-theory.com and in my seven linked papers which nobody in over ten years has ever correctly refuted.
Bindidon
If you would spend time studying Planck’s The Theory of Heat Radiation you would know this is not true. A body emits the same power in all directions. Up, down, and sideways. It is called isotropic. It is a reason that steradians are used to show the flux value.
If this wasn’t true, you would need to add the radiations measured from each available surface of an object and add them together to get the correct temperature from S-B. Ask yourself if satellite measurements of intensity and surface measurements of intensity are doubled to get the correct value from S-B!
“What you have are semiconductors that respond to certain frequencies of IR that causes electrons to flow.”
Nope, not in standard IR thermometers, which use thermopiles.
You can’t just keep making up your own untrue facts, Gordon.
The bizarrely deranged Tim Folkerts wrote –
“So yes, the surface of the earth is HOLDING its temperature pretty darn well. (And in fact, the surface has actually been *warming* over the past 50 years, and also warming over the past 15,000 years. Not cooling. Not even holding. But warming!)”
Tim does not want to accept that the Earth losing energy at the rate of 44TW does not indicate “holding” or “warming”.
Losing energy is – cooling!
Tim is confused. There are about seven billion people on the surface – all producing, converting, and using energy about as fast as they can. All (all) of the energy involved eventually is perceived as “waste” heat, and promptly flees to outer space.
Around 140 times as much as a century ago, but SkyDragons believe that man-made heat is undetectable by man-made thermometers, by the look of things.
Witless fools, one and all!
No GHE, no heat creep.
“Tim does not want to accept that the Earth losing energy at the rate of 44TW does not indicate ‘holding’ or ‘warming’.”
Whereas, Swenson, denies the observable fact that the temperatures measured by Roy Spencer and many others show that the Earth has been warming, not cooling!
Can he explain this discrepancy in his thinking?
DREMT, don’t miss this simple problem that stumped Swanson:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377640
None of them will answer the simple problem because it destroys their beliefs.
The simple problem is probably the easiest way to debunk the plates nonsense. It’s like the ball-on-a-string destroys the lunar rotation nonsense and ice cubes can’t boil water destroys the GHE nonsense.
Simple is good. Cults thrive on layers upon layers of irrelevant complexity to cover for their invalid made-up nonsense.
Yes, I noticed that Swanson couldn’t answer it. Will be interested to see if any of the others can.
Cult Leader grammie pup answered his question in accordance with his denialist physics long ago. The Cult Leader still can’t accept the fact that radiant energy fluxes add.
The cult bases a lot of their beliefs on nonsense like this. Some “bunny rabbit” idiot discovered that the math worked, so he believed the physics worked. The cult swallowed it without question.
The green plate can NOT warm the blue plate, if both are 1.0 emissivity. Both plates would get to exactly the same temperature, if there were no loses — 244K. When a second green plate is added, all three plates also get to 244K. The second green plate explodes their false beliefs. It’s the same as if all three plates were in perfect contact. With 3 plates, there is no other solution.
Swanson tried to “prove” a falsehood!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Cult Leader grammie pup repeats his usual empty assertions without a shred of proof. But, any half way competent high school physics student would instantly agree that thermal radiation fluxes do add, which refutes his silly plate models and everything derived from such stupidity.
The Green Plate Effect has been both theoretically, and experimentally, debunked.
Willard Jr. were you unable to solve the simple problem with one blue plate and two green plates? The answer is all plates are at 244K. Adding the second green plate did NOTHING. Your bogus beliefs are debunked.
And your invalid “demonstration” only demonstrates you don’t understand the issue. You’re adding heat sources!
You don’t understand any of this.
That is so cool, DREMT! We’re amazing, and we’re not even trying….
…great minds think alike!
Pup, please stop trolling,
Graham, please stop waving these pompoms.
…minds think alike!
Can I see your blue plate green plate diagram again?
Snap,
Not!
…think alike!
Cult Leader grammie pup can’t help but reply to himself in an orgy of self congratulation. He repeats his old nonsense that the three plates are all at 244K, ignoring the obvious fact that there can be no heat transfer between the middle plate and the two outer ones without a temperature difference. A serious error in thermodynamics with this scenario.
And again, grammie ignores that my reply was not about the GP effect, only that radiant energy fluxes add. Flunked physics, did you Cult Leader?
We’re two different people, Swanson.
Well Swanson, rather than babbling insults and false accusations, why not solve the simple problem. I’ve already given you the answer, and you STILL can’t solve it! If you don’t go along with the 244K, what temperature do you get?
You’re just like the rest of your cult — all blab and no science.
Indeed, ES –
Pup is the troll Roy banned a few times already and keeps baiting people with three Dragon Cranks talking points. Graham is the slimy little opportunist who is on he lookout for every opportunity to amplify the baits.
The first baits and lulzes, the second spams and slimes.
Two different guys, different time zones, different keyboards. Same Dragon Crank flavour.
Pup, that’s just like the rest of your cult — all blab and no science.
In this house we do not accept Dragon Crank baits, Pup.
They suck too much.
Please stop trolling.
…two different people, Swanson.
My points were not addressed. The three plates simply can not all be at 244K while the middle plate receives a constant 400 watts. And, fluxes add. Sometimes facts suck, especially for those who are trying to ignore reality.
Well Swanson, what temperature should the blue plate be, with green plates on both sides?
You can’t answer.
You’re just like the rest of your cult — all blab and no science.
Cult Leader grammie pup continues to ignore reality. The temperature of the middle plate MUST BE GREATER THAN the 2 outside ones. Until grammie understands the facts, what’s the point in answering his trolling?
You can just admit that you cannot calculate it, Swanson. Nobody is surprised.
I know the answer that Team GPE believes the blue plate warms to. It is very silly. Need a hint?
Pup, please stop trolling.
Graham, please stop cheerleading.
Willard at 9:00 AM
I see this “please stop trolling” posts and it reminds me of the rodeo clown act.
At the rodeo, when a rider gets bucked off a bull, the rodeo clown comes to his rescue and diverts the bull’s attention away from the bruised and battered rider.
The bruised and battered deniers on this site are in constant need of rescue! No?
P.s.: Riding a bull is like driving your pickup truck at 100 mph and then chucking the steering wheel out the window. Yeehaw!
I dare you insult clowns like that, Tyson.
Amongst our trio of Dragon Cranks, only Mike Flynn has clown potential.
For now he is just a buffoon, but I have faith in him.
The other two are vanilla trolls like we can find anywhere on the Intertubes.
Willard at 10:12 AM
Point taken. Mike Flynn does frequently require special care!
“I see this “please stop trolling” posts and it reminds me of the rodeo clown act.
At the rodeo, when a rider gets bucked off a bull, the rodeo clown comes to his rescue and diverts the bull’s attention away from the bruised and battered rider.”
Well, maybe in this case Willard was the rodeo clown coming to E Swanson’s rescue. Or trying to…but no, generally the “please stop trolling” comments are not for that purpose. For instance, when I ask you to stop trolling, Tyson, I am simply politely requesting that you try to stop trolling. There’s nothing more to it than that.
I thought you admitted you were having a little fun, Graham.
As long as you are politely having a little fun with a good ratio of content in your spam, it cannot be trolling, right?
Someone else is “having fun” though, right?
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
“With both sadness and joy I must report that the Sky Dragons {1} invaded Roy’s.
Joy, because I’m having fun.”
I wonder who wrote that?
Holy tu quoque, Graham!
Of course I am having fun, Graham. Why the hell do you think people comment here. Because they are paid? Because they want to practice mindful politeness?
You goose.
Pup often says he is having fun too. He said it three times here. Here is one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1377661
As you can see, Pup admits that he enjoys trolling people with Dragon Crank crap.
Do you think that this No U card will deflect from your PSTing?
No, it will not.
You are not just asking politely when you are PSTing. You are having a little fun. And this fun is because you believe that people get frustrated because you get the last word.
That is trolling, my man.
Own it.
“You are not just asking politely when you are PSTing. You are having a little fun. And this fun is because you believe that people get frustrated because you get the last word.”
No, that would be a mis-reading of my comment. By “having a little fun” I simply meant that I was not taking the “emergency moderation team” role seriously. Certainly not as seriously as people like you seem to take the whole thing. But, as time has passed, you know what? Maybe I do take it a little more seriously than I used to. Maybe people do need to be asked to stop trolling.
We all know exactly what sort of fun you are having here, Little Willy. Trolling.
That would misrepresent what I just told you, Graham. Perhaps you are now under the impression that everybody comes here to troll?
We all know that you admitted having fun by PSTing. This is no mere request. And even if you sincerely thought that you are now taking your role more srsly, you cannot be our moderator.
You are a Dragon crank, Graham. Dragon cranks who keep baiting over and over again with the same three baits are trolling.
For 73 months you have been clinging to a very smol playbook. The only reason why you stick around is the same as Dug – sheer repetition. Whereas he focuses on spam, you focus on pushing when Pup pulls.
Pure long to inject the same talking points.
And actually this is happening not far from here as we speak.
You are a troll, Little Willy. Worst we’ve had on here, since Fatvid App.ell. I don’t care if you or others erroneously consider me a troll. It doesn’t change the fact that you are a troll. Simple as that (and yes, this is where the discussion is going to lock in on repeat, so if you bother to continue responding, that just makes you look bad).
You are a troll, Graham.
One might argue that you are worst than Pup, for you amplify his baiting. You also spam ad nauseam. And you are using your PSTing as a projection mechanism.
A slimy, manipulative prat who trolls about topics he never really has studied or researched.
73 months of trolling like that, almost 74 months.
And you tilt because you cannot stop trolling even after being slayed.
…I dont care if you or others erroneously consider me a troll. It doesnt change the fact that you are a troll. Simple as that (and yes, this is where the discussion is going to lock in on repeat, so if you bother to continue responding, that just makes you look bad).
Graham, nobody erroneously calls you anything.
You are a troll, that is all.
No need to tilt.
Please stop PSTing.
…don’t care if you or others erroneously consider me a troll. It doesn’t change the fact that you are a troll. Simple as that (and yes, this is where the discussion is going to lock in on repeat, so if you bother to continue responding, that just makes you look bad).
Graham,
Your trolling is enabled by a troll that we cannot name anymore. Like Dug, he has been banned many times. You claim he is no troll.
Of the three silly Dragon Cranks you come here to troll about, one has been banned by Joe. Your name helps you project your trolling onto otters. Pick a neutral one, like Graham or Chartmaster.
Silly goose.
…care if you or others erroneously consider me a troll. It doesnt change the fact that you are a troll. Simple as that (and yes, this is where the discussion is going to lock in on repeat, so if you bother to continue responding, that just makes you look bad).
Spamming is trolling, Graham.
> Of the three Dragon Crank
talking points, it should go without saying.
I am sure Graham appreciates the elegance with which Joe asked Pup to stop trolling about it.
…if you or others erroneously consider me a troll. It doesn’t change the fact that you are a troll. Simple as that (and yes, this is where the discussion is going to lock in on repeat, so if you bother to continue responding, that just makes you look bad).
There is no error in considering you a slimy, lying, little troll, Graham.
Anybody can see it, and you are peddling talking points that got Pup banned a few times.
73 months of trolling is enough.
Goodbye.
…you or others erroneously consider me a troll. It doesn’t change the fact that you are a troll. Simple as that (and yes, this is where the discussion is going to lock in on repeat, so if you bother to continue responding, that just makes you look bad).
Please stop self-sealing yourself, Graham.
…or others erroneously consider me a troll. It doesn’t change the fact that you are a troll. Simple as that (and yes, this is where the discussion is going to lock in on repeat, so if you bother to continue responding, that just makes you look bad).
If I understand your challenge, you have a “sandwich” with the two green plates close to — but not touching — the blue plate in the center. Something like 1 mm thick copper plates with 1 mm vacuum space between the plates. With a 400 W electric heater attached to the blue plate.
With 400 W total heat input, there must be 200 W/m^2 radiating from the outsides of the two green plates. That means the green plates are 244 K. So far we agree.
But the heat is applied to the blue plate. That means 400 W must be transferred from blue to green (200 W to each side). How do you get 200 W to transfer TO a 244 K object? Clearly the object (blue plate) needs to be warmer than the 244 K object to accomplish this, since if the blue plate was the same temperature as the green plates, they would be in thermal equilibrium, and not heat would be transferred.
The only question is HOW MUCH warmer will the blue plate be when 200 W is going to the 244 K green plates.
[This really IS the sort of thing any freshman physics major could easily understand and solve! And this really IS the same answer that has been given (and ignored) a dozen times in these discussions.]
The green plates are at 244K. Each radiates 200W outwards and 200W back towards the blue plate.
To do so each green plate must receive 400W from the blue plate.
The blue plate is heated by 400W from the heater and 200W radiated inwards from each green plate, a total input of 800W.
This raises the temperature of the blue plate until it emits 800W at a temperature of 244 * 4th root of 2 = 266K.
You got the temperature wrong, Entropic Man. 266 K is not what Team GPE believes the blue plate warms to, in the 3-plate scenario. Try again.
ent…”The green plates are at 244K. Each radiates 200W outwards and 200W back towards the blue plate”.
***
Doesn’t matter how much you radiate if it’s not absorbed. The only way the BP will absorb IR from the GP is if the GP is warmer.
Folkerts, all that blah-blah and you still don’t have an answer. I’ve even given out the correct answer and you idiots can’t understand it. If you don’t like my answer, what’s YOUR answer. Put up or shut up.
Typical braindead cult idiot — all blab and no science.
Tim,
I doubt you gave this answer only a dozen of times.
Pup has been trolling this website long before Graham.
He was after all banned a few times already.
Would you like me to check back?
It was me who got the “correct” (wrong physically, but “right” by their twisted logic) Team GPE answer to the 3-plate scenario back when it was first introduced. Norman had the first attempt at an answer. Pretty much everyone on Team GPE accepted it, even though it was wrong even by their own logic. I had to correct him. I am fascinated to see what answers they will come up with this time, having obviously forgotten about the original time it was brought up.
DREMT,
And yet, it cools at night, winter is colder than summer, and the planet continues to lose its energy at a rate of about 44 TW.
Green, blue, or multicoloured plates, saucers, soup tureens notwithstanding.
What a pack of diversionary fools these SkyDragons are!
If you build a circuit that sensitive to temperature, you have introduced a tremendous amount of gain into it. I see no evidence of high gain in climate or climate models. It is something I noticed immediately about this post and it leaves me wondering.
jeff…not sure what scenario you have in mind. A sensor that can detect heat typically produces a low voltage, low enough that most sensors cannot drive anything without being amplified. Most hand-held IR temperature detectors output voltages in the microvolt or millivolt range and amplification is mandatory to drive another device. They don’t detect heat directly, they detect IR in a semiconductor device sensitive to IR. The current produced is compared to a table in memory to determine the equivalent temperature.
There is no amplifier, or gain, in the atmosphere. The notion of a positive feedback producing gain is bogus.
It is a feedback amplifier circuit used as a model, it should be constructed entirely of Operational amplifiers. I’m not sure what the reference signal is but if he stuck an IR sensor into it, that makes no sense whatsoever. Gah, I haven’t read the paper but it has become less interesting as this is something that should be explained easily in the text.
An IR sensor would require high gain but in that case the gain wouldn’t be the problem, it would be the IR sensor picking up the person. A proper model would simply accept a voltage or current and respond. Of course, you can make it do whatever you want based on the gain and feedback. None of which would be discernible by a circuit diagram, only the mathematics fully written would disclose the ‘intended’ response.
More importantly, the thing would respond as intended.
When I took controls, the circuit/equation responded just fine to feedback from perturbation. Rockets wouldn’t fly without that. They are claiming the ‘whole’ signal is required. It seems to me that you simply alter the base equations and it would work fine. Unfortunately for them, when doing the math that way, you are way off center of the control equations and significant non-linearities are required. The entire purpose of the perturbation signal was to assume linearity or ‘near-linearity’ in most cases.
jeff…”A proper model would simply accept a voltage or current and respond. Of course, you can make it do whatever you want based on the gain and feedback. None of which would be discernible by a circuit diagram, only the mathematics fully written would disclose the intended response”.
***
They cannot do that in the atmosphere, they cannot even begin to explain in a scientific manner how a positive feedback loop would work. It’s all done by thought-experiment and a misinterpretation of feedback amplifier theory.
The greenhouse effect theory is flawed for the same reason. The explanations for it cannot be corroborated in science. That’s partly because they got the model for a real greenhouse wrong in the first place.
Ir was presumed that glass in a greenhouse passes SW solar energy and blocks the longwave IR radiated by soil, plants, and structure in a greenhouse. No one explained how trapped IR can warm a greenhouse. They seemed to have thought IR is heat and it’s not.
Circa 1909, R.W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2, wrote a short blurb stating he could not see how CO2 in the atmosphere could warm it. In lieu of that, he offered the explanation that molecules of air, heated at the surface, rise. As they rise, the major constituents nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of air, cannot radiate away the heat so it is stored till it reaches higher altitudes.
That explains the so-called greenhouse warming.
You guys are all focused on the wrong bit of what is going on.
Differential equations of control systems are modeled using operational amplifiers, this is a significant subsection of electronics development which allowed the modeling of feedback and was used for several decades.
It handles all the time-based derivatives and integrals as measurable voltages. Many are reading IR and CO2 and all kinds of things when this is a purely math modeling question. IF the circuit ACTUALLY reacted to a person’s IR, they are really doing it wrong. Hell, you can buy operational amplifiers which are thermally corrected but you would only buy those for high-gain circuits. In electronics, this can be billions to 1. Climate is not a 100,000 X gain situation. It’s more like 1.2.
This isn’t the put CO2 in a box NONSENSE.
Chicken brained wrong.
“They dont detect heat directly, they detect IR in a semiconductor device sensitive to IR. The current produced is compared to a table in memory to determine the equivalent temperature.”
They actually do detect heat directly. They use thermopiles whose front surface heats when exposed to surfaces warmer than itself, and cool when exposed to surfaces cooler than itself.
The front surface T of the thermopile is different from the back surface T, and this difference is proportional to the NET IR flux, and is detected with thermocouples, and as you say, the voltage output amplified.
“it would be the IR sensor picking up the person.”
Yes, which is a simple problem to solve that any competent experimenter would solve by putting the device in a box.
My point is that there are NO semiconductors that should exist in a climate feedback model circuit which have sufficient change with respect to temperature that they actually react. It’s nonsense.
Thermopiles to model climate feedback? Don’t think so. Think operational amplifiers
I’ve built circuits which respond to temp but they were very high gain and nothing at all like a climate model. Whatever these guys did, this anecdote should raise alarms like crazy.
My point is that there are NO semiconductors that should exist in a climate feedback model circuit which have sufficient change with respect to temperature that they actually react – enough to need to leave the room.
test
nate…”They use thermopiles whose front surface heats when exposed to surfaces warmer than itself, and cool when exposed to surfaces cooler than itself”.
***
Only if you are standing a few feet away from a high temperature source. If you point a hand-held at a person 100 feet away you’ll get a reading but it is not possible for heat from the person to reach the IR device. You are detecting only IR and to detect it requires a special kind of semiconductor that reacts to IR.
Not so sure that would work in daylight hours unless the person was located in an area where his/her body was the hottest one in the region. Humans produce their own heat making the human body warmer than most surrounding objects.
And many have a lens to capture more distant IR sources. They have a narrow angle of acceptance of IR.
Nobel Prize For Science Project:
Climate Alarmists claim that CO2 increasing from 270 to 410 ppm has resulted in a 1 degree C increase in global temperatures. That is a whole lot of energy and represents 1/300 of all the thermal energy in the atmosphere (Earth is approx 300 degree k).
That means that a 140 ppm change in CO2 can warm a room by 1 degree.
That means that insulation consisting of IR transparent bubble wrap filled with 1810 ppm would warm a room by 10 degrees.
Submarines have CO2 of 10,000 ppm, which means that in reality submarines are really ovens if this CO2 drives warming nonsense is true.
If any if this nonsense, CO2 would be used as warming insulation for homes.
“That means that a 140 ppm change in CO2 can warm a room by 1 degree. …”
This is as silly as saying that insulation in the walls of my home helps keep the home warm in the winter when the furnace it running. So logically, piling insulation in my living room should make the living room warmer.
CO2 is only effective at reducing heat loss when placed between a warm area (the surface) and a cold area (deep space). Just like fiberglass is only effective at reducing heat loss when placed between a warm area (my living room) and a cold area (the winter air).
Tim,
Insulation works both ways.
The atmosphere prevents about 35% of the Sun’s radiation even reaching the surface, and reduces the rate of transmission of the rest – as insulators do.
Hence, maximum temperatures on Earth are well below those of the airless Moon.
You’re flogging a dead horse, in typical SkyDragon fashion.
The outside of a pottery kiln may be only warm to the touch, while the inside temperature is above 1000 C. Similarly, the outside of a liquid nitrogen container may be slightly cool to the touch, although its interior is a chilly -196 C or so.
Insulation is agnostic and inert. It neither heats nor cools.
You might be surprised that insulation is extensively used in houses in warmer climes – to keep the house interior cool. Just like the atmosphere does for the Earth.
Learn some actual physics, Tim, not the imaginary SkyDragon stuff.
Accept reality.
Tim Folkert:
If by any chance you’re becoming more teachable then consider reading this comment
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379596
RT says “The main point to recognise is that radiation calculations for the Venus surface that receives less than 20w/m^2 give temperatures nearly 200 degrees below 0C. ”
Your ‘main point’ is specious. 20 W/m^2 would give such low temperatures IF THE SURFACE AS RADIATING TO SPACE. But since it is surrounded by a hot atmosphere, 20 W/m^2 would maintain a much higher temperature.
Indeed, 20 W/m^2 would be right if the 730 K surface were radiating to an atmosphere about 0.25 K cooler (or about 30 m up based on 8 K/km). Given a dense atmosphere with clouds and various GHGs, absorbing the IR within 30 m sounds pretty reasonable! (This makes a variety of assumptions, and assumes your 20 W/m^2 figure is correct.)
And suddenly heat creep is not needed.
“Insulation works both ways …” but here we are specifically discussing warm regions (like the earth) losing energy to cooler regions (like space).
“maximum temperatures on Earth are well below those of the airless Moon…” but AVERAGE temperatures on earth are well ABOVE those of the airless moon. Despise the face that the moon is much darker and absorbs a higher fraction of incoming sunlight. You seem to conveniently want to ignore that inconvenient fact.
And nothing you say in any way addresses the inane initial argument that ‘if CO2 between warm and cool areas affects temperature, then CO2 within an entirely warm region will affect temperatures’.
“Insulation is agnostic and inert. It neither heats nor cools.”
Exactly! It reduces heat flow. So putting it within a room or bubble wrap or submarine will have no impact.
Your argument is not with me. It is with CO2isLife.
Tim,
I have no argument with anyone. I just point out facts, and allow SkyDragons like yourself try to supplant fact with fantasy.
For example when I point out that maximum temperatures on the Moon exceed anything achievable on Earth, you attempt to make that inconvenient fact disappear by blathering about mythical averages. Not terribly relevant to my statement of fact, is it?
The darkness of the Moon is also irrelevant. As I said, utilising the finest technology known to man, and materials which absorb more energy per unit area than the Moon’s surface, nobody can achieve temperatures even approaching 100 C using unconcentrated sunlight on Earth.
You are just being stupid, and refusing to accept reality. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, and continues to do so.
You’ve been had, as they say.
Off you go now, back to your SkyDragon fantasies.
Speaking of irrelevant, I was addressing CO2 and its ability to to reduce radiant heat from hot to cold areas.
You are the one introducing irrelevancies like kilns and liquid nitrogen and the moon and the core of the earth.
“nobody can achieve temperatures even approaching 100 C using unconcentrated sunlight on Earth.”
Sure they can. Heck, a car interior will get above 70 C on a hot day. That is “approaching 100 C” without even trying! I could do it in my backyard pretty easily. Maybe I should sometime just to shut people up.
Go off now with your “Journey To The Center Of The Earth” fantasy.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Speaking of irrelevant, I was addressing CO2 and its ability to to reduce radiant heat from hot to cold areas.”
That’s called cooling, you donkey, not heating!
Got anything relevant to “heating”, rather than cooling?
Something that supposed to increase temperatures, not decrease them!
Tim clearly stated “CO2 is only effective at reducing heat loss when placed between a warm area (the surface) and a cold area (deep space). ”
Swenson:”Thats called cooling, you donkey, not heating!”
Trolls are easily confused.
tim…”but AVERAGE temperatures on earth are well ABOVE those of the airless moon”.
***
Ingenuous, Tim. The high and the low of the Moon far exceed anything on Earth, and the low is much lower in extent than the high. Therefore the average is below the Earth’s average.
Since the Moon does not rotate on a local axis, it presents one face toward the Sun for up to half its orbital period, about 14 days, then the same face has no solar input for another 14 days as it points away from the Sun.
During the period that face points away from the Sun, its temperature drops far below the extent in degrees C the face reaches when warmed by the Sun. The average, therefore, is well below the Earth’s average because the Moon does not rotate on its axis and the Earth does rotate on its axis every 24 hours.
The lower average temperature of the Moon has nothing to do with insulation, even though the atmosphere does help keep the planet warmer.
Gordon,
Do not underestimate the optical depth of the atmosphere(air and clouds). It is 0.108. Air alone has a small optical depth, but clouds exist at all times. When climatologists say visible light is not absorbed by the atmosphere, they have to think again.
You are not understanding.
CO2isLife
I think you are ignoring path-length in you discussion. The number of radiating molecules in a thin layer of gas is small. You need several meters of colum thickness to get significant radiant energy.
Norman, it doesn’t matter how much CO2 there is, it can’t warm Earth.
It’s the same with ice. It doesn’t matter how many ice cubes you have, you can’t boil water with them.
Clint R
You are half correct. CO2 alone in the atmosphere cannot warm the Earth. Yes that is correct. CO2 in atmosphere with solar input can result in a warmer surface than one without the CO2 present. It allows visible light through and inhibits IR from leaving at the rate it would with no CO2.
No Norman, you’re attempting your sleight-of-hand cult trick. CO2 + Sun can NOT raise the temperature more than Sun alone. You’re still trying to boil water with ice cubes. Radiative fluxes don’t simply add.
Any luck finding some valid technical reference for your previous made-up nonsense?
Norman,
You don’t seem to realise that most of the Sun’s radiation is infrared.
The atmosphere prevents about 35% of the Sun’s total radiation from even reaching the surface.
Are you really that ignorant, or just pretending?
Accept reality – the Earth cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so, regardless for your fantasies.
Swenson
You have zero memory cells. I have already answered your point when you went as Mike Flynn.
Yes a little less than 50%. If you look at any of the Earth’s energy budget they clear show this.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/683
CO2 absorbs very little solar energy. Most solar infrared is in the Near Infrared band that is transparent to CO2.
Not that facts will alter you deluded mind but I do offer them for you.
Swenson
There is zero evidence to support your claim that the Earth cooled over the last 4.5 billion years.
In the last 500 million the best they can determine is that it has gone up and down within a range. Not sure what you are talking about but you bring up this stupid point hundreds of times and no one here cares at all what your points are. You are a bloated bag of wasted air. Wake me up when you have something valuable to say. I can write your stupid point on a paper and read it if I would think it at all interesting. I don’t think it is at all interesting, but you must love it as you repeat it over and over. You are a true cult minded idiot.
https://www.science.org/content/article/500-million-year-survey-earths-climate-reveals-dire-warning-humanity
Norman you donkey,
Don’t you realise that the Earth has cooled substantially and continuously over the past four and a half billion years or so? Four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight notwithstanding.
Do you realise at night the temperature drops? That shows that all the energy received during the day is fleeing to outer space – as it should.
Go on, tell me which physical laws suddenly changed to enable the miraculous heating of a cooling planet.
Are you a complete idiot, or just trying hard to get there?
Swenson
No the surface of the Earth has not continuously cooled off. You are wrong about that and continuing saying it does not make it any more correct.
If you are talking about the whole Earth than who cares. We are interested about the surface where we live. If it is thousands of degrees below our feet it is interesting but it won’t change our living on the surface.
Where is your evidence to support your claim that the surface of the Earth has cooled over 4.5 billion years.
I will wait for it but you will not deliver. Sorry you are wrong. You just don’t know what you are talking about.
Norman, you fool,
If you want to believe that the laws of physics periodically change, and allow heat to spontaneously proceed from cold to hot, then go ahead. If you want to believe the Earth’s surface was not originally molten, then you could appeal to the authority of Bishop Ussher who calculated the Earth’s creation to have occurred in 4004 BC, just as it is now.
The solid crust is less than 1% of the Earth’s mass. The temperature gradient from the hot core to outer space is from hot to cold. The crust obeys the same physical laws as the rest of the Earth, and wishful thinking by SkyDragons does not change that fact.
If you accept the fact that the surface was originally molten, and that is is not molten now, then that is called cooling. No amount of claiming that the planet spontaneously cools down and heats up for no particular reason, will make it so.
The Earth is cooling still, and losing energy at about 44 TW, as the planet’s reserves of radiogenic isotopes are depleted.
Come up with some facts if you want people to believe you. Otherwise, you just look like another deranged SkyDragon.
Carry on blathering.
Swenson
I think you are not able to read. I stated SURFACE. Do you know what that means? The Earth’s surface has warmed and cooled several times in the last few million years. The Sun heats the surface! How much it will heat depends upon multiple factors. Clouds, GHG, ocean currents. Currently all evidence is pointing that the surface of the Earth is warming NOT cooling. The primary suspect (since the Sun intensity is not increasing) has been the increase of GHG which increases the radiative insulating properties of heat transfer from surface to Earth but a one way insulation. The GHG do not decrease the solar energy reaching the surface but they do lower the amount of heat that flows from surface to space.
Do you have any evidence that that the Earth’s surface is now cooling? If you do present it.
OK, make the bubbles 100% CO2 and 6 inches thick. According to SpectralCalc’s gas cell, CO2 does a pretty good job absorbing 100% of LWIR of 15 microns in a 10 cm gas cell.
CO2is Life seems somewhat behind the times in communicating radiative transfer to the public.
Reading the relevant scientific literature remains l the best way to catch up, even when there is 196 years of it:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2014/10/climate-wars-salt-talks.html
The correct physics and explanation of temperatures throughout the Solar System is at http://climate-change-theory.com and in the seven linked papers which nobody in ten years has ever correctly refuted.
Not sure of your point, my experiment was applied GHG Effect. I don’t deny the GHG Effect, I showed that if what they are saying about CO2 was true, we should be able to warm our homes with it. I know my experiment is pure nonsense. It is up to the Alarmists to explain why it wouldn’t work.
Russell,
I’m not exactly sure what you are implying, but as you point out, preventing heat from reaching your hand (or a thermometer), reduces the heat. Cooling, in other words.
This might sound trite, but Tyndall, from various measurements, calculated that about 35% of the Sun’s energy does not even reach the Earth’s surface. Interestingly, NASA’s finest technology arrives at about the same figure. Result, colder, not hotter.
If you are trying to say that some effect or other has now heated the planet after laying dormant for four and a half billion years or so, you might care to explain the change in physical laws which must have occurred recently, for this miracle to come about!
Of course you can’t, but you have to imply you can, hoping someone more ignorant, stupid, or gullible than yourself will believe.
And SkyDragons live in hope, don’t they?
Mike Flynn,
You say that when you prevent heat from reaching your hands you are cooling your hands.
Do you feel your hands cooling when you put on mitts to remove what you cook from the oven?
Silly Sky Dragon crank.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
CO2isLife
The amount of radiative insulating you would get from your CO2 bubbles would be small. Even with 100% absorbing it only does so on a small amount of the total IR band so a lot of IR is going right through. Even with our atmosphere the contribution of CO2 is small for the overall GHE. With your set up the CO2 would absorb some of the IR given off by the wall you want to warm up. It would radiate some back to the wall based upon its temperature (a lot less than if you had a higher emission wall instead).
Another wall would absorb 100% of the IR from another wall but it would emit back a lot more, so for insulation effect just a wall would help more as evidence that even a wall in the cold air is better than none.
There is no such process as radiative insulating. The correct physics and explanation of temperatures throughout the Solar System is at http://climate-change-theory.com and in the seven linked papers which nobody in ten years has ever correctly refuted.
“There is no such process as radiative insulating”
Well there is, but it functions via the reflectivity of an object or material, and not absorp.tion/emission. Think radiant barriers.
Dug,
“The Apollo and subsequent spacecraft have had highly effective radiation barriers; made of aluminized polymer film, . . . ” – NASA
You don’t have to accept reality, but you might find it difficult to convince others to reject it, and accept your fantasies in its place.
Keep trying.
Retired Physicist, please settle an issue for me. I claim that CO2 only thermalizes 13 to 18, peak 15 Micron LWIR. 15 Micron won’t penetrate or warm water. The oceans are warming so it can’t be due to CO2. Lastly, CO2 is 1 out of very 2,500 molecules. Is it plausible that CO2 vidrating with the energy of a -80 black body (15 microns) can materially impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499 molecules?
From a physicist’s view, can CO2 and 15-micron LWIR warm the oceans or the air given that it is only 1 out of every 2,500 molecules?
CO2isLife
The DWIR emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere does not penetrate dirt either. It does not warm by itself, it only slows down the amount of HEAT lost by a surface (be it water, dirt, concrete, etc…).
The CO2 returns some radiant energy to the surface. This energy is absorbed and lowers the amount of Heat the surface loses. If the amount of solar input remains the same the surface temperature will go up.
You cannot find how much energy CO2 is emitting based upon the peak energy of a blackbody. That has nothing to do with how much energy CO2 will emit.
If you are interested in finding the emission of CO2 you use an emissivity of around 0.10 and plug in the temperature (K) in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for Power and then you will find out how much energy the CO2 is emitting. It is around 0.10 for the atmospheric concentration. If you have less the emissivity is lower, it will not go much above 0.10.
Norman,
You wrote –
“It does not warm by itself, it only slows down the amount of HEAT lost by a surface (be it water, dirt, concrete, etc).”
Correct, more or less. I think you might have meant the rate of heat loss, but it amounts to the same thing eventually, doesn’t it?
However, heat loss is called cooling. Not heating. Cooling.
That’s probably not what you meant to say, because it is factual, but even a SkyDragon like you has to accept reality from time to time.
Night-time is an example of heat being lost by the surface. The temperature drops.
That more or less makes your SkyDragon foolishness quite obvious, doesn’t it?
Mike Flynn,
Try this –
Put a croissant in your oven.
Start our oven at 350F.
When your oven reach 350F, stop it.
Keep your croissant there for 2 minutes.
Tell everyone that your oven is cooling our croissant.
See how that works for you.
Sill Sky Dragon crank.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Norman,
I don’t disagree with all you have said, however this is incorrect.
“The CO2 returns some radiant energy to the surface. This energy is absorbed and lowers the amount of Heat the surface loses. If the amount of solar input remains the same the surface temperature will go up.”
If you study Planck’s The Theory of Heat Radiation, he addressed this through a term called “compensation”.
Assume two bodies, one a hot body in equilibrium with a source and is radiating 290 W/m^2 @ 300K. Another body is brought that radiates 90 W/m^2 @ 200K.
Assume the hot body is Th + Tc and the cold body is Th – Tc.
Hot 290 380 580 760 1160 1520 2300 …
Cold 90 200 180 400 360 800 720 …
Where does all this energy come from? Remember the hot body is at equilibrium, and that there is no additional energy.
Planck solves this by compensation.
Jim Gorman
I did look at the book.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40030
I am not sure of what your point is. Your equations are not correct.
It should be -Th + Tc not plus plus. The hot object is losing 290 W/m^2 not gaining it. The Cold object is correct. It gains Th and loses its own Tc cold emission.
If I am wrong let me know what your are trying to say.
The accepted science is the hot object loses energy via emission and gains some from the surroundings.
Swenson at 5:06 PM
“TM,
Maybe you can explain how the Earth managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so with an atmosphere containing higher levels of CO2 than now.”
Earth System Temperature: https://ibb.co/xsHsgR6
Some 4.6 billion years ago, various planetesimals in our solar system gathered enough material to form Earth and the other planets. The early Earth was probably cool; was of generally uniform composition and density throughout; and was composed mostly of silicates (compounds consisting of silicon and oxygen), iron and magnesium oxides, and smaller amounts of all the other chemical elements.
Subsequently, when the combination of meteorite impacts, gravitational compression, and heat from radioactive decay increased the temperature of Earth enough to melt iron and nickel, this homogeneous composition disappeared and was replaced with a series of concentric layers of different composition and density, resulting in a differentiated planet.
The accretion of the Earth and formation of its iron core lasted for about the first 100 Million years of its early history.
After about 150 Million years the proto-Earth might have cooled sufficiently so that an early granitic crust, and possibly liquid water, could form. Repeated bombardments may have destroyed the crust and vaporized the water repeatedly in the following 400 Million years. Around 4 Billion years ago the oldest surviving continental crust was formed.
A small fraction of the radiant energy from the Sun is used to heat up the Earth’s surface, but it only penetrates a short distance, some tens of centimeters in the case of the daily cycle. As a result, solar energy has negligible influence on internal terrestrial processes. Systems as diverse as the generation of the geomagnetic field and the motion of global lithospheric plates are ultimately powered by the Earth’s internal heat.
The Earth is constantly losing heat from its interior, although a diminutive amount of around 1.4×10^21J per year.
It was the Sun that did most of the warming and, surprisingly, the “heat creep” process conveyed thermal energy even down to the core, just as is still happening, for example, with the Moon where the core temperature is more than 1,000 degrees hotter than the hottest location on the surface of the Moon. It’s had plenty of time to cool off, if indeed it was ever hotter anyway.
All planets have had time to cool if they were ever significantly hotter, which I doubt. There is no convincing evidence, for example, that Uranus is cooling.
You all need to come to grips with understanding the “heat creep” process which is the ONLY process which correctly explains observations throughout the Solar System, whilst also being seen in experiments with centrifugal force because it can occur in any force field. It is in complete accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as proved in my paper “Planetary Core & Surface Temperatures” which is linked in the left column at
http://climate-change-theory.com that you also should read.
Entropic and Gordon Robertson:
The main point to recognise is that radiation calculations for the Venus surface that receives less than 20w/m^2 give temperatures nearly 200 degrees below 0C. In contrast, since the observed tropospheric temperature gradient (approx 8 degrees per Km) is (like Earth’s) just a little less in magnitude than the theoretical value, namely the quotient of the acceleration due to a planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases, this difference being explained by the temperature-leveling effect of radiation between identical IR-active gas molecules at different altitudes, we can easily see that the heat creep hypothesis is in keeping with observations because the radiating altitude for Venus could well be at about 50Km and 8×50=400 degrees above the temperature at that radiating altitude. Figures are approximate, but I have calculated similarly for Uranus and get close to the 320K which is in other publications for the temperature at the base of its 350Km high nominal troposphere. And of course we get a good approximation for Earth as well, though it is more complicated as there are relatively small areas of the surface where direct solar radiation can raise the temperature though mostly just for a particular day.
PS: For more detail about this go back to
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1379582
TM,
As you say, the Earth cooled.
Nothing stopped it – GHE, heat creep, SkyDragon supplications – nothing.
As you agree, the Earth is still cooling – that’s what constantly losing heat from the interior means. There is a temperature gradient from hot to cold – basic thermodynamics.
The crust does not spontaneously get hotter than what lies beneath, and as you point out, the Sun’s influence is ephemeral, as indicated by the fact that the Earth has cooled.
I assume that observers are supposed to be convinced that the GHE exists, when your comment shows that is completely ineffective at preventing the Earth cooling, let alone making it hotter.
Appeal to an authority which agrees with you, rather than me, if you want others believe in the miracle of the GHE.
Swenson,
you asked me a question, and I answered it. You’re welcome!
TM,
Not the finest attempt to prevaricate your way out of being caught out as a diversionary Sky dragon, in my opinion.
You didn’t answer my question at all you ninny!
Here’s the question again, because your powers of comprehension are obviously lacking –
“TM,
Maybe you can explain how the Earth managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so with an atmosphere containing higher levels of CO2 than now.”
You have merely repeated what I have already stated (that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so). You have not indicated how this came about in spite of the supposed GHE, which “climate scientists” claim makes the Earth hotter.
You agree it didn’t, but you refuse to accept the reality that neither the presence of an atmosphere, nor copious quantities of so-called GHGs, were unable to prevent the Earth cooling – even now, as measured continuous energy loss shows.
Are you quite deranged? Do you really believe that CO2 in the atmosphere makes a planet hotter, in spite of it cooling?
Carry on proving you are just trying to avoid accepting reality. Try for another diversion, perhaps?
Dimwit.
Asked + Answered = Cope (Seethe even)
TM,
Not the finest attempt to prevaricate your way out of being caught out as a diversionary Sky dragon, in my opinion.
You didnt answer my question at all you ninny!
Heres the question again, because your powers of comprehension are obviously lacking
TM,
Maybe you can explain how the Earth managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years or so with an atmosphere containing higher levels of CO2 than now.
You have merely repeated what I have already stated (that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so). You have not indicated how this came about in spite of the supposed GHE, which climate scientists claim makes the Earth hotter.
You agree it didnt, but you refuse to accept the reality that neither the presence of an atmosphere, nor copious quantities of so-called GHGs, were unable to prevent the Earth cooling even now, as measured continuous energy loss shows.
Are you quite deranged? Do you really believe that CO2 in the atmosphere makes a planet hotter, in spite of it cooling?
Carry on proving you are just trying to avoid accepting reality. Try for another diversion, perhaps?
Dimwit.
Duly noted.
It will surprise you Tyson McGuffin that your statement “As a result, solar energy has negligible influence on internal terrestrial processes” is incorrect.
What keeps the core of the Moon so hot? What keeps the base of the Uranus troposphere hotter than Earth with no convincing evidence that Uranus is cooling?
Answers are at: https://climate-change-theory.com and you could note the word “Core” in the title of my 2013 paper “Planetary Core & Surface Temperatures.”
I have been first in the world to correctly explain core temperatures in keeping with all known laws of physics.
Retired Physicist at 6:17 AM
My current authoritative source is the Treatise on Geophysics Vol. 10: Physics of Terrestrial Planets and Moons. Elsevier, 2015.
As a rule I don’t get my information from websites. Given that your “first in the world” explanation was first “published” in 2013, and it generally takes about 10 years for new research to find its way into the subject matter textbooks, it should be appearing imminently and I look forward to reading about it then.
Thanks
This theory may not explain how tectonics were formed. Only a molten surface can.
I notice that the strangely dim-witted Tim Folkerts is still firmly mired in his fantasies about blue and green plates.
All irrelevant, if he is trying to show the existence of a GHE (which nobody can actually describe).
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so – in spite of green plates, blue plates, the GHE, Tim Folkerts’ bizarre fantasies, or anything else.
No global warming due to any of the above. Just a sad bunch of delusional SkyDragons refusing to accept that the heat produced by the actions of seven billion people has an affect on thermometers – making them hotter.
Oh dear, they really are quite mad, aren’t they?
Yes Swenson, it’s been over an hour and Folkerts hasn’t given us his answer. He’s “left the building”.
That’s typical for him — a lot of blah-blah, and then he runs without supporting his nonsense.
He relies on worthless trolls to cover his tracks.
Tyson and I answered your petulant demand upthread.
He’s now probably asleep. When you wrote your 7.10pm post I’d gone to bed in Ireland.
Conventional heat transfer theory predicts that the blue plate will reach equilibrium at a higher temperature than the green plates.
Your hypothesis predicts that the three plates will end up at the same temperature.
The blue and green plate experiment has been carried out at least twice, once by Dr Spencer. It allows us to choose between the two predictions.
IIRC both experiments showed that the blue plate ended up warmer than the green plates, which shows that your hypothesis is wrong.
EM,
Maybe you missed this –
I notice that the strangely dim-witted Tim Folkerts is still firmly mired in his fantasies about blue and green plates.
All irrelevant, if he is trying to show the existence of a GHE (which nobody can actually describe).
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so in spite of green plates, blue plates, the GHE, Tim Folkerts bizarre fantasies, or anything else.
No global warming due to any of the above. Just a sad bunch of delusional SkyDragons refusing to accept that the heat produced by the actions of seven billion people has an affect on thermometers making them hotter.
Oh dear, they really are quite mad, arent they?
Swenson,
“The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so”
Was that trend linear or logarithmic?
Or are you just comparing two points in time?
Just asking, because it looks like it’s warming now.
See the graphs provide by NASA and other agencies that show surface temperatures, or ones that show the temperature of the atmosphere, like the one provide monthly on this site.
Who? Why? What do words even mean?
No, Entropic Man, Dr Spencer did not carry out a Green Plate Effect experiment in a vacuum. There are two people who have carried out relevant GPE experiments, Swanson and Geraint Hughes. Swanson found a warming effect and Hughes did not. So this is where Team GPE pile on claiming Hughes’ experiments were flawed and only Swanson’s is valid…
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/#comment-28851
Yes, EM.
For a more industrial grade experiment:
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/#comment-28851
Comment 28851 actually begins:
"Swanson,
I debunked your green plate experiment a while back on Roy Spencer’s blog:"
After reading the reports of both Swanson and Hughes, I would regard Swanson’s as better designed.
Guess I’m going to have to try it myself. I no longer have access to a vacuum environment, but I should be able to duplicate Spencer’s plates in an oven.
There is also:
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
Cult Leader grammie pup points to G Hughes’ second round of flawed experiments as though they “prove” something.
He makes several errors, including sopping runs at 10 minutes while the temperatures are continuing to increase. He claims that: “Arrangements 5 & 6 had no air in them at all, thus experienced no convective cooling and only cooled by radiation.”, but his measure of vacuum is a mechanical gauge, which can not indicate the true level of vacuum attained. In my demonstration, the vacuum reached 100 microns in about 8 minutes and settled at 50 microns, a range which would reduce convection to near zero.
His temperature measure is a digital immersion device, with the probe end placed in a “well” of larger diameter so only the tip of the probe touches the bottom and almost no contact on the sides (Picture 3). He does not consider the effects of the temperature of the head end of the thermometer and does not identify the manufacturer. He makes no attempt to measure the temperature of the second plate, nor consider the IR radiation environment from the glass tube on his blue plate or his thermometer.
Apparently, grammie thinks this is science, not delusional thinking.
"Cult Leader grammie pup points to G Hughes’ second round of flawed experiments as though they “prove” something."
No, I didn’t. I wouldn’t have gone for the name "proof no. 2" myself, but that was Hughes’ choice.
Graham does not always point to the Eiffel Tower, but when he does it’s because he would call it that way.
"You have been caught in a double standard."
When? Where? What are you talking about?
EM,
You might also like:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190565
He might be swayed by hearsay from an anonymous internaut telling him what he wants to hear, true.
Failure to detect a signal does not prove a signal does not exist.
However, detection of a signal is evidence that a signal does exist.
As the old saying goes: proof is for whiskey, bread, and math, not science.
In science we go by evidence.
I did the experiment in my kitchen, using two dinner plates, and electric stove and a big pot. Addition of the second plate made the first plate hotter.
Verifying the green plate effect.
Sure thing, bob. You get to believe in whatever you want.
Swanson’s experimental results have at least one alternative explanation, as I linked to.
bob, like Ent, has little credibility. They both are on record claiming passenger jets fly backwards, as well as other perversions of reality.
So now we’re supposed to believe there results from “experiments”?
Clint R,
Since you are on record as claiming the Moon does not rotate on its axis,
Well you have that supporting your credibility.
DREMPTY,
“Swansons experimental results have at least one alternative explanation, as I linked to.”
Yes, but that’s not proof as you have claimed.
Also not a debunking.
So you have more going for you than Clint R.
"Yes, but that’s not proof as you have claimed."
I have not claimed proof.
But you claimed a debunking, do you want to address that failure?
Well, I would be happier to defend claims I have made rather than claims I haven’t made, bob.
I said it was theoretically and experimentally debunked. I would say given that there are two experiments where no effect was found, and only one where an effect was found (which has at least one alternative explanation for the results in any case), it’s experimentally debunked. Others will disagree. Oh well.
EM,
If a Reviewer 2 ever complains about strawpersons, try to make them understand that they should not say that of their own position.
I don’t have to defend claims I haven’t made.
DREMPTY,
“and only one where an effect was found (which has at least one alternative explanation for the results in any case), its experimentally debunked.”
Naw, there are literally tens of millions of “experiments” confirming the green plate effect.
https://www.google.com/search?q=exhaust+manifold+heat+shield&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS964US964&oq=exhaust+maniford+heat+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13i512l9.10264j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#oshopproduct=gid:18409239642038537037,mid:576462489853964575,oid:10686137314755637172,iid:16015370540118103667,rds:UENfMTg0MDkyMzk2NDIwMzg1MzcwMzd8UFJPRF9QQ18xODQwOTIzOTY0MjAzODUzNzAzNw%3D%3D,pvt:hg,svcfg:ChcSFQjNlvzFsL2wvf8BEJ_i1PDIsoCACBItRG9ybWFuIDY3NC05MDVIUyBFeGhhdXN0IE1hbmlmb2xkIEhlYXQgU2hpZWxk&oshop=apv
That’s just in one field, and as I told them morons at Principia, the green plate effect is commonly used to insulate hot piping in Nuclear Power Plants.
Explain the differences between how a heat shield functions and what is proposed by the Green Plate Effect, bob.
None DREMPTY
None? Really…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_shield
“In engineering, a heat shield is a component designed to protect an object or a human operator from being burnt or overheated by dissipating, reflecting, or absorbing heat. The term is most often used in reference to exhaust heat management and to systems for dissipating frictional heat.
Principles of operation
Heat shields protect structures from extreme temperatures and thermal gradients by two primary mechanisms. Thermal insulation and radiative cooling, which respectively isolate the underlying structure from high external surface temperatures, while emitting heat outwards through thermal radiation. To achieve good functionality the three attributes required of a heat shield are low thermal conductivity (high thermal resistance), high emissivity and good thermal stability (refractoriness).[1] Porous ceramics with high emissivity coatings (HECs) are often employed to address these three characteristics, owing to the good thermal stability of ceramics, the thermal insulation of porous materials and the good radiative cooling effects offered by HECs.”
What are the similarities!?
What is a quote?
DREMPTY,
The heat shield I linked to is just like a plate as in the green plate experiment.
You think it’s something different?
your cite
“Thermal insulation and radiative cooling,”
One of these is the green plate mechanism, I’ll let you figure out which one.
The answer is neither, bob. The thermal insulation part of the heat shield they make clear is due to the high thermal resistance of the material used. So there is no comparison to the GPE there. Next, the radiative cooling is not the GPE mechanism. The GPE is meant to involve warming.
DREMPTY,
One things cooling, the other things warming.
What part of this do you not understand?
The blue plate warms because of the restriction in its ability to cool.
There is nothing about the GPE that I do not understand, bob. That is how I know that the proposed mechanism is not the same as how a heat shield functions. Nice try, though (you pull the same trick every time, it gets very boring).
Cult Leader grammie wrote:
First off, fluxes add. Next, the three plate model must show a warmer middle plate, else there would be no energy flowing from the middle to the outer plates. If he refuses to accept these basic points, he clearly doesn’t understand the GPE.
Swanson, I understand the GPE completely. There is a difference between understanding something, and accepting that it’s correct. I understand that Team GPE believes the middle plate needs to be warmer, in order for energy to flow, however I don’t accept that this is correct, because you are conflating heat with energy. There would need to be a temperature difference between the BP and the GPs for heat to flow between them, but there doesn’t need to be a temperature difference for energy to flow between them.
Cult Leader grammie pup still refuses to accept the basics of heat transfer. First, fluxes of radiant energy add. Second, “heat” is thermal energy, as measured by the temperature of a body, and “heating” is the transfer of energy from one body to another. grammie pup claims that:
If he is to be taken seriously, grammie pup must provide a verifiable example of energy flowing between solid bodies without a temperature difference, or else STFU.
Swanson, consider a room in which every object is at “room temperature”. Unless you believe that objects simply stop radiating when they are at equilibrium with other objects, then energy is flowing from object to object all around the room, because all the objects radiate energy based on their temperature and emissivity.
DREMPTY,
Previously you made the argument that separating the green plates from the blue plate by a millimeter causes the blue plate to increase in temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
Using that argument obviously means you don’t understand the issue.
DREMPTY,
” but there doesnt need to be a temperature difference for energy to flow between them.”
But there has to be a temperature difference for net energy to flow from the blue to the green plates.
Yet again, you demonstrate that you don’t understand the issue.
Yet that is what you believe, bob. Team GPE members are all on record as defending the idea that the plates pressed together would come to the same temperature, then when you separate them by even a millimeter, the BP raises in temperature. You can try to deny that now, if you wish. That would be funny.
Cult Leader grammie pup, I should have specified “net energy” flow. Of course, with your example of objects within a room at steady state, there’s no NET FLOW between them. At steady state, the energy leaving each object is the same as that it receives from the other surrounding objects.
But, with your three plate example, there’s a constant energy supply, thus the net energy flow must be from the center plate to the outer ones. The same is true within a room where one object is heated. In both situations, the heated objects’ temperatures will be greater than that of the walls and other objects within the room.
With the two Green Plates at 244 K, 400 W total will be leaving the 3-plate system (200 W from either GP), and 400 W is input into the system. Everything is in balance, because the GPs radiate according to their temperature and emissivity. There is absolutely no requirement for the BP to be at a higher temperature, in order that the GPs radiate out the 400 W. They are not just going to stop radiating because the BPs temperature is not higher than them.
I predict you will misconstrue everything I have just written.
DREMPTY,
“There is absolutely no requirement for the BP to be at a higher temperature, in order that the GPs radiate out the 400 W. ”
Yes there is, the blue plate is getting 400 W from the heater and 200 W from each of the green plates, so it has to radiate accordingly.
So it must be at a higher temperature than something that is only radiating 400 W.
That’s the part you don’t understand.
No, I understand that you think that, bob. That is precisely what is being disputed, though…that back-radiation from the GPs results in the BP attaining a higher temperature.
“No, I understand that you think that, bob.”
Unable to argue with facts and evidence you pretend that established science, in this case standard heat transfer physics, must be just a ‘belief’.
DREMPTY,
“No, I understand that you think that, bob. That is precisely what is being disputed, thoughthat back-radiation from the GPs results in the BP attaining a higher temperature.”
It’s disingenuous to call it back radiation.
It’s just blackbody radiation from the green plates, which they have to emit since they are above absolute zero.
And the blue plate has to absorb it, because it’s a blackbody.
So is there radiation from the green plates to the blue plates or not?
The GPs temperature is set and maintained by radiation from the BP. So back-radiation from the GPs, though it is received by the BP, cannot warm the BP further, since ultimately that back-radiation only exists due to the BP in the first place. It would be like an object warming itself up with its own emitted energy. Physically impossible.
” cannot warm the BP further, since ultimately that back-radiation only exists due to the BP in the first place. It would be like an object warming itself up with its own emitted energy. Physically impossible.”
DREMT claims to understand the math and physics calculation that we do to find a different result.
But he thinks his intuition, his incredulity about what can and cannot happen, is a better approach to solving a heat transfer problem, than applying standard physics and arithmetic.
But science that works in the real world isnt required to make sense to a layman. Sometimes it doesnt agree with a layman’s intuition. As in this case.
But that is neither a valid nor convincing argument that the standard science is getting it wrong.
DREMPTY,
It’s not back-radiation.
“It would be like an object warming itself up with its own emitted energy. Physically impossible.”
Yet this is what is observed.
Sorry, but experimental observations trump your theories.
The various experiments presenting evidence for and against have already been discussed, bob. As usual, we are just going round in circles.
DREMPTY,
There is no evidence against, there is only failure to detect the phenomenon.
That means you don’t have a clue about the scientific method.
And are wrong as usual.
And can’t be bothered to do the experiment yourself.
…various experiments presenting evidence for and against have already been discussed, bob. As usual, we are just going round in circles.
> It’s disingenuous to call it back radiation.
More importantly, it’s a bit silly for a Sky Dragon crank who would like to deny back radiation.
Just about every source of radiation in the universe then becomes back radiation!
…experiments presenting evidence for and against have already been discussed, bob. As usual, we are just going round in circles.
I find this clear enough:
I am merely quoting Bob.
…presenting evidence for and against have already been discussed, bob. As usual, we are just going round in circles.
Evidence against? Going in circles? What are you talking about?
Silly goose.
…evidence for and against have already been discussed, bob. As usual, we are just going round in circles.
Team Science won’t lose sleep if you keep trolling with the same comment, Graham.
In the end, the best explanation wins.
Silly goose.
…for and against have already been discussed, bob. As usual, we are just going round in circles.
“experiments presenting evidence for and against have already been discussed, bob. As usual, we are just going round in circles.”
“presenting evidence for and against have already been discussed, bob. As usual, we are just going round in circles.”
“evidence for and against have already been discussed, bob. As usual, we are just going round in circles.”
Having said the exact same thing at least three times, causing Rumpelstiltskin to appear and declare the winner.
Results will be posted when DREMPTY gets down to “circles”
…and against have already been discussed, bob. As usual, we are just going round in circles.
There are games where doing what you do is illegal, Graham.
In some sports you can get banned for it.
In Climateball, it only shows you’re a goose.
…against have already been discussed, bob. As usual, we are just going round in circles.
EM,
Just in case you wish to reproduce the experiment, please make sure you emphasize the distinction between the absence of evidence and the evidence of absence.
Sky Dragon cranks always confuse the two.
Little Willy feels the need for some attention, so tells some more lies about his imaginary opponents, the “Sky Dragon Cranks”.
EM,
Make sure you cite this post:
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen
You can use “Sky Dragon Crank” to refer to that kind of position.
…if you want to behave like a child.
[GRAHAM, READING A PAPER HE DOES NOT LIKE] Swanson’s experimental results have at least one alternative explanation
[GRAHAM, READING A SKY DRAGON BLOG POAST] it’s experimentally debunked.
I don’t understand your point, Little Willy. None of the GPE experiments are published in any paper. All are just published on blogs. There are three experiments in total. Two showing no effect, one showing an effect, however there is at least one alternative explanation for the positive results, in any case. How anyone gets from that situation to believing the Green Plate Effect has been experimentally verified, I have no idea. I would say it’s been debunked…and if that’s too strong, I’d go with "not experimentally verified".
The basic position should be skepticism that there’s a Green Plate Effect, unless there’s enough evidence to think otherwise. Team GPE seems to come at it from completely the other angle. They act like it’s a given that there’s a GPE, unless you can find evidence otherwise, whilst at the same time they’re keen to point out that "failure to detect a signal does not prove a signal does not exist." There’s intense criticism of Hughes’ second experiment, even down to, "does not identify the manufacturer" of the thermometer…yet this:
"I did the experiment in my kitchen, using two dinner plates, and electric stove and a big pot. Addition of the second plate made the first plate hotter.
Verifying the green plate effect."
Is meant to be accepted as evidence for!?
Well it confirmed it for me, maybe if you tried the same experiment, I provided the list of necessary items except a temperature measuring device.
I guess you are like Einstein in a way, in that you are not an experimentalist.
You start with your conclusions and don’t work backwards.
We call that putting the horse before no cart.
Yes, that’s all you seem to think you need to do, bob. Provide a list of necessary items then say the Green Plate Effect is verified.
DREMT
The first thing is you linked to a crackpot Zoe Phin. She is not at all a source for any valid information on anything scientific. I asked her for sources but she never was able to provide them and went all over the place like a frog jumping around on hot pavement. Her explanation is not a valid source of anything.
Assuming you are an intelligent and thinking person I do have another source which can hopefully alter the current path of incorrect ideas you are traveling upon.
Here:
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:831763/FULLTEXT01.pdf
This is a paper on the design of thermal control systems for the Spacecraft MIST. If you scroll down to Chapter 3 and look at equation 3.9. They are calculating the maximum temperature the spacecraft will reach. Look at the equation. They add the heat energy of the Sun direct on spacecraft, the albedo from reflected sunlight that hits the spaced craft and then the energy emitted as IR from the Earth that reaches the spacecraft.
I am certain these people are far better equipped to understand heat transfer in vacuum than either Zoe Phin or Geriant Hughes. Both are fanatics that reject established science in favor of their own opinions on things.
At this time I will accept spacecraft designers are far superior in knowledge than Clint R, Swenson, Gordon Robertson, Dug, Christos, Nabil Sweden or any other skeptics that think their opinions on science are better than established experimental science. These scientists have a track record of success. The opinion skeptics repeat their old tired opinions over and over and try to bully people to accept their false physics and made up ideas.
Can you come out of that false cult of delusional skeptics and become a real skeptic, one who has real knowledge and understands real physics? Or will you continue to accept the opinions of the fringe?
“The first thing is you linked to a crackpot Zoe Phin. She is not at all a source for any valid information on anything scientific.”
Norman, poisoning the well won’t change Zoe Phin’s specific argument against Swanson’s experiment. It doesn’t matter who she is or what she has said about other subjects. You need to lose your obsession with who has said something, and simply focus on what has been said. Don’t even see the names, just look at the arguments. Do you have any specific criticisms of her argument?
As to the rest of your comment, it seems to relate more to the “do fluxes simply add” discussion than the Green Plate Effect.
Poisoning the well?
Zoe Phin?
Specific argument?
DREMT
Zoe Phin is quite illogical. I read her claim then and it is no better today. She has zero understanding of any radiant heat transfer and babbles and pretends to calculate a bunch of BS.
She believe the lead weight is taking away energy from the blue plate and cooling it. Horrible thought process and zero understanding of physics.
The blue plate emits energy based upon its temperature. It will not cool because a lead weight is “stealing” the blue plate energy. How can you her ideas are valid? The only effect any surrounding objects have are to add further energy to the blue plate not steal it away. If the lead weight was cold it would add less energy to the blue plate than the surroundings and would cause a lower temperature but moving it out of the way so it steals less energy is beyond stupid.
And the rest does explain the green plate. The energy of the green plate is absorbed by the blue plate. It is receiving energy from the light source and the green plate, therefore the temperature increases. Just as the IR from the Earth (much colder than the Sun) will also add to the Spacecraft temperature. Maybe read the link a little.
No double standard, Little Willy. You are wrong, as always.
Cult Leader grammie pup, your reference to Zoe Phin’s analysis ignores the later discussion. Please read the whole thing.
She first claimed that the weight used to balance the Green Plate was somehow holding down Blues temperature. She ignores the fact that without the weight, the emissions would be intercepted by the walls of the bell jar which would be cooler than the weight, not lost in space. In fact, the weight would function as insulation, as it is between the Blue Plate and the wall, thus it would tend to warm the Blue Plate, the opposite of her prediction.
Swanson, Norman, I thought it was quite clear:
“In the up position, the Blue Plate shares 10% of its radiation with the lead pipe and 90% with the Bell Jar.
Q = mCpdT
In other words, you’re wasting energy heating the lead pipe via blue plate via heat lamp.
When you bring lead pipe down, you are no longer wasting 10%, and therefore Blue Plate warms up by ~10%.
Q = mCpdT
It works out to the equivalent of changing the mass of the Blue Plate.
Not fair. Cheating.”
Q = mCpdT?
DREMT
I think it would be good if you studied real physics.
What you describe is NOT how radiant energy transfer works.
The equation you use is to determine how much heat has transferred based upon a temperature. This is NOT a heat transfer equation.
The blue plate loses energy only be the radiant heat transfer equation.
You can find this here:
https://engineeringlibrary.org/reference/radiant-heat-transfer-doe-handbook
It is based upon the temperature, emissivity, and area of the plate.
The lead weight does not absorb more energy somehow. It can gain some of the emitted energy but it does not matter where the emitted energy goes, it has affect on the blue plate, if it is absorbed or goes to space it has NO Effect on the blue plate temperature. Her ideas are terrible and illogical and based upon nothing.
The thing that will alter the blue plate is the energy it receives from the surroundings which is also in the link. The warmer the surroundings the less heat the blue plate will transfer. The green plate returns energy to the blue plate allowing it to reach a higher temperature (with the constant input of new energy from the heat lamp).
Swanson is correct. His experiment is verified by countless experiments before his that validated the Stefan-Boltzmann equations that are extensively used in engineering applications including Spacecraft.
DREMPTY
“Yes, thats all you seem to think you need to do, bob. Provide a list of necessary items then say the Green Plate Effect is verified.”
If that’s what you think I am saying, then you have a serious difficulty understanding English.
I was saying try the experiment yourself, it’s not hard.
I guess you are not up to it.
“This is NOT a heat transfer equation.”
I never said it was…and I was merely quoting Zoe Phin. You may notice the quotation marks around her comment. What she is saying is that it requires more energy to heat the BP + lead weight than it does to just heat the BP, because of the additional mass of the lead weight. Thus, with the same amount of energy from the heat lamp, the BP alone reaches a higher temperature.
What experiment, bob? You never outlined your method.
Sorry I’m late to the party.
DREMT is already doing a great job of holding back the nonsense, but I just want to mention that the JWST uses “plates” (layers of reflection) to cool itself.
Obviously the design engineers weren’t trying to warm the telescope.
And obviously the cult idiots won’t understand this, huh Norman?
“I was merely quoting”
Graham was merely quoting?
Yes, Little Willy. As opposed to those being my words, which Norman had mistaken them for.
Sure, Graham.
You only quoted the word *debunked*. You never really believed it.
Cult Leader grammie pup quotes from Zoe Phins analysis:
That comment is the basis of her argument, which is bogus.
Her equation applies only during a transient situation. The temperatures of importance are those at steady state, that is to say, after the temperatures have stopped changing. Any “extra” energy which goes to warm the weight does not impact the temperature of the Blue Plate after that point in time. Besides, the weight partially shields the Blue Plate from the wall of the bell jar, thus warming it. Once the Green Plate is raised and the weight lowered, the effect of the bell jar’s cooler wall would again appear. The Blue Plate then warms, due to the IR radiation from the Green Plate.
Little Willy, the word “debunked” was mine. Mind you, it was also Vaughan Pratt’s, when he said that the back-radiation account of the GHE was debunked.
Swanson, you are just raising points that she countered at the time, plus making up some new stuff as you go along, e.g:
“Besides, the weight partially shields the Blue Plate from the wall of the bell jar, thus warming it. Once the Green Plate is raised and the weight lowered, the effect of the bell jar’s cooler wall would again appear”
Now you’re saying the lead weight warms the BP! How so? Plus, you have decided that the lead weight would be warmer than the wall of the bell jar…do you know that, or are you just guessing?
Nice deflection, Graham. Unless you believe that Vaughan’s point about backradiation applies to the green plates too?
It’s hard to know if you are having more difficulties managing your commitments properly or understanding the concept of steady state.
The latter one is rather obvious when you try to manipulate the basic energy balance model and fail.
Oh, and here’s the quote:
If you reduced your amount of shadowboxing, you might be able to reduce the number of times your trip over your feet.
Little Willy, I said the Green Plate Effect was theoretically and experimentally debunked, further upthread. That’s what I was referring to when I said, “the word “debunked” was mine”. I had forgotten that Zoe Phin also used that word.
“Unless you believe that Vaughan’s point about backradiation applies to the green plates too?”
How could it not? The GPE is the very essence of the “back-radiation warming” concept. If you think the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked, it ought to go without saying that you think the GPE is debunked.
We were talking about Zoe’s quote, Graham.
The first words you quoted included “debunked.”
But you only quoted her on that.
Of course, of course.
Please try to pay attention.
Yes, we were talking about her quote from 8:23 PM yesterday, which is from a completely different comment than the one which mentioned “debunked”. Please try to pay attention.
Graham, you goose.
So, let me get this straight, Graham –
You quote Zoe saying the word “debunked” and you believe her.
But you quote Zoe saying why and you’re *just* quoting her.
You really have a problem with commitments, don’t you?
Oh, and you said the word “debunked” elsewhere in the thread, for another completely different argument.
No wonder you can’t distinguish an atmosphere from a steel plate.
You goose.
You are pretty far from getting anything straight, Little Willy. All you are doing is twisting and distorting everything I have said. I assume deliberately.
You’re just trying to shadowbox without any good footwork, Graham.
You quote Zoe saying that the plate thought experiment is “debunked.”
You yourself believe that it is. But you don’t want to commit to the argument she’s using. You’re “just” quoting her.
So you’d rather not commit to it. You’d rather not follow the equation she uses. You’d rather not open a damn physics book.
Oh, and I almost forgot – the reason why Vaughan would accept the thought experiment is because a plate is a good model of a plate. What he’s saying is that it may not be the best model for the atmosphere. Because, lapse rate. Water is not metal.
You silly little prick.
“You quote Zoe saying that the plate thought experiment is “debunked.””
She said that Swanson’s experiment was debunked.
“You yourself believe that it is. But you don’t want to commit to the argument she’s using. You’re “just” quoting her.”
That’s not why I said I was “merely” quoting her. As I tried to explain to you, it was because Norman had written a comment in response as though Zoe’s words were my own. So I was setting Norman straight. That’s all. You jump to conclusions too quickly.
Same with your comment about Vaughan Pratt. Oh, he might well defend the Green Plate Effect, if you asked him. My point is, he shouldn’t, if he is claiming that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked. There is either back-radiation warming, or there isn’t. You can’t have it both ways.
No need for you to tilt.
Graham gets pinned down, Graham goes for the quote fest.
Every. Single. Time.
You quoted Zoe’s first comment, silly goose, then ES discussed her response. Yet here’s you:
It’s the same exchange, Graham. Zoe is backing up her claim using that equation armwaving. And you approved that armwaving this way:
So you find it clear, but it’s fine with you if it’s unphysical because you don’t really commit to Zoe’s argument?
You silly goose.
And don’t forget – you said that the thought experiment was debunked “theoretically and experimentally.” Which means you might be able to backtrack from committing to Zoe’s argument, but sooner or later you will have to get back looking at an equation.
You are so confused, Little Willy.
Zoe Phin’s argument is only against Swanson’s experiment. His actual, physical setup, and the interpretation of his results. It is not an argument against the Green Plate Effect thought experiment.
I said that the thought experiment was theoretically and experimentally debunked. The theoretical debunking has nothing to do with Zoe Phin’s argument. Nothing at all. The experimental debunking mainly involves Geraint Hughes experiments. As well as, I guess, Seim & Olsen. Zoe Phin’s argument is just an alternative explanation for Swanson’s results.
Graham, you goose.
You can’t restrict the scope of what she’s saying that way.
She. Is. Using. An. Equation.
ES’ experiment has no bearing on that equation.
But if she misinterprets that equation, her refutation falls down.
A implies B, but B does not imply A.
As I already told you, the most generous explanation of that kind of misunderstanding is that you’re trolling. Considering that you’ve been failing and failing for almost 74 months now, misunderstanding can’t be suspected. So it’s either trolling or psychological issues.
No wonder that the concept of steady state makes you suffer so much.
The scope of her argument is indeed restricted exactly as I describe. Her use of the equation is only in interpreting his experimental results in a different way. It is not a part of the theoretical debunking of the GPE thought experiment at all. You really are clueless.
No, Graham, Zoe’s argument is not limited to proving ES wrong. It rests on a very peculiar interpretation of physics. If it was right, it would have implications on how we conceive physics.
You quoted her equational armwaving, and you said you find it clear. Now that Norman and ES showed you that it as wrong, you are trying to backtrack into a “no commitment” stance, in argumentation theory’s parlance.
Your whole stance is a big misdirection. Whether you commit to Zoe’s equation or not, you did quote it. You have to evaluate it, otherwise what Norman and ES remains unchallenged:
When will you study real physics, Graham?
“Now that Norman and ES showed you that it as wrong, you are trying to backtrack into a “no commitment” stance, in argumentation theory’s parlance.”
Neither Norman nor Swanson have shown it to be wrong, Little Willy, and I am not trying to backtrack. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. They will have to do a better job of showing why it’s wrong, first. If they do, and I accept that it’s wrong, then that will be that. The GPE will still be theoretically debunked, and experimentally debunked by Hughes’ experiments, and Seim & Olsen. There will just be one less alternative explanation for Swanson’s results.
Graham,
I thought this was clear:
I also thought this was clear:
Please advise.
And note that I am only quoting here.
Silly goose.
Norman’s comment is a misrepresentation and Swanson’s is circular logic. Consider yourself advised.
What Zoe describes is NOT how radiant energy transfer works, Graham.
She is not trying to describe how radiant energy transfer works. She is trying to say, if you change the mass of an object, and give it the same total amount of energy (in joules) both before and after the change, it will come to a different temperature in either case.
“She is not trying to describe how radiant energy transfer works.”
That does not really cohere with your first excuse, Graham, and the blue plate loses energy only by the radiant heat transfer equation.
Are you denying that what I just said is true?
If you want to find out something about transfer of energy, Graham, you need to truck around energy transfer equations.
Do you deny that your first excuse was kinda pathetic?
Can’t ever give an honest answer to a question, can you? I have no idea what you’re even talking about re my “first excuse”…and frankly, I no longer care.
Oh, Graham.
I was merely quoting Norman and ES.
You may notice the quotation marks around their comments.
Let me try again:
I find that comment clear enough.
How about you, and what’s a steady state again?
Presumably you have already read through the discussion between Zoe Phin and Swanson, so you should:
a) Already know that there is a response to that point, and
b) Know what that response is.
I will wait to see if you are honest enough to quote her on that response.
Wait, Graham –
Are you threatening to wait?
Go ahead. Quote the clearest quotes you can find.
And make sure you are merely from them.
Silly goose.
Still waiting…
This looks clear to me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state
I have no commitment regarding that claim.
I am merely quoting it.
Looks clear to me too, Little Willy.
Still waiting…
Waiting can take a while, Graham…
Suppose this was a big Game of Chicken to decide Physics’s fate.
Team Sky Dragon Cranks vs Team Science.
All the Physics base belong to Team Science.
Who can afford to wait the most?
Take your time.
“Waiting can take a while, Graham…”
…apparently so, when we are waiting to see if you can be honest.
Still waiting…
The only honest people are those who provide Graham room service.
Science does not work like that, silly goose.
Team Science has no responsibility to turn every pebble in the hope to find Sky Dragon cranks.
You failed the honesty test.
Here are the relevant quotes:
“Swanson: Of course, you still haven’t admitted that your canard about the weight is pointless, once steady state is achieved, thus dT = zero throughout the system.
Zoe Phin: You still haven’t admitted you’re an imbecile. The “steady-state” is DIFFERENT for different masses. You fail to grasp this simple concept. Had the lead weight not been there there would have been a different steady-state temperature achieved by the blue plate. You’re compeltely unable to imagine how things would have been different.
Swanson: The only impact of the weight is that it takes longer for the system to reach steady state, i.e.equilibrium temperatures, given the same rate of energy supplied to the system.
Zoe Phin: And the steady-state temperature is dependant on MASS. Q/dT = mCp. Steady state just means that dT/dt as t->0. Do you know the difference between dT and dT/dt? Why did you get rid of the air? Because of mass. You eliminated conduction and convection, but you left the lead weight for the blue plate to waste its energy heating it by radiation.
Swanson: NOT SO. Your equation is for the heat transfer rate, not the equilibrium temperature with a constant input. Re-arrange your equation: dT = Q/mCp. If Q in – Q out is zero, dT = 0.0, i.e.,the temperature no longer changes.
Zoe Phin: Swanson, You’re an imbecile. Q = m Cp dT Is not the real time heat transfer equation. Q is not a rate. Q is the total joules provided. The TOTAL joules you provided for the blue plate and lead weight were dispersed among a greater MASS, then had you just heated the blue plate, therefore you suppressed the temperature rise in the blue plate.”
Failing? Honesty test?
What the hell are you talking about, silly goose?
…Little Willy, you never have anything of any value to add. Unless and until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
You already know that there is a response to what you quoted.
Keep quoting, silly goose.
Show me what you got.
Unless you are a liar?
Willy, you never have anything of any value to add. Unless and until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
So you fail the honesty test.
Perhaps it’s just reading comprehension.
Whoever gets the last word wins in your world.
Silly goose.
…you never have anything of any value to add. Unless and until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
I just showed how you have commitment issues, Graham.
And we’re just starting with your silly burden of proof reversal.
This one will be fun.
Please, do continue to repeat ad nauseam that I have nothing to contribute – I like the irony of it!
Silly goose.
…never have anything of any value to add. Unless and until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
I found that quite clear:
That approximates to 7K per client per year.
So either she has very smol clients who can’t really afford better services, or she made around the risk-free rate.
…have anything of any value to add. Unless and until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
I find that very clear:
The last “great recession” ended in june 2009.
The bragging dates back to november 2019.
That means the recession might have given her fund tailwind more than it slowed it down.
Christopher tried the same kind of trick.
Why do people do that?
…anything of any value to add. Unless and until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
I do have something to add about value, silly goose –
25M on the SPY in 2009 would have turned into 111M in 2019.
25M divided by 1.2K is 21K.
Do you know what that means, Graham?
Please respond to that comment.
I’ll tell you then.
…of any value to add. Unless and until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
Very well, Graham.
If Zoe had clients with on average more than 21K to invest with her, they would have been better off investing in the SPY itself. The market is a better analyst than most active fund managers.
How much would you guess Zoe charged to make her clients make less money?
Respond to my comment. I will tell you my own guess.
any value to add. Unless and until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
Very well, Graham.
Hedge funds on Wall Street usually charge what is called 2 and 20.
That is, 2% and 20% based on performance.
The performance is estimated with a soft ball benchmark.
Which means you found another con.
You know why?
Rpond to this comment to know why.
…value to add. Unless and until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
Very well, Graham.
If we take 25M as a lower limit, 2% is 500K.
Times 10 years is 5M.
(A bit more since fees compound too.)
41K per month doing nothing except buying worse than SPY.
And that’s notwithstanding the performance fee.
Respond to this comment, and I’ll give you a rough estimate.
…to add. Unless and until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
Very well, Graham.
As for the 20%, it is not hard to find a soft ball benchmark.
Suppose that Zoe did 3% above whatever benchmark. That means she pockets 20% of that.
That is 0.6%, so overall the fees end up being 2.6%.
That is, the 500K turns into 650K.
And we are speaking peanut accounts right now.
The scheme is problem worse than that.
Please respond to this comment.
…add. Unless and until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
Very well, Graham.
25M is not a very big fund for Wall Street, and if Zoe managed a bigger account than that, she made less than the SPY. If she really worked for a hedge fund on Wall Street, her firm gouged her clients at least by 2%.
Hedge funds usually have a minimum requirement. Often around 100K. Times 1.2K, that makes 120M.
120M on the SPY in 2009 becomes 535M in 2019.
That is a bit more than 85M.
Please copy-paste your comment in which you complain about lack of substance.
unless and until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
[Little Willy is blissfully unaware that his off-topic ramblings do not constitute anything of substance]
Very well, Graham.
2% of 120M is 2.4M.
In ten years it amounts to 24M.
That means a third of the returns she generated went back to the hedge fund.
And that is notwithstanding the performance bonuses.
And the fact that this 2% is risk free.
Respond to this comment. I will tell you what it means.
…and until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
[Little Willy is blissfully unaware that his off-topic ramblings do not constitute anything of substance]
“crackpot Zoe Phin.” She is indeed.
It is rather telling that some people here are unaware of this, and believe her posts will be convincing to anyone.
…until such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
[Little Willy is blissfully unaware that his off-topic ramblings do not constitute anything of substance]
Very well, Graham.
Here’s what it means –
Suppose we start a business. You put all the cash. Every year I get 2% of that cash because I am a tEChNiCAl ANaLYst. If we make money after some level, you give me 20% of the profits. If you lose money, that’s on you. You still owe me 2% of what remains.
You know that, instead of starting that business, you could earn more by simply putting that money directly on the market.
So I get all the upside, you get all the downsides, a bit like you trying to hold a position by repeating the same move over and over again.
Would you take that deal?
Please respond to this comment so that I can continue.
…such time as you contribute something of substance, I will be repeating this comment.
[Little Willy is blissfully unaware that his off-topic ramblings do not constitute anything of substance]
Graham does not always fail to understand a point, but when he does he powers through with walls of words. Perhaps he’s just playing dumb?
On the one hand, there’s an alternative explanation.
On the other, there’s experimental debunking.
Two very different standards.
One might even suspect a double standard.
It’s not a "wall of words", Little Willy. It’s a substantive comment. Try reading it and understanding the points I’ve made.
Graham, if you could stop trolling, that’d be great.
Since you can’t, go off like Gordo does.
Is there some reason you can’t just stay out of discussions I’m involved in, Little Willy?
The reason should be obvious even to a slimy and sleazy troll like you, dearest Graham –
You have been caught in a double standard.
You are playing dumb to evade that point.
And now you are baiting me.
But go off – the floor is yours.
Enjoy yourself.
"You have been caught in a double standard."
When? Where? What are you talking about?
russell seitz…I don’t get the point of the article at your link. What is it trying to infer?
Here’s a quote…”That’s when John Tyndall cut op.tics from infrared transparent crystals of rock salt to measure radiant heat absor-p.tion by gases….”
***
Tyndall did no such thing. He blocked the source heat intentionally from reaching the tube with the CO2 therefore what was blocked by CO2 was infrared energy. Unfortunately, at the time, about mid-19th century, Tyndall and other scientists thought heat moved through space as heat rays. It was not till 1913 that Bohr proved the actual mechanism by which heat is converted to electromagnetic energy (IR).
Even more unfortunate is that people today cling to the notion that IR is heat and that trapping IR is the same as trapping heat. The greenhouse theory, and AGW, depends in part on that erroneous notion.
I am taking nothing away from Tyndall, he had great insight and did remarkably well with what he had available to him. Same with Clausius, who also believed that heat was IR, as did many scientists including Stefan, Boltzmann and Planck. In fact, it was another brilliant experiment by Tyndall, where he electrically heated a platinum filament wire, showing it produced different colours at different temperatures, that lead Stefan to the T^4 relationship between temperature and EM intensity.
It wasn’t till 1890 that the electron was discovered and more than a decade (1913) before Bohr related the electron transitions in atoms to EM absor.p-tion/emission, that the lights went on. He proved heat is not transmitted through space, it is the EM wave produced by electrons in atoms that is transmitted ‘AFTER’ heat is dissipated during the conversion to EM (IR).
It’s amazing, that over a century later, people are still talking about CO2 molecules in the atmosphere trapping heat. The CO2 can trap, for the want of a better word, some surface radiation, but the amount trapped is about 5%. With CO2 making up only 0.04% of the atmosphere, how the heck can warming it, when it absorbs only 5% of surface radiation, contribute any heat to the atmosphere at all?
Heat is the energy related to the kinetic energy of atoms. In a real greenhouse, glass can trap molecules of air and with it, the heat contained in the atoms of the molecules. There is no way GHGs can trap those molecules therefore trapping heat by GHGs is pseudo-science.
How the heating of a greenhouse by trapping infrared became a fact is a mystery. There is no mechanism by which trapped IR can cause warming unless it is absorbed by a body cooler than the source. Since the source is the soil and infrastructure heated by solar EM, what the heck would the IR generated by it be warming? Surely we are not getting more of this nonsense about trapped IR in a greenhouse being added to incoming solar?
The other part of that theory, that GHGs can slow the dissipation of heat at the surface is also pseudo-science. According to Newton’s law of cooling, the rate of cooling of a surface is dependent on the temperature difference between the surface and its environment, in this case, the atmospheric gases in touch with the surface.
Obviously, the gases should be in thermal equilibrium with the surface, meaning no difference in temperature. However, gases heated at the surface rise and are continually replaced by cooler gases from above. Therefore there is a continuous temperature gradient. Lindzen claimed that without this convection the surface temperature would rise to about 70C.
The atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen and it would be absurd to conclude that CO2 at 0.04% had anything to do with the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.
Two strikes and you’re out. Greenhouse theory/AGW kaput.
Gordon Robertson
That’s not the reason for, or the way that the tropospheric temperature gradient forms. It forms at the molecular level anywhere in the troposphere of any planet like ours. It still happens in Uranus where there is no solar radiation nor any solid surface at the base of its 350Km high nominal troposphere, yet it’s about 320K there…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere
Read http://climate-change-theory.com re the fact that the IPCC stopped talking about “trapping” in the 1990’s, so we don’t have to argue about such with alarmists who don’t even know what the IPCC now says.
What we need to point out is that they then started to quantify surface temperatures using the sum of solar and atmospheric radiation incorrectly in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Again, see my website on that point.
Other than these refinements which you need to incorporate, I encourage you to keep up the good work.
Can you explain whether solar radiation reaching the tropopause affects the magnitude of the vertical temperature gradient? Does the density of the troposphere play a role?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2022.png
PS Gordon:
Arrogant Lindzen is of course totally wrong on that point because he depended on calculations in which he added solar and atmospheric radiation and used the total incorrectly in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, as all climatologists (including Roy Spencer) keep on doing. They just don’t get it. A simple home experiment with about 4 electric bar radiators and a thermometer proves them all wrong. Take the radiators outside on a calm night with a few extension cords. Get the temperature with one on, then with 4. (Total cost less than $200 to negate trillions wasted.)
Lindzen and climatologists can’t come to grips with the fact that solar radiation getting to Earth’s surface is only about 170w/m^2 and that could not make the mean surface temperature greater than 233K (minus 40C) so how can Lindzen get 70C when he doesn’t even know about heat creep which is what supplies the extra needed energy?
Finally, back radiation can slow only that portion of surface radiation which is by radiation itself. As you correctly explained, cooling rate increases with an increasing temperature gap. So, even if radiative cooling were slowed then non-radiative cooling accelerates as I explained back in 2012 in my peer-reviewed paper on this which is the first one linked at http://climate-change-theory.com
“…solar radiation getting to Earth’s surface is only about 170w/m^2…”
Wrong Dug, you’re STILL not getting it. 170 W/m^2 is the “average”, after multiple reductions. You can’t average flux, and there is only ONE reduction for albedo, not two.
If Earth only received 170 W/m^2, solar panels would be useless.
Look at it this way — if you would learn something about science, you might be able to sell even more books.
Supposedly, Isurf=398W/m^2. Iout=239W/m^2. So 159W/m^2 is diff. 30W/m^2 is C02 forcing, less than one-fifth of the 159. A doubling of CO2 would add only 3W/m^2. Another doubling would add almost nothing. There is no crisis even using their model.
Also, Berry has shown most of the CO2 rise is due to nature, not man. This has all happened before and we’re still here. No need for the leftists to be given control of the economy.
It is yourself who is mistaken Clint. Because of the T^4 in Stefan Boltzmann calculations the 233K is what uniform flux to a flat Earth would achieve but, with that average being the average of variable flux the actual mean temperature that the variable flux could achieve is colder still. But I guess the math is beyond you. So think about the average of 2^4, 3^4 and 4^4 and compare with 3^4.
Go and argue with NASA Clint – their energy diagram is on my site at http://climate-change-theory.com and, whilst I’d love to say they are wrong, that is not the case with this. They show only one value for albedo, namely 77w/m^2 reflected by clouds. Reflection from the surface is shown as 30w/m^2 and must be deducted if we use 1.0 for emissivity of the surface. If you don’t deduct it then you use the appropriate lower emissivity and end up with the same temperature.
All the figures are there in the NASA energy diagram at http://climate-change-theory.com. But maybe you’ve forgotten that Earth experiences night when the lack of solar radiation could be considered to yield -273C for half the Earth to be averaged with whatever you think the average is on the sunlit side. But, when the bare rocks at the top of Mt Everest on 21st June receive more than 1,100w/m^2 on a clear day I don’t suggest using the theoretical temperature that flux could achieve. You forget that there is not enough time in the day for the solar radiation to attain the theoretical equilibrium temperature.
Your analogy with solar panels, Clint is totally irrelevant because they are NOT generating electricity by way of the temperature of the panels being raised by the insolation.
Don’t forget to at least TRY to understand that the average of the fourth power of each number in a set of variable positive numbers whose own mean is x is always greater than x^4.
(3^4 + 4^4 + 5^4)/3 > 4^4
Elementary my Dear Clint.
Dug, to sell more books you’re going to have to make sense and get to your point without a lot of rambling. People can get endless rambling right here, for free.
Hope that helps.
Well Germany gets less than 170 Watts per square meter and solar panels to make electricity in Germany are useless, they are useless even if get 240 watts per square meter on average.
If you constantly got 240 watts, that would be different, but peak solar hours is at best, 6 hours on average per day.
And no one want electrical power for just 6 hours of the day.
stephen…”Berry has shown most of the CO2 rise is due to nature, not man. This has all happened before and were still here”.
***
About 96% of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. One of the biggest contributors are the jungles along the equator and other contributors are swamps, etc.
The temperature of the Peruvian Current is falling. The central US must be ready for very cold winter temperatures.
Interesting, I’m ready.
So Solar changes can be seen in the Peruvian currents prior to the Winter Polar Vortexes in North America?
The prolonged La Nia is caused by a weak solar cycle. It is solar activity that links La Nia and the stratospheric polar vortex.
ren
Most of your claims concerning solar radiation, especially their alleged correlation with ENSO, are guesses you spread without any consistent proof.
Here is a chart in which Sun Spot Number data was superposed on ENSO data (the Multivariate ENSO Index):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BuXkrGq5GANtjuxYC93gJ9TM8w6kmK02/view
{ As the SSN indices are way higher than MEI’s, they were scaled down with a factor of 0.02, and displaced by 3.0 to move the lowest indices to the chart’s bottom. }
*
You immediately see how wrong your claim is
– the start of SC19 in 1954, the strongest solar cycle since SSN measurement begin, coincides with one of the strongest La Nina episodes (the fourth strongest since 1871);
– the start of the way weaker SC20 does not coincide with any strong La Nina at all.
When you look at all that SC by SC, you see that your claim does not make any sense. The correlation you try to establish between weak cycles and strong La Ninas is a non-sequitur.
*
Sources
MEI historical and recent data
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
SSN monthly
https://tinyurl.com/45dmta3h
You don’t stick to the facts. I repeat once again, the current La Nina is weak. Why are you lying?
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202210.gif
The number of sunspots is not important, what is important is their magnetic activity and the strength of the solar wind.
https://i.ibb.co/LncJ8ws/latest.jpg
” You dont stick to the facts. I repeat once again, the current La Nina is weak. Why are you lying? ”
Me, lying?
I’m afraid you dont stick to the facts.
Here they are, look at the MEI index for 2022, from DJ till AS:
2022: -1.02 -0.97 -1.30 -1.61 -1.68 -1.95 -2.22 -1.79 -1.78
ren, we’ll come back to a weak La Nina when MEI moves between -1.0 and -0.5, and certainly not before.
The pattern of the stratospheric polar vortex is unfavorable for the US. Waves of Arctic air will descend far to the south.
https://i.ibb.co/2v8BKgm/gfs-z50-nh-f00.png
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2022/10/12/someone-elses-conversation/
A short article on control systems.
Jeff: http://climate-change-theory.com will set you right if you study my research. D o u g (you know who)
Feel free to use that link instead, sock puppet:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-Roy
Or, you could go to Chihuahua’s site and die of boredom.
AT’s site, Troglodyte, and I’m afraid it won’t work.
Please leave boredom to Kennui and stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
jeff…if the feedback was of the servo control kind that you describe there could never be a runway greenhouse effect, or Hansen’s tipping point. Both require the equivalent of an amplifier with positive feedback.
If the climate does have a servo control system it is working well and has served us well through eons when CO2 levels were higher than today. There is no chance of a positive feedback type runaway effect.
jeffif the feedback was of the servo control kind that you describe there could never be a runway greenhouse effect, or Hansens tipping point. Both require the equivalent of an amplifier with
positive feedback.
My point is that Monkton, Climate Models and PID controllers represent the same math with different equations stuffed in it.
—-
On positive feedback for Hansen, people often misunderstand that ALL of climate taken into account has a decidedly NEGATIVE feedback. Planck’s preferred ‘god of physics’ figured that out long ago and he stuffed a fourth order into the radiative temperature equation ensuring that in no way can climate feedback become positive on any planet anywhere. Radiative emission is almost the only means of cooling the Earth has, some atmosphere is lost to space over time.
Now the contribution of a greenhouse gas has a positive influence on climate. If you were to run a heater on a block of metal, and the air became warmer, that warmer air surrounding the block of metal would be a ‘positive feedback’. If the air became more rarefied, less thermal transfer would occur and it would also create a positive feedback.
ANYONE pushing runaway nonsense is a Planck denier. This is different from saying that tiny temperature jumps of a few degrees are impossible.
test
The strength of the solar wind’s magnetic field ripples strongly, as shown by strong spikes in galactic radiation.
https://i.ibb.co/sH3wKjh/onlinequery.png
A large amount of rain will fall in southeastern Australia.
I read above, without surprise:
1 ” 170 W/m^2 is the ‘average’, after multiple reductions. You can’t average flux… ”
That is one more time a proof of the ignorance and arrogance of all these people who spend their time in denying everything what does not fit their ridiculous, scienceless narrative.
*
Let us take as example Germany, located at about 50N, far away from the Tropics.
” On sunny summer days, the radiant power can be more than 1,000 watts per square meter, on cloudy winter days less than 100 watts.
The radiation is particularly high on the Baltic Sea and in large parts of southern Germany, and particularly low in parts of Thuringia and in the Ruhr area.
The average irradiation is 137 watts per square meter, since the night hours are taken into account when calculating the average. ”
Is there anyone on Earth with a brain who would dispute the two evidences that
– we can average the solar radiation not only over Germany but over Earth as well?
– we not only can average the solar radiation over days, weeks, months, years, but also build a mean of day and night?
*
2. ” If Earth only received 170 W/m^2, solar panels would be useless. ”
That is the point where I begin to doubt that people like Clint R believe anything of what they write.
Because NO ONE on Earth can be dumb enough to seriously believe such a nonsense: despite of a Germany-wide, 24h solar radiation average of 137 W/m^2, the country’s PV units nonetheless produced all together in 2021 50 TWh.
That is only 8% of the country’s electricity needs, but to say ‘solar panels would be useless’ is… simply brainless.
Bindiclown’s climate model
https://i.postimg.cc/rwTkjRzV/4316.jpg
Eboy’s modulz
https://i.imgflip.com/58jyyj.jpg
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bin, your comment makes you sound like you don’t understand any of this and you’re just rambling.
Did you have a meaningful, verifiable point?
Easy to average flux, Pup.
Please stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
As usual, the babbling Edog troll and the Clint R troll have nothing else to reply to real facts than completely stoopid, irrelevant nonsense, whose only goal is to try to discredit and denigrate.
Once more, we see that denial is no trivial job, and requires a really functioning brain, which is exactly what the two seem to lack all the time.
*
If this blog had a real (I repeat: real) moderation, such Ignoramuses would be dropped off it within 2 days.
Binny, you STILL don’t understand the basics. Ice cubes emit about 315 W/m^2. But 4 ice cubes are not emitting 1260 W/m^2.
If you can’t understand that, have it tattooed on your forehead.
At least you will be in with the in-crowd.
Averaging sun light over the whole Earth surface is like averaging persons age and claiming a sixty year old guy is really thirty years old because that’s his average age
Once more, we see that denial is no trivial job, and requires a really functioning brain, which is exactly what the two seem to lack all the time.
Binny,
And still, the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, hasnt it?
The GHE couldnt stop it cooling.
Four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight couldnt stop it cooling.
Immense amounts of radiogenic heat production couldnt stop it cooling.
Presently, the Earth is losing energy at a rate of about 44 TW – still cooling.
What particular form of mental impairment leads to you think the planet is heating? I believe you said the you can determine the future by dissecting the past, so what part of past cooling are you dissecting to predict heating?
Off you go now – make some ridiculous SkyDragon statement to the effect that slow cooling results in raised temperatures, known as heating.
Psst, Mike.
Pup believes you’re a butt-sniffer.
Worthless willard continues his desperate search for acceptance.
Apparently all the therapy hasn’t helped. Maybe the sex-change operation is warranted….
Hey, Pup.
Perhaps you should stop trolling:
https://xkcd.com/481/
You never know – some day you might listen to yourself.
Woeful Wee Willy,
And I am supposed to care what other people believe because . . . ?
You are a slimy little grub, but at least you have no clue, and you are both impotent and powerless.
Apart from that, you are stupid and ignorant.
Carry on trolling.
> because?
Because you would not be antisocial, Mike.
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote that I am supposed to care what other people think, because “. . . would not be antisocial, Mike.”
Who values your idiotic opinion? Not me, and probably not Mike, either.
Can you prove you not suffering from a severe mental affliction?
I doubt it.
You are here, Mike Flynn.
Replying to me.
That is all that matters.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Swenson: Scientists determine that 44TW based on the false assumption that the quite steep temperature gradient in the outer crust (wherein boreholes around 9 or 10Km deep get to temperatures close to 300C) has nothing to do with the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect, but it has everything to do with it, as does the less steep gradient in the mantle where the net force of gravity is less and the weighted mean specific heat is higher due to the high temperatures.
So the steep gradient does not imply that there is an outflow of energy: in the middle of a sunny day it is more likely that there is an inflow up that gradient via the “heat creep” process. If the 44TW were a genuine loss overall then there would have to be a continuous net outflow of energy at the top of the atmosphere. But the difference between inward and outward radiation up there is rarely more than 0.4% and it is as often positive as it is negative, so in the very long run (say, the whole of the current ~1,000 year cycle) you have no evidence of net cooling other than what is to be seen in temperature records. These do indeed show slight net cooling since the Medieval Warming Period, but at other times there has been net warming for 1,000 years or so, such as between 8,600 years ago and 7,600 years ago as seen in the graph at
http://climate-change-theory.com
Dug,
Completely irrelevant. There is a continuous outflow of energy – otherwise the Earth would not have cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Nobody has ever managed to measure the so-called “inward” energy, as this would require radiation measuring devices of infinite bandwidth, and infinite sensitivity – which is nonsense.
Your graphs are figments of some SkyDragon’s imagination.
Loschmidt was deluded, which is why nobody has ever managed to provide experimental support for his speculation.
No more deluded than Lord Kelvin, who believed in matter containing infinite caloric, until Joule’s experimental work convinced him otherwise. Not knocking Loschmidt – but he was wrong, wrong, wrong!
Bad luck for you. You might try to tip physics on its head, but the law of parsimony indicates that I am right, and you are wrong. No GHE, no heat creep.
Flynnson
” And still, the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years… ”
You forgot the ‘or so’.
Bunny,
Oooooh!
Is that the best you can do, sauerkraut?
Moi, un sauerkraut?
Ma parole, Flynnson… vous êtes un mec complètement dingue.
Swenson
“Presently, the Earth is losing energy at a rate of about 44 TW still cooling. ”
Divide by the surface area of the Earth, 5.1*10^14 square metres and the rate of heat flow from the Earth’s interior through its surface surface averages 0.86W/m^2.
This figure has been more or less constant for millions of years and is 0.04% of the energy entering the climate system each year.
Since you mention geological heat flow frequently it must be important to you. What I fail to understand is its relevance to the anthropogenic global warming debate.
> What I fail to understand is its relevance to the anthropogenic global warming debate.
Here’s where MF pulls the jackalope from his hat:
Ut. supra.
Sky Dragon cranks say the darnedest things.
Em,
The Earth is cooling. That’s what losing energy does to a body.
That’s what has happened over the past four and a half billion years or so.
You seem to be claiming that the GHE has sprung, fully clothed, into the world recently, as If by magic.
When did it start to work its miracles, and what part of the planet’s environment changed? You see, you can’t even describe this GHE in any sensible way, can you?
Surely you can use the internet to find a scientific description of the GHE, and where it may be observed, measured and documented (like any other scientific effect)?
You will need to make sure that you don’t say anything really stupid and pointless like “The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earth’s surface by “greenhouse gases.” These heat-trapping gases can be thought of as a blanket wrapped around Earth, keeping the planet toastier than it would be without them.”, because that would be really silly, wouldn’t it?
That would mean that the Earth would still be molten, or at the very least above the boiling point of water, and it isn’t, in case you haven’t noticed.
So go off and find a definition off the GHE that causes cooling.
Hard hard can it be?
binny…”You cant average flux ”
***
You don’t even know what flux means so what would you know about averaging it?
The word flux should not be used for electromagnetic energy. I know it is used but we cannot tell the makeup of EM with a bazzillion different frequency/wavelengths in solar EM.
When I started out in the field of electronics, we used the word flux only for magnetic fields, mainly related to the magnetic field produced around a conductor or inductor. We used it in connection with magnetic fields around magnets as well.
In either case, you could rate a flux as so many lines per unit area. The more lines per unit area the stronger the field, another name for a flux.
You cannot add fluxes in air, you can only increase the number of lines per unit area to increase the intensity.
As Flynnson loves to say:
Completely scienceless reply. Carry on trolling.
Bunny,
I don’t know about your imaginary “Flynnson”, but if you are referring to me when you wrote –
” As Flynnson loves to say:
Completely scienceless reply. Carry on trolling.”
– then you nothing but a lying sour Kraut! I certainly never said such a thing – unless you can quote me, of course – which you can’t!
Lying, even about imaginary people is not a good look, you know. That’s the sort of thing that an ignorant slimy and gutless troll like Willard constantly does. Have you been taking lying lessons from him?
Have you managed to figure out how the GHE managed to cool the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so, or can’t you find a way to lie yourself out of having to face reality?
You’re a wee bit dimwitted, you know. Like any idiot SkyDragon, you don’t understand that slow cooling is not heating.
Carry on regardless.
Agreed, Flynnson!
You only wrote the tail of it: ‘Carry on trolling.’
Paraphrasing Flink Poyd, one could say ‘A trick of the head.’
To Clint and all others:
Russian probes dropped to the surface of Venus with little parachutes measured the solar flux as being less than 20w/m^2.
Venus surface temperatures have been measured and only vary between about 732K and 737K.
That is because a location on the equator cools by about 5 degrees over the course of about four months on the dark side, but it warms back up on the sunlit side in a similar period.
Obviously this warming has something to do with it being on the sunlit side and nothing to do with sub-surface energy only coming out on that side.
But clearly the direct solar radiation to the Venus surface is not able to achieve any surface warming.
For most of Earth’s surface that is also the case because the solar radiation can only raise the temperature of a small portion of the Earth’s surface at any one time, and when it’s nearly directly above Mt Everest it’s not doing much warming despite delivering about 1,100w/m^2 to the bare rocks up there.
Why is it so? How do we account for the observed temperatures?
The only correct answer anywhere in world literature is in my 2013 paper linked in the left column at
http://climate-change-theory.com
And that, folks, is why your need to recognise the importance of my world-first discovery.
The atmosphere on Venus is like soup, and conduction and conversation play a much larger role. The visible light gets absorbed by the atmosphere and or reflected. There are basically no applicable relationships between Earth and Venus.
Yes indeed CO2isLife, what you call “conduction and conversation (sic)” is actually convection in the form of what we physicists call “free” (or “natural”) convective heat transfer (as distinct from forced convection wherein air movement is detectable on a macro scale) and it most certainly happens in the troposphere of Venus as well as Earth and all such planetary tropospheres – just as my 2013 paper explains.
When you have read that 2013 paper and have genuine questions on the content I’ll endeavour to assist your understanding of this process and the significance thereof. The paper on planetary core & surface temperatures is linked in the left column at
http://climate-change-theory.com
“Venus surface pressure, then, appears to be more than 75 Earth atmospheres and surface temperature greater than 900 degrees F.”
Simply look how hot Death Valley is with its small change in altitude. The pressure alone will increase the temperature way beyond anything the Earth’s GHG Effect could create. Once again, the atmosphere is basically a soup and is no way relatable to earth’s atmosphere. It is like comparing the thermodynamics of a liquid to a gas. The fact that you are is some way trying to compare Venus to the Earth to make your claims about the impact of CO2 pretty much shows you don’t have any valid arguments. Any real physicist would understand that. There is an infinite difference between an atmosphere that is 98 parts per 100 CO2 and one that is 410 parts per million. 98 out of 100 vs 1 out of 2,500 molecules, that is a nonsensical comparison.
Dug, proving you don’t know anything about Venus won’t help you sell books either.
I don’t bother writing specific personal replies to people like this amateur scientist who haven’t read my 2013 paper, so don’t waste your time or mine with future such assertions and not a word of valid physics to support your contentions, thanks.
This will be my standard reply to anyone else who apparently thinks they are smarter than both Prof Claes Johnson and the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt, both of whose papers may be used to thoroughly refute the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology.
Does that mean you’re not going to troll me in the future?
Not a problem, I have another butt-sniffer, huh worthless willard?
Dug,
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so.
Loschmidt is dead, so he has no current view.
If Claes Johnson doesn’t accept reality, good for him!
Are you rejecting reality, or just trying to pretend reality doesn’t matter?
Richard Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
So Loschmidt was wrong, and so are you. Blathering about Venus and vortex tubes is not reproducible experimental support for whatever unwritten hypothesis you are proposing – to explain how and why the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Conventional physics seem good enough for me.
Never thought I’d agree with Swenson, but he’s right.
I found your 2013 paper a paella of meaningless blather, unsupported opinions and an equation which tells you what your prejudices expect but has no basis in physical reality.
If you pour sand onto a gentle slope some of the pile ends up uphill from where you piled it. Your “heat creep” is similarly trivial.
“prove me wrong”
You may claim to have an alternative hypothesis, but it fails the basic test of a scientific hypothesis. It is neither coherent, consistent or consilient.
Your $10,000 is safe. There is nothing in your papers tangible enough to falsify.
I see Entropic: you obviously don’t understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. State it from memory! Then explain how we know when entropy is approaching a maximum – in accord with what that law is all about.
The problem lies in your lack of undergraduate physics in second and third year university. That’s why you don’t understand what is correct physics in the paper. Many do understand it my friend.
Furthermore, it is the ONLY way to correctly explain observations throughout the Solar System, and heat creep happens in experiments here on Earth too. The existence of heat creep is now proven well beyond reasonable doubt.
You can’t explain planetary core and surface temperatures: I can and have with calculations supported by observations.
Do please explain how the Venus surface warms on the sunlit side.
—————————————————
Did you have trouble understanding the quoted physicist …
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
Klaus-Eckert Puls, German Meteorologist, Physicist
————————————————–
Did you try reading the papers that are written for people like yourself without such education in physics ….
Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis
What we can learn about climate change from Uranus
Cogent and irrefutable reasons why carbon dioxide cannot warm Earth
Understanding Josef Loschmidt’s Gravito Thermal Effect and thus why the Radiative Forcing hypothesis is false
Refutation of Nikolov and Zeller Universal Theory of Climate
And, Entropic, the number of reads of my papers on the prestige Researchgate site (which is only for qualified scientists) has just passed 13,000 with five (5) citations. On that site they advised me that my papers were read by more than 85% of all other papers.
On LinkedIn I have 1,489 followers including Richard Branson.
My 15-minute video has had over 3,250 views and my three climate websites and papers on SSRN about 150,000 hits in total.
But I suppose you assume you’re understanding of atmospheric physics surpasses that of Prof Claes Johnson and the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt who realised that the tropospheric non-zero temperature gradient is indeed the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, which is why the pile of new energy spreads out the way that is indicated in the diagram that you didn’t understand. Obviously you don’t know what thermodynamic equilibrium is and why it is different from thermal equilibrium. No wonder this is all over your head. Being over your head doesn’t make it wrong or unintelligible by those with better knowledge in this field than yourself.
So perhaps you’re not quite as brilliant as Prof Johnson whom I quoted in my peer-reviewed 2012 paper on radiation, or Josef Loschmidt. But I guess you’ll never agree that you aren’t.
PS: There were 112 unique visitors just in the last four days, so when are YOU going to visit my site which is now in 6 languages:
http://climate-change-theory.com
In two days, a large patch of Arctic air will be over the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/LS2C0p9/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f048.png
From my 95% trustworthy weather forecaster
https://i.postimg.cc/WpyKT1gr/Screenshot-2022-10-13-at-00-35-34-Forecast-Great-Lakes.png
Interesting, to say the least.
So who are the alarmists here who claim to know more about back radiation and its effect than Prof Claes Johnson? His stats on Researchgate read:
Research papers: 386
Research interest score: 7,685
Reads: 49,034
Citations: 15,598
My peer-reviewed 2012 paper was based on his research and (after he had read my paper) he wrote to me that I was one of only a few who really understood it at the time.
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claes-Johnson-2/stats
stephen…”Berry has shown most of the CO2 rise is due to nature, not man. This has all happened before and were still here”.
***
About 96% of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. One of the biggest contributors are the jungles along the equator and other contributors are swamps, etc.
stephen…knew I had it somewhere…the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources is about 3%. I actually worked it out from an IPCC diagram and corroborated it with the table at this link.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/epa-document-supports-3-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-is-attributable-to-human-sources/
The table is from the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, the EPA has tried to extinguish all links that make the CO2 propaganda look bad but good, old Wayback has it archived.
https://bit.ly/3EE9PP9
You can work out the actual percent from this table.
“the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources is about 3%. ”
That turns out not to be the case.
From your data 770,000 megatonnes of CO2 is released from natural sources into the atmosphere each year. Add another 23,100My from human sources and you get a total release of 793,100Mt.
Human release is 23,100/793,100 * 100 = 2.9%.
Would that be where your 3% comes from?
However, this is a carbon CYCLE.
The 770,000Mt released from the ocean and land into the atmosphere is balanced by 770,000 Mt absorbed. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the natural cycle is unchanged.
Human emissions are not part of the cycle, they are extra CO2 added to the system.
Your data shows the effect.
Of the total 793,100Mt released into the atmosphere only 781,000Mt is absorbed. This leads to an increase of 11,700Mt in the atmosphere each year.
The net annual increase is equivalent to about half of human emissions.
At the time of your data the atmosphere contained about 820,000Mt so the increase was 11,700/820,000 * 100 = 1.4% per year.
What % of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is there because of human activity?
There is no evidence that the size of the natural cycle has changed. Since human emissions began to increase during the Industrial Revolution the CO2 content has increased from 280ppm to 420ppm.
The overall increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human emissions is 420-280/280 *100 = 50%
ent…”The overall increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human emissions is 420-280/280 *100 = 50%…”
***
That’s a theory based on ice core proxies which create more questions than they offer answers. The 280 ppmv quantity was cherry picked from a broad range of ice core samples in the same area and the collated papers of Beck from various scientists, prove the atmospheric level of CO2 has been in excess of 400 ppmv in the early 20th century.
The 280 ppmv figure suits the IPCC and its climate fraud.
norman posted a comment containing this link…
“Jim Gorman
I did look at the book.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40030”
***
I had read the book previously and on page 205 (P. 219 of 289) Planck offers point 164.
“164. Natural Units. All the systems of units which have hitherto been employed, including the so-called absolute C. G. S. system, owe their origin to the coincidence of accidental circumstances, inasmuch as the choice of the units lying at the base of every system has been made, not according to general points of view which would necessarily retain their importance for all places and all times, but essentially with reference to the special needs of our terrestrial civilization.
Thus the units of length and time were derived from the present dimensions and motion of our planet, and the units of mass and temperature from the density and the most important temperature points of water, as being the liquid which plays the most important part on the surface of the earth, under a pressure which corresponds to the mean properties of the atmosphere surrounding us.
***
There you have it, time was derived from the motion of our planet. Too bad Einstein didn’t read Planck’s book, would have saved him a lot of grief.
****
And here is something from Bohr…
“Thus we must assume that a system consisting of a nucleus and an electron rotating round it under certain circumstances can absorb a radiation of a frequency equal to the frequency of the homogenous radiation emitted during the passing of the system between different stationary states”.
This is proof that warmer bodies cannot absorb EM from colder bodies. If the absorbing frequency does not match the emission frequency of the electrons per orbital stationary states, it cannot be absorbed. Hotter bodies have different orbital energy levels and their emission frequencies are different that those of cooler bodies.
Good to see that you understand the work of Prof Claes Johnson and myself in my peer-reviewed 2012 paper on radiation. Only if a target is at zero K would all the EM energy in incident radiation be thermalized. In all other cases the amount that is thermalized corresponds with that radiation from the source which is represented by the area that is within the source’s Planck function but outside of the enveloped Planck function of the target. This is the radiation which cannot resonate with photons whose energy matches exactly one or more quantum energy steps of electrons in the target.
Then it becomes easier for the target to use these elevated electrons to emit identical photons to those from the incident radiation. Thus it looks like scattering and we physicists call it pseudo scattering. In a nutshell, the photon’s energy temporarily becomes electron energy but never kinetic energy for the whole molecule. The molecule’s translational KE is not increased. Engineers have in effect calculated this area between the Planck functions when they calculate the difference between the Stefan-Boltzmann results for source and target, but my paper explains why what really happens relates only to the incident radiation.
Because the target uses the energy in the incident photon to emit a part of its “quota” as per Planck it does not have to convert as much of its own KE and thus its rate of cooling is slowed, as is well known. But climatologists think that slows surface cooling, but it doesn’t necessarily do so because non-radiative cooling accelerates to compensate, as I wrote in that 2012 paper that is the first one linked at http://climate-change-theory.com
.. Ooops -just noticed it’s 1:15am here.
“There you have it, time was derived from the motion of our planet.”
The UNIT of time used by humans (the second) was derived from the motion of our planet. The whole point of natural units (which you seem to have completely missed) is that there are units based only on the fundamental physical constants (c, G, h, k_B). Time exists independent of the existence of the planet Earth or humanity. The ‘natural unit of time’ is the ‘Planck time’ which could be determined identically on any planet in any galaxy.
tim…”Time exists independent of the existence of the planet Earth or humanity”.
***
It would be easy enough to prove your claim, Tim. Where is the proof?
Where can I find this elusive time about which you speak? How can I measure it? How can I detect it?
If time would not exist you would already have repeated what you’ll repeat tomorrow.
For further elaboration:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-defense-of-the-reality-of-time-20170516/
I repeat again, La Nina is not strong and will not be until the solar wind speed increases markedly.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
The speed of the solar wind is again dropping strongly.
https://i.ibb.co/jhRk7jG/plot-image-1.png
Although La Nina is weak it will certainly survive at least until spring 2023.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
The anchovy fishery in Peru is sure to be a record one.
Not that weak, We are still experiencing summer heat during the day, with no rain, in the Vancouver, Canada region.
Do you see an end to it?
Still strong highs in the Pacific and western Canada. Circulation is blocked.
The information that the 25th solar cycle may be weaker than the 24th cycle does not reach the general news. Therefore, the duration of La Nina is unpredictable.
https://i.ibb.co/NmbG517/ises-solar-cycle-sunspot.png
As Bindiclown sez – Wow way ahead of the red line – gonna be a big one
Corrections need to be made.
https://i.ibb.co/VjVKJr5/EISNcurrent.png
https://i.ibb.co/7W5y54V/solar-cycle-progression.png
Despite quite different predictions made e.g. at WUWT (especially by Heartland’s employee David Archibald), SC25 still keeps above SC24:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nXwN72HFEd0GzqlC0tQUYv5vsKCcBc3o/view
That’s all what I wrote until now.
Everybody can see that SC25 is for the moment by no means on the road to even one half of the Modern Maximum.
Nobody really knows how SC25 will play out: between the super-weak cycle predicted by Zharkova and the super-strong cycle predicted by McIntosh (revised downwards in between) there is room for 1,000 more predictions.
*
All the rest is no more than the babbling Edog’s childish polemics.
When will you update your F10.7cm Radio Flux chart
that up-turning hyperbolic Red Line you created takes the cake
You are, as usual and about everything you try to talk about, an absolute Ignoramus.
The chart I published
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QX3O6JIK3RIhUJgiqdhim4yUaG9ZwfR/view
did not contain anything ‘hyperbolic’, let alone would it be ‘up-turning’: that is what you idiot made out of it.
The lines in the chart are third order polynomials, a mean technique used worldwide in several engineering and science disciplines, but idiots like you simply ignore all that.
You recently claimed to be a pilot; I suppose you meant a pilot of this kind for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gIe4d6dhXU
*
Idiots like you, babbling Edog, are exactly the reason why I decided to come back to simple running means (I could of course use a Savitzky-Golay or a CTRM filter):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WnFrnWa_jhu4UP-iunyaBLrc4KOO3QwF/view
quite in the same way as I did for SSN daily:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yu9G_SqfDMF3upJnOh_EmW6RLjHeuA5a/view
*
The only difference between a polynomial of degree > 1 and a running mean is that the former needs much more data before it starts changing its direction.
Because you finally realized the former is a total nonsense
You are and keep dumb and ignorant all what you don’t understand is nonsense for you.
You are at the same mental level as Robertson and Clint R.
Final point.
It’s OK, this is common occurrence when a wannabee scientist starts making charts. You will figure out the rest wrong with it later
Well, babbling Edog…
Even if I really was a ‘scientist wannabe’ as you claim, the fact remains that you are one of the ideologically fixated proponents of unproven science.
But I am no ‘scientist wannabe’ , I have been an engineer – a real one, unlike a lot of people on this blog, who claim to be or to have been, but visibly never were.
And I started making charts long, long time before you began to post your childish, uneducated, dirty trash about climate.
You are here the one who would never be able to produce charts like I do post: you definitely lack everything to.
Maybe your next chart making lesson should be that 120 days running means line has to end 60 days back before the end of the data,
You might want to look into that and stop embarrassing yourself
” Maybe your next chart making lesson should be that 120 days running means line has to end 60 days back before the end of the data,
You might want to look into that and stop embarrassing yourself ”
That’s now the very, very best of all: the babbling Edog thinks that Excel’s freeware companion Libre Office Calc doesn’t know how to compute and display running means!
Oh Noes.
Let’s explain babbling Edog that it is always bad to trust eye-balling, with as example the red plot and its associated running mean.
In the solar flux table, the data starts at position 5524 (position 0 in the chart) and ends at 6539 (1015). The running mean starts at position 60 and ends at 955.
Similar things appear in blue, don’t they?
*
But I know by experience, babbling Edog: people like you and the over and over opinionated Coolista nicknamed RLH never really admit being wrong, and hence never stop their stoopid, boring stalking.
Your up-turning hyperbolic Red Line hockey stick you keep posting in your F10.7cm Radio Flux chart is a clear evidence you don’t know what you’re doing.
Nobody needs your amateurish butchered charts , we can get the real ones very easily in two seconds.
Manifestly, you are even more dumb than I thought:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WnFrnWa_jhu4UP-iunyaBLrc4KOO3QwF/view
And I was right: you belong to those who never admit having been wrong.
You forgot to thank me for telling you what was wrong with your charts and how to fix it.
Retired Scientist
2LOT?
“Entropy tends to a maximum.”
This is the simplest formulation. In a closed system it says that the system tends to thermodynamic equilibrium and maximum entropy.
For a biologist like myself or a planetologist it is more complex.
Thermodynamically living organisms and planets are open cyclic systems. They remain unchanged while energy from their surroundings flows through them and the entropy of their surroundings increases.
There is nothing about any need for a closed system in correct statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics … it applies to ANY natural thermodynamic process ANYWHERE in the Universe. Nor do the words ‘heat’ or ‘temperature’ appear. I quote:
“… in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.”
I won’t waste my time any more answering people like you who have not made the effort to understand my peer-reviewed paper on radiation let alone any of my other six papers, have not had the background in tertiary physics to understand maximum entropy production or even to understand its relevance, have no idea what global mean surface temperature the direct solar radiation could achieve without heat creep, don’t understand that surface temperatures cannot be quantified without the “heat creep” process being taken into account, don’t understand why such heat creep can only occur in a force field, don’t understand the relevance of Wien’s Displacement Law and don’t know what “heat creep” is anyway, and have no idea why every functioning vortex cooling tube confirms that the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt was right and thus climatology “science” is false. I shall reply likewise to all future comments which display no ability to be taught. Silent readers and those who are teachable can click ‘Retired Physicist’ above to study at least my Home page that can be read in less than three minutes. Then I recommend watching the linked 15-minute video already seen by over 3,250 others.
Late at night here; I’ll reply In the morning.
ent…”Entropy tends to a maximum.”
***
To get past this nonsense about entropy you need to read the original work of Clausius, who invented the concept. Entropy is about heat and heat transfer and has nothing to do with any other kind of energy.
If you have studied Gibbs free energy it might make more sense.
delta G = delta H – T.delta S
This is called Gibbs free energy but it should be called Gibbs free thermal energy since all of the terms involve heat.
H is the enthalpy, which is the total heat in a body or system. T.delta S expresses the amount of heat transferred into or out of a system.
Therefore G is indicating the total amount of heat in a system after heat is transferred into or out of the system.
I claim T.delta S is the heat transferred because…
S = 1/T (integral dq)
If we integrate, we have entropy, S, as the total heat transferred.
transposing we have…
integral dg = T.S
“A potent cold front will push a surge of cold air across the Great Lakes region into late this weekend,” said Sadvary.
Unlike the preceding air mass, the air that arrives late this weekend will dive much farther southeastward. By Monday, colder air will be pivoting into the Northeast.
“Early next week, chillier, November-like air will be able to spread across much of the Northeast,” said Sadvary.
It seems strange to me that the winter forecasts for the US mention the eruption of the Tonga volcano, and do not mention the very weak solar cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/sbnxMQ8/gfs-o3mr-30-nh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/DtQvjPG/gfs-o3mr-10-nh-f00.png
Well ren…
Perhaps that’s because these forecasts are being made by people who, unlike you,
– are by no means fixated on explaining the weather primarily in terms of solar activity intensity
and
– are very well aware of the current effects of the Honga Tonga eruption.
It will snow overnight in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Claes Johnson is an autodidact in matters of climate science.
While Johnson has a significant number of citations on Google Scholar, it appears he has co-authored only one journal article in the area of climate science titled “Basic Thermodynamics of the Atmosphere,” published in Relation in 2010. Upon closer inspection, the original source of the article appears to be Johnson’s personal website, and there is no detailed reference of any scientific journal by the name of “Relation.”
He is a professor of applied mathematics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. He has produced a series of books titled Applied Mathematics: Body and Soul and has published other work in the area of computational mathematics, finite element methods, mechanics and physics.
From Claes Johnson’s c.v.:
Docent in Numerical Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology (1978).
Ph.D. in Mathematics, Chalmers University of Technology, (1973).
Master of Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, (1969)
Firstly, “Applied Mathematics” (in which Johnson is a professor) is very similar to physics.
You may not like Prof Claes Johnson’s style of writing but he is correct about the fact that radiation from a cold source (such as a location near the middle of the troposphere) cannot cause heat into a warmer target such as the Earth’s surface below that location. But this is what is implied happens in climatology’s energy diagrams. Thus all of climatology “science” relating to so-called “radiative forcing” (including the writings of Raymond Pierrehumbert) is totally and utterly WRONG.
In a situation wherein the effective temperature of a source is warmer than that of a target then only a portion of the electromagnetic energy in the radiation is converted to thermal (ie kinetic) energy in that target. He talks of a “cut off” below which no thermalization takes place and above which is does. He draws an analogy with a type of filter to help make it clear to his readers. Only if the target were at absolute zero (oK = ~-273C) would all the energy in the radiation be converted to molecular kinetic energy (ie thermal energy) in the targat.
My peer-reviewed 2012 paper “Radiated Energy & the Second Law of Thermodynamics” cites Johnson and explains at the atomic level why every single one-way passage of radiation must (and does) obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics because it is a natural thermodynamic process and there are no other interacting systems. That is the first paper linked at
http://climate-change-theory.com.
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.”
It says nothing less and nothing more. I repeat: it applies to absolutely EVERY natural thermodynamic process ANYWHERE in the Universe.
Retired Physicist at 4:52 PM
My opinion is that Claes Johnson is not a climate scientist. Therefore he has no standing to judge the work of those who, by education and/or experience, are subject matter experts. You are obsessed with Ray Pierre, but he is only one of thousands of expert climate scientists; a science with two hundred years of history.
The paper I quoted from above is unreadable. It’s not written for a scientific audience. It reeks of politics.
Retired Physicist at 4:52 PM
“Firstly, ‘Applied Mathematics’ (in which Johnson is a professor) is very similar to physics”
Applied Math is very different. Have you ever seen an applied mathematician make observations, either in the lab or in the field, in order to test a theory? The higher up the [Math] ladder you go the more abstract and detached from the physical world it becomes.
Claes is basically another CFD contrarian guy, Tyson.
TM,
Well, gee.
Gavin Schmidt, self proclaimed “climate scientist”, has a PhD in – applied mathematics!
Professional time waster, pathetic amateur so-called “climate modeller”, thinks that 38% probability means “almost certain”.
No doubt one of the SkyDragons you wish to emulate – or maybe not?
Swenson, yes that’s exactly my point.
If Claes Johnson had chosen a career in climate science he probably would have excelled at it, but he chose to be a mathematician instead.
Schmidt is a professional whereas Johnson is a hobbyist at climate science; you do see the difference don’t you?
As I said, education + work experience make the man.
TM,
Schmidt gets a salary from the US government (taxpayer funded, if you prefer).
He claims to be a “scientist”, but of course is just another incompetent bumbler.
He co-authored a really stupid paper titled “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature”. Wonderful stuff, CO2 – ensures that the surface temperature is somewhere between >5000 K, and <288 K!
Even more stupid was his statement about 2014 being "the hottest year ever". Apart from every year in the past which was hotter by definition, Schmidt, mathematician extraordinaire, claimed that his "calculations" of a probability of 38% supported his claim of "hottest year ever"!
A fair coin toss has a probability of 50% heads or tails – better that the idiot Schmidt's 38% assurance about 2014 being the hottest year ever.
In Schmidt's case, your statement that education + work experience make the man, may be true. They may have increased Schmidt's inability to accept reality, and think his fantasies supplant facts.
Maybe you need to appeal to higher authority than a SkyDragon.
“Claes Johnson is an autodidact in matters of climate science”.
***
Johnson explains blackbodies better than anyone I have ever read. Until you read him and digest what he has to say, you will be forever caught in the vague world of BB theory and climate alarm.
Retired Physicist, please settle an issue for me. I claim that CO2 only thermalizes 13 to 18, peak 15 Micron LWIR. 15 Micron wont penetrate or warm water. The oceans are warming so it cant be due to CO2. Lastly, CO2 is 1 out of very 2,500 molecules. Is it plausible that CO2 vidrating with the energy of a -80 black body (15 microns) can materially impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499 molecules?
From a physicists view, can CO2 and 15-micron LWIR warm the oceans or the air given that it is only 1 out of every 2,500 molecules?
My comment just written to Tyson (above) before reading yours actually helps answer your question. It is primarily the non-radiative “heat creep” process that warms the surface of the oceans and does ALL the warming of the Venus surface on the sunlit side. Solar radiation penetrates a few meters into the ocean and may warm colder regions below the surface on a hot summer day, but not necessarily the ocean surface. (Broadly speaking, ocean currents convey thermal energy from the tropics to the polar regions.) The “heat creep” process is explained in my 2013 paper on planetary core & surface temperatures which is the second paper linked on my website.
So CO2 radiation cannot warm land or water that is warmer than the region from which the radiation was emitted. Nitrogen, oxygen and argon obviously cannot absorb CO2 radiation, but they could be warmed by molecular collision. However, the overriding warming is the reverse: nitrogen, oxygen and argon warming CO2 etc by molecular collisions and then CO2, methane and (mostly) water vapor cool the atmosphere (especially at night) by radiating the energy they obtained from nitrogen etc back to Space. Ironically IR-active molecules (GHG) act like holes in a blanket, not a blanket.
co2…”I claim that CO2 only thermalizes 13 to 18, peak 15 Micron LWIR”.
***
Thermalization is a fiction created by desperate alarmists. As Gerlich and Tscheuschner point out in their paper dismissing the greenhouse effect, the molecular interactions between molecules in the atmosphere is unknown. The paths followed by radiation through the atmosphere is equally unknown.
When people talk about a photon being intercepted by a CO2 molecule, they are grasping at straws. No one on planet Earth has any idea what happens.
Gordon and all others:
What IS known in regard to “molecular interactions between molecules in the atmosphere” is that molecules with greater kinetic energy than ones they collide with will impart some of their excess kinetic energy into the molecule they collided with.
Thus, if we consider calm conditions then, by whatever method the troposphere warms during the sunlit hours, then, at least at night, there will be nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules which will tend to collide with water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane molecules and impart kinetic energy into such molecules because the latter are the only ones capable of continually cooling themselves by radiation back to Space, and they will do so and thus be ready to accept more kinetic energy from the next collision in an endless cycle. They act like holes in a blanket (or bucket) as I wrote in the comment above.
Just about everything that climatologists write is the exact opposite of what happens in the real world where their most prolific so-called “greenhouse” gas (water vapor) cools rather than warms the surface, as my study of 30 years of temperature data in tropical regions on three continents showed back in 2013. The graphic of the results of that study is on the “Images” page of my website that is at …
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/images
… but also go back and read the Home page which is available in six languages.
In response to FOI’s, the CSIRO in Australia has not been able to produce any study refuting mine in six years since I first asked for such. Nor can anyone else I suspect. And yet it seems such an obvious study to carry out and should have been before all this junk science was even put forward for review by pals.
Dug,
Forget about molecules vibration and kibetics and look at the atmospheric air as a mixture of gases and behaves as such. One cannot separate CO2 from the mixture and claim that it causes special effects. This is not the physics we have learned, tested, and accepted.
You can argue that about CO2, sure!
But it won’t convince those who have a pecuniary interest in promulgating the biggest scientific hoax in history.
We can, however, detect the cooling effect of water vapor and understand why it cools as in my 2013 paper and the graphic of the results of my study …
http://climate-change-theory.com/images
We need to attack the false physics to overcome the scam.
Nabil …I agree with your statement.
Part of the Ideal Gas Law is Dalton law of partial pressures. It states that the pressure of a mixed gas is the sum of the partial pressures of each gas.
Taken a step farther, where temperature is directly proportional to pressure, it should be obvious that the heating capability of each gas is directly proportional to its mass percent.
That means N2/O2 should be responsible for about 99% of the warming, and CO2 about 0.04% or about 0.04C per degree C rise in temperature.
As far as CO2 being the only gas capable of cooling the atmosphere, I think that is pseudo-science. Something is being missed, big-time.
Retired ball of white stuff,
“What IS known in regard to molecular interactions between molecules in the atmosphere is that molecules with greater kinetic energy than ones they collide with will impart some of their excess kinetic energy into the molecule they collided with.”
This is an example of a reversible process, ie, is time independent, so it can go both ways.
Grok on that and its relationship to the second law of thermodynamics, and Boltzmann distributions.
Gordon, I have to disagree with you on that one. Simply study how an ophthalmic laser works. It is applied GHG Effect.
jeff id…”Plancks preferred god of physics figured that out long ago and he stuffed a fourth order into the radiative temperature equation ensuring that in no way can climate feedback become positive on any planet anywhere. Radiative emission is almost the only means of cooling the Earth has, some atmosphere is lost to space over time”.
***
Planck was almost dismissive of his equation admitting he had fudged it to get the desired equation. I can live with someone like Planck with his humility.
I am wondering if the 4th order to which you refer is related to the exponential in the equation. He added that speculatively since there was no other way to equate e = hf, which leads to a runaway energy intensity at higher frequencies, toward infinity, in accordance with the actuality. The radiation spectrum peaks around the EM frequencies colours green and yellow and drops off dramatically by the blue end and red ends of the spectrum.
Planck worked that out for the blue end by predicting that bodies that radiate at the blue end, or higher, are far less available than bodies radiating in the yellow-green frequency areas. I suppose it is the same for the infrared area down below red.
I am glad to you claimed radiative emission is ‘almost’ the only means of cooling the Earth. A good amount of the surface is cooled by heat transfer via conduction to the atmosphere. The heated air rises but it is 99% N2/O2 therefore cannot radiate away the heat. Alarmists claim that heat is passed to trace gases like CO2 that radiate it to space. Seems far too cute, if not seriously silly.
The Ideal Gas Law tells us that temperature is directly proportional to pressure in a system with a constant volume and a constant number of molecules. That pretty well describes static conditions in the atmosphere ( no convective processes). Since pressure drops with altitude, that means temperature must drop with altitude as well, therefore heat is dissipated internally without having to be radiated.
That would contradict the conservation of energy law were the Earth not already at an elevated temperature due to heat being stored in the oceans, land surface, including waterways, and so on. The atmosphere maintains its own heat due to the N2/O2 being unable to radiate it away. Of course, that effect is more pronounced in the Tropics but air and water from the region spreads polewards and heat much of the regions in that direction.
Still, the idea that heating by the Sun must be radiated away immediately is the meme of alarmists. So, they talk about heat budgets without due consideration to other effects just described. There is a delay of unknown length between the time solar energy warms the Earth and that heat leaves.
I fear that evidence of N2/O2 radiating to space has been lost in the orgy of alarmist theory related to radiation theory. We know both absorb and radiate and there is likely a crucial link being missed with our inordinate focus on terrestrial IR radiation.
Dug,
Still don’t want to acknowledge that the Earth has cooled over last four and a half billion years or so?
Notwithstanding any nonsensical GHE, heat creep, dimwitted SkyDragon activists crying “Stop Climate Change”, or the like.
Just a big molten blob, in space, far enough away from the Sun to slowly cool.
Good grief, full sunlight can’t even stop a fresh cup of tea from cooling!
What happened to “heat creep”? Doesn’t it work when doubters are in the vicinity?
Carry on.
Gordon:
You may consider this a fine point, but your statement “Since pressure drops with altitude, that means temperature must drop with altitude as well” is not quite correct.
What actually happens is that …
As a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics …
Gravity simultaneously forms …
(1) the density gradient
(2) the temperature gradient
as these are one and the same state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
The pressure gradient is the RESULT, not the cause of either (1) or (2) because temperature will not vary unless there is a net change in thermal (kinetic) energy and neither density nor pressure can create energy. Gravity can, however, redistribute energy, and it does in the “heat creep” process.
******************************************************
Unless people understand the above process and the fact that there is a tendency towards maximum entropy with its stable density and temperature gradients then they will never understand the “heat creep” process.
Unless people understand this “heat creep” process they will never be able to explain observed heat and temperatures in planetary systems throughout the Solar System.
That’s why, for example, they cannot explain the warming of the Venus surface on the sunlit side without understanding that it is the “heat creep” process that supplies the required energy..
It’s all in my papers linked at http://climate-change-theory.com
***************************************************
Dug,
You wrote –
“Gravity simultaneously forms
(1) the density gradient
(2) the temperature gradient
as these are one and the same state of thermodynamic equilibrium.”
But only in gases, do you think?
The oceans get colder with increasing depth. So is gravity making the water denser and colder?
Don’t be silly, Dug. Ignoring reality just makes you look deranged.
No gravitothermal effect. Banging on about thermodynamics won’t help.
No heat creep – that’s just silly, like saying that the far side of an object from a heat source will get hotter than the near side. No heat creep there!
Off you go now, keep insisting that your fantasies are superior to reality.
Not true, Dug.
Where there is atmosphere that behaves as an ideal gas, seasonal variation are reversible thermodynamic transformation. That is, entropy change is equal to zero. In other words, the entropy hovers around equilibrium.
Garbage Nabil!
Entropy NEVER decreases in a natural thermodynamic process.
That’s the law …
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.
Nothing can happen as a natural thermodynamic process unless entropy increases. If you have not learned physics in at least second and third year university I suggest you keep out of the discussion.
I have quoted the Second Law of Thermodynamics several times above and written a peer-reviewed paper on it in 2012 which is the first paper linked on my third climate website, namely http://climate-change-theory.com.
“The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases”.
***
I have already stated the 2nd law for you as stated by Clausius. Heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body.
After he made that statement he defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat at a temperature T. He added that for reversible processes, entropy is zero. For irreversible processes it is positive.
Gordon,
A thermodynamic model has an equivalent radiative model. See derivation of S-B law from basic thermodynamics
https://www.tec-ascience.com/thermodynamics/temperature/thermodynamic-derivation-of-the-stefan-boltzmann-law/
In short, we cannot say that the the laws of thermodynamics are not applicable to radiative heat, because there is an equivalence. When the sun loses heat to the earth by radiation, the entropy of the system sun-earth increases.
Every single one-way passage of radiation obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Climatologists are seriously mistaken when they excuse the violation of that law in their energy diagrams, claiming all that matters is that there is net energy out of the surface.
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.
Only INTERACTING systems can be considered and outward cooling processes do not interact with inward radiation from the atmosphere. Such back radiation can NEVER raise the global mean surface temperature, as climatologists claim it does and thus deduce that more radiation from more CO2 will warm us.
It’s all in my peer-reviewed 2012 paper on radiation that is linked at http://climate-change-theory.com which is now in eight languages.
Your paper is bullshit. It is not consistent and consilient and does not correctly describe energy flow in the real world.
To borrow the Richard Feynman quite so beloved of climate sceptics
“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. “
nabil…”In short, we cannot say that the the laws of thermodynamics are not applicable to radiative heat”.
***
What I am claiming, Nabil is this: there is no such thing as radiative heat. Heat cannot be radiated, it is a property of atomic motion, the energy associated with it.
Radiation is defined as an electrical field perpendicular to a magnetic field. It has no heat and it has no mass. Without mass, heat cannot exist.
Radiation is not covered by the 2nd law as such. However, the effect of the radiation from a hotter body to a cooler body can dissipate and create heat locally. In such a process, heat is dissipated in the hotter source as EM is created and created in the colder body when EM is converted back to thermal energy. The overall effect is an apparent transfer of heat from a hotter body to a cooler body.
As Bohr explained it, electrons surrounding an atomic nucleus are restricted to quantized orbitals. When an electron drop between orbital levels, it emits a quantum of EM based on the equation, E = hf. E is the difference in potential between orbital levels, and f is the angular frequency of the electron when it emits the EM.
Another way of looking at this is that electrons in higher orbital levels have more energy and energy equivalent to the difference in orbital levels must be expended as the electron transitions down the way.
To force the electron back up to a higher orbital level, an EM with intensity and frequency, E = hf, must be applied to the electron. EM from a cooler body lacks the frequency and intensity to be absorbed by an electron in a hotter body.
If an electron accepts the EM, it gains energy and jumps to a higher orbital level. It’s velocity increases hence it kinetic energy, which is thermal energy in this case. The overall effect on the body is a rise in temperature.
Conversely, if the electron drops a level, or more, and emits a quantum of EM, it loses KE and the overall effect is a cooling of the body.
Heat is not transferred between bodies but the overall effect is like a transfer from hot to cold. Therefore the 2nd law applies in that case.
Clausius did not understand this because in his day electrons had not been discovered and Bohr’s theory was not presented till more than a decade after the discovery of the electron. Clausius and many other scientists thought heat moved through space as heat rays.
Nevertheless, Clausius was on top of it to the point he declared that the 2nd law applies to radiation.
Dug. But entropy change can be zero.
That’s very rare if at all. It DOES NOT GET TO ZERO by first increasing and then decreasing by a finite amount.
Nabil…Clausius agreed with you. He claimed that entropy in a reversible process is zero.
Very rare as I said. Do please give me an example of what you THINK is a reversible process. The Second Law says entropy never DECREASES but our friend seems to think it can increase a finite amount and then decrease by the same amount in typical atmospheric events. That is NOT an example of a reversible process. The concept is totally irrelevant to discussions relating to ever-varying atmospheres. I quote:
To maintain equilibrium, reversible processes are extremely slow (quasistatic). The process must occur slowly enough that after some small change in a thermodynamic parameter, the physical processes in the system have enough time for the other parameters to self-adjust to match the new, changed parameter value. For example, if a container of water has sat in a room long enough to match the steady temperature of the surrounding air, for a small change in the air temperature to be reversible, the whole system of air, water, and container must wait long enough for the container and air to settle into a new, matching temperature before the next small change can occur.[a] While processes in isolated systems are never reversible,[3] cyclical processes can be reversible or irreversible.[4] Reversible processes are hypothetical or idealized but central to the second law of thermodynamics.[3] Melting or freezing of ice in water is an example of a realistic process that is nearly reversible.
Retired Scientist
” thats why the Second Law of Thermodynamics says entropy never decreases rather than saying it (always) increases ”
I disaree. While on a universal scale entropy always increases, on a local scale entropy can remain stable or decrease.
A planet undergoing global warming is an example. Consider the Sun and Earth as a single system and their joint entropy increases over time. Considered separately the thermodynamic entropy of the Sun increases, while Earth’s decreases.
Living organisms show negative entropy. When you consider
a living organism and it’s environment as a whole the total entropy increases over time.
When you consider the living organisms as a system you see both the thermodynamic entropy and Shannon entropy decrease over time as the organism grows and reproduces.
“biological systems increase the global entropy and dissipation by using free energy to create local entropy minima (i.e., building up local information and order).”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7760317/#:
Ent says: “When you consider the living organisms as a system you see both the thermodynamic entropy and Shannon entropy decrease over time as the organism grows and reproduces.”
That’s one of the reasons we know evolution can’t happen. It’s all contained in DNA of living organisms.
Do you think Graham is an Evo Dragon crank too, Pup?
Please stop trolling.
“Very rare as I said. Do please give me an example of what you THINK is a reversible process.”
Dug,
The earth’s atmosphere and other atmospheres. Every year its temperature deviates from average then returns back to where it was a year ago. It is a reversible process. The entropy change at the completion of one revolution is equal to zero. You keep talking about maximum entropy at equilibrium, right? What does this mean in mathematical terms? Is not ds=0?
Clint R.
“Thats one of the reasons we know evolution cant happen. Its all contained in DNA of living organisms. ”
To the contrary. Evolution by natural selection is optimising an organism to survive and reproduce in a particular ecological niche. This takes place at both the phenotype and DNA level. It can be regarded as increasing the energy content and reducing the Shannon entropy.
Since the organism is already reducing Shannon entropy as it grows and reproduces, evolution is just an extension of the same processes.
Sorry, that should have been
“It can be regarded as increasing the information content and reducing the Shannon entropy. “
Wrong Ent. You’re putting your interpretation on it. That ain’t science.
“Natural selection” is “selecting” within the gene code. No new life forms are created. In a sense, natural selection is an example of “devolving”.
You won’t grasp this because you have no interest in science and reality. You’ll twist anything to match your false beliefs. That’s why you claim passenger jets fly backwards.
> “Natural selection” is “selecting” within the gene code.
Indeed, Pup.
And “bingo draw” is “selecting” within a bingo ball.
Congrats Entropic for changing the Second Law. Don’t forget to edit it on Wikipedia where it says … and I quote:
“The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
You really do make a fool of yourself on this blog. (LOL)
Are you suggesting that biological processes are physically impossible, sock puppet?
Yes, that’s why the Second Law of Thermodynamics says entropy “never decreases” rather than saying it (always) “increases” but I suggest you read my comments on this a bit more carefully because you have an incorrect belief that this is somehow relevant to what happens in the atmosphere: it isn’t relevant at all to my proof that “heat creep” happens, as is explained in the second paper linked at http://climate-change-theory.com.
https://www.tec-science.com/thermodynamics/temperature/thermodynamic-derivation-of-the-stefan-boltzmann-law/
When will meteorologists in North America officially admit that there are changes in the Northern Hemisphere winter circulation associated with low solar activity?
https://i.ibb.co/23B285h/latest.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/0ZDSwbn/gfs-o3mr-05-nh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/TrDKB03/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f000.png
Gordon:
You wrote (regarding an electron) “Its velocity increases hence it kinetic energy, which is thermal energy in this case.”
No! No! No! Thermal energy is only associated with translational kinetic energy of whole molecules and the mass of such molecules greatly exceeds that of electrons anyway.
Dug,
So thermal energy is responsible for the cooling of the Earth over the last four and a half billion years or so, is it?
Sounds strange to me, but feel free explain just in case others don’t understand either.
Or not, as you wish.
What I shall explain to silent readers (whom I’m sure will understand this) is that you interrupt discussion between others here with your persistent, unfounded and unproven conjecture, which I assume you think explains how current surface temperatures night and day, summer and winter have nothing to do with solar radiation levels but rather, in your mind, rise and fall with the seasons, days and nights because the subsurface outer crust regions apparently “know” what temperature to make the surface above them, regardless of where the Sun is.
Dug,
Don’t be silly.
The temperature of a teapot doesn’t depend on the contents “knowing’ how hot to make the teapot’s surface, any more than the hot interior of the Earth has to “know” how hot to make the Earth’s surface.
The surface was initially molten, and has progressively cooled.
Your just refuse to accept reality. For example, you can’t actually quote me saying what you claim I said, so you just make things up, hoping nobody will notice.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, to its present temperature. Nothing stopped this cooling – not four and a half billion years or so of sunlight, GHE, or heat creep, or SkyDragon prayers. Nothing.
The Earth continues to cool, and the day’s heat is radiated away at night, as Baron Fourier pointed out over a century ago, plus a bit of the Earth’s internal heat.
Don’t accept reality if you don’t like it.
It won’t make any difference, will it?
A high SOI will provide more rainfall in Australia.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
The only correct physics relating to the role of water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane etc. is in seven papers linked on my Home page which can be read in three minutes and is available in eight languages at: http://climate-change-theory.com and has never been proven wrong in a decade now.
Retired Physicist at 5:47 AM
My advice is, don’t waste your time, read instead:
Physics of Climate. Jose P. Peixoto and Abraham H. Oort
AIP, New York, 1992.
This book fills a long-standing need. Several recent journal reviews and books address either past climate changes or theoretical predictions of future climates, notably global warming from a human-enhanced greenhouse effect. These works give relatively little attention, however, to observations of the present-day climate. Such observations have accumulated in great numbers over the past few decades. During this time weather balloons have been launched twice a day simultaneously from hundreds of stations around the world, merchant ships and dedicated oceanographic expeditions have collected a smaller but still impressive data set, and satellites have observed cloud cover, sea ice and numerous other variables. (The data will increase by orders of magnitude in coming years through expanded satellite coverage and international programs such as the ongoing World Ocean Circulation Experiment.)
The heart of the book deals with observed flows of conserved quantities within the atmosphere and the oceans. Mass, momentum and energy are addressed in forms traditional to geophysical fluid dynamics. Mass and momentum budgets are presented in terms of stream function and angular momentum, respectively, while the small fraction of potential energy that is actually available for conversion to kinetic energy is separated out explicitly. The authors derive the appropriate conservation equations from the equations of motion presented earlier. In addition, they present flows of entropy and of atmospheric water in its various phases.
Do not let the book’s sheer volume intimidate you. Those who make their way completely through Physics of Climate will emerge with a firm foundation for reading the technical literature.
Couple of interesting finds in the book:
In section 6.3.4, they admit that CO2 can absorb solar: “The main atmospheric gases absorbing solar energy are water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, oxygen, nitrogen, and their oxides, and methane.”
That leads to the old familiar “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
Then, in figure 6.3, they indicate the surface absorbs 50% of solar, which results in about 680 W/m^2, more than enough to support 288K.
Which leads us back to the old familiar “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
That might be a good book.
Does section 6.3.4 contain anything related to the radiative properties of non-radiative gases, Pup?
Perhaps that was just one of your latest trolls.
Willard,
A non-radiative gas? Really?
That must be in a SkyDragon fantasy world, where matter above absolute zero doesn’t continuously radiate infrared energy.
That’s where you live, is it? In a fantasy world?
Are you a complete idiot, or just trying to achieve that exalted state?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You might like to read that post:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/no-climatologists-did-not-forget-the-sun-was-shining/
No, climatologists did not forget that the Sun was shining.
You should read what Roy had to say one day.
After ten years of trolling his website, this is the least you could do.
Willard,
A non-radiative gas? Really?
That must be in a SkyDragon fantasy world, where matter above absolute zero doesnt continuously radiate infrared energy.
Thats where you live, is it? In a fantasy world?
Are you a complete idiot, or just trying to achieve that exalted state?
Carry on.
Willard at 9:04 PM
Since Section 6.3.4 also says:
We must conclude that the troll is just trolling. As always.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Retired Physicist at 2:26 AM
“…Thermal energy is only associated with translational kinetic energy of whole molecules…”
A thought experiment to show the folly in your comment:
Imagine a system composed of two baseballs connected together by a spring, O===O, thrown at a constant speed v1 in all cases.
(1) If I throw this system at you in such a manner that it doesn’t rotate or vibrate, it should be very easy to catch.
(2) Next I’ll cause it to rotate about its center of mass (in the horizontal plane) as I throw it. It’ll be a little more difficult, but manageably so, to catch.
(3) Next I’ll cause the spring to vibrate in the vertical plane, while rotating as in (2) above as I throw it. Undoubtedly harder to catch, no?
In each case, although the translational speed was the same, the system gained kinetic energy. Rotation and vibration are two additional modes of energy storage. These are known as degrees of freedom and kinetic energy is proportional to the number of degrees of freedom.
It’s the same for gas molecules in the atmosphere except for that increasing the number of atoms (baseballs and springs) changes the number of degrees of freedom; think H2O, CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc.
Yes, and shock absorbers reduce the impact of holes in the road, so roughly half the time the vibrational energy will increase the pressure and half the time it will decrease it. You could argue that the pressure increases due to a temperature (KE) increase and half the time the temperature decreases. There have been many arguments regarding these extra DoF as to whether or not they affect temperature. If they do it is to a much lower order of magnitude than translational KE.
In any event, I wasn’t talking about such: electron energy is quite a different thing and the raising of an electron through one or more quantum energy states does NOT increase the temperature. If it did then the Second Law would be violated.
Nabil & Entropic are sooooo confused it is not worth my time trying to teach them basic physics. I used to get paid for doing that and marking undergraduate assignments decades ago.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-temperature-of-an-object-relate-only-to-the-translational-kinetic-energy-of-a-particle-but-not-to-the-rotational-or-vibrational
You should have read your own link… https://qr.ae/pvJAaS
Gordon,
I will summarize what we have discussed, and please correct me if am wrong
The laws of thermodynamics apply when heat and work are exchanged. In a radiative process where no heat and work is exchanged, the laws do not apply. If, however, heat and work are exchanged in a radiative process, the law of thermodynamics must be respected. This lead us to backradiation. If no or negligible heat is exchanged with the surface, the laws do not apply and backradiation can exist. If heat is transferred by backradiation to the surface, the entropy of the system atmosphere-surface decreases, which represents a violation.
” If heat is transferred by backradiation to the surface, the entropy of the system atmosphere-surface decreases, which represents a violation. ”
Only locally. The Earth is showing negative entropy as back radiation increases the equilibrium temperature of the surface.
The larger Sun/Earth/space system continues to gain net entropy in accordance with 2LOT.
No Ent, you’ve been swallowing that cult nonsense again.
Like this:
Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, March 20, 2000.
See, in real science you don’t get to make things up. And, when you’re “theory” is proved wrong, you change your theory.
That’s nothing, Pup:
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-death-rates-higher-republicans-democrats-why-rcna50883
Science marches on one scientist death at the time.
So does progress.
Dug,
At equilibrium, which all planets have reached, or displace infinitesimaly around equilibrium, after billions of year. ds=0, and there can be no “heat creep.” For the climate change on earth, which is caused by living matter, the concept of “heat creep” could be something to listen to, as long as it addresses satisfactorily the issues at hand. It has not as of now.
You all have a very limited and outdated understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is involved in absolutely EVERY natural thermodynamic process, not just thermal processes.
The Second Law is operating when …
A spontaneous chemical reaction takes place
A ball rolls down a plank
Ice melts
Steam condenses
The density gradient in the troposphere repairs itself after a storm
The temperature gradient does likewise
Fire burns something
In ALL these cases entropy is increasing but you don’t understand entropy either because you think it only relates to KE when in fact it is affected by PE and any other form of internal energy such as that due to phase change.
Here endeth the lesson.
As I said above, it’s decades since I was paid to teach physics and mark undergraduate assignments: I have work to do in my battle with Dr Larry Marshall, CEO of the CSIRO in Australia, whom I have tied in knots with my FOI’s they can’t answer.
When the Labor government in Australia establishes the National Integrity Commission I shall be reporting the lack of due diligence and corruption within the CSIRO.
HEAT CREEP HAPPENS in EVERY PLANETARY TROPOSPHERE and DOWN TO THE CORE of PLANETS and SATELLITE MOONS for the reasons in my 2013 paper linked at …
http://climate-change-theory.com
which NOBODY ANYWHERE EVER has proven wrong, least of all you.
Ah, rudeness. The last refuge of the green ink “scientist” who knows he has lost the debate.
Ent, that ain’t rude! You should read some of the cult responses to me!
But it’s interesting how Dug can give clear concise examples of “natural thermodynamic process”, but his “heat creep” is only found buried under layers of rambling nonsense on planet Venus!
Nonsense – it is found in Earth’s troposphere and you’d be dead (frozen to death) if it were not warming the surface even on mornings when there is thick cloud cover because it passes through clouds. It happens BECAUSE it is increasing entropy. It happens only because it is in a force field. It happens in centrifugal force fields also and no vortex cooling tube would work if it didn’t.*
Furthermore, you haven’t a clue what it is or how it works because you don’t deign to read the comprehensive, detailed development of the hypothesis directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics in my 2013 paper “Planetary Core & Surface Temperatures” linked at http://climate-change-theory.com where the home page is available in eight languages.
End of lesson.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vortex_tube#how_it_works
But it’s interesting how Dug can give clear concise examples of “natural thermodynamic process”, but his “heat creep” is only found buried under layers of rambling nonsense on planet Venus!
PS: Can you believe it !!!!!!! The CSIRO has no documentation as to how climatologists quantify the global mean surface temperature and any supposed variations due to back radiation or anything. Here is their official response to my latest FOI:
11 October 2022
Our ref: FOI2022/49
Mr D’uglas Cott’n
PO Box 5155
South Tamworth NSW 2340
Via email: …..
Dear Mr Cott’n
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST DECISION FOI2022/49
I refer to your request of 11 September 2022 under which you sought access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) to:
copies of any communication received by Dr Larry Marshall from any source, internal or external, which provides the appropriate physics and related computations using laws of physics (such as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) which allow correct quantification of the global mean surface temperature for Earth and are thus appropriate for use to quantify variations to that mean temperature supposedly due to molecules in the atmosphere capable of radiating energy at tropospheric temperatures.
Decision
I am an authorised decision maker under section 23 of the FOI Act. This letter sets out my decision and reasons for the decision in relation to your request. Despite an extensive search, CSIRO has been unable to identify any document relevant to your request. I must therefore refuse access, pursuant to section 24A of the FOI Act, on the basis that the documents sought do not exist or cannot be found. Searches for relevant documents were conducted by staff from the office of CSIROs Chief Executive. All communications related to your request were reviewed but none could be said to fall in scope of your request.
[WHAT DUG ASKS] copies of any communication received by Dr Larry Marshall from any source, internal or external, which provides the appropriate physics and related computations using laws of physics
[WHAT DUG GETS] I must therefore refuse access, pursuant to section 24A of the FOI Act, on the basis that the documents sought do not exist or cannot be found.
[WHAT DUG HEARS] no documentation as to how climatologists quantify the global mean surface temperature
So Dug will continue his quest for nothingness and claims he is the truest winner of Climateball.
Well done, Dug!
The point, my friend, is that when the CEO of the CSIRO does not have such documentation it displays a serious lack of due diligence in checking the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology.
But by all means provide such an explanation right here and now! (You can find it on my website anyway.)
My refutation of climatology’s explanation in the writings of Raymond Pierrehumbert is in several papers linked at http://climate-change-theory.com where the NASA energy diagram appears and has, beneath it, the way in which they incorrectly calculate the surface temperature.
Dug,
You are not my friend, but the sock puppet of a crank who got banned from this website multiple times.
If you can’t write FOIA that makes sense, that’s on you.
And if you can’t understand the correct physics based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics in my seven scientific papers and book then you will remain in the dark, utterly fooled by the biggest scientific scam in history based on a conjecture that violates at least three long-established laws of physics, unlike my “heat creep” hypothesis which is meticulously based on the laws of physics.
Because such laws apply throughout the Universe, it should not surprise anyone that the hypothesis works (giving correct temperatures in agreement with observations) for all planets with significant atmospheres and even for subsurface regions of those that don’t and for satellite moons, in particular our own, and even vortex cooling tubes where heat creep happens radially because of centrifugal force that enables it to happen, just as does gravity.
Dug,
I started at the Auditor’s.
So I know a thing or two about vexatious FOIA requests.
I’m telling you that your request was not vexatious.
It was silly.
Please stop trolling.
Willard,
You wrote –
“I started at the Auditors.”
Thanks for that startlingly useless information.
Am I supposed to be impressed, and grovel before you, crying “I am not worthy!”?
How are getting on explaining why the GHE made the Earth cool for four and a half billion years or so, before it started heating the planet at the behest of idiots like you?
Not too well, I guess.
[laughing at fool]
Mike Flynn,
I was not talking to you.
Cheers.
Donkeybrain Willard,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
I was not talking to you.”
Good-oh. And Mike Flynn hasn’t responded, so why are you worried that he might? Are you scared?
On the other hand, I did comment, and I don’t care whether you were talking to me or not. Why should I care, you idiot?
I do as I wish, and there is precisely nothing you can do about it. Accept reality, peabrain.
[chortling at dimwit]
Mike Flynn,
Even when I am addressing you I am not talking to you.
There would be no point.
You don’t listen to reason.
You don’t listen to Roy.
You don’t listen.
Keep bullying, sad buffoon.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Even when I am addressing you I am not talking to you.
There would be no point.
You dont listen to reason.
You dont listen to Roy.
You dont listen.
Keep bullying, sad buffoon.”
Ah well, still thinking you can read minds, are you?
Every opinion you’ve ever had, plus five dollars, will probably be enough to buy a five dollar cup of coffee somewhere. I listen to whom I wish, then I do what I wish – as does any rational person, I suppose.
SkyDragons, presumably, just do what they’re told. Is that the way it works?
You really are an idiot, aren’t you?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Sloppy buffoon.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote
Mike Flynn,
Even when I am addressing you I am not talking to you.
There would be no point.
You dont listen to reason.
You dont listen to Roy.
You dont listen.
Keep bullying, sad buffoon.
Ah well, still thinking you can read minds, are you?
Every opinion youve ever had, plus five dollars, will probably be enough to buy a five dollar cup of coffee somewhere. I listen to whom I wish, then I do what I wish as does any rational person, I suppose.
SkyDragons, presumably, just do what theyre told. Is that the way it works?
You really are an idiot, arent you?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn, surprising buffoon.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Now, the government thinks your nuts, just like everyone else.
That was clever, Dug. Anything of significance would have been copied to the CEO. So either they aren’t being fully truthful, or they’ve got NOTHING.
Retired Scientist
Why would scientific information about climate be in Marshall’s emails?
Surely if he needs information he’ll read the published literature like the rest of us.
You, yourself, do not send us emails describing your work. You insist that we read your papers.
No, I don’t send emails to the many thousands who have read my papers and I don’t respond until someone, somewhere posts an attempted refutation on Researchgate, because that must be done to have any chance of getting the reward. This is the most rigorous form of peer-review in open media. You’re welcome to try, but you’ll have to read my 2013 paper as I have no intention of copying many pages from it when it is one click away and read by over 2,200 on Researchgate as well as thousands more on LinkedIn and SSRN:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures
And, Dr Marshall having a PhD in Physics, should have readily recognised the faults in the published literature and communicated with the IPCC asking for their documentation and challenging them regarding the blatantly obvious violations of no less than three long-established laws of physics therein.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324664270_Comprehensive_Refutation_of_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915619_Cogent_and_irrefutable_reasons_why_carbon_dioxide_cannot_warm_Earth
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337915638_Understanding_Josef_Loschmidt's_Gravito-_Thermal_Effect_and_thus_Why_the_Radiative_Forcing_Greenhouse_Hypothesis_is_False
Dug,
Feynman again –
“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.”
The Earth has just cooled for four and a half billion years or so, to its present temperature.
That’s what happens if something is hotter than its surroundings.
You may attempt to refute reality, appeal to authority, complain bitterly that people are ignoring your brilliance, but it won’t make a difference.
The universe doesn’t care. Seven billion other people don’t seem to care all that much, and the universe doesn’t care what they think, either.
Reality just keeps on keeping on, whether we deny it or not.
Yes, well my writings are based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, whereas those of Raymond Pierrehumbert are not. You cannot prove otherwise.
For you also I quote Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington:
“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington,
The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
And my writings agree with over 850 experiments conducted this century and cited in my papers and websites, as well as with my study showing that, in the real world, water vapor cools, and in data throughout the Solar System where my calculations based on the “heat creep” hypothesis give accurate estimates of temperatures at the base of planetary tropospheres throughout the Solar System. Try explaining any other planet’s temperatures with the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology! Good luck with that!
http://climate-change-theory.com
Dug,
You wrote –
“Try explaining any other planets temperatures . . . ”
Simple. They were created hotter, and they cooled. As things do.
You cannot prove me wrong. You can’t even prove you are not a delusional nutter.
The laws of thermodynamics appear to be intact.
These three papers of mine on the prestige scientific site “Researchgate” have had in total over 5,700 reads now, and counting.
Dug,
The Bible has presumably had more reads than your publications.
Actually, so has pretty well every other publication in the history of the planet.
Do you have a point?
I’ve read your papers and they make no sense.
Why should Dr Marshall think otherwise?
Wonky Wee Willy wrote to Dug –
“You are not my friend, but the sock puppet of a crank who got banned from this website multiple times.”
Oh dear, Willard can’t cope with Dr Spencer allowing freedom of expression on his blog.
Poor Wee Willy – impotent, powerless, and an object of derision to many.
Should start his own blog, and ban everybody!
Mike Flynn,
What if all the scoundrels you ban all comes back?
Woeful Wee Willy –
You wrote –
“What if all the scoundrels you ban all comes back?”
Well, that’s certainly completely pointless, isn’t it?
Are all SkyDragons as inept as you, when trying to express themselves?
Funny that all the banned guys at Roy’s all cranks, Mike Flynn.
Some of them are even Sky Dragon cranks like you.
Roy didn’t ban you, did he?
He simply asked you to start your own blog.
And you’re still here, peddling crank stuff.
Crank stuff he asked you to stop peddling.
Is that something you’re proud of, silly buffoon?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
What business is it of yours anyway, dummy?
Complain to Dr Spencer, if you like. It’s his blog. Don’t blame me if he values your vapid opinions no more than I do.
Maybe you are just as impotent, powerless, and generally inept, as I surmise.
How are you going, trying to explain how the Earth managed to cool over four and a half billion years or so, in spite of the GHE – or anything at all!
Go back to whining, Wee Willy.
[snigger]
Mike Flynn,
First, you mention my name.
Second, Climateball needs better contrarians.
It certainly needs better than Sky Dragon cranks misapplying the SB law.
Cheers.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
What business is it of yours anyway, dummy?
Complain to Dr Spencer, if you like. Its his blog. Dont blame me if he values your vapid opinions no more than I do.
Maybe you are just as impotent, powerless, and generally inept, as I surmise.
How are you going, trying to explain how the Earth managed to cool over four and a half billion years or so, in spite of the GHE or anything at all!
Go back to whining, Wee Willy.
[snigger]
Why would I complain if in every thread you act like a Westworld villain, Mike?
You are a gift that keeps giving!
Keep showcasing the immense depth of the Sky Dragon cranks.
What will it be next – the molten Earth, the desert, the sammich request, the Dick move?
Every thread is a cliffhanger with you!,
Cheers.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
What business is it of yours anyway, dummy?
Complain to Dr Spencer, if you like. Its his blog. Dont blame me if he values your vapid opinions no more than I do.
Maybe you are just as impotent, powerless, and generally inept, as I surmise.
How are you going, trying to explain how the Earth managed to cool over four and a half billion years or so, in spite of the GHE or anything at all!
Go back to whining, Wee Willy.
[snigger]
You’re spamming, Mike.
Are you running short of insults to throw?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
This one is for Entropic. I quote Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington:
“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington,
The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
Dug,
From a university physics course –
“Entropy increases whenever heat flows from a hot object to a cold object.”
As in a blob of molten rock in space, losing heat, and becoming colder as a result.
What’s not to like? Sir Arthur Eddington appears to agree with me, anyway.
No heat creep needed for cooling.
Of course entropy increases when there is heat from hot to cold. It increases in the heat creep process also because that is also a natural thermodynamic process and the proof is in my 2013 paper at http://climate-change-theory.com now in 9 languages (Indonesian just added.)
A small copper marble painted matte black and orbiting the Sun in the same orbit as Earth will be maintained at about 120C by the Solar radiation whilever the Sun emits the current flux, probably for billions of years. Why wouldn’t it?
You really don’t THINK.
In the same way as for that copper marble in Earth’s orbit, the Sun will maintain the temperature around 255K at the radiating altitude a few kilometers up in the troposphere. (It’s actually more like a weighted mean altitude where the insolation matches the radiation back to Space.)
So, try hard to THINK:
Given that will happen and the temperature won’t change up there at the radiating altitude, how could the Earth’s mean surface temperature keep falling even below that temperature up there so that there would be warming as altitude increases rather than cooling at the rate based on the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. You’d have to turn physics on its head.
Good-bye to you Smart Swenson.
swenson…”Entropy increases whenever heat flows from a hot object to a cold object.
***
S = 1/T (integral dq)
Clausius stated it (S) must be zero for reversible processes, and positive for irreversible processes.
I think it is clear that entropy increases from hot to cold since it is defined as the sum of such transfers.
testing…posting issues
nabil…
1)”The laws of thermodynamics apply when heat and work are exchanged”.
Although work is included as part of the 1LOT, I don’t regard it as a principle part of thermodynamics, which I regard as a study of heat only.
2)In a radiative process where no heat and work is exchanged, the laws do not apply. If, however, heat and work are exchanged in a radiative process, the law of thermodynamics must be respected.
***
We need to be careful using the word ‘exchanged’. This is the area where alarmists get themselves caught over and over. There is never an exchange of heat, it can be transferred in one direction only. I would imagine it’s the same for work.
It’s the same for radiation, no heat is exchanged, furthermore, no heat is transferred physically through space.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both working in the field of thermodynamics, put out a paper called Falsification of the Greenhouse Effect. It was rebutted by Halpern (aka Eli Rabbett) et al. With reference to a statement by G&T, that with radiation, heat could only be transferred in one direction, based on the 2nd law, Halpern et al replied that would mean one body was not radiating.
This is the abject ignorance upon which climate alarm is based. They cannot accep.t that a two-way heat transfer is not possible. They don’t even get it that no heat can be transferred physically by radiation, it is a process of heat loss at the hotter body and heat gain at the cooler body. No heat transfer is possible from the colder body to the hotter body…2nd law.
My background is in engineering and it chagrins me to see mechanical engineering textbooks per.petuate this ignorance of a two-way heat exchange. Of course, they offer it theoretically and do not offer physical examples of it it could work.
To emphasize this point, heat can be transferred directly and physically by conduction and convection. That’s because atoms are transferring the heat or carrying it. With radiation, there are no atoms to transfer heat therefore the transfer physically is only apparent.
The apparent transfer is actually based on quantum theory, where electrons in atoms at the hotter source give up kinetic energy energy, which is heat. The energy given up is due to a conversion to EM and heat is not a property of EM.
The reverse process at a cooler body, where electrons in atoms in the body absorb EM and convert it to kinetic energy as the electron rises to a higher energy level, is not possible.
************************************
3)This lead us to backradiation.
***
The quantum theory I just explained gives the reason why any back-radiation has no effect on the surface. Electrons in atoms on the warmer surface cannot absorb the back-radiated EM because they are already at a higher energy level than the EM from a cooler source can supply, to raise them to a higher level.
*****************************
4)If no or negligible heat is exchanged with the surface, the laws do not apply and backradiation can exist.
***
I have no problem with the concep.t of back-radiation, it just has no effect on the surface and it is completely over-emphasized. I see, as of late, that alarmists have given up on that theory and turned to the equally inane theory that a trace gas in the atmosphere can affect the dissipation rate of hat at the surface.
If you have molecules of CO2 that are radiating IR, the radiation is isotropic. Some goes up, some goes laterally, and some goes down. It just has no effect because the CO2 is either in thermal equilibrium with the surface or cooler. In order to heat the surface, the CO2 would have to be warmer than the surface. Besides, how much can a gas with a concentration of 0.04% produce when the percent of surface radiation it can absorb is about 5%?
*******************************
5) If heat is transferred by backradiation to the surface, the entropy of the system atmosphere-surface decreases, which represents a violation.
***
The entropy would have to be negative and that contradicts the definition of entropy by Clausius. He stated clearly that entropy is zero for a reversible process and positive for an irreversible process. He then defined entropy based on the 2nd law. Anyone stating the 2nd law based on entropy is being ingenuous. That’s especially true since most people using the theory don’t understand entropy.
The reason I don’t like the use of entropy as a definition of the 2nd law is due to its lack of visualization. It makes little sense in that context. Clausius did not define the 2nd law based on entropy. He introduced it in words as: heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. Then he introduced entropy as a mathematical representation of the 2nd law.
However, the definition of entropy goes with the 2nd law definition in words. He defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat at temperature, T. Having already defined the 2nd law as the transfer of heat from hot to cold, by its own means, it had already been established that entropy must follow suit. That is, entropy can only occur from hot to cold, which is positive according to Clausius. To be negative, heat would have to be transferred cold to hot.
You REALLY need to LEARN from my website and linked papers at http://climate-change-theory.com
You are seriously mistaken in so many things.
You need to read all the literature and papers on the Second Law especially those written in the 1980’s.
Thermo -> temperature
dynamics -> motion (not just heat transfer)
Do you ever read my explanations such as how EVERY naturally occurring process in nature – like a wild fire or an apple falling off a tree or ice melting – all are examples of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as I explained in a comment above.
The laws of Thermodynamics NEVER SWITCH OFF, ANYWHERE, ANY TIME for ANY REASON.
Finally, do you seriously expect physics texts and university lecturers to be up with my 2013 discovery of heat creep yet?
I don’t need to learn anything from you. you are seriously misguided. Part of the reason I don’t respond to you is your repugnant arrogance.
I learned from the master, Rudolf Clausius, not some wannabee from the 1980s and certainly not from someone who is banned and arrogantly re-appears under a new nym, behaving in the same manner that got him banned in the first place.
Well Gordon it’s good to see you agree with what I wrote in 2012 in my peer-reviewed paper on radiation that explained how every one-way passage of radiation obeys the Second Law and so back radiation does not cause heat (ie an effective or apparent transfer of thermal energy) from the cold troposphere to the already-warmer surface which, by the way, has been warmed by non-radiative heat creep which can do what radiation can’t do because radiation involves no molecules for gravity to act on. The paper is the first one linked at http://climate-change-theory.com now in 9 languages.
It’s also a good idea to learn from the “master” the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt who was the first to make a realistic estimate of the size of air molecules. He also understood how gravity acted on those molecules to form a temperature gradient in solids, liquids and gases. Now we have evidence from other planets that supports this, as does a proper understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. After all, seeing that it happens even in a vortex cooling tube then the Second Law could not be being violated. Hence you need to extend your understanding of the Second Law and realize, as even Wikipedia now states, the Clausius statement is only a corollary of the Second Law. It does not always apply to non-radiative heat in a force field wherein gravity affects entropy because molecules have mass and are involved only in non-radiative heat, not radiated heat. (In that the word “heat” in physics refers to an effective or apparent transfer of thermal energy, it’s OK to speak of radiated heat even though there is no KE in radiation it still causes heat – ie a transfer process.)
PS: Seeing that the Solar radiation is insufficient to explain observed temperatures in the surfaces of Earth and Venus, and that atmospheric radiation causes no heat into those surfaces, how then Gordon do you quantify surface temperatures.
What a strange expressions you write when you said “entropy can only occur from hot to cold” because entropy goes nowhere.
Entropy is NOT energy!
Entropy is just a numerical measure of progress in the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials.
There are no remaining unbalance energy potentials when thermodynamic equilibrium is attained.
Thermodynamic equilibrium is not the same thing as thermal equilibrium.
“What a strange expressions you write when you said entropy can only occur from hot to cold because entropy goes nowhere.
Entropy is NOT energy!”
***
Clausius defined it as energy, he stated that. Entropy is a sum of heat transfers in a process, ergo, entropy is another name for thermal energy. Clausius explained that he did not want to use the word energy because it was in use therefore he called it entropy.
In Gibbs free energy equation, entropy is part of it.
G = H – T.S
H = enthalpy = total content of heat in a body. T.S = entropy.T = the amount of heat entering or leaving a system.
T.S comes from…
S = 1/T (integral dq)
When integrated Q = heat = T.S
You need to study some chemistry and thermodynamics.
Thank you, Gordon.
nabil…let me know what you think re disagreement.
Still have your email address, things are a bit hectic at the moment.
The density gradient in the troposphere is a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Its equilibrium state is thermodynamic equilibrium because as it forms (or repairs itself after a storm) entropy will tend towards a maximum (as it always does) and when it reaches that then the gradient will be reestablished at the value we could calculate that it should be, just as we can calculate what the temperature gradient will be.
We CANNOT separate the concept of “unbalanced energy potentials dissipating” from “entropy” and we cannot separate the concept of entropy from the Second Law. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27757310
For example, to calculate what the temperature gradient would be in a tall vertical perfectly sealed and insulated cylinder of pure nitrogen and oxygen until we start from the condition that, at maximum entropy (ie thermodynamic equilibrium – NOT thermal equilibrium, by the way) there will be no unbalanced energy potentials. Hence, for the molecules involved, assuming no phase change or chemical reaction, we have the situation in which the sum of the molecular kinetic energy and the molecular potential energy is constant, being the same at the top of the cylinder as at the bottom.
Then, for a cylinder of height h in a gravitational field g the difference in potential energy for a mass m of air is of course the formula you learned in high school: m.g.h
But, if the temperature difference is t then the difference in thermal energy is dependent on the weighted mean specific heat s such that the energy difference is m.s.t
For there to be unbalanced energy potential these two amounts of energy are the same in magnitude but opposite in sign, so ..
m.g.h = -m.s.t
So the temperature gradient: t/h = -g/s
and that is the well-known dry adiabatic lapse rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate#Mathematics_of_the_adiabatic_lapse_rate
That temperature gradient tends to form in every planetary troposphere regardless of solar radiation or any need for a solid surface. So Josef Loschmidt was right.
As Wikipedia correctly states, and I quote:
“The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases. A common corollary of the statement is that heat does not spontaneously pass from a colder body to a warmer body.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
A corollary is like a subset in the sense that it is an application of the law in a certain situation, in this case such as in a laboratory or in a horizontal plane in a gravitational field.
Clausius did not fully comprehend the fact that what the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt explained about gravity forming the tropospheric temperature gradient (and similar gradients in solids and liquids also) meant that his concept of entropy was far more wide-reaching than he realized. It did not relate only to that form on internal energy which is KE but rather it relates to all forms of internal energy. After all, we know PE can convert to KE and KE can convert to PE so entropy must relate to both, as it also does to chemical energy and phase change energy such as so-called latent heat.
“As Wikipedia correctly states, and I quote:
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases”.
***
And the guy who wrote the 2nd law, Clausius, said that ‘heat can never be transferred, by its own means, form a colder body to a warmer body’.
Which version has more clarity and makes more sense? I am going with Clausius, who wrote the 2nd law. He also invented the concept of entropy and said nothing about entropy in his first statement of the 2nd law.
As for Loschmidt, gravity does not affect temperature, it affects pressure, by producing a negative pressure gradient with altitude. However, the atmosphere is essentially a constant volume (V), constant molecule environment (n), and the Ideal Gas Law tells us that such conditions produce an environment where temperature is directly proportional to pressure. Therefore as pressure reduces with altitude, so does temperature.
P = (nR/V)T
No need to complicate matters by introducing concepts like lapse rates and adiabatic processes when there’s no way to contain a gas to produce an adiabatic condition. The Ideal Gas Law has it covered.
Dug,
You wrote –
“Josef Loschmidt explained about gravity forming the tropospheric temperature gradient (and similar gradients in solids and liquids also) ”
Except for liquid water, obviously. Under 10 km of seawater, the temperature is much lower than the surface.
Do you actually engage your brain before hammering away on your keyboard?
No gravitothermal effect. Loschmidt’s imagination was not supported by facts.
So sad, too bad.
Carry on.
The reason was in my 2013 paper nine years ago. Heat creep is a relatively slow process compared with ocean currents which whip the newly warmed surface water in the tropics down towards the polar regions thus preventing the new energy slowly finding its way downwards.
However, in regions of the Norwegian and the Barents Sea in calm conditions in winter there has been observed a warming as depth increases. Of course we see it in boreholes in the outer crust where there can still be plenty of water molecules trapped in mud etc.
For the same reason, heat creep is slower than the rate of new energy absorbed in the stratosphere and even the tropopause.
Dug,
Don’t look really, really, stupid – unless you really, really, want to.
Your nonsense about warmer water getting whipped towards the Poles is nonsensical in the extreme, when you consider that the Earth is roughly spherical, and gravity acts towards the center. It’s about as silly as water cooling at the Poles, sinking to the bottom, and wandering towards the equator – for no particular reason, because still, deep, bottom water anywhere will eventually be found to be at just above freezing, regardless of surface temperature. Basic physics.
All ocean currents in the open ocean result from convection, and convection does not occur when a liquid is heated from the top – less dense water floats on the denser, regardless of what you or Loschmidt imagine.
You really don’t want to accept reality, do you?
Go your hardest. If you find people disagreeing with you, based on fact, don’t be surprised.
Yep, you’re SAYING heat creep (downward convection) doesn’t happen but you’re not PROVING my paper wrong, so you don’t get the reward.
In the Arctic regions in Winter just north of Norway and Finland in calm conditions the temperature has been observed to get warmer going to greater depth. You can read about ocean currents to enlighten yourself as I can’t be bothered providing links.
And neither you nor Jeff Id can explain how the Venus surface warms on the sunlit side, but I have. Nor can you explain Earth’s global mean surface temperature, quantifying such from known parameters. But I can. Likewise the temperature of 320K at the base of the Uranus troposphere. You can’t explain any of these because you have nothing but false physics. Correct physics works for all planets, as mine does. Good Bye.
Venus has a subsurface cavern- filled with hot climate models. Like volcanoes they make it warm for any males who attempt to measure temperature.
I shouldn’t feed trolls.
Not retired enough are you.
Earlier, Delusional Dug wrote –
“Given that will happen and the temperature wont change up there at the radiating altitude, how could the Earths mean surface temperature keep falling even below that temperature up there so that there would be warming as altitude increases rather than cooling at the rate based on the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. Youd have to turn physics on its head.”
Given that Dug refuses to believe (by the look of things), that the Earth’s surface radiates energy (probably refuses to believe that the surface can be seen from from space, for example), his delusion follows the SkyDragon tack of rejecting reality.
Dimwitted nonsense like “radiating altitude” is a sure sign of refusal to accept that the Earth’s surface has a temperature, and it radiates energy in accordance with that temperature.
Oh well, if Desperate Dug doesn’t want to believe that the Earth cooled down from a molten beginning, that’s his affair. The facts seem to support my view, so I’m happy enough. Others can form their own views.
As in the NASA diagram on my website, where the Earth’s surface is 15C it radiates about 390 w/m^. So what?
Dug,
You ask “So what?”.
Well, the surface has cooled, that’s what. You babble about “radiating altitude” which is complete nonsense. Everything above absolute zero radiates, and cools as a result, if it is hotter than its surroundings. As the surface does, at an altitude of zero (above the surface).
You might notice this happens to the surface at night, when the Sun is out of sight.
I know you don’t want to accept that the Earth has simply cooled from the molten state, but you have previously stated that you agree that the Earth was molten when it was created. It is obviously not molten anymore, and you do you weird little avoidance dance, to avoid accepting reality.
Dodge, divert, avoid all you like.
You are wrong, I am right. You might as well agree, as Lord Kelvin eventually agreed with Joule. Or continue looking like a weird crackpot. Up to you.
I suppose you think that when the dark side of the Moon warms up from -150C to +120C when it gets back to the sunlit side that the Moon is cooling too and the Sun has nothing to do with that warming.
Scientists admit that there is no compelling evidence that Uranus is cooling. I guess that’s just an exception for which you no doubt know the answer and can enlighten the experts. /sarc
Dug,
-150 C doesn’t seem like warming due to the Sun to me. Only joking.
Maybe you are unaware that, on Earth, the Sun’s influence is imperceptible beyond about 10 m below the surface of the crust, at most. In regard to the 70% of the surface covered by water, the Suns influence is imperceptible beyond the photic zone, as warmer water floats above the colder, denser water.
Hopefully, you agree with your reference, that the inner core is still above 5000 K. If you take 4 K as the “temperature” of space, then the thermal gradient is from hot (5000 K) to outer space (nominally 4 K or so).
The land crust is between -90 C, and 90 C, the crust under the ocean near freezing, but both between 5000 K and 4 K. No need for GHE or heat creep. Just a thermometer.
Pretty simple. The Earth was once a really hot molten blob. The blob has cooled to the stage where at least the crust has solidified.
If you believe it will now stop cooling, good for you, but you will need to overturn the laws of thermodynamics. To put it simply, something that is 5000 K on the inside, will continue to cool until the inside is the same temperature as the surface. You are perfectly free to believe otherwise, of course.
I’m right, you’re wrong.
Earth’s inner core is the innermost geologic layer of planet Earth. It is primarily a solid ball with a radius of about 1,220 km (760 mi), which is about 20% of Earth’s radius or 70% of the Moon’s radius.
There are no samples of Earth’s core accessible for direct measurement, as there are for Earth’s mantle. Information about Earth’s core mostly comes from analysis of seismic waves and Earth’s magnetic field. The inner core is believed to be composed of an ironnickel alloy with some other elements. The temperature at the inner core’s surface is estimated to be approximately 5,700 K (5,430 C; 9,800 F), which is about the temperature at the surface of the Sun. (Wiki)
Dug,
Well, then.
If the Earth’s core is 5700 K, and the Sun is unable to maintain the Earth’s surface at more than 255 K, (according to the SB “calculations” of SkyDragons), then it seems to me that the core will cool – you know, energy moving from hotter to colder, and all that tricky thermodynamic stuff.
Or maybe you believe that heat from the Sun, which is unable to even stop your cup of hot tea from cooling, somehow creeps through a few thousand kms of water, solid rock, or whatever without heating them at all (if it did, there would be no energy left to craftily creep to the centre of the Earth, would there?), to make its home at the centre of the Earth.
About as unlikely as heating one end of an iron bar to red heat, and expecting that end to stay cool while the heat creeps to the other end (or side, or out the window, or to the centre of the Earth or something).
It’s a nominally free world, and I dare say you support freedom of expression, so you will no doubt support me having a good laugh at your expense.
Carry on.
Gordon:
When radiation from a hot source warms a cooler target it is NOT the KE of the electrons that is increased but rather that of the whole molecule. As you must know, the mass of protons and neutrons is far greater than that of electrons. Besides, the component of the radiation that is thermalized has photons with energy that does not correspond with quantum energy steps in the electrons in the target. That radiation corresponds to the portion of the Planck function for the hotter sources that is above and outside the Planck function for the cooler target. It is the radiation that cannot resonate and undergo pseudo scattering using photons that the target cannot emit itself. For the radiation (from the source) corresponding to that under the Planck function for the target all the photons can match the energy gaps in the target because the target can radiate photons that have the same energy. That is why engineers get the right answer for the quantification of the heat passing from source to target by calculating the differences in the Stefan Boltzmann values for target and source. This gives the false impression that heat is in both directions, but it’s not because the area between the Planck functions has the same value since the Stefan Boltzmann values come from the integrals of the two Planck functions. There is quite literally heat in only one direction caused entirely by the single passage of radiation from the source to the target and having nothing to so with the reverse radiation.
“When radiation from a hot source warms a cooler target it is NOT the KE of the electrons that is increased but rather that of the whole molecule”.
And what do you think a molecule is made of? Atoms. And what are atoms made of? Electrons and a nucleii of protons and neutrons. Therefore molecules consist of atomic nucleii bonded by electrons.
The electrons are the only particle capable of changing energy levels, hence kinetic energy levels. In a solid, the electron is the only particle free to move.
What is KE? KE = 1/2mv^2. The m is the mass of the electron and v is its velocity. When the electron absorbs EM, its mass does not change but its velocity increases and it jumps to a higher energy level.
Now, Gordon, one more issue: Yes, the extra degrees of freedom do suddenly come into play in determining specific heat, but only at high temperatures well above those in the troposphere, and no this is irrelevant. It is, however, relevant to understanding that, although the temperature gradient in the outer core is often above 20 K/Km, in the hot mantle it is more like 1 K/Km. That is because of these quantum-like step ups in the specific heat which is in the denominator of the gradient. Gravity in the numerator also declines due to the outward pull of mass between the mantle and the surface. (Remember that the Loschmidt gradient is the quotient of g and specific heat.)
hahahhaha
I like how you say stuf. Please stick to one fake moniker, it helps the moderator.
Characteristic emission altitude is an obviously valid concept. That anyone, of any level of understanding, would argue against it is blatantly shocking. I’m literally gobsmacked by it. Third year HS for a low quality student? I’ll ask my 16 year old today, after he gets done with his 12 hour nap.
Jeff,
OK, then. Tell everybody what “characteristic emission altitude” means, and how you measured its temperature, and what effect it has on surface temperature!
Just making stuff up won’t work. Now is the time to backtrack, and claim you really meant to say something else, hoping that you will look less like a dimwit.
You might want to smack yourself in the gob again. Maybe you’ll get some sympathy from your fellow SkyDragons.
Donkey.
Swenson, please stop trolling.
DREMT Impersonator, please stop trolling.
Swenson, please carry on.
I shall answer this time, if you don’t wish it in the future, let me know and I will not.
Here you go then, Jeff, answer away –
OK, then. Tell everybody what characteristic emission altitude means, and how you measured its temperature, and what effect it has on surface temperature!
Just making stuff up wont work. Now is the time to backtrack, and claim you really meant to say something else, hoping that you will look less like a dimwit.
You might want to smack yourself in the gob again. Maybe youll get some sympathy from your fellow SkyDragons.
Donkey.
Is that dug again?
No, Jeff, that is Graham. Graham, Jeff. Jeff, Graham.
Graham has two main roles. His main one is to exploit every single opportunity to reinject one of his three favorite topics:
– the con Joe Postma built around the zero-dimensional energy balance model:
– the green plate experiments he keeps misunderstanding;
– the spin of the Moon, which he denies with Pup (whose latest sock is Clint).
His second role is to revisit all the threads and to add Please Stop Trolling underneath comments that dispute these facts.
I suppose he could call himself a Sky Dragon Slayer. Since he slayed nothing and he is a crank, I prefer to call him a Dragon Crank. When he denies the greenhouse effect, he is a Sky Dragon Crank. When he denies that the Moon spins, he is a Moon Dragon Crank.
This can be extended to Evo Dragon Crank, Election Dragon Crank, etc.
Hope this helps.
No, that’s a strange guy, kinda Pseudo’moderator’ who doesn’t moderate anything on this blog.
He is a Pseudoskeptic like Roberson, Flynnson aka Swenson and a couple of others.
He exclusively restricts his endlessly repeated ‘Please stop trolling’ messages to all persons arguing against the Pseudoskeptics’ nonsense (especially the absence of lunar spin, of GHE, etc etc).
So you are saying I found someone unusual on the internet?
hahahhaa
I have succeeded at the impossible task yet again! /s
“Graham has two main roles. His main one is to exploit every single opportunity to reinject one of his three favorite topics:”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
“– the con Joe Postma built around the zero-dimensional energy balance model:”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt. There is no con. It has nothing to do with a “zero-dimensional energy balance model”, that is just your confused interpretation of what he’s saying. You spent a year failing to understand some basic math and logic. That’s the reality.
“– the green plate experiments he keeps misunderstanding;”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt. There is no misunderstanding on my part.
“– the spin of the Moon, which he denies with Pup (whose latest sock is Clint).”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt. You are a “Non-Spinner” yourself!
“His second role is to revisit all the threads and to add Please Stop Trolling underneath comments that dispute these facts.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt. I ask trolls to stop trolling. I mostly just PST you now, since you are the worst troll we have had here since Fatvid App.ell.
“I suppose he could call himself a Sky Dragon Slayer. Since he slayed nothing and he is a crank, I prefer to call him a Dragon Crank. When he denies the greenhouse effect, he is a Sky Dragon Crank. When he denies that the Moon spins, he is a Moon Dragon Crank.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
“This can be extended to Evo Dragon Crank, Election Dragon Crank, etc.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt. I believe in evolution and have never even commented on any election.
Graham, the most decent human bean there is.
Yes, I am a decent human being. You, on the other hand, are a lying c*nt that spouts horsesh*t. I don’t say it with any anger. I say it in the calm, dispassionate, measured tones of somebody who is simply stating a fact.
Oh, Graham, you goose.
You tilt too often for your own good, and you can’t read properly.
I was talking to Jeff, whom I know and you obviously don’t.
My explanation for “Dragon Crank” was not meant for you. It was meant for all the Dragon cranks. Pup is an Evo Dragon crank. As for the last example, well, as I was saying you don’t know Jeff.
Please stop tilting.
“Oh, Graham, you goose.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
“You tilt too often for your own good, and you can’t read properly.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
“I was talking to Jeff, whom I know and you obviously don’t.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
“My explanation for “Dragon Crank” was not meant for you. It was meant for all the Dragon cranks. Pup is an Evo Dragon crank. As for the last example, well, as I was saying you don’t know Jeff.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt. It was ambiguously worded. It may have read to some like you were accusing me of those last two examples, so I set the record straight.
“Please stop tilting.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
Are you drinking and trolling again, Graham?
It’s easy for you to find ambiguities. You’re having reading comprehension problem. You’re tilting.
I said that the “Dragon Crank” can be extended.
I did not say it can be extended for your specific case.
You’re not that important, silly goose.
Please stop tilting.
“Are you drinking and trolling again, Graham?”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
“It’s easy for you to find ambiguities. You’re having reading comprehension problem. You’re tilting.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
“I said that the “Dragon Crank” can be extended. I did not say it can be extended for your specific case.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt. You did not make clear that it didn’t relate to my specific case. Which is precisely why it was ambiguous. You think you can write clearly. You can’t write for sh*t.
“You’re not that important, silly goose.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt. I seem to live rent free in your head.
“Please stop tilting.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
Is that your new PST, Graham?
It’s past 4:00 AM. Go to sleep.
“Is that your new PST, Graham?”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
“It’s past 4:00 AM. Go to sleep.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
Silly goose.
“Silly…”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
“…goose.”
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
Good afternoon, Graham.
I hope you slept well.
HFALC.
Planck spelled it all out for us. Matter at a specific temperature emits a specific energy. Different matter emits somewhat differently based on its chemical bond structure but in the case of something as mixed as our atmosphere, it’s not a terrible black body radiator.
Here is a link with an example emission spectrum: https://earthzine.org/the-far-infrared-spectroscopy-of-the-troposphere-first-instrument-new-technology-for-measuring-earths-energy-balance-and-climate-change-2013-earth-science-technology-showcase/
This corresponds to a Planck temperature which can be explained as an average emission altitude. Not that all emission is from that altitude, as only a chicken brain would think that stupidly, just that the physics lapse rate of the atmosphere guarantees that the emission spectrum will be greater than zero altitude and less than infinity. That allows science to give an ’emission altitude’, which apparently confuses people.
Jeff,
Unfortunately for you, your link contains the following-
“Earths climate is determined by a balance between the amount of radiant energy it receives from the Sun and the amount of energy it rejects to space in the form of infrared (IR)radiation. There is mounting evidence that human activities, particularly the production of gases such as carbon dioxide, are changing the climate through modifications to the flow of energy within Earths atmosphere.”
Well, climate is the average of historical weather events, so good luck with getting any useful weather forecasts by measuring radiant energy, dummy.
More importantly, the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so, which demonstrates rather conclusively that the Earth emits more energy than it receives from the Sun – rather a lot more, because it has had to lose rather vast amounts of radiogenic heat as well.
You may have noticed the phenomenon known as “night”, where the temperature drops, indicating that more energy is leaving the surface than is being absorbed.
Feel free to appeal to the authority of as many dim-witted reality deniers as you wish.
The facts won’t change. You can’t even describe the mythical GHE, let alone explain how it led to the Earth cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so.
That’s because your fanatical SkyDragon beliefs are not supported by either observed fact, or reproducible experiment. That would make you a gullible donkey, wouldn’t it?
Carry on.
You chicken brains are still failing even a decade later.
The Greenhouse effect is very obvious.
Nobody of any brain power denies that bit. The thing is, nobody of independent thought thinks its very large, and lots of folks have no independent thought.
Call me a sky dragon again, and I shall taunt you a second time!!
Jeff, Mike Flynn. Mike Flynn, Jeff.
Mike used to be a regular at Judys, e,g.:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/07/29/uncertainty-lost-in-translation/#comment-354955
Almost ten years later, same Dick move.
No idea what you think you are writing.
Willard,
As an older engineer, I do prefer observation over statements. If that’s what you mean.
I was just making formal presentations, Jeff.
Mike Flynn is an old Climateball veteran with a limited repertoire. He plays the goon but we all know he’s a teddy bear.
Gordo used to comment at Jennifer’s a long time ago, e.g.:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/gordon-robertson-on-a-molten-core/
As you may already have noticed, Mike is a big fan of the “molten core” tidbit. The minds of great Sky Dragon cranks think alike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
maguff…you might try reading the articles at the links you post.
“There is mounting evidence that human activities, particularly the production of gases such as carbon dioxide, are changing the climate through modifications to the flow of energy within Earths atmosphere. For the past decade, NASAs Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO) has been investing in new observation technologies to open a completely new window on the measurement of Earths climate. In particular, the Far-Infrared Spectroscopy of the Troposphere (FIRST) instrument has been developed to observe a portion of the infrared spectrum relevant to climate, but for which there are currently no space-based observations”.
1)”…for which there are currently no space-based observations”. So, the graphic provided is a fake. We have seen it before anyway and we know the H2O spectrum overlies the CO2 spectrum, so the graphic is a lie too.
2)”There is mounting evidence….”. In other words, there is no scientific evidence.
3)”…gases such as carbon dioxide, are changing the climate…”. What is meant by ‘the climate’. That’s specific, it infers that Earth has a climate, which is a major lie.
Can you try to stop posting links to propaganda?
Sorry, Maguff, it was Jeff Id who posted the comment to which I responded.
The link was for the purpose of showing a graph – as was requested. That you read the words is your own neural damage.
CO2 does create warming, we just haven’t been able to figure out how much. This measurement problem occurs because the effect isn’t very large.
Neither a dem nor a sky dragon, though I would prefer the latter over the former, neither are mine.
jeff id…”Characteristic emission altitude is an obviously valid concept”.
***
Concept it might be but s a scientifically reality, no proof.
You have no science background.
This is not my fault.
You SAY things but never PROVE my physics in my papers wrong.
Gravity creates the DENSITY GRADIENT and the TEMPERATURE gradient.
Then, from the IGL:
PRESSURE is proportional to the PRODUCT of temperature and density.
The above is PROVEN in my 2013 paper.
During maintenance this weekend you can get to my papers via https://ssrn.com/author=2627605
Gordon:
We can easily quantify the temperature gradient that gravity forms as I have done in my 2013 paper, my book and in a comment upthread.
We can also understand and quantify the density gradient using projectile theory to determine the excess percentage of molecules that end up at lower positions in their next collision than in higher ones due to the fact that gravity curves their path between collisions.
I’d like to see you try to quantify the pressure gradient based on any sound logic and physics.
Even if you want to see it that way with gravity forming the pressure gradient then, by the IGL it would have to be creating the temperature and density gradients simultaneously anyway.
The key point that proves Nikolov and Keller wrong is that high pressure does not maintain high temperatures and pressure does not correlate at all well with temperature. That’s because density also varies.
Just remember that the heat creep process is easily observed radially in every functioning vortex cooling tube due to the centrifugal force.
HEAT CREEP ONLY HAPPENS IN A FORCE FIELD.
If you don’t understand why you know where to learn why.
There’s more on the Loschmidt gradient in one of my 7 papers at (remove the ‘ in my name)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/D'uglas-Cott'n/research
Do I understand correctly that the specific heat of the air increases during the day due to expansion, causing the vertical temperature gradient to decrease?
This is “climate science”:
“[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” — Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990.
This is a book, Pup:
> St. Martins Press.
Books are not science.
Willard at 9:14 AM
Yes, and neither is lifting a quote, verbatim, from Fox News channel Published June 22, 2015 9:28am EDT. Just more mindless trolling.
W
No, books are not science. But what great fun reading about hundreds of failed predictions over the last several decades knowing that several thousands of failed predictions are in our future.
Not Exxon’s though: https://imgbb.com/Fh0nfH7
What’s funny is seeing how the hoi polloi are more skeptical about global warming than the oil companies themselves ever were.
I say that as a Petroleum Engineer with more than forty years in the business, and the son of a Chemical Engineer who refined crude oil for fifty years.
Even funnier is But Predictions, Fernando:
https://climateball.net/but-predictions
Willard,
Here’s something from the noted SkyDragon James Hansen, PhD –
“If there were slow growth in the use of hydrocarbon fuels, the world in the middle of the next century would be as warm as it was 125,000 years ago, when lions, elephants and other tropical animals roamed a balmy southern England.”
You see, even Hansen agrees it was warmer in the past than now, but I’m not sure how many lions, elephants, and other tropical animals roamed around the English countryside.
Oh well, Hansen is obviously a delusional SkyDragon, so maybe he believes that CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming, cooling, good weather, bad weather, droughts, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions – and possibly severe haemorrhoids.
So is the revered Hansen correct when he claims the past was warmer than the present? He’s done it more than once, you know, but I’ll let you squirm out of that all by yourself.
Off you go now.
Mike Flynn,
I need to tell you a little secret –
TLDR.
Cheers.
Willard,
Here – don’t read it again, dummy.
Heres something from the noted SkyDragon James Hansen, PhD
If there were slow growth in the use of hydrocarbon fuels, the world in the middle of the next century would be as warm as it was 125,000 years ago, when lions, elephants and other tropical animals roamed a balmy southern England.
You see, even Hansen agrees it was warmer in the past than now, but Im not sure how many lions, elephants, and other tropical animals roamed around the English countryside.
Oh well, Hansen is obviously a delusional SkyDragon, so maybe he believes that CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming, cooling, good weather, bad weather, droughts, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and possibly severe haemorrhoids.
So is the revered Hansen correct when he claims the past was warmer than the present? Hes done it more than once, you know, but Ill let you squirm out of that all by yourself.
Off you go now.
Mike Flynn,
You’re spamming again.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Since the first one was such a success, here’s some more “climate science”. This time from Dr. David Barber.
“David Barber PhD is Director of the Centre for Earth Observation Science (CEOS), and Associate Dean (Research), Faculty of Environment, the University of Manitoba.
He is a globally recognized expert on the behavior of Arctic Sea ice.”
Here was his “expert” prediction:
“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time,” Dr. David Barber of Manitoba University , 2008.
It’s a good thing we’ve got all these experts, huh?
I predict that you will hide your sources more and more, Pup.
Here is a presentation:
https://youtu.be/ofaoiHYKtlc
More details about what it means to be ice free:
https://youtu.be/UGVgrRAyQmw
Well done for having rediscovered Climateball like in the old days – 15 years too late is better than never!
Do I need to post that video of a guy going for a swim?
clint…the North Pole is always ice free at some point of winter, even in the coldest part of winter. Although Arctic ice freezes to a depth of 10 feet, the ice is always in motion and that motion sometimes leaves the Pole free of ice.
There is something else going on as well. Even when the north shore of Canada is well below zero, the NP can suddenly rise above 0C. Mysterious but certainly not due to CO2.
Gordon, you missed, “…the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time…”
That happens when you’re going too fast.
Come on, Gordo:
> An “ice-free” Arctic Ocean, sometimes referred to as a “Blue Ocean Event”, is often defined as “having less than 1 million square kilometers of sea ice”, because it is very difficult to melt the thick ice around the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. The IPCC AR5 defines “nearly ice-free conditions” as a sea ice extent of less than 106 km2 for at least five consecutive years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline
You are like this cranky uncle at the party who keeps inflating war stories that every kid with a phone can double check and refute.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Dr. Spencer,
I admit I haven’t been paying attention.
Climate audit is dead
the air vent is dead
Blackboard is pedantry
and your innate kindness has filled your threads with mindless trolls pretending to think.
I imagine the paid bloggers are “real climate” have been celebrating for years. Terrible situation.
Jeff Id
Don’t worry.
The Koch brothers are still paying Anthony Watts to run WUWT and Benny Peiser to run GWPF.
ent…not to forget that desmogblog is funded by a convicted criminal. Or that skepticalscience is run by a cartoonist passing himself off as a solar scientist.
realclimate is owned in part by Michael Mann, a misogynist who was caught advocating interference in peer review in the Climategate emails while putting forward a ‘trick’ to hide declining temperatures.
Come on, Gordo –
John is a PhD in cognitive science:
https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/portfolio-view/john-cook/
You also forgot to mention Pierre’s, the No Trick Zone guy.
And Cliscep, which I believe is Paul’s.
And most importantly Judy’s.
There are other places, but Jeff has a point: the contrarian bench is getting thinner and thinner.
Not unlike the Republican electoral demographics.
Why do you think it has gotten batshit crazy?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
jeff id….”and your innate kindness has filled your threads with mindless trolls pretending to think”.
***
A stupid observation for someone who spends little time here. I have been posting here for at least 10 years and trolls come and go. In general, the conversations are within bounds of the emotions expected from topics that are clearly emotionally charged. When you step into the middle of the exchanges without understanding the context, you reach dumb conclusions.
Realclimate is a board where the debates are closely controlled and focused on the alarmist POV. Roy has given us a broader scope and it is appreciated. I have learned a great deal from participating in this blog. One is forced to think deeply in response to the opposite POV which is not allowed on realclimate, or any other alarmist site.
Even WUWT censors commentary on subjects like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is a disagreement here between Roy’s POV on the 2nd law and that of others, like myself. However, Roy allows us our opinions and that is what science is about. Would you rather posters were limited to prescribed thoughts?
You need some levity when discussing serious subjects. We know who is who and you do not. You are lumping everyone into the same mold.
> Roy allows us our opinions
C’mon, Gordo.
Roy banned most of Sky Dragon cranks. Some multiple times.
But it’s obvious that Roy isn’t a WP guru. It’s just not worth the effort. Misbehavior speaks for itself anyway.
Think.
Gordon,
I’ve been at this longer than you. I just took a decade off to build my business. I’m on the desmog list of people who folks say should be killed because the climategate link was at my blog.
I’m old school climate audit freak who published on the Antarctic.
It is you who does not understand this article — at all I might add.
dumfux everywhere.
I’ve written articles at WUWT on the 2nd law btw.
Gave up on the know-nothings.
I posted at WUWT back so many years. Old school… hahaha.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/23/an-update-on-jeff-ids-excellent-sea-ice-video/
I did several on the reality of warming.
The mysterious case of the missing Snow Crabs…
The snow cover shows that winter is already underway in Siberia and Alaska.
https://i.ibb.co/p1Bnqh6/plot-anom-sdep.png
https://i.ibb.co/znmC4GT/r04-Laptev-Sea-ts-4km.png
https://i.ibb.co/YXvNHvw/r03-East-Siberian-Sea-ts-4km.png
mm hmm
It seems that Ireneusz looked at Tyson’s post, spotted the keyword ‘snow’ in it and… whoops:
He soon responded with a post dedicated to… snow.
What a wonderful world.
ren
” The snow cover shows that winter is already underway in Siberia and Alaska. ”
Oh yes, look at the historical data for October 15:
USS0051R01S 62-11 2008 10 15 -33.0
USC00502019 61-13 1965 10 15 -32.2
USC00502425 63-12 1970 10 15 -31.7
USC00502161 60-13 1965 10 15 -30.6
USC00505644 61-11 1965 10 15 -30.6
USC00500230 62-10 1909 10 15 -30.0
USC00500230 62-10 1961 10 15 -30.0
USC00506656 61-8 1920 10 15 -29.4
USC00508594 60-13 1965 10 15 -29.4
USR0000ABEV 62-13 2008 10 15 -29.4
Does that not look perfect, compared with the lowest night forecast for the next 14 days in Alaska:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20221025&daytime=night&iid=AK
*
About Siberia I posted something very similar already, do you recall?
I guess $ 100,000 a year starting salary doesn’t get their attention anymore. Kids these days!
It takes $100 today to buy what 13$ would get you in 1970. And if things continue, in 2024 it will take $117. Thanks to 10% Joe.
That’s a non sequitur since we’re talking about starting salaries for a 21 year old engineer straight out of school, no?
Young engineers with 100K debt right out of the gate, in expensive Houston.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/Why-rents-are-rising-in-Houston-even-as-the-17461000.php
Daniel can thank teh Donald populist policies to give away free money for half of his presidency.
When the Donald left inflation was 1.4%, now it’s 8.2%.
Inflation is related to money printing, genius:
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ECONOMY-TRUMP/01008133219/index.html
My favorite is the trade deficit.
For a guy who talks tough, teh Donald is and will always be a softy.
Is inflation man-made or natural?
TO: Retired Physicist
RE: Thermodynamic Equilibrium vs Steady State
The below link is to a short, simple video describing the basics of thermodynamic equilibrium and steady state. The sum of your posts here don’t make it clear that you understand the difference.
Video: https://youtu.be/NlSKAbefDTA
Bcc: Graham.
Nope. The video is about thermal equilibrium, not thermodynamic equilibrium. Your comment here doesn’t make it clear that you understand the difference.
There’s no such error in my papers, thankyou.
May I ask how you define thermodynamic equilibrium? Please use the entropy equation in your definition.
The reason I ask is because the entropy equation establishes the conditions for thermodynamic equilibrium.
P.s.: Loschmidt’s Gravito-Thermal Effect was introduced as a challenge to the second law. Loschmidt claimed that the equilibrium temperature of a gas column subject to gravity should be lower at the top of the column and higher at its base. Presumably, one could drive a heat engine with this temperature gradient, thus violating the second law.
TM,
You are correct. Nobody has managed to demonstrate either Loschmidt’s gravitothermal effect, nor CO2 induced heating, energy multiplication, or heat flowing from colder to hotter.
Either would swiftly lead to a perpetual motion machine.
The first, as you point out.
The second, by merely surrounding a boiler with CO2, leading to a continuous and increasing accumulation of heat. Once the water boils, a steam engine can generate infinite free electricity!
Oh well, I suppose that a planet-heating device powered by CO2 sounds reasonable to SkyDragons. The outcome would appear to be the Earth getting hotter and hotter – eventually returning to its molten state.
I don’t think so – what about you?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
Who cares about what you think, again?
Systematic buffoon.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
If I’d had a prof like that when studying engineering I would have asked for a class change. The guy is arrogant, stupid, and far too smug. Anyone who has to put on a voice to make a video is a loser.
Furthermore, mechanical engineers are the worst people you could talk to about thermodynamics. This guy totally missed the obvious, that a metal pan and handle will conduct heat much faster than it can be dissipated to the room air. Also, he missed the fact that the pan itself is losing heat to the room air.
I have used the old-style cast iron pans where the handle is an integral part of the pan body. I don’t recall a problem with handling the pan. Of course, the pan did not have one egg frying in it, there was likely a whole lot more food and liquid in it. When liquid turns to steam, the pan cools slightly.
On the plus side, he did not mention radiation once.
Come on, Gordo.
There is no evidence you had any engineering class.
C’mon Willard,
There is no evidence that you are not a deranged, slimy, ineffective and incompetent troll, is there?
Mike Flynn,
Evidence of negative facts is hard to provide.
Take another swing!
Cmon Willard,
There is no evidence that you are not a deranged, slimy, ineffective and incompetent troll, is there?
Mike Flynn,
[FACT] Gordo had an engineering class.
[NEGATIVE FACT] You are not a deranged, slimy, ineffective and incompetent troll.
Notice the difference?
Willard,
You wrote –
“Come on, Gordo.
There is no evidence you had any engineering class.”
I wrote –
“Cmon Willard,
There is no evidence that you are not a deranged, slimy, ineffective and incompetent troll, is there?”
See the difference?
Idiot.
Do negative facts exist, Mike?
Some argue that they dont.
Cheers.
Cmon Willard,
There is no evidence that you are not a deranged, slimy, ineffective and incompetent troll, is there?
Arguments are not evidence of anything except that you are living in a fantasy world.
Again, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There’s a good reason for that, snooping trolls like you are constantly prodding, trying to dig up dirt on people. That’s all you alarmists have. You cannot debate based on real science so you try to denigrate a poster by attacking his/her character/integrity.
C’mon, Gordo.
Have you seen me bragging about my degrees?
No.
If you can’t put up, shut up.
C’mon Willard,
Have you seen yourself providing any evidence that you are not a deranged, slimy, ineffective and incompetent troll?
If you can’t put up, shut up!
You already made that mistake, Mike.
Negative facts are hard to find.
Cmon Willard,
Have you seen yourself providing any evidence that you are not a deranged, slimy, ineffective and incompetent troll?
If you cant put up, shut up!
Again. Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The expansion of Arctic air over the Great Lakes will continue. Snow will fall in the Appalachians.
https://i.ibb.co/1nJR5Jx/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072.png
News –
“CSIRO abruptly scraps globally recognised climate forecast program
Exclusive: Funding halted from June 2021 without fanfare and after science agency reportedly spent $15m on teams of scientists.”
Oh dear! And Australia has a left leaning Labor Government too!
After all, Professor Tim Flannery, PhD, Chief Councillor of the Climate Council, declared rather bizarrely in 2007 that hotter soils meant that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”.
Widespread flooding in Australia is occurring right now, and dams are so full that releases of water have to be made to avoid the disasters of a couple of years ago, when those same dams caused severe damage and loss of life because “climatologists” and their models claimed there was no danger of dams overflowing – which they did, of course.
Maybe even the CSIRO SkyDragons have come to realise that facts are more important than fantasy.
Doesn’t help having Oz at one end of the current La Nina system.
SOI high. It will continue to rain in eastern and northern Australia.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Thermal equilibrium is only concerned with one form of internal energy namely Kinetic Energy (KE) of the molecules. In a gas the temperature is proportional to the mean KE of the molecules.
In contrast, thermodynamic equilibrium is the state of maximum entropy. Now, contrary to what some think, entropy is affected by all forms of internal energy including phase change energy (sometimes referred to as latent heat) and chemical and potential energy. I will focus on potential energy (PE) which can be due to location within a force field like gravity or centrifugal force, or it could be PE relating to things like wound up clock springs or pistons pushed down a cylinder creating extra pressure that would push them back when released.
Considering the troposphere (lowest layer of the atmosphere) where there is a non-zero temperature gradient we need firstly to understand that maximum entropy is the state when there are no longer any unbalanced energy potentials because, in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as entropy increases there will be unbalanced energy potentials that are diminishing. These potentials must take into account all forms of internal energy, but, if we assume there are no phase changes currently taking place in a column of the troposphere and no chemical reactions, then what we need to consider is PE and KE only.
It is the SUM of this PE and KE which must be considered. At maximum entropy there will be no difference in the sum (PE + KE) between the top and bottom of that column, or anywhere in between. However, clearly PE is greater at the top, and so KE must be less at the top. Since it is only KE that affects temperature we have a temperature gradient that was formed by gravity acting on these molecules. This was first explained by Josef Loschmidt in the 1870’s.
So, this state of thermodynamic equilibrium has a temperature gradient and so we would not say that the column of air was in thermal equilibrium.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/301543/thermodynamic-equilibrium-vs-thermal-equilibrium/732241#732241
Dug,
The Earth has never been in a state of thermal equilibrium, nor a steady state with regard to inputs and outputs.
Maybe you don’t agree with –
“Heat is the flow of energy from a high temperature to a low temperature. When these temperatures balance out, heat stops flowing, then the system (or set of systems) is said to be in thermal equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium also implies that there’s no matter flowing into or out of the system.”
However, the Earths interior is hotter than the surface, which in turn is “hotter” than “outer space”, in the sense that the surface loses heat in the absence of sunlight. It cools, in other words.
No thermal equilibrium, no steady state, and anyone who claims otherwise obvious refuses to believe their own lyin’ eyes (not to mention thermometers which obviously “lie” by showing temperature variations).
On the other hand, I just accept reality. Works for me.
I suggest Swenson that you read comments before replying to the them and do your best to understand from my papers what I am talking about, as your response indicates you haven’t a clue, but love guessing and trying to fool silent readers re their content.
You don’t even understand that my papers talk about TENDENCIES just as the Second Law is about the tendency to move towards thermodynamic equilibrium.
But apparently you don’t even understand the huge difference between thermal equilibrium and thermodynamic equilibrium, even though I just explained it to you and made it clear that I was talking about thermodynamic equilibrium!
Then what do you do? You write about thermal equilibrium instead and you indicate that you have never taken the trouble to understand my heat creep hypothesis! That’s why you can’t quantify any surface temperatures anywhere, Earth, Venus or wherever with correct physics, whereas I can and have.
Good-bye to you
Dug,
You wrote –
“Thermal equilibrium is only concerned with one form of internal energy namely Kinetic Energy (KE) of the molecules. In a gas the temperature is proportional to the mean KE of the molecules.”
“In contrast, thermodynamic equilibrium is the state of maximum entropy.”
You don’t like the definition I copied –
“Heat is the flow of energy from a high temperature to a low temperature. When these temperatures balance out, heat stops flowing, then the system (or set of systems) is said to be in thermal equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium also implies that theres no matter flowing into or out of the system.”
I’ll gently suggest that you don’t have a clue about modern physics – say quantum electrodynamics (just incidentally, the most rigorously tested theory in the history of mankind).
It doesnt matter how much you care about definitions. The main difficulty is that you are talking nonsense.
Your heat creep hypothesis is just a fantasy you have concocted because you don’t want to accept reality. That reality is that the the Earth is still less than 1% solid crust, and continues to cool – albeit very, very, slowly.
But carry on – I believe in freedom of expression.
Thermal equilibrium is NOT the same state as thermodynamic equilibrium in all situations, as I have explained in another comment. Why would physicists use two different words?
Your case is dismissed.
I’m not interested in, or writing about, “very, very slow” long-term cooling.
Do you get that point before I continue?
My papers are about why it is not carbon dioxide and methane that do any of the DAILY warming each morning, and Summertime warming after the Winter and Spring, and nor is it only direct insolation reaching the surface that can do all the observed such warming of the global mean surface temperature – as is blatantly obvious for both Earth and, even more so, for Venus.
Seeing that you don’t read my papers (as is also blatantly obvious to the many thousands who have done so) I’ll thank you to stop wasting my time because ALL your conjectures are well refuted in my papers written years ago.
My science is correct: it is your lack of knowledge as to what is in my papers that leads you to make such irrelevant comments about my very comprehensive post-graduate research over more than a decade.
Swenson….
“Dug,
You wrote
Thermal equilibrium is only concerned with one form of internal energy namely Kinetic Energy (KE) of the molecules. In a gas the temperature is proportional to the mean KE of the molecules.
***
For the umpteenth time, kinetic energy does not describe a particular energy it describes any energy in motion. In the case of a gas, or atoms in a solid, that kinetic energy is heat. The internal energy of a solid is comprised of heat and the work created by atomic vibrations. However, it is heat that creates the work.
If that gas, the atmosphere, is in contact with the surface, and at the same temperature, the two are in thermal equilibrium. No heat can be transferred.
However, there is a fly in the ointment. Air heated at the surface rises and it is replaced by cooler air from aloft. Now we have a situation where the equilibrium is undone, and heat is transferred from the surface to the cooler air, which then rises.
Lindzen was correct about this convection even though the author of the statement above in quotes thinks he is wrong. Without that overturning of air at the surface, the convection, the surface average temperature would be around 70C.
If Dug would park his colossal ego and arrogance, and participate equally, he MIGHT learn some real physics, as the rest of us are trying to do.
Dug,
You wrote –
“Seeing that you dont read my papers . . . ”
You should immediately demand a refund from the Academy of Mind Reading that defrauded you.
You live in a strange fantasy world, don’t you?
Carry on.
It is la nina, and the weather in NW (Washington State) has been fabulous. It looks like la nina brings sort of high pressure to the NW
Nabil,
As I understand it, people are just giving names to patterns of weather observations.
Giving names to patterns is akin to our prehistoric ancestors using a form of sympathetic magic – drawing the hunter killing the beast would make it come true.
Naming a weather observation pattern, for example, La Nina, anthropomorphises (sorry about that) the numbers, and allows us to blame La Nina, El Nino, ENSO, and all the rest for anything we like.
Also akin to blaming Hera or Pallas Athena for blocking your prayers to mighty Zeus – but we don’t believe such fanciful ideas, do we? Fishermen pray for La Nina to look kindly on them, while Floridians implore Hurricane Ian to leave them alone.
Maybe we haven’t moved along too much from our animistic rock-painting and superstitious ancestors.
All good fun – but the universe proceeds anyway, regardless of our prayers.
swenson…It was not till I started reading the adventures of sailors on the ocean that I began to realize that we do have relative constants with regard to ocean currents and winds. I think the ENSO system is more than a name since it is an integral part of the oceans currents and winds in that area. Something causes it to vary in cycles, as with the PDO, AMO, AO, etc,
We have all heard of the Gulf Stream, bring warmer tropical currents and winds to western Europe, and the Pineapple Express doing the same to western North America.
I had not been aware of the action of ENSO till recently and it appears to be similar to the aforementioned, with the exception that ENSO can affect the jet stream hence global conditions.
Maybe Ren could supply us with a global map that shows the action of La Nina. The last one I saw clearly shows how the La NIna system is affecting our weather in the Pacific NW.
To everyone:
There is a huge difference between thermodynamic equilibrium and thermal equilibrium and this fact is very relevant to the troposphere and what happens therein, as I have just explained upthread.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not imply that thermodynamic equilibrium will necessarily be reached, that state being maximum entropy. It just says entropy will never decrease and, in any actual process that is changing a system, entropy increases.
The process in which entropy increases is always one in which unbalanced energy potentials (determined by ANY form of internal energy) are diminishing. So it is about a tendency to move towards maximum entropy. That then allows us to know what we can expect at a macro level to observe regarding the direction of natural processes, for example, whether convective heat transfer will in particular circumstances be upward or downward in the troposphere, the latter being the heat creep process which most certainly happens.
Until you understand entropy and the Second Law you will never understand heat creep and thus you will never know where the necessary energy comes from in order to explain surface warming on the sunlit side of Earth, Venus or wherever.
“The process in which entropy increases is always one in which unbalanced energy potentials (determined by ANY form of internal energy) are diminishing”.
***
S = 1/T(integral dq)
dq is an infinitesimal change in heat as define by Clausius in his definition of entropy. Entropy is the sum of those differential quantities at temperature, T.
How the heck do you get a tendency toward maximum entropy with such a simple summation? You make entropy sound like some kind of magical, mysterious quantity when it is nothing more than a summations of heat in a process.
And, no, it does not apply to any energy, just heat.
Trust you to use the simplified entropy formula that has no terms for potential energy or any other form of internal energy other than KE and thus only applies in a plane which is orthogonal to a force field like gravity or centrifugal force.
Your comment clearly demonstrates to silent readers that you don’t even read my comments here, let alone my 2013 paper.
Stop wasting my time, thanks.
Your case is dismissed.
The microscopic explanation of entropy has never been fully accepted since there are counter examples such as the spontaneous crystallization of a super-cooled melt and the crystallization of a supersaturated solution. If a super-cooled melt is allowed to crystallize under adiabatic conditions then the entropy of the system increases. In a supersaturated solution there is a possibility of the deposition of crystalline solute. The deposition of crystalline solute is a spontaneous process with an increase of entropy. The phase transformation of solid helium to liquid helium II does not require energy. These counter examples suggest that the microscopic explanation of entropy is dubious.
Dug,
You wrote –
“The microscopic explanation of entropy has never been fully accepted . . . ”
If you don’t want to accept it, fine.
If others don’t want to accept your heat creep, that should be fine too, don’t you think?
What any of this has to do with weather is a bit beyond me, and maybe others. Can you provide some relevance?
Dug,
You wrote –
“Until you understand entropy and the Second Law you will never understand heat creep and thus you will never know where the necessary energy comes from in order to explain surface warming on the sunlit side of Earth, Venus or wherever.”
You give everybody a clue when you refer to “warming on the sunlit side of Earth . . .”.
Maybe warming on the “sunlit side” is due to the Sun?
None of the Sun’s radiation that reaches the surface of Venus does any warming.
Your comment clearly demonstrates to silent readers that you dont even read my comments here, let alone my 2013 paper.
Stop wasting my time, thanks.
Your case also is dismissed.
Dug,
Can’t you read?
Just in case you had a momentary attack of mental impairment, I’ll repeat –
“You give everybody a clue when you refer to warming on the sunlit side of Earth . . ..
Maybe warming on the sunlit side is due to the Sun?”
You see the word “Earth”? It’s even spelt differently to “Venus”. An inconvenient fact, I know, but true, nevertheless.
To those who want to learn. (The non-teachable need not reply.)
It should be pretty obvious to any readers (except Henny Penny) that the atmosphere is not collapsing upon us. Why don’t all molecules just fall to the ground? It’s worth thinking about this.
Clearly there must be a tendency in calm conditions after a storm for the density gradient to go back to its optimum value. What law in physics is, as I have explained upthread, all about tendencies?
Clearly it is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Wikipedia actually gets that right in their first sentence under Laws of Thermodynamics where we read:
“The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.”
In practice, entropy increases towards a maximum which is determined by the constraints that relate to this “natural thermodynamic process” (singular) and the “interacting thermodynamic systems.” The word “interacting” is important and can be replaced with “inter-dependent” or “participating.” Outward radiation from the surface and non-radiative surface cooling processes are not interacting with inward radiation. In any event, when the surface is warming in the morning there must be net input of thermal (kinetic) energy.
Getting back to that density gradient, it is clearly a state of equilibrium that it tends towards. But it’s also clearly not thermal equilibrium as it has nothing to do with heat.
So what kind of equilibrium state would it be if attained?
Until you understand clearly that the process is actually the Second Law of Thermodynamics in action, increasing entropy and reducing unbalanced energy potentials, then you won’t know the answer. So it is of course the state of maximum entry which we physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium.
Dug,
You wrote –
“It should be pretty obvious to any readers (except Henny Penny) that the atmosphere is not collapsing upon us. Why dont all molecules just fall to the ground? Its worth thinking about this.”
Well, Dug, if the temperature of the gases was less, the molecules would indeed fall to the ground, in liquid or solid form. There is enough heat coming into the atmosphere to keep it gaseous, in general.
If you read the papers of a clever fellow named Albert Einstein, you will discover why, for example, the heavier CO2 molecules in the atmosphere don’t all sink to ground level under the influence of gravity, and suffocate us all. No, you don’t even need convection or wind.
No need to worry about entropy, or any form of equilibrium.
No need for a GHE, nor any imaginary heat creep.
maguff…”Harvard/MIT Students Shut Down Exxon Recruiting Event”
***
Makes one wonder how entrance requirements have gotten so low that idiots like this are allowed to enroll in universities. And why have the universities not expelled them?
C’mon, Gordo.
Exxon is giving 150K to the MIT:
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/global/files/worldwide-giving/2021-worldwide-giving-report.pdf
It would have been rude to expel them.
C’mon Wee Willy,
Don’t get bent out of shape because neither Exxon nor anybody else is giving you anything except hoots of derision.
Accept reality – you’re just a slimy, deranged, incompetent and impotent troll, unless you can prove otherwise.
That’s life.
The story here is that Exxon has been given the boot, Mike. And Gordo was whining about it. He was even willing to censor the students.
Snowflakes.
Cmon Wee Willy,
Dont get bent out of shape because neither Exxon nor anybody else is giving you anything except hoots of derision.
Accept reality youre just a slimy, deranged, incompetent and impotent troll, unless you can prove otherwise.
Thats life.
For example –
“ExxonMobil is one of the world’s largest publicly traded international oil and gas companies. Learn more at ExxonMobil.com.”
Maybe your boot is about as powerful as the rest of you.
Mike Flynn,
Spamming again?
Cmon Wee Willy,
Dont get bent out of shape because neither Exxon nor anybody else is giving you anything except hoots of derision.
Accept reality youre just a slimy, deranged, incompetent and impotent troll, unless you can prove otherwise.
Thats life.
For example
ExxonMobil is one of the worlds largest publicly traded international oil and gas companies. Learn more at ExxonMobil.com.
Maybe your boot is about as powerful as the rest of you.
Spamming. Again, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Why is the global mean temperature of Earth’s surface warmer than direct solar radiation could make it? The reason is primarily to do with the height of the atmosphere rather than any radiation from carbon dioxide, methane or water vapor. The surface of Venus is far hotter mainly because its atmosphere is far thicker (meaning higher) than ours. The lowest region in the planet’s atmosphere is called the troposphere and there is a fairly uniform rate of cooling with increasing altitude.
Back in the 1870’s a physicist Josef Loschmidt explained that this temperature gradient is actually formed by gravity acting on individual molecules: the temperature depends on the speed of these molecules (between collisions) and that speed can be affected by gravity. We can now confirm that Loschmidt was right and we see this effect in every planetary troposphere, though there are reasons why it does not occur in higher regions because the density is insufficient in the stratosphere and above.
This phenomenon enables us to now understand why the surface temperature is what it is, and I wrote about this in my scientific paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” in 2013. The heat process involved now enables us to understand how the observed temperatures in planets and satellite moons are kept at observed levels with the required energy input.
Dug,
You wrote –
“Why is the global mean temperature of Earths surface warmer than direct solar radiation could make it?”
It has been for the last four and a half billion years or so, as you agree.
Just cooling from an agreed initial molten state, and not finished yet.
No mystery. No GHE, no heat creep, no gravitothermal effect.
Sorry you don’t enjoy Summer warming.
Dug,
You wrote
Why is the global mean temperature of Earths surface warmer than direct solar radiation could make it?
It has been for the last four and a half billion years or so, as you agree.
Just cooling from an agreed initial molten state, and not finished yet.
No mystery. No GHE, no heat creep, no gravitothermal effect.
Pity the Sun’s direct radiation to the surface near you in Summer doesn’t warm things above -40C … especially when you apparently don’t have any extra thermal energy coming from heat creep as I do over here. We just had a lovely sunny Sunday here and it’s still only the middle of Spring. Hope the sub-surface regions over there will be kind to you this coming Winter, perhaps knowing how cold it is above the surface and feeling sorry for you with temperatures not much above 233K (Ooops, -40C in your non-scientific language.)
As I said, your case is dismissed, so please leave my Court or you’ll be charged with contempt, which is at least one thing you are good at.
PS: Bad news it seems for you: only 54 milliwatts/m^2 coming out from those subsurface regions. Radiation with that 0.054 w/m^2 probably won’t help the Sun much for which the Solar constant is about 1,360 w/m^2 which is over 25,000 times what the subsurface regions are contributing to warming. I quote …
“The idea of enormous amounts heat coming from the deep subsurface has a long history, closely related to the ancient occurrence of volcanic eruptions accompanied with hot lava outflow. Ancient Greeks thought of the underground as an imagined abode of gods and the souls of the dead. Many other religions, including Christianity, further adopted this conception. The extreme temperatures coincided with the hell-fires destined to punish the deadly sins. More serious ideas of the general increase of temperature with depth would only be discovered when deeper mines were dug much later, in medieval times.
“It took, however, several more centuries before a modern scientific approach really started. In 1867, the British Association for the Advancement of Science formed a committee .. to investigate the rate of increase of underground temperature in various locations of dry land and under water. Multiplying the temperature gradient and the mean thermal conductivity of rocks, the first value of the heat flow density was estimated to be 1.3 x 10-6 cal cm-2 sec-1, that is, approximately 54 m W m-2 in SI units. This value is in surprisingly good agreement with the present observations.”
Case dismissed for the third time.
Dug,
What are you babbling about?
If you want to know the temperature, use a thermometer.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
You can’t “dismiss” me, you fool. You are impotent, and powerless to affect me in any way at all. I do as I wish, and I can laugh at your silliness as much as I want.
There is precisely nothing you can do about it, is there? Accept reality – or don’t.
Feel free to preach anything you want to, but don’t blame me if nobody values your opinion more than I do.
Uranus is .. extremely far away from the sun and it radiates roughly as much heat as it absorbs from the sun, meaning its not really producing a significant amount of heat internally, in contrast to the other gas giant planets. So its not really cooling off or heating up.
(continued)
The inevitable conclusion is that the world has been seriously misled by what is incorrect physics used by climatologists. For those with a knowledge of physics, they use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law incorrectly when they add to the solar flux about double that flux supposedly coming from the atmosphere. Then they use this total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to “explain” the average temperature of the planet’s surface. But this law is only applicable for a single source of radiation and that source must be effectively hotter (after any attenuation due to distance) than the target. It is not correct to add flux from another source, especially from a colder source. In reality they end up having to assume molecules somehow “know” they must send more radiation downwards than upwards. Furthermore, their energy diagrams (such as that at the right from the NASA website) show more energy supposedly escaping from the lowest level of the atmosphere into the surface than the Sun provides at the top of the atmosphere.. An atmosphere cannot create energy like this!
There is more information on the “Images page” of my new website (linked upthread) including a quote from a physicist …
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what we were hearing from the IPCC and the media was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of this climate science without first checking it.”
Klaus-Eckert Puls, German Meteorologist, Physicist
Eckart, Dug:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZxCywx26i4
You’re just peddling an old quote from Sky Dragon crank megaphones.
Deutsch
Der Zwischenstaatliche Ausschuss fr Klimanderungen (IPCC) teilte der Welt ursprnglich in den 1980er Jahren mit, dass Kohlendioxid und Methan wie eine Decke in der Atmosphre wirken, angeblich Wrme einfangen und so irgendwie die Erdoberflche erwrmen. Einige Jahre spter stellten sie fest, dass es keine Beweise gab, die diese Erklrung sttzten, und begannen stattdessen, ber Strahlung zu sprechen, die nach unten zur Oberflche ging. Diese Strahlung stammte hauptschlich von Wasserdampf, Kohlendioxid und Methan. Obwohl es aus kalten Regionen der Atmosphre stammte, wurde angenommen, dass es die Temperatur der wrmeren Oberflche erhhen kann. Aber Professor Claes Johnson hat Anfang dieses Jahrhunderts bewiesen, dass diese Art von Strahlung die Oberflche nicht erwrmen kann. Stattdessen erfhrt es eine resonante (oder “Pseudo-“) Streuung, ohne die Temperatur berhaupt zu erhhen. Ich habe ber die Forschung von Professor Johnson in meinem Peer-Review-Artikel Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Strahlungsenergie und der zweite Hauptsatz der Thermodynamik) geschrieben, der gefeiert und auf mehreren Websites verffentlicht wurde.
Eine Frage blieb jedoch noch unbeantwortet: Warum ist die globale Mitteltemperatur der Erdoberflche wrmer, als es durch direkte Sonneneinstrahlung mglich wre? Es hat eindeutig etwas mit der Atmosphre zu tun, aber in erster Linie mit der Hhe der Atmosphre und nicht mit der Strahlung von Kohlendioxid, Methan oder Wasserdampf. Die Oberflche der Venus ist viel heier, hauptschlich weil ihre Atmosphre viel dicker (dh hher) ist als unsere. Die unterste Region in der Atmosphre des Planeten wird als Troposphre bezeichnet, und es gibt eine ziemlich gleichmige Abkhlungsrate mit zunehmender Hhe. Bereits in den 1870er Jahren erklrte ein Physiker Josef Loschmidt, dass dieser Temperaturgradient tatschlich durch die Schwerkraft entsteht, die auf einzelne Molekle einwirkt: Die Temperatur hngt von der Geschwindigkeit dieser Molekle (zwischen Kollisionen) ab und die Schwerkraft kann diese Geschwindigkeit beeinflussen. Wir knnen jetzt besttigen, dass Loschmidt Recht hatte und wir sehen diesen Effekt in jeder planetaren Troposphre, obwohl es Grnde gibt, warum er in hheren Regionen nicht auftritt, weil die Dichte in der Stratosphre und darber nicht ausreichend ist. Dieses Phnomen ermglicht es uns jetzt zu verstehen, warum die Oberflchentemperatur so ist, wie sie ist, und ich habe 2013 in meiner Arbeit Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures (Planetenkern- und Oberflchentemperaturen) darber geschrieben. Der damit verbundene Wrmeprozess ermglicht es uns jetzt, Temperaturen sogar bis in den Kern zu verstehen Planeten und Monde.
Danske
Men professor Claes Johnson beviste tidligt i dette rhundrede, at denne type strling ikke kan opvarme overfladen. I stedet gennemgr den resonans (eller “pseudo”) spredning uden at hve temperaturen overhovedet. Jeg skrev om professor Johnsons forskning i mit peer-reviewede papir Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, (Udstrlet energi og termodynamikkens anden lov) som blev hyldet og offentliggjort p flere websteder.
Men der var stadig et ubesvaret sprgsml: Hvorfor er den globale middeltemperatur p Jordens overflade varmere, end direkte solstrling kunne gre det? Det har tydeligvis noget at gre med atmosfren, men det er primrt at gre med atmosfrens hjde frem for enhver strling fra kuldioxid, metan eller vanddamp. Venus overflade er langt varmere, primrt fordi dens atmosfre er langt tykkere (hvilket betyder hjere) end vores. Det laveste omrde i planetens atmosfre kaldes troposfren, og der er en ret ensartet afklingshastighed med stigende hjde. Tilbage i 1870’erne forklarede en fysiker Josef Loschmidt, at denne temperaturgradient faktisk er dannet af tyngdekraften, der virker p individuelle molekyler: temperaturen afhnger af hastigheden af disse molekyler (mellem kollisioner), og tyngdekraften kan pvirke denne hastighed. Vi kan nu bekrfte, at Loschmidt havde ret, og vi ser denne effekt i enhver planetarisk troposfre, selvom der er grunde til, at den ikke forekommer i hjere omrder, fordi ttheden er utilstrkkelig i stratosfren og derover. Dette fnomen gr os i stand til nu at forst, hvorfor overfladetemperaturen er, hvad den er, og jeg skrev om dette i mit papir Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures (Planetariske kerne- og overfladetemperature) i 2013. Den involverede varmeproces gr os nu i stand til at forst temperaturer helt ned til kernen af planeter og mner.
Den uundgelige konklusion er, at verden er blevet alvorligt vildledt af, hvad der er forkert fysik, brugt af klimatologer. For dem med viden om fysik bruger de Stefan-Boltzmann-loven forkert, nr de tilfjer en ekstra flux nsten dobbelt s stor til solfluxen, der kommer fra atmosfren, og de bruger derefter denne total i Stefan-Boltzmann-beregninger til at “forklare” global middel overfladetemperatur. Men denne lov glder kun for en enkelt strlingskilde, og denne kilde skal vre varmere (efter enhver dmpning p grund af afstand) end mlet.
I like dug in this language better.
Italiana
Ma il professor Claes Johnson ha dimostrato all’inizio di questo secolo che questo tipo di radiazione non pu riscaldare la superficie. Invece subisce una dispersione risonante (o “pseudo”) senza aumentare affatto la temperatura. Ho scritto della ricerca del professor Johnson nel mio articolo sottoposto a revisione paritaria Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Energia irradiata e seconda legge della termodinamica) acclamato e pubblicato su diversi siti web. Tuttavia, c’era ancora una domanda senza risposta: perch la temperatura media globale della superficie terrestre pi calda di quanto la radiazione solare diretta potrebbe renderla? Chiaramente ha qualcosa a che fare con l’atmosfera, ma ha principalmente a che fare con l’altezza dell’atmosfera piuttosto che con qualsiasi radiazione di anidride carbonica, metano o vapore acqueo. La superficie di Venere molto pi calda principalmente perch la sua atmosfera molto pi spessa (cio pi alta) della nostra.
La regione pi bassa dell’atmosfera del pianeta chiamata troposfera e c’ un tasso di raffreddamento abbastanza uniforme con l’aumentare dell’altitudine. Gi nel 1870 un fisico Josef Loschmidt spieg che questo gradiente di temperatura in realt formato dalla gravit che agisce sulle singole molecole: la temperatura dipende dalla velocit di queste molecole (tra le collisioni) e la gravit pu influenzare quella velocit. Possiamo ora confermare che Loschmidt aveva ragione e vediamo questo effetto in ogni troposfera planetaria, anche se ci sono ragioni per cui non si verifica nelle regioni pi elevate perch la densit insufficiente nella stratosfera e oltre. Questo fenomeno ci consente ora di capire perch la temperatura superficiale quella che , e ne ho scritto nel mio articolo Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures (Nucleo planetario e temperature di superficie) nel 2013. Il processo termico coinvolto ora ci consente di comprendere le temperature anche fino al centro di pianeti e lune.
L’inevitabile conclusione che il mondo stato seriamente fuorviato da quella che una fisica scorretta usata dai climatologi. Per coloro che hanno una conoscenza della fisica, usano la legge di Stefan-Boltzmann in modo errato quando aggiungono al flusso solare un flusso aggiuntivo quasi due volte maggiore proveniente dall’atmosfera e quindi usano questo totale nei calcoli di Stefan-Boltzmann per “spiegare” il temperatura superficiale media globale. Ma questa legge applicabile solo per una singola sorgente di radiazione e quella sorgente deve essere effettivamente pi calda (dopo ogni attenuazione dovuta alla distanza) rispetto al bersaglio.
Bahasa Indonesia
Tetapi Profesor Claes Johnson membuktikan awal abad ini bahwa jenis radiasi ini tidak dapat menghangatkan permukaan. Sebaliknya ia mengalami hamburan resonansi (atau “pseudo”) tanpa menaikkan suhu sama sekali. Saya menulis tentang penelitian Profesor Johnson dalam makalah ilmiah peer-review saya “Energi Radiasi dan Hukum Kedua Termodinamika.” Namun, masih ada pertanyaan yang belum terjawab: Mengapa suhu rata-rata global permukaan bumi lebih hangat daripada radiasi matahari langsung? Alasannya terutama berkaitan dengan ketinggian di atmosfer di mana sebagian besar radiasi matahari diserap. Ini tidak ada hubungannya dengan radiasi dari karbon dioksida, metana atau uap air. Permukaan Venus jauh lebih panas terutama karena atmosfernya jauh lebih tebal (artinya lebih tinggi) daripada kita.
Wilayah terendah di atmosfer planet disebut troposfer dan ada tingkat pendinginan yang cukup seragam dengan meningkatnya ketinggian. Kembali pada tahun 1870-an seorang fisikawan Josef Loschmidt menjelaskan bahwa gradien suhu ini sebenarnya dibentuk oleh gravitasi yang bekerja pada molekul individu: suhu tergantung pada kecepatan molekul-molekul ini (antara tumbukan) dan kecepatan itu dapat dipengaruhi oleh gravitasi. Kami sekarang dapat mengkonfirmasi bahwa Loschmidt benar dan kami melihat efek ini di setiap troposfer planet, meskipun ada alasan mengapa hal itu tidak terjadi di daerah yang lebih tinggi karena kepadatannya tidak mencukupi di stratosfer dan di atasnya. Fenomena ini memungkinkan kita untuk sekarang memahami mengapa suhu permukaan seperti itu, dan saya menulis tentang ini di makalah ilmiah saya “Inti Planet dan Suhu Permukaan” pada tahun 2013. Proses panas yang terlibat sekarang memungkinkan kita untuk memahami suhu di Bumi dan juga di planet lain.
Kesimpulan yang tak terelakkan adalah bahwa dunia telah disesatkan secara serius oleh fisika yang salah yang digunakan oleh ahli iklim. Bagi mereka yang memiliki pengetahuan fisika, mereka salah menggunakan Hukum Stefan-Boltzmann ketika mereka menambahkan fluks matahari sekitar dua kali lipat dari fluks yang diduga berasal dari atmosfer. Kemudian mereka menggunakan jumlah ini dalam perhitungan Stefan-Boltzmann untuk “menjelaskan” suhu rata-rata permukaan planet. Tetapi hukum ini hanya berlaku untuk satu sumber radiasi dan sumber itu harus lebih panas secara efektif (setelah redaman karena jarak) daripada target. Tidak benar menambahkan fluks dari sumber lain, terutama dari sumber yang lebih dingin. Pada kenyataannya mereka akhirnya harus menganggap molekul entah bagaimana “tahu” mereka harus mengirim lebih banyak radiasi ke bawah daripada ke atas.
Svenska
Men professor Claes Johnson bevisade tidigt detta rhundrade att denna typ av strlning inte kan vrma ytan. Istllet genomgr den resonans (eller “pseudo”) spridning utan att hja temperaturen alls. Jag skrev om professor Johnsons forskning i min peer-reviewed artikel Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Utstrlad energi och termodynamikens andra lag) som hyllades och publicerades p flera webbplatser.
Men det fanns fortfarande en obesvarad frga: Varfr r den globala medeltemperaturen p jordens yta varmare n direkt solstrlning kan gra det? Det har uppenbarligen ngot med atmosfren att gra, men det r i frsta hand med atmosfrens hjd att gra snarare n ngon strlning frn koldioxid, metan eller vattennga. Ytan p Venus r mycket varmare, frmst fr att dess atmosfr r mycket tjockare (vilket betyder hgre) n vr. Det lgsta omrdet i planetens atmosfr kallas troposfren och det finns en ganska jmn avkylningshastighet med kande hjd.
Redan p 1870-talet frklarade en fysiker Josef Loschmidt att denna temperaturgradient faktiskt bildas av gravitation som verkar p enskilda molekyler: temperaturen beror p hastigheten p dessa molekyler (mellan kollisioner) och gravitationen kan pverka den hastigheten. Vi kan nu bekrfta att Loschmidt hade rtt och vi ser denna effekt i varje planetarisk troposfr, ven om det finns skl till varfr det inte frekommer i hgre regioner eftersom ttheten r otillrcklig i stratosfren och uppt. Detta fenomen gr det mjligt fr oss att nu frst varfr yttemperaturen r vad den r, och jag skrev om detta i min uppsats Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures (Planetra krn- och yttemperaturer) 2013. Den inblandade vrmeprocessen gr det nu mjligt fr oss att frst temperaturer nda ner till krnan av planeter och mnar.
Den oundvikliga slutsatsen r att vrlden har blivit allvarligt vilseledd av vad som r felaktig fysik som anvnds av klimatologer. Fr de med kunskaper i fysik anvnder de Stefan-Boltzmann-lagen felaktigt nr de adderar till solfldet ett ytterligare flde nstan dubbelt s stort som kommer frn atmosfren och de anvnder sedan denna summa i Stefan-Boltzmanns berkningar fr att “frklara” global genomsnittlig yttemperatur.
Men denna lag r bara tillmplig fr en enda strlningsklla och den kllan mste vara effektivare (efter ngon dmpning p grund av avstnd) n mlet. Det r inte korrekt att lgga till flde frn en annan klla, srskilt frn en kallare klla.
Wot – no Mescalero Apache?
Tut, tut!
Maybe Bindidon can help you out. He can talk rubbish in several languages, too.
I quote: “Uranus, seventh planet from the Sun, is one of the giants of the Solar System: its diameter is more than 51,000km at the equator. One of the big mysteries about Uranus is that it doesnt give out much heat.”
and again:
“Uranus is .. extremely far away from the sun and it radiates roughly as much heat as it absorbs from the sun, meaning its not really producing a significant amount of heat internally, in contrast to the other gas giant planets. So its not really cooling off or heating up.”
I know why and it has to do with having a solid core about 55% the size of Earth, rather than being all gas which, as in Jupiter, allows conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy as the gas planet shrinks very very slowly.. .. You’ll be able to work out why yourself once you’ve studied my 2103 paper, even though so-called experts can’t. And, by the way, Earth and Venus are not gas planets, so they are similar to Uranus in that regard.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344506263_WHAT_WE_CAN_LEARN_ABOUT_CLIMATE_CHANGE_FROM_URANUS
That article went on to say “However, as to why Uranus is in this thermal equilibrium unlike the other gas giant planets, we dont really know yet. All of this is based on Voyagers 1986 flyby and the error bars on that measurement arent great.”
As I said, I know why: it is not really a gas planet like the others because its solid core prevents that very, very slow shrinking such as with Jupiter with PE becoming KE as molecules fall a bit towards the centre of the shrinking Jupiter.
As Einstein said, it would only take one to prove him wrong. QED
So your case is dismissed a second time on yet more grounds.
Gordon, I’m afraid that the control of weather in the northern hemisphere involves the stratospheric polar vortex and circulation in the lower stratosphere. Typically, La Nia’s influence is evident between spring and fall, when the troposphere is separated from the stratosphere.
The graphic below shows the forecast of circulation in the stratosphere. Frigid air from over Alaska will soon arrive in western Canada.
https://i.ibb.co/d29HNK7/gfs-o3mr-30-nh-f120.png
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
The article is about using an entire feedback signal vs a perturbation feedback signal.
NOBODY seems to understand the discussion.
What I want to know is why BOTH methods can’t work. I think they work FINE, except the Monkton method is VASTLY more difficult to get right because it hides the possibility of error in unnecessary complexities created by calculating offset instead of observing it, whereas the perturbation method of climate models SIMPLY RELIES ON HISTORY.
There is so much chicken brained noise on this thread, real people can’t get answers. This is not even that complex a subject.
I think the climate system is open loop.
There are always feedback parameters like water vapor which are interesting but they are small in terms of overall temperature. Open loop would mean more of a blackbody response than we actually measure but taken as a whole, the climate system is much more open-loop than anything else.
That concept alone makes strong global warming kind of silly.
Maybe I’ll write on that.
Jeff, don’t let the worthless trolls discourage you from contributing. Most regular skeptics just ignore them. They have NOTHING.
It would help if the climate modelers presented a simple flow chart of their model. (I like to keep things simple.) A simple climate model should clearly show the system input and output. Once the inputs/outputs are defined, any feedbacks can then be discussed.
As has been said, the acid test for a climate computer model is to start it from two temperature extremes, say 300K, and 280K. If it’s a valid model, it should converge to about 288K.
” I like to keep things simple. ”
Like your denial of the lunar spin about its polar axis, explained by your ball-on-a-string model (‘orbital motion without rotation’)?
Yeah. KISS: Keep it simple, Stupid…
Hmmmh.
Bin, did you ever come up with a workable model for “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
Of course not. You’ve got NOTHING. That’s why you’re so envious, frustrated and reduced to full-time trolling.
That was just a tip for Jeff Id, Clint R.
I was sure you would fall for it.
even the basic graphic of the link I was given is self-disproving. I thought people were joking.
How can the sun see the butt and face of the moon but the earth cannot? It this some kind of trolling to make Dr. Spencer look bad?
…because the moon is "orbiting".
Bindidon
I have no idea what you are talking about. At all.
This is truly a crazy thread.
Denial of lunar spin? Good lord where does this come from.
Jeff Id
” I have no idea what you are talking about. At all. ”
Don’t tell me you never looked at all these lunar spin denial posts coming from Robertson, Clint R, DREMT, Bill Hunter etc!
Since when do you follow this blog?
One of the probably over hundred, recent ‘discussions’ about the lunar spin started here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/enso-impact-on-the-declining-co2-sink-rate/#comment-1354957
Have some fun!
I used to come to Roy’s blog Regularly until maybe 7 years ago.
I do fastidiously ignore the dug stuff, I’m not sure the concept of “lunar spin denial” is interesting enough to review. It sounds like moon landing didn’t happen stuff where Aeronautical engineers are required to ignore that every rocket since then is built using improved versions of the same oddly functional technology.
No, it is not like that, Jeff. Here, this will get you started:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
Bindidon says:
”Dont tell me you never looked at all these lunar spin denial posts coming from Robertson, Clint R, DREMT, Bill Hunter etc!”
The moon spins around the earth. Thats a rotation. The deniers here are the ones that claim an orbit is NOT a rotation.
Hunter
” The moon spins around the earth. That’s a rotation. The deniers here are the ones that claim an orbit is NOT a rotation. ”
Wrong.
The deniers here are those who claim that the Moon does NOT rotate on its polar axis as it orbits Earth, as has been proven for centuries by numerous scientists such as Cassini, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and all their successors
– who are vilified and discredited as ‘astrologers’ by deniers like Clint R
and
– whose work you yourself discredit as ‘academic exercise’ (work which, of course, you cannot disagree in the slightest).
Read the link on lunar spin. Got dummer.
Nobody believes that. Nobody.
Jeff Id
” Nobody believes that. Nobody. ”
To whom were you talking?
But but but…its Tesla! He can’t be wrong about anything! Riiight?
Powerful argument, Jeff. I expect it is one of these “logos” comments that I am supposed to take seriously.
The very best is that these strange lunar spin deniers still fail to explain how it is possible that
– the German astronomer and mathematician Mayer in 1750
– the Russian astronomer and mathematician Habibullin in 1963
and
– among many others, the French mathematician Calamé in 1976 and the Belgian mathematician Moons in 1982
all managed to detect and compute Moons spin, by using different observation tools and different observation data evaluation techniques, but nonetheless obtained perfectly similar results.
*
Mayer’s was (see the snapshot of his treatise)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lf5eVBfj1gDUiw3gXd8f8jF1cTsOuwxl/view
27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11 seconds, 49 60eths of a second, i.e.
27.321665 decimal days
The most recent computation based (like those of Calamé and Moons) on Lunar Laser Ranging gives
27.321661 decimal days
*
How is THAT possible?
…because all they are measuring/calculating is the orbital period. The “Spinners” mistake part of the moon’s “orbital motion” for “axial rotation”.
If you understood the “Non-Spinners” arguments, you wouldn’t ask that question.
The “Non-Spinners” are saying “orbit without spin” is like the “moon on the left”, in the below GIF, whilst the “Spinners” are saying “orbit without spin” is like the “moon on the right”.
So, from the “Non-Spinner” understanding, the MOTR is orbiting counter-clockwise whilst rotating on its own axis, clockwise, once per orbit.
Whilst from the “Spinner” understanding, the MOTL is orbiting counter-clockwise whilst rotating on its own axis, counter-clockwise, once per orbit:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Bindidon says:
”” The moon spins around the earth. Thats a rotation. The deniers here are the ones that claim an orbit is NOT a rotation. ”
Wrong.”
——————-
Sheesh! The moon doesn’t spin/rotate/revolve around the earth!!!
You guys will believe anything a government bureaucrat tells you!
Bindidon says:
”The deniers here are those who claim that the Moon does NOT rotate on its polar axis as it orbits Earth, as has been proven for centuries by numerous scientists such as Cassini, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and all their successors”
——————————
Obviously you have no clue as to what ”Cassini, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and all their successors” have or have not proven. All you need is a stamp of approval from some bureaucrat.
Jeff Id
” This is truly a crazy thread. ”
Yes, one of many.
You just need to look at Hunter’s incredible ‘comment’ above.
100 % polemics, 0 % science.
I’m sad of that, and let such scienceless polemicists discuss with each other.
Bindidon,
I think its some kind of paid trolling to make real science look bad.
…well, you’d be wrong.
Bindidon says:
”You just need to look at Hunters incredible comment above.
100 % polemics, 0 % science.”
——————
Polemics Definition: ”a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something.”
Obviously Bindidon I can’t express a scientific attack on your point of view because you have offered absolutely nothing scientific in support of your view. All you do is make declarations and drop names. If you wish to provide a quantitative scientific argument by all means do so. But claiming I haven’t criticized your argument scientifically simply is as meaningless as your name dropping and your empty declarations.
“A gas is characterized by compressibility, that is, a change in pressure with a change in the volume of the vessel in which the quantity of gas under consideration is enclosed. The compressibility of gases means that a different amount of heat must be supplied by heating the gas by 1C at a constant pressure, and a different amount at a constant volume. In the former case, there is an expansion, that is, an increase in volume. This can be interpreted as an expansion of the gas, which causes it to cool down, i.e. more heat must be supplied to achieve a 1C increase in temperature. If the gas is heated at a constant volume, there is a “peculiar compression” of the gas, because the gas seeks to increase in volume when it is heated. From these considerations, it follows that the specific heat of a transformation realized at constant pressure (isobaric transformation) will always be greater than the specific heat of a transformation realized at constant volume (isochoric transformation).”
The vertical temperature gradient can be calculated from the formula: gravitational acceleration/specific heat of air at constant pressure. However, the specific heat of air at constant pressure increases with increasing solar energy, so the vertical temperature gradient can decrease during the day and increase at night.
It is very likely that the specific heat of air at constant pressure reaches limits, so the vertical temperature gradient in the troposphere cannot fall below a certain value.
Yes, Ireneusz that is the correct formula for the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres in the absence of IR-active gases, as I demonstrated with calculations in my 2013 paper.
You should all note however that IR-active (“greenhouse”) gases work against this gradient which gravity forms at the molecular level because, as with the often-quoted parallel plates example, radiation between such plates has a temperature levelling effect.
This will happen with any such gas (not just water vapor which is well-known to reduce the magnitude of the gradient) because there can be radiation between identical gases that are at different altitudes. Water vapor also reduces the gradient (thus lowering the surface temperature as explained in my 2013 paper at http://climate-change-theory.com) by way of latent heat release, but the radiation effect is greater and not only occurring when and where there is such latent heat release.
On Earth the IR-active gases reduce the gradient by about a third; on Venus it is about 20% to 25% I estimate, but it’s difficult to calculate because the specific heat of carbon dioxide varies a fair bit with temperature.
The best example is probably Uranus where I calculated the reduction is only about 5% as there is not a lot of IR-active gas in its 350Km high nominal troposphere that has no solid surface at its base and is hotter than Earth’s surface down there due to the heat creep process. (There is a solid core however much further down.)
What happens on Uranus demonstrates very clearly that THIS TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE GRADIENT (AKA LAPSE RATE) IS NOT DUE TO RISING AIR FROM A HEATED SURFACE.
The gradient value of 0.98 K per 100 meters applies to dry air.
If the air consisted only of water vapor, the vertical temperature gradient would be about 0.5 K per 100 meters.
This video I think is what we thinking of. It is so rare to see the sun’s specular reflection from the space, but here we have the chance on this video.
See how spectacular it is!
SEE ITALY FROM SPACE AND REFLECTION OF SUN ON PLANET EARTH HD – Bing video
planet specular reflection earth – Bing video
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=planet+specular+reflection+earth&docid=608047991221518368&mid=AFBB0B4CCE446093A724AFBB0B4CCE446093A724&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
It is only a 6 sec long video. Immediately after starts another video with different topic. So watch out, not to miss these 6 sec video at the very beginning.
Thanks Clint.
Helps a bit.
If all of feedback gives only a tiny contribution like 10-20 c , i did that math a long time ago, the climate system is mostly open loop. Its a newer attempt at explanation of why everyjing the climate guys say is real but the magnitude is small.
I have not written the comments “Retired Physicist says”
ATTACK THE FALSE PHYSICS
To those willing to put time into fighting the biggest scam in history then I make the point that you have to attack the false physics with the only correct physics which allows us to understand that so-called “greenhouse” gases cool the planet, water vapor by a few degrees but carbon dioxide and methane by less than 0.1 degree. It’s all at http://climate-change-theory.com and in the seven linked papers.
GREIFEN SIE DIE FALSCHE PHYSIK AN
Diejenigen, die bereit sind, Zeit in die Bekmpfung des grten Betrugs der Geschichte zu investieren, sollten sich darber im Klaren sein, dass sie die falsche Physik mit der einzig richtigen Physik angreifen mssen. Diese Physik ermglicht es uns zu verstehen, warum Treibhausgase den Planeten abkhlen. Wasserdampf khlt um wenige Grad ab, Kohlendioxid und Methan jedoch um weniger als 0,1 Grad. Es ist alles unter http://climate-change-theory.com und in den sieben verlinkten Artikeln zu finden.
ATAQUE A LA FALSA FSICA
Aquellos que estn dispuestos a dedicar tiempo a luchar contra el fraude ms grande de la historia, deben darse cuenta de que deben atacar la fsica falsa con la nica fsica correcta. Esa fsica nos permite entender por qu los gases de efecto invernadero estn enfriando el planeta. El vapor de agua se enfra unos pocos grados, pero el dixido de carbono y el metano se enfran menos de 0,1 grados. Todo est en http://climate-change-theory.com y en los siete artculos vinculados.
ATTAQUEZ LA FAUSSE PHYSIQUE
ceux qui sont prts consacrer du temps combattre la plus grande fraude de l’histoire, sachez que vous devez attaquer la fausse physique avec la seule physique correcte. Cette physique nous permet de comprendre pourquoi les gaz effet de serre refroidissent la plante. La vapeur d’eau refroidit de quelques degrs mais le dioxyde de carbone et le mthane de moins de 0,1 degr. Tout est sur http://climate-change-theory.com et dans les sept articles lis.
SERANG FIZIK PALSU
Kepada mereka yang sanggup meluangkan masa untuk memerangi penipuan terbesar dalam sejarah, sila sedar bahawa anda perlu menyerang fizik palsu dengan satu-satunya fizik yang betul. Fizik itu membolehkan kita memahami mengapa gas rumah hijau menyejukkan planet ini. Wap air menyejuk beberapa darjah tetapi karbon dioksida dan metana kurang daripada 0.1 darjah. Semuanya ada di http://climate-change-theory.com dan dalam tujuh kertas kerja yang dipautkan.
Til dem, der er villige til at bruge tid pa at beaempe historiens storste svindel, sa vr venlig at indse, at du er nodt til at angribe den falske fysik med den eneste korrekte fysik. Den fysik gor os i stand til at forsta, hvorfor drivhusgasser afkoler planeten. Vanddamp afkoles med et par grader, men kuldioxid og metan med mindre end 0,1 grad. Det hele er pa http://climate-change-theory.com og i de syv linkede papirer.
ATTACCA LA FALSA FISICA
A coloro che vogliono dedicare del tempo alla lotta contro la piu grande frode della storia, si prega di rendersi conto che bisogna attaccare la falsa fisica con l’unica fisica corretta. Quella fisica ci permette di capire perch i gas serra stanno raffreddando il pianeta. Il vapore acqueo si raffredda di alcuni gradi ma l’anidride carbonica e il metano di meno di 0,1 gradi. E tutto su http://climate-change-theory.com e nei sette articoli collegati.
ATAQUE A FALSA FISICA
Para aqueles dispostos a dedicar tempo para lutar contra a maior fraude da historia, por favor, percebam que voce tem que atacar a falsa fisica com a unica fsica correta. Essa fisica nos permite entender por que os gases de efeito estufa estao esfriando o planeta. O vapor de agua esfria em alguns graus, mas o dioxido de carbono e o metano em menos de 0,1 grau. Esta tudo em http://climate-change-theory.com e nos sete artigos vinculados.
Obviously, heat transfer by thermal radiation in the gas phase is a very technical and complex subject. Many people who think they understand, or attempt to apply simplistic analysis, demonstrate that they do not really understand the theory or practice. For example, heat transfer does result in thermodynamic effects, but those effects do not prevent heat transfer. Atmospheric gases that are at a lower temperature than the earth, but a higher temperature than deep space, can slow the loss of heat from the earth with violating the laws of physics. That effect is called back radiation, because that correctly describes the mechanism of heat transfer by thermal radiation.
Should read:
Atmospheric gases that are at a lower temperature than the earth, but a higher temperature than deep space, can slow the loss of heat from the earth WITHOUT violating the laws of physics.
You, Tim S, cannot quantify the surface temperatures of Earth, Venus (or any planet with an atmosphere) with correct radiation calculations. So your climatology science (care of Raymond Pierrehumbert’s textbook which has obvious errors) does not get off Square One. It is the false physics I wrote about (in several languages) above.
Back radiation from carbon dioxide and methane (which is in only a few spectral lines) can cause very slight slowing of that portion of surface cooling which is by radiation, but non-radiative surface cooling just increases to compensate so that there is rarely any net effect on the rate of cooling.
Whether or not surface cooling is slowed, the supported temperature which slows the rate of cooling at night much more than any back radiation could – that temperature is not affected. So temperatures will still get down to the same minimum temperature that night, maybe a minute or to later if there was any slowing of cooling.
Thank you for confirming that you do not understand. The only other possibility is that you are the most persistent troll in the history of trolls. My guess is that you are very confident in yourself, but do NOT understand basic physics. Thus, you are unreachable. On that, you have my sympathy. Done!
You all need to understand that radiation striking a target warmer than the source does not cause ANY heat into that target. For targets which are hotter than absolute zero (oK) only a portion of the electromagnetic energy in the radiation eventually becomes kinetic energy in the molecules, thus raising the temperature. All this is in my peer-reviewed 2012 paper which was based on the research of Prof Claes Johnson. The radiation which is not thermalized is pseudo scattered, having only temporarily become electron energy in the target, that meaning it temporarily raised electrons through exact quantum energy level that matched the energy in the incident photons. Identical photons are then released so it looks like a scattering process.
Finally read all seven papers linked at http://climate-change-theory.com with an open, enquiring mind, because they all contain correct physics that nobody, least of all Roy or Christopher or Jeff or anyone here has ever correctly refuted. That’s just a fact
Good bye
Dug,
You wrote –
“You all need to understand that radiation striking a target warmer than the source does not cause ANY heat into that target. For targets which are hotter than absolute zero (oK) only a portion of the electromagnetic energy in the radiation eventually becomes kinetic energy in the molecules, thus raising the temperature.”
Pretty much true (needs the odd correction here and there), and pretty much common knowledge.
No GHE or heat creep involved.
How could radiation have anything to do with heat creep? You have no clue as to what heat creep is, now do you?
Dug,
No, I have no idea what “heat creep” is, youre right. It is as mythical as the GHE, unicorns, and Michael Manns Nobel Prize! I have no idea bout them either.
Your nonsensical papers are full of nonsense, with not one rigorous reproducible experiment to be found. And no, other peoples opinions are not experiments.
Nor are speculations about partial and incomplete observations of other planets, experiments.
All about as stupid SkyDragons claiming that amateur computer program outputs are “experiments”.
A Satisfied Customer:
Some dimwit wrote –
“He [Dug] asserts that the earth cannot be warmer with greenhouse gases in its atmosphere than it would be without them.”
Well of course it cannot!
Reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer (as the atmosphere most assuredly does) does not make it hotter. An example of how high temperatures can get without any atmosphere can be seen on the Moon – maximum temperatures of 127 C or so are achieved, putting the relatively puny 60 C or so achieved on Earth in the proper perspective.
As usual, Willard The Fool appeals to idiocy and fantasy, but doesn’t even have the brain to realise that copying and pasting obviously stupid SkyDragon nonsense, just reinforces his appearance of being an incompetent and inept troll.
Willard the Wanker should just continue talking in tongues – or at least juvenile mutilations of the English language, if he finds that more to his mentally impaired style.
What an idiot he is.
And I await your proof that my physics is wrong where it leads to the conclusion that water vapor cools and real world data confirms I’m right. The CSIRO in Australia cannot find any counter study and nor can you. Click:
http://climateblogcritique.homestead.com/study-15-locations.jpg
What are you blabbering about, Mike Flynn?
Some dimwit wrote
He [Dug] asserts that the earth cannot be warmer with greenhouse gases in its atmosphere than it would be without them.
Well of course it cannot!
Reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer (as the atmosphere most assuredly does) does not make it hotter. An example of how high temperatures can get without any atmosphere can be seen on the Moon maximum temperatures of 127 C or so are achieved, putting the relatively puny 60 C or so achieved on Earth in the proper perspective.
As usual, Willard The Fool appeals to idiocy and fantasy, but doesnt even have the brain to realise that copying and pasting obviously stupid SkyDragon nonsense, just reinforces his appearance of being an incompetent and inept troll.
Willard the Wanker should just continue talking in tongues or at least juvenile mutilations of the English language, if he finds that more to his mentally impaired style.
What an idiot he is.
Water vapor cools in the real world, but not for your reasons Swenson:
http://climateblogcritique.homestead.com/study-15-locations.jpg
Dug, you donkey –
You wrote “Water vapor cools in the real world, but not for your reasons Swenson:”
Well, seeing how I never mentioned water vapor, you would have to be recalling the product of your own fantasy – not anything I said.
I doesnt matter of course, because lying about what someone said is not likely to win you a lot of converts to your cause, is it?
Carry on putting words in my mouth, if you wish – it just makes you look desperate as well as stupid.
The average temperature of the Moon’s surface is somewhat below oC.
Earth’s average temperature is considered to be about 14C to 15C.
The Earth’s surface is warmer than the Moon’s (on average) due to the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient that forms at the molecular level (as a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and the fact that this gradient (being the state of thermodynamic equilibrium) thus enables the heat creep process to warm the Earth’s surface way above what solar radiation to the
surface can achieve. (Back radiation can’t do this.)
The core of the Moon is also maintained by the heat creep process at temperatures more than 1,000 degrees above its highest surface temperature.
Heat creep also warms Earth’s outer crust where gravity forms a temperature gradient often over 20 degrees per Km in the outer 10Km at least.
The gravitationally-induced temperature gradient on all planets above and below any solid surface is always based on the quotient of the acceleration due to that planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gas, liquid or solid involved.
So we can now understand why the gradient in the mantle is far less steep and only about 1 degree per Km because the effective force of gravity is less (with some of Earth’s mass above) and the specific heat increases significantly at high temperatures when additional degrees of freedom come into play.
Swenson, you wrote and I quote “Reducing the amount of radiation” and, seeing that water vapor plays the major role in both emitting and absorbing radiation in the atmosphere, it was reasonable to deduce you were talking about it. It was, after all, the atmosphere you wrote about, saying, and I quote “with greenhouse gases in its atmosphere” and so, inferring that “greenhouse gas” refers mostly to water vapor in so far as concentration and radiation activity are concerned, my deduction as to what you were talking about seemed (and still does seem) quite understandable and reasonable. It was also reasonable for me to refute your initial implied sarcasm directed at myself.
Thus I drew attention to the fact that, supported by 30 years of temperature and precipitation data for 15 randomly chosen locations on three continents, we do in fact see water vapor making the wetter regions cooler than drier ones.
http://climateblogcritique.homestead.com/study-15-locations.jpg
You cannot read, Mike?
Cheers.
Dug, you donkey
You wrote Water vapor cools in the real world, but not for your reasons Swenson:
Well, seeing how I never mentioned water vapor, you would have to be recalling the product of your own fantasy not anything I said.
I doesnt matter of course, because lying about what someone said is not likely to win you a lot of converts to your cause, is it?
Carry on putting words in my mouth, if you wish it just makes you look desperate as well as stupid.
No vortex cooling tube in the world would work if Loschmidt was wrong but those like you who haven’t studied my 2013 paper will not understand why that is the case.
My refutation of your thought experiment was written years ago and has had over 3,200 views on the WUWT errors page on my second climate website whyitsnotCO….
How does the Earth know the temperature of the source of the IR photons, Dug?
Where would you expect to find my answer? Don’t you even know how scientists determine the temperature of stars using Wien’s Displacement Law? Your knowledge of this physics is sadly lacking.
So read my 2012 peer-reviewed paper which explains the process meticulously. It’s even explained in a comment upthread.
The paper on radiation is linked in the first column at http://climate-change-theory.com so stop wasting my time without reading the answers to any question you are likely to ask – already in my papers if it’s relevant.
Chihuahua doesn’t have any knowledge of physics. He’s a sock puppet propagandist.
Dug,
So you cannot answer this simple question?
You are dismissed.
Weird Wee Willy,
Why do you bother with such stupid gotchas?
Because a thermometer is smarter than you?
Why is that, do you think?
Idiot.
Stupid, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Wonky Wee Willy,
The same way a thermometer does, you donkey.
Your gotcha is about as silly as asking how a bucket knows acid has been poured into it, after you notice a hole has been eaten out of it.
You really are an incredibly dense troll, you know.
And how does a thermometer do that, Mike?
Cary on trolling.
Weird Wee Willy,
Why do you bother with such stupid gotchas?
Because a thermometer is smarter than you?
Why is that, do you think?
Idiot.
So you do not know, Mike?
Ah well.
You are dismissed.
Weird Wee Willy,
Why do you bother with such stupid gotchas?
Because a thermometer is smarter than you?
Why is that, do you think?
Idiot.
.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
willard…”How does the Earth know the temperature of the source of the IR photons…”
***
Earth does not need to have knowledge of the temperature, the electrons in Earth’s atoms will only respond to IR with a certain frequency and intensity. Of course, the frequency and intensity is related to the temperature of the IR source.
It’s elementary Watson, if you take the time to study it.
And how are the frequency and intensity of the IR photons related to temperature, Gordo?
Woeful Wee Willy,
Are you really so inept that you can’t copy and paste facts?
You seem able to copy and paste infinite amounts of fanciful nonsense.
Carry on.
What are you blathering about, Mike?
Woeful Wee Willy,
Are you really so inept that you cant copy and paste facts?
You seem able to copy and paste infinite amounts of fanciful nonsense.
Carry on.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
How do you know the Earth needs to know the temperature, Willard?
If you run a hose into a bucket water will eventually overflow. The bucket doesn’t have to know the temperature of the water or the rate of flow. Its capacity is all that is relevant.
Likewise the capacity of the surface to pseudo scatter a certain amount of radiation is just like the capacity of the bucket. When the radiation exceeds the capacity then the surplus has its electromagnetic energy converted to kinetic energy in the surface molecules. Only then will the temperature rise as a result of th eincident radiation. There is a lot of solar radiation striking the surface at a small acute angle which does not reach the capacity of the surface, that capacity depending on the temperature of the surface.
It’s all explained in my 2012 paper over several pages, but it requires an understanding of Planck functions.
Keep hand waving, Duf.
Dismissed,
ren…”It is very likely that the specific heat of air at constant pressure reaches limits, so the vertical temperature gradient in the troposphere cannot fall below a certain value”.
***
Where would you find the atmosphere at constant pressure? It varies with altitude, If there is a negative pressure gradient, why would there not be a negative temperature gradient?
Temperature decreases linearly with pressure as altitude increases, until you reach the stratosphere which is heated independently, as you know.
There is nothing surprising about temperature decreasing with decreasing pressure. Pressure is proportional to the number of molecules in a volume. In a container, pressure is the force exerted by all gas atoms/molecules on the walls of a container. In the atmosphere, pressure is created by gravitational force which varies with altitude. Therefore molecules are packed more densely nearer the surface and pressure decreases in proportion to altitude.
Temperature is proportional to pressure in this case, as the number of molecules per unit volume decrease with altitude, decreasing pressure, it also lowers the average kinetic energy of the gas. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy.
As an example, the pressure at the top of Mount Everest, near 30,000 feet, is 1/3 the pressure at sea level. That means there are 1/3 the number of air molecules, therefore the average kinetic energy is lower, hence the temperature.
I don’t see the point in talking about vertical columns of air. This is not a laboratory situation where one can have a container shaped in a vertical column. No one can recreate the atmosphere in a container with the effect of a gravitational field.
I don’t see the need to apply specific heat either since it will vary with altitude. Specific heat is the amount of heat required to raise a specific mass by 1C.
Specific heat for air is defined based on a constant pressure or constant volume. Your vertical column of air will definitely not have a constant pressure, nor should it really be considered a constant volume, since there is a negative pressure gradient built-in.
It would be necessary to break the column into much smaller volumes where the pressure could be regarded as constant throughout the smaller volume. The volume would then be constant as well and the Ideal Gas Law would give a better visualization of the situation.
Gordon:
You really do get confused about the Ideal Gas Law.
You write “Temperature decreases linearly with pressure”
Nope. It’s not a linear graph because density also decreases if we are talking about the troposphere.
Then you write: “Temperature is proportional to pressure in this case, as the number of molecules per unit volume decrease with altitude, decreasing pressure, it also lowers the average kinetic energy of the gas.”
Temperature is not related to the total kinetic energy in some region of gas. It is ONLY related to the mean KE per molecule, regardless of the density.
But you don’t seem to realise that temperature is not affected by a change in density. I repeat: temperature is proportional to the mean molecular kinetic energy and quite independent of density.
The Ideal Gas Law is best remembered as:
Pressure is proportional to the PRODUCT of temperature and density. Of course we can change the subject of the formula, but that does not mean causation changes.
There is no reason why increasing the pressure would speed up the motion of the molecules that are being compressed into a smaller volume, or vice versa as you implied.
Again, I have told you over and over, gravity forms both the temperature and the density gradient (both being the same state of thermodynamic equilibrium) and the pressure gradient can then be calculated using the relationship above – namely the IGL.
You cannot assume any one of these three is constant over altitude because it obviously isn’t. Hence you cannot claim any linearity or proportionality between any two of the three. That’s school kid math.
Don’t attempt to “correct” me because I’m right. Furthermore I’ve explained to you before that increasing pressure does not necessarily increase temperature and also that temperature can even vary both up and down without pressure changing, for it only takes changes in density to retain the IGL equation in such instances.
I hope at least you know (or have just learned) that temperature is never a function of density – only of mean molecular kinetic energy regardless of the number of molecules or the density.
I don’t like to see people with your knowledge and intelligence getting confused in regard to the Kinetic Theory of Gases which Einstein and others have used. Thinking at the molecular level certainly helps understanding of all this.
Why do you obfuscate the problem by introducing density? Density is mass per unit volume.
The IGL => PV = nRT
Rewrite as P = (n/V)RT where n/V = density. So, the IGL is written as P = pRT where p = density.
As I pointed out, the best way to deal with the problem is to take a very thin concentric volume where n and V are claimed to be constant, then density is constant, and T is directly proportional to P.
In each subsequent layer, T and P will still be proportional, the difference being that in each ascending later T and P will be reduced. Which is what I claimed.
Are you aware that the IGL is only valid at one data point and only for the gas constant for that condition and that gas or gas mixture? The true equation is: (PV) to the power gamma = a constant, where gamma is the ratio of specific heats for the gas which also depends on temperature. For mixtures of gases, a weighted average can be used for gamma.
Dug,
Although Richard Feynman pointed out that, in reality, “PV= NkT holds, sometimes, for some gases, maybe.”
And so theory meets reality – sometimes, for some gases, maybe.
Feynman’s statements are supported by experiment.
Yours, not so much?
But who cares – neither heat creep nor the GHE can be demonstrated by experiment.
Nor can the physical characteristics of unicorn dung – even though pictures and descriptions of unicorns can be widely found. Just like the mythical, GHE.
Your heat creep, as opposed to “What Is Heat Creep Exactly? Heat creep specifically describes how heat travels (sneakily) up the hot end and melts filament too early, before the melt zone.”, is just pure nonsense.
There’s nothing about melting filaments in my papers, Swenson.
There’s no incorrect physics in any of the seven papers linked at http://climate-change-theory.com.
Heat creep HAS been demonstrated in numerous experiments with centrifugal force and over 850 other experiments this century using sealed, well insulated cylinders and observing gravity forming a temperature gradient within the cylinder.
You cannot quantify the surface temperature of ANY planet with a significant atmosphere with any correct radiation calculations unless you apply the heat creep hypothesis.
Do so right here and now with radiation if you think you can, or run away with your head between your knees. The CSIRO can’t do so, not even Dr Larry Marshall (PhD in physics) whom Senator Malcolm Roberts and I have challenged and tied in knots with FOI’s and direct questions. The whole scam will crumble by 2025 at the latest.
I’m throwing down the gauntlet to your Swenson. Put up or shut up. I’ll be back in 24 hours and I bet you have not been able to show any calculations using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations correctly and flux inputs from NASA diagrams (such as that showing solar radiation into the surface being 168w/m^2 on average) to get about 288K as the global mean surface temperature. You will try to wiggle out of producing the calculations as we shall surely all see.
Dug,
“Put up or shut up.”
I choose to do neither. What do you intend to do about it? Nothing?
What a surprise!
If I want to quantify a temperature, I use an instrument – as temperature is defined as degrees of hotness.
If the surface is 288 K on average, it has dropped a lot since it was molten, hasn’t it? What do you think it should be?
Here’s some news for you – it is what it is, which is obviously much less than it was. Calculate why, using your silly parameters.
Off you go now.
PS: Specific heat at constant pressure for air is very close to 1.0 at all altitudes in Earth’s troposphere. Yes it varies very, very slightly. In a comment upthread I wrote above Cp varying in the Venus troposphere to some overall relatively small extent, thus making the theoretical temperature graph curved rather than linear. The specific heat for carbon dioxide does vary more than that for air and the Venus troposphere is about 50Km high whereas Earth’s varies between about 8Km at the poles and 18Km at the Equator.
Dug,
“Specific heat at constant pressure for air is very close to 1.0 at all altitudes in Earths troposphere.”
All you have to do is figure out how to make the troposphere assume a constant pressure between the surface and 8 or 16 km.
I’m guessing you are trying for the appearance of intelligence through incomprehensibility.
What did you actually mean, and how does this relate to the fact that the Earth has cooled from the molten state over the past four and a half billion years or so?
All very mysterious!
I didn’t say Cp for air was constant – it just doesn’t vary much from 1.00 in the troposphere.
Temperature Cp of air
250K 1.003
300K 1.005
350K 1.008
Source:
https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html
And I had been writing to Gordon anyway re his comment upthread.
But you Swenson are also confused about what specific heat at constant pressure is all about. Notice how the tables show it varying with temperature. There is no requirement for constant pressure over the height of the troposphere. Cp is affected by temperature changes, not pressure changes. Dear me! You really don’t know much basic physics do you? Your comment demonstrates such.
Well I shall be waiting 24 hours for your calculations of the global mean surface temperature based on radiative flux and correct physics – see details upthread.
Gordon! Gordon!
Cp varies with temperature. The pressure in the troposphere is irrelevant.
Table
Temp. Cp
250K 1.003
300K 1.005
350K 1.008
https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_Cp_Cv.html
tim s…”Atmospheric gases that are at a lower temperature than the earth, but a higher temperature than deep space, can slow the loss of heat from the earth with violating the laws of physics. That effect is called back radiation, because that correctly describes the mechanism of heat transfer by thermal radiation”.
***
Thermal radiation is a misnomer. It comes from an era when it was believed heat could be radiated from a surface and move through space as heat rays. Heat cannot be transferred by radiation since heat requires mass and radiation is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field and has no mass.
Heat dissipation occurs at the Earth’s surface, in the atoms making up the surface, nowhere else. The rate of dissipation is controlled by the temperature difference between the atmosphere and the surface as per Newtons Law of Cooling.
Heat dissipation at the surface has nothing to do with radiation per se, radiation being a result of the dissipation process at the atomic level. The dissipation occurs due to an interaction between the atoms of the surface and the atoms/molecules of the atmosphere. However, they would both have the same temperature as the atmosphere were it not for convection due to heated air rising.
Put another way, radiation is a product of a natural heat dissipation taking place in atoms. Bodies don’t cool due to radiation, they produce radiation as a product of the cooling process. During the process, heat is lost.
This problem is far more complex than it is made to appear by climate alarmists. If the atmosphere was hotter than the surface, heat transfer would occur between the atmosphere and the surface. There would be no heat dissipation at the surface in that case.
If air heated by the surface did not rise, there would be a band of heated air adjacent to the surface with the same temperature as the surface. That would produce thermal equilibrium and no heat would be transferred, therefore no heat dissipation. As Richard Lindzen claimed, the surface temperature would rise to 70C.
Since heated air does rise, the rising air is replaced by cooler air from above, and the cycle repeats. Therefore the rate of heat dissipation depends on the cooler air temperature as it contacts the surface.
That cooler air is 99% nitrogen and oxygen and the temperature of those two gases determine the rate of surface heat dissipation.
The degree of radiation depends on the kinetic energy of electrons in atoms of the surface. That, in turn, is dependent on the difference in temperature between the atmosphere and the surface.
Therefore a cooler layer of air between the surface serves only as a supply of cooler air to replace heated air that has risen. Since that air is 99% N2/O2, it is the N2/O2 in the atmosphere controlling heat dissipation and not trace anthropogenic gases.
You are confusing back-radiation with the alternate theory of anthropogenic warming which requires that radiation from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere be absorbed by the surface hence warming the surface to a temperature higher than it is warmed by solar energy. That theory contradicts the 2LOT and represents perpetual motion.
I only read the first paragraph. That was enough. Are you trolling? Have you ever sat in front a fireplace or a campfire with the wind at your back? Gases are not exempt. Done!
Tim,
You are right – and the IR travels quite nicely through the intervening air, doesn’t it? Just like IR travels from the Earth’s surface to space – at night for example.
You might have noticed that the cold air at your back doesn’t seem to warm you at all – the way to warm your back is to turn round in front of the fire.
That’s the only form of “back radiation” that will warm your back.
No GHE. All nonsense.
Swenson: There’s a new request for you upthread, and you could also read my comment addressed to Gordon below.
Dug,
Or you could just say what you want to say, in your comment. English is fine, so it wouldnt take the same amounts of time and effort as posting multiple translations of your heat creep nonsense.
But of course, just like Wonky Willard, you feel the need to inconvenience others as much as you can – for some unknown reason.
So no, I do as I wish – which doesn’t include looking for anything that you are too lazy to repost.
Fair enough?
I just cut and pasted from my website: no significant extra time.
Whilst there is a concentration among you in Virginia and to a lesser extent in Illinois, then New Jersey, Missouri, Texas and Washington states, there are significant numbers especially from Germany, Sweden and Denmark, but also at least three from each of the countries speaking the other languages on my website. For example, the page written in German gets 6% of all visits.
I’m a little curious about the apparent concentration of Roy’s readers in these states, especially Virginia. I’m wondering if it has anything to do with education standards. When I studied physics full time at Sydney University in the 1960’s we were lectured by three leading professors – all of them on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Messel (who got Order of Australia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Sumner_Miller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
They taught us to love and understand physics, not just be formula students who don’t always even know about the limitations of some of these equations and thus misapply them, as do climatologists.
Gordon.
You write “If the atmosphere was hotter than the surface, heat transfer would occur between the atmosphere and the surface.” Yes, but it doesn’t have to be hotter if heat creep can happen.
You don’t understand that there is heat creep downwards whenever the magnitude of the temperature gradient is less than what would be the gradient at thermodynamic equilibrium. For example, when cooling turns to warming even under thick cloud around dawn (so we’ll leave the Sun out of it for the moment – it could also be a location in the shadow of a mountain at that time) the direction of heat changes from outward to inward and yet the temperature gradient has not settled down to zero. It never would or could in calm conditions in a planet’s troposphere under the influence of gravity. It’s time you studied my explanation of all this in my 2013 paper.
I had thought that you of all people here would have had sufficient understanding of entropy as to be able to recognise the validity in my writings. You disappoint me. After all, you have never proved my physics wrong. Nobody (out of over 150,000) ever has or ever will.
If you deny the obvious fact that it is gravity that forms these tropospheric gradients (as Josef Loschmidt correctly explained in the 1870’s, and he was a truly brilliant physicist ahead of his time – the first to make realistic estimates of the size of air molecules) then you are in effect denying the validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Dug, you wrote –
” . . . there is heat creep downwards whenever the magnitude of the temperature gradient is less than what would be the gradient at thermodynamic equilibrium.”
Wikipedia gives –
“Thermodynamic equilibrium is an axiomatic concept of thermodynamics. It is an internal state of a single thermodynamic system, or a relation between several thermodynamic systems connected by more or less permeable or impermeable walls. In thermodynamic equilibrium there are no net macroscopic flows of matter or of energy, within a system or between systems.”
No temperature gradient, in other words. No flows of matter or energy. Your temperature gradient magnitude must therefore be less than nothing – negative. Exactly – heat flowing from hot to cold. Nothing unusual there.
No heat creep, unless you have just redefined thermal equilibrium to suit yourself.
Your assumption “No temperature gradient, in other words” is wrong for reasons in my 2013 paper at http://climate-change-theory.com. In effect you beg the question. Heat creep ONLY happens when the equilibrium is disturbed, but you didn’t even realize that is the case.
ANYONE ELSE WHO WRITES ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK HEAT CREEP IS WILL JUST BE REFERRED TO MY 2013 PAPER TO LEARN WHY THEIR THOUGHTS WERE IRRELEVANT OR JUST SIMPLY WRONG. HEAT CREEP HAPPENS AND THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT IT DOES.
So “you have just redefined thermal equilibrium to suit yourself.”
There is not a single mention of THERMAL equilibrium in any of my papers. I write about THERMODYNAMIC equilibrium which is what is quite correctly described in what you copied and pasted. You don’t have to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, thankyou.
My papers are in total agreement with that statement and established laws of physics. Heat creep is NOT violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics – it is a direct corollary of that Law and happens because that Law is valid and well established and proven. My physics is rigorously based on the laws of physics and, unlike climatology’s fictitious, fiddled physics, mine is correct.
Your problem lies in your lack of correct understanding of maximum entropy production. You COULD learn from my paper if you are teachable.
Dug,
Sorry, my bad.
Meant to write “thermodynamic equilibrium”, of course.
However, no matter. You don’t seem to want to acknowledge that there is no thermal gradient whatsoever at thermodynamic equilibrium.
If that equilibrium is “disturbed”, then it is no longer “equilibrium”, is it?
Trot out an experiment showing this amazing “heat creep”, and you will gain credibility. No, your demands that people read your papers are not reproducible experiments.
Your papers are rubbish, and have no connection to reality.
Keep it up Swenson and I’ll come down harder and harder on you exposing your complete lack of understanding of the relevant physics.
Firstly you apparently haven’t read my comment upthread which explains the difference between thermodynamic and thermal equilibrium. You could search for it – I can’t be bothered wasting more time on you.
Secondly the sentence you copied “… the magnitude of the temperature gradient is less than what would be the gradient at thermodynamic equilibrium… clearly talks about a state that is different from the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, but then you rave on as if I had said heat creep happens when there is thermodynamic equilibrium with its associated temperature gradient. You did not comprehend that I was NOT saying it happened at thermodynamic equilibrium: I was saying it only happened in a situation which was NOT thermodynamic equilibrium.
You will get yourself in hot water if you ever again assume I’m wrong, because it will be you who is wrong because you don’t deign to read the proof that heat creep happens.
I’m still laughing at your lack of comprehension Swenson.
You did NOT quote ANYONE saying the gradient didn’t happen. Mind you, many “authorities” might well say so because they are just as hopelessly wrong.
AT THERMODYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM THE GRADIENT FORMS AND THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF MATTER OR ENERGY ACROSS ANY BOUNDARY WITHIN THE SYSTEM BECAUSE ENTROPY IS AT A MAXIMUM.
Thousands who have read my papers have learned why.
Your limited thinking can’t get out of your mind the Clausius corollary of the Second Law that only always applies in a horizontal plane. It’s people like yourself who retard the progress of physics, but you apparently like living with the limited understanding of 19th century scientists like Clausius who did not realize the significance of entropy which is now understood to be far more applicable than just to heat.
Dug,
You wrote –
“Keep it up Swenson and Ill come down harder and harder on you exposing your complete lack of understanding of the relevant physics.”
Oooooh, am I supposed to be scared? You dimwit, I don’t care what you think. Expose away.
You also wrote –
“You will get yourself in hot water if you ever again assume Im wrong, because it will be you who is wrong because you dont deign to read the proof that heat creep happens.”
Hot water? Enough for a nice cup of tea? Maybe water brought to the boil with the aid of heat creep, perhaps. If that doesn’t work, you could always try some GHE!
Only joking, neither heat creep nor GHE managed to stop the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years or so, so your fantasy is unlikely to become fact in the foreseeable future.
Heat creep? Maybe you really meant heat crap – like your papers.
“I had thought that you of all people here would have had sufficient understanding of entropy…”
***
Clausius, who invented and named entropy defined it as … the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat at temperature, T.
He even gave us an equation for it…S = integral dq/T.
What I’d like to know is how you managed screw up his definition so badly.
I also wonder how you messed up his exceedingly simple definition of the 2nd law…heat can never be transferred, by it’s own means, from a colder body to a warmer body.
Real scientists talk sense, you talk nonsense.
And, Swenson, just in passing in case you come across it, the microscopic explanation of entropy has never been fully accepted since there are counter examples such as the spontaneous crystallization of a super-cooled melt and the crystallization of a supersaturated solution. If a super-cooled melt is allowed to crystallize under adiabatic conditions then the entropy of the system increases. In a supersaturated solution there is a possibility of the deposition of crystalline solute. The deposition of crystalline solute is a spontaneous process with an increase of entropy. The phase transformation of solid helium to liquid helium II does not require energy. These counter examples suggest that the microscopic explanation of entropy is dubious.
You see, Swenson, the above processes are as a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the associated process of maximum entropy production, just as is heat creep and the forming of the temperature gradient.
Even the forming of the density gradient in the troposphere is a direct result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but you wouldn’t understand why, I know.
But apparently you think you know better than the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt who was way ahead of Clausius in his understanding of thermodynamics.
Just because it’s all over your head and you haven’t any correct understanding of it whatsoever, doesn’t make it wrong.
Dug,
You wrote –
“But apparently you think you know better than the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt who was way ahead of Clausius in his understanding of thermodynamics.”
Of course I do. There is no gravitothermal effect.
As somebody pointed out, a limitless source of energy would ensue, utilising the temperature difference you claim is caused by the force of gravity. Nonsense. I don’t accept that perpetual motion is possible, particularly by utilising the force of gravity in some cunning way.
Maybe you believe in perpetual motion? Good for you!
There are plenty of experiments proving heat creep happens Swenson. Read about such on my second climate website which is linked from
http://climate-change-theory.com
noting the experiment with centrifugal force on the Home page and those with Vortex cooling tubes on the ‘Evidence’ page.
Dug,
Neither centrifugal force, vortex tubes, or the like, have any relevance to your bizarre belief in the gravitothermal effect, or the mythical heat creep.
Focus, lad, focus.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a much hotter temperature. Nothin* stopped it cooling – GHE, heat creep, gravity, centrifugal force – nothing stops hot things cooling all by themselves.
The explanation as to why there is heat from cold to hot in a vortex cooling tube is in a comment just written below. That heat creep is clearly detectable because the radial temperature gradient in such tubes (due to the force field) leads to differences in the order of 50 degrees or more, and the gradient is as my calculations predicted. QED
Dug,
Neither centrifugal force, vortex tubes, or the like, have any relevance to your bizarre belief in the gravitothermal effect, or the mythical heat creep.
Focus, lad, focus.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a much hotter temperature. Nothin* stopped it cooling GHE, heat creep, gravity, centrifugal force nothing stops hot things cooling all by themselves.
Blimey Swenson!
You don’t even realize that EVERY naturally occurring thermodynamic process commences when (and would not happen unless) the starting point of the process was one which was NOT thermodynamic equilibrium.
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.
In practice, entropy increases from the starting point of the “natural thermodynamic process” and only ceases if maximum entropy is attained. I hope you have at least learned that “maximum entropy” is synonymous with “thermodynamic equilibrium” but NOT thermal equilibrium which is what you have in your mind even when you write thermodynamic equilibrium. So there is no thermodynamic equilibrium when any such natural process starts (including heat creep) because if there was such equilibrium the process would not start.
Dug,
When I write thermodynamic equilibrium, I mean thermodynamic equilibrium.
You even agreed with a definition which I posted, so we are agreed on what I mean.
No use trying to squirm out of your silly statements. There is no thermal gradient at thermodynamic equilibrium.
Maybe you should revisit the 2nd LOT, and maybe you will realise why more than seven billion people are steadfastly ignoring you. Heat moves from hot to cold – until thermal equilibrium is achieved, and everything involved is at the same temperature.
No GHE, no heat creep. You are either delusional or quite mad. It makes no difference to reality in either case.
Yep, heat does that in the absence of a force field like gravity or centrifugal force such as in a vortex cooling tube where there is heat (moving) radially from the colder and cooling central regions to the warmer and warming outer regions as the air passes down the tube in a helical pattern creating radial centrifugal force. This is clear cut evidence of the heat creep process. So too is the fact that water vapor cools the planet as my study showed.
Did you register that? Heat from cold to hot in a real experiment. In fact there have been dozens of experiments with vortex cooling tubes and no one in the Wikipedia Talk pages knew how vortex cooling tubes worked until I explained how it is heat creep which is happening. My explanation was first on Wikipedia eight years ago.
And there was a temperature gradient that formed due to gravity in well insulated cylinders in about 850 experiments conducted by Roderich Graeff over the course of several years early this century proving Loschmidt right.
Did you get that? Real experiments proving gravity forms the gradient even in a sealed, insulated cylinder. When the cylinder was inverted then the gradient reformed so it was still cooler at the top.
But of course you are more brilliant than Loschmidt who was one of the most brilliant physicists ever to live. /sarc
But you have a way of disregarding and ignoring empirical evidence which proves you wrong and me right, now don’t you?
I’m really not interested in your incorrect assertions which just simply prove my point about your narcissism. You provide no physics to prove my physics wrong because you don’t even know what that physics correctly explains and why the gradient (as observed in experiments) is a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, not a violation thereof.
And Swenson, it is acceptable, normal and ethical for one to read the writings of someone else whom they set out to refute because of some agenda they have which is contrary to that of the author.
That’s normal scientific practice. It is akin to peer-review in open media.
But, it is outright rude and disrespectful to write as you do a whole lot of blurb which attempts to tell others that my papers do not say what they actually do say and prove, but that they say what you think they do, and because you are so narcissistic in your whole belief system, you become absurdly confident in your ability to do all this guessing. There are many thousands of others who have read my papers and/or websites – about 150,000 in fact, so why should I care if you do or don’t read any of my papers? But I have a right to care when you start to try to convince people that my papers say something altogether different from what they actually do. You need to be honest enough with yourself to accept that, if you haven’t read someone’s papers then you should keep out of discussion and certainly not respond to comments written to others when you have no knowledge of the content of the papers.
Your repetitive claims that our planet is cooling by way of losing energy from subsurface regions is not supported by any evidence. I have pointed out that scientists have found no convincing evidence that Uranus is cooling, so that proves your conjecture wrong anyway. The temperature which the Sun achieves on the hottest part of the Moon where it’s over 120C should indicate to you that, as some scientists are now saying, the Earth has been colder and is now warmed to the current state which is in equilibrium with the solar radiation.
Why do you think that equilibrium state would ever alter, even if the Earth had cooled down until it reached that equilibrium temperature? We see such equilibrium in all planets. I take no position as to whether the Earth was warmed or cooled to get to this current state, for I am honest enough to admit I just don’t know, but I do take the position that the current state is one of long-term global mean equilibrium with the level of current solar radiation. That is why I say the Earth (and other planets with it, and our Moon) would only cool to the extent that would be determined by any decline in the Solar Constant.
The flux of 0.054 w/m^2 which you think is coming out of subsurface regions is a fraction of other fluxes and a fiction because ironically it is only calculated from the temperature gradient that was formed by gravity in the subsurface area. There could be (and is) just as much heat creep going up that thermal profile as coming down, these processes alternating at least in summer and winter and, to a minor extent, between day and night. That all helps to maintain the global long-term equilibrium state that I explained in the last paragraph above.
And finally, try watching what happens when a ball is thrown into the air above and falls back down. Do you observe what Newton did? Do you understand that gravity acts the same way on molecules in motion between collisions? Do you understand that gravity accelerates things that are going downwards and slows up things that are going upwards?
I don’t suppose you know the physics relating to kinetic energy being proportional to the square of velocity, do you?
Well it is.
And so gravity can and does increase the kinetic energy of molecules that are moving downwards even though they are doing so at about 1,800 Km/hr, because there is no friction for such molecules between collisions.
Now, this where you need knowledge of the Kinetic Theory of Gases which Einstein and others used successfully.
That tells us that the temperature of any small region of a gas (say, 1 cubic centimetre – big enough to measure temperature) – that temperature is proportional to the mean (that means “average”) kinetic energy of each of the molecules no matter how many molecules. Temperature ONLY depends on the mean of the kinetic energy in each of the molecules. Density has nothing to do with temperature.
So, if we imagine those 850 experiments done by Graeff which exhibited the gradient just as Loschmidt had predicted, we can imagine air coming in through a hole in the middle of the vertical cylinder (previously with a vacuum) wherein some molecules then move to the top half getting slowed down by gravity and thus making that half cooler than the lower half where they got accelerated by gravity on their way down there.
You see, even a teenager could understand the relevant physics. So try hard yourself, because I’m off to bed.
But I will just add the last nail in the coffin of your guesswork, Swenson:
Gravity forms a density gradient in the troposphere as you know full well. That gradient in calm conditions is stable. If we imagine a column of the troposphere then, at a central horizontal plane there is no net (macro) transition of energy or matter across that plane.
Does that sound familiar? It is the one and only state of thermodynamic equilibrium. (That same state has a temperature gradient as I explained just above, but I shall focus on the density gradient.)
The pressure on each side of a membrane stretched across that horizontal plane would be equal on each side. So too would be the temperature.
But, just as we know there is are more molecules in the lower half below that central plane in this cylinder and fewer above it, and yet there is equilibrium, so too we know that the mean kinetic energy of the molecules below the plane is greater than the mean kinetic energy of those above the plane due to the effect of gravity also, just like when gravity formed the density gradient.
So we can have different densities and different temperatures at any small distance away from the plane (up or down) and yet have the same density, temperature and thus pressure also on each side at the plane itself, with no net energy or matter needing to cross the plane.
In summary, more molecules, greater density and higher temperatures below the plane than above, and yet we have thermodynamic equilibrium because there is no change happening on a macro scale. It’s all due to gravity. It would not happen in a horizontal plane or in interstellar Space without gravity.
There’s several mistakes in all that rambling, dug. You’re assuming gravity will separate the molecules with more KE from those with less KE. That’s nonsense.
But, your most egregious mistake is in agreeing with the cult that Earth only receives 170 W/m^2 from Sun. After a mistake like that, you can’t get back to reality, no matter how many keyboards you wear out.
Clint R
Dug is a crackpot but you seem to just make up declarations with zero support and then you badmouth everyone who wants to look at facts. Dug is crackpot and you are what you accuse everyone else of being. You are a cult minded person. You make unsupported declarations and denigrate any who dare suggest you are wrong.
Here:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thijs-Van-De-Graaf/publication/330358460/figure/fig1/AS:718504277839872@1548316177165/World-solar-potential.png
This is the global solar energy that reaches the surface I do not know if this takes in albedo. You can see that the Earth does not receive much solar energy. You declarations are false and NOT supported by evidence. Conclusion is you are a cult minded person who does not seem to get traction on a thinking scientific blog. You are better off on PSI or Postma Cult blog. People here are intelligent, rational and logical thinkers. Your cult declarations are rejected by all but a handful of like minded cult people. Come back when you have evidence for any of your cult declarations.
Hi Norman.
You’re still stuck on stupid, I see — nothing but your usual insults, false accusations, and another link you can’t understand. Your ongoing meltdown helps make this so much fun.
Found any valid technical reference for all your other nonsense yet? Remember, you said you always support your nonsense.
You should try that riddle on Jeff, Pup.
See how that works.
Meanwhile, please stop trolling.
Clint R
Whatever you say cult idiot. Same old dull cult rambling from Clint R the braindead cult idiot.
Link you to real data, you are shown to be wrong but do you use intelligence and admit error. No you double down with an idiot rant. It is all you know what do do. When facts show you wrong you divert into the cult idiot and ramble and throw out some words.
Hi again Norman.
You’re stammering and sputtering incoherently.
Meltdowns are so much fun….
Clint R
Whatever cult idiot.
Would you stop lying Clint about what is in my papers and what you claim I am assuming. Your comments are water off a duck’s back and, for the thousands who have read my papers, such comments are blatantly obviously completely and utterly false and do nothing but expose your serious lack of knowledge and understanding of the relevant physics.
Sometimes, I wonder why Dug has been banned from most Climateball websites.
Because owners have a financial interest in the value of their domain names and don’t like to be proved wrong.
Perhaps Dug should be allowed to stay.
You have to agree that watching climate change deniers playing Climateball against each other is vastly entertaining.
…and it’s as this blog should be. Skeptics arguing against other skeptics. It’s a skeptic blog, after all. Alarmists like you are the unwelcome trolls here. Don’t you get that yet? Just because the majority of regular commenters here are alarmists doesn’t mean that any of you are actually welcome here. You’ve just sort of moved in, permanently, uninvited, and turned the place into some kind of alarmist echo chamber. The chances of seeing any of you lot ever actually argue against each other are desperately slim. You speak as one voice, a hive mind. None of you ever show any signs of having had an independent thought.
It’s very boring.
True, EM.
Roy still stated many times that he did not want cranks to deface his blog, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
In fairness, Graham was not here at the time. As far as I can tell, he started to troll this website 74 months ago or so. So he might forget that he is not welcome here. But then I am quite sure I already told him about Roy’s will. He just does not care.
As for Dug, well it’s even clearer:
http://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
It’s a skeptic blog, it ought to go without saying that alarmists are not welcome. As for the Slayers, that very select, small group of people who were involved with the Principia Scientific website and in writing the book, Dr Spencer has made his wishes clear…though he may have changed his mind in recent years, who knows? Since I’m not a Slayer, rather I’m just somebody who doesn’t believe there’s a GHE, I assume I’m welcome to comment. Certainly should be, more so than any alarmist.
Roy is a luke-warmer, a scientist, and understands the greenhouse effect is valid.
He is three for three, and you are o for three.
It seems you should no be welcome on his blog.
I have a science degree, which is more than can be said for some.
I should be more welcome than any alarmist, since this is a skeptic blog.
> I have a science degree
Sure, Graham.
And I’m a ninja.
You can call yourself what you like, it won’t change the fact that I have a science degree. The only reason I mention it is because I get fed up with people lecturing me about things I already understand.
> it won’t change the fact that I have a science degree
What science degree, Graham?
Enlighten us.
No.
So let’s see, Graham.
You don’t say what degree you have.
You don’t specify which science.
But you have a “science degree.”
And this means… something.
You might as well hide under Joe’s master in astrophysics.
I am a BSc(Hons). That’s all you need to know.
Someone has changed the definition of “skeptic” then.
It doesn’t mean no.
Who said it did?
[B] Roy is a luke-warmer, a scientist, and understands the greenhouse effect is valid.
[G] I have a science degree, which is more than can be said for some.
[W] Sure, Graham. And I’m a ninja.
[G] You can call yourself what you like, it wont change the fact that I have a science degree.
[W] What science degree, Graham? Enlighten us.
[G] No.
[W] You don’t say what degree you have. You don’t specify which science. But you have a “science degree.” And this means… something.
[G] I am a BSc(Hons). That’s all you need to know.
You silly goose.
It doesn’t really mean anything much that I have a science degree. It doesn’t mean I’m right. It doesn’t mean I’m a scientist. I guess it just means, I don’t need people to lecture me on things that I already understand, about science. I don’t need people like bob making the comment:
"Roy is a luke-warmer, a scientist, and understands the greenhouse effect is valid.
He is three for three, and you are o for three.
It seems you should no be welcome on his blog."
You’re right, Graham –
It doesn’t mean anything that you’re an honorable bachelor.
It’s just funny that you think this responds to Bob.
Silly goose.
Well bob’s comment was devoid of any real substance anyway.
Oh, Graham. You silly goose.
So, what undergraduate studies did you end up with – political sciences?
Obsess about someone else.
DREMPTY,
” I dont need people to lecture me on things that I already understand, about science.”
Yeah you do, you may have a BSc(hons), but that may not have prepared you to understand the greenhouse effect.
Which of the many versions of the GHE would you be referring to, bob? The back-radiation account, which Vaughan Pratt agrees is debunked, or the Effective Radiating Level version, perhaps? Or is it maybe the version they teach to school kids, with the GHGs in the atmosphere “trapping heat”?
Obviously not the back radiation account, as the energy absorbed by CO2 is transferred to the Oxygen and Nitrogen before it has a chance to be back radiated. The energy CO2 does emit comes from the Oxygen and Nitrogen through collisions.
Yeah, they teach kids at the level they understand, and trapping heat works at that level, and that explanation is not wrong.
The change in the effective radiating height is the best one though.
Your complaint that there are too many explanations is bullshit however.
“Obviously not the back radiation account…”
Oh, so Swanson was wrong when he said:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2022-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1345304
“Sorry, grammie pup, “back radiation” between atmospheric layers down to the surface by the greenhouse gasses IS THE GHE.”
DREMPTY,
just take out the word “back” then.
It’s still radiation from CO2 that is causing the surface to be warmer than it would otherwise be.
And you just picked one of the three, are the other two valid?
Of course they are.
Ah, so you were wrong, before, when you said “obviously not the back-radiation account…”
“The back-radiation account, which Vaughan Pratt agrees is debunked”
People quoting someone claiming something is debunked should understand that is one person’s opinion. Unless this person is deemed to be the ultimate authority on the subject, the thing is not actually debunked, is it?
There are countless other experts who disagree with him. To not acknowledge that is a dishonest form of debate. And its how we recognize trolling.
DREMPTY,
“Ah, so you were wrong, before, when you said obviously not the back-radiation account
No, it meant I was not referring to the back-radiation account of the greenhouse effect.
bob, I will just leave you to argue with yourself.
EM,
Put this into your bookmarks:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
It might prove handy next time a Sky Dragon crank tries to distract you with “But Alarmism,” which has nothing to do with AGW.
Roy might be a contrarian, but he’s no crank like Pup or Graham.
I am not a crank for not believing in something. I am also not a Slayer, as I already explained. You are not welcome here, troll.
[ROY] As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature.
[GRAHAM] As for the Slayers, that very select, small group of people who were involved with the Principia Scientific website.
Graham has had ample opportunity to answer Roy’s challenge: “take your ideas, put them into an alternative time-dependent model for surface temperature, and run it from any initial state and see if it ends up with a realistic temperature.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
"As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward."
No, the atmosphere does have radiatively active gases. Not aware of anyone who doesn’t believe in the GHE that thinks otherwise.
"A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature."
Again, this isn’t the argument of someone who doesn’t believe in the GHE, as far as I’m aware.
The Slayers are a very select, small group of people who were involved with the Principia Scientific website and in writing the book. I do not consider myself a Slayer because I was not a part of that.
DREMPTY,
“”A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature.”
That’s a weird one, any evidence for that hypothesis.
Because the emission and catching are determined by other factors and are not necessarily equivalent, and then you have the half up and half down part.
The emission is determined by CO2 concentration and temperature.
The catching is determined by flux.
“That’s a weird one, any evidence for that hypothesis.”
Pay attention, bob. That was a quote from Dr Spencer, which, as I explained, does not represent any argument against the GHE that I have ever heard. Dr Spencer was misrepresenting those that do not believe in the GHE.
Roy is not responsible for what you never heard, Graham.
He said *a variation on the theme*, BTW.
What theme, again?
bob made a reading comprehension error and I corrected him, Little Willy.
So you were quoting without attribution.
That’s an asshat move.
Are you an asshat?
Had you read the preceding comment, by Little Willy, you would have seen the attribution, bob. You are now making yourself look even more stupid. Please continue.
Bob understands you just fine, Graham.
But I am glad you agree with him that this argument is nuts.
Now, what theme is this argument a variation of?
Ah, right –
The theme is greenhouse effect denial.
Your favorite theme, right?
bob made a mistake, Little Willy. I corrected him, then he tried to blame me for it. You will always defend your hero, but sometimes it just makes you look equally stupid.
Bob’s only mistake is to presume that you believe the crap you’re peddling, Graham.
Always the same tango –
Push a contrarian line, it gets crushed, pretend nothing happened, it was not yours anyway, you don’t believe anyone ever held it, he cannot be a Sky Dragon Crank, etc.
Readers will judge that kind of lack of commitment.
There’s plenty for all to see DREMPTY,
Just because someone properly attributed a quote does not absolve you of the responsibility to also properly attribute the quote.
God, you two are pathetic.
Look, Graham.
Bob asked you to support the claim in the quote.
You claim never have seen it.
You also claim having read this blog for a long time. A longer time than the 74 months you have been actively trolling this website.
Are you sure you never read this argument before?
bob made an error of reading comprehension, I set him straight, neither of you can handle that reality.
Graham, please stop trolling.
…made an error of reading comprehension, I set him straight, neither of you can handle that reality.
[GRAHAM] As for the Slayers, that very select, small group of people who were involved with the Principia Scientific website.
[ALSO GRAHAM] https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/#comment-28851
So I linked to a comment that was made on the PSI website, because they had a post about the Green Plate Effect, which had been discussed extensively here…you think that means I’m "involved with the Principia Scientific website and in writing the book"!? Talk about desperate. I am talking about the people involved with the website…those who set it up, those who contribute articles, those who are members of PSI! They’re "the Slayers". People who just don’t believe in a GHE are not "Slayers", nor are they "Sky Dragon Cranks".
It requires belief to be a follower of the GHE hypothesis. It requires no belief not to believe in it.
Graham will waste another day trying to contest that Roy got tired of the bickering of those who deny the greenhouse effect back in 2013.
To that effect, he will relitigate what it really means to be a Sky Dragon crank.
Just another day for Graham.
He might well have got tired of people who don’t believe in the GHE back in 2013, and he might well have erroneously lumped them all under the "Slayer" label…but what is immediately clear from his article is that he was not really aware of what their arguments actually were, back then. Either the "Slayers" arguments, or the arguments of the people who just don’t believe in the GHE. Perhaps, over the last nine years, he has got a better idea.
Odd to be tired of something and yet not really understand what that "something" is, don’t you think?
And then Graham wonders why he keeps running in circles for weeks.
It’s really simple. Roy got fed up of having to cater the needs of those who denied the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
You don’t believe in the greenhouse effect.
Begone, troll.
"As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward."
No, the atmosphere does have radiatively active gases. Not aware of anyone who doesn’t believe in the GHE that thinks otherwise.
[GRAHAM] I just don’t believe in the GHE. Thats it
[ALSO GRAHAM] The atmosphere does have radiatively active gases.
Every. Single. Time.
There’s no contradiction between the two quotes. Those who don’t believe in the GHE, still acknowledge that there are radiatively active gases in the atmosphere. Dr Spencer was attacking a straw man.
> Dr Spencer was attacking a straw man.
\o/
You goose.
What I said is correct. Here we go again…
No, Graham.
What you said isn’t correct.
It’s not even relevant.
You deny that Roy got fed up by Sky Dragon cranks like you years before you started to troll this blog 74 months ago.
You deny that you’re trolling.
You deny that you’re shit posting late at night.
You deny that Mike Flynn is trolling.
You deny that Pup is trolling.
Let’s try this way –
Do you deny that Pup has been banned many times by Roy?
"What you said isn’t correct."
It’s correct. Dr Spencer was attacking a straw man.
"You deny that Roy got fed up by Sky Dragon cranks like you years before you started to troll this blog 74 months ago."
Hmmm…well, he definitely said he was fed up with the "Slayers"…but if I’m not a "Slayer", does it really matter?
"Do you deny that Pup has been banned many times by Roy?"
I will not respond to any question about that commenter unless you use his actual screen name, for the rest of the time you comment here.
I duly note your refusal to answer a simple question, Graham the Honorable Bachelor.
Silly goose.
I don’t refuse to answer, I just have a condition. That you actually use his screen name going forward.
[GRAHAM] I don’t refuse to answer
[ALSO GRAHAM] I will not respond to any question about that commenter unless
Every. Freaking. Single. Time.
Denies. Then denies that he denies.
I really hope you do not do that to your spouse, Graham. Or if you do, never go to court.
If the condition is to be met, I will answer. So it is not a refusal to answer.
So you refuse to answer unless that condition is met, silly goose.
You really are having difficulties with how language works.
Are you sure you’re not on the spectrum?
A refusal to answer would be: I am not going to answer, no matter what. Or, simply, I am not going to answer.
I said I would answer on the condition that you call him by his screen name going forward. Since you should do that anyway, it is not much to ask.
Rather than being honest and admitting that it is beyond you to be mature enough to call certain commenters by their screen name, you are focusing on another semantic dispute.
A refusal to answer would be:
[REFUSAL] I, Graham, refuse to answer unless and until you give me a pony.
Exactly what you did.
So, that undergraduate degree – was in in social sciences?
No, it was in “proper” science, subject-changer.
We can add refusals to the list of things you do not understand.
The subject was you denying that you were a Sky Dragon crank, silly goose. Then you claimed that Roy was attacking a strawman, which is ridiculous. Then you claimed that you did not refuse to answer my question, which proves you did not study linguistics, which is a proper science.
Here we are.
Your bachelor degree can’t be in maths. It can’t be in physics. Nor chemistry. Engineering isn’t science.
I doubt it’s medecine. Psychology would be really ironic. Computer science perhaps, but you make too many errors of logic.
Biology?
Dr Spencer said:
"As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward."
That is not the central view of someone who doesn’t believe in the GHE. So it’s a straw man.
So you say, Graham. So you say.
Here’s wbat Roy also said:
Let readers decide how delicious is your current denial.
He also challenged Sky Dragon Cranks like you to put up or shut up:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Let readers decide if any Sky Dragon Crank like you met that challenge since 2013.
Yes, so I said. Correctly.
You are supposed to let readers decide that, Graham.
If you insist, I *will* find back when Roy showed Joe the door.
In the infinite version of Climateball, plausible deniability always loses.
Imagine implausible deniability.
What does any of that have to do with the fact that Dr Spencer was attacking a straw man?
Readers will decide what to do with the question you are begging, Graham.
All I know is that Roy did get fed up with Sky Dragon crank stuff in 2013.
Here you are, nearing the end of 2022, entering your 74th month of trolling, still peddling Sky Dragon Crank crap, trying to pretend you’re not trolling and that you’re welcome here.
The most honorable bachelor Team Joe has ever had.
Ultimately, this is a skeptic blog. Anyone who does not believe in the GHE should be more welcome than any alarmist. You are obviously a troll, as many commenters here have pointed out. An alarmist troll. You can keep prattling on about an article from nine years ago, and trying to make it all about me, as usual, but you are not welcome here. On your bike, son.
Who said it was a skeptic blog?
Anyone remotely familiar with the climate change debate, and who Dr Spencer is.
Contrarian, Graham.
Not crank. Contrarian.
And non-cranks are more welcome than cranks.
In fact Roy kicked cranks out in 2013.
DREMPTY,
A while ago Roy published a list of things that do not falsify the greenhouse effect.
Part of that is your whole playbook.
Roy is not a denier of the greenhouse effect, so his blog is not a place for those like you who do deny the greenhouse effect.
Toodeloo!
Not going anywhere, bob.
Ultimately, Roy kicked Sky Dragon Cranks out of this blog in 2013.
Graham is a Sky Dragon crank.
He has been trolling this website for almost 74 months because Roy got fed up of moderating this website.
Slayers, Little Willy. He kicked out the Slayers. I am not a Slayer.
Used to be a silent reader of this blog, loooooong before I started commenting. It has always, repeat always, been a place where those who do not believe in the GHE have joined in the discussions. Long may that continue.
We already covered that mistake of yours, Graham.
Claes & do did not post hundreds of comments here.
Let readers decide if you are an asshat in repeating that mistake to troll.
It’s pretty straightforward. If Dr Spencer meant “the Slayers” were banned, then that is understandable, given that they had a falling out. If Dr Spencer meant every single person who does not believe in the GHE was banned, then that’s a bit silly. You can’t ban thousands upon thousands of people worldwide from commenting on your website. You would simply never be able to enforce it. So, he may have mentioned “hundreds of comments”, and he may have hoped that banning “the Slayers” might have discouraged those who don’t believe in the GHE from commenting, but I’m pretty sure he only actually banned “the Slayers”.
“Anyone who does not believe in the GHE should be more welcome than any alarmist. ”
Roy has devoted posts to debuking the non-existence in the GHE and related denialist claims. So those who continue to promote this misinformation are likely not welcome.
…used to be a silent reader of this blog, loooooong before I started commenting. It has always, repeat always, been a place where those who do not believe in the GHE have joined in the discussions. Long may that continue.
Oh goody, a word problem from https://tinyurl.com/Retired-physicist.
Solution:
Let’s label the system above the horizontal plane as 1, and that below as 2.
At equilibrium dS = dS1 + dS2 = 0.
And since
dS1 = (1/T1)dU1, and dS2 = (1/T2)dU2,
then dS = (1/T1)dU1 + (1/T2)dU2.
But because U1 + U2 = constant,
then dU1 = -dU2,
and dS = (1/T1)dU1 (1/T2)dU1 = (1/T1 1/T2)dU1 = 0,
and therefore T1 = T2 in thermodynamic equilibrium. As expected.
P.s.: note missing minus signs:
and dS = (1/T1)dU1 – (1/T2)dU1 = (1/T1 – 1/T2)dU1 = 0
I’m still laughing at your lack of comprehension. You see, more molecules, greater density and higher temperatures below the plane than above, and yet we have thermodynamic equilibrium because there is no change happening on a macro scale. It’s all due to gravity.
Heat creep is NOT violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics – it is a direct corollary of that Law and happens because that Law is valid and well established and proven. My physics is rigorously based on the laws of physics and, unlike climatology’s fictitious, fiddled physics, mine is correct.
The density gradient is stable in calm conditions because it is the state of maximum entropy. No transfer of either energy or matter occurs across any horizontal plane because nothing happens at maximum entropy which we physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium.
To move away from this equilibrium state would require a decrease in entropy because the system is at a maximum – so no change happens and the system remains with greater density at lower levels and lower density at higher levels. This density gradient is a direct result of maximum entropy production and thus a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Do you comprehend this yet?
When you do, hopefully, comprehend this fact then you can move onto understanding how the temperature gradient forms as explained in detail in my 2013 paper linked in the left column at http://climate-change-theory.com
“No transfer of either energy or matter occurs across any horizontal plane because nothing happens at maximum”
Well that obviously can’t be true, given that energy must be transported from the Earths surface to space, to maintain a balance with incoming solar energy.
I’m learning the “It’s the sun, stupid” phrase is more hurtful to the cult than I realized.
They actually believe Sun only supplies about 170 W/m^2 to the surface. That little flux corresponds to a S/B temperature of about -40C (-40F). The cult actually believes that!
Here’s their bogus “accounting”:
The solar constant is about 1371 W/m^2.
1) Adjusting for albedo results in 960 W/m^2.
2) Dividing by 4 results in 240 W/m^2.
3) Adjusting again for albedo results in 168 W/m^2 (~170 W/m^2).
The first adjustment of albedo is legitimate. Dividing by 4 and using a second albedo adjustment is NOT legitimate. They reduce solar to a nonsensical level, and call it “climate science”.
In the 5th assessment, they use G=Isurf-Iout=398-239=159W/m^2.
Cliff,
What climate model do you support?
5th Assessment??? That’s IPCC nonsense. It’s not even worth discussing.
Here’s Earth’s time-dependent climate model:
Start
Is average surface temperature 288.5K +/- 1K?
Yes — Go to Start
Temp too High — Increase cooling mechanisms — Go to Start
Temp too Low — Decrease cooling mechanisms — Go to Start
You just solved the halting problem, Pup.
Well done!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint,
I’m not a proponent of the model, just stating it. Your model isn’t very descriptive. What senses the Temp? What are those mechanisms?
Clint
Go argue with NASA (“the people who put men on the Moon”) as their diagram shows 168 w/m^2. Go straight to the source if you want to correct the world with your incorrect understanding of radiation and its effect when it strikes at an acute angle. Here’s their diagram on the Home page at the right: http://climate-change-theory.com so fiddle with the figures ensuring they balance if you want to ignore the input by heat creep which they don’t know about but which is proven to exist with experiments, studies and data throughout the Solar System – plenty of evidence Dear Clint.
The correct explanation is on the PSI SLAYER ERRORS page you can get to by following the process in my comment above which is necessary because Roy blocks the direct URL to my second climate website that was visited by over 52,000. My first climate website has has had over 73,850 hits and this new third one gets about 30 to 40 a day. So you have over 125,000 to get your counter claims across to, plus another 30,000 or so who have watched my videos and/or read my seven papers – unlike yourself who is unteachable.
NASA is wrong. The agency has lost all interest in science. It’s all about agenda.
Kinda like you, huh?
Tonight will see the first snowfall in northern Michigan.
https://i.ibb.co/wNQF88m/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-10-17-204257.png
ROY SPENCER and Dr Roy’s EMT:-
I quit PSI in 2013 when I exposed the errors in Postma’s paper – the first on their list of publications, but they didn’t remove it. So much for their “Peer-review-in-open-media” as it’s a farce.
Journalist John has his teacher’s pets over there are they simply could not be wrong about anything, could they? After all, they have a PhD in some irrelevant branch of some discipline.
Join the 3,860 who have visited my “Slaying the Slayers” page because I think even Roy Spencer would like it.
Go to http://climate-change-theory.com then at the right click on the second link on the line “My earlier websites;” and on that website select the PSI Slayer Errors page.
Dug,
You were banned more directly:
https://tinyurl.com/banned-by-roy
Your current spamming might explain to the newcomers why.
There you go – a comment on PSI – read it here before it gets rejected by Journalist John …
Comments (0)
Avatar
Retired Scientist
October 17, 2022 at 10:25 pm | #
Over 3,860 have visited the PSI SLAYER ERRORS page. Why not you?
In 2013 I exposed the errors in Postmas paper the first on their list of publications, but they didnt remove it. So much for their Peer-review-in-open-media as its a farce.
Journalist John has his teachers pets over there and they simply could not be wrong about anything, could they? After all, they have a PhD in some irrelevant branch of some discipline.
Go to http://climate-change-theory.com then select my second earlier website and then the PSI SLAYER ERRORS page.
Reply
Your Comment Is Awaiting Moderation.
There you go, Dug:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/peddling/
Apparently Clint thinks the Earth is a flat disc with a Sun on each side so there’s no night.
After all, he doesn’t even concede dividing by 2 to allow for night on half the world, let alone dividing by 4 because the surface area of a sphere is exactly 4 times the area of a circle with the same radius.
Oh, but he didn’t remember that from his early school days.
/sarc
Dug, you’re almost as good as Norman at making things up.
FACT 1: The global mean solar flux entering Earth’s surface is of the order of a little less than 170 w/m^2.
FACT 2: The Stefan-Boltzmann Law allows us to know that this flux cannot achieve a global mean surface temperature above 233K which is about minus 40 degrees C.
FACT 3: Back radiation from colder regions cannot help the Sun to warm the Earth each morning where the surface is warmer than the atmosphere because it would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics if such a heat transfer took place.
FACT 4: Radiation out of the surface averages more than 390 w/m^2 and there is also over 100 w/m^2 of non-radiative surface cooling.
FACT 5: The above facts lead to the conclusion that there must be some other input of thermal energy into the surface.
FACT 6: For the first time in world literature I explained in 2013 precisely how that extra source occurs, based on the laws of physics and evidence in experiments, studies and data throughout the Solar System
FACT 7: Heat creep happens and nobody can prove it doesn’t or provide any other valid explanation of surface and subsurface temperatures in planets and moons throughout the Solar System.
It’s all in this website (in 9 languages) and linked papers soon also to be published in other languages due to demand:
http://climate-change-theory.com
Good bye all.
> Good bye all.
Promises, promises.
There is general agreement about Facts 1 to 5, among the CO2 AGW majority, the lukewarmers and the more rational sceptics.
“Facts 6 and 7″ aren’t facts. They are your unsupported speculation, one hypothesis among many put forward by the ” anything but CO2″ minority who cannot even agree among themselves.
Glad you put your foot in it Entropic and actually agreed with Facts 1 to 5 because those facts alone are sufficient to prove climatologists (and Roy and lukewarmers) all totally wrong.
As for the evidence supporting Facts 6 and 7 you have provided no counter evidence or correct refutation based on the laws of physics, so your words are nothing but words.
You are not welcome here (as has been said by others) and you make a fool of yourself in displaying your lack of understanding of the very climatology claims that you have been brainwashed to believe without questioning. You also display a lack of understanding of established physics in which I doubt you are qualified.
The proof that the main “greenhouse” gas water vapor cools rather than warms can be seen on the “Images” page at http://climate-change-theory.com and neither you, the IPCC, NASA or the CSIRO in Australia can produce a counter study.
While on the Home page read the quote from another retired physicist like myself about how he was ashamed at himself for having taught their “science” without first checking it.
And yes, I will respond to anyone else who in the next 24 hours thinks they can refute any of Facts 1 to 7, because they will be seriously mistaken.
We know “FACT 1” is NOT fact. “We” being those of us that have ever cooked with a rotisserie or roasted marshmallows over a campfire. Or understand radiative physics….
I can sympathise with Dr Spencer.
He runs a lukewarm website with the overall message that the science is about right but the projections of future warming and future damage have been overstated.
Yet anyone reading the comment threads encounters the “anything but CO2” brigade and their strange ideas.
Lurkers leave with the impression that climate change sceptics are weird , rather than that there might be a serious alternative to the consensus CO2 AGW paradigm.
It seems a shame to spoil the fun, but perhaps Dr Spencer’s best strategy would be to close the comments sections completely to stop them discrediting his own message.
It’s not "anything but CO2". That suggests an agenda. There is no agenda. I just don’t believe in the GHE. That’s it.
Anyone reading the comment threads here, currently, is being overwhelmed by Dug’s comments, true. It’s been a while since he’s been this prolific at this blog. Normally, however, what overwhelms the comment threads is the number of comments by alarmist commenters. You have members of your team challenging every single comment made by a skeptical commenter. You have members of your team drifting around up-thread, slotting in last words into long-dead threads. Working together, you completely dominate the comments at Roy’s. That’s what lurkers usually see. It’s like an alarmist echo chamber.
> I just don’t believe in the GHE. Thats it
That makes you a Sky Dragon crank, Graham, and Roy already banished them:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
It’s really simple. In Roy’s house, we believe in the greenhouse effect.
If you could stop trolling, that’d be great.
No, Dr Spencer wrote an article, nine years ago, about "the Slayers" and how they were no longer welcome. I’m not a "Slayer".
You deny the greenhouse effect, Graham.
Those who deny the greenhouse effect are Sky Dragon cranks.
You are not welcome here.
If Dr Spencer writes an article stating what you have just said, I will accept that I’m not welcome here. Until then, I’ll assume I’m welcome. Currently you are linking to an article where he mentions "the Slayers", and attacks straw men.
Keep playing dumb, Graham:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
So even your current cope (greenhouse gases exist, but the greenhouse effect does not) is incorrect.
You really have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the arguments of those that do not believe in the GHE.
I know these arguments better than you do, silly goose.
If we can call them arguments.
In this house, we believe in the greenhouse effect.
You are not welcome here.
Poor Graham. Still misunderstood after 74 months of trolling.
Your comments frequently demonstrate your complete lack of understanding.
Silly goose.
That’s not really a response, but OK.
If you deny and then deny that you deny, Graham, there’s little else to respond.
And no – you’re No U won’t work.
OK, Little Willy. Whatever you say.
Just about everyone would agree that I’ve given evidence that Roy got tired of having to cater to comments denying the greenhouse effect, Graham.
Here you are, your trolling approaching its 74th month, denying that it’s what he really means, or that he’s not really targeting your very specific position, and whatnot.
I mean, come on. Be serious for once.
What do you win exactly, silly goose?
If Dr Spencer truly is intolerant of people’s views on the GHE to the extent that he is prepared to ban people from his site, then he should be ashamed of himself. I tend to think better of Dr Spencer than that, though. I think he was just referring to “the Slayers”, that select and small group of people associated with PSI, that he had a well-documented falling out with. It would be understandable for him not to want his blog to be a platform for people he had a particularly unpleasant dispute with. That would explain the name of the article, as well.
> If Dr Spencer truly is intolerant of people’s views on the GHE to the extent that he is prepared to ban people from his site, then he should be ashamed of himself.
Oh, Graham:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
You silly goose.
Yes, I read the article. So what? What is your point?
The fact that Roy already allowed hundreds of comments by 2013 on Sky Dragon crank stuff refutes any idea that he’s intolerant, Graham.
Besides, consider what Joe said to Pup:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-63901
Would you say that Joe should be ashamed of himself?
Perhaps you could retaliate and troll him for 74 months and see how that works for you.
Ah, so you stopped reading my comment after the part you quoted. Had you continued reading, you would have seen that I implied I did not think Dr Spencer was intolerant.
Yes, Postma should be ashamed of himself for his intolerance.
> so you stopped reading my comment
No, Graham. I picked up your first silly counterfactual to show how silly it is. And I quoted Roy because every time I do you squirm.
Roy did ban people from this website. Not just for trolling, but for peddling Sky Dragon crank stuff. Two of them have been commenting on this thread. And he asked Mike Flynn to stop doing the same and start his own blog. Just like Joe did to Pup.
There is absolutely no need to interpret what you “tend to think.” It is of no relevance whatsoever. Your own logic tells it all.
“…for peddling Sky Dragon crank stuff”
True, and I would say that is an intolerant act. Banning people because of the views they hold is not on, IMO. Of course, there are other things to consider…how much they comment, how much they disrupt the general flow of the discussion etc…but if the ban was purely because of the position they have, I think that is wrong. So, it’s hard to say…on the one hand, he had the dispute with the Slayers specifically, and I think it is understandable that he didn’t want his blog to be a platform for them…but on the other hand, he has banned people that perhaps didn’t deserve it.
Look, Graham.
Roy did all the things you said were intolerant.
I quoted Roy showing that he tolerated Sky Dragon cranks for years.
For years, Graham.
And that was in 2013.
We are in 2022.
Roy was tolerant and decided that enough was enough.
So the condition you construed is utterly ridiculous.
You’re just trolling.
Almost 74 months like that.
“So the condition you construed is utterly ridiculous.”
What condition are you referring to?
To whatever conditions there might be, silly goose.
I asked you something.
You know that I did.
You did not respond.
You willingly did.
That’s called a refusal, Graham.
Unless and until you respond you refuse to do so.
I hope your undergraduate studies where not in computer sciences.
Scratch that. I thought you were asking me about the conditions for your refusal.
Here is the condition:
Everything that is between the if-then clause.
Well, I think it is ridiculous, and intolerant, to ban people because of their views on a scientific hypothesis. So if that is what was happening, then it’s just not on.
Yes, Graham.
You found a way to what we call Complex Questions.
Roy has been tolerant.
Roy showed Sky Dragon Cranks like you the door.
And you obviously are playing dumb now.
Let the audience decide how dumb.
Dr Spencer showed the Slayers the door. I am not a Slayer.
Roy showed the door to those who deny the greenhouse effect.
You deny the greenhouse effect.
Roy would have showed you the door before you starts to troll 74 months ago.
You are just exploiting the fact that he does not moderate comments anymore.
Every reader can see that.
The article specifically refers to Slayers.
Unless you wish to imply that Claes & al publish hundreds of comments at Roy’s, Graham, not really.
So you do recognize that there is a group called the Slayers, and then there are just the people who do not believe in a GHE. Maybe Dr Spencer did conflate the two back in 2013. He will be older and wiser now, I am sure.
I’m glad that you do recognize that your strict interpretation of the term Roy used fizzles, Graham.
Albeit indirectly.
Do you recall Greg H by any chance? Perhaps Nope? How about Stephen Wilde? Surely you must remember Stephen!
Stephen Wilde is a good example of someone who is not a Slayer, yet still does not believe in the GHE. I assume you are familiar with the recent GHE-annihilators from Mulholland & Wilde.
Stephen Wilde is someone who denies the greenhouse effect, and whatever may justify his denial, he has the same challenge to meet as every other Sky Dragon Cranks:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Unless you wish to suggest that your special pleading exempts you from that challenge, Graham?
I think that M & W would claim that their model meets that challenge.
Just like you would say that you’re not really under any obligation to meet Roy’s challenge because you do, strictly speaking, meet Roy’s characterization, Graham.
That’s how you always trolled.
When I say “would” I mean “must,” because the logic of presupposition.
> because you do
Because you do not meet that characterization, it should go without saying.
I think that the onus to prove their case will always be on those that believe there is a GHE.
And I think you’re just trying to evade the fact that Roy got fed up with arguing with those who deny the greenhouse effect almost a decade before you appeared, Graham. And your special pleading is quite transparent: Sky Dragon Cranks all deny the the greenhouse effect their own way. Hence your focus on specific arguments.
Readers can judge for themselves how transparent your trick is.
So, what’s your favorite numerical model?
…think that the onus to prove their case will always be on those that believe there is a GHE.
DREMPTY,
“I think that the onus to prove their case will always be on those that believe there is a GHE.”
A couple words don’t belong there, prove and believe.
I’ll let you think you think.
…that the onus to prove their case will always be on those that believe there is a GHE.
[ROY] If and when they answer my challenge to provide a quantitative model of surface temperature change, I might change my mind.
[GRAHAM] I think that the onus to prove their case will always be on those that believe there is a GHE.
Let readers decide how beautiful and true this is.
…the onus to prove [provide sufficient evidence for] their case will always be on those that believe there is a GHE.
[https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1383566]
Readers will appreciate that Science is a race, not a boxing match:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/
onus to prove [provide sufficient evidence for] their case will always be on those that believe there is a GHE.
[…https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1383566…]
Team Science has quantitative models of surface temperature change, all consilient with the idea that greenhouse gases are a thing.
Sky Dragon Cranks have… Graham.
Let readers decide.
…to prove [provide sufficient evidence for] their case will always be on those that believe there is a GHE.
[…https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1383566…]
Graham had the opportunity to reveal the numerical model he prefers. He prefers to repeat a point refuted a thousand times instead. A point that does not nothing against Roy’s castigation of Sky Dragon Cranks.
Let readers decide.
…prove [provide sufficient evidence for] their case will always be on those that believe there is a GHE.
[…https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1383566…]
CO2 emits IR, some of that hits the ground.
That’s the greenhouse effect in nine words.
…[provide sufficient evidence for] their case will always be on those that believe there is a GHE.
[…https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1383566…]
…for the readers to decide.
…sufficient evidence for] their case will always be on those that believe there is a GHE.
[…https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1383566…]
Sufficient evidence has already been provided.
Only ignorant luddites believe otherwise.
…evidence for] their case will always be on those that believe there is a GHE.
[…https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1383566…]
Ah, poor snowflake Ent is miffed because he got caught so many times trying to pervert reality.
If only you could make reality do what you want, huh Ent?
Pup, Graham should tell you to stop trolling in 3, 2, 1,
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
But, you see, that’s not a double standard.
“Its like an alarmist echo chamber.”
And without we “alarmists” it would be a “deniers” echo chamber with you all swapping your scientifically invalid beliefs.
We keep you honest and stop you drifting off into a shared fantasy.
HFALC.
I resent that remark, Graham.
This is supposed to be directed at me and me alone!
An obsessive stalker intervenes yet again…
Please tell our audience what “HFALC” stands for, Graham.
I’m sure people can use the search function if they’re really interested.
Allow me to help, then:
I think that it means “Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.”
Is that the meaning you intended toward EM?
Maybe H.F.A.D.C would have been more appropriate. The "D" standing for "Disappearing". He does tend to vanish when his arguments are refuted, only to reappear further down-thread, as if nothing had ever happened.
Poor Graham. Either his opponents disappear or they stalk him.
Never fear. He wins. Always.
Silly goose.
Correct, thank you.
Here’s our honorable bachelor winning again:
Silly goose.
Yes, that was a particularly good one. Obviously you have left out all the content, it goes without saying that you would be so dishonest.
Oh, Graham. You know I’m not EM. We can relitigate that whenever you please. Can’t get enough of showing how you just can’t read.
I said you had three talking points: one about Joe’s con, two about Eli’s plate (that’s how you picked your first nick here), and the Moon crap, which Joe banned from his site.
The first two points make you a Sky Dragon crank. The last point makes you a Moon Dragon crank.
Only you can infer from that that I’m saying you’re an Evo Dragon or an Election Dragon crank.
You silly goose.
You are leaving so much out. You really are fascinatingly dishonest.
I am only leaving a pronoun that you misinterpreted, Graham.
You silly goose.
Liar.
No.
U.
Here is a link to the discussion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1381942
Readers can decide for themselves whether you have left a lot out, or not, and who is being honest and who dishonest.
There was no discussion, Graham.
Be honest for a change.
Leave it for the readers to decide.
Liar.
…it for the readers to decide.
“…to the discussion”
Liar.
…for the readers to decide.
Sorry Ent, but you always imagine your cult takes the high road. But, you overlook all the trolls that you waddle up to.
And, don’t forget your recurring nonsense like passenger jets flying backwards.
You and your cult are NOT on the high road. You’re in the sewer.
You’re a sock puppet, Pup.
That’s really all there is to know about you.
See what I mean?
Worthless willard is as obsessed with people that no longer comment here as Bindidion is with long dead astrologers. They’re both obsessed with irrelevant nonsense because they have NO understanding of the science.
They have NOTHING.
(Worthless willard is so immature he always has to get the last word in, so I won’t be responding.)
Pup, please stop trolling.
Not-so-Wily Willard,
How are you getting on with your attempts to force Dr Spencer to bend to your will?
Maybe you need to continuously tell him how to run his blog, just in case he has forgotten.
Only joking – you don’t really need any encouragement to be a deranged fool, do you?
Have you accepted that the GHE was responsible for the Earth cooling for the last four and a half billion years or so, or do you think something else was responsible?
Dimwit – keep being an incompetent, impotent troll.
[chortle]
My will, Mike Flynn?
What are you braying about?
Not-so-Wily Willard,
How are you getting on with your attempts to force Dr Spencer to bend to your will?
Maybe you need to continuously tell him how to run his blog, just in case he has forgotten.
Only joking you dont really need any encouragement to be a deranged fool, do you?
Have you accepted that the GHE was responsible for the Earth cooling for the last four and a half billion years or so, or do you think something else was responsible?
Dimwit keep being an incompetent, impotent troll.
[chortle]
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn –
My will?
Wasted Wee Willy,
You will? What?
Really?
Really really what, Mike?
My? Will?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Go back to October 17, 2022 at 4:48 PM Entropic (and others)
Dug,
And if nobody takes any notice, what then?
Are you going to threaten to poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle until you scream in pain?
That would be funny, of course, but wouldn’t achieve much else.
Do you want to try?
I think some of the 150,000 who have visited my websites, downloaded my papers, read my book and/or watched my videos are taking some notice of the correct physics that you can’t prove wrong. You can’t explain how the air in the center of a vortex cooling tube gets colder than the air that entered the tube, and that’s because you don’t understand that heat creep is transferring thermal energy from the cold central regions to the warmer outer regions.
As to what I’ll be doing, well you’ll have to wait until about this time next next when the class action at which I’ll be giving professional testimony may get some publicity. Why do you think the Legal Staff of the CSIRO are being copied in on emails such as that below and communicating with me, answering FOI’s that give me evidence for the case, etc?
Correction: the time for the class action by major companies that are financially affected by legislation based on the carbon dioxide fraud against the CSIRO here in Australia will be about this time next year. Sorry about the typo in the comment above.
Copy of email re Hon Peter Dutton, Leader of Opposition in Australia
Dear D’ug
Thank you for your email on 15 October to the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Peter Dutton MP. I have been asked to respond to you on his behalf.
I have passed your correspondence onto the Leaders Senior Policy Adviser for this portfolio area, to assist for their information and to help inform the Leader about this matter. We appreciate your feedback.
Thank you again for getting in touch and dont hesitate to contact the Leader of the Opposition again if he can be of any assistance in the future.
Kind regards
Darcy
Office of the Hon Peter Dutton MP
Leader of the Opposition
“I have passed your correspondence onto the Leaders Senior Policy Adviser for this portfolio area, to assist for their information and to help inform the Leader about this matter. We appreciate your feedback.
Thank you again for getting in touch and dont hesitate to contact the Leader of the Opposition again if he can be of any assistance in the future”.
***
That’s a form letter used by politicians to make it look like they are doing something. The second paragraph is a kiss off. In other words, your letter will go no farther.
Why do you think an ad hominem attack will make your scientific case for heat creep any less absurd?
COPY OF RECENT EMAIL TO AUSTRALIAN POLITICIANS, copy CSIRO Legal
I cannot stress enough the importance of the attached response from the CSIRO to my FOI. If any staff are handling this it is imperative that Mr Dutton reads it.
As I have explained in previous letters and emails, I was the first scientist in the world to correctly explain planetary core and surface temperatures in my 2013 paper linked at http://climate-change-theory.com.
That paper set out the only valid physics that can be used to correctly explain observed temperatures in all planets, Earth, Venus, Uranus etc.
The way in which NASA and climatology authors writing for the IPCC try to explain such temperatures is totally and utterly wrong: it violates or ignores at least three long established laws of physics. Thus all their computer models are false. There are another six papers linked on my website refuting climatology science.
I have been explaining this to CSIRO staff for at least six or seven years. Back then, in response to an FOI, they could not produce any experimental evidence of the main so-called “greenhouse” gas water vapour doing any actual surface warming even in places of high humidity. Singapore is such a place as you would have noticed the moment you step out of the airport there. That water vapour caps the maximum daily temperature such that it very rarely exceeds 33C any day of the year. The effect of water vapour is indeed a cooling one as can be seen in the bar chart graphic on the “Images” page at http://climate-change-theory.com/images showing my study results.
Now, if the CSIRO had looked into my research years ago, they would have realised that they have no documentation as to how climatologists quantify surface temperatures. In fact the way they do is obvious from their energy diagrams, as you can see on my Home wage of the above website in my footnote below the NASA diagram.
I now have proof that they still have no such documentation which would be the obvious starting point for a due diligence process to check the claims about carbon dioxide and methane. I have attached their response proving my point and I strongly suggest you contact Dr Larry Marshall (as has Senator Roberts) and demand appropriate research and response. Kindly send me any such response for comment. I can absolutely assure you that my physics is correct and is supported by experiments, studies and data for Earth and other planets. For example, I have explained why the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is hotter than Earth’s surface despite there being no solar radiation reaching down there and no solid surface or any evidence of the planet cooling.
Yours faithfully
….
Have you considered neck extension exercises ?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/10/practical-advances-in-climate-mitigation.html
Russell,
I thought you were referring to other neck extension exercises – involving a rope!
My bad.
tim s…”I only read the first paragraph. That was enough. Are you trolling? Have you ever sat in front a fireplace or a campfire with the wind at your back? Gases are not exempt. Done!”
***
You only read the first paragraph because you lack comprehension, and understanding of physics, to read farther.
If you stand in front of a campfire, you are being heated by molecules of air heated by the fire. Move away a few feet and you’ll feel nothing.
Even better, turn on a 1500 watts ring on an electric stove till it close cherry-red. Hold your hand close to the ring and you feel molecules of super-heated air. Draw your hand back 3 feet and you feel nothing.
Grasp a 100 watt bulb with your hand and it will burn your skin. Move your fingers back 6″ and you’ll feel nothing. It is heat created by the electrical power in the lamp filament that burns your fingers.
If radiation was a factor, you’d feel the warmth as far as you could see the light from the fire or the bulb. We can see light from the Sun and feel the effect on our skin at the same time as solar EM is converted to heat in our skin. Solar radiation in the UV range will burn our skin. The light from a campfire is weak in comparison to the Sun as is radiation from the fire. A campfire cannot warm you via radiation.
A 100 watt light bulb can light up a room but you cannot feel the radiation from it.
You know nothing about heat and its relationship to mass, or how radiation operates.
Well explained, Gordon. But I would add:
However, on a global basis where half the globe is in darkness the radiation from the Sun which strikes the Earth’s surface is, on average, a little less than 170w/m^2 and, from the laws of physics, we know that such a level of radiation could not make the global mean surface temperature greater than about minus 40 degrees C.
So there must be an additional input of thermal energy so that we can explain why the surface temperature rises in the morning on a calm day, even where sunlight is not yet shining on a particular location perhaps due to clouds or the shadow of a mountain just after dawn. (On Venus the solar flux is even less than 20w/m^2 at the surface.)
The additional energy needed cannot come from radiation that emanates in the colder atmosphere, as that would violate laws of thermodynamics. Instead it comes from a process just like the heat from the campfire which reaches you via molecular collisions, not radiation. In a force field this process can cause heat into a warmer surface where radiation could not do so, because gravity can act on molecules due to their mass, whereas there is no mass associated with radiation.
——————–
I am only going to watch this thread for another 18 hours or so as I’m busy having just filed an official complaint against the CSIRO in Australia which in part read:
I have collected evidence in FOIs which indicates …
(a) They have no evidence of the main greenhouse gas water vapour warming the surface contrary to my study in that 2013 paper which showed it cooling the planet.
(b) They have no official physics documentation to support what is incorrect use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for multiple sources of radiation: it only works for one source.
(c) They have no documentation as to how climatologists quantify the global mean surface temperature using radiation calculations, hence they have no valid way to determine whether additional carbon dioxide or methane would warm or cool the planet and by how much. The official NASA method is evident in their energy diagrams such as on my website, but that is incorrect physics which the CSIRO should have recognised as such years ago when I first pointed it out to them.
“Im busy having just filed an official complaint against the CSIRO in Australia which in part read:”
***
I wish you luck with that and I mean it sincerely. I have found that politicians don’t care about science, they tend to appeal to what the public is willing to believe. If for some reason, public opinion changed tomorrow to support the real science, the views of politicians would change accordingly.
I hope you are not taking this too seriously re the government. It’s good that you are trying to make a difference but I might offer you some advice.
I went to a seminar years ago with Ram Dass. He was originally Richard Alpert, who got booted from Harvard with Timothy Leary for dabbling in LSD and other psychedelics. He was a professor in psychology. Leary was the author of the mantra, ‘Tune in, drop out’.
He went off to India and pursued a path of enlightenment, becoming Ram Dass.
He took questions after the seminar and I recall one young guy standing up, obviously frustrated, claiming he was not making a difference in life even though he was trying hard. Ram Dass laughed. He said, “Hey, Man, you probably never will make a difference, the journey is about trying.
I think it’s important that you enjoy your life as well. It strikes me that you tend to get flustered when people don’t accept your POV, or your science.
I get shot down all the time and I have reached a stage in life where it has no effect on me. I am serious about science and again, I turn to the words of Jiddu Krishnamurti. He claimed there are three types of people: those who simply don’t want to know, or understand, those who feign an interest in wanting to understand but lack the wherewithall to walk the walk, and those who are really into it.
To him, ‘it’ is awareness. To me ‘it’ is awareness and science, which should be about the same thing. There is nothing I can do when the only reply I receive is an ad hom or an insult. So, I reply to a third party who might be following the debate. Sometimes I resort to insults, on a bad hair day.
I have moved from having lived in the Sydney metro area all my life to Tamworth which is the main city in the north west of NSW where there are lots of mining and power generation.
My intention is to communicate with management of companies that are substantially affected financially by Government laws based on the false CSIRO advice. Thus they will have substantial damages claims.
Whether some will go it alone, or a class action be arranged, I believe the only way is to get court rulings which will force Government to repeal some laws or just face ongoing financial damages claims.
I am confident that I can tie any climatologist in knots if face-to-face in court. So I have to convince CEO’s to trust me on this and take the gamble as I can’t fund such a case, but several big companies could in a class action. I will mail about 500 top companies with a nice four page brochure inviting them to join a class action.
I do have personal contact with two Federal Senators, one of whom has already challenged Dr Marshall (CEO of CSIRO) regarding the lack of evidence, rather than errors in the science. But the other senator understands the heat creep physics.
Please let us know which company falls for your pitch, Dug.
I’ll remove them from my list of candidates for incompetence.
“My intention is to communicate with management of companies that are substantially affected financially by Government laws based on the false CSIRO advice. Thus they will have substantial damages claims”.
***
Good idea…best of luck.
One issue you will likely face is corruption in the justice departments. I have seen judges go on the basis that climate alarm is the norm. That’s an opinion that exists and should not be in the mind of a judge when he/she forms a legal opinion. However, judges are prone to ego and arrogance and some do rule based on their monstrous egos.
We live in a seriously imperfect world and, for me, part of the secret to getting though life is becoming aware of that and accepting its imperfection. If you look at history, change can take a long time to come about. Sometimes, change just suddenly appears for no known reason, but I think it may have something to do with people who have persisted in the face of adversity.
Another issue you will likely face is hired professionals who lie on the stand. Look at the O. J. Simpson trial. He was plainly guilty of a heinous murder yet he got off due to a corrupt jury and professionals who lied.
ps. I would not doubt it if I learned Willard was one of those kinds paid to be a troll and deliberately lie about science.
C’mon, Gordo.
Every penny I receive, I send to Clowns without Borders:
https://clownswithoutborders.org/donate-clowns-without-borders/
But if I receive enough from the trolls from this site, I could reduce the number of times I kick your collective ass.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
willard…”And how are the frequency and intensity of the IR photons related to temperature, Gordo?”
***
I have explained this in detail several times, it is elementary quantum theory that you learn in chemistry classes. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.
When you add heat to a mass, the atoms in the mass begin vibrating more energetically. The electrons in the atoms move to a higher kinetic energy level, which means they heat up. Their temperature increases.
Vibration between atoms is due to the difference in electrostatic charges between the positively-charged protons in the nucleus and negatively-charged electrons orbiting an atom or molecule. Vibration is a natural process between such charged bodies. If you increase the kinetic energy of the electrons, it affects the bonds created by the electrons between atoms in such a manner as to increase vibration.
If you increase the electron KE enough, the electrons will break free and the mass will fall apart. That’s why applying an acetylene welding torch to a metal causes it to melt. You excite the electrons so much with added heat that they literally explode out of the bonds holding the metal together.
You can also add kinetic energy when the electrons in atoms absorb EM of the required intensity and frequency. Electrons behave like resonant object, orbiting a nucleus at very high speeds. To add energy to the orbiting electron you need energy with a frequency close to the orbital velocity of the electron.
E = hf. E is the potential difference between orbital energy levels and f is the frequency required to affect the electron with an orbital velocity equivalent to that frequency.
You can figure this out Willard, it’s not rocket science. Kinetic energy is 1/2 mv^2. v = velocity is the electron’s orbital velocity. In a cooler body, v will be significantly lower than in a hotter body. Therefore the EM it emits will have a lower KE, hence a lower v, hence a lower frequency. Ergo, it lacks the frequency to resonate with an electron in a hotter body.
I am hoping you will pay attention and study hard. there will be a test next week.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’ve been told so many times already that atoms don’t have temperatures.
At least now you word it like E somehow refers to the energy of the photon, not its intensity.
Overall, progress!
Willard,
No progress, now Gordon is claiming EM has kinetic energy.
And something about v, I won’t address that.
C’mon, Bob.
Stick is fine, but there has to be carrot too or else Gordo won’t learn anything.
Is hopeless, Gordon already knows everything.
bob d…”Gordon already knows everything”.
***
Not everything, Bob, just the science you and I discuss. We obviously studied different sciences, yours being the wrong version.
C’mon, Gordo.
Here it is:
Think.
Gordon,
“Not everything, Bob, just the science you and I discuss. We obviously studied different sciences, yours being the wrong version.”
Yeah, I continued to study Bohr’s work after the initial Bohr model of the hydrogen atom.
The idea that electrons orbit the nucleus has been superseded.
Too bad your research hasn’t gotten you that far.
willard…”Here it is:
You can also add kinetic energy when the electrons in atoms absorb EM of the required intensity and frequency”.
***
My statement above was in reference to the electron’s gain of kinetic energy. It is a reference to an electron increasing its KE ‘IF’ it absorbs a quantum of EM. KE is not transferred from the EM.
As I explained before, an electron has a negative electric charge which produces a magnetic field when it moves. Naturally, when it gives up energy during a downward transition, the energy it releases has an electric and magnetic component, as in electromagnetic energy.
When the reverse occurs, an EM quantum of the correct frequency interacts with the electric and magnetic field of the electron, causing it somehow to gain velocity, after transitioning upward. The gain in velocity is a gain in KE.
Right, Gordo.
Surely you recall why you are telling yourself all of this.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bob d…”No progress, now Gordon is claiming EM has kinetic energy”.
***
Can you cite for me where I said that? I think we are dealing with your reading comprehension, namely, a lack of it.
Yeah Right Gordon,
Here you go
“Therefore the EM it emits will have a lower KE, hence a lower v”
You don’t want me to comment on the v, do you?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
willard…”Youve been told so many times already that atoms dont have temperatures”.
***
Then how does an aggregation of atoms like a mass warm? You have painted yourself into a corner, which has a tree, where you are sitting on a branch sawing off the branch between you and the trunk.
If a mass of atoms warms uniformly by 10C, then obviously each atom was involved in the warming. Is that too complicated for you, Willard?
C’mon, Gordo.
You were supposed to skool me about fyziks.
That the tires of your cars are elastic does not imply that the atoms that compose them are too.
Think.
Gordon,
Because a single atom does not have an average, it just has the kinetic energy it has.
Like me, I don’t have an average height, or average weight.
Or average intelligence, but don’t worry.
Someone like me is balancing your below average input, and that of several other nitwits.
You dont have to thank me, it’s my pleasure to do my bit to restore a bit of balance.
Swenson,
Your comments bring the average down, not up.
bob d…”a single atom does not have an average, it just has the kinetic energy it has”.
***
That’s statistical theory from the kinetic theory of gases. Any kinetic energy related to atoms, or in atoms, is heat. It could be classified as work, as in atomic vibrations, but the source of the work is still heat. And, work has a heat equivalence.
I realize it is ingenuous to speak of heat in one atom since we have no idea what is really going on in one atom. However, if we accept the current theory that electrons absorb EM, or heat, and jump to a higher level of KE, then we must entertain the idea that one atom can heat, albeit imperceptibly.
I did specify that the mass warms uniformly, meaning each atom theoretically rises to a higher level of KE.
How about the situation in an electrical conductor? Each electron carries a charge. How is it possible for electrons to carry charge yet regard it impossible for a single atom to rise in temperature due to an increase in KE? Sure, we could never measure the amount but we can’t really measure the charge of one electron either.
Yes, Gordo.
To talk about heat in an atom when you do not know what is in an atom is pretty ingenious.
You truly are a genious.
Gordon,
” However, if we accept the current theory that electrons absorb EM, or heat, and jump to a higher level of KE”
We don’t accept this theory.
Riddle me this:
If an electron absorbs a photon with just enough energy to fully ionize the atom, making the electron leave the atom, how much kinetic energy does the electron have, now that it has left the atom?
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
jeff id…”The article is about using an entire feedback signal vs a perturbation feedback signal.
NOBODY seems to understand the discussion.
What I want to know is why BOTH methods cant work. I think they work FINE…”
***
The problem as I see it is the basis of the argument which is a thought experiment. No one has ever proved that a trace gas in the atmosphere, CO2, has any warming effect other than an entirely insignificant effect.
Although Tyndall’s original experiment was well thought out, and proved his point about CO2 being able to absorb infrared energy, the source he used was a flame with a temperature of at least 1500C. That’s a major step above terrestrial radiating surfaces. Also, he captured the IR in a long tube filled with gas.
In the atmosphere, CO2 molecules are out-numbered 2500 to 1 and no one has demonstrated how molecules in such a context can heat other molecules to provide an overall warming of 9% to 25% as claimed by climate modelers and alarmists.
Even if the theory has some merit, there is no way to get a positive feedback loop with gain out of such a system. In CMs analysis, he shows the input tied directly to the output and a feedback loop with an amplifier connected from the output to the input.
That is nothing more than the dumb theory that the input, solar energy, is augmented by recycled IR, from the surface to GHGs and back to the surface.
We should not be having this discussion with such pseudo-science as the basis. Positive feedback with gain in such a context is nothing more than a bad joke.
Winter in October in the north of the US.
https://i.ibb.co/CPy3ynJ/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-10-18-093951.png
Gordon, may I encourage you to study the Kinetic Theory of Gases that was used successfully by Einstein and others.
The assumptions are at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases#Assumptions
but in particular I suggest reading “Temperature and Kinetic Energy” at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases#Temperature_and_kinetic_energy
Note this sentence:
“Equation (3) is one important result of the kinetic theory: The average molecular kinetic energy is proportional to the ideal gas law’s absolute temperature.”
and to clarify, the next sentence reads:
“Thus, the product of pressure and volume per mole is proportional to the average (translational) molecular kinetic energy.”
Hence it is the mean translational kinetic energy of whole molecules which is proportional to absolute temperature.
There’s no reference to vibrational energy of the gas molecules or of the atoms or of the electrons.
Dug,
And how does this explain the fact that the Earth cooled from a much hotter temperature?
Keep avoiding reality – it won’t make any difference.
No GHE. No heat creep. No gravitothermal effect.
The Kinetic Theory of Gases won’t help you, either.
You have no proof that the Earth was ever significantly hotter. Some scientists say it was initially cold which could just as easily be the case. Now I have shown why Earth, Venus and Uranus are all in equilibrium states (long term) with the level of solar radiation.
I don’t know whether the Earth has been warmed to the equilibrium state by the Sun or the Sun has stopped cooling from a hotter state. Either is possible as far as my heat creep hypothesis is concerned.
So even if you have superior knowledge than many scientists including myself about temperatures billions of years ago, this issue is totally irrelevant to my hypothesis and does not refute it in any way what-so-ever. So don’t bore me any more: I know what you think and you don’t have to remind me a dozen times that you think it was originally hotter than now. It’s still very hot in the solid core.
Dug,
You must be dimwitted.
You wrote “You have no proof that the Earth was ever significantly hotter. Some scientists say it was initially cold which could just as easily be the case.”
Some scientists say?
Some (maybe even more) scientist say the Earth was originally molten, which helps to explain its oblate spheroidal shape, the exceptionally hot interior, volcanoes, mid-ocean ridge magma, and so on.
You have no proof that the Earth was created cold, either, or that the Sun miraculously heated the interior by magic, while at the same time cooling the bottom of the sea, and forming kilometers of ice on Antarctica.
So where’s your proof that the Earth was created at absolute zero, before the Sun existed? Religion is fine, and you may believe that an omnipotent Creator made the planets first (all nice an roundish), and then decided to create a Sun, to warm things up a bit.
I believe you are simply delusional, and a wriggling and squirming when faced with reality.
You see why a reproducible experiment demonstrating either GHE or heat creep might be preferable to making unsupported assertions. Alas, there are none.
Don’t blame me for pointing out that reality disagrees with your fantasies. Your fantasies are yours – nothing to do with me.
“I suggest reading Temperature and Kinetic Energy ”
***
The kinetic theory of gases was worked out statistically and I have little faith in that kind of statistical analysis. I prefer a thermometer, which measures the kinetic energy of a gas directly. When the kinetic theory was worked out they already knew what to expect and worked toward that end.
When I say directly, I should be clear that the scale of measurement was invented based on the boiling point and freezing point of water. Still, thermometers measure the actual relative energy of molecules striking the sensor.
Another issue I have with the kinetic theory is the manner in which it seems to infer that temperature is a natural property of matter. It is not, temperature is an invention of the human mind as is time. The quantity being measured is heat…thermal energy…which is a natural property of matter.
This may seem like a niggly point but, when ignored, it leads to idiotic statements like heat being a measure of energy transfer. The measure is temperature, a human invention, and the energy being measured is heat.
Without the measure, heat still exists. Without clocks, time does not.
Gordon, to help you in debates with Jeff, as per the correct physics in my 2012 peer-reviewed paper on radiation (linked in the left column at http://climate-change-theory.com) we can counter climatology claims that only radiation from IR-active molecules near the top of the troposphere gets to Space. That’s garbage. This is what happens:
Suppose in round figures a location on the surface emits some radiation at 400 w/m^2. Then, suppose that, in some colder region, another molecule is emitting 300w/m^2. If the original radiation strikes that second molecule, then only 100w/m^2 will warm that target, and the remaining 300w/m^2 from the original source is pseudo scattered and becomes radiation emitted by the target at 300w/m^2.
The process if that 300w/m^2 strikes a target emitting 200w/m^2 is then similar with only 100w/m^2 doing any warming.
Eventually the remaining radiation must get to Space no matter how many steps in the process. In interstellar Space it may deposit nearly all its remaining energy into some object at about 2K to 3K. There develops an equilibrium state among such interstella objects such that there is always background radiation like this just above absolute zero.
The main point to remember is that if any targets (including the Earth’s surface) are hotter than the (latest) source there will be absolutely no thermalization.
Hence IR-active molecules in the colder troposphere act like holes in a blanket, absorbing energy from nitrogen, oxygen, argon etc via molecular collisions and then, when they become warmer, emitting radiation that will always get some energy out of the atmosphere and back to Space, never into a warmer surface.
And THAT is the major error in climatology computer models: they all process data as if back radiation is thermalized in the surface. That is the ONLY way the models can end up showing higher surface temperatures.
All the talk and stuff written on NASA and IPCC websites about raising the radiating altitude and blocking heat is not even used in the models because there is no way to use such additional height of the radiating altitude to quantify a rise in surface temperature.
Their energy diagrams such as that at http://climate-change-theory.com give it all away as to how they quantify surface temperatures quite incorrectly by wrongly assuming Stefan Boltzmann calculations can be used for the sum of solar and “back” radiation and give the right temperature: they don’t. Their back radiation figure is fudged and is far greater than what is possible – and it does no warming at all.
Instead of guessing back radiation warmed the surface by combining with solar radiation, they now need to realize that it is heat creep which supplies the energy which they think back radiation does.
“For a body in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, every correctly calibrated thermometer, of whatever kind, that measures the temperature of the body, records one and the same temperature. For a body that is not in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, different thermometers can record different temperatures, depending respectively on the mechanisms of operation of the thermometers.”
I’m not interested in statements that refer to what would be measured in a lab at virtually constant altitude. We are talking about temperature differences over the height of the troposphere, these being affected by the force of gravity acting on molecules, as is explained in my 2013 paper and subsequent book.
In a vortex cooling tube temperatures measured for the air in the center of the tube are of the order of 20 to 50 degrees colder than the air that entered the tube, whilst those in the outer perimeter of the tube are a similar amount hotter because there has been heat from the colder (and cooling) region in the center to the warmer (and warming) outer region via the process I called heat creep that happens in force fields such as the centrifugal force in the vortex tube and gravity in the troposphere.
Did you register that this is heat from cold to hot happening right here on Earth in lab experiments involving centrifugal force?
It is this heat which assists the Sun to warm the surface of Earth, whilst on Venus it does all the warming (of about 5 degrees) on the sunlit side because the Solar radiation reaching the Venus surface is so weak that it cannot raise the temperature anywhere, not even by 0.0001 degree.
Go to http://climate-change-theory.com then to my second climate website (linked at the right) and then to the “Evidence” page where you can scroll down to the image of a vortex cooling tube. You could also read my explanation as to how it works in the Talk page on Wikipedia. I was able to calculate what the temperature difference should be and I got results close to observations. I can do likewise for Earth and other planets. You can’t. Climatologists can’t.
Dug,
OK then, show your calculations for the temperature of the Earth when the surface was molten.
Then show the calculation that supports a temperature of >100 C (before liquid water formed).
For an encore, show your calculations for the Earth’s present temperature.
You can’t or you won’t?
Sounds like deranged fanaticism to me. Others can make up their own minds.
https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/why-its-not-carbon-dioxide-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-99
And, to wrap it up ….
https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/why-its-not-carbon-dioxide-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-66
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^2 (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^2(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^2(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^2(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
Moon……223,35 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
That’s correct CV. There is no 33 °C increase due to CO2. That’s just more of the GHE nonsense.
The 33 °C nonsense comes from comparing Earth’s average surface temperature with the surface temperature of an imaginary sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2. That imaginary surface would then have a temperature of 255K.
So 288K [real] – 255K [imaginary] = 33K [nonsense]
That ain’t science.
Clint R
Keep reinforcing your false misleading cult program. Maybe some brain dead cult people will accept your imaginary nonsense. You are a persistent troll. Never learn but keep trying to sell your cult beliefs to the stupid people out there.
Norman, your repetitive, impotent attacks reveal you have NOTHING.
That’s why you have to continually make up stuff.
Clint R
Don’t deviate from your gaslighting (note you are the cult idiot who makes things up, I do not need to. I find evidence and facts to support my claims…maybe try it sometime).
Your cult minded claims continue.
Norman,
“I find evidence and facts to support my claimsmaybe try it sometime).”
Claims? Why not just present facts, and allow others to make up there own minds?
For example, when I say that neither the GHE, heat creep, or the gravitothermal effect exist, that is a simple statement of fact – which can be demonstrated to be wrong by reproducible experiment, if anyone disagrees.
Anything which can’t be supported by reproducible experiment is speculation at best, and fantasy at worst.
So speculate or fantasise as much as you want. In the meantime, I see no reason to disagree with Richard Feynman, who 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.”
You might claim that the Creator made the universe just as it is – just now. Who can “prove” otherwise? You see, anyone can “claim” anything they like. Others are free to believe the claim or not.
You might claim that a GHE makes the planet hotter. I might observe that four and a half billion years or so of GHE seems to have resulted in surface cooling of some thousands of Kelvins.
Do I really care what you think? Not really, I base my actions on what I think.
So “claim” away.
> Why not just present facts, and allow others to make up there own minds?
Notice any typo, Mike Flynn?
Yes?
Otters, not others.
Thanks.
Wonky Willard,
You quoted me –
“”Why not just present facts, and allow others to make up there own minds?”
Notice any typo, Mike Flynn?”
Now you attempt to troll by asking Mike Flynn if he noticed a typo.
I can’t see any, and I assume Mike Flynn can’t either.
Are you off with the fairies, aphasic, or just fixated with otters, as well as homosexual love and masturbation?
You need to lift your game, laddie, whatever it is.
Correct Swenson. Norman’s meltdown has reduced him to just another worthless troll. He can’t even link to things he doesn’t understand anymore.
Of course, there’s no way he can support his incompetent claims.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Why are you talking about Mike Flynn like he was someone else, Mike?
Pup, please stop trolling.
Wonky Willard,
You quoted me
Why not just present facts, and allow others to make up there own minds?
Notice any typo, Mike Flynn?
Now you attempt to troll by asking Mike Flynn if he noticed a typo.
I cant see any, and I assume Mike Flynn cant either.
Are you off with the fairies, aphasic, or just fixated with otters, as well as homosexual love and masturbation?
You need to lift your game, laddie, whatever it is.
there own minds, Mike.
You wrote there own minds.
Will you ever forgive yourself?
Bad dad.
Sad.
Swenson
What evidence do you present that the Earth’s surface has cooled for 4.5 billion years. Present it or shut-up! Your mantra is quite old. I think you have made this unsupported claim thousands and thousands of times. You ask for proof, you are given lots of evidence and proof. You just reject it.
Now maybe prove your statement that the Earth’s surface has cooled for billions of years. Where is you evidence?
Please don’t be as stupid as Clint R. I know you, and Gordon Robertson want to be as stupid as this poster but one cult minded idiot on a blog is enough.
Norman,
If you don’t want to accept that the Earth’s surface was once molten, and prefer Dug’s speculation that the Earth was created at absolute zero, in its present shape, then warmed up after the Sun was created due to Dug’s “heat creep”, good for you!
Dug has at least one follower – called Norman.
As for saying “where is you [sic] evidence”, I could ask you for evidence which leads to believe Dug’s assertions, but I won’t.
Believe as you wish. You are free to believe any nonsense you like, but if you accept that the surface was once far hotter than it is now, then it has demonstrably cooled. Nothing stopped it – GHE, heat creep, CO2 – nothing.
Off you go, take up your banner saying “Stop Climate Change!”, and join the rest of the loonies!
You wont mind if I laugh at you, will you?
Norman has a point, Mike.
Where is your evidence?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
A point? Is that the shape of his head?
Have you seen it, or are you perhaps thinking of something else?
Has Dug gained another follower in you, Willard?
He’s certainly having no trouble convincing the intellectual impaired and supremely gullible SkyDragon cultists that fantasy is superior to fact.
Keep capering.
No evidence, Mike?
OK.
Swenson,
Since the best hypothesis is that the Earth and solar system condensed from a cold cloud of interstellar dust, obviously the Earth has warmed since then.
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
christos…”…a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter”.
***
I agree with most things you say but you need to re-consider this statement. Short wavelength solar cannot converted to longwave IR without going through a process involving surface atoms. If it is reflection, the reflected energy would not be IR. We see that all the time with the colours that surround us. That is due to reflected light.
If the surface atoms did not absorb SW solar, they would not warm. The fact that they do warm is evidence that electrons in the atoms have absorbed the SW solar and risen to a higher orbital energy level.
It is when the electrons return to their normal orbital energy level that longwave IR is emitted. That may appear to happen almost instantaneously in some cases, but as the atoms warm, they warm other atoms in the surface and they too will rise to higher energy levels then emit IR as the electrons transition back.
The ground will continue to emit IR after the Sun has set, maybe through the entire night in some parts of the world.
Obviously, part of the heat created in the surface is conducted to he atmosphere where molecules on the atmosphere contact the surface. That produces cooling and affects the frequency of IR emitted.
When the electrons transition to a lower energy level, they emit quanta of IR. That suggests strongly that IR radiation has nothing to do with cooling the surface, that IR is a product of surface cooling. Therefore capturing part of that radiation cannot possibly affect the cooling rate of the surface since the captured IR occurred AFTER the cooling had taken place.
Something to think about. It defeats the adage that IR radiation can be trapped and affect temperature.
Gordon Robertson
You are completely unable to understand molecular vibrations. Your post is false and intentionally deceptive! Electon transitions cover UV, visible, and near IR not mid or lower energy IR. It is really sad you keep peddling your false notions of EMR production. Evidence does not help you.
norman…”Electon transitions cover UV, visible, and near IR not mid or lower energy IR”.
***
Then please enlighten us Norman, what generates the EM(IR) in an atom if not electrons? The nucleus can’t generate EM. The electron is the only particle with relative motion, an electric field, and the ability to generate a magnetic field when it moves.
And if the generation is not related to electron transitions, as Bohr claimed, what could possibly produce it?
I know, Norman, you’ll claim its the vibration in molecules or the rotation. What you miss in your argument is that molecules are made up of two or more atoms bonded together by electrons and the electron is the only particle in such an arrangement that can generate EM. Transitions happen in valence bonds as well.
Vibration in a molecule is caused by one or more atoms being more electronegative than others. That sets up a dip[ole. For example in CO2…
O=====C=====O
the O atoms are more electronegative than the C atoms. That means the O atoms have a higher affinity for electrons, producing a greater negative charge on the O-end of the bond. Yes, Norman, those dashed lines are electrons bonding the Os to the C.
In the arrangement above, vibration is along the dotted lines or at an angle to the x-axis. If one or more of those electrons absorbs IR, and becomes more energetic, what do you think that does to the vibration, Normie?
Study a bit of chemistry and come back.
You got a point there, Gordo.
If the atoms of rubber are elastic, then the electrons of rubber must be elastic, right?
Here you go Gordon,
Way above your paygrade, but it’s not just electrons that can interact with EM.
https://web.njit.edu/~sirenko/Phys-446/Lecture4-SSP-2007.pdf
You may have to read carefully to get the tidbits.
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Thank you, Gordon, for your respond.
“Gordon Robertson says:
October 18, 2022 at 5:24 PM
christosa planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.
***
I agree with most things you say but you need to re-consider this statement. Short wavelength solar cannot converted to longwave IR without going through a process involving surface atoms. If it is reflection, the reflected energy would not be IR. We see that all the time with the colours that surround us. That is due to reflected light.
If the surface atoms did not absorb SW solar, they would not warm. The fact that they do warm is evidence that electrons in the atoms have absorbed the SW solar and risen to a higher orbital energy level.
It is when the electrons return to their normal orbital energy level that longwave IR is emitted. That may appear to happen almost instantaneously in some cases, but as the atoms warm, they warm other atoms in the surface and they too will rise to higher energy levels then emit IR as the electrons transition back.
The ground will continue to emit IR after the Sun has set, maybe through the entire night in some parts of the world.
Obviously, part of the heat created in the surface is conducted to he atmosphere where molecules on the atmosphere contact the surface. That produces cooling and affects the frequency of IR emitted.
When the electrons transition to a lower energy level, they emit quanta of IR. That suggests strongly that IR radiation has nothing to do with cooling the surface, that IR is a product of surface cooling. Therefore capturing part of that radiation cannot possibly affect the cooling rate of the surface since the captured IR occurred AFTER the cooling had taken place.
Something to think about. It defeats the adage that IR radiation can be trapped and affect temperature.”
–
Gordon, I agree with every word you said.
What I tried to underline with my above statement is that when solar flux interacting with matter – the on the very instant atoms and molecules emitting IR EM energy is much more intense than the heat transfer into inner layers.
–
The IR EM energy emission is relative to the fourth power of developed on the interacting matter absolute temperature T^4.
–
On the other hand, the heat conduction into inner layers is relative to the first power of developed on the interacting matter absolute temperature T.
–
Thank you again,
Christos.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This (which you have copied from a European site it appears) is incorrect: “Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K”
Earth without atmosphere would be about the same as the Moon whose mean surface temperature is around -25C or even colder.
NASA energy diagrams (such as that on my website http://climate-change-theory.com) show (quite correctly) an effective global mean solar flux entering the Earth’s surface (after deducting the reflected radiation at the surface) to be 168w/m^2 and, as shown in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator image below that energy diagram, the temperature would be only 233K (about -40C) and that is correct. It compares with the global mean surface temperature of the Moon where we can use about twice the flux in S-B calculations because we don’t have to multiply by your 0.47 which is about the only correct figure you use.
Your calculations ignore the fact that the effective flux falling on a level surface from radiation that is not from directly overhead is determined by multiplying the flux by the sine of the acute angle that the radiation makes with the level plane. That is where your copied calculations are just simply incorrect due to a very elementary error.
Here is the alarmist website he copied from:
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Ironically that website says the Moon’s average surface temperature is only 220K, so I shall correct my -25C figure above to -53C which is quire understandable because the S-B calculations that gave -40C for Earth would give a colder mean because the flux is variable.
So how could the idiot who wrote that website think that Earth without an atmosphere (such as the Moon) would be raised to a mean of +15C when he knew the Moon is close enough to the same distance from the Sun and has an average of -52C ?????
What he has forgotten is that the Solar Constant is used to calculate how much flux passes through an orthogonal disc with radius equal to that of the Earth. Clearly this will be the total striking half the Earth, most of it at an acute angle so we need to multiply by the sine of that angle, thus reducing the effective flux everywhere except where the Sun is directly overhead somewhere in the tropics. The surface area of the Earth is four times that of the above disc, so we divide by four to get the mean flux. Seeing that about half the Solar flux is either absorbed or reflected by the atmosphere, we divide the Solar constant by about eight, ie ~1360/8 = 170 which is how NASA gets 168.
Dug, you’re an idiot.
An ice cube emits about 315 W/m^2. You’re believing an ice cube is hotter than Sun.
I predict you won’t understand this and will just keep linking to your fallacious blogs.
Clint R
Yes Dug is an idiot but you are far more idiot than he is. You are also a cult minded troll that has absolutely zero science training except what you blindly believe from some skeptic blogs.
Maybe no one told you that the Solar input is not continuous in any given location. Maybe you have continuous days at full noon where you live.
I gave you the link to actual global solar energy input. You are too brain dead cult minded to attempt to grasp anything rational.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_634f6b88b5f23.png
Figure out for yourself braindead cult idiot. You can find the solar input is 120 W/m^2 on a continuous basis and it is less than the Cold DWIR. You are just so very stupid. Dug is quite a genius when going head to head with you. He is wrong about lots of things but you are not correct about anything and you understand zero science.
Norman, I’m enjoying your meltdown more than you can know. But, if you want to learn about the science, you will have to give up your insults and false accusations.
I’ve offered before to explain that SURFRAD to you, but you ran.
Your choice — behave like a responsible adult and learn, or remain a worthless troll.
Clint R
No idiot braindead cult minded antisciene. You never explained SURFRAD and I never ran. You can’t grasp the data, you never could, you are not intelligent enough to process information. You declare idiot cult mantras. That is your ability.
Fluxes don’t add….
Ball on a String….
NASA is idiots…
Ice cubes boil water…
Hot surface can’t absorb any energy from a colder one….
All made up, no evidence to support any of it…
Over and over with idiot cult mantras. What else do you have NOTHING. You are a true braindead (can’t think) cult minded (repeats mantras over and over thousands of times) idiot (show no sign of every understanding any evidence no matter how many times it is presented to you.
Okay Norman, you are choosing to remain a worthless troll.
Not a problem for me.
Pup,
Please stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
If some of you are not convinced by the vortex cooling tube experiments (probably because you haven’t read the webpage that I directed you to in a comment just written above) then read this experiment:
https://scitechdaily.com/new-method-uses-centrifugal-force-decelerate-particles-creates-new-research-opportunities/
But don’t bother trying to keep arguing with me because none of you will ever prove wrong what is actually in my papers, as distinct from what you guess.
As I said, I would only read this blog for 24 hours, so time’s up.
Argue among yourselves, but don’t try to “prove” me wrong with thought experiments or stuff copied from climatology sites all of which I proved wrong way back in 2012 in my peer-reviewed paper on radiation at
… http://climate-change-theory.com …
Read up on vortex tubes. Interesting application of kinetic energy and enthalpy.
However, centrifugal force is not a force in the classical sense, just the effects of inertia.
No force field, no heat creep by your own rules.
I’ll leave you with this copy of my
OFFICIAL ACCUSATION AGAINST CSIRO LODGED WITH OMBUDSMAN 17 OCT 22
I am now retired, but in 2013 I made a world-first discovery in the field of atmospheric physics after extensive private study in the first few years of such retirement.
I have had considerable communication with the CSIRO but, instead of them paying due diligence in checking the science from the IPCC, I was merely laughed at by David Karoly.
The current CEO Dr Larry Marshall is aware of my research which proves beyond reasonable doubt that so-called greenhouse gases do not warm the planet and in fact cool it according to both correct physics and observations, water vapour by a few degrees but carbon dioxide and methane by less than 0.1 degree.
Please pause at this point to read the Home page and Images page on what is my third climate change website http://climate-change-theory.com the previous two having had over 125,000 hits in total. Note the net global cooling since 1998 and the bar chart showing the results of my study that indicated cooling by water vapour. That study is also in my book Why Its Not Carbon Dioxide After All on Amazon.
My first paper on radiation was peer-reviewed and published in 2012. Then my main paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures followed in 2013 explaining from the laws of physics a process I called heat creep for short that only occurs in a force field such as gravity. There are a further five papers linked on the above website.
This heat creep is the process which warms the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus on their sunlit sides assisting solar radiation to the surface which is not sufficient on its own to explain observed surface temperatures. It also makes the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus hotter than Earths surface despite far greater distance from the Sun.
Indeed there are errors in the science published by NASA and IPCC authors which has no less than three serious violations of long-established laws of physics. Dr Larry Marshall (having a PhD in physics) ought to be able to recognise such errors and, in my view, there should have been action taken even six years ago to look into the complaints I made to them.
I have collected evidence in FOIs which indicates …
(a) They have no evidence of the main greenhouse gas water vapour warming the surface contrary to my study in that 2013 paper which showed it cooling the planet.
(b) They have no official physics documentation to support what is incorrect use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for multiple sources of radiation: it only works for one source.
(c) They have no documentation as to how climatologists quantify the global mean surface temperature using radiation calculations, hence they have no valid way to determine whether additional carbon dioxide or methane would warm or cool the planet and by how much. The official NASA method is evident in their energy diagrams such as on my website, but that is incorrect physics which the CSIRO should have recognised as such years ago when I first pointed it out to them.
In that I have no indication from them in response to several recent letters and emails to their Legal staff, I tend to deduce that they are participating in what has become a worldwide scam which leads to funding of the CSIRO and universities as well as much wasted government funds both in Australia and worldwide. Lives also have been put at risk with power shortages.
Dug,
You wrote –
“In a vortex cooling tube temperatures measured for the air in the center of the tube are of the order of 20 to 50 degrees colder than the air that entered the tube, . . .”
Now remove the energy powering the vortex tube.
No heating, no cooling, your nonsensical heat creep doesn’t work in reality, does it?
Maybe you can dream up a gravity powered perpetual motion engine, to power the vortex tube.
You are definitely delusional.
Accept reality – no GHE, no heat creep, no gravitothermal effect.
Carry on.
willard…”Allow me to help, then:
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
[]
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
[]
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
[]
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
[]
Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
I think that it means Horsesh*t from a lying c*nt.
Is that the meaning you intended toward EM?
***
Dremt uncharacteristically used two vulgar words on one occasion, yet Willard feels compelled to repeat them 6 times in one post, and as a tool in other posts. That’s why Willard is regarded here as a troll. His MO is to disrupt the blog activity by provoking and harassing, the true description of a troll.
Why is it necessary to point out that we are guests on the blog of a scientist with religious convictions, where the use of such extreme profanity is likely not welcome?
Poor old slimy Wee Willy just ain’t having a lot of success.
Dr Spencer seems unmoved by Wee Willy’s pointless references to people having been banned, or Wee Will’s attempts to annoy him by getting others to disagree with Dr Spencer.
Woeful Wee Willy’s trolling attempts are both inept and ineffective – in reality, if not in Willard’s fantasy world.
He can’t seem to cope with two F-words – Freedom [of speech], and Facts.
Bad luck for Woebegone Wee Willy.
Still no GHE, gravitothermal effect, or heat creep.
Mike Flynn?
Dr Spencer?
Seems unmoved?
Try to make some sense.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You”ll have to take that up with Dr Spencer.
[laughing at dimwitted troll]
And why would take your idiocy with Roy, Mike?
Tut, tut.
Cmon Willard,
You wrote –
“And why would take your idiocy with Roy, Mike?”
Really? What version speaking in tongues are you employing?
What a stupid, inept troll, you are!
And why would I take your idiocy with Roy, Mike?
And why would take your idiocy with Roy, Mike?
Your idiocy, Mike.
Show more of it.
Now.
You wrote –
“And why would I take your idiocy with Roy, Mike?
And why would take your idiocy with Roy, Mike?”
You’re trying out two versions of speaking in tongues now, are you?
Which stupid incomprehensibility do you prefer?
Try not to be so inept. You might eventually accept the reality that I am not Mike Flynn, no matter what bizarre “skillz” and “modulz” you think you have.
Oh well, I suppose trolls like you are necessary for me to demonstrate my innate intelligence and good breeding to others.
Carry on.
And why would take your idiocy to Roy, Mike?
Tut.
Tut.
Willard,
You wrote –
“And why would take your idiocy to Roy, Mike?”
You can obviously speak in tongues in three dialects – excellent.
Maybe you could try speaking English?
I don’t know what form of derangement leads you to think that “Mike” might respond to one of your “questions”, but I can assure you that the chances of me answering any of your daft gotchas (even if you pose them in English), is remote.
Are you sure you have a good grip on reality, Willy boy?
Why take your idiocy with Roy.
Mike?
“Why take your idiocy with Roy.
Mike?”
Carry on.
OK.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
> on one occasion
C’mon, Gordo.
Graham used it here:
#comment-1381942
And here:
#comment-1382007
And here:
#comment-1382024
And here:
#comment-1382028
And here:
#comment-1382139
And here:
#comment-1382307
And here, against EM:
#comment-1383047
Why are you lying so blatantly?
Think.
That does not justify you reproducing it. Try thinking yourself.
C’mon, Gordo.
You just did.
Think.
C’mon Willard,
You are a pretty hopeless troll.
Why is that?
Think.
C’mon, Mike Flynn.
No?
U?
Yes.
No U.
Cheers.
Cmon Willard,
You are a pretty hopeless troll.
Why is that?
Think.
You can say that again, Mike.
We both know you’re the most useless troll here.
Nobody can ever get that away from you.
Cmon Willard,
You are a pretty hopeless troll.
Why is that?
Think.
I know you find me pretty, Mike.
Go on.
Cmon Willard,
You are a pretty hopeless troll.
Why is that?
Think.
OK.
Cmon Willard,
You are a pretty hopeless troll.
Why is that?
Mike Flynn.
Again,
OK
Tut, tut, Willard.
Nobody taking much notice of your stupid attempts to annoy people?
You need to try harder!
Carry on.
Tut, tut, Mike?
Notice who wrote the comment to which you respond?
Gordo, right?
Why are you saying he’s a nobody?
Cheers.
Tut, tut, Willard.
Nobody taking much notice of your stupid attempts to annoy people?
You need to try harder!
Carry on.
Excuse me, Mike. I was busy skipping your comment.
Could you repeat what you just said?
OK.
No, Mike.
Again.
OK
Educating Willard, Part 10445…
“That the tires of your cars are elastic does not imply that the atoms that compose them are too”.
***
The name elastic, or rubber tire, is a name given to a certain aggregation of atoms/molecules. The word table is a name given to a different aggregation of atoms. Willard is the name of another aggregation of atoms/molecules that have obviously been misconfigured.
Both natural and synthetic rubber are comprised of the carbon and hydrogen atoms in chains. Each carbon/hydrogen molecule is joined by electron bonds.
The proper name for natural rubber is 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene and if you look up your elasticized synthetic rubber, you will see it is similar. The main difference is that real rubber is synthesized i a tree and synthetic rubber is created in a lab.
The synthetic rubber used in tires is the atoms that comprise it. The name is artificial.
C’mon, Gordo.
You can’t be that dumb.
Elasticity is an emergent property:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(physics)
Think.
Whacky Wee Willy,
And the reason the GHE is responsible for the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so is . . . ?
Think, Witless Willard! Or just pluck the answer off the internet, if you can’t think for yourself.
How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
And the relevance of your sammich request with Gordo’s blunder is?
None whatsoever?
Not far from that, yes.
Long live and prosper.
Whacky Wee Willy,
And the reason the GHE is responsible for the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so is . . . ?
Think, Witless Willard! Or just pluck the answer off the internet, if you cant think for yourself.
How hard can it be?
Spamming again, Mike?
Go off.
Whacky Wee Willy,
And the reason the GHE is responsible for the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so is . . . ?
Think, Witless Willard! Or just pluck the answer off the internet, if you cant think for yourself.
How hard can it be?
Again, Mike?
Again.
Go.
Off.
Whacky Wee Willy,
And the reason the GHE is responsible for the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so is . . . ?
Think, Witless Willard! Or just pluck the answer off the internet, if you cant think for yourself.
How hard can it be?
Thank you, Mike.
Again.
OK.
“For rubbers and other polymers, elasticity is caused by the stretching of polymer chains when forces are applied”.
***
And what do you think makes up a polymer chain, you whacked out weasel? It’s an arrangement of atoms. Duh!!!
Yes, arrangements of atoms do stretch when forces are applied.
Give it up Willard, you’re a misinformed drone and a troll. Would that make you a droll?
Gordon,
Willard is sometimes the epitome of drollery, but more often just a butt for jokes. More troll than droll.
But hey, with SkyDragon ambassadors like the dimwitted and obfuscatory Willard (plus the realisation that believing “climate scientists” is quite likely to result in millions starving while they freeze in the dark), at least the mad capering of the GHE cultists will provide a bit of light relief in dark times.
I notice that China has decided it is not sending more LNG to the EU, because it needs it for the Chinese (yeah, right). Maybe the Europeans can warm themselves and provide energy for lighting by cunning use of the GHE!
How hard can it be?
Speaking of natural gas. It seems Germany is balking at the idea of Russia turning the taps back on. I wonder how long they will last with wind farms, solar power, and coal-fired furnaces before the German population revolts.
It seems the Republicans may have pulled a deal with the Saudis to turn the oil taps off, at least till after the November elections. Biden has been begging them to reconsider till after the elections, making derogatory comments that have the Saudis talking jihad.
Sooner or later, the public will get it what Green means…no oil and rocketing fuel prices, with nothing in sight to replace fossil fuels.
Come on, Gordo –
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/europe-is-ready-for-a-winter-without-russian-gas-bnef-says
Euros are ready. No thanks to your propaganda.
Willard,
Ready for what – not for unloading LNG, apparently.
“Dozens of LNG-laden ships queue off Europe’s coasts unable to unload – Reuters”
I can’t see into the future better than anybody else, but apparently some Germans have already gone green – cutting firewood for heat, instead of buying gas.
Renewable energy in action!
You almost posted a link, Mike!
Too bad it does not mean what you make it mean.
Try again. Practice makes perfect.
Willard,
You wrote –
“You almost posted a link, Mike!
Too bad it does not mean what you make it mean.
Try again. Practice makes perfect.”
What are you blathering about, dummy?
Do you imagine your “silly semantic games” make you appear intelligent?
Obviously you do, but your imagination is unsupported by reality, in this case.
Got any more irrelevant nonsense to toss around?
You are doing like Dug, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Come on, Gordo.
Your argument is invalid:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division
Think properly.
Come on Willard,
Your “arguments” and “silly semantic games” are just more evidence that you are a slimy gutless SkyDragon troll who cannot even describe the fanciful GHE, much less explain how it led to the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so.
How pathetic and inept is that?
That’s a rhetorical question – I know the answer.
Right after you give the evidence Norman asked you, Mike.
You should hurry up.
Come on Willard,
Your arguments and silly semantic games are just more evidence that you are a slimy gutless SkyDragon troll who cannot even describe the fanciful GHE, much less explain how it led to the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years or so.
How pathetic and inept is that?
Thats a rhetorical question I know the answer.
No evidence, Mike?
OK. Too bad.
I was just about to give you what you have been looking for since you first commented here.
When was that, again?
Willard, you donkey –
Evidence for what?
Evidence is for courts of law. That’s why rules of evidence, and evidence laws exist. Evidence needs to be based on fact – not the opinions of dimwits.
What don’t you accept as fact? Why?
Keep on with your stupid gotchas – they just make you look more stupid each time.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard the idiot troll, wrote –
“If the atoms of rubber are elastic, then the electrons of rubber must be elastic, right?”
If Willard had a clue, he wouldnt be clueless, but he hasn’t so he is!
[and now I might have even confused myself – only joking]
C’mon, Gordo.
If I’m clueless, that must mean my atoms are clueless too.
At least according to your idiotic logic.
You insufferable twat.
Come on, Willard,
Calling me Gordo or Mike just makes you look even more clueless.
Get a grip – don’t blame me if you can’t accept reality.
If you think Im insufferable, you don’t have to take any notice,
Have you no self control, oh clueless and spineless Willard?
Maybe you could and whine to someone who cares.
Give it a try, if you wish.
Calling you by your original Climateball name makes me look clueless, Mike?
No, not really.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Thank you, Dug, for your respond.
“Retired Physicist says:
October 18, 2022 at 2:12 PM
This (which you have copied from a European site it appears) is incorrect: Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Earth without atmosphere would be about the same as the Moon whose mean surface temperature is around -25C or even colder.
NASA energy diagrams (such as that on my website http://climate-change-theory.com) show (quite correctly) an effective global mean solar flux entering the Earths surface (after deducting the reflected radiation at the surface) to be 168w/m^2 and, as shown in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator image below that energy diagram, the temperature would be only 233K (about -40C) and that is correct. It compares with the global mean surface temperature of the Moon where we can use about twice the flux in S-B calculations because we dont have to multiply by your 0.47 which is about the only correct figure you use.
Your calculations ignore the fact that the effective flux falling on a level surface from radiation that is not from directly overhead is determined by multiplying the flux by the sine of the acute angle that the radiation makes with the level plane. That is where your copied calculations are just simply incorrect due to a very elementary error.
Reply
Retired Physicist says:
October 18, 2022 at 2:16 PM
Here is the alarmist website he copied from:
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
Reply
Retired Physicist says:
October 18, 2022 at 2:36 PM
Ironically that website says the Moons average surface temperature is only 220K, so I shall correct my -25C figure above to -53C which is quire understandable because the S-B calculations that gave -40C for Earth would give a colder mean because the flux is variable.
So how could the idiot who wrote that website think that Earth without an atmosphere (such as the Moon) would be raised to a mean of +15C when he knew the Moon is close enough to the same distance from the Sun and has an average of -52C ?????
What he has forgotten is that the Solar Constant is used to calculate how much flux passes through an orthogonal disc with radius equal to that of the Earth. Clearly this will be the total striking half the Earth, most of it at an acute angle so we need to multiply by the sine of that angle, thus reducing the effective flux everywhere except where the Sun is directly overhead somewhere in the tropics. The surface area of the Earth is four times that of the above disc, so we divide by four to get the mean flux. Seeing that about half the Solar flux is either absorbed or reflected by the atmosphere, we divide the Solar constant by about eight, ie ~1360/8 = 170 which is how NASA gets 168.”
–
I have not copied the Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
–
What you refer to
https://rclutz.com/2021/07/21/how-to-calculate-planetary-temperatures/
is the Ron Clutz’s very good summary on my work, which Ron Clutz did a year ago 2021/07/21.
–
Dug:
“So how could he who wrote that website think that Earth without an atmosphere (such as the Moon) would be raised to a mean of +15C when he knew the Moon is close enough to the same distance from the Sun and has an average of -52C ?????”
–
Dug, it is a crucial question you have asked – it shows that you are really interested, and that you are genuinely concerned on the matters.
–
Please, Dug, visit my site, and you will have the answers!
–
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
October 19, 2022 nighttime temperatures in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama drop below 0oC.
Legit speakers bail on “sustainable development” investment conference that invites climate liars
A four-day “sustainable development” investment conference in London kicked off Monday. CC Forum calls itself the “green Davos,” and its audience could have heard from the UK’s new climate minister Graham Stuart. Instead, they’ll be subjected to the climate disinformation presented by Marc Morano and Christopher Monckton.
Monckton is listed inaccurately as a “Lord” on the CCForum website, despite the fact that The House of Lords sent him a “cease and desist” letter a decade ago to tell him to knock it off. [Being a hereditary viscount does NOT make him a member of the House of Lords, per act of Parliament in 1999 and legal rulings since]
Oh, and in addition to being so wrong about climate science that even other deniers debunk him, Monckton has claimed to have cured AIDS and the common cold and has a history of threatening to sue his critics to try and intimidate them into shutting up.
And Stuart isn’t the only one.
Dr. Aaron Theirry also announced his withdrawal from the event, as he “cannot in good conscience lend legitimacy to an event that would profile grifters who knowingly shill for fossil fuel polluters, even as millions have their lives & livelihoods destroyed by climate impacts.” Which is, if anything, going easy on the two.
Even the event organizers themselves didn’t exactly defend the dud duo.
Instead, the CC Forum’s Max Studennikoff said they’re giving them the stage with the intent of “publicly debunking their arguments in a public debate on stage, as we firmly believe that any attempt to shut down such a debate would constitute an affront to free speech.” He’s essentially admitting that they invited a couple of dufuses to the conference to point and laugh.
FWIW, Christopher can call himself a Lord. He cannot call himself a member of the House. His excuse that he is not a sitting member is a contradiction in terms.
The only real effect is that Christopher had to redo the logo from his presentation slides. He chose to do a Chinese knockoff of the official porticullis emblem. A true respecter of laws and customs like Western civilization needs.
For more on the backstory:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords
Roger, Wilco.
Little Willy, Tyson, please stop trolling.
Wall Street Week the Friday before Black Monday (October 19, 1987) https://youtu.be/2MyToTwag34
Marty explained, “in my own mind I’ve been looking for a crash, but I didn’t want to talk about it publicly because it’s like shouting fire in a crowded theater and there’s other ways to play it.
You’re gonna be hurt no matter whether you’re bullish or bearish there’s too many traps.
Louis chuckled, “Marty in his affable way has used that nasty word crash. Mary, do you accept that?”
Mary replied, “no, and I wouldn’t accept the estimate that the bull market is over either.”
While it was an unforgettable single day, it’s also remarkable that from New Year’s to just before Labor Day the Dow had risen 43%. Young whippersnapper traders laughed at their cautious elders and told each other to buy the strength rather than sell it.
A 508 point drop from 2200 in a way felt comparable to 9-11. You just stopped trading and stared.
Selling options was an option.
At least that is what Taleb is said to have done.
I’m learning the “It’s the sun, stupid” phrase is more hurtful to the cult than I realized.
The cult actually believes Sun only supplies about 170 W/m^2 to Earth’s surface. That highly-reduced flux corresponds to a S/B temperature of only about -40°C (-40°F). The cult actually believes that!
Here’s their bogus “accounting”:
The solar constant is about 1371 W/m^2.
1) Adjusting for albedo results in 960 W/m^2.
2) Dividing by 4 results in 240 W/m^2.
3) Adjusting again for albedo results in 168 W/m^2 (~170 W/m^2).
The first adjustment of albedo is legitimate. But, dividing by 4 and using a second albedo adjustment is NOT legitimate. They’ve reduce solar to a nonsensical level, and call it “climate science”.
They have “adjusted” solar down to 170 W/m^2, that’s less than the flux emitted by an ice cube (315 W/m^2). They’re trying to make Sun weaker than an ice cube! They seek to completely pervert reality.
No wonder they need so many trolls here….
Only Christos adjusts twice for albedo, Pup.
I am glad you finally found the mistake in his mess.
Clint R, please stop trolling.
DREMT Impersonator, please stop trolling.
Clint R, please carry on.
Yeah DREMT, your impersonator is none other than troll Norman. He was doing childish antics like that before, sometimes even using girl’s names. Now, in his full meltdown, he’s even more desperate.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Norman denies it…not sure who it is. I thought maybe Tyson…
Norman denies most reality. Tyson, like Ent, is a braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll. But, again like Ent, he fancies himself “holier than thou”. That kind of personality does not often resort to childish antics.
Worthless willard is a strong possibility, but he’s an “attention seeker”. So again, that personality does not fit with hiding in the shadows.
We’ll never know for sure, but I’d bet a six pack it’s “Norma”, “Nomran”, “Lori”.
Could be that old commenter “Snape”, lurking in the shadows. He used to try some pretty childish stuff.
I forgot about that one.
Graham, Pup, please stop trolling.
Clint,
So you’re saying 240 in, 240 out, period. No need for adjustments.
Somehow you’ve misunderstood something, Stephen. The incoming solar flux, after albedo, is 960 W/m^2. An imaginary sphere would then have 240 W/m^2 outgoing.
So, it would be “960 in, 240 out”.
Clint R
Once again you show how stupid you are
I am not pretending to be DREMT. I am not the troll here you are. You are just so dumb you can’t understand energy budget. Have mercy that there are so many idiots like you out there help us!
If the incoming solar where evenly distributed to every square meter of Earth surface it would be 340 watts. 1360/4. The albedo is around 30% so the available reduces to 240 watts. If you look at energy budget the other loss is from GHG absorb solar IR. Get your facts correctoron.
“If the incoming solar where evenly distributed to every square meter of Earth surface it would be 340 watts…”
That’s a big “if”, Norman.
Graham, please stop strolling.
Norman, you’re not very good at hiding from reality, are you?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
Pup, please stop posting links you do not understand properly.
Clint R
Hiding? From what your inability to understand a graphic or read terms correctly.
The graphic sows 99.9 W/m^2 relected. 77 absorbed by the atmosphere. What are you trying to say?
Nomran, I’m saying that you’re denying reality, again.
The solar arrow shown impacts the surface, with the claim “absorbed by surface, 163.3”. Now, you get to deny that….
“That’s a big “if”, Norman.”
After all, the incoming solar is not evenly distributed to every square meter of Earth’s surface, at any given moment. Only one hemisphere is lit.
DREMT
I would not disagree with your statement but if you want to monitor a trend you would need to establish some average. Like height of people or birthrate. You determine some average then monitor the average for trends.
You can average the incoming solar over time (a day or more) so that
the insolation is spread over the whole Earth’s surface, because the Earth rotates…
…but should you?
Graham could troll this website for another 74 months even if Roy castigated Sky Dragon Cranks from his website in 1973.
But… should he?
There is no such thing as “Sky Dragon Cranks”. There are “Deities of Purity, Truth, Integrity, Justice and Decency” (those who recognise the trivially obvious fact that there’s no GHE), and then there’s “golems built out of human faeces and animated by the word of Satan” (people like Little Willy). It’s as simple as that.
DREMT
Ever joined a debating society? One of the first things you learn is that when your opponent resorts to insult and profanity he has run out of arguments and has lost the debate.
You’ve lost.
Entropic Man takes it seriously! ☺️
I just respond in the spirit in which I am spoken to.
Willard calls me other than by my screen name, I call him Little Willy. Little Willy starts with the name-calling (Sky Dragon Cranks), I respond in kind. The debate is lost by Little Willy, every time he uses the Sky Dragon Crank name, if we are to go by your logic. That would be pretty much every discussion.
Come on, EM.
When Graham calls you a lying c*nt, he is just joking.
Lighten up.
Ah, I changed that to “Disappearing” in E Man’s case. I was feeling generous…and yes, you should both lighten up.
Ent shows up all of a sudden to be the “debate official”. Where was he when his cult brothers were using profanity?
Debate is NOT science. Debate classes often have students debate both sides of an issue. Too often, “debate” results in perverting reality, as we see too often in court rooms.
Science is about reality. It’s those that attempt to pervert/deny reality that lose. An example is Ent claiming that passenger jets fly backwards. He was attempting to win the debate by perverting reality.
He lost.
DREMT
I have two reasons to disappear now.
The first is that my usual response to insults is to disengage. As I said, I regard them as evidence that I’ve won the debate and further discussion is unnecessary.
Secondly I’m on Irish time, seven hours ahead of Alabama. It’s 11.30pm here and I’m off to my bed.
OK then, Entropic Man. Next time Little Willy uses the Sky Dragon Crank term I will assume you agree he has lost the debate…as happened here.
Good night, EM.
Please beware that it is past 23:30 for Graham too.
Since he is on a music beat, he can continue past 4:00.
But should he?
Another comment obviously designed to irritate and inflame.
Good night, Graham.
Try to sleep. Another day of trolling is awaiting you tomorrow.
…comment obviously designed to irritate and inflame.
Good night, Graham.
Sleep tight.
…obviously designed to irritate and inflame.
To repeat the same comment can be done to irritate.
Good night, Graham.
…designed to irritate and inflame.
Exactly, Graham.
Your repetition is –
…to irritate and inflame.
Graham should try to stop misrepresenting that Sky Dragon Cranks are those who deny the greenhouse effect.
But can he?
Little Willy loses the debate every time he uses the Sky Dragon Crank term, according to Entropic Man.
Graham should look up a dictionary before saying stuff:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crank
But can he?
Calling someone a crank is name-calling, Little Willy. Especially on a science blog.
To deny the greenhouse effect is to be a crank, Graham.
And you are stuck with Pup and Mike, who are more open about their abusive manners than you are.
Deal with it.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/crank_science
“crank science (usually uncountable, plural crank sciences)
(derogatory) Pseudoscience; activity which appears to be science-like but is not founded on proper scientific methods.”
In the setting of a science blog, calling a person a crank implies that person is associated with pseudoscience. It is most definitely an insult.
There is no implication there, Graham –
To deny the greenhouse effect *is* pseudoscience.
Roy argues that it makes contrarians look bad:
https://tinyurl.com/please-stop-being-cranks
He is right.
Sky Dragon Cranks peddle pseudoscience at best.
You mostly troll.
Silly goose.
Donkeybrain Willard,
“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” – Feynman.
You and your fellow SkyDragons don’t even have a theory, do you?
You can’t even describe the greenhouse effect, but how hard can it be?
Descriptions abound for unicorns and Valkyries! Do you believe in those as well?
Go away and work on your trolling. It needs improvement.
“To deny the greenhouse effect *is* pseudoscience”
Firstly, it is not denial. You guys have to believe in the GHE. Not believing in it requires precisely zero belief. Secondly, you are not in a position to judge what is science and what is pseudoscience. Thirdly, the issue is whether “crank” is an insult. It is, thus, according to Entropic Man’s logic, you lose the debate every time you use it. Which is a lot.
Which is not to say I agree with E Man’s logic, but there you go. It is what it is. He stormed in to chastise me, and ended up opening another can of worms for you guys. I expect he will disappear again.
Graham,
To claim that there is no greenhouse effect is the same speech act as to deny that here is a greenhouse effect.
Silly goose.
True, but the connotations with deny/denial and “being in denial” are obvious and have been discussed many times. You know exactly what you’re doing when you say “deny the Greenhouse Effect”.
“Silly goose” is also an insult, no matter how gentle it may be.
There is no *yes but* that holds, Graham.
You deny that there is a greenhouse effect.
That is denial.
That denial is not helping Roy.
Roy does not want Sky Dragon Cranks here.
Sorry.
You just lost the debate again, according to EM’s logic.
A logic you just said not believing, Graham.
Readers will notice, and judge accordingly.
Good night.
Willard,
You wrote –
“A logic you just said not believing, Graham.
Readers will notice, and judge accordingly.
Good night.”
Have you considered learning English, peabrain?
Maybe your words don’t mean what you think they do.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
The same thing you brayed about for more than a decade here?
I did not read it.
Repeat it. See what happens.
Cheers.
Swenson was just pointing out that you were apparently unable to form a coherent sentence, Little Willy. That often happens with you, though you would never admit to an error.
Willard,
You wrote
A logic you just said not believing, Graham.
Readers will notice, and judge accordingly.
Good night.
Have you considered learning English, peabrain?
Maybe your words dont mean what you think they do.
Mike Flynn,
Is there something you do not understand?
Yes, of course.
There is so much you do not understand.
Long live and prosper.
Willard,
You wrote
“A logic you just said not believing, Graham.
Readers will notice, and judge accordingly.
Good night.”
Have you considered learning English, peabrain?
Maybe your words don’t mean what you think they do.
Please, Mike.
Do continue spamming.
Willard,
You wrote –
A logic you just said not believing, Graham.
Readers will notice, and judge accordingly.
Good night.
Have you considered learning English, peabrain?
Maybe your words dont mean what you think they do.
Spam again, Mike.
I dare you.
…was just pointing out that you were apparently unable to form a coherent sentence, Little Willy. That often happens with you, though you would never admit to an error.
It is remarkable that so any words have been expended in reply to an author who has contributed so few to the scientific literature.
Fortunately, the Editors of Nature are standing by with remedial courses in scientific publication to remedy this deficit, and Monckton and his defenders would benefit by taking them before they trouble Roy further:
https://partnerships.nature.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Springer-Nature-Training-Solutions-brochure.pdf
Unfortunately Russell, publishing is no guarantee of science. Real science is based on reality. Right here on this blog, you see people wanting to pervert/deny reality.
After people learn to accept reality, then they need a solid foundation in radiative physics and thermodynamics.
Nature magazine would be unable to help with any of this.
Clint R,
Nature has a wonderful business model. They charge authors to have their stuff published, and then charge others to read the stuff that Nature didn’t consider valuable enough to publish without being paid to do so.
Nature has published computer generated nonsense in the past. So much for Nature’s editorial competence.
Nature has also had to retract hundreds of papers in the past (possibly just the tip of the iceberg?), and this is after supposed peer review, and further review by Nature’s “expert” editors.
SkyDragons, of course, used to bleat about “peer reviewed” publications being authoritative, which included such incredible nonsense as Schmidt’s CO2 Control Knob, and Michael Mann’s never-ending production of similarly nonsensical papers.
Of course, most of the SkyDragon donkeys are completely unable to provide any experimental support of any type for their fantasies, and are reduced to claiming that predetermined outputs from their amateur computer models are “experiments”!
Luckily, reality seems to be intruding on their fantasies.
Time will tell, I suppose.
russell…”the Editors of Nature are standing by with remedial courses in scientific publication to remedy this deficit…”
***
I regard Nature as being a representative of anti-science. They are part of the current propaganda process through which much of modern science is done. They are more into censorship than peer review.
Reminder:
https://tinyurl.com/please-stop-being-cranks
Which GHE are you referring to, worthless willard?
The GHE where CO2 can heat the surface? Or the GHE where the atmosphere is a leaky blanket, with CO2 cooling it?
Willard,
There is no greenhouse effect.
The Earth has demonstrably cooled since its creation. No greenhouse effect, obviously.
What is also obvious is that anybody who believes in a greenhouse that they cannot describe, let alone demonstrate, is in the grip of religious mania, or some lesser form of delusion.
People are free to believe in any non-existent concept they wish, of course.
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.”
I know you prefer fantasy and belief to fact, but others don’t.
“There is no greenhouse effect.
The Earth has demonstrably cooled since its creation. No greenhouse effect, obviously.”
Mike again feels the need to remind us that he has no clue what insulation does.
Again he seems to belive that an insulated thing can NEVER cool!
He must be baffled when his coffee in his insulated mug is cold at the end of the day!
Is he that dumb? Insane? Or just a troll? All three?
What say you readers?
Gentlemen,
You have not chosen the best timing to troll.
Graham is trying to enact the no insult rule by EM.
Please, do continue.
Willard,
Please stop trolling, until you can at least describe the mythical GHE better than I can describe a unicorn.
Go off and play with yourself, while you ponder the impossibility of the task.
Not at all, Little Willy. I don’t agree with Entropic Man, I think insults are par for the course in these blog discussions. However, I am going to continue to point out the glaring double standards that Entropic Man apparently applies.
Double standards, how terrible!
…however, I am going to continue to point out the glaring double standards that Entropic Man apparently applies.
The only double standard here is you trying to declare my Sky Dragon Cranks on par with you calling EM a c*nt, Graham.
No, that is not true.
The worse double standard is when you tell Mike and Pup to continue their trolling.
That is how you show that you are, forever and always, a silly goose.
Whacky Wee Willy,
And what form of mental affliction makes you think that any sane person values your opinions?
An insult is an insult, Little Willy. As usual, you want to defend one of your own by attacking me.
By Entropic Man’s logic, you lost the debate. However, he only showed up to apply his logic to me! A clear double standard. You get a pass, apparently. The fact that you are one of the worst trolls we have ever had seems to have passed him by.
> An insult is an insult.
Tell that to Gordo, Graham.
Silly goose.
Not-so-wily Wee Willy,
You aren’t having a lot of luck trying to foment discord, are you?
That’s because you are an incompetent and stupid troll, I suppose.
Why don’t you complain to Dr Spencer that he is not taking notice of you?
How are you going trying to describe the GHE? Too hard for you.
Too hard for the rest of the delusional SkyDragons too, dummy.
That’s why your trolling attempts are fizzling out. Maybe you could try delivering a few gratuitous insults, but even that is unlikely to generate more than a yawn, or a wry smile from your intended target.
So carry on, Wee Willy Wanker. I certainly support freedom of expression – you are free to make yourself look like an inept, impotent, incompetent dimwitted troll, anyway you wish, and as frequently as you like.
By the way, you do realise that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, don’t you? Make sure to include that fact in your SkyDragon GHE description.
Mike Flynn,
The answer to your question is right here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
You should know. You commented on that thread.
Cheers.
Willard,
Oh dear, another presumably irrelevant link, which you are too embarrassed to quote from, no doubt.
Maybe if you had the backbone to actually quote the question you believe you can answer, others might be able to conclude whether you are just another snivelling inept SkyDragon troll, or just a retarded nut-job!
But of course, backbone or intestinal fortitude are foreign concepts to your ilk, aren’t they?
Keep trying, Willard. One day, a fellow SkyDragon who is even less connected to reality than you (difficult to find, I know) might actually value your opinion.
Mike Flynn,
We are on the Internet.
The only evidence you can get will have to rely on the magic of linkies.
Try this one:
https://r.mtdv.me/greenhouse-effect
Cheers.
Willard,
Oh dear, another presumably irrelevant link, which you are too embarrassed to quote from, no doubt.
Maybe if you had the backbone to actually quote the question you believe you can answer, others might be able to conclude whether you are just another snivelling inept SkyDragon troll, or just a retarded nut-job!
But of course, backbone or intestinal fortitude are foreign concepts to your ilk, arent they?
Keep trying, Willard. One day, a fellow SkyDragon who is even less connected to reality than you (difficult to find, I know) might actually value your opinion.
Here is the link again, Mike:
https://r.mtdv.me/greenhouse-effect
You are welcome!
Willard,
Oh dear, another presumably irrelevant link, which you are too embarrassed to quote from, no doubt.
Maybe if you had the backbone to actually quote the question you believe you can answer, others might be able to conclude whether you are just another snivelling inept SkyDragon troll, or just a retarded nut-job!
But of course, backbone or intestinal fortitude are foreign concepts to your ilk, arent they?
Keep trying, Willard. One day, a fellow SkyDragon who is even less connected to reality than you (difficult to find, I know) might actually value your opinion.
Spam again, Mike.
Or click here:
https://r.mtdv.me/greenhouse-effect
I dare you.
Willard,
Oh dear, another presumably irrelevant link, which you are too embarrassed to quote from, no doubt.
Maybe if you had the backbone to actually quote the question you believe you can answer, others might be able to conclude whether you are just another snivelling inept SkyDragon troll, or just a retarded nut-job!
But of course, backbone or intestinal fortitude are foreign concepts to your ilk, arent they?
Keep trying, Willard. One day, a fellow SkyDragon who is even less connected to reality than you (difficult to find, I know) might actually value your opinion.
Dimwit.
Here, Mike:
https://r.mtdv.me/greenhouse-effect
Cheers.
Willard,
Oh dear, another presumably irrelevant link, which you are too embarrassed to quote from, no doubt.
Maybe if you had the backbone to actually quote the question you believe you can answer, others might be able to conclude whether you are just another snivelling inept SkyDragon troll, or just a retarded nut-job!
But of course, backbone or intestinal fortitude are foreign concepts to your ilk, arent they?
Keep trying, Willard. One day, a fellow SkyDragon who is even less connected to reality than you (difficult to find, I know) might actually value your opinion.
Dimwitted fool.
Here, Mike:
https://r.mtdv.me/greenhouse-effect
Cheers.
OK: Gordon, an insult is an insult.
Why, what do you expect him to say in response?
Willard,
Another gotcha?
What if he doesn’t deign to respond?
Your attempt at trolling will fall flat, won’t it.
Try for a bit of subtlety, peabrain.
Whoops, wrong place. My bad!
[laughs at own ineptitude]
No, Graham. I expect him to say what he said yesterday about your well chosen words.
You really are not very good at this.
It is a bit unfair, really.
What are you saying “no” in response to?
He said that Dr Spencer would not approve. I disagree, as I deliberately self-censored, using asterisks, so as not to upset anyone. The only person who frequently uses such language, without the censorship, is bob. But, bob is your hero. So I don’t expect anything but double standards from you when it comes to him.
Willard,
What you expect, or don’t expect, is quite irrelevant, isn’t it?
Who gives a crap about your expectations?
Or do you really believe you have awesome super-powers, and will inflict some horrible torment upon me?
[laughs at self-obsessed dimwit]
No, Graham. I was saying no to your silly claim that an insult is an insult.
And if you trace back what Gordo said yesterday, you will see that Gordo also disagrees.
So an insult is not an insult? What is it then?
You calling EM a c*nt is not the same thing as me calling you a silly goose, Graham.
Playing dumb like you do has only one function – to irritate and inflame.
Silly goose.
One is more extreme than the other, but so what? Your intention with “silly goose” is to irritate and inflame. My intention with calling Entropic Man a “Disappearing C*nt” was to get across to him the level of my disgust with his outrageous comment. Which, I’m pretty sure, he only left in order to irritate and inflame…and then disappear, as he so often does.
> but
Again with the Yes But, Graham?
One makes Gordo sad.
One is not extreme at all.
Please grow up.
…both are still insults, and thus, according to Entropic Man, both still lose you the debate…but he only chastised me. So it is a double standard, regardless. And, “Sky Dragon Crank” was the insult in question, not “silly goose”. And, it was opposed to “golem built out of human faeces and animated by the word of Satan” instead of “Disappearing C*nt”.
Get your facts straight, then grow up, you silly goose.
Graham, you silly goose.
EM mentioned profanity. Gordo alluded to profanity. So of course you will forget that bit to go for the ad nauseam again.
And you also forget the context. Responding to an argument with an insult is not the same as responding to an insult with an insult. Or a general commentary with your trademarked trolling.
And you also forget that there are many other ways than insults to break out of the pure dialectic mold. For instance you can play dumb, as you often do. Like you are doing right now.
Readers will judge your performance accordingly.
1) There is no profanity expressed if the comment is self-censored with asterisks.
2) In the earlier exchange between EM and I, I was responding to an insult with an insult. See: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1384589
3) What we are (or should be) discussing is the “Sky Dragon Crank” vs “Golem…” exchange, which contains no profanity. “Faeces” is not a swear-word. I was simply, again, responding to your insult with a (more creative and amusing) insult.
This discussion is simply about the double standards applied by Entropic Man, you silly goose. You are trying to make it all about me, again.
> There is no profanity expressed if the comment is self-censored with asterisks.
You silly ducking goose.
Good example. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Earlier, the eminently inept troll Willard wrote –
“Calling you by your original Climateball name makes me look clueless, Mike?
No, not really.”
Yes, really, considering that there is no “Climateball name” for anything or anyone, as “Climateball”, like “SkyDragon Cranks”, “modulz”, “skillz”, etc., are products of your diseased mental state.
Likewise, your bizarre obsession with creating fictional character, and claiming they you have exposed my “secret identity” – no, I’m not really Superman -, just makes you look more than slightly peculiar. For example, you have responded to me as Mike, Gordo, Warnie – amongst others. Odd.
So yes, Willard, you don’t just look clueless, you are clueless.
As are incompetent trolls in general.
Carry on trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Your Climateball name is the name you took when you started playing Climateball.
Here is you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/#comment-111800
Back in the days you were more original.
Cheers.
Earlier, the eminently inept troll Willard wrote
“Calling you by your original Climateball name makes me look clueless, Mike?
No, not really.”
Yes, really, considering that there is no “Climateball name” for anything or anyone, as “Climateball”, like “SkyDragon Cranks”, “modulz”, “skillz”, etc., are products of your diseased mental state.
Likewise, your bizarre obsession with creating fictional character, and claiming they you have exposed my “secret identity” no, Im not really Superman -, just makes you look more than slightly peculiar. For example, you have responded to me as Mike, Gordo, Warnie amongst others. Odd.
So yes, Willard, you dont just look clueless, you are clueless.
As are incompetent trolls in general.
Carry on trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You had another comment in that thread from 2014:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/#comment-111819
You were so proud of your Climateball name back in the days that you undersigned your comments with it.
What happened, Mike?
Willard,
You are a strange fixated SkyDragon, aren’t you?
What is a Climateball supposed to do? Does it give you super powers, or is it more for looking into – like a Crystal Ball?
Am I supposed to have a Crystal Ball secret name, as well?
While you’re thinking how to incorporate that into your fantasies, maybe you could describe the GHE – or go off and play with yourself, if you prefer.
Decisions, decisions!
Wanker.
Mike Flynn,
2014.
You were trolling this website in 2014.
Including in a thread where Roy suggested that Sky Dragon Cranks like you were not helping.
What is your excuse?
Cheers.
Willard,
You are a strange fixated SkyDragon, arent you?
What is a Climateball supposed to do? Does it give you super powers, or is it more for looking into like a Crystal Ball?
Am I supposed to have a Crystal Ball secret name, as well?
While youre thinking how to incorporate that into your fantasies, maybe you could describe the GHE or go off and play with yourself, if you prefer.
Decisions, decisions!
Wanker.
Willard,
Maybe you the play the “Roy banned somebody in the past” card, do you think?
It doesn’t seem to have worked before, but you could always try again, I suppose!
I dont know about Mike Flynn, but I certainly don’t need an excuse for any of my actions. I do as I wish.
I leave “excuses” and “justifications” to dimwitted fact-free trolls like you and your fellow SkyDragons. Keep whining, and keep trying to avoid the reality that you cannot even describe the mythical GHE. You really are a strange laddie, aren’t you?
Dodging, weaving, ducking – even your trolling is disjointed, confused, and generally inept.
Come on Willard, Im sure you can do better – accept just a teensy bit of reality.
Think.
Mike Flynn,
Since you insist:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
JDH is Pup, it goes without saying.
Have you ever considered the suggestion?
Im fact, have you ever read what Roy wrote?
Question, questions indeed.
Cheers.
Willard,
Maybe you the play the “Roy banned somebody in the past” card, do you think?
It doesnt seem to have worked before, but you could always try again, I suppose!
I dont know about Mike Flynn, but I certainly dont need an excuse for any of my actions. I do as I wish.
I leave “excuses” and “justifications” to dimwitted fact-free trolls like you and your fellow SkyDragons. Keep whining, and keep trying to avoid the reality that you cannot even describe the mythical GHE. You really are a strange laddie, arent you?
Dodging, weaving, ducking even your trolling is disjointed, confused, and generally inept.
Come on Willard, Im sure you can do better accept just a teensy bit of reality.
Telling me JDH is Pup is a symptom of your derangement – why should I care? Why should anybody else care?
You already said this, Mike.
My crystal ball tells me that you will soon spam again.
Cheers.
Willard,
Maybe you the play the Roy banned somebody in the past card, do you think?
It doesnt seem to have worked before, but you could always try again, I suppose!
I dont know about Mike Flynn, but I certainly dont need an excuse for any of my actions. I do as I wish.
I leave excuses and justifications to dimwitted fact-free trolls like you and your fellow SkyDragons. Keep whining, and keep trying to avoid the reality that you cannot even describe the mythical GHE. You really are a strange laddie, arent you?
Dodging, weaving, ducking even your trolling is disjointed, confused, and generally inept.
Come on Willard, Im sure you can do better accept just a teensy bit of reality.
Telling me JDH is Pup is a symptom of your derangement why should I care? Why should anybody else care?
I told you you were going to repeat yourself, Mike.
And you will repeat yourself again soon enough.
Cheers.
Willard,
Maybe you the play the Roy banned somebody in the past card, do you think?
It doesnt seem to have worked before, but you could always try again, I suppose!
I dont know about Mike Flynn, but I certainly dont need an excuse for any of my actions. I do as I wish.
I leave excuses and justifications to dimwitted fact-free trolls like you and your fellow SkyDragons. Keep whining, and keep trying to avoid the reality that you cannot even describe the mythical GHE. You really are a strange laddie, arent you?
Dodging, weaving, ducking even your trolling is disjointed, confused, and generally inept.
Come on Willard, Im sure you can do better accept just a teensy bit of reality.
Telling me JDH is Pup is a symptom of your derangement why should I care? Why should anybody else care?
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for making sure that my second prediction was accurate.
Here is another prediction –
Tonight you will repeat yourself again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Norman wrote –
“DREMT
I would not disagree with your statement but if you want to monitor a trend you would need to establish some average. Like height of people or birthrate. You determine some average then monitor the average for trends.”
Which begs a question for Norman – if the original surface temperature was 5700 K or so, and now it is 288 K or so, who gives a rodent’s rectum about the average?
Or the trend, for that matter.
It just goes to show that SkyDragons are afflicted with a common misconception shared by the not-terribly-bright, that the future can be predicted by careful and meticulous dissection of the past!
What a load of bollocks!
This is a compelling interview I just felt I should share but I’m not coming back to this thread to read responses –
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/we-are-in-unconscionable-levels-of-debt-alan-jones-and-malcolm-roberts-on-adh-tv/
Transcript (after a few minutes):
Alan Jones
We talked about 17 internationally respected climate scientists from six nations including Australia and covering many disciplines of climate science and climatology who have confirmed your conclusion that CSIRO, our leading research entity in this country, had never presented logical scientific points needed as the basis of policy in climate change.
Malcolm Roberts:
That is correct. And whats more, what we find is that the CSIRO in their first presentation to me, which lasted two and a half hours, as did the other two presentations, the first one, they admitted that they have never said to any government that there is danger from carbon dioxide from human activity. So I said, Who has said that danger? And they said, Well, youll have to go and ask the ministers whove been saying it. The second presentation, they admitted to me, Alan, under cross examination of their presentation that todays temperatures are not unprecedented. Yet the whole global warming, global climate live was based on the premise that weve got unprecedented temperatures. Complete rubbish. Complete rubbish. And now weve got trillions of dollars going to be blown and wasted and opportunity costs. Were going to have Australia decimated.
Look, Alan, when I was a boy, I was born in India for first seven years there. Then we moved to the Hunter Valley. I lived in the bush outside of a town called Kurri Kurri. I used to cycle to school and I went past the aluminium smelter at Alcan. That was built, as was the Tomago smelter, because they were attracted to Hunter Valley because of our clean, high quality, coal, which made cheap electricity. Australia had the worlds cheapest electricity. Weve now got amongst the worlds highest.
Alan Jones:
We certainly have.
Malcolm Roberts:
But the primacy of energy is really fundamental. You dont get human progress without ever decreasing energy prices. From 1850 to 1970, we had a relentless reduction in the unit cost of electricity, which dramatically rose productivity, which dramatically gave us our standard of living. We went from scratching in the dirt in famines in the course of 120 years to being free of all of that.
Thats human progress. In the last few decades, we have reversed that. And instead of having a decreasing price of electricity, weve had a doubling and a trebling of electricity prices. Now the significant thing of that is that not only does human progress get reversed, but manufacturing, these days, the largest cost component is not labour. The largest cost component has been electricity for quite some time in manufacturing. When we increase our electricity prices due to the highest subsidies of solar and wind in the world, we are double the next highest per capita. We are sending our manufacturing to China. China is manufacturing with our coal, wind turbines and solar panels, shipping them to here where we subsidise the Chinese to instal them. We subsidise the Chinese to run them. We are gutting our manufacturing. We have got farmers in North Queensland, Central Queensland, Southern Queensland, during the last drought, not planting fodder crops because the cost of electricity for pumping water was too high. And this is absurd. We are destroying our country. I call it the solar and wind, a kamikaze malinvestment. Kamikaze malinvestment. Thats what these things are. Parasitic.
Alan Jones:
Well, Ive called it a national economic suicide note. Weve run out of time, Malcolm, but I just want to commend you, this man called the Climate Change Bill. Talks in simple language, and Ill say it slowly. Malcolm Roberts, Senator. Malcolm Roberts, thats this bloke here, has said, and Ive said this too, but hes put it in different lingo. The Climate Change Bill is the biggest change to Australian lives, the Parliament of Australia has ever considered. Ive called it a national economic suicide note, and thats where were heading.
Malcolm, good to talk to you. Well keep talking to you. Well have you back. Thanks for your time tonight.
Malcolm Roberts:
Thank you, Alan. Thank you for what youre doing.
As CV pointed out way above, there is no 33°C increase in Earth’s temperature due to CO2. Belief in the 33°C is belief in the GHE nonsense.
The 33°C nonsense comes from comparing Earth’s average surface temperature with the surface temperature of an imaginary sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2. That imaginary surface would then have a temperature of 255K.
So 288K [real] – 255K [imaginary] = 33K [nonsense]
That ain’t science.
Christos has two variable for albedo, Pup.
You just said that was a no-no.
Please stop trolling.
The bogus “33K” is AFTER albedo, worthless willard.
You don’t understand any of this.
After albedo and something else, Pup.
Without that something else, Christos gets the same number as everybody else.
Please stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
In case you are interested in being accurate, I will mention that the earth is affected by a massive greenhouse effect that is dominated by water vapor (humidity). The question for science is to determine what contribution is made by CO2? That is the question, and it is an open question. The greenhouse effect is not in doubt — only the magnitude of the contribution from CO2, methane, and other human causes.
I’m very interested in being accurate, Tim S. So please give us your exact definition of the GHE.
Which GHE are you referring to?
The GHE where CO2 can heat the surface? Or the GHE where the atmosphere is a leaky blanket, with CO2 cooling it? Or, do you have some other version?
Please be accurate.
You reject them all, Pup.
Please stop playing Socrates.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
willard…”Elasticity is an emergent property:
The physical reasons for elastic behavior can be quite different for different materials. In metals, the atomic lattice changes size and shape when forces are applied (energy is added to the system). When forces are removed, the lattice goes back to the original lower energy state. For rubbers and other polymers, elasticity is caused by the stretching of polymer chains when forces are applied”.
***
I am wondering if you have always been stupid or whether you may have developed it recently, maybe due to a bump on the head?
Elastic behavior is a property of atomic structure. The bending, compression, or whatever, is due to the ability of electron bonds to stretch and/or compress. Everything on Earth, and likely the entire universe, is built like this, with electrons being involved in bonding atomic nucleii. An exception may be the plasma in stars, however, electrons play a big part in star plasma as well.
So, I explain that to you and you run off to wiki and find an article that agrees with me. Then you suggest I ‘think’. Think about what, how similar the explanation you found agrees with what I have already told you?
With regard to your particular atomic structure, you suggest you are not your atoms. That’s how stupid you are. You actually think you are an entity separate from them. You have built a persona over the years that is entirely superficial yet you seem to think it is running the show.
Enjoy your delusion, it’s all ‘you’ have. The rest of your atoms don’t care what the illusion thinks. They operate efficiently despite your delusion.
Come on, Gordo.
You said it yourself –
Atomic structure. Not atoms themselves.
Atoms are not elastic. Some atomic structures are. There is a difference,
Instead of clearing your throat once again, read the handout Bob gave you. It is a good one.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Christos has two variable for albedo, Pup.
You just said that was a no-no.”
Two variable? Did you mean two variables, too variable, or were you just talking SkyDragon?
Who really cares what you said about whom? Your mother, perhaps?
How are you going with trying to find a useful description of the GHE?
I see why you spend your worthless time attempting to be annoying – you’re too incompetent to have a chance at achieving anything else. Let me know if you actually manage to annoy anybody – I doubt your ability to do even that.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
I am referring to this:
One is the albedo.
The other corrects the albedo, so a second albedo.
Cheers.
Willard,
That is definitely SkyDragon language. Two is one, one is actually two. I suppose it makes sense to a dummy like you – a correction to a temperature is another temperature, so 10 corrections means 11 different temperatures – that will definitely confuse anyone!
So which albedo do you prefer out of the two or more you don’t understand?
Which one was responsible for the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years or so?
If that’s too hard, remind Dr Spencer how he should be running his blog. Do you think he needs your advice?
He might think he is better off listening to the sounds of silence, rather than your retarded ramblings. You hang in there, Wee Willy – you never know, somebody might ask for your advice.
Only joking.
Mike Flynn,
One variable is albedo. Albedo is a corrector. The other variable corrects albedo. It is an albedo corrector. That makes two variables that plays the role of albedo.
There is no need for that second corrector. It is already included into the albedo. Search for Bond Albedo is you ever get tired of trolling.
So I agree with you –
Christos indeed uses Sky Dragon Crank logic.
Long live and prosper.
Willard,
You really havent a clue, have you?
Your nonsense about “correcting” is about as silly as SkyDragons “correcting” measured temperatures. to make them something else!
Albedo corrects nothing, any more than temperature does – it is a measurement.
All about as stupid as claiming that climate, which is the average of historical weather, controls future weather!
Maybe you dont like the statement “There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature.” Boo hoo, bad luck for you.
So why do you think albedo was responsible for the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years? Nothing to do with it? What about the GHE?
Idiot.
Mike Flynn,
You really have no idea what you are talking about, right?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMT
On this nominally scientific website Tyson, Norman and I attempt to use logical arguments, logos, to support the consensus scientific case.
Swenson and yourself do not use logos to argue the strength of the contrarian scientific case. Instead you use ethos to discredit your opponent’s character and pathos to manipulate the emotions of the audience.
Your use of insult against me is an example of ethos, attempting to discredit my scientific arguments by discrediting me.
Willard has the right idea. You use ethos and pathos against him and he bounces them right back at you.
This is why public debate between the consensus and the contrarian is so unproductive. The consensus scientists come prepared to debate the science while the contrarians come prepared to manipulate the audience.
Ent, that’s a hoot! You use “logic” to distort reality. Your cult does the same thing. You’ve got passenger jets flying backwards, and Norman has ice cubes boiling water!
It’s good to start the day with a good laugh. Thanks!
Here are two recent examples of Entropic Man’s “logos” comments:
“I can sympathise with Dr Spencer.
He runs a lukewarm website with the overall message that the science is about right but the projections of future warming and future damage have been overstated.
Yet anyone reading the comment threads encounters the “anything but CO2” brigade and their strange ideas.
Lurkers leave with the impression that climate change sceptics are weird , rather than that there might be a serious alternative to the consensus CO2 AGW paradigm.
It seems a shame to spoil the fun, but perhaps Dr Spencer’s best strategy would be to close the comments sections completely to stop them discrediting his own message.”
and
““Its like an alarmist echo chamber.”
And without we “alarmists” it would be a “deniers” echo chamber with you all swapping your scientifically invalid beliefs.
We keep you honest and stop you drifting off into a shared fantasy.”
☺️
Graham, you silly goose.
Yesterday you kinda forgot that Gordo and EM were zeroing on your profanity.
Do you really want to spend a day forgetting about the EM was referring to his comments that contained scientific arguments?
I will once again make sure readers take notice of your silly little tricks.
The funny things are that:
1) I am one of the least regularly insulting commenters here.
2) I insulted Entropic Man only in response to his comment:
““Its like an alarmist echo chamber.”
And without we “alarmists” it would be a “deniers” echo chamber with you all swapping your scientifically invalid beliefs.
We keep you honest and stop you drifting off into a shared fantasy.”
Which I personally found insulting, and which contained no scientific content. EM insulted me, I insulted him back. Where are all these examples of me responding to EM’s scientific comments with insults!? They don’t exist.
There is nothing ironic there, Graham –
When you tilt, you tilt so hard that readers can see all rather bottled rage contained in your passive aggressions.
And we both know that you did not tilt because EM said *alarmist echo chambers*. He did not say it. He quoted it. What he said was that without Team Science this website would turn into a contrarian echo chamber.
Which is obviously true. Take a look at the MF and Dug clown show.
So you titled because EM is right, and because your claim that Roy is closer to Sky Dragon Cranks than Team Science is pure crap.
You silly goose.
"When you tilt, you tilt so hard that readers can see all rather bottled rage contained in your passive aggressions."
…in their fevered imaginations.
"And we both know that you did not tilt because EM said *alarmist echo chambers*."
I didn’t "tilt", but obviously the problem is not "alarmist echo chambers", no. I was the one who said that, after all. He was responding to me, with an insulting comment.
"What he said was that without Team Science this website would turn into a contrarian echo chamber. Which is obviously true. Take a look at the MF and Dug clown show."
That’s not the part of the comment that I took offense to, Little Willy. The insults are:
1) "your scientifically invalid beliefs".
2) "We keep you honest [implying we’re dishonest] and stop you drifting off into a shared fantasy".
Quote fests are no Logo, silly goose.
The belief that there is no greenhouse effect is indeed invalid, Graham.
Suck it up.
"The belief that there is no greenhouse effect is indeed invalid, Graham."
In your opinion. As far as I’m concerned, to think that there is no GHE requires no belief, to think that there is one requires belief.
But, we’re in danger of veering off-topic again.
Not in my opinion, Graham.
In the opinion of the scientific community in general.
An opinion that is supported by Roy:
https://tinyurl.com/please-stop-being-cranks
You are trying to minimize what is basically a factual claim. That is no Logos, silly logoose.
Some go as far as to say the GHE can be directly observed. Obviously, this is false. Even with, for example, Feldman et al, you cannot say that the so-called "radiative forcing" is what has led to any warming, if observed.
See, Graham? That is a straw man. A straw girl, more precisely.
It is also a red herring, for I was speaking of the scientific community. Pure bait. Non Logos.
Since we both know for a fact that Sky Dragon Cranks are at the fringe of what can be called science, you have little else than to throw these baits. Do you think I would fall for your incorrect claim? Silly goose.
Not a straw man. Here is an example of somebody saying that the GHE is observable:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365248
I said incorrect, Graham, for of course one can observe the greenhouse effect in some way, e.g.:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28709137/
You also misunderstand what Nate is saying, but it’s mostly irrelevant. As I already told you, your baits won’t succeed in distracting me from hammering a factual point you can only ignore at your own peril –
Those who deny the greenhouse effect are at the fringe of what can be called science. Sky Dragon Cranks are outcasts from the scientific community.
Sorry.
"I said incorrect, Graham"
You actually didn’t say "incorrect", you said it was a straw man. It wasn’t a straw man. You were wrong…and no, it is not possible to observe the Greenhouse Effect.
"You also misunderstand what Nate is saying, but it’s mostly irrelevant."
No, I misunderstood nothing.
"Those who deny the greenhouse effect are at the fringe of what can be called science. Sky Dragon Cranks are outcasts from the scientific community."
They tend to be seen that way. Wrongly. People like you help to perpetuate it. Deliberately.
"Do you think I would fall for your incorrect claim"
Oh, I take it back. You did say "incorrect", as well as saying it was a straw man…and a red herring. Wow. Well, zero out of three ain’t bad. Oh wait…it kind of is.
Graham, you silly goose.
Your incorrect claim is a strawman that is a red herring, So yeah – you fail Logos in many ways in so few words it is indeed noteworthy.
Nevertheless, I am glad that you finally agree that your Sky Dragon Cranks ideas are invalid.
It’s not a straw man, because I provided an example of somebody actually arguing it. Note that I only said, “some go as far as to say the GHE can be directly observed”. I didn’t say that’s what you were saying, though you did go on to confirm you agree with that claim. So no, it’s not a straw man. It’s not a red herring, as I was pursuing the line of argument from my preceding comment. And finally, it’s not incorrect. You cannot directly observe the Greenhouse Effect. If you could, nobody on the planet would be arguing that there isn’t one. You can observe some things that are necessary for there to be a GHE, but you cannot observe all the things sufficient for there to be a GHE.
“You cannot directly observe the Greenhouse Effect. If you could, nobody on the planet would be arguing that there isnt one. ”
Tee hee hee. We can directly observe the Earth is spherical, so nobody on the planet should be arguing that the Earth is Flat.
And yet many of your kindred spirits do just that!
EM,
There is no “contrarian scientific case”, you fool.
Science is about the scientific method, not arguments or logic. Facts, not fantasy.
Public debate is worthless. “Consensus science” is nonsense.
As 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.”
Science may be considered to be the study of the universe through observation – and experiment.
The GHE, heat creep, the gravitothermal effect, phlogiston, caloric, etc., are all unverifiable speculations. Accept reality – or not. Argue all you like, agree with whom you wish – not a single physical fact will change.
Swenson
EM,
There is no contrarian scientific case, you fool.
Yes, I know. That is why you fail so spectacularly in the scientific debate and have to resort to ethos and pathos.
Why, in your last comment you used ethos rather than logos. You called me a fool rather than debating the science.
EM,
Logos? Ethos? Pathos?
Try some science, if you feel like a change. There is no “scientific debate” about something you cannot even describe, let alone observe, measure, document, and formulate a testable hypothesis to explain.
Go on, describe where this mythical GHE may be observed, then attempt to follow the rest of the scientific method. Dimwits like you think that physical facts are determined by debate and consensus.
They are not.
Even Einstein refused to accept aspects of quantum physics. On one famous occasion, Einstein said “God does not play at dice”, to which Bohr responded “Einstein, don’t tell God what to do!”.
Richard Feynman said “Quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment.”
You may debate as much as you wish, and wave your logos, ethos, and pathos around until your arms get too tired to hold your “Stop Climate Change!” placard. It won’t make any difference, no matter how many SkyDragon cult members agree with your fantasy.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so, and anything capable of altering the physical laws involved, was conspicuous by its absence.
No GHE, no gravitothermal effect, no heat creep, no faint young sun – all fantasy and delusion, until experiment shows differently.
Rejecting reality is foolish – it can kill you. Keep being a fool if it brings you solace. Don’t blame me if your foolishness results in sorrow.
Science belongs to Logos, Mike.
Bob asked you a question the other day about the beginnings of times.
You did not respond.
When will you?
Cheers.
Willard,
Science is science. Observation and experiment.
You can have as many logos as you want, a GHE fantasy full, if you want.
Won’t change a single fact,
Boo hoo.
Facts are not science, Mike.
Science is how we get to know facts of the matter.
Your special talent is to access facts that do not matter directly.
And you convey them about it without any real means to discuss them rationally.
So technically speaking, you are the most pathetic Sky Dragon Cranks of them all.
Cheers!
That is all completely false, Entropic Man, but you are entitled to your opinion.
EM at 4:53 AM
Hear! Hear!
I would add that all contrarian arguments fall apart because they are no match for the extreme interconnectedness of physical reality. When they argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, they are arguing against the whole body of molecular quantum mechanics and all confirming experiments and measurements.
Another failure of the contrarian argument is the confusion between uncertainty about the predictions of the global warming and climate change theory and uncertainty about the theory itself.
Lastly, Dr Spencers challenge remains unmet. Where are the data, the models, the projections, in support of the “contrarian” theory?. Crickets!
Also related: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5295/ac6f74/pdf
“A perspective on climate change from Earth’s energy imbalance” by Trenberth and Cheng, July 2022.
“When they argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, they are arguing against the whole body of molecular quantum mechanics and all confirming experiments and measurements.”
…and yet, the argument is not that CO2 isn’t a radiatively active gas. So you have immediately attacked a straw man.
“and yet, the argument is not that CO2 isnt a radiatively active gas. ”
Agreed. Perhaps you can persuade, Gordon, Clint and Swensont that CO2 is a GHG.
They would all agree that CO2 is a radiatively active gas. None of the arguments against the GHE involve CO2 being anything other than a radiatively active gas.
EM,
Please beware Graham’s tricK
> the argument
Sky Dragon Cranks argue for lots of different things. Most of them are in fact contradictory. (Witness Mike and Dug’s slug fest.) There is no Ze argument.
Ze argument, as always, is Graham’s flavor of the month.
Well, find an argument by someone who doesn’t agree that there’s a GHE where they state that CO2 isn’t a radiatively active gas.
Pay me and I will, Graham.
You already know my communication objectives.
Good night.
Can’t support it, then. Got it.
Willard
Roger.
There was no trick, Entropic Man.
There is no such thing as Ze argument, Graham.
More so when we are talking about Sky Dragon Cranks.
Maybe not, but none of the arguments against the GHE involve CO2 being anything other than a radiatively active gas. I intended no trick.
Responding to TM’s link:
“…increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere that reduce the outgoing infrared radiation from the planet escaping to space. This creates an energy imbalance at the to-of-atmosphere (TOA) called Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI). It creates heating of the planet”
Here, they are assuming more energy automatically means higher temperature. Obviously they don’t understand radiative physics or thermodynamics. Their confusion is easily debunked with the simple analogy of “bricks-in-a-box”. By adding more bricks that are at the same temperature as the bricks in the box, more energy is being added, but the temperature does not increase.
“It is not (yet) possible to measure EEI directly…”
Exactly! And, radiative flux does NOT “balance” anyway. They’re not even “estimating” the correct metrics. The “EEI” is nonsense, called “climate science”.
Incorrect, Tyson.
You presume that Graham and Pup have arguments.
They do not have any.
Please stop misrepresenting their position.
Thanks.
Dear Entropic Man,
I wrote a “logos” response to Tyson, but have received nothing back from him. Instead, I have just received a response from Willard that appears to be nothing but a content-free insult. How can I respond without being falsely accused of the things you like to falsely accuse me of?
Please advise.
With Kind Regards,
DREMT.
DREMT
Patience. I’m just back from work myself. Tyson may be at work, asleep or attending to other aspects of his life. I imagine he’ll get back to you later.
Willard is still playing rhetoric games. Any insults are best ignored. Don’t get sucked into another round of reciprocal ethos
Entropic man at 10:29 AM
I don’t “go to work” since I’m happily retired. I do have other demands on my time, such as my new ZEBCO reel. But I digress.
Further to my earlier comment:
The GHE exists because our atmosphere is mostly transparent to visible light but absorbs (and emits) IR radiation.
GHGs warm the lower atmosphere because the collisional de-excitation time for GHG molecules in Earth’s lower atmosphere is much shorter than the radiation lifetime of excited molecular states.
When a GHG molecule absorbs a quantum of IR energy, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an excited state.
At low gas densities in the upper atmosphere, an excited GHG molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate a quantum of IR energy, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.
At the higher densities of Earth’s lower atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized GHG molecule loses its excitation energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.
“Contrarians” on this site simply argue that
[there is no GHE],
or [no GHE],
or [no 33K],
or [the warming we call greenhouse warming is actually due to air being heated at the surface via conduction, then convected naturally in a vertical direction],
or [the molecular interactions between molecules in the atmosphere is unknown].
or [When people talk about a photon being intercepted by a CO2 molecule, they are grasping at straws].
You get the picture.
Thus they are arguing against the whole body of molecular quantum mechanics and all the confirming experiments and measurements.
I note that Tyson was unable to find an example of anybody who does not believe in the GHE arguing that CO2 is not a radiatively active gas. I will quote the following comment, in response to Tyson’s remarks on the GHE:
"Another way to put the issue.
The CO2 hysteria is founded on a false picture of heat flows within the climate system. There are 3 ways that heat (Infra-Red or IR radiation) passes from the surface to space.
1) A small amount of the radiation leaves directly, because all gases in our air are transparent to IR of 10-14 microns (sometimes called the “atmospheric window”). This pathway moves at the speed of light, so no delay of cooling occurs.
2) Some radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by IR active gases up to the tropopause. Calculations of the free mean path for CO2 show that energy passes from surface to tropopause in less than 5 milliseconds. This is almost speed of light, so delay is negligible.
3) The bulk gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are warmed by conduction and convection from the surface. They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun. Latent heat from water is also added to the bulk gases. O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space.
In a parcel of air each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, mostly O2 and N2. In the lower atmosphere, the air is dense and CO2 molecules energized by IR lose it to surrounding gases, slightly warming the entire parcel. Higher in the atmosphere, the air is thinner, and CO2 molecules can emit IR and lose energy relative to surrounding gases, who replace the energy lost.
This third pathway has a significant delay of cooling, and is the reason for our mild surface temperature, averaging about 15C. Yes, earth’s atmosphere produces a buildup of heat at the surface. The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface, while CO2 provides radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere."
Note that the above argument against the GHE does not have any requirement to dismiss "the whole body of molecular quantum mechanics and all the confirming experiments and measurements".
DREMPTY,
If you believe there is no greenhouse effect, then why are you posting arguments that the greenhouse effect is small?
A 1% change in temperature will be bad if we get there, a 2% change is likely a major extinction event, possible even for humans.
It is not an argument that the GHE is small. It is an argument that the GHE is negligible. No noticeable effect from changing CO2 concentration. It is suggesting that the N2 and O2 are the planetary insulators, not CO2.
Well DREMPTY,
The difference between negligible and small is similar to the difference between tw*t and c*nt.
Anyway the bolded part in part three is incorrect, O2 and N2 rapidly, not slowly, exchange energy with other atoms and molecules in the atmosphere.
They also pass the energy back to the IR active gases in the lower atmosphere, which radiate half of that energy back to the surface, and that constitutes the majority of the greenhouse effect.
Don’t be shy, bob, you’re usually the one to use those sort of words without the asterisks, since you’re by far the worst commenter for writing profanity on this blog.
“Anyway the bolded part in part three is incorrect, O2 and N2 rapidly, not slowly, exchange energy with other atoms and molecules in the atmosphere”
The vast majority of which are other O2 and N2 molecules. Thus, collectively, the O2 and N2 molecules do “hold on to the heat” most effectively, and the third pathway provided by far the longest “delay in cooling”. The O2 and N2 are the planetary insulators, not CO2.
“They also pass the energy back to the IR active gases in the lower atmosphere, which radiate half of that energy back to the surface, and that constitutes the majority of the greenhouse effect.”
You are assuming here that the warmer surface can absorb energy from the cooler CO2 molecules, and be warmed by it.
DREMPTY,
I am not assuming anything.
The surface of the Earth is nearly a blackbody, 95% of the radiation striking the surface is caught.
You are tripping over the Second Law of Thermodynamics again.
If you say so, bob.
That’s what you always say when you lose.
That’s what you always say when you try to pretend you’ve won.
I don’t need to get bogged down in the whole 2LoT argument yet again. It’s besides the point I was making. The point I was making was, you can question the GHE without "arguing against the whole body of molecular quantum mechanics and all the confirming experiments and measurements."
Right on, Bob.
Graham indeed claims that the greenhouse effect does not exist by arguing that its net effect is small.
In a way, it is the same as to try to derive c*nt from t*at.
There would be a negligible insulative effect from the second pathway. However, this may be nullified completely by other atmospheric processes. The overall effect of adding more GHGs to the atmosphere may even be negative. I do not claim to have all the answers…and I have the capacity to change my mind.
Pure contradiction is no logos, Graham.
You are conflating dialectic with tone trolling.
Silly goose.
Pointing out that somebody is attacking a straw man is not "pure contradiction".
Arguing by assertion is no Logos, Graham.
And I already refuted that point: Roy was castigating *any* and *every* form of greenhouse effect denial unless and until a numerical model that replicates the actual time series is produced.
The ad nauseam is no Logos either.
And we both know that you are shadowboxing because you keep hiding the reasons why *you* deny the greenhouse effect. You prefer to troll instead. Almost 74 months now.
Trolling like you do is no Logos either.
You silly goose.
So I’m no longer allowed to point out when an argument is a straw man.
"Willard is still playing rhetoric games"
You can say that again.
No, Graham. You are not allowed to argue by assertion over an point refuted a thousand times already, at least if you want to play the Logos game. There are many versions of them. None of them tolerate the ad nauseam.
You are more than welcome to state the reasons why *you* deny the greenhouse effect, however. After more than 74 months of trolling, I would even venture to say that it is more than welcome.
I am allowed to say that you are a silly goose for two reasons. First, I am not the one trying to manipulate EM right now. Second, you are more than deserving.
See? Logos!
You really should focus on stating the reasons why you deny the greenhouse effect than to continue playing the ref.
I have put my arguments against the GHE on here many, many times. Please stop pretending otherwise.
I’m not "arguing by assertion over a point refuted an thousand times already", I was pointing out that what Tyson said was a straw man. Which I guess you have to accept, unless you can find an example of somebody who thinks there’s no GHE saying that CO2 isn’t a radiatively active gas?
Even if you could find such a person, somewhere in the deepest, darkest, corners of the internet, they would most certainly be an outlier.
No, Graham. I am not sure you ever did put forward *your* own arguments.
As far as I can recall, you were only peddling someone else without ever really endorsing them.
And you are still arguing by assertion.
The best proof of it is that now you are trying to reverse the burden of proof.
I am not the one who makes a negative claim, silly goose. You are. Go on, live by Logos. Try to support it.
The positive claim, which is on you, Tyson or Entropic Man to support, is that there are people who don’t believe in the GHE who have argued that CO2 is not a radiatively active gas.
The positive claim is that Roy castigated Sky Dragon Cranks from this website circa 2013:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
That includes you, Graham, Sky Dragon Cranks deny the greenhouse effect.
Your only way out is to provide a numerical model that can make any sense. And if you want to make it *your* argument, you’d have to endorse it and live with the consequences of watching it being destroyed.
You won’t do any of that because you’re only here for the lulz.
No, Little Willy. That’s an attempted subject change. The positive claim was made by Tyson McGuffin at 7:37 AM when he said, "…when they argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas…"
He, you and/or Entropic Man need to find an example of somebody who thinks there is no GHE claiming that CO2 is not a radiatively active gas (which is all that is meant by "greenhouse gas" in this context).
Wrong, Graham.
Tyson said When they argue.
Not they argue simpliciter.
That sometimes Sky Dragon Cranks don’t argue the way you would like does not prevent them from arguing so.
Silly goose.
…and saying "when they argue", of course implies that they have already argued this, and even that they continue to do so.
Indeed, Graham. And when Tyson says “Hear, Hear!” he is plussing the point EM made:
> The consensus scientists come prepared to debate the science while the contrarians come prepared to manipulate the audience.
One way you do that is by crying “strawman!” over and over again without ever supporting your point.
I already anticipate that you will distort “consensus scientists.”
"Indeed, Graham"
Good. Then you agree that Tyson made the positive claim, which either you, Tyson, or Entropic Man need to support.
No, Graham. I am agreeing with your claim that the Sky Dragon Cranks who argued the way Tyson presents that they do will continue to do so, perhaps until the end of times.
Cranks tend not to change their minds very often.
You simply tried to misrepresent what my “sometimes” meant. Which is silly. But then we know you won’t change your silly ways any time soon. You are after all our silly goose.
So, to recap, you are still trying to exploit the fact that Sky Dragon Cranks all deny the greenhouse effect in their own way. I already told you so. Yet you persist.
All this to sidestep the fact that Sky Dragon Cranks have all been castigated from this website until they come up with a numerical model that would make sense. And also to sidestep the fact that you are still hiding your own reasons why you deny the greenhouse effect.
Do continue. I’ll return after your bedtime.
Good night.
"No, Graham. I am agreeing with your claim that the Sky Dragon Cranks who argued the way Tyson presents that they do will continue to do so, perhaps until the end of times."
No, Little Willy, you just need to find an example of somebody arguing what Tyson claims that people who do not believe in the GHE argue.
"Cranks tend not to change their minds very often."
I’ve never seen you change your mind. Does that mean you’re a crank?
"You simply tried to misrepresent what my “sometimes” meant. Which is silly. But then we know you won’t change your silly ways any time soon. You are after all our silly goose."
Yeah, no idea what you’re talking about, and I doubt anyone reading does, either.
"So, to recap, you are still trying to exploit the fact that Sky Dragon Cranks all deny the greenhouse effect in their own way. I already told you so. Yet you persist."
Am I? I thought I was just trying to get you to support Tyson’s claim.
"All this to sidestep the fact that Sky Dragon Cranks have all been castigated from this website until they come up with a numerical model that would make sense. And also to sidestep the fact that you are still hiding your own reasons why you deny the greenhouse effect."
Still wanting to change the subject, I see.
"Do continue. I’ll return after your bedtime.
Good night."
OK, Little Willy.
I did change my mind, silly goose. I do not call you Kiddo. I revised my policy of never to speak to you again because you were a filthy Machiavellian. And now I will try to respond to you when you are asleep.
When Sky Dragon Cranks argue P can be a mere example of what they argue for, sometimes. They can argue for Q, R, S, etc. It does not matter what they argue exactly – what matters is that they all deny the greenhouse effect.
This is the hallmark of being a Sky Dragon Crank.
Those who argue for P tend to stick with it. You, in contrast, will just pull any argument you might find for the moment and throw it around as red meat. It does not matter what you argue for one month or the next. All that matters is that you bait.
This is the hallmark of a troll.
You simply cannot meet the challenge EM offered you because you have no real argument.
Silly goose.
“When Sky Dragon Cranks argue P can be a mere example of what they argue for, sometimes”
Yet nobody can find an example of somebody who does not believe in the GHE arguing what Tyson claimed they did. That’s because Tyson was attacking a straw man. I successfully called him on it…
…and that’s all that needs to be said.
> Yet nobody can find an example of somebody who does not believe in the GHE arguing what Tyson claimed they did.
So, Graham.
Willing to take that one back?
Good morning.
You were wrong, again, Little Willy.
“Lord Christopher Monckton is a talented mathematician.
Moncktons feedback arguments supporting a very low climate sensitivity cannot be supported.
This doesnt mean his conclusion is wrong, only the line of reasoning that led him to that conclusion.”
–
I would like to do a comment/critique on parts of your argument, and Christopher’s.
–
“Couched in the language of feedback analysis.
Derived from initial assumptions regarding those feedbacks.
Lord Monckton’s latest explanation of his climate feedback theory skirt around actual physical processes.”
It is convoluted, but if he is describing actual feedback loops to actual physical processes, one has to the ones he is using.
–
“I will try to explain, based upon actual atmospheric processes, why his argument does not make physical sense.”
OK.
–
“Christophers latest installment explaining his logic begins (emphasis added),
climate sensitivity to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings feedback processes as subsist in the climate system at any given moment must, necessarily respond equally to each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature.
Feedbacks respond to the base signal, the emission temperature that would prevail even if there were no greenhouse gases in the air, because the Sun is shining.”.
The problem here, for Christopher is that each Kelvin of the entire reference temperature cannot cause an equal feedback process as the amount of energy involved is minute per Kelvin at lower temperatures and extreme in comparison to a Kelvin change around 288 K.
Still that is his problem and mathematically treatable.
–
“I cannot emphasize enough just how wrong the underlined assertion is”.
For the following reasons??
“The idea that the climate systems response to a small perturbation from its current state might be discerned from its response to the presence of solar heating assuming a theoretical initial cold Earth is not new. It is wrong as more clouds on one region can actually cause fewer clouds elsewhere. further warming of the climate system wont be mitigated by an increase in clouds, as Moncktons analysis implies from the evidence presented.”
–
So do clouds never change, or do they change in amount with the temperature?
The argument that it is at a “steady state” with respect to amount of cloud present ignores the effect of changing temperature.
–
“Yes, Clouds Cool the Climate System
It has long been known that clouds, on average, cool the climate system.”
Sounds like feedback.
” Sunlight heats the surface of the Earth, which combined with the atmospheric destabilization from the greenhouse effect, leads to convective heat transport away from the surface.”
–
Convection is meaningless “”as more clouds on one region can actually cause fewer clouds elsewhere.”
This means that with a stable global temperature Convection is utterly unimportant.
When someone sells a share someone buys a share.
“Due to the presence of water, clouds form, reflecting sunlight back to outer space.While those clouds also enhance the water vapor-dominated greenhouse effect, the solar reflection (albedo) effect dominates, leading to the observation that clouds, on average, cool the climate system.”
–
Clouds are due to the temperature, not a cause of the temperature
and remember more clouds on one region can actually cause fewer clouds elsewhere.
“So, it might seem logical to assume that any additional source of heating (positive energy imbalance) would lead to even more clouds, and thus a negative cloud feedback.”
–
Ignores the fact that it has to get hotter first and then the negative can kick in but as Lucia once pointed out response negative feedbacks can never outweigh the initial first positive feedback.
” As far as I can tell, this is the physical underpinning of Moncktons argument.”
–
Hard to tell.
I read it more as saying that the elephant in the room is the massive amount of energy already in the system not from the sun.
Because it is so massive and ongoing the small amount of solar radiative change cannot act as an important forcing?
while it seems important in the context of a zero Kelvin world in a 288K world it disappears.
” Of course, clouds might not be the only element of his argument,”
– I do not think his argument is about clouds per se so” clouds are arguably the most prominent example.” is a misinterpretation of what he is saying?
“The trouble is that when clouds form, most of them are embedded in ascending air currents. All of that ascending air must be exactly matched by an equal amount of descending air, which is almost always cloud-free.Thus, one cannot create more clouds without creating more clear air.” *
–
*You are right only when there is no temperature change. Feedback must occur with temperature changes hence making more or less clouds [or we would have none in the first place]
“” When you experience a cloud-free day, its because ascending cloudy air with precipitation, hundreds of miles away, is forcing the air over you to sink. This is why cloud feedbacks are so uncertain, and why we cannot use the average base-state response of the climate system to the presence of sunlight to estimate climate sensitivity.”
–
Only with constant temperature
“Another way to express this is that the climate systems response to solar heating is non-linear.”
–
Because of the SB law
“Initial warming from a base state of a cold, dark Earth to a solar heated one is to create clouds (a cooling effect), but the resulting vertical air circulations means you cannot created an ever more cloud-covered Earth with ever more heating. Descending air currents in response to rising air currents will not allow it.”
The earth was never warmed from a cold and dark state.
It’s formation and ongoing pressure, collapse and radioactivity is the generator for 99.99..% of the energy contained in it
The sun heats a very important to us but barely visible atmosphere and surface which would trundle along producing say 100 Kelvin on the surface for the next billion years without a sun.
“Even Climate Models Tell Us This is the Case
modern 3D climate models deal with the equations of motion, conservation of mass, energy, moist processes, and the atmospheric equation of state. those physical processes especially cloud micro physical processes are not sufficiently well known to allow useful predictions of future average climate states.”
–
Otherwise known as good stuff in good stuff out. But Climate models cannot tell us anything we did not know when the program was made.
Right or wrong it will only ever iterate what was programmed into it.
“If you start-up a computerized climate model from an initial cold state (pick any cold temperature you want, say 50 Kelvin), with no clouds,”
Yes?
A wrong assumption. The planet, as Christopher says, was already full of energy even though not at 50 K.
So we are already and always wrong in the basic assumption of a cold earth that only warmed up because of trapped heat forever warming the planet. There is a large difference between the amount of heat needed to warm a planet up to 288 and to warm the surface only up to 288 K
” the modeled system will warm, clouds will form, and the system will eventually reach a state of quasi-equilibrium, with the global area-average rate of absorbed solar energy equaling the average rate of infrared cooling to outer space. These results are consistent with the statement that clouds cool the climate system.
But the earth is a generator of energy just like the sun and the equilibrium cannot exist [energy out always > than energy in].
In such a setting any extra increase from the sun is matched by its outflow which is occurring from a base of 288 K not 100 K or 0K.
–
If a small energy perturbation is then added (e.g. from more CO2 in the atmosphere reducing the rate of IR cooling, or from increasing the intensity of sunlight), clouds in the model will often respond by being reduced, not increased, in response to the small CO2-induced warming. Years ago we did this experiment with a limited-domain version of the ARPS cloud-resolving model.”
–
Again this is not consistent with the comment that changes in clouds balance out.
Further any increase in heating is a positive effect to which the negative [smaller feedback must be applied.
–
” Global climate models would do the same thing.”
– They cannot.
Simply put if the climate models work an increase in energy must always give an increase in temperature.
Any model that claims to do the opposite has to have a manufactured artificial dice throw model that gives an unreal and impossible counter effect.
–
“The cloud response to the perturbation is not prescribed by the modelers as a cloud feedback. It is the result of the physics (and cloud micro physics) in the model.”
– Again and again saying something that is wrong does not make it right
It is a feedback.
It is prescribed by how the algorithm uses the data
More energy must make higher temperatures .
They can never generate more cooling than the positive input heating in the first place.
“Climate model feedbacks are not prescribed; they are diagnosed after the model is run from model output.”
“And the warmer the weather gets the more it snows”
Im not claiming cloud feedbacks are negative or positive.
–
They are both.
–
“you cannot use the observation that clouds cool the climate system as a basis for determining cloud feedbacks in response to adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. And, as far as I can tell, this is the physical assumption Monckton makes in his feedback-based arguments”
–
It would help your argument if true.
–
“Climate Sensitivity Does Not Depend Upon Feedback Analysis?”
For better or worse, Jule Charney and his co-authors in 1979 decided to use the forcing-feedback paradigm. Others speak of runaway greenhouse scenarios.
Like it or not feedback is the way that most scientists explain the added risk of CO2 rise.
–
I understand your view of the atmosphere is far greater than mine particularly and most others.
I appreciate the hard work UAH has put in to getting the best results available and the anguish when ill informed commentators try to knock it because it does not fit their narrative of fear.
I wish that all the parameters would show a drop in the surface stations and the satellites but the Climate changes slowly and there has been a heat increase for the last 30 years.
Don’t give up on Christopher, but unless he explains the concept more clearly to our satisfaction it remains of interest only, not fact.
The “33K” is nonsense. (Can’t compare to an imaginary sphere.)
The “170 W/m^2” is nonsense. (Can’t divide radiative flux.)
The “forcing” is nonsense. (Can’t create energy.)
And ice cubes can’t boil water. (Fluxes don’t simply add.)
No wonder the cult is in such a meltdown….
> Cant divide radiative flux.
Graham disagrees with that one, Pup.
You should have a word with the troll you’re enabling.
It’s your immaturity that enables you Pup, not me.
The troll you are enabling is Graham, Pup.
Ask him if he believes we cannot divide flux.
Clint R will generally elaborate on things if a responsible question is asked politely. He won’t respond to obnoxious trolling, and barrages of insults.
Clint R has written that you "can’t divide radiative flux", but he has also written in the past that the imaginary sphere receives 960 W/m^2 and emits 240 W/m^2. So, he is seemingly happy to divide flux for the output, but not the input. Already we can see that there is more to Clint R’s statement than meets the eye. Clint R likes to keep things as simple as possible, but often there are exceptions to the rule, which just require a simple explanation. So I will ask:
Clint, how come you say you can’t divide radiative flux, but you do for the output from the sphere?
Scratch that. Silly question. You are simply dividing the output power by the surface area emitting said power. So you are not dividing flux.
Yeah, you can divide flux.
I don’t know whether to post a picture of the cover of the Dark Side of the Moon, or just say prism.
A compromise:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9uk9IcoQ0w
An Ultimate 3000 divides flux quite nicely I may add.
And yes, you can google that.
bobdroege, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R
More rambling from the Cult Minded braindead idiot that you are.
1) Not nonsense actually can be measured. Average surface temperature is 288 K and the TOA emits as a 255 K blackbody (around 240 W/m^2). You have been given plenty of evidence to demonstrate this. When given you you you concluded that scientists did not take into consideration the Inverse Square Law. When you came up with this stupid point I linked you to a paper that addressed this point. You are a braindead idiot cult minded poster.
2) You can measure this and I have linked you to a global solar energy graph showing this to be the case. The scientists are dealing with actual measured values. Braindead cult posters like you just make unsupported cult claims and only a couple unscientific people believe your stupid posts.
3) Forcing does not create energy except in the mind of a braindead cult minded idiot like you. You increase the radiating insulation and the surface is forced to a higher steady state temperature.
4) This one truly proves you are an idiot braindead cult minded poster. Fluxes add and it does not mean ice cubes can boil water. I have attempted to use rational thought to explain it to you. I did not realize how braindead cult minded you actually are.
No wonder you are so stupid, you are a braindead cult minded idiot and no rational or logical thinking will change that. Also no measured values, experiments, laws of physics can alter how stupid you actually are.
The only funny thing about you, not how dumb you are, is you are totally arrogant and think you have some intelligence and thought process. I you ever start thinking, reread your idiot posts and you will cry at how stupid you are. Some day you may realize it but it is highly doubtful.
“On this nominally scientific website Tyson, Norman and I attempt to use logical arguments, logos, to support the consensus scientific case.”
– Entropic Man
“No wonder you are so stupid, you are a braindead cult minded idiot and no rational or logical thinking will change that. Also no measured values, experiments, laws of physics can alter how stupid you actually are.
The only funny thing about you, not how dumb you are, is you are totally arrogant and think you have some intelligence and thought process. I you ever start thinking, reread your idiot posts and you will cry at how stupid you are. Some day you may realize it but it is highly doubtful.”
– Norman
DREMT
What is incorrect in my valid evaluation of Clint R’s intellect and his posts?
I don’t expect you to follow our exchanges but I have given evidence to prove all his points wrong many times. It takes a braindead cult idiot to remain ignorant when facts show the error.
You also should know the work choice I use to describe him are his own. I am correct to point out he is a braindead cult idiot (I gave proof of why he is such). He also does not have rational or logical thinking. He concludes if fluxes add (which they do) it would mean ice could boil water. I do not know why you do not support my assessment of Clint R when he makes such irrational conclusions.
A thinking, intelligent rational person would not think in this fashion. A braindead cult minded idiot would.
If you find error in my assessment of Clint R feel free to educate me on them. If you can find any post on this blog where Clint R shows signs of rational or intelligent thought I would be amazed. I could have missed it but so far I have seen no signs of an intelligent person in his many pointless (mostly insulting) posts.
I hope you take on the challenge and show me wrong. Demonstrate Clint R has rational thought. I would welcome it and could overlook his endless taunting, needling and stupid points.
norman…”What is incorrect in my valid evaluation of Clint Rs intellect and his posts?”
***
Is it not obvious, Normie? You have nothing scientific to offer, all you do is slam Clint with ad homs and insults.
Gordon Robertson
Since you do not follow my interactions with Clint R your statement is quite invalid.
YOU: “Is it not obvious, Normie? You have nothing scientific to offer, all you do is slam Clint with ad homs and insults.”
He is the one who taunts and insults everyone and came up with “braindead cult idiot”. Not my term but since he is so willing to use it on others it is quite fitting for him.
My initial responses to Clint R are all evidence based. I link to measured values and science articles. His response is “a link Norman does not understand”. That is an idiot response. So calling him an idiot is a totally correct assessment of this poster’s behavior.
Gordon Robertson
What has Clint R every said that is scientific? What declaration has he made that he has supported with any evidence? If you can get those for me I consider that he is not an idiot. So far with my interactions with Clint R, he makes declarations (“fluxes don’t add”). Never supports them but only uses an idiot conclusion to support his nonsense (terrible logic) that if fluxes could add then ice could boil water. When you have someone making these types of conclusions the most logical assessment is that the person is a braindead cult idiot. Please prove me wrong, I would like that!
Poor Norman has deteriorated into a full-time troll. He never had much, but at least he tried to fake a knowledge of science. Now, he just makes stuff up. He can’t support his nonsense, so he lashes out at those that reveal what a phony he is.
He’s been in meltdown mode for about 6 months. He’s no better than worthless willard.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
So defend yourself. Taunting or insulting me is not a defense. What evidence supports any of your declarations (such as fluxes do not add or a hot object cannot absorb energy from a colder one). Can you supply supporting evidence?
Norman, pick out your best evidence that I have ever used incorrect physics. Your VERY BEST example. You get to pick it. I will then explain, in very simple terms so even people with no physics background can understand.
I don’t mind doing that, as I enjoy teaching physics. But, with your unfortunate background of denying reality, I will have to ask you to not comment here for 90 days. Do you agree? Are you ready to learn? Are you ready for some reality?
The break will do you good….
Maybe not the best, but the simplest.
Ball on a string.
Clint R
Again, insulting and taunting me are not a defence. You make deals that Cleary are pointless. A bluff to cover your lack of knowledge. I have already asked you to explain two points. You can’t do even one. You bluster and bluff but cannot produce. You are not able to prove you are not a brain dead cult idiot.
Okay Norman, remain a worthless troll.
Not a problem for me.
Pup, please stop trolling.
norman…”What has Clint R every said that is scientific? What declaration has he made that he has supported with any evidence?”
***
Clint said the Moon does not rotate on a local axis. He backed it up with evidence. Several of us agree with his scientific analysis.
Clint claims that the GHG theory is wrong and he has backed it with scientific evidence. Several of us agree with him.
You, on the other hand, with your fellow spinners and climate alarmists have failed to provide evidence that the Moon rotates on a local axis or that the GHG/AGW theories have merit.
Yes Norman, we know you’ve chosen to be a worthless troll. There’s no need to keep confirming it.
But, I still find your desperate meltdown funny when you do.
Sorry DREMT, I was 3 minutes late.
No need to be sorry, Pup.
Next time, please remind him the story about walking and chewing gum.
No worries, Clint!
clint…”The 33K is nonsense. (Cant compare to an imaginary sphere.)”
***
It’s nonsense for another good reason. S-B does not apply at terrestrial temperatures. The law was developed for temperatures between about 500C and 1500C, which can mimic the theoretical blackbody, and the Stefan constant at the time (before Boltzmann) was fitted to data in that temperature range. There is no way room air or the atmosphere can mimic a BB.
If you take a T^4 curve and extend it below that range, it gives ridiculous nonsense like ice emitting radiation that should produce warming if absorbed. Problem is, it cannot be absorbed by warmer bodies.
Stefan and Boltzmann were no dummies, they knew about Clausius and the 2nd law, and both respected it. Neither made claims that S-B applied outside the 500C to 1500C range and neither ever inferred that heat could be transferred from the cooler room air to a heated filament at 1500C.
Another matter is the use of w/m^2 to measure infrared. A 100 watt light bulb is rated at 100 w but that is the electrical power it draws, not the radiation it emits.
Only about 5% of the power of a 100 watt bulb is emitted as ***visible*** EM. That’s about 5 watts, yet ice, according to S-B, is rated at about 325 W/m^2.
Your 5W might be emitted from a filament with a surface area of about 0.00002 m^2.
So the emitted flux would be 5/0.00002 = 250,000 W/m^2,
“S-B does not apply at terrestrial temperatures. ”
From the next episode of “Science Deniers Say the Darndest Things”. Don’t miss it!
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^2 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (0,89) 1.362 W/m^2 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K⁴ ]∕ 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…440 K….364 K…….340 K..0,00568
Moon……270 K….224 K…….220 K..0,0339
Earth…..255 K….210 K…….288 K….1
Mars……210 K….174 K…….210 K…0,9747
Europa….95,2 K….78,8 K…..102 K…0,2816
Ganymede..107,1 K…88,6 K…..110 K…0,1398
Notice:
The number 0,47 for smooth surface in a parallel fluid flow is taken from the well measured and long ago known Drag Coefficient Data, where Cd =0,47 is for sphere. It is the portion of incident on sphere energy which should be resisted by sphere to remain in balance.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It appears that SkyDragons believe that faith is all that is required.
They worship an invisible, omnipotent GHE which is so beyond the perception of mortals that it cannot be described in human terms. Non-believers should be cast down, imprisoned, tortured, or even executed if they refuse to bow down before the high priests of the Faith.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Idiot cultists – even St Greta of Thunberg has seen the light, and changed her ways, when faced with the imminent prospect of starving, while freezing in the dark! (A little artistic license there, but I’m sure nobody will mind).
SkyDragon cultists – the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years or so. Where was your GHE? Possibly sleeping, waiting to be roused by the fervent prayers of GHE worshippers?
You lot are about as silly as 900 cultists who followed Jim Jones into the hereafter, at Jonestown.
The difference is that SkyDragons are not as devout as Jim Jones’ followers. All mouth and no trousers, telling others how to think and what to say, but scuttling away like cockroaches if their faith is challenged.
Maybe they need to accumulate more logos, pathos, and ethos? You can never have too many, can you.
[laughing at delusional GHE cultists]
swenson….”…even St Greta of Thunberg has seen the light…”
***
Why would anyone listen to a snotty-nosed 16 year old?
willard…”You calling EM a c*nt is not the same thing as me calling you a silly goose, Graham”.
***
The other day you called me the same thing as Dremt called you but you used a euphemism. T**t is the same thing, only a little milder.
You are a complete horse’s ass.
Dremt, why are you engaging this idiot in a dialogue?
Come on, Gordo.
I called you a twat. Graham called EM a c*nt. These are not the same level of discourse at all. Worse, this pr*ck believes that using an asterisk makes it alright.
And I was responding to Mike Flynn anyway. So just so we are clear –
If you really think that your atoms are conscious because you are, you really are a twat.
Speaking of horses ass:
The U.S. standard railroad gauge the distance between the rails is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. Thats a strange number.
Why was that gauge used? Because thats the way they built them in England, and English expatriates designed the US railroads.
Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and thats the gauge they used.
Why did they use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.
Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because thats the spacing of the wheel ruts.
So who built those old rutted roads? Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (including England ) for their legions. Those roads have been used ever since.
And the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels.
Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.
The U.S. standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman Army war chariot.
Bureaucracies live forever.
So the next time you are handed a specification/procedure/process and wonder What horses ass came up with this?, you may be exactly right. Imperial Roman Army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses.
Now, the twist to the story:
When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah
The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory runs through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses behinds.
So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the worlds most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horses ass.
Think.
“Dremt, why are you engaging this idiot in a dialogue?”
I probably should not feed the troll, but he simply won’t leave me alone. He has said that he will now only respond to me while I’m asleep (kind of creepy, I know), so hopefully there will be less pointless back and forths now.
This came from a post by Dremt but I don’t know the origin of it.
“O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space”.
***
Not true. O2/N2 are slow to shed heat because they don’t radiate in the infrared region associate with heat, as far as we know. However, there is another mechanism by which they lose heat, and lose it completely, without converting it to another form.
Heat rises by convection due to a difference in density between the heated air and the air in which is is found. Density is simply mass per unit volume. Therefore, in the Ideal Gas Law, density shows up as P = (n/V)RT, where n/V is density. The ‘n’ is the number of molecules, which is the mass. For any given concentric layer, V should be constant and n should be fairly constant.
P is also directly proportional to mass, n. As altitude increases n -> toward zero, therefore P must -> zero. As P -> zero then T must -> zero.
There you have it, heat dissipation without GHGs radiating anything.
All contrarian arguments fall apart because they are no match for the extreme interconnectedness of physical reality. When they argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, they are arguing against the whole body of molecular quantum mechanics and all confirming experiments and measurements.
Quoting someone else’s words from another website does not change the fact that none of the “contrarians” accept the physical reality of the GHE and thus all the interconnected processes responsible for its existence.
P.s.: Gordon Robertson above has already objected to this post with a comment that begins with an emphatic “Not true” and ends with a very matter of fact “There you have it, heat dissipation without GHGs radiating anything.”
…by which Gordon does not mean that GHGs don’t radiate.
Tyson, you are just repeating your false claim:
“When they argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”
Nobody argues that CO2 is not a radiatively active gas, so nobody is arguing against “the whole body of molecular quantum mechanics and all confirming experiments and measurements.”
You are just bashing the same straw man over and over again because you don’t understand the arguments of those who do not believe in the GHE.
Speaking of straw man arguments;
“Nobody argues that CO2 is not a radiatively active gas”
and
“there is no GHE,” “do not believe in the GHE.”
are not incongruous statements?
Please explain. And use physics in your argument.
OK. The most common argument against the GHE is that radiation from cooler GHGs cannot warm the warmer surface. Note that in this argument it is acknowledged that GHGs are radiatively active. So, people commonly argue that there is no GHE whilst still acknowledging that GHGs are radiatively active molecules.
So, no physics then? You equivocate by deliberately failing to define your terms while glomming onto terms that are incongruous with the central argument that you “do not believe in the GHE.”
Venus, Earth, Mars, and Earth’s moon are similarly devoid of a GHE by your reckoning. You do understand why it behooves you to address the pertinent physics dont you?
You asked for an explanation, and received one. Now you want to change the subject.
I asked: Please explain. And use physics in your argument.
So, no physics then?
You got all the physics necessary to explain in the simplest possible terms why not believing there is a GHE does not need to involve denying that CO2 is a radiatively active gas.
Tyson,
Please remember that your original claim is when Sky Dragon Cranks argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Graham is trying to pull you toward his pet topic of the moment, i.e. that non radiative gases are the true radiative gases.
All you need is to find contrarians who deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
"that non radiative gases are the true radiative gases."
That’s a complete misrepresentation, but actually no, I did not want to talk about that, here. I am not "pulling Tyson towards it". You are the one who just brought it up.
"All you need is to find contrarians who deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas."
Which you most likely won’t, because all the arguments against the GHE that I ever remember seeing acknowledge that CO2 is a radiatively active gas. I’m not saying it’s impossible that you would find someone arguing that CO2 isn’t a radiatively active gas, but they would be an extreme outlier. It is not one of the regular "no GHE" arguments. Simple as that.
Tyson,
I forgot. You might want to call out Graham on that assumption:
> The most common argument is
How does he know? What metric has he used? Is this a mere impression?
Readers might have a different opinion on this. For instance, they might believe that the most common trope amongst Sky Dragon Cranks is that one cannot divide flux. Something that he rejects, incidentally.
If he calls you out on the obvious, it would be more than fair that you call him out on the unobvious, no?
Little Willy is quite obviously struggling to keep to his agreement not to respond to me until after I am asleep. Somehow we are still arguing even though I am right here. That the most common argument against the GHE is as I describe is of course just my opinion, based on my experience.
Graham trolled until early in the morning and obviously failed.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
TM, taking potshots at Skeptics behind a false name is what trolls do. If you want to talk about the science as to why the GHE is nonsense, give us your definition.
No ad homs, no attempts to denigrate, no false bravado — just your definition of your GHE, in your own words.
Then, maybe we can help you.
You are hiding under your fourth sock puppet at least, Pup.
Multiple bans in fact.
The word you are looking for is crank.
Please stop trolling.
Pup, you believe I’m someone else, but how do you know? Does my butt smell the same as someone else’s?
Please keep your sexual fantasies to yourself, Pup.
Gordo might be displeased.
Readers know you used to be JDH and other splendid colourful characters we cannot name anymore.
YOU are the butt-sniffer here, Pup. You’re only interested in attacking people that appreciate reality. You spend all day here, usually responding within 3-4 minutes. You have NOTHING going in your life, and you have NO science.
You’re a worthless troll, and I don’t have time to babysit you today.
YOU are the most banned sock puppet here, Pup.
Please stop entertaining sexual fantasies.
Your Robin disagrees with you about the division of flux. Slap him back into the right Sky Dragon Crank path.
In fairness, Clint, Tyson has given his own definition of the GHE, in his own words, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1384721
Yes, I saw that, but after all his blah-blah, he ended with, “…and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.”
He’s got Sun heating the surface and atmosphere, which we agree with. But he ignores the fact that Warmists claim the GHE warms surface temperatures.
Is he trying to fake us out?
"He’s got Sun heating the surface and atmosphere, which we agree with. But he ignores the fact that Warmists claim the GHE warms surface temperatures."
I noticed that too. Amongst all his "fancy lingo", he seemed to leave out the contested parts of the GHE! I expect it will convince some people, that already want to believe…
maguff…”When they argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, they are arguing against the whole body of molecular quantum mechanics and all confirming experiments and measurements”.
***
Your logic is seriously flawed. There is no scientific proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas simply because the phrase ‘greenhouse gas’ makes no scientific sense. CO2 is an infrared absorbing gas but there is no proof that such gases produce the iconic greenhouse effect.
The term ‘greenhouse gas’ is based on a real greenhouse. It was somehow reasoned that the SW solar passed through the glass, heated the infrastructure and soil, which in turn produced LW IR. Since LW IR is blocked by glass, climate alarmists erroneously associated the blocked IR with heat, as if the glass, by trapping IR, was trapping heat, causing the greenhouse to warm.
That theory is wrong and it should never have been accepted in the first place. Why should emitted IR from soil and surfaces in a greenhouse be recycled to increase the heat inside the greenhouse? If you have an explanation for such a theory, I’d like to hear it, since you claim that molecular quantum mechanics and experiments have verified it.
BTW..what is ‘molecular’ quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics was based initially by Bohr on the hydrogen atom with a proton for the nucleus and an electron orbiting it. If you understand the theory then you should understand why IR is produced by electrons in atoms. There is nothing in that theory can explain how trapped IR can warm a real greenhouse.
If SW solar heats the infrastructure and soil to temperature, T, the heat produced is transferred to air molecules by conduction. When the molecules of air are warmed, they rise and are trapped by the glass. As the heated air rises, it is replaced by cooler air in the greenhouse till all the air is heated to a certain temperature.
Even if the air contains 0.04% CO2 and a few percent WV, how does the CO2 and WV interact with trapped IR to further warm the greenhouse? Using thought experiments one might conjure scenarios where that is possible, but R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2 did not think it possible. He stated that circa 1909 but climate alarmists ignored his comments, and experiments, and went with the distorted views of Arrhenius and Callendar.
Wood reasoned that the warming came from a lack of convection and he proved it via experiment. He used two boxes, one covered with glass and the other with halite, which freely passes IR, and found both boxes warmed to the same temperature. Nasif Nahle later corroborated his experiment in detail.
An experiment by a computer programmer, Pratt, failed to get the same results but he failed to reproduce the experiment by Wood accurately. Rather than use glass, he used plastic wrap, producing an atmosphere in the boxes that did not replicate greenhouse conditions.
C’mon, Gordo.
Thank you for this:
A clarifying question –
Would you be denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas by any chance?
Many thanks!
PS: For the nth time, Vaughan is a computer scientist, in fact he’s a logician.
Gordon literally immediately went on to say:
"CO2 is an infrared absorbing gas but there is no proof that such gases produce the iconic greenhouse effect."
Again, he was not denying that CO2 is a radiatively-active gas.
Yes, Graham.
Gordo shows how your presupposition fails.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1385286
Gordon,
“BTW..what is molecular quantum mechanics?”
Let me google that for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=molecular+quantum+mechanics&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS964US964&oq=Molecular+Quantum+Mechanics&aqs=chrome.0.0i512l6j46i512j0i512j0i390l2.9695j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
You may notice a book with that title is available used from Amazon for only 7.59.
It was a optional text for a course in college I took.
That’s chump change for an engineer like you, buy it you might learn something.
It’s a bargain at that price.
What do you think happens with valence electrons that are shared by two or more atoms?
Do you think they still orbit around one atomic nucleus?
Tyson,
You might like:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/#comment-84890
Enjoy fishing just as you enjoy shooting fish in this barrel,
W
"I’m not saying it’s impossible that you would find someone arguing that CO2 isn’t a radiatively active gas, but they would be an extreme outlier. It is not one of the regular "no GHE" arguments. Simple as that."
And, if you look at the rest of his comment, it really has nothing to do with arguing against the physics of the GHE. Were it not for the opening sentence, would it even be classed as a "no GHE" comment?
Tyson,
You might also like:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/urban-heat-island-effects-on-u-s-temperature-trends-1973-2020-ushcn-vs-hourly-weather-stations/#comment-652310
You might also appreciate the link that comment contains.
Little Willy is going to continue to post similar links. If you follow the link, it’s to an article about experiments where no warming effect from CO2 was found. People might describe this as "CO2 is not a GHG", but where in the experiment are the radiative properties of CO2 actually questioned? The link mentions the Seim and Olsen experiment, for example. In this experiment, the increase in back-radiation from additional CO2 was measured, but little to no accompanying warming effect was observed. With the Seim & Olsen experiment, nobody is questioning that CO2 is a radiatively-active gas. Indeed, as I said, the increase in back-radiation from additional CO2 was actually measured.
We need to distinguish between people saying "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" meaning perhaps that additional CO2 does not lead to warming, and people specifically saying that CO2 is not a radiatively-active gas. I have not seen an example yet of somebody specifically saying the latter.
from the link in the link…
“[T]he temperature [in a thermophile] with [100%] CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5% [an additional 0.15C for a container heated from 20C to 50C].
***
That’s in the ballpark of what I predicted using the Ideal Gas Law for 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere. I claimed the warming of CO2 over 1C would be roughly 0.04C.
They checked it with 100% CO2 in a tube and found a warming pf 0.15C over 30C warming. The warming is 0.15C/30C = 0.005 = 0.5%. Compared to a 1C warming that should be as follows…
0.15C/30C = x/1C
x = 0.005C
THE IGL predicts about 0.04C over 1C in the atmosphere with CO2 at 0.04%.
ps. They follow with this comment…
“We do not observe any significant difference in the two curves due to the increase in the CO2 concentration from ca. 400 ppm to about 100% in the front chamber.
400 ppmv, of course, is 0.04%.
It proves the IPCC is fraudulent and corrupt.
C’mon, Gordo.
This ballpark looks far off a fellow Sky Dragon crank:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/solar-thursday-usa-an-eclipse-and-a-massive-sunspot-group/#comment-142698
As you can see, to believe that a molecule has radiative properties does not mean much.
Yes, Gordon, the Seim & Olsen experiment is quite an eye-opener. Glad somebody got something out of all the spamming from Little Willy.
Tyson,
An enigma:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-246686
Do you recall who that contrarian might be?
…or whether they actually argued that CO2 is not a radiatively-active gas?
Tyson,
This one is amusing:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/direct-evidence-of-earths-greenhouse-effect/#comment-74121
I wonder what happened with K.
…this time Little Willy has apparently simply fabricated the quote. If you follow the link, the words he’s quoted aren’t there.
Tyson,
Apparently I made Graham look.
Here is the correct link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2016-0-44-deg-c/#comment-225367
Sorry about that.
…and within that linked comment, we see:
"It is simply an IR active molecule, able to absorb and emit IR at certain wavelengths at normal Earth temperatures."
So Kristian was not denying that CO2 is a radiatively-active molecule.
DREMT
Why do your comments bring to mind 1 Corinthions 13:1 ?
1 Corinthians 13:1, KJV: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
Is that another logos comment, E Man?
Ethos.
I thought I’d descend to your level.
When were you ever above the level of ethos comments?
ent…re Corinthians quote…it’s hard to speak with love to idiots who support a theory that will ultimately do harm to people. Why don’t you get in touch with your own charity and recognize that?
John Christy of UAH, has taught in Africa and has seen the effect first hand on people deprived of fossil fuels. I think Roy supports him on that, as do I.
Come on, Gordo.
The first socialist zombie did not die for you to show love only when it is easy.
<3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tyson,
Perhaps you recall Vincent, whose usage of “whilst” made me twinkle a bit:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/15-years-of-ceres-versus-surface-temperature-climate-sensitivity-1-3-deg-c/#comment-196110
Big if true, don’t you think?
That would mean Graham simply “forgot” about Dug!
Dug does not argue that CO2 isn’t a radiatively-active molecule.
Tyson,
Since I’m on a roll, S.K. strikes again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-653390
Barry might have a point in celebrating two of the crankiest Climateball blogs.
They all use the same tactics: emulate the language and methods of physics in attempts to make their fringe ideas seem mainstream, but in a context that undermines and waters down the real physics.
But when you ask for data, models, or projections all you get is endless equivocation.
This is the same article discussed earlier.
Tyson,
It’s me again. Perhaps you think that comments at Roy’s by anonymous Sky Dragon Cranks is not enough to put Graham’s “Strawman!” bellyaching to rest. That’d be fair.
So how about Tim “The Climate Scientist” Ball:
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/simple-measurements-demonstrate-that-co2-is-a-greenhouse-gas-tim-ball/
Do you think Graham forgot about Tim “The Climate Scientist” Ball, and do you think he knows why I call him “The Climate Scientist”?
Cheers.
Is Little Willy even reading what he links to?
Tyson,
I suspect you’re a GOP guy, but I can’t resist:
https://youtu.be/69A89P9qCtg
I suppose the 30K number he alludes to is the Oregon petition.
Kinda weird to still cite that petition in 2022.
Yes, The Oregon Petition which prompted this from the National Academy of Sciences;
Exactly my point about cranks emulating/co-opting legitimate science in attempts to make their fringe ideas seem mainstream.
P.s.: that was April 1998.
“We need to distinguish between people saying "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" meaning perhaps that additional CO2 does not lead to warming, and people specifically saying that CO2 is not a radiatively-active gas. I have not seen an example yet of somebody specifically saying the latter.”
dremt…if you check back a bit, I specifically demonstrated how CO2 absorbs infrared energy. None of the skeptics here have claimed CO2 does not absorb and emit EM/IR.
The deniers in the alarmist crowd can’t come to grips with the fact that nitrogen and oxygen emit and/or absorb in the IR region. It is known that nitrogen radiates in the IR band at night. This site depends on the fact that oxygen radiates in the area of 60 Ghz, just below the IR band.
If O2 radiates around 60 Ghz, that represents cooling in the atmosphere. Do you see the IPCC talking about that cooling?
All of this is moot, however, since politicians simply don’t care about science. Today, the Liberal government in Canada, supported by the socialist NDP, introduced legislation to ban import of handguns to Canada. They also banned handgun owners from trading or selling handguns, essentially forcing handgun owners to get rig of handguns as their lives near the end.
99.999999% of Canadian handgun owners have never caused the slightest problem for the Canadians public, yet these twits come up with such Draconian legislation. These are the same idiots who are pushing the catastrophic climate change meme and keeping the pseudo-science behind current.
> None of the skeptics here have claimed CO2 does not [A-word] and emit EM/IR.
Here’s someone who comes quite near that feat, Gordo:
The argument actually echoes Roy’s second clause:
In fairness, it’s not clear that the author of this argument really believes his paraphrases.
"No noticeable effect from changing CO2 concentration."
No noticeable effect on global surface temperatures from changing CO2 concentration, is what is meant there.
Tyson,
OK. I think we got a winner:
https://www.thepostil.com/evidence-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/
That’s Geraint Hughes.
Graham quoted that crank not too long ago, on October 12, 2022 at 6:23 AM CET.
From the article:
"This can be seen in the CO2 spectral absorp.tion graph, where its absorbance in 4 to 5 micron wavelength (light bulb spectra) is far in excess of the strength of its absorp.tion in the 14 to 16 micron wavelengths (more earth Spectra)."
So once again, Hughes is not disputing that CO2 is a radiatively-active molecule.
From the title:
“CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas”
Thanks for playing!
Yes, that is the title…and the contents include what I quoted.
Yes, Graham.
You alone know better than the people who tells that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
You are the Sky Dragon Crank Understander, after all.
…and the contents include what I quoted.
EM,
I’m glad you evoke The Philosopher’s old tripartion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Aristotle's_rhetorical_logos
As you can see, there are two main ingredients in that conception: words and proofs. In other words, what matters are claims and their support. How Graham tries to conflate what is claimed (e.g. “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”) with its various supports is to that effect a thing of beauty.
While The Philosopher preferred syllogisms for deliberation, it is important to distinguish that rhetorical activity from dialectic. The goal of dialectic is to reach truth through reasoned argumentation between conflicting parties. The goal of rhetoric is to perduade an audience. The means are similar, but there are more relaxed in rhetoric:
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html
That distinction does not prevent a rhetor to use a demonstration that would work in a dialectic setting. Only that rhetoric and dialectic are two very different settings.
There are many forms of enthymeme, but here could be one:
(P1) Graham claimed that “CO2 is a GHG” is a strawman.
(P2) Graham claimed having read Roy’s years before 74 months ago, whence he started to troll it.
(P3) Many Sky Dragon Cranks indeed claimed that CO2 is a GHG.
(P4) Confronted with the evidence, now Graham tries to deflect to his pet theory of the moment, especially his own interpretation of it.
(C) Graham is a silly goose.
It is not hard for the readers to complete the syllogism using a series of implicit premises that are sound.
Thank you for the Cymbal quote.
I said from the very beginning, that the arguments made by those who do not believe in the GHE were "not that CO2 isn’t a radiatively active gas".
You have found no examples to contradict that. I explained under each example that you brought up, where you went wrong.
On a different note, it’s quite amusing that even when you agree not to respond to me whilst I’m awake, you still spend your entire day writing comments that relate to me, that are based on trying to refute things I’ve said. I seem to occupy so much of your time! Have you thought about seeking some professional help, for your obsession?
Indeed, Graham.
You raised that irrelevant point many times already.
Remember the definition of greenhouse gas you quoted?
It will be useful tomorrow.
Ta.
…obviously not an irrelevant point.
DREMT
You do not accept the GHE. You have a real science background so you know the process.
I will give you some evidence to consider. Then maybe you will understand the GHE.
Here:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_63531d0c96ebc.png
I looked for a cloudy spring night in Mississippi.
Look at the UPIR and the DWIR and the air temperature. When the DWIR is equal to the UPIR (close the atmosphere window which emits out about 10% of the surface radiant energy directly to space the 90% remaining is all absorbed by the atmosphere) the temperature no longer drops.
This should produce thought in your mind as to why? It is the middle of the night (3 AM) not external energy is coming in from the Sun. The surface still emits 400 W/m^2 so the surface should continue to cool unless there is a source of other energy that stops the cooling. It is the DWIR that is alos 400 W/m^2. This clearly shows the surface MUST absorb the DWIR or it could not continue to emit 400 W/m^2 and things would continue to cool as they do on a clear night because of the window that reduces the DWIR so it becomes less than the UPIR.
Use reason, use logic use real measured data. Form a logical conclusion.
You can see that DWIR stops cooling completely under very cloudy night skies (close atmosphere window) so it is with GHE. The DWIR reduces the amount of heat energy the surface loses via radiant energy and acts like a radiant barrier, lowering the amount of radiant heat the surface loses. The surface loss is equal to the amount of energy it emits minus the amount it receives back from DWIR. This lowers the heat loss and with the same solar input the surface reaches a higher temperature. It is very similar to how any insulation works to heat up a object that has some source of heat input. If you wrap a heated object in insulation it will reach a higher temperature. The GHE is no more complex than that. Add CO2 and you decrease the amount of heat that the surface loses. It is not a lot. A doubling of CO2 will reduce the heat loss by around 3 W/m^2.
I hope you consider this carefully and really think about it and not just reject it out of hand with no thought or consideration.
Norman – do you acknowledge that I’m correct, in the ongoing discussion between Willard, Tyson and myself, above?
Norman, you sure have trouble understanding those SURFRAD graphs. Let’s see if this helps:
Radiative fluxes from different origins do not appreciably interact. This is especially true, the more temperature difference there is between emitting surfaces. Fluxes emitted by colder surfaces are not appreciably absorbed by a warmer surface. This is especially true the more temperature difference there is between emitting surfaces.
So in this example, the temperature continues to drop as the surface cools. The little bump at 3am is clearly due to a low cloud passing over. A low cloud could can easily be as warm as the surface, or even warmer, especially in Mississippi spring. Low clouds make good insulation for the surface. Nothing in that graph has anything to do with CO2. You’re just making stuff up again.
What you miss is that as soon as sunshine starts, temperatures begin to rise. There is a phrase to help you remember this — “It’s the sun, stupid”.
Here’s a thought problem for you: What would happen to the temperature if Sun did not show up for work?
Hint: Look at the down-trending temperature all night as CO2 cools the atmosphere.
> What you miss is that as soon as sunshine starts, temperatures begin to rise.
As soon as you say that kind of thing, Pup, your trolling starts to rise.
Please stop.
Clint R
To see the contribution CO2 has in these graphs you have to go outside these measured values. These only give the total value of the DWIR not the contribution of each player.
Here is one graph that shows CO2 contribution to DWIR. Scientists have estimated the effect of CO2 to average about 10% of the DWIR. In dry areas it is more, the maximum the level of concentration of CO2 could contribute is 20% but that would have to be totally dry air as Water vapor and CO2 overlap.
http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/dhd_thes/img47.gif
https://www.patarnott.com/atms411/pdf/StaleyJuricaEffectiveEmissivity.pdf
Another SURFRAD plot. No clouds but in this one remove about 40 Watts/m^2 for CO2 Contribution and you will get a more rapid cooling and a slower warming during the day.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_63535ff3b0206.png
See, Graham?
That is Logos!
Norman – do you acknowledge that I’m correct, in the ongoing discussion between Willard, Tyson and myself, above (and now below, too)?
Norman, you didn’t even try to understand my comment at 6:15PM. You just hold to your beliefs and fling out some more links you don’t understand. Just look at your sentence:
“Scientists have estimated the effect of CO2 to average about 10% of the DWIR.”
That’s a meaningless statement that you can twist to make anything you want out of it. A cold sky has no effect on a warmer surface. Diffused IR does not have the ability to warm a 288K surface. Back-radiation from the atmosphere has high entropy. You are trying to claim that somehow that high entropy allows heat to creep back to the surface and warm it. That is NONSENSE.
You’ve ran from your first link (Mississippi) to the new link for Desert Rock. You’ve chosen the graphs that you believe support your beliefs. That ain’t science.
Reality is Sun heats the surface. Here’s all you need to consider:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_63535ff3b0206.png
You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
Please stop the pathetic and unethical replies, Pup.
Clint R
I am not saying what you seem to think I am saying. I am NOT saying that the cold atmosphere HEATS the surface in violation of the 2nd Law.
I have stated it many many times and still it seems you do not understand it.
A cold sky DOES have an effect on a warm surface. The warmer the cold sky the less radiant heat lost by the surface. These are facts that have been proven many times. Roy even set up an experiment to demonstrate it.
Yes reality is the Sun heats the surface which no one disputes. The radiant barrier the atmosphere creates allows the solar input to reach a higher steady state surface temperature.
NO one is trying to boil water with ice cubes.
Norman, is that really you? There was not one insult or false accusation! Did someone steal your screen name? Are you feeling well?
If you’re really trying to behave like an adult now, it will be appreciated. There’s certainly enough immature trolls here already.
A cold sky does not increase the temperature of a warmer surface. You state that you understand that. But, you don’t stop there. You believe “A cold sky DOES have an effect on a warm surface. The warmer the cold sky the less radiant heat lost by the surface.” That’s incorrect.
The sky does not affect what the surface is emitting. The surface emits based on its temperature and emissivity. That emission is NOT affected by a colder atmosphere.
You believe that no one disputes that Sun heats the surface. But the GHE cult, including the “heat creep” freak, do dispute Sun heats the surface. They believe Sun only supplies about 170 W/m^2 to the surface. That’s so they can claim “something else” is heating the planet.
The atmosphere is NOT a “radiant barrier”. It contains radiative gases that emit energy to space. Most of the gases do not emit thermal energy to space and act as insulation to moderate surface temperature.
There are people that believe ice cubes can boil water. Some admit it, but some don’t. If you believe two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can warm the surface to 325K, then you believe ice cubes can boil water.
Clint R
Some of what you say is correct some is not.
YOU: “The sky does not affect what the surface is emitting. The surface emits based on its temperature and emissivity. That emission is NOT affected by a colder atmosphere.”
Yes that is a correct statement. The emission rate is determined by the surface temperature and the emissivity of the material composition.
What you say incorrectly is: ” You believe A cold sky DOES have an effect on a warm surface. The warmer the cold sky the less radiant heat lost by the surface. Thats incorrect.”
My statement is correct and experimentally validated. The rate the surface emits is not changed by the cold atmosphere but the radiant heat it loses is affected.
The radiant energy lost from the surface is the amount of energy it radiates away MINUS the energy it gains from the cold atmosphere. I know you do not accept this fact but it is experimentally verified and used in design of spacecraft. I had linked to its use in spacecraft design. It is quite real phenomena and accepted as fact by the entire scientific community as well as engineering field.
https://engineeringlibrary.org/reference/radiant-heat-transfer-doe-handbook
This link explains it very well. You can say it is incorrect but that will not make it so. It is established fact and used extensively in multiple applications. No one but a handful of “skeptics” reject the overwhelming evidence that this is quite correct.
You’re trying to get around 2LoT by claiming you’re not violating 2LoT. That’s speeding on the highway, and when you get caught claiming you weren’t really speeding. That’s not how reality works.
Here’s how you try to twist things to fit your beliefs:
“My statement is correct and experimentally validated. The rate the surface emits is not changed by the cold atmosphere but the radiant heat it loses is affected.”
The “emission” IS the “radiant heat it loses”! Youve just changing the words trying to cover your perversion of reality. You’re twisting words, trying to confuse the issue. A cold atmosphere does NOT affect the emission (or radiant heat loss) of a warmer surface.
> A cold atmosphere does NOT affect the emission (or radiant heat loss) of a warmer surface.
I vaguely recall that you argue that the atmosphere keeps the Earth colder, Pup. What you just said is incompatible with this idea.
Would you like me to check back?
Clint R
You are arguing with a limited view of the physics.
There is no twisting of words it if really quite clear. Did you read the link I posted for you. It is not my concept it is accepted reality that is used in engineering applications.
Again there is no violation of the 2nd law. The 2nd Law claims HEAT does not flow from cold to hot. Yes.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
Again what is claimed in science: “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
Energy flows both ways, cold sends energy to hot, but hot sends more energy away than it receives back from cold.
NO VIOLATION OF 2ND LAW!
Cold sends radiant energy to hot which is absorbed. The amount of energy the cold sends to the hot determines how much HEAT the hotter object loses. If very cold the hot object loses almost all of it heat via emission. As the cold gets warmer and sends more energy to the hot then the hot loses less total energy, it emits the same but it also absorbs more and the HEAT loss is the amount emitted minus the amount it receives from the cold.
That is why two objects at the same temperature will remain at that state, each is emitting away and receiving energy. The energy lost by one object by emission is restored when it absorbs an equal amount of energy it emitted away. It is physics, it is experimentally validated many many times, it is applied in engineering. You can claim it is not true, but it just means you are very wrong. Not much more can be said. You can dispute the science all you want it won’t make you claims any better or more true.
Here again you are trying to get around 2LoT, Norman.
Your first half is all about 2Lot. You get that mostly right. Then about halfway through your comment, you revert to perverting physics — “Cold sends radiant energy to hot which is absorbed. The amount of energy the cold sends to the hot determines how much HEAT the hotter object loses.”
Surfaces do not absorb significant IR from colder objects. You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
Does a T-bone steak absorb IR from an ice cube? In your perverted physics, it does. So how many ice cubes does it take to cook the steak, since in your perverted physics fluxes add.
norman…”I will give you some evidence to consider. Then maybe you will understand the GHE”.
***
There is nothing at your link that supports the greenhouse theory.
Strong argument you got there, Gordo.
That’s because, as I claimed, there is nothing at Norman’s link to discuss in that context.
C’mon, Gordo.
Perhaps you missed this para:
Read, then think.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
EM,
Since Logos is all about claims and proofs, it’s important to make sure we are discussing the correct claims.
Here is Roy’s claim:
The overarching idea is that the greenhouse effect does not exist, not that greenhouse gases do not exist. Graham simply stopped short of reading the complete sentence.
That’s implicit, but what is explicit? Two claims:
(C1) The atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward.
(C2) Even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature.
Graham’s misunderstanding seems to be around “those gases.” The gases Roy is referring to are those that emit thermal infrared radiation downward.
So neither C1 or C2 state or imply that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas simpliciter.
It was still fun to prove his misreading wrong.
Enjoy your evening,
W
…and neither (C1), nor (C2), are claims that have been made by anyone who does not believe in the GHE, as far as I’m aware. (C2) is more likely to have been made, by someone, somewhere, but I don’t recall reading it, personally. Happy to be proven wrong on that one. For someone to claim (C1), they would have to be arguing that no radiatively-active gases exist in the atmosphere. Seems unlikely that anyone would ever say that. But, the internet is a big place…
I already showed you examples for C1, Graham.
As for C2, I have no qualms going over examples.
Besides C1 or C2, Sky Dragon Cranks only have what Pup uses to troll.
I hope you do not mind if Roy forgot about that.
Why are you bringing you this on yourself?
…neither (C1), nor (C2), are claims that have been made by anyone who does not believe in the GHE, as far as Im aware. (C2) is more likely to have been made, by someone, somewhere, but I do not recall reading it, personally. Happy to be proven wrong on that one. For someone to claim (C1), they would have to be arguing that no radiatively-active gases exist in the atmosphere. Seems unlikely that anyone would ever say that. But, the internet is a big place…
> as far as Im aware.
Looks like you’re not aware very far.
Looks like you were wrong, again.
EM,
For good measures we might return to Tyson’s claim:
That claim does not imply anything regarding what Sky Dragon Cranks believe about the radiative properties of CO2.
I have no idea why Graham has created his strawman to support his special pleading, but it’s of no importance whatsoever.
All Tyson has to do to support his claim is to present Sky Dragon Cranks who deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1384651
Explain what else “greenhouse gas” means in this context, if not “radiatively active gas”? Especially given the mention of “the whole body of molecular quantum mechanics and all confirming experiments and measurements“.
Willard, I believe he is saying that Sky Dragon Cranks agree with the data presented in these graphs https://ibb.co/TPnCT9t.
They just don’t believe in the GHE.
maguff…where is the proof at your link that there is a greenhouse effect?
“where is the proof at your link that there is a greenhouse effect?”
Seriously?
Obviously it is the fact that without the GHGs the entire measured spectrum would be at the level of the terrestrial window’s temperature. No carve outs for GHE.
maguff…”Obviously it is the fact that without the GHGs the entire measured spectrum would be at the level of the terrestrial windows temperature. No carve outs for GHE”.
***
Where’s the scientific proof? Where are the measurements that correlate CO2 to warming IN THE ATMOSPHERE?
In the IPCC literature, they cannot provide proof of greenhouse warming. Their best proof is that 19th century scientists said it was real. The next best evidence is that it started warming in 1850, CO2 began increasing a century before, therefore CO2 causes the warming.
What they deny, or at least, write off, is the Little Ice Age which ended about the same time. The world had to start re-warming, right?? Not according to the IPCC and climate alarmists, it was CO2, a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere.
If you want to do science, you need to consider all evidence while ignoring or suppressing none. The IPCC don’t even consider the views of skeptics since they don’t allow skeptic papers to be reviewed. We recall the Climategate email scandal in which an IPCC Coordinating Lead Author bragged that he and his partner. Kevin, would see to it that skeptic papers would be blocked.
One of those papers was co-authored by John Christy of UAH, a scientists with a degree in climate science and with high integrity.
> Their best proof
Come on, Gordo.
Citation needed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
“A greenhouse gas (GHG or GhG) is a gas that absorbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range, causing the greenhouse effect.”
The very first sentence from the Wiki entry on GHGs mentions their radiative properties. That is actually what defines them as GHGs. That they cause the GHE is obviously disputed by those that do not believe in the GHE. However, their radiative properties are not. Not in any example Little Willy has produced.
Tyson,
Also note your clarification:
I think it’s safe to say that Graham did not get the picture. None of what you’re saying makes his special pleading relevant. His error might lie in this presupposition:
(GP) The belief that CO2 has radiative properties implies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Gordo obligingly proved this implication wrong.
Cheers.
Let’s make sure Graham won’t be able to wiggle out of that one:
(GP) The belief that CO2 has radiative properties implies the belief that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
You might like this interesting thought experiment, which involves Oscar, a guy who entertains strange beliefs regarding arthritis:
https://philosophy.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Burge-1979-Individualism-and-the-Mental.pdf
“None of the skeptics here have claimed CO2 does not absorb and emit EM/IR.”
– Gordon Robertson
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1385229
EM,
You might also like:
Gordo has yet to get Graham’s memo.
They should coordinate shortly.
Gordon literally immediately went on to say:
"CO2 is an infrared absorbing gas but there is no proof that such gases produce the iconic greenhouse effect."
Again, he was not denying that CO2 is a radiatively-active gas.
You really kept repeating that red herring all evening and night, Graham.
Silly goose.
Obviously not a red herring…
Tyson & EM,
As you can see, Gordo provides a perfect example of someone who refutes that presupposition:
(GP) The belief that CO2 has radiative properties implies the belief that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Gordo believes that CO2 has radiative properties, but Gordo does not believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Well played, Gordo!
If Tyson didn’t mean to say that “when [those who do not believe in the GHE] argue that CO2 is not a [radiatively active] gas, they are arguing against the whole body of molecular quantum mechanics and all confirming experiments and measurements”, then please explain this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1384977
Your favorite cranks these days believe in different properties than everyone else, Graham.
Your favorite paper even handwaved to some new atomic theory.
At some point you’ll need to realize that your word games can’t get you very far against me. You don’t have the training. You don’t have the culture. You don’t have the style. And you suck at physics.
Biology did not prepare you for what’s coming.
Neither did your 74 months of trolling.
Sleep well.
He couldn’t explain the comment…guess he’s worked out by now that he was wrong, again.
I actually did, graveyard shift guy. But you are playing dumb once again.
Before I hammer the point home, riddle me this:
How can someone believe in the properties of greenhouse gases but not in the effect that bears the same name?
Last time I checked, physical properties came with clearcut effects.
I already explained this in the simplest way I could:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1384981
Just because GHGs absorb and emit radiant energy in the thermal infrared range does not mean there is a GHE. How have you gone this long without understanding that those who do not believe in the GHE do not deny the radiative properties of CO2 and the like?
What part of incongruous statements do you not understand?
I get your comment, Tyson. What I meant is that obviously when you said “when [those who do not believe in the GHE] argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, they are arguing against the whole body of molecular quantum mechanics and all confirming experiments and measurements”, you meant “radiatively active gas” by “greenhouse gas”. Otherwise, you would not have made this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1384977
Little Willy is trying to pretend that when you said “greenhouse gas” you actually meant something other than “radiatively active gas”.
I write my mind the way I want it to read. When I wrote GHGs I meant GHGs, no need to impugn my integrity.
Since you appear to speak for all those who do not believe in the GHE, can you tell me what GR means by ” what is ‘molecular’ quantum mechanics?” I’ll prepare an answer for him, but his question is like asking what is the meaning of life?
Graham simply plays around the concept of greenhouse gases, Tyson. He is trying to suggest that is is possible to believe in a greenhouse gas that has no greenhouse effect. To which we must agree: nothing prevents anyone to believe in a triangle that has four sides. And then the question becomes: does that person really believes in triangles?
I know that these word games are the least of your concerns. But please bear with Graham. That is all he got.
Yes, Tyson, you meant GHGs, gases that absorb and emit radiant energy in the thermal infrared range. Thanks for clarifying, that puts Little Willys nonsense to bed.
Thank you for posting graphs showing the effect greenhouse gases over the Sahara desert, the Antarctic ice sheet, tropical western pacific, and Southern Irak. That clearly shows that for you a greenhouse gas is recognized by its effect.
Let us hope this will put Graham to sleep.
…thanks for clarifying, that puts Little Willys nonsense to bed.
dremt…”So Kristian was not denying that CO2 is a radiatively-active molecule”.
***
Whatever happened to Kristian?
Good question! He hasn’t posted here for a long time. The last comment he made on his blog Okulaer was in February this year though, so I guess he has only been MIA for about eight months. Still long enough to wonder…
C’mon, Gordo.
Kristian latest comment was 2020-01.
Only now you’re wondering?
In any event, reading his last post might answer one of Graham’s riddle regarding Roy’s second characteristic.
Search for “(C2)” on this page.
Talk about a one-track mind…
It’s almost 5 AM, Graham.
Get back to bed.
Couldn’t keep to your promise, then?
My policy does not depend on your insomnia, Graham.
You were responding to me all day and evening, anyway, via pretending to be talking to someone else but constantly mentioning me and my arguments. So it has all been a farce.
An interesting puzzle.
Suppose some guy G* believes:
(B1) that CO2 has radiative properties
(B2) That these radiative properties does not cause the greenhouse effect.
G* also knows that a greenhouse gas is a gas that abs-orbs and emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared range, causing the greenhouse effect [1].
Does really believe in the radiative properties of CO2?
Or to put it another way, in what properties exactly does he believe?
Good night.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Talk about a one-track mind…
willard…the only gas around here is the gas erupting from you.
Come on, Gordo.
You are supposed to be a Very Respectable guy.
Suppose a person P* believes that CO2 actually cools the atmosphere.
Would you say that P* believes in the same radiative properties as everybody else who believe that actually CO2 has the opposite effect?
If P* is Dremt, then I know he thinks CO2 absorbs infrared energy. I have never seen him say anything to the contrary.
I also know that Dremt is a good guy who tries to contribute to the blog in a positive manner.
Ah, you’re too sweet, Gordo.
Graham starts with G, and he’s more into the “the greenhouse effect exists” camp.
(Tho don’t tell him that, it’s a surprise.)
Which other troll here could be called P*?
No need to answer. It’s a thought experiment. It does not matter much who that can be.
All that matters is that someone could believe in radiative properties that are completely different than the ones physicists usually assume, to the point in fact that P* believes that the opposite of what is theoretically expected would happen.
Thanks, Gordon. I do indeed think CO2 absorbs/emits infrared energy.
willard…”As far as I can tell, their [the Sky Dragon Cranks] central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called greenhouse gases that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature”.
***
1)you are referring to Slayers of the Sky Dragon, please try to get your story straight. It is you and your alarmist brethern who represent the Sky Dragon philosophy.
2)That is not the view of the Slayers. It is that back-radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere cannot raise surface temperature without contradicting the 2nd law. The temperatures of CO2 are equal to or less than the surface temperature therefore they cannot transfer heat to the surface.
The Sky Dragon supporters have amended the 2nd law in a futile attempt to get around it. They have invented a mysterious balance of energies which is supposed to allow transfer of heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface if the balance is positive. I have no idea what that means.
C’mon, Gordo –
No, I’m referring to Sky Dragon Cranks, i.e. those who, like you, deny the greenhouse effect.
Since those who deny the greenhouse effect are cranks and the greenhouse effect has been called the sky dragon, Sky Dragon Cranks does the job better.
Thank you for your understanding.
“2)That is not the view of the Slayers. It is that back-radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere cannot raise surface temperature without contradicting the 2nd law. The temperatures of CO2 are equal to or less than the surface temperature therefore they cannot transfer heat to the surface.”
Exactly. What is stated as being the Slayers’ view in Little Willy’s quote is in fact a straw man. I explained this to him and he has been freaking out ever since.
Tinkling Cymbal
“back-radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere cannot raise surface temperature without contradicting the 2nd law. ”
You know that’s bullshit. 2LOT allows radiation to be transmitted and absorbed in both directions between hotter and colder objects.
2LOT only requires that the NET flow is from hotter to colder
and that the overall entropy increases.
Even at the 15 micrometre spot frequency where CO2 is saturated, no more than 50% of the IR emitted by the surface is returned as back radiation.
The net flow is from hotter to colder and entropy increases as required by 2LOT.
What is stated as being the Slayers’ view in Little Willy’s quote is in fact a straw man. I explained this to him and he has been freaking out ever since.
Ent is flying those passenger jets backwards, again.
“…2LOT allows radiation to be transmitted and absorbed in both directions between hotter and colder objects.”
That’s wrong. 2LoT allows EM to be emitted, but absorp.tion is NOT guaranteed. You’re STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
Pup,
The opposite of impossible is possible, NOT necessary.
Please go learn your modalities and stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson at 10:53 PM
“Where’s the scientific proof? Where are the measurements that correlate CO2 to warming IN THE ATMOSPHERE?”
CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere reduce the outgoing IR radiation creating an energy imbalance at the TOA, which in turn results in heating of the planet. This heating is manifested in many different ways, only one of which is the rise in global mean surface temperature.
About 93% of the extra heat from the energy imbalance ends up in the ocean as increasing ocean heat content (OHC). The global warming signal in OHC is large compared with the natural variability.
On average nearly 3% of the extra heat from the energy imbalance goes into melting ice and another 4% goes into raising temperatures of land and melting permafrost, while less than 1% remains in the atmosphere. The primary reasons for these distributions of excess heat relate to the heat capacity of these climate system components, the specific heat of water versus land versus air, and the masses involved.
Obviously, the initial excess energy has profound effects and big impacts along the way to its destination.
That’s all word salad, TM. It means NOTHING, because it denies reality.
Ice cubes can NOT boil water. Until your cult admits that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving the same surface can NOT heat it to 325K, you are believing that ice cubes can boil water.
Clint, your one-man cult needs to understand that a 315 W/m2 flux EMITTED by a surface is not the same thing as a 315 W/m^2 flux ARRIVING at a surface.
Two EMITTED fluxes of 315 W/m^2 (say from two sheets of ice @ 273 C) cannot add to anything more 315 W/m^2 when they ARRIVE at a surface. And cannot warm anything to more than 273 K. Emitted fluxes do NOT add.
Two ARRIVING fluxes of 315 W/m^2 (say from two distant spotlights) can add to produce 630 W/m^2 at a surface. They can and will heat the surface above 273 K. Arriving fluxes DO add.
If he truly read my comment and came away with the impression “Thats all word salad” then his problem not with the physics but basic reading skills and comprehension.
The comment is well written, properly structured to be concise and intelligible.
I’d recommend for him to find the verbs, consider the tense of the clause, identify non-finite clauses, find the basic constituents and establish the transitivity.
Tyson, my quibble with your post would be with your colloquial use of the word “heat”.
Using modern precise thermodynamics nomenclature:
* “results in heating of the planet” should more properly be “results in WARMING of the planet”.
* “extra heat” should be “extra thermal energy” or “extra internal energy”.
Of course, what you wrote is perfectly understandable to anyone with a passing knowledge of thermodynamics. Colloquial use of “heat” in these ways are common.
TM, your comment may be “well written, properly structured to be concise and intelligible”. But if it denies reality, it’s WRONG.
Back-radiation from the atmosphere is so weak and diffuse it cannot warm a 288K surface. With rare exceptions, it could not even melt ice.
Your lack of understanding of the relevant physics, combined with your devotion to your cult, keeps you from accepting reality.
The comment is well written and chock-full of good information. I see at least three topics for separate thesis proposals in it.
Even Andrea can recognize that Tyson and Tim write clearly, Pup.
Please stop trolling.
Andrea, what are a couple of examples of “good information”?
Folkerts, I have no idea why you made that comment. I stated “arriving”.
Maybe you have no reading comprehension, or you’re addicted to keyboarding.
Tim proves that it is possible to admit what you present as inadmissible, Pup.
If you cannot grasp that sometimes it makes sense to meet your ridiculous challenges, you should be trolling elsewhere.
So, Clint, you agree you are discussing fluxes ARRIVING.
And I wrote “Two ARRIVING fluxes of 315 W/m^2 (say from two distant spotlights) can add to produce 630 W/m^2 at a surface. They can and will heat the surface above 273 K. Arriving fluxes DO add.”
I have described two arriving fluxes — from the hot filaments of light bulbs. I have claimed that these two fluxes can add (ie the two fluxes together are brighter than one such flux by itself.
Are you saying that these two ARRIVING fluxes of 315 W/m^2 do NOT add? Do not get brighter? To not heat better than a single such flux?
Okay Folkerts, I see what you’re trying to do now. You’re trying to back away from your original scenario. That’s good, but you need to learn to admit your mistakes rather than covering them up.
Otherwise, you can’t learn.
No, Clint is it you who is ‘backing out’. You claim to be discussing “flux ARRIVING”, but you immediately go back to talking about the 315 W/m^2 of flux EMITTED by ice.
If you are truly talking about 315 W/m^2 ARRIVING, then you have to acknowledge that that ARRIVING flux could be coming from sunlight, which could definitely heat something above 273 K.
> NET flow
Agreed, EM.
Notice how Gordo tries to put a wedge between these two claims:
(BACK) GHGs cannot radiate back to the surface.
(NET) GHGs cannot have any net effect on the surface temperature.
There is no real difference between these two claims as far as rejecting the greenhouse effect is concerned. The only real difference is that BACK could allows GHGs to have a cooling effect on the surface while NET forbids any change.
Only the reasons for these claims change. Some cranks argue that the greenhouse effect breaks the Second Law. Some other cranks argue that some atomic property neutralizes most of their effect. There are an infinity of ways to support these claims, and many more if we allow irrational ones.
For instance, there is at least one crank who argues that the greenhouse effect does not exist and that GHGs have a cooling effect. There is at least one crank who argues that the greenhouse effect is both nonexistent and negligible.
Make that what you will.
Now, if you look at how cranks explain that back radiation cannot happen, you should see that their analysis follows a similar pattern as Roy describes. This makes sense because Roy presented two very general cases whence there can logically be no more than three. Either CO2 does nothing, CO2 does something but on net amounts to nothing, or CO2 has a negative effect. We can forgive Roy to have forgotten about Pup.
As you can see, the same NET trick is unfolding under our eyes.
"(BACK) GHGs cannot radiate back to the surface."
They can, and Gordon was not saying otherwise.
"if you look at how cranks explain that back radiation cannot happen"
Back-radiation happens, it just can’t warm/insulate/raise temperatures above what they would otherwise be [delete as appropriate].
"NET trick"
Apparently your NET trick is to conflate "an effect on the surface temperature" with what Entropic Man was referring to by "net flow", which is "energy flows both ways, radiatively, heat only flows one way, from hot to cold".
Alright, Graham. I will break my policy because this gets priority.
You really need to sleep:
https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/professional-practice/sleep-adults
Do you take melatonin? If not go buy some. If you really are having problems sleeping to the point that you become utterly disorganized and depressed, please consult.
You are fighting semantic issues that have been solved in the 70s, Graham. You rediscovering them is not worth sacrificing your health.
Take care.
DREMT
YOU: “Back-radiation happens, it just cant warm/insulate/raise temperatures above what they would otherwise be [delete as appropriate].”
The question you do not answer here is what would the temperature otherwise be?
Also YOU: “Apparently your NET trick is to conflate “an effect on the surface temperature” with what Entropic Man was referring to by “net flow”, which is “energy flows both ways, radiatively, heat only flows one way, from hot to cold”.”
It is true heat only flows one one but LESS heat flows from hot to cold if the the temperature of the cold object increases. IF (please understand the “if” it is important to do so) the hot object is heated (like the surface of the Earth is by the Sun) and it loses less heat relative to another state, the steady state temperature will go up and be at a higher level.
The GHE works because the atmosphere allows a lot of solar energy to reach the surface but it prevents most surface energy from going directly to space.
You and Entropic Man keep making the same mistake, Norman. This has not been about me discussing whether or not the various arguments surrounding the GHE are correct. I am not about to get drawn into yet another discussion about that. I have simply been correcting Little Willy, Tyson and even Dr Spencer about their misrepresentation of those arguments. This is why I have asked you the same question, twice now. Do I need to ask you a third time?
DREMT
Yes you have demonstrated your point. Your claim is that the people who do not accept the GHE still accept that CO2 absorbs and emits IR at certain wavelengths. The claim that CO2 is not a GHG is not the same as stating it does not respond to IR. I can agree with that point.
Skeptics of GHE still accept CO2 absorbs and emits IR but they do not think this will produce a radiant barrier that will allow the surface to reach higher temperatures with the same solar input.
Question is why is this point of value to you? I am not sure why it has spanned numerous posts.
Norman,
The context might get lost, so here it is –
In 2013, Roy castigated those who deny the greenhouse effect, whom I call Sky Dragon Cranks:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
Graham claims that he is not targeted by Roy. Since he really really really wants to continue to troll this website for more than 73 months, he has to minimize the scope of Roy’s castigation. His trolling style compels him to preserve the appearance that he’s abiding by social norms.
So he started by saying that Roy misrepresents the Sky Dragon Cranks’ position: no one argues that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; no one argues that CO2 emits energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature.
The two claims are false. Yesterday I focused on the first. There really are people who claims that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, including Tim “The Climate Scientist” Ball.
So Graham tried special pleading, for instance by suggesting that one cannot really disbelieve that CO2 is a greenhouse gas if one also believes that CO2 has radiative properties.
This presumes that the belief that CO2 has radiative properties implies the belief that CO2 is a GHG. This presupposition is false: to name two names, Gordo and Kristian accepts that CO2 has radiative properties but reject that CO2 is a GHG.
Here we are. Graham is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He has to create a wedge between the CO2 properties and there effect. Which means that he has to create the impression that it makes sense to accept that radiative properties exist but without any net effect.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
Thank you, Norman. The answer to why it has spanned numerous posts is: I am being trolled by Little Willy. As you can see.
Norman,
I forgot to clarify the subtext –
When I declared my intention not to respond to Graham until his bedtime, he tried to provoke me by replying to to every single comment I made. While his trolling failed, it made him stay awake until the morning. The timestamps of his comments reveal that his sleep pattern can become troublesome. So I asked him to take care of himself, for those on the spectrum both have anxiety and sleep problems.
It should be obvious to anyone that greenhouse gases ought to play their part in the greenhouse effect, but here we are.
“…he tried to provoke me by replying to to every single comment I made”
Well, if every single comment you made hadn’t been about me or my arguments, I wouldn’t have felt obliged to set the record straight.
DREMT, thanks for taking the time to babysit worthless willard. With his personal issues, if you didn’t spend time giving him attention, he might have hurt himself or others. People with mental issues like he has are hard to predict.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to give a carrot to Graham for his sleep deprivation over silly semantic issues he fails to master, Pup. That’s, like, toxicly exploitative of you. But then as a sock puppet who has been timed a few times already by Roy, what else to expect?
Please stop trolling.
You are welcome, Clint. Little Willy, your faux-concern whilst continuing to say things that you only intend to irritate with is what is toxic.
> He has to create a wedge between the CO2 properties and there effect.
… their effect.
Willard
I was just acknowledging DREMT point of what he was stating. I do not accept his view as a valid one.
The reason GHG generate a GHE is because they are transparent to visible light an let most of it reach the surface but are not transparent to IR band of EMR.
I do not know why DREMT is so concerned with the issue that Carbon Dioxide can emit/absorb. The issue does it create a GHE that allows the surface to reach a higher steady state temperature with a given amount of solar input. The answer to this is a Yes.
I do not know why there are a group of actual scientists that do not accept the GHE, Postma is a major one but there are others. Claes Johnson may be a good mathematician but he makes up unsupported claims. I do not understand the scientific skepticism of GHE which is easy to demonstrate with measured values. It baffles me. I can see unscientific types think it is not possible, there are people that believe the Earth is a flat disk. I really do not have an answer. I interacted with Postma once and he went lunatic on me and banned me from his blog. Like he is unreachable with logic, science or evidence. He just preaches this set belief and thinks any who dare disagree are like demon possessed golems. He is a weird human.
Willard
My irritation with Climate Change is not the established and easy to measure GHE. CO2 addition to the atmosphere should result in some global warming from all the available physics.
My issue with using every and all severe weather events to scare and frighten people into believing this “worst case” global warming scenario which may be possible but is far from a scientific established reality. It is not so much the scientists creating this hype and fear, it is the Media as a unified voice.
There never is a solid scientific connection that a given severe weather event is related to global warming and that is what bothers me. That is where I am a strong skeptic off. As with any science one needs logic, rational thought, evidence, and some observation. Speculation is not science. So far I have not seen rational debate on any given weather event related to a slight global warming.
Cliff Mass seems to do deep analysis and most the time he can not find any links. He also believes in the science part. GHE.
Norman,
The reason why Graham insists on the radiative properties of CO2 is quite simple. It is a True Scotsman to dismiss any claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas as not well thought through, badly expressed, etc. Thus the strawman accusation, which started my research for counterexamples.
It does not matter much for what Roy was suggesting. As I read him, he simply says that there are those who deny that CO2 has any effect, and there are those who deny that CO2 has any net warming effect. I know you agree on that.
I also know that we disagree on more important things, which is fine. But as long as Sky Dragon Cranks troll this website, discussing these more important issues will be drowned in noise. Compare the new thread with this one.
To remind our trio of trolls of Roy’s will seems useful to me. At least one of them pretends to take heed. In any event, once their whole playbook is known and parried, their annoyance should be reduced to a minimum.
The only alternative would be for Roy to hire a moderator. I obviously am not the one to do that. Perhaps you or Richard?
"I do not know why DREMT is so concerned with the issue that Carbon Dioxide can emit/absorb."
…because the arguments against the GHE have been around a long time. It’s ridiculous that people still don’t understand them. Or willfully misrepresent them. It might seem like a small point to you, but the people I am trying to get it across to just will not learn or listen to what I’m saying. Even now Little Willy is digging up more articles that only show he is missing the point.
…and it’s not just the CO2 absorbing/emitting thing. Look at the 9:11 AM comment that we’re all now responding to. More misrepresentation! We can’t even get one point understood, before moving onto the next misunderstanding.
> Apparently your NET trick is to conflate “an effect on the surface temperature” with what Entropic Man was referring to by “net flow”, which is “energy flows both ways, radiatively, heat only flows one way, from hot to cold”.
Why don’t you quote the relevant bits from what EM said:
EM is saying that backradiation does not break 2LOT if you think of it properly as a net effect.
What the hell do you think is the effect he’s talking about?
I know what EM is talking about. You do not seem to.
“back-radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere cannot raise surface temperature without contradicting the 2nd law.”
Funny the themes converge.
…you do not seem to.
I think we got a winner:
https://energycentral.com/c/um/no-such-thing-greenhouse-gases
Hmmm. We might have more than one winner:
https://nov79.com/gbwm/ulsci.html
I think Gordo likes Gary Novak.
They come in three:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/10/chuck-wikman/r-is-the-rock-that-shatters-the-greenhouse-effect/
Lew Rockwell dot com. What can go wrong?
"I have just presented experimental data that says greenhouse gases DO NOT raise the temperature of air any more than anything else."
You are continuously conflating an argument that GHGs have no effect on temperature (i.e. an argument that there’s no GHE), with the non-existent argument that CO2 is not a radiatively active gas. You are just doing the same thing over and over again. Getting very boring now. For everyone reading.
willard…why are you so hung up on the idea that GHGs do exist? A real greenhouse is heated by all gases in air, which are 99% oxygen and nitrogen. Therefore, N2 and O2 must be greenhouse gases.
CO2 and WV are part of the mix in a greenhouse, therefore they are either all GHGs or they are not. Which is it?
Little Willy will misconstrue this in 3…2…1…
C’mon, Gordo.
Yesterday was about CO2.
Today it’s GHGs in general.
Learn to read.
Typical Willard dodge. We could call it Willard Dodgeball.
Which is it, Willard, are O2/N2 greenhouse gases? They are 99% responsible for heating a greenhouse.
C’mon, Gordo.
You asked:
“why are you so hung up on the idea that GHGs do exist”
Yesterday was about CO2.
Today I searched for GHGs in general.
And I found other cranks.
As you can see I’m busy.
If you want to play charades, pick someone else.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I think it is quite clear that there exist Sky Dragon Cranks who dispute the very existence of greenhouse gases. Time to move to the other part of the sTrAWmAN accusation. Let’s start with a reminder:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
The second part thus consists in establish that there exists Sky Dragon Cranks who asset that CO2 has no net effect on temperature.
Let’s start with a random hit:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/16/where-the-complex-climate-models-go-wrong/#comment-1474579
An open problem is how to classify the claim that CO2 would cool the atmosphere. It usually is classfied as denial of the greenhouse effect. But come to think of it, isn’t it just another version of the greenhouse effect?
Since those who express this idea usually deny the greenhouse effect, we have no choice but to accept their inner contradictions.
"I think it is quite clear that there exist Sky Dragon Cranks who dispute the very existence of greenhouse gases"
Absolutely not. They might query calling them greenhouse gases, and they do argue that they don’t lead to warming…but they don’t dispute that radiatively active gases exist.
"The second part thus consists in establish that there exists Sky Dragon Cranks who asset that CO2 has no net effect on temperature."
No. Because that is just a statement that there’s no GHE, again. You need this bit:
"A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb".
With emphasis:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Anyone who’d claim that a radiative gas that has no net effect on temperature would have to assume that the gas emits and receives at the same rate, in whatever manner.
But Graham is a litteralist.
No…because there are other things to consider…like for one thing whether the radiation emitted by the cooler gas is absorbed by the warmer surface.You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
> like for one thing whether the radiation emitted by the cooler gas is absorbed by the warmer surface
And what do you think happens in that case, genius?
Once again you’re trying to fight basic algebra.
DREMT
Since you have a science background this link you will find useful.
The point that radiation from a cooler gas can’t be absorbed by a warmer surface is destroyed by statistical thermodynamics.
At room temperature nearly all molecules are in ground zero vibrational state meaning most can absorb any incoming radiant energy from any source hot or cold.
I am not sure why you think like Clint R or Gordon Robertson on this issue. It goes totally against established science and Roy Spencer himself did a simple experiment to show that is a false belief.
Here is the statistical thermodynamics. Consider what they say, maybe do your own calculations.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/BethuneCookman_University/BCU%3A_CH_332_Physical_Chemistry_II/Text/18%3A_Partition_Functions_and_Ideal_Gases/18.4%3A_Most_Molecules_Are_in_the_Ground_Vibrational_State_at_Room_Temperature
DREMT
I am curious as why you think energy from a cold body can’t be absorbed by a hotter one? Where does this come from as it goes against textbook physics.
Norman, did you find another link you can’t understand?
Here’s your perverted concept of reality:
“At room temperature nearly all molecules are in ground zero vibrational state meaning most can absorb any incoming radiant energy from any source hot or cold.”
1) So what is the ground state vibrational frequency of CO2 at room temperature?
2) What is the ground state vibrational frequency of CO2 at -40°F?
Clint R,
1) zero
2) zero
Because in the ground state, the molecule is not vibrating.
You obviously didn’t get to that level in your Physics training.
Best go back to school, you don’t understand any of this.
bob, if you weren’t braindead, I would refer you to equation 18.4.2 in the link Norman doesn’t understand.
But, you’re braindead….
Yes dear Clint R,
That cite by Norman was for the vibrational states of diatomic molecules yet you asked about a triatomic molecule.
Now who is braindead?
Very good, bob. You got my point. Norman found another link he can’t understand.
Thanks.
Once again:
This has not been about me discussing whether or not the various arguments surrounding the GHE are correct. I am not about to get drawn into yet another discussion about that. I have simply been correcting Little Willy, Tyson and even Dr Spencer about their misrepresentation of those arguments.
Zooming in on the relevant bit:
Perhaps Roy should have clarified the emphasized clause for Sky Dragon Cranks, who tend to be literalists.
Indeed. Since nobody denies that GHGs are radiatively active gases, nobody is saying that the atmosphere does not have so-called greenhouse gases that emit thermal radiation downward (as well as in all directions). It’s a complete and utter straw man. Maybe someday you’ll be able to accept that.
A crank who denies that greenhouse gases exist denies that they are radiatively active. Inexistence carries no real property. Not that this matters for what Roy really said, which you now seem to start to realize.
Roy was talking about the belief that greenhouse gases emited DLR. Many deny that fact, including the PSI crew, whose diverse viewpoints may very well only be connected by a strong distaste for backradiation.
A while ago, you, by contrast, acknowledge that backradiation exists. Yet you claim that the greenhouse effect does not. Whatever. Your idiosyncrasies are none of my concerns.
Silly goose.
You are in denial. The vast, vast majority of those that argue that there is no GHE agree that back-radiation exists. You seem to have been living under a rock.
So you say, Graham. So you say.
Meanwhile I will keep collecting Sky Dragon cranks who claim that backradiation breaks thermodynamics.
…that back-radiation warming breaks thermodynamics.
You should re-phrase that to
Back radiation heat transfer may break thermodynamics, not always, but some of the time, while back radiation warming is fine and observed.
Semantics isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.
Cause you know, sometimes the atmosphere is warmer than the surface.
I am just correcting Little Willy on his misrepresentation, bob. Those who argue that there is no GHE generally argue that back-radiation does not warm/insulate/result in increased temperatures [delete as appropriate]. Not that it is non-existent. Though you will always find a few exceptions to the rule.
Quite right, Bob.
I provide all textual evidence. Graham has only semantics to take care of, and he messes up. Often when he is about to lose a point.
In fairness, asking a literalist to curate meanings is like asking an OCD to sort nails.
So just to make sure, when you say that sometimes warming via backradiation is fine, you are contradicting any crank who would argue otherwise. And that includes the PSI cranks who would claim that warming via backradiation is unphysical or breaks thermo.
*Sometimes* counters *never*.
Lol, obviously when the atmosphere is warmer than the surface, the atmosphere warming the surface does not break the laws of thermodynamics.
Got to trust the Tall Bloke to come up with the crankiest interpretations:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/new-result-shows-co2-has-almost-no-effect-on-temperature
The second part of Roy’s claim is thus grounded.
No. See above.
…meaning this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1385726
willard…”In 2013, Roy castigated those who deny the greenhouse effect, whom I call Sky Dragon Cranks:”
***
That’s not how I recall it. Roy had issues with the Slayers who claim to have slain the Sky Dragon. You are so confused, you think the Slayers are the Sky Dragons. But, hey, we are used to how stupid you are in general.
I recall at the time, a rebuttal by Dr. Pierre Latour, who has a degree in chemical engineering and who has worked directly in the field of thermodynamics. Latour speaks a language I understand, re engineering, and I thought he more than adequately rebutted Roy’s claims. Unfortunately, Roy did not respond and I’ll leave it at that.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re the one confused. Sky Dragon Cranks, as I understand it, simply deny the greenhouse effect. Your recollections are also useless if only because of your mythomania.
Latour wrote his cranky piece in 2014, BTW. Here’s a bit:
https://principia-scientific.com/skeptical-arguments-that-don-t-hold-water-pierre-latour-s-rebuttal/
That’s almost word for word what Roy wrote in 2013!
Thanks for that.
"CO2 can’t cause warming because CO2 emits IR as fast as it absorbs."
OK. Now you have finally found something that supports the second part of Roy’s claim. Thought there might be someone out there who had said something similar.
willard…”Youre the one confused. Sky Dragon Cranks, as I understand it, simply deny the greenhouse effect”.
***
Your understand is based on faulty information. Sky Dragon comes from the title of a book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’. A sub-theme is ‘refutation of the theory of man-made global warming’.
Sky Dragon is an obvious metaphor for the warming effect of CO2 and the authors in the book have set out to slay the Sky Dragon.
Ergo, anyone who support the anthropogenic theory supports the Sky Dragon. Skeptics are the slayers of the Sky Dragon.
One of the authors of the book, Claes Johnson, is a mathematician and his explanation of blackbody theory is the best and most readable explanation I have encountered. Furthermore, Norman hates him, making the credibility of Johnson even more acute. Anyone Norman hates is a good scientist.
Jonson’s explanation of the 2nd law is also very good, especially as he applies it to the atmosphere. He has also written a good historical review of climate theory.
C’mon, Gordo.
We already been over this yesterday.
Sky Dragon = Greenhouse Effect
Cranks = deniers like you
Sky Dragon Cranks = people like you who deny the greenhouse effect.
What do dragons do? They blow fire out of their mouths. What is CO2 claimed to do? Warm the atmosphere. Get it? CO2 is the Sky Dragon trying to warm the atmosphere.
Knights set out in the day to slay dragons. Today the idea is to slay the Sky Dragon, meaning to slay the myth that CO2 is warming the atmosphere.
Hey, even Roy does not claim CO2 is warming the atmosphere. He claims it ‘should’ warm it an undetermined amount but he does not specify. In essence, however, he does not think any such warming would add up to a hill of beans.
I am mystified as to why Roy so vehemently attacked the Slayers. I am sure he has his reasons but they seem to be aligned somewhat in their thoughts as to the outcome of any such warming.
I also cannot understand why Roy, Richard Lindzen, the late Fred Singer, and Anthony Watts take the position they do on the 2nd law. As stated by Clausius it is brutally simple and obvious: heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body. He emphasized this applies to radiation as well.
Pierre Latour addressed this in his reply to Roy. He pointed out that if CO2 is warmed by incoming solar, then you have a possible summation of heat quantities between the atmosphere and the surface. That is not the same thing as CO2 at a colder temperature radiating to the surface and warming it. That’s what contradicts the 2nd law.
Roy has backed the theory that a positive balance of energy can override the 2nd law. In order to have that balance, both quantities would have to be heat. You cannot bring infrared energy into the summation. There is no such condition attached to the 2nd law simply because it address the direction of ***HEAT*** transfer and has nothing to do with IR as energy.
> I am mystified as to why Roy so vehemently attacked the [Sky Dragon Cranks].
C’mon, Gordo.
Roy may have written a hundred posts on Sky Dragon Cranks. He believes they are doing contrarians a disservice.
Worse, they exploited his own website, often hiding under sockpuppets.
You really have to be very dumb not to empathize with the man.
Gordon Robertson
I do not believe I have ever said I hate Claes Johnson. I think he is a crank and a poor scientist but that is not grounds for hate.
I have strong negative feelings to the likes of Lanka (who I believe uses his credentials to manipulate people into the false medicine).
If you look at a lot of the current Conspiracy leaders you can see that once they get people to buy their ideas they lure them in with alternative medicine and make a fortune off the hooked fish.
"Now you have finally found something that supports the second part of Roy’s claim."
Mind you, it is only somebody writing about the argument that Dr Spencer himself seems to have created, and included in his "Skeptical Arguments That Don’t Hold Water" article. It seems like they defend it? Sort of.
Sort of indeed, Graham.
Do you have a point?
“A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature.”
My point is, Dr Spencer seemed to have invented this argument himself. In general, it’s a straw man as far as I’m aware. The fact that Dr Spencer wrote it into one of his articles, which meant that Pierre then wrote about it, saying in part that he wasn’t even sure what it had to do with GHE theory, is hardly a ringing endorsement that this was some typical Slayer argument.
> [Roy] seemed to have invented this argument himself
Alternatively, your recollection of the history of this blog may be faulty.
How are you going to settle the issue?
I assume you would have proved me wrong by now, if you could.
I think I already did, but I may be biased.
So I will let readers decide.
Lol, OK.
I might as well plug in Jim Cripwell, the old contrarian from Judy’s, the first guy I thought of when I read Roy’s quote at first:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/#comment-81223
Once again, the second part of Roy’s claim is supported.
Rest in peace, Jim.
No. See above. 5:22 PM.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1385726
Jim Cripwell was a good guy. If he has passed on, I am sorry to hear that.
You got to hand it to Gordo:
https://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/30737.html
Sky Dragon Cranks have an ethos.
Let’s see if Graham will be able to connect this model with the “can’t absorb because it emits” argument.
Dang. Misplaced. Alright. I wanted to post this here:
https://judithcurry.com/2014/08/30/week-in-review-25/
Note the date.
It’s tragic when someone’s life is suddenly terminated. I had a good buddy on a reverse engineering site I had known for 20 years. He suddenly developed cancer recently and seems to have passed on as well.
This guy was an expert on reverse engineering and went out his way to help anyone who wanted to learn. His sig was ‘Teach, don’t flame’.
Well, Gordo. I loved Jim, and I can assure you that he had a potent flamethrower. You should realize by now that I don’t care one way or the other. Open, closed- I don’t care. Gentlemanship is not about politeness and decorum. The first rule of etiquette is not to care about the etiquette of others.
There are many fallen Climateball players. Max (Manacker), Pekka Pirila, Fred Moolten, etc. The list goes on and on. I wish I had kept a list.
Always fun to see Joe wetting his pants:
https://tinyurl.com/joe-postma-wets-his-pants
It’s as if Roy had a fairly good idea of what Sky Dragon Cranks kept saying.
Not sure which part of Roy’s claim you’re on about with this one.
Please, keep linking to random GHE-skeptic arguments. Perhaps people might finally learn something about what they are actually saying.
Got to love Joe:
[MARY] If 1200ppm of CO2 in a greenhouse has virtually no effect on temperature, how could a small increase in the atmosphere be the control knob of global warming?
[JOE] That’s exactly right Mary! Great facts there!
Well done, Joe!
Keep on linkin’.
Thank you.
Will do.
Good. Try not to create too many new threads on the same subject, though. That would be spamming. Try to keep it all on one thread if you can.
Each Sky Dragon crank is unique.
If I ever look at what you say about backradiation, you will have your own thread.
…try to keep it all on one thread if you can.
Closer to our heart:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/in-defense-of-the-term-greenouse-effect/#comment-302565
Perhaps Graham will be able to distinguish a claim (e.g. CO2 has no net effect on temperature) from an argument (e.g. CO2 absorbs and emits at the same rate, radiative exchange is unidirectional, etc.)
We can hope.
You’re just lashing out wildly, now. Not even any direction to what you’re linking to.
from Dremt???…”CO2 has no net effect on temperature)”
***
Fair assessment. The effect is so small as to be insignificant. No law in science can corroborate the modeler claim that CO2 has a warming effect of 9% to 25%, depending on the amount of WV.
Existing laws like the Ideal Gas Law make it clear that warming in a gas is proportional to its mass percent. With a mass percent of 0.04, CO2 could not warm the atmosphere any more than about 0.04C per degree C rise in temperature.
Beware, Gordo.
Graham will tell you that you do not exist 🙂
???
https://youtu.be/-CxX8nvLalE
???
For starters, Graham holds that you cannot say that greenhouse gases do not exist, for you accept that they have radiative properties.
And now you are saying that CO2 has a greenhouse effect!
So wonderful.
“Yes you have demonstrated your point. Your claim is that the people who do not accept the GHE still accept that CO2 absorbs and emits IR at certain wavelengths. The claim that CO2 is not a GHG is not the same as stating it does not respond to IR. I can agree with that point.”
– Norman
“[T]heir central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward.”
– Roy
…and, that is a straw man.
No backradiation, no GHG that emits DLR.
Many Sky Dragon Cranks deny backradiation.
Many from the PSI crew.
Generally, they say back-radiation does not warm, not that it does not exist. You may find some people saying that it does not exist, but they would be an extreme minority.
Wanna bet?
If you go searching for a minority opinion on the internet, you will find it…because it is the internet.
Another variation on the variation Roy emphasized:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/stephen-wilde-the-ignoring-of-adiabatic-processes-big-mistake/comment-page-1/#comment-38518
Enthymemes are not for litteralists.
If Stephen Wilde can do that pea and thimble game:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/stephen-wilde-the-ignoring-of-adiabatic-processes-big-mistake/comment-page-1/#comment-38519
So can any Sky Dragon Crank.
You just seem to be linking to things at random and highlighting phrases you vaguely hope have some connection to some point or other.
At Tall’s, Stephen Wilde wrote a post called The Myth of Backradiation:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/stephen-wilde-the-myth-of-backradiation/
If Stephen says that backradiation is a myth, there are fair chances that he denies it. And since backradiation is the heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface, readers might be justified to think that Stephen denies that greenhouse gases can warm downward, just like Roy warned against in his 2013 post.
Speaking of which, compare and contrast:
[STEPHEN] The truth is that it is a matter of pressure (induced by the gravitational field of the planet and atmospheric mass) plus the level of solar input that determines the temperature at the surface of ANY planet.
[ROY] If it was just a matter of air pressure, why is the stratosphere virtually the same temperature over its entire depth, despite spanning a factor of 100x in pressure, from about ~2 mb to ~200 mb?
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
It’s as if Roy knew what he was talking about, contrary as what Sky Dragon Crank literalists might argue.
Let readers decide.
From the article:
“As it is, GHGs radiate upwards as much as they radiate downwards and I have seen no evidence that the two directions of emission do not cancel out.”
So Stephen Wilde does not deny that GHGs radiate downward. Not that he is a Slayer anyway.
Stephen only believes that backradiation is a myth.
He also posits that GHG radiation more or less cancels out. That is his thermostat hypothesis.
You are quite wrong, once again…but it is like talking to a brick wall.
I must admit that I love revisiting these snipes, Graham.
It’s like you keep raising and raising.
Lousy money management technique – you don’t gamble, do you?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1386950
Graham,
Roy’s logic is tight. He is kicking out those who claim that CO2 cannot warm, or that it cannot produce net warming. That’s good enough to include all Sky Dragon Cranks.
In general, net zero means in and out cancel. You can do that Pierre’s way, but you can do that in an infinity of other ways. I’m showing a variety.
Do you really think that Roy only kicks off Pierre’s argument but not other cranks? No. Yet that’s your current stratergery now.
It’s past 2:30 where you are. If I’m to respond to you after your bedtime, we have to establish when it is. And you got to stick to it.
“In general, net zero means in and out cancel”.
***
One thing to say that, quite another to prove it. Let’s see your proof. With regard to the 2nd law, where is your net heat in and your net heat out.
Be very careful with your definition of heat.
You are right, Gordo:
A – A = 0
The law of inverse. Pretty hard to prove.
“Do you really think that Roy only kicks off Pierre’s argument but not other cranks? No. Yet that’s your current stratergery now.”
No, it is not my “stratergery”. Nor is it my strategy. Look, Dr Spencer wrote an article nine years ago where he said Slayers were not welcome at this blog. That’s one thing. We already discussed that. That he misrepresents Slayer arguments in that article, is a separate issue. Try to keep ‘em separated.
“He is kicking out those who claim that CO2 cannot warm, or that it cannot produce net warming. That’s good enough to include all Sky Dragon Cranks.”
Dr Spencer’s blog has always been a place where those who do not believe there’s a GHE frequent. Long may that continue.
Roy bannished Sky Dragon Cranks, Graham:
I can agree that Dr Spencer banned the Slayers, and in doing so probably intended wanting to discourage those who do not believe in the GHE from commenting at his blog. It will not keep me from commenting, however. Sorry…
…and yes, he misrepresented the Slayers, as I have explained.
I am quite confident that you will continue to troll after your 73th month here, Graham.
Please stop pretending that you are welcome, and I will let go.
Due diligence to what the PSI crew holds still need to be paid, however.
OK, I am not welcome. The question is, should I be? IMO, yes. More so than alarmist trolls.
Roy has deserved the right to decide on that matter.
My time to go to bed.
Enjoy your day.
Of course it is up to Dr Spencer who is welcome at his site. I would not assume that you are welcome just because you agree with him on the GHE, however.
That’s certainly your prerogative, gorgeous.
Weird response, but OK.
willard…”If Stephen Wilde can do that pea and thimble game:”
***
Don’t know what you’re on about. Here is Stephen Wilde’s theory…
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-hot-water-bottle-effect/
The less you know the more cooperative you are, Gordo:
That fits the condition for exclusion.
…and yet, Stephen Wilde is not a Slayer.
If it ducks like a duck and truck like a truck, it’s a silly goose.
He argues there is no GHE, but is not associated with PSI. Not a Slayer.
Stephen also claims that there’s a thermostat in the sky that ensures homeostasis, just like Roy suggested.
Roy addressed himself to the PSI crew and bannished their nonsense. Anyone else who come here to spout similar nonsense should not feel welcome.
We are not discussing any claims about thermostats or homeostasis. We are discussing this:
“As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature.”
A thermostat insures that rate, Graham.
This is why your room is at temperature.
We are not discussing any claims about thermostats or homeostasis.
“no net effect on temperature”
“…they emit energy at the same rate they absorb”
And what rate do you think that is, Graham?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1386950
Gordo,
You might also like this post linked on the right side of the page:
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/why-the-radiative-capabilities-of-gases-do-not-contribute-to-the-greenhouse-effect/
Does not look very different than Roy’s paraphrase, except that the time to reach homeostatis is left undefined.
No, this is nothing like what Dr Spencer claimed Slayers say. Not that Stephen Wilde is a Slayer anyway.
Cf. with (C2). Report.
…this is nothing like what Dr Spencer claimed Slayers say. Not that Stephen Wilde is a Slayer anyway.
The “cool back to the earlier temperature” should provide a tell.
Once again, you are not just looking for claims that GHGs produce no net effect on temperature. You are looking for claims that GHGs emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature.
Of course you’ll interpret a rate as instantaneous, Graham.
Why didn’t I thought of that?
No, Little Willy. What I mean is, Stephen Wilde is not talking about the rate GHGs absorb and emit in his theory.
[STEPHEN] The radiative theory of atmospheric gases holds that the temperature of Earths surface is higher than it should be according to the Stefan Boltzmann Constant […] To deal with that it is proposed that radiatively active gases in the atmosphere cause that uplift in temperature by radiating outgoing energy back to the surface for a reduction of the rate of cooling which then causes a surface temperature enhancement.
https://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-gas-constant-as-the-global-thermostat/
How does he get himself so confused?
Tim Folkerts at 7:52 AM
“Tyson, my quibble with your post would be with your colloquial use of the word “heat”.
Using modern precise thermodynamics nomenclature:
* “results in heating of the planet” should more properly be “results in WARMING of the planet”.
* “extra heat” should be “extra thermal energy” or “extra internal energy”.
Of course, what you wrote is perfectly understandable to anyone with a passing knowledge of thermodynamics. Colloquial use of heat in these ways are common.”
I don’t see how the use of WARMING is more precise than HEAT in the context of my post.
By the first law of thermodynamics Delta U = Q + W; and by Fourier’s law Q= -k Delta T. I’m following Einstein’s advice to “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
To clarify further, my comment was about heating as a result of an energy imbalance, i.e. Energy In – Energy Out = Accumulation, where the accumulation term is heat that moves through the various parts of the system.
TM, are you denying the simple example of bricks-in-a-box?
Several bricks are in a perfectly insulated box. They are all at the same temperture as the box. Another brick with the same temperature is added. More photons are flying in the box, but the temperature does not increase.
Adding energy to a system does not always mean an increase in temperature. You need to understand the basics of radiative physics and thermodynamics.
Brilliant! Your magical perfectly insulated box births(?) a brick and knows to keep its temperature the same while gaining energy but doing no work and exchanging no heat because, you know, perfectly insulated. Wow, you are a super god indeed to create such a wonder.
Thanks, but I can’t take any credit. Like Newton, I’m standing on the shoulders of giants.
(You may want to sent a contribution to Dr. Spencer, since you’ve learned something here.)
I am the one that should thank you for replying so quickly. It is gratifying to know that I understood your example, since the part about “Another brick with the same temperature is added” is tricky. An immaculate conception of sorts!
Carry on!
Tyson says: “I dont see how the use of WARMING is more precise than HEAT in the context of my post.”
Heat is Q. A transfer of energy from warm to cool. This is not the same as ‘an increase temperature’.
If you compress a piston, you WARM the air inside, but you don’t HEAT the air.
If you put a lid on a pot on the stove, the lids WARMS the soup, but doesn’t HEAT the soup.
If you put on a coat on a cold winter day, the coat WARMS your skin, but doesn’t HEAT your skin.
Tim…”If you compress a piston, you WARM the air inside, but you dont HEAT the air”.
***
Tim, could we cut the pseudo-science? Warming is heating, it’s the increase of thermal energy in the compressed air.
When you compress a gas, you force the air molecules closer together via compression, they collide more, increasing the velocity, and that increases the overall kinetic energy. Heat is the KE of the air molecules. Heat is the energy that causes them to move.
If you put a lid on soup you increase the pressure…same thing. The KE rises, the heat increases.
If you put on a coat on a cold winter day, it slows the rate of heat dissipation. It would not cause you to warm if your body did not have an internal furnace to replenish internal heat. The coat simply prevents you losing more heat than you are producing internally.
If you are wearing clothing at -35C, that cannot slow the rate of heat dissipation, you will die.
Tim,
Yes, those are all fine examples, but let’s stay with the topic at hand which is that you wrote:
When I say heating of the planet, I mean:
Heat in = Heat out = Q
dS = Q(1/T_Sun 1/T_Earth) = Q(1/5700 1/288) >0.
Substituting WARMING for HEATING would make my comment more colloquial, and simple, but also less precise.
This is my opinion of course, and I don’t think I have any more to say on the subject.
P.s.: mind the missing minus signs…
dS = Q(1/T_Sun 1/T_Earth) = Q(1/5700 1/288) >0.
When I started to look back at what Sky Dragon Cranks claimed (not argued, claimed), I did not appreciate that literalists among us would lack the context in which Roy made his post in which he kicked out those who denied the greenhouse effect. When Roy mentions the denial that greenhouse gases emit thermal infrared radiation downward, he is assuming that readers know their Climateball history.
Here is a great resource for background reading:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/
Note the date.
There are many ways to argue why GHGs are not emitting downward. There are an infinity of ways. All that we need to know is that there are indeed Sky Dragon Cranks who argue so, and that it is possible to argue that GHGs radiate but does not emit thermal radiation downward.
Literalists seem to forget that possibility.
Now, let us recall the challenge Roy offered:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
I think that this challenge needs to be extended to all those who deny the greenhouse effect. It would be really silly to interpret Roy as saying that he only wishes to stop wasting time catering for the ideas of Pierre Latour alone. Yet this is where a literalist interpretation could lead, at least if we leave that judgement to Graham.
So the question remains – has any Sky a dragon Crank offered a numerical model that cohere with observation? If they have not already, then they are not welcome here.
Dr Spencer said:
"As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward."
Dr Spencer was referring to the Slayers, by "their". The Slayers are a specific group of people, who think there is no GHE, and are associated with the PSI organization. It is not the central view of the Slayers that the atmosphere does not have so-called "greenhouse gases" that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. It is not even a "fringe" view held by a tiny minority of the Slayers. If some idiot on a blog somewhere says that he thinks GHGs don’t emit thermal radiation downwards (but apparently all other directions are fine!) this is clearly completely illogical and ridiculous.
What Dr Spencer said is a straw man, certainly for the Slayers, and I would say for the vast, vast majority of those who argue against the GHE. You are always going to find a few uneducated people who say ridiculous things. Don’t tar everybody else with the same brush.
On a separate note, can you please stop creating new threads over and over again on the same subject? You are spamming the whole blog with this nonsense. At least keep it all to one single thread.
> It is not the central view of the [the PSI crew] that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward.
Wanna bet?
> it is possible to argue that GHGs radiate but does not emit
To argue that GHGs radiate but **do** not emit thermal radiation downward, of course.
What Dr Spencer said is a straw man.
So you say, Graham. So you say.
Yes…correctly.
Let readers decide.
Obviously.
Another interesting resource at SoD:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
Does that ring any bell?
Who are you asking? Me? You are not supposed to be responding to me. Please stop spamming.
While they search into their memory, readers might note that DLR stands for Down-welling Longwave Radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation
Sometimes Climateball say Downward instead of Down-welling.
It does not matter much as long as one does not search into specialized lichurchur.
You are right – it does not matter much.
Your mental health matters to me, Graham.
Go to sleep.
Stop responding to me, let me have my say, and then I will go back to sleep. I have already slept for several hours tonight.
Good night, Graham.
Could not get back to sleep.
Try melatonin.
It works.
Ah, I’ll be fine. Thanks.
Splendid.
Almost 5 AM.
Sweet dreams.
There is something very creepy about you…
No U, darling.
Definitely you…
Graham.
It may be a bit early for your bedtime, but I think this is the last comment I am addressing you. So this is goodbye in some way.
Don’t worry. As you yourself said to Bob, I’m not going anywhere.
Enjoy the rest of your life.
W
Since you are constantly obsessively responding to/about me anyway, what difference does it make?
Let readers decide.
…that you are a troll.
SoD provides a roadmap on backradiation. Here it is, with the emphasis on a comment by one of our own:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/back-radiation/#comment-14132
(I try to apply Knuth’s rule on hyphenization.)
Since it’s always hard to know where gb meanders, perhaps this comment would be more to the point:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/back-radiation/#comment-14588
Something tells me that Claes and Nasif are indeed cranks who have something to say about backradiation. The last part of Dug’s comment has been edited, and the moderator left a note with the following castigation:
Readers will appreciate how Roy’s request in 2013 was not very different.
Another cranky comment in that thread starts thus:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/back-radiation/#comment-17311
There is a link hidden leading to PSI at the end. It does not work as the website has been revamped. Here it is:
https://principia-scientific.com/top-scientists-vent-on-nasa-s-sub-prime-greenhouse-gas-hoaxer/
Pierre and Joe are mentioned, but nothing much on backradiation.
Dug’s sock puppet is not very helpful.
Willard
One thing I can compliment you on is your ability to find and display old posts with relevant information. Not sure what search tool you use to find this information.
Thanks, Norman.
All you need are good keywords and the patience to read comment threads. Books still contain an index nominum and/or an index rerum, so good old indexing helps. Otherwise fire up your favorite search engine and type
site:https://drroyspencer.com "stephen wilde" "back radiation"Then you search for “stephen” in the page to see what he has to say. Since commenters tend to repeat themselves, the tropes should spring to you.
One might argue that you don’t even need to know anything about what you find, at least a few literalists have told me so. Hard to imagine what it would be to sift through dross without knowing what to look for. But then literalists then to react in knee-jerk reaction when I call their bluff.
I started circa 2009, so I have some Climateball experience. I never really paid any attention to Sky Dragon Cranks for two reasons. First, they are more or less persona non grata everywhere but here. Second, there’s no real challenge. My first encounter was with the Auditor. Let’s say that contrarianism goes downhill from there.
willard…”I started circa 2009, so I have some Climateball experience. I never really paid any attention to Sky Dragon Cranks for two reasons. First, they are more or less persona non grata everywhere but here. Second, theres no real challenge”.
***
There is a 3rd reason, you have no idea what a Sky Dragon crank is. You are the SD crank, by definition.
What you are saying, in essence, is that you want to be included as a regular guy in the alarmist crowd and you are unable to think for yourself.
Re no challenge, you have yet to win an argument here among those you disdain. Admit it, you thought you’d come here to troll and you have repeatedly gotten your butt kicked. The ‘no challenge’ applies to you.
C’mon, Gordo.
Where have you been this week-end?
He has been here, agreeing with me that Dr Spencer was attacking a straw man:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1385357
SoD is a site that hacks science. They would not recognize the 2nd law if Clausius himself explained it to them.
Now your examples confirm what I was saying – that they argue back-radiation exists, but does not warm the surface. Well done. Keep it up.
> they argue back-radiation exists
Not sure how you interpret “I don’t think DLR adds heat to any body warmer than the sky,” Graham, but you do you.
You might also try to argue that this proves you right:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/05/back-radiation-as-violation-of-2nd-law.html
It’s past 4 AM once again. Please hit the sack.
Yes, that link also proves me right. As far as this quote is concerned:
“I don’t think DLR adds heat to any body warmer than the sky”
Obviously they agree it exists, but does not add heat to (warm) the surface. If they didn’t think it exists they would have said, “I don’t think DLR exists”.
That is not how existential quantifiers work, Graham.
Roy banished those who claimed that no greenhouse gas emitted DLR. The belief that GHGs exist is not enough – Skr Dragon Cranks need to believe that GHGs can emit DLR for you to be justified in crying about misrepresentation.
If Claes claims that backradiation contradicts 2LOT, then he must deny that GHGs emit DLR.
Therefore Roy looks right on the money.
The humour at the link is the egregious errors in science committed by the Environmental Protection Agency…
“According to the Environmental Protection Agency, reradiated energy in the IR portion of the spectrum is trapped within the atmosphere keeping the surface temperature warm.
***
Absolute nonsense. This is a regurgitation of the nonsense that real greenhouses warm due to trapped IR. No one can explain how, nor do they try. They simply make an absurd claim and expect people to swallow it.
************************
“Advocates of CO2 alarmism work hard to meet this argument claiming that the violation of the 2nd Law is only apparent: “Back radiation” always comes along with “forward radiation” and the net radiation is always from warm to cold and so the 2nd law is not violated. The trouble with this way of handling the objection expressed by Herzberg (and myself), is that “back radiation” and “forward radiation” are supposed to be independent physical processes as “two-way flow of infrared photons”, and at the same dependent coupled processes guaranteeing the the 2nd laws is not violated”.
***
More absurdity. The 2nd law has nothing whatsoever to do with radiation. There is nothing stated in the 2nd law that includes radiation as a form of energy, the only energy indicated is heat.
This error, of confusing IR with heat, is a basic misunderstanding in science projected by alarmists.
Laughter is the WD40 of the soul, Gordo.
Neither Claes Johnson nor gbaikie deny that DLR exists. You are delusional. So desperate for me to be wrong that you are imagining things.
[GB] don’t think DLR adds heat to any body warmer than the sky
[CLAES] “Back Radiation” as Violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
[GRAHAM] Neither Claes Johnson nor gbaikie deny that DLR exists. You are delusional.
Claes wrote:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/who-invented-downwelling-longwave.html?showComment=1364629812540&m=1#c8476403217495935845
“Yes, you can measure temperature by an IR Thermometer, but this does not mean that DLR is real as transfer of heat energy from cold to warm.”
He is saying that DLR does not represent heat moving from cold to warm. Not that you cannot measure it, i.e that it does not exist.
As for gbaikie, just ask him what he thinks.
More on Claes Johnson:
https://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf
In “Computational Blackbody Radiation” he admittedly does use the phrase:
“There is no “backradiation” from the atmosphere to the Earth”.
But what does he really mean by this? You have to keep reading…
“There is no “backradiation” for the same reason that there is no “back-conduction” or “backdiffusion”, namely instability. “Backdiffusion” would correspond to restoring a blurred diffuse image using Photoshop, which you can easily convince yourself is impossible: Take a sharp picture and blurr it, and then try to restore it by sharpening and discover that this does not work, because of instability. Blurring or diffusion destroys fine details which cannot be recovered. Diffusion or blurring is like taking mean values of individual values, and the individual values cannot be recovered from mean values. Mixing milk into your coffee by stirring/blurring is possible but unmixing is impossible by unstirring/unblurring.
Radiative heat can be transmitted by electromagnetic waves from a warm blackbody to a colder blackbody, but not from a cold to a warmer, thus with a one-way direction of heat energy, while the electromagnetic waves propagate in both directions. We thus distinguish between two-way propagation of waves and one-way propagation of heat energy by waves.”
So there, he clearly accepts EM radiation goes both ways between a warm and a cool object, but heat only flows one way, warm to cool. So when he says there is no back-radiation, he is really saying there is no back-radiation warming. Heat cannot be transferred via back-radiation. So we need to be careful when examining quotes from the few who do say “there is no back-radiation”.
DREMT’s source Claes is still confused about heat by writing: “one-way propagation of heat energy by waves.”
EMR is NOT heat. Thus clearly DREMT remains confused on the subject matter.
Physically, there can be warming by EMR aka (poorly & unphysically) “backradiation” since obviously radiation emitted by the atm. toward the Earth surface is forward radiation.
That’s right, Ball4, EMR is not heat. Though there can be a heat transfer from a warmer body to a cooler body via EMR. This article from 2009 by NASA says:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page6.php
“The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.”
Wrongly calling “back-radiation” heat. This sort of misinformation is probably what led to statements like “there is no back-radiation from the atmosphere to Earth” because there is no heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface. What would be more accurate is that there is a transfer of EMR from atm. to surface (so-called “back-radiation”) but no transfer of heat.
The main point is that Claes Johnson recognized there is a 2-way transfer of EMR, only a 1-way transfer of heat.
Clearly DREMT remains confused by Claes on the subject matter writing: “only a 1-way transfer of heat.”
EMR is NOT heat.
Radiation emitted by the atm. towards Earth’s surface is absorbed by the surface, reflected by the surface, and transmitted though the surface at all earthen temperatures, at all frequencies, all the time.
I agree, as I said. EMR is not heat. I added that heat is only transferred one way, from hot to cold. If I agree with you, and you tell me I am confused, I guess that means you are confused.
No, it is DREMT that is confused. There is no physical 1-way transfer of heat either; there is no transfer of heat by radiation since EMR is NOT heat.
Again, physically, there can be warming by any EMR aka (poorly & unphysically) “backradiation” (physically all-sky emission to surface) since obviously radiation emitted by the atm. toward the Earth surface is forward radiation.
Energy transfer can occur by convective, conductive, radiative means.
Ah, you are just trolling again. Got it.
No DREMT, I never started.
…you are just trolling again. Got it.
While I’m here, B4, when you say “no” you actually mean “yes, but.”
…are just trolling again. Got it.
“[GB] dont think DLR adds heat to any body warmer than the sky”
“As for gbaikie, just ask him what he thinks.”
That could be dangerous- in terms of wordage.
But to make it as simple as possible, I have been lukewarmer for a very long time.
And a hint, Willard is barking up the wrong tree.
Never mind the comments section, read how SoD destroyed the 2nd law based on a misunderstanding of what it is about.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/15/the-imaginary-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
They have no idea what it is, they even misquoted Clausius on it, via Wiki, and wondered what entropy is. The guy admits he has no idea what entropy is.
“Its possible that the imaginary second law has taken a strong hold because anyone who does look it up finds statements like dS/dt>=0, where S is entropy. Wow. Clever people. Whats entropy? How does this relate to candles? Candles cant warm the sun, so I guess the second law has just proved the greenhouse effect wrong”.
This is typical of the treatment of science at SoD. Only an idiot would quote them.
“In the case of the real greenhouse effect and the real 2nd law of thermodynamics, net energy is flowing from the earth to the atmosphere. But this doesnt mean no energy can flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground”.
***
No!!!!! It is not energy per se covered by the 2nd law, it is thermal energy, aka heat. The 2nd law says nothing about ‘net energy’, it states specifically, ‘heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body’.
THE 2ND LAW IS ABOUT HEAT TRANSFER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s silly simple, yet the rocket scientists at SoD are grappling with it trying to explain it.
Idiots!!!!
Gordon,
Heat is net energy, look for the equation that calculates heat, you will see a difference in two energy terms.
Gordon 11:48 pm you are wrong since Clausius’ 2nd law for any real thermodynamic process doesn’t mention heat: 2nd law. Universe entropy increases.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Climate Alarmism or Realism | Bjorn Lomborg
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/23/climate-alarmism-or-realism-bjorn-lomborg/
–The current state of the climate and If carbon is really the problem
🔥 If EV vehicles are a solution and what greenwashing is
🔥 The truth about renewables and biofuels
🔥 Natural Disasters in the world and if climate is to blame
🔥 Political intervention and how it affects innovation
🔥 What the True Cost of Climate Change is–
willard…”You are right, Gordo:
A A = 0
The law of inverse. Pretty hard to prove”.
***
More Dodgeball from Willard. Willard stated, “In general, net zero means in and out cancel. You can do that Pierres way, but you can do that in an infinity of other ways. Im showing a variety”.
This was in response to Pierre Latour’s claim that if solar energy heated GHGs then one might be able to sum quantities of heat with reference to the surface heat. Pierre was being facetious.
The claim by alarmists is that radiation from GHGs is smaller compared to outgoing IR, therefore the net energy balance is positive and the 2nd law is not contravened. That has to be one of the most stupid claims I have ever encountered in science.
Who cares if net radiation is positive, the 2nd law is about heat, not radiation per se. The 2nd law is contravened by AGW and GHG and no one has proved it is not. The fact is, heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface THAT WARMED THE GHGs.
Reading the drivel Willard recently posted from scienceof doom clues me into the abject ignorance of climate alarmists.
What does A – A = 0 have to do with anything? How does in and out cancel?
I am asking you to talk in scientific terms rather than the troll-based bs you pass off as science. You lack the ability to explain yourself using science, don’t you?
Come on, Gordo.
You are asking me how to balance what should ultimately be the same number, so I did. There are an infinity of ways to balance this equation because there an infinity of numbers between 0 and 1. No need to delve into any atmospheric servomechanism, something no crank has done so far as I can see, Stephen included. Any such gimmick will have to satisfy the law of inverse.
Your contempt of SoD reflects badly on you.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re baiting me.
I’m on a mission: finding Climateball players who deny backradiation.
Know any?
Could the backradiation get us out of this Ice Age?
How long would it take to warm the 3.5 C ocean?
Did you know that more than 90% of global warming warms our cold ocean?
Word on the street is that it has already postponed the next ice age by 50k and that oceans ultimately return the heat they receive when their waters move poleward, gb.
Did you know that Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) is electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths from 3100 μm emitted from Earth and its atmosphere out to space in the form of thermal radiation?
Willard
The ocean temperature has cooled in the Holocene though it has warmed
slightly during the time we recovered from the Little Ice Age, but
it has not warmed enough to postpone much- so more like, couple centuries at best.
Early in Holocene sea levels were 1 to 2 meters higher than today and the Sahara desert was much wetter.
If you think something has happenned which significant, one should expect a large amount greening in the 1/3 of our land area which is desert.
Or cool periods are dry, and warm periods are wet.
A warmer cold ocean, results in reduction in deserts in our world.
We have seen some- but not much.
Keep in mind one of largest climate change modern humans have witnessed is the desertification of the Sahara desert.
Many in the past have falsely blame humans, but some effort is being made to green the Sahara.
Humans obviously, green deserts, not make them.
But we also look at America:
Native American culture of the Southwest
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/precontact-and-early-colonial-era/before-contact/a/native-american-culture-of-the-southwest
–Overview
Many distinct Native American groups populated the southwest region of the current United States, starting in about 7000 BCE.
The Ancestral Pueblosthe Anasazi, Mogollon, and Hohokambegan farming in the region as early as 2000 BCE, producing an abundance of corn. Navajos and Apaches primarily hunted and gathered in the area.
These groups deserted the area around 1300 CE, probably due to crop failures; European colonists encountered people partially descended from the Ancestral Pueblos in the mid-1500s.–
Willard 9:11 am: while I’m at it, there is no special form of radiation termed: “thermal”.
“Thermal” is short form of therm-odynamic intern-al. Willard has used the short form incorrectly.
Tell that to Roy, B4.
Now, bug off.
gb,
Do you have a point?
–Willard says:
October 24, 2022 at 11:21 AM
gb,
Do you have a point?–
You mention false rumors “on the street”.
They are obviously, wrong.
I just want you to stop spreading lies.
Can you stop?
Sure Willard, I can tell or point out when I read Roy or anyone else misuse the short form abbreviation “thermal” for thermodynamic internal energy. Improvement in term usage is possible for many on Roy’s blog.
B4,
You might have missed the start of the exchange. Search for “(C1)” on the page. You should see that I’m trying to show that Roy represents Sky Dragon Cranks correctly. Colloquial terminology suits me fine. If you wish to speak like you recite from an author who wrote a book on radiative transfer with pen in mouth, suit yourself.
Dear gb,
50K:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/human-emissions-will-delay-next-ice-age-by-50000-years-study-says/
Poleward ocean heat transport:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusa.v43i4.11940
Sahara desert:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-really-turned-sahara-desert-green-oasis-wasteland-180962668/
Please stick to gibberish.
Dr Spencer misrepresented the Slayers, as Ball4 agrees:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1386570
Willard 11:46 am, DREMT’s writing does not agree with your 4:49 pm: “(C1) The atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward.” as DREMT writes all matter radiates.
DREMT’s incorrect writing around here “no GHE” is based on this belief: atm. EMR incident on Earth’s surface cannot increase the thermodynamic internal energy (U) of earthen matter when such radiation is absorbed by earthen matter which is physically wrong.
This is the full quote from Dr Spencer:
"As far as I can tell, their [the Sky Dragon Cranks’] central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature."
This is a straw man, since as you say:
"Those who do not believe in the GHE disagree that atm. EMR incident on Earth surface…"
You agree that those who do not believe in the GHE accept EMR from the atmosphere is incident on the Earth’s surface.
Cheers, Ball4.
Agreed, B4 – Graham disagrees with Roy in many ways.
Something tells me that conceptual analysis has never been your strong suit.
Did you ever teach doctoral students by any chance?
Ball4/Trick (yes, he has used a "sock puppet", Little Willy, therefore you should despise him) has many years experience in arguing against people who do not believe in the GHE. So we should take his agreement that Dr Spencer misrepresented them seriously.
No DREMT, I have never used a sock puppet on any blog. Even though DREMT has done so after being banned here.
I’m happy that DREMT has changed belief system, now writes “agreement” (DREMT term) to believe in the GHE earlier at 11:55 am.
I do not believe in the GHE, and have never been banned, Ball4. You, however, most certainly used to comment as Trick. Exactly the same writing style/content…and you have a very distinctive style.
DREMT is welcome to change back 12:52 pm, and forth 11:32 am in “agreement”, thus believing and then not believing in the GHE; this writing just shows DREMT doesn’t understand the relevant 1st principle planetary atm. physics.
No DREMT, I have never used a sock puppet on any blog as DREMT has here or show a comment from this blog in particular where I’ve created a sock puppet in order to promote my own opinions or views – DREMT can’t because I haven’t.
DREMT had to use a sock puppet here when DREMT’s earlier screenname was banned on this blog, at least for a time.
I was never banned, Ball4. Here you are, as Trick:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/effective-emission-height/comment-page-2/#comment-72988
Wrong DREMT, your link is so obviously another blog or it would have drroyspencer dot com right after the https, so try again and you will fail again. No sock puppets by me as DREMT does after being banned at drroyspencer dot com (at least for a time) in order to promote DREMT’s own opinions or views.
It is important to stick to the same identifier through your Climateball career, B4. *Trick* was obviously not a good name, as it connotes things. Just like calling oneself a moderator in some kind of ironic power play.
Keep the name in all Climateball lands, or undersign your comments. Otherwise people will be justified to treat you like a sock puppet.
You can keep lying about me being banned, as long as you like. I have never been banned. I’m afraid it doesn’t matter to Little Willy if you used the sock puppet at another website rather than here. Little Willy has zero tolerance and zero logical rules for his hatred of what he calls "sock puppets", in which he even includes people just changing their screen name because they want to. So, I’m afraid you will now forever be known as a sock puppet, by Little Willy. That’s that. You haven’t spent your entire online time posting under the same boring name, so you are the scum of the Earth in his eyes, the absolute lowest of the low.
Willard writes: “Keep the name in all Climateball lands”.
Should be on same blog. That would work if climateball lands were defined officially, but then that’s not possible as different blogs have, or had, different rules for allowed screennames at signup, especially when a former screenname is already being used.
On this blog, DREMT had to use a sock puppet to sign up again & resume posting after DREMT’s original screenname was banned (at least for a time) years ago at drroyspencer dot com in order to keep promoting DREMT’s own opinions or views here like a few others have done.
At any rate, screen names on blogs don’t matter on physics at all; writing 1st principles of atm. physics correctly though does build a decent particular climate blog screenname reputation.
I was never banned, sock puppet.
No, B4, it should not be on the same blog.
There are special cases where sock puppets can be OK, but to constantly change your identity in a same community of interests is not one of them,
Without persistency, identity is lost. If you hide your identity, you have no name. No name, no honour. No honour, you belong to the bottom feeders of a blog. The norm was here before the blogs, before the Internet in fact.
Search *Nigel Persaud* if you want to know more on what happens to sock puppets in Climateball.
I am guessing those special cases where sock puppets can be OK only ever apply to people on the same side as Little Willy.
Indeed it was, Graham.
Try to bait me about it.
I’ve grown fond of not responding to you directly.
Willard 3:08 pm, again, signup screenname selection will depend on blog policy, so all your no honor stuff isn’t applicable across blogs. I agree to screenname is best not changed on any particular blog in order to promote own opinions or views.
I have not ever changed my screenname on any particular blog to promote views like DREMT et. al. have done at least twice on this particular blog after the great banning, as you reported the evidence. If I see “Willard” screenname on any other blog, I will not simply assume it is the same “Willard” as posts here unless instructed as such.
Funny, but I doubt DREMT full screenname would work out well for any credibility on other blogs.
I was never banned, Ball4.
Not any other blogs, B4. Climateball blogs. You might like:
That is Graham, the troll who uses ironic names here.
Note the date.
At the time Graham had ambitions.
Little Willy is hell bent on proving Clint R right…
A Note on the Belief in Backradiation
=====================================
A traditional starting point in contemporary philosophy when discussing belief contents features Oscar. In my favorite episode, he has troubles understanding what is arthritis:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/content-narrow/
Readers might already be familiar with a variation on the theme. It was the basis for The Matrix franchise. No need to delve into any technicality. I only need the overall point, which was to distinguish meaning in the head (narrow content) from collective meaning (wide content).
The same is happening with backradiation. Recall the first part of what Roy said: The atmosphere does not have GHGs that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. “GHGs that emit thermal infrared radiation downward” is colloquially referred to as “backradiation.” The technical term is Downwelling Longwave Radiation, or DLR.
Check what I have just said: “GHGs that emit thermal infrared radiation downward,” “backradiation,” “DLR” can be considered equivalent. So when I say that cranks deny DLR or backradiation, I am referring to the belief that there exist GHGs that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. In other words, my anchoring point is the same as Roy’s. And it is the same as the scientific community.
It is certainly possible to redefine DLR and backradiation as not to imply any thermal property. But that’s not how the concepts are usually understood. So the enigma is easily solved. Sky Dragon cranks can deny that backradiation exists, when comprised as thermal infrared radiation downward. They can accept that backradiation exists if we (can) remove the thermal properties.
Thus Roy was correct in his characterization. And Sky Dragon Cranks can still feel justified in being truly misunderstood. After all, who in their right mind can fail to get that backradiation is a myth that breaks the 2LOT but still exists?
Certainly not the readers, whom we let judge the whole debacle.
PS: This research has been motivated by EM’s appeal to Logos and by Graham’s sealioning. My infinite gratitude goes to both. And also Gordo because, c’mon – there is no one like Gordo. Not even Gordo.
All matter above 0 K emits thermal radiation, Little Willy. So those who do not believe in the GHE agree that back-radiation is thermal infrared radiation. You will have to try another essay…
DREMT, there is no special form of radiation termed “thermal”.
Those who do not believe in the GHE disagree that atm. EMR incident on Earth surface can increase the thermodynamic internal energy (U) of earthen matter when such radiation is absorbed which is physically wrong.
So you agree with me that those who do not believe in the GHE accept that EMR from the atmosphere is incident on the surface. Little Willy is trying to claim that they do not accept that.
Thanks.
No DREMT. Those who do not believe in the GHE disagree that atm. EMR incident on Earth surface can increase the thermodynamic internal energy (U) of earthen matter when such radiation is absorbed which is physically wrong.
You just repeated your agreement. Thanks again.
Welcome, I’m happy now that DREMT has changed to an earthen 33K GHE does exist as measured since DREMT now agrees atm. EMR incident on Earth surface can increase the thermodynamic internal energy (U) of earthen matter when such radiation is absorbed.
No, I agree with you that those who do not believe in the GHE accept that EMR from the atmosphere is incident on the Earth’s surface. As for the rest, well, that can be disputed another time.
Any other time I’ll just point to DREMT’s changing his belief no GHE to now agreement that atm. EMR incident on Earth’s surface can increase the thermodynamic internal energy (U) of earthen matter when such radiation is absorbed. Thanks.
I have no doubt that you would be so dishonest. Thanks.
ball4…”No DREMT. Those who do not believe in the GHE disagree that atm. EMR incident on Earth surface can increase the thermodynamic internal energy (U) of earthen matter when such radiation is absorbed which is physically wrong”.
***
What’s wrong about it? Solar EM raises the internal energy of the surface, and internal energy is a combination of heat and the work done by vibrating atoms.
That is required in order for IR to be emitted by atoms in the surface.
Gordon asks: “What’s wrong about it?”
As Gordon writes for solar EMR, what is physically “wrong about it” is to disagree that atm. EMR incident on Earth surface can increase the thermodynamic internal energy (U) of earthen matter when such radiation is absorbed.
> atm. EMR incident on Earth surface can increase the thermodynamic internal energy (U) of earthen matter when such radiation is absorbed.
Can you find a simpler way to say the same thing, B4?
…by the way, who said it was absorbed?
It’s the law DREMT.
Namely Planck and Kirchhoff, who found that the spectral emissivity for any real object is equal to the spectral absorp_tivity, which points to absorp_tion and emission being inverse natural processes consistent with Clausius’ generalized 2LOT. Real bodies (large compared with the incident wavelength of interest like Earth) are characterized by (dimensionless) absorp_tivities less than or almost equal to 1.
…I agree with you that those who do not believe in the GHE accept that EMR from the atmosphere is incident on the Earth’s surface. As for the rest, well, that can be disputed another time.
Roy uses the abbreviated from for “thermal” correctly if Willard’s quote of Roy is then verbatim: “The atmosphere does not have GHGs that emit thermal infrared radiation downward.”
It is Willard that does not use “thermal” correctly 9:11 am since there is no special form of radiation termed “thermal”: “emitted from Earth and its atmosphere out to space in the form of thermal radiation?
Thank B4 for their comments. In return:
1. The first *from* should be *form*;
2. *Verbatim* is misused;
3. The note about the 9:11 comment (which day?) has no place here;
4. The second (or the first correctly spelled) *form* is incorrect, as we are referring to properties;
5. The last question has a missing quote mark and should be clarified.
Roy uses the abbreviated form for “thermal” correctly if Willard’s quote of Roy is then verbatim: “The atmosphere does not have GHGs that emit thermal infrared radiation downward.”
It is Willard that does not use “thermal” correctly 9:11 am (search on 9:11 am) since there is no special form of radiation termed “thermal”: “emitted from Earth and its atmosphere out to space in the form of thermal radiation?”
It is verbatim, but not complete, Ball4.
You’re saying that Dr Spencer is correct to say the words, "the atmosphere does not have GHGs that emit thermal infrared radiation downward", because in your opinion there is no special form of radiation called "thermal", and thus GHGs cannot be emitting such radiation.
Right?
You would most likely say that GHGs emit EMR. So we could re-write his full quote as follows:
"As far as I can tell, their [the Sky Dragon Cranks’] central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit [EMR] downward. A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature."
We thank B4 for their clarification. In return, two points for now:
First, the sentence they take issue with is verbatim from the Wiki entry on OLR. Until he succeeds in editing that sentence there and provide sufficient references to pad their quibble, it stays. We note in passing that we just used *verbatim* properly.
Second, we still have no idea what to make of the concept of thermal form. We were talking about thermal properties.
You were talking a load of desperate nonsense, Little Willy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
“Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of particles in matter. Thermal radiation is generated when heat from the movement of charges in the material (electrons and protons in common forms of matter) is converted to electromagnetic radiation. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. At room temperature, most of the emission is in the infrared (IR) spectrum.”
Thus GHE-skeptics would agree that DLR could be termed “thermal infrared radiation”, as Dr Spencer put it, since the GHGs are matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero. So, what Dr Spencer said is still a straw man.
Wikipedia dot org entries can be changed, Willard, but that alone happening wouldn’t make a wiki clip credible though the ref. tag might do so.
Credible atm. journalism means correct fact checking down to 1st principles & at least wiki dot org provides references to do so, & have done, which is good practice when using a wiki clip.
Alternatively, Dr Spencer could have been talking about radiation in the thermal infrared range:
https://www.ametek-land.com/pressreleases/blog/2021/june/thermalinfraredrangeblog
Again, GHE-skeptics would agree that the DLR could be termed this.
So, still a straw man.
Even online textbooks can now be changed, B4. I trust thy Wiki more than you in its capacity to educate people and communicate well enough so that people understand one another. My verbatim was meant to trap gb, not you. He went berserk. You became punctilious.
The crux of the matter here is that Graham is stuck between supporting the claim that backradiation exists, and the crank idea that it breaks thermo. His trick is the same as usual: special pleading his way out. It exists, but not really like it was was meant to be. So he ends up trying to redefine the meaning of words. As always. He has nothing else.
My proposal, which follows reading dozens of crank sources, is to keep to the simplest sources we got, and work from there. If cranks want to believe in their own private concepts of backradiation and DLR, let them do it. it is a free world. Everybody else can safely ignore them, and we could stand all the crank stuff aside.
Roy asked that we do so in 2013. This thread could even be the cranks swan song. Sure, they will repeat the same things they always do. But now we have a webpage to redirect readers.
That is the pedagogical thing to do, not insisting I that everybody uses the concepts exactly like you would.
"The crux of the matter here is that Graham is stuck between supporting the claim that backradiation exists, and the crank idea that it breaks thermo."
No. The idea that is that it exists, yet warming due to back-radiation breaks the laws of thermodynamics. Maybe you should ask Vaughan Pratt. After all, he agrees that the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
"His trick is the same as usual: special pleading his way out. It exists, but not really like it was was meant to be. So he ends up trying to redefine the meaning of words. As always. He has nothing else."
No, it exists as it "was meant to be"…and I’m not the one trying to redefine the meaning of words. I’m giving you the correct ways "thermal infrared radiation" could be interpreted, scientifically, you’re the one pretending it means something else.
"If cranks want to believe in their own private concepts of backradiation and DLR, let them do it."
GHE-skeptics do not want to do this. They share the same concepts of back-radiation and DLR with everyone else. They just don’t think that this back-radiation/DLR leads to warming.
ball4…”Wikipedia dot org entries can be changed…”.
***
Not permanently. Either the original author comes back and deletes the amendment, or more likely, an editor, will do it for him in the case of climate alarmist entries. William Connolley, an alarmist and Wiki editor was famous for that. When not programming computers and editing at Wiki, he was a regular at realclimate.
Willard 3:01 pm, even printed textbooks are changed & ostensibly improved, viz. Edition 2, 3, 4 etc. Instead of wiki dot org:
Dr. Bohrens 2006 text (still Ed. 1) on atm. radiation, p. 40 reads: “Other than original papers, the (Dictionary of Scientific Biography) DSB is the first place to look if you want to know what our illustrious predecessors really did and said. The last place to look is in textbooks, which are notorious spreaders of rumors, half-truths, and outright errors. Ask any historian of science. Better yet, read Tony Rothman’s (2003) delightful “Everything’s Relative and Other Fables from Science and Technology”, John Wiley & Sons.”
To that I’ll add Bohren’s earlier suggestion: Clifford Truesdell’s “Rational Thermodynamics” (McGraw-Hill, 1969). The first five pages of this book are great fun to read. Truesdell doesn’t mince words.
—-
DREMT 3:44 pm is also notoriously wrong about Pratt. For what is really written, check Vaughan Pratt’s original writings for free on the internet.
DREMT: “They just don’t think that this back-radiation/DLR leads to warming.” belief is simply wrong physically.
Pratt said, on this very blog, after a discussion about the Seim & Olsen experiment, that “it debunks the back-radiation account of the GHE, as theory predicts it should”, or words to that effect. He still believes in the GHE, just not the back-radiation account of it. We can only go by what he said.
By “it” Pratt’s comment meant in Pratt’s own words: “Any laboratory experiment that ignores lapse rate” can not debunk the GHE such as Seim and Olsen’s experiment as theory predicts.
To wit Pratt: “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.” when said experiment ignores the lapse rate as did S&O.
One wonders why DREMT doesn’t conveniently post up the entire Pratt comment context:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-669859
He also said:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-673217
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
So clearly he has a problem with the idea of back-radiation warming the surface.
B4,
Is this what you’re suggesting?
In return, recall that Vaughan only disputes backradiation as a model of the greenhouse effect. He believes in both. What he disputes is that one suffices to explain the other. Which is fair.
Don’t get too bogged down with Graham’s ankle-biting.
…so clearly he has a problem with the idea of back-radiation warming the surface.
DREMT, aka Halp-less, et. al, Pratt’s stated problem therein is that Connolly (Wiki dot org )had at a time “overlooks that even more heat is radiated up from below as temperature rises.” due the increase in GHE.
—-
Willard 6:31 pm, yes, recommend that Bohren book; it anticipates and then knocks down much of DREMT’s arguments et. al. sophistry. In much of the book, it is easy reading, see especially p.33 and surrounding pages on the GHE, Bohren has a great sense of humor. His chapter notes cite many of the important papers tracing to 1st principles on the subject matter.
…clearly he has a problem with the idea of back-radiation warming the surface.
Clearly Vaughan has a problem in the backradiation model of the greenhouse effect.
…he has a problem with the idea of back-radiation warming the surface.
We do not need Willard assessment or judgement.
It is slightly amusing- but not much.
If you going to attack your host- at least make a reasonable case,
rather than your normal gibberish.
I am actually trying to defend our host from cranks who deny the greenhouse effect, gb.
Do you happen to know any crank like that?
Thanks for the input.
Not at all, Little Willy. You are not helping Dr Spencer by not challenging him when he makes a mistake (such as misrepresenting the Slayers).
Can anyone properly represent Slayers?
Weather is complicated.
But we stick the obvious, we in an Ice Age.
We in an Ice Age because we have a cold ocean.
You might ask why we have a cold ocean.
But an ocean with average temperature of about 3.5 C
is cold.
Does anyone want to disagree with NASA and NOAA that
more than 90% of global warming is warming this cold
ocean?
Does anyone want to explain why cold ocean is not
important as it related to why we in an Ice Age?
Two possible answers to your first question, gb – not you, and not here:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-bannished-dragon-cranks
Vintage 2013.
Slayers being the name we can not type.
There are others Roy are annoyed by, such:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
-pinned to top post [has been for quite a while] I will note they going quite insane trying to explain Icehouse and Greenhouse global climates in the past.
Oh, I suppose some people might understand what an Icehouse or greenhouse global climate is.
Icehouse = Ice Age and has a cold ocean
Greenhouse global climate is having warmer ocean.
If ocean had average temperature of 10 C, it would likely be
a greenhouse global climate.
Some people claim the oceans were 25 C or warmer in Earth’s
history, and other disagree.
I think we entered our icehouse global climate when the average
temperature of ocean is somewhere around 8 C.
But I don’t know much about it. But would guess in depends upon the world you are in. Or I would say, our world changes because plate tectonic creates different worlds.
Besides it just seems to me, quite murky when looking at ages more the 200 million years ago.
Yes, gb. There is a multitude of cranks. They are all united by their denial of the greenhouse effect. Every time Roy got bogged down with a Sky Dragon crank, i.e. someone who holds that there is no greenhouse effect, he got annoyed. That should tell you that to keep reanimating zombie arguments does not help contrarians look cool.
His counter-offer is to produce a numerical model that works as well as the ones with which actual scientists work. I think this is more than fair. If your pet theory requires that we rewrite a century of physics, perhaps that is the least cranks could do.
You know, calling somebody a contrarian is not really much better than calling them a crank. Just a thought.
-Yes, gb. There is a multitude of cranks. They are all united by their denial of the greenhouse effect.-
Well I think there is not just one greenhouse but two greenhouses.
Have you ever affirmed there are two greenhouses. I think not.
So that makes you in denial of greenhouses.
But I don’t care if you deny this obvious greenhouse effect affect.
I do care if deny that we in ice age- cause that’s elementary school stuff and it is a bit disturbing that people could be that uneducated.
–Every time Roy got bogged down with a Sky Dragon crank, i.e. someone who holds that there is no greenhouse effect, he got annoyed. That should tell you that to keep reanimating zombie arguments does not help contrarians look cool.–
Didn’t know Roy was desperate to be cool.
But I hope Roy appreciates your effort.
–His counter-offer is to produce a numerical model that works as well as the ones with which actual scientists work. I think this is more than fair. If your pet theory requires that we rewrite a century of physics, perhaps that is the least cranks could do.–
It my opinion that due to crazy high estimate of warming effects,
he not trying to overbid the crazy, but he giving the highest
amount he defend.
Personally, I lack the talent, and all I can give is about .1 to .5 C
for short term [100 years or less] increase in average global surface air temperature from a doubling of CO2.
Strangely my guess is close to the IPPC assessment of what warming from CO2 has actually occurred.
But seems to me, first most of warming has already occurred {Roy did a post about that, somewhere on blog] and I have doubts global CO2 levels will reach 560 ppm. But Roy also did a post where he claimed the number was not 260 ppm but higher. And he limited how much CO2 could rise to.
I don’t have any particular argument with Roy, rather I could have questions about things, maybe.
Interglacial, gb.
Interglacial:
https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/earth/ask-a-scientist-about-our-environment/how-did-the-ice-age-end
Then comes another ice age. Eventually.
Is that clearer this time, or you would like me to find something K-5?
–Then comes another ice age. Eventually.
Is that clearer this time, or you would like me to find something K-5?–
That a ice age could come is K-5.
That we in Ice Age is more grown up.
–What is an ice age?
An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within an ice age are multiple shorter-term periods of warmer temperatures when glaciers retreat (called interglacials or interglacial cycles) and colder temperatures when glaciers advance (called glacials or glacial cycles).
At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earths history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, which is often informally called the Ice Age, peaked about 20,000 years ago.–
https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/
This is not exactly right, but when in elementary school that last 3 million is what is meant by “a cooler and drier period” which affected Africa and said to be related to human evolution.
The last 3 million year has been significantly colder than the early tens of millions of our Ice Age- which is called the late cenozoic ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
Both links have temperature proxies graphs.
The latest time periods would include ice cores proxies.
——–
“interglacial periods last only a few thousand years…It began at the end of the last glacial period, about 10,000 years ago.”
The “few thousand years” was 5000 years ago.
We have past our peak.
One can argue we still in the Holocene but peak Holocene was during the African humid period:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
But even during peak Holocene, or any other times in previous peak interglacial periods, we are still in an Ice Age- and/or our ocean is still cold.
You asked me a silly question and you got served, gb.
Not interested by your squirrel.
Enjoy your evening.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Why do people worry about sea level rise.
I don’t think we know how much sea level has risen in last thousand years, but in last 100 years we measured a rise of about 7″.
We are not going to get a 1 meter rise in sea level, but if we did, why is it problem?
The governmental effort to scare people about rising sea levels has been one of many evil things that governments have done.
And the idea that one trust a government to stop sea levels rising is a silliness beyond description.
What one can expect is governments starting nuclear wars. The only thing significant governments ever have done is cause wars.
You must beat government with a stick- they are bad dogs.
Government should be regarded a guilty until proven innocent- and they are not vaguely close to innocent. They are mostly lazy.
They are constantly lying. They have talking about global warming for decades, they done nothing but waste many trillions dollars of your
money.
But though we aren’t going to have sea level rise by the meters, what exactly wrong with it were it to “magically” happen?
Al Gore and Obama live on the beach.
People living on the beach costs us money- what ever done for people not living on the beach- other than prevent others from enjoying the beach?
Do we have low cost housing on the beach?
I have suggested how we could have low cost housing on the beach.
But issue, why is it important if sea were to rise a meter, and it was important, what do imagine governments do actually do about it, when all government good at is war.
{they aren’t actually even good war, they kill lot’s people and bomb cities- they cause much misery, but being good at war, would be ending the war].
“Be very, very careful what you put in that head, because you will never, ever get it out.”
– Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)
That’s especially true within a cult. Once the members hear nonsense like Sun doesn’t have enough power to support Earth’s average temperature of 288K, they will believe it regardless of the facts.
It’s called “Stuck on stupid”.
Decent thought Clint R, your blog writing really is “stuck on stupid”. Clint Rs written facts are wrong. Our Sun alone w/o atm. doesn’t have enough solar power alone to support rotating Earth’s average thermometer temperature of 288K, found AFTER checking the physical facts to 1st principles & supported by actual measurements.
The physical facts are airless Earth would have a lower avg. surface temperature than 288K, similar to the lunar surface avg., if airless Earth surface were exposed directly to the brightness temperature of deep space about 3K.
Since the Earth surface is exposed directly to the much warmer than 3K & 1bar atm., the Earth with atm. has a warmer global avg. thermometer 288K steady state equilibrium which is above the lunar avg. Apollo based thermometer equatorial T & above the lunar global measured brightness T.
The Ball4 sock puppet does his thing…
I use my original blog screenname unlike commenters DREMT and Clint R. To be credible here, DREMT should revert to DREMT’s original screenname on this blog.
Oh wait, their original screennames were banned, at least for a time, since original screennames weren’t credible so the commenters invented new sock puppets: DREMT for one. Same for D’ug. DREMT, Clint R, and D’ug attempts at re-invention have failed, neither new screenname has achieved much atm. physics credibility to 1st principles and physical measurements here.
I was never banned, sock puppet.
DREMT, I know, and DREMT knows, DREMT original blog screenname was banned on this blog.
Yes, I could do the research and show it, but I already know, so there is no need. Carry on using DREMT new sock puppet name, yes, even DREMT could work on improving “DREMT” atm. physics credibility.
Hello, B4. Testing. 1-2 testing, Testing, 1-2.
Can you hear me?
-W
Truly lol. -W found yet another DREMT sock puppet used on this blog; that one was maybe not banned.
#2
I was never banned, sock puppet.
What are the other names that Graham used, B?
If you can trace back if Roy ever interacted with him, that would help.
Help with what? Your ongoing obsession?
What are the other names that Graham used, B4?
Willard 5:10 pm, you are very good at discovery on this blog. Go back to before screennames DREMT, and maybe Halp-less, appeared on this blog. Research a common commenter screenname that was frequently just as confused about the earthen GHE as is DREMT & the other sophists.
That is all I will write as DREMT will just deny having a previous screenname banned (at least for a time)…yet again. But you will eventually get it because that screenname disappears around the same time as the banning was being implemented without explanation as I recall.
Dr. Spencer then observed the banning attempt was useless and went to no moderation at all except for a few leftover D’ug preventers like absorp_tion & maybe number of prolific comments posted in a certain period.
Dr. Spencer used to get paid somewhat for running the blog, like others, based on higher number of blog comments “ad hits” so I can understand the change to no moderation that has continued to this day.
Ball4 is very good at making things up…
Thanks, B4.
In return, you might like:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276416
Imagine if Roy had enforced that principle starting in 2013:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
…you would have been banned a long time ago, Little Willy.
Of course, you believe what Ball4 tells you.
B,
You might also like:
Yes Willard 6:22, 6:50 pm. You are on the correct evidentiary path.
Nate had correctly figured out sock puppet Halp-less aka DREMT original screenname that DREMT commented under before the great banning.
I was never banned, but have fun trolling.
How many of your comments did Roy delete, Graham: zero, less than 5, more than ten, or more than 20?
Zero…and I have never been banned.
Ball4 is just another braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll. He’s anti-science. He believes Earth has a “real 255k surface”, only he can’t find it. He believes ice cubes can boil water!
He’s not worth any more of my time.
Thanks, Tyson.
You might prefer:
https://mebfaber.com/2022/10/19/e450-kuppy/
Capt. Anthony Lucas went to Beaumont, Texas, about seventy miles west of Lafayette. There he was attracted by an elevation, then known locally as Big Hill, although this hill amounted merely to a mound rising only twelve feet above the level of the prairie. This mound attracted his attention on account of its contour, which indicated possibilities for an incipient dome below, and because at the apex of it there were exudations of sulphuretted hydrogen gas.
Lucas contacted famed Pennsylvania oilman John Galey and his partner James Guffey, who had drilled marginally successful wells in nearby Corsicana in 1896. Galey and Guffey had returned to Pennsylvania convinced that there was little future in Texas oil. Galey would have a change of heart.
Galey, who had left the Beaumont area three years earlier, returned to Beaumont to survey the area. He picked a spot at Spindletop Hill, and the drilling began on October 27, 1900. On January 10, 1901, the “Lucas Gusher” came in.
The “Lucas Gusher” erupted more than 150 feet into the air after reaching a depth of 1,139 feet. It began flowing at an astounding 100,000 barrels per day. Given the limited technology, the Lucas well could not be brought under control for nine days, losing an estimated 850,000 barrels of oil. A new device -now called a “Christmas Tree”- was invented on the spot to control the flow of oil.
Texaco, Gulf, Mobile, Humble and Sun oil companies can trace their roots to the Big Hill.
Texas petroleum engineering advances would lead the way in helping other oil producing regions increase production. The movers and shakers of the oil industry in the early 1900s converged on Houston. It would become known as the energy capital of the world.
Good times!
maguff…”Be very, very careful what you put in that head, because you will never, ever get it out.”
***
Makes it sound like ‘you’ is a separate entity putting stuff in an unrelated ‘head’. That’s how most people think, especially climate alarmists, and it’s a delusion.
‘You’ or ‘I’ is an illusion created by thought. There is a real physical you or I, obviously, with you or I serving as nothing more than a label. The conscious mind is not privy to ‘knowing’ that because, as an illusion, the conscious mind stands apart from its own body, owning it from a distance. The conscious mind, in fact, is part of the whole and not separate from it.
Obviously, Thomas Cardinal Wolsey, had no insight in that regard, yet Maguff feels his thoughts are so important he can liberally quote them.
Come on, Gordo. The Cardinal had a point – meaning just is not in the head, it is the product of some kind of linguistic work. It is not something that comes from introspection.
It does not matter if cranks believe in a backradiation that differs from what the community believes. When they speak of backradiation, they should expect that those not well versed in Sky Dragon esoterica use the concept like it was meant to be in the first place.
Thanks to online resource like NASA, every kid knows that backradiation is the amount of heat radiated back to the surface. In other words, backradiation refers to the idea that greenhouse gases emit thermal infrared radiation downward. Just like Roy said.
If you dispute the idea, you are welcome to do so elsewhere. If you dispute the concept, you are welcome to try to change the normal usage. I do not think there is any wiggle room left for silly semantic games,
Anything else you would like to discuss?
Back-radiation is not heat, and by thermal infrared radiation Dr Spencer did not mean heat. That NASA article from 2009 is misinformation. You assume it is correct because it is NASA. Ask somebody you trust, like bob, if back-radiation can be considered as “heat”. He will soon set you straight.
Very good DREMT 5:12 pm. You have made progress in physical reality. Credit where credit is due. Try to stick with DREMT progress in future comments.
B4,
You might recognize:
That might explain our favorite sock puppet’s slapstick!
Ball4 just agreed that you were wrong, Little Willy.
Yes Willard, therm-odynamic intern-al radiation is emitted from a body through its surface the body just needs to be comprised of matter so can be made of snow, soils, rocks, CO2 gas, air, and even cabbages.
To be Planck radiation, there are a few more assumptions such as no diffraction, size much larger than wavelength of interest, and no body surface radiates to another part of the body.
As usual this site has character map issues that I sometimes forget:
Yes Willard (6:56 pm), therm-odynamic intern-al radiation is emitted from a body through its surface – the body just needs to be comprised of matter so can be made of snow, soils, rocks, CO2 gas, air, and even cabbages.
I see. So Graham simply makes the same kind of mistake as with the zero-dimension energy balance model. Temperature applies only when radiation hits something.
Graham is yet another DREMT socket puppet?
Temperature is the avg. KE of the molecules in a rock or cabbage at the measurement location & time which can be known so is useful.
Clausius’ heat is defined as a measure of the total KE of the molecules in the whole rock or cabbage which cannot be known (measured) at any time so is not useful. Thermodynamic internal energy (U) is never used, measured, or even known, but per unit time dU = Q + W (1LOT) is very useful and can be computed & measured (calorimeter).
The movement (KE) of the electrons and protons in magnetic fields in the rock or cabbage produces therm-odynamic intern-al radiation being emitted through the rock or cabbage surface reducing the total internal U as radiation departs through their surface.
The other way around, B4 – Graham is the master, all the other ironic names are the socks.
What he won’t tell you is that he did the same thing as you at Tony’s and Judy’s, e.g.:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/20/a-consensus-of-convenience/#comment-2133555
Next time he lectures you about hypocrisy, remind him of the time he tried to say out you as a sock puppet doing the very same thing he did.
Tried but can’t makes sense of your 9:17 pm prose Willard. Can’t figure out why you linked to that comment either.
B4,
I see. OK. Let’s try again, subject-verb-complement. Graham is the guy who controls all the identities. He used “rajinderweb” at Tony’s and Judy’s. He tried to shame you earlier for your other identity at Tallbloke’s. Graham is therefore both manipulative and hypocrite.
Is that clearer?
“So Graham simply makes the same kind of mistake…”
No, Little Willy. No mistakes here. You, on the other hand, made a mistake in your 4:40 PM comment, which I called you on at 5:12 PM, and Ball4 agreed I was correct at 5:24 PM.
B4,
Notice how Graham does not deny anything I just said.
Notice how Little Willy always focuses on playing the man, not the ball.
DREMPTY,
Heat can be used as an adjective, noun, or verb.
“Ask somebody you trust, like bob, if back-radiation can be considered as heat”
Here you appear to be using the noun form, so no, back radiation is not heat.
If you meant to use it as an adjective there needs to be a noun to modify, usually this noun would be transfer, as in heat transfer. If you ask me if DLR causes heat transfer to the surface from the atmosphere, the answer is mostly no, but say on a hot summer’s day, you threw a bag of ice cubes out onto the lawn, then yes there would be heat transfer from the atmosphere to the ice, and some of that would be due to DLR.
If you use it as a verb, then yes, DLR does cause the surface to be warmer than it would be otherwise, so yes, DLR does heat the surface.
50 bucks for the English lesson, now back to your regularly scheduled soap opera.
Hopefully Little Willy will take note…
Thanks, Bob.
So basically cranks simply believe that heat is like some kind of caloric?
No, Little Willy. Apart from this:
“DLR does cause the surface to be warmer than it would be otherwise, so yes, DLR does heat the surface.”
bob and myself are in agreement.
It’s so ironic, Willard 1:47 am, that DREMT writes “apart” from a process that does increase universe entropy DREMT prefers believing in an atm. process that doesn’t increase universe entropy thus breaking thermodynamic laws.
At 5:24 PM, Ball4 agreed with me that Little Willy was wrong at 4:40 PM.
Don’t know who Little Willy is but Willard 4:40 pm was correct except for Willard’s use of the term “heat” which physically should have been “EMR”.
At 5:24 PM, Ball4 agreed with me that Little Willy was wrong at 4:40 PM.
At 7:22 PM, bobdroege agreed with me that Little Willy was wrong, at 4:40 PM.
This message will auto-repeat.
… incorrectly.
#2
At 5:24 PM, Ball4 agreed with me that Little Willy was wrong at 4:40 PM.
At 7:22 PM, bobdroege agreed with me that Little Willy was wrong at 4:40 PM.
This message will auto-repeat.
“DLR does cause the surface to be warmer than it would be otherwise”
After all these years, its hard to believe that some regulars here still are unable to comprehend this very simple concept..
Then again, the same ones fail to grasp the basic heat transfer in the GPE.
Not sure about you, Nate, but it’s as if agreeing on the fact that DLR causes the surface to be warmer than it would be otherwise is not very different than agreeing on the greenhouse effect.
Almost like the same thing, in fact.
I already said I did not agree to that…
“The good thing about science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe it” N deGrasse Tyson
But some regulars here will continue to ‘not believe in’ thoroughly tested radiative heat transfer physics, as if their lack of belief in it is a valid and persuasive argument.
…already said I did not agree to that…
[W] it’s as if agreeing on the fact that DLR causes the surface to be warmer
[G] I already said I did not agree to that…
[EARLIER, B] Would you agree that when the atmosphere is warmer that the surface then DWIR is indeed heat?
[G] Yep.
…and the GHE is not supposed to be a warmer atmosphere warming a cooler surface, now is it?
willard…”Check what I have just said: GHGs that emit thermal infrared radiation downward, backradiation, DLR can be considered equivalent. So when I say that cranks deny DLR or backradiation, I am referring to the belief that there exist GHGs that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. In other words, my anchoring point is the same as Roys. And it is the same as the scientific community”.
***
The reason it got the name ‘backradiation’ is due to the AGW hypothesis that the surface radiates in a forward direction and GHGs absorb part of that radiation and radiate it back to the surface.
Scientifically, if GHGs absorb surface IR, and warm, they can radiate IR isotropically. That means upwards, sideways, downward and on angles in between. Therefore only a fraction of the IR radiated by GHGs would head toward the surface.
Think of the Sun, it radiates a tremendous amount of EM isotropically and we on Earth intercept only a tiny fraction of the total power radiated.
I know of no skeptic who claims such a process cannot exist. The only argument from skeptics is that any such radiation going back to the surface cannot warm the surface, since it won’t be absorbed, being from a cooler or equal source.
Even if the back-radiated IR could warm the surface, it represents a fraction of the 5% of surface radiation GHGs intercepted in the first place. So, less than 5% of the original surface radiation is expected to increase the temperature of the surface after 95% of it was lost in the initial cycle?
Come on, Willard, you can surely do simple math like that.
With regard to Roy’s opposition to the Slayers, he may have read some of the more oddball claims by wannabees who consider themselves Slayers. I certainly have not subscribed to everything written at PSI, at least, in the past. The modern version
I must admit to being unfamiliar with the Slayers and when Roy wrote his article, I had no idea who he was talking about. I have never seen the posts they made so I cannot comment on what Roy witnessed. I have since read Claes Johnson and Pierre Latour and I was impressed by their scientific logic.
“I know of no skeptic who claims such a process cannot exist. The only argument from skeptics is that any such radiation going back to the surface cannot warm the surface, since it won’t be absorbed, being from a cooler or equal source.”
Thank you, Gordon. That is my experience too, with what other GHE-skeptics say.
DREMT then contradicts 2LOT also describing a belief in a real process not in compliance with Clausius’: 2. Universe entropy increases.
…you Gordon. That is my experience too, with what other GHE-skeptics say.
Gordon 4:49 pm contradicts the 2LOT: “since it won’t be absorbed, being from a cooler or equal source.” is a process that has no universe entropy increase!
The process described by Gordon then can’t be real since does not comply with Clausius’ law for real processes: 2. Universe entropy increases.
Measured surface radiation centered at 399 up to 2015 for the previous 15 years, including the water cycle, while physically all-sky emission to surface (aka “backradiation”) is measured centered at 341 in the period which obviously is NOT 5% of the 399 measured surface radiation as Gordon wrongly asserts.
Come on, Gordon, you can surely do simple math better.
ball4…”Gordon 4:49 pm contradicts the 2LOT: since it wont be absorbed, being from a cooler or equal source. is a process that has no universe entropy increase!
The process described by Gordon then cant be real since does not comply with Clausius law for real processes: 2. Universe entropy increases”.
***
Clausius defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat at temperature T. He added that entropy is zero for a reversible process and positive for an irreversible process.
Mathematically, he defined entropy as…
S = 1/T (integral dq)
It must be positive in the direction of hot to cold and can never be negative.
There is no such thing as universe entropy increase. Entropy is not a measure of disorder, as many seem to think, it is a measure of heat transfer from hot to cold. If an irreversible process occurs it will lead to disorder but entropy is not involved as long as no heat is dissipated.
That stems from a misunderstanding what what Clausius claimed. He noted that nature involved mainly irreversible processes but he did not claim that entropy was a measure of disorder. Most weathering processes in nature don’t involve heat dissipation.
> It must be positive in the direction of hot to cold and can never be negative.
There’s a word missing there, Gordo.
C’mon.
Gordon 7:25 pm, I can tell you there are no reversible processes in real nature.
Well, outside of say Hollywood make-believe where you just run the film in reverse as shown in John Travolta aka Vincent Vega pulling the needle out of the chest of Uma Thurman aka Mia in “Pulp Fiction”. Fiction!
Clausius’ dq is an infinitesimal change in heating rate which is zero in your incorrect process: “since it won’t be absorbed, being from a cooler or equal source” so for your described process entropy change S then computes to = zero which is impossible for a real process in nature. It’s ironic Gordon using a fictitious 2LOT process to try and point out a process of surface absorbing radiation Gordon opposes as fictitious due to 2LOT.
—-
Gordon then goes on to write, this time, correctly: “Entropy is not a measure of disorder”. Sure, especially not when entropy is critically examined. It depends on how disorder is defined.
It does appear many somewhat desperate teachers, faced with the cries of students for an immediate, concise, and readily digestible explanation of what this mysterious quantity entropy really is, have seized upon a pacifier: Don’t fret, entropy is just a measure of disorder; in fact they say, entropy IS disorder. The greater the entropy, the greater the disorder.
Indeed, entropy used by people who are ignorant of science, is merely a fancy scientific synonym for disorder, and entropy increases are taken to be indications of increased disorder in all its forms, ranging from a messy room to civil disturbances.
Thus, those who propose to explain entropy (unfamiliar) by saying it is merely disorder (familiar) are assuming that the consumers of this putative explanation have an intuitive and unambiguous sense of what is meant by disorder. If only this were true! It depends on what is meant by disorder.
Many have achieved this correlation by defining disorder in a particular way. That is, some defined disorder by means of entropy, not the other way around. There really do exist examples that cast serious doubts on the notion that entropy equals disorder & thus knocking the defined correlation between entropy and disorder into the dustbin of history as Gordon implies.
Cool story, Gordo.
The answer to your riddle is that the imbalance does not need to be very big. All it needs is to be constant. It is like your savings account. If it increases by a penny every second, at the end of the year you end up with more than 300K at the end of the year. Imagine if you had a savings account that was as old as Keith Richards.
The concept of steady state is all you need to master to vanquish your own incredulity yourself.
Willard…”The answer to your riddle…”
***
How do you manage to reply with rubbish that has nothing to do with what was posted?
From Wiki…
“A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
Will you leave the straw man alone?
C’mon, Gordo.
Think.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
dremt…”This is the full quote from Dr Spencer:
“As far as I can tell, their [the Sky Dragon Cranks] central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called greenhouse gases that emit thermal infrared radiation downward”.
***
The whole point here is the reference to ‘thermal’ infrared radiation. That is an anachronism dating back to the mid 19th century, that heat can be transferred through the atmosphere as heat rays. Even today, many scientists regard infrared as heat rays. The only way heat can be transferred through the atmosphere is by convection, and that transfer is always hot to cold.
Thermal energy, aka heat, has nothing in common with infrared radiation, which is electromagnetic energy. Heat requires mass to exist, heat is the kinetic energy associated with atoms in motion, either externally or internally. In essence, heat ‘IS’ that energy of atoms with regard to motion.
That can be verified in any lab. Add heat to a gas and the molecules begin moving faster, both externally and internally, as vibration.
Electromagnetic energy has no mass, therefore it can carry no heat. It is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. IR is simply a lower frequency form of EM.
Using the phrase thermal infrared radiation implies that heat is being transferred by IR and that is absolutely wrong.
I recently gained insight into radiation with regard to the 2nd law. I think it should be clarified as a form of heat transfer since no heat is physically transferred by radiation. In other words, heat in a hotter body is not transferred to a cooler body by radiation.
The processes are all local. WHEN heat is dissipated in a hotter body, radiation is produced. It is a quantum process in which kinetic energy of an electron is expended in the form of electromagnetic radiation when the electron transitions to a lower energy level.
IF…and a big IF…the EM created at a hotter body happens to contact a body with a lower temperature, that EM can be converted back to kinetic energy in an electron in an atoms of a cooler body. That KE is heat, there is no other form of energy can be applied to describe such a transition.
The point to note is that the heat is created locally. Another point is that the reverse processes, by which EM emitted from a cooler body contacts a hotter body, can cause no further warming in the hotter body.
That’s the 2nd law and there is no way around it, no matter how fancy the thought experiment claiming it can.
C’mon, Gordo.
Here’s the whole quote:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-bannished-dragon-cranks
I believe this applies to every single crank who denies the greenhouse effect. Compare and contrast:
I think there’s a case to be made that Sky Dragon cranks fall under that description.
What do you think?
Dr Spencer could have just meant radiation in the thermal infrared range:
https://www.ametek-land.com/pressreleases/blog/2021/june/thermalinfraredrangeblog
…but it’s an interesting point you make.
In any case, back-radiation is not heat, as even the GHE-believers agree.
…(well, they say they do not think of back-radiation as heat, but then they still think it warms the surface anyway…the way they get round it is to claim it functions like insulation).
dremt…”Dr Spencer could have just meant radiation in the thermal infrared range:”
***
Obviously, I have no idea what Roy meant even though I’d like to have a friendly discussion with him about it, off the record. I support most of what Roy talks about but everyone is not going to agree on everything. As I have pointed out before, the 2nd law supports the theories of Roy and John Christy, that warming will never be catastrophic. Why try to prove it wrong when it supports your argument? Alarmists need to contradict it because it opposes their argument.
I finally clued in the other day to the argument proposed by alarmists trying to get around the 2nd law restriction on heat transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, that produced the radiation for the GHGs.
They differentiate between surface radiation, which they call forward radiation, and radiation from GHGs moving back toward the surface, which they call back radiation. The claim is that the surface radiation is larger, hence positive, which they call a positive balance of energy. If it is positive, they claim the 2nd law is not compromised.
That has to be one of the biggest straw man arguments ever presented. It has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd law, which is about heat transfer. Obviously, the alarmists think heat is being transferred both ways producing a positive balance of heat between the surface and the GHGs. And the only conclusion is they think IR is heat.
That is the basis of my argument, that heat is not infrared radiation. You cannot pretend to sum infrared energies and claim they represent heat transfer.
Clausius was absolutely clear in his definition ot the 2nd law…heat can ***NEVER*** be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body. I have no idea why anyone would want to challenge that because it is a general law of all energy. No energy can be transferred from a lower potential energy to a higher potential energy, and that includes heat. Furthermore, it is the basis of quantum theory that EM from a colder source cannot be absorbed by a hotter target.
Gordon, you remain incorrect 8:23 pm, your comment is not Clausius’ most basic definition of the second law which correctly is for every natural thermodynamic process: 2. Universe entropy increases.
Later Boltzmann added to Clausius heat statement terms for on net: a measure of the total internal KE of an object can ***NEVER*** be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body.
This advance (after Clausius death I believe), was from Boltzmann correctly adding “on net” to Clausius statement on heat by pointing out there exists a range of KEs in every object, thus a measure of the internal molecular (or atomic) KE CAN pass from a colder body to a warmer body but overall the total net transfer of therm-odynamic intern-al energy will always be from higher temperature body to lower temperature body in fact complying with, for a real natural process, Clausius: 2. Universe entropy increases.
ball4…”This advance (after Clausius death I believe), was from Boltzmann correctly adding on net to Clausius statement on heat by pointing out there exists a range of KEs in every object…”
***
Is that the same Boltzmann who committed suicide in frustration over being unable to statistically prove the 2nd law?
I have no idea why your desperation drives you beyond the simple explanation of the 2nd law, as stated by Clausius, and produce a convoluted, inaccurate rendition of it.
Gordon, this is neither convoluted nor inaccurate Clausius: 2. Universe entropy increases.
Gordon is wrong, Boltzmann completed his statistically accurate proof of the Boltzmann distribution explanation of 2LOT compliant energy transfer. Gordon is behind in reading.
Cool story, Gordo.
I think it’s safe to say that “thermal infrared radiation downward” refers to thermal infrared radiation downward.
For instance, “greenhoose emits thermal infrared radiation downward” is true if greenhoose emits thermal infrared radiation downward.
For more on the idea, cf. Tarski.
> greenhoose
I’ve been greenhoosed!
Greenhouse gases, of course.
“I think it’s safe to say that “thermal infrared radiation downward” refers to thermal infrared radiation downward.”
i.e, not heat, but the radiation emitted as a consequence of the GHGs temperature.
[GRAHAM] i.e, not heat, but the radiation emitted as a consequence of the GHGs temperature.
Hmmm. Big hmmm.
OK, then let us try to be more precise – “thermal infrared radiation downward” refers to the EM radiation emitted downward as a consequence of the GHGs temperature. Also commonly known as DLR. It cannot transfer heat from the atmosphere to the surface unless the surface were to somehow be cooler than the atmosphere.
“It cannot transfer heat from the atmosphere to the surface unless the surface were to somehow be cooler than the atmosphere.”
And conversely, when the atmosphere is much cooler than the surface,
such as on a clear dry night, the surface radiates a lot to the cold atmosphere, and cools off a lot.
And this corresponds to very low DLR.
…it cannot transfer heat from the atmosphere to the surface unless the surface were to somehow be cooler than the atmosphere.
DLR can transfer Clausius’ heat though from atm. to surface and DREMT has now admitted understanding that process so that’s all that really counts.
Oh look, Ball4 showed up.
… to help show DREMT the correct atm. physics.
No, to troll me.
I never started.
…to troll me.
Correct response DREMT 2:02 pm.
…troll me.
“it cannot transfer heat from the atmosphere to the surface unless the surface were to somehow be cooler than the atmosphere.”
Some people are determined to not understand how the GHE works.
There is no need for the atmosphere to transfer heat to the surface, it simply needs to reduce the heat loss from the surface, which is surface emission – DLR.
So indeed, the DLR matters.
…me.
[GRAHAM] …me
So beautiful.
So true.
…e.
I haven’t got any time, nor enough coffee.
Science is what can measured.
The sky has heat as does the cold ocean.
The cold ocean has 1000 times more heat than the sky.
The ocean controls global climate.
Three Quotes to Solve a Terminology Pickle
==========================================
1. Here is first quote (h/t B4):
That’s from (Bohren, 2006)
2. Here is the second quote:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/06/the-earths-energy-budget-part-one/
So as I see it the concept of backradiation simply refers to Downwelling Longwave Radiation.
3. Here is a third quote:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation”
Bohren’s concern regarding clarifying the source of the radiation (solar or terrestrial) does not matter much for climate scientists.
So the question becomes: do Sky Dragon cranks really dispute that downwelling longwave radiation can be thermal radiation?
No, they accept that DLR can be thermal radiation. Thermal radiation is not heat. Both groups (GHE-skeptics and believers) agree that DLR is not heat.
dremt…”Both groups (GHE-skeptics and believers) agree that DLR is not heat”.
***
If they understood the true nature of electromagnetic radiation there would be no doubt whatsoever. All it takes is a quick review of Bohr’s theory that led to quantum theory to see the truth clearly.
As long as we mess and fumble with theories, without understanding the true meaning of heat and radiation, and their differences, we will be subject to government controls based on sheer propaganda.
Of course, politicians don’t care about science, their MO is to acquire votes. As long as the public remains ignorant as to the science, politicians will continue to mislead them and make laws to appease their source of votes.
Cool story, Gordo.
Unless and until we really understand the very thing you talk about every single night here for absolutely no reason whatsoever, the world will collapse.
Keep going. Perhaps one day you’ll save the world.
DREMPTY,
“Both groups (GHE-skeptics and believers) agree that DLR is not heat.”
What about the occasional time when the atmosphere is warmer than the surface.
Would you agree that when the atmosphere is warmer that the surface then DWIR is indeed heat?
Yep.
bob d …”Would you agree that when the atmosphere is warmer that the surface then DWIR is indeed heat?”
***
Nope. DWIR is EM, not heat. If it comes from a warmer source, it could be absorbed by a cooler surface and converted to heat.
Heat cannot be transported through the atmosphere by radiation. Heat requires atoms/molecules to move.
Gordon,
Bullshit!
Heat can be transferred by conduction, convection, and radiation.
Wiki even says so
“Heat transfer is a discipline of thermal engineering that concerns the generation, use, conversion, and exchange of thermal energy (heat) between physical systems. Heat transfer is classified into various mechanisms, such as thermal conduction, thermal convection, thermal radiation, and transfer of energy by phase changes. Engineers also consider the transfer of mass of differing chemical species (mass transfer in the form of advection), either cold or hot, to achieve heat transfer. While these mechanisms have distinct characteristics, they often occur simultaneously in the same system.
I’ll repeat the tricky bits you refuse to acknowledge.
“Heat transfer is classified into various mechanisms, such as thermal conduction, thermal convection, thermal radiation,”
Unfortunately for bob, Gordon is correct for once at 3:40 pm.
EMR is truly & physically not Clausius’ heat.
Energy is transferred by convective, conductive, and radiative means where in physics energy is the ability to do work or raise temperatures in matter.
Wiki is very amusing in bob’s clip, as is many times the case.
EMR ain’t DWIR, and Gordo’s idea that “heat requires atoms/molecules to move” is not exactly true.
DREMPTY,
Be careful how you write.
“Thermal radiation is not heat.”
Maybe, but thermal radiation can transfer heat.
Yes…from hot to cold only. Believe me, I am trying to be careful…since I have people apparently hanging on my every word.
If Graham really were trying to be careful, he would not systematically forget “on net” when pronouncing his platitude.
See?
From hot to cold only…on net.
There is no “net heat”…heat only flows one way.
willard…from Bohren…”The term thermal radiation at least signifies that the emitted radiation is a consequence solely of a bodys temperature, in contrast with, say, luminescence, which is more or less independent of temperature…”
***
Bohren is legitimate, he presents a good understanding of science. Scienceofdoom are hackers, let’s not confuse the two levels of science.
I am surprised Bohren would muddy the waters by referring to luminescence rather than visible energy. The Sun gives off both visible and infrared, as well as ultraviolet, and frequencies in the visible spectrum are obviously related to temperature.
Still, using wavelength and frequency does not clarify what is meant by thermal radiation. As Bohren claims, energy from the Sun is legitimately thermal in nature if you want to use that word, so it serves science better to drop the word thermal and simply use electromagnetic or infrared.
The point is, many people use the term thermal radiation to infer the radiation is carrying heat, and that is wrong. It needs to be clearly understood that infrared cannot transfer heat from a hotter body to a colder body and definitely not in the other direction. I am talking here about an actual, physically transfer of heat, as a form of energy, through space via radiation.
Much of the space between Earth and Sun is a vacuum and we know heat cannot move through a vacuum. Heat cannot be transferred through a gas easily in the Earth’s atmosphere. The amount of heat conducted through the atmosphere is insignificant. Heat can move through the atmosphere by convection, which involves a wholesale movement of atoms/molecules.
The basis of EM radiation is clear, based on the insight of Bohr, circa 1913. He noted that hydrogen only emitted and absorbed energy in very thin (spikes) bands of energy. That is typical of most gases and matter. The absorp-tion/ radiation is confined to very narrow bands of frequencies.
As he investigated as to why, combined with the work he had done with Rutherford, his mentor, he gained the brilliant insight that electrons transmitted and absorbed EM as the electrons moved between quantized energy levels. That insight is still the basis of quantum theory.
Breaking it down further, the electron emits a quantum of energy, some call a photon, as it transitions between higher energy level E2 and lower energy level E1. The frequency of the emitted EM is related as E2 – E1 = hf.
That is E = hf. To reverse the process, the applied EM must have the same frequency for a specific energy jump. It is imperative to understand that cooler bodies have lower energy levels and cannot transmit a high enough frequency quantum to excite an electron in the atoms of a hotter body to a higher energy level. The quantum is simply ignored.
I can see the excitement Clausius would have experienced had he that information. Planck lamented that had he known about electrons and their properties when he devised his equation, it would have made his life a lot easier.
Cool story, Gordo.
In this case, Bohren and SoD are saying the same thing.
Find a better excuse.
Willard, not all cool.
Gordon always misses matter, including gaseous matter, emits at all frequencies, at all temperatures, all the time (Planck’s Law). Bohr was in agreement with Planck’s law so could not have noted that hydrogen gas “only” emitted and absorbed energy in very thin (spikes) bands of energy.
Sure, on photographic film of the time, the intensity spikes were evident, but as faster film and longer exposure became available, the hydrogen gas was then observed emitting with nonzero intensity all across the spectrum in exact agreement with Planck Law and H2 measured emissivity(f).
It’s a meme B4.
The point I was making was rather simple: if Sky Dragon cranks don’t dispute that downwelling longwave radiation can be thermal radiation, then they can’t argue that backradiation breaks thermodynamics or that it’s a myth or anything else.
Also note how Graham still tries special pleading with “but it’s not heat,” redefining them so that they can’t operate in a radiative heat transfer theory.
No need to delve further than that. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
Bohr did not discover the emission/absorp-tion freuqencies of hydrogen, that had already been done by Balmer, etc. Nor did he invent the equation E = hf. What he did was identify the source of EM as electrons transitioning downward between certain energy levels based on E2 – E1 – E = hf.
Planck and Einstein, as late as 1905 when Einstein discovered photo-emissivity, knew anything about electrons and their relation to EM. Bohr was the first to make th connection.
Gaseous matter does NOT radiate/absorb at all frequencies at all temperatures. If they did we would never have been able to identify the hydrogen in stars light years away.
Planck’s work was based totally on statistical theory garnered from Boltzmann. The relationship between radiation intensity and frequency…AT ONE TEMPERATURE…was heavily doctored to make the UV end of the spectrum drop off from the yellow/green peak. The graph was intended to represent a blackbody radiator, not a gas or a specific form of matter. In fact, an atmospheric gas cannot emulate a blackbody due to the spacing between the molecules.
You miss the important fact that Planck’s law is based on blackbody theory. Ergo, only blackbodies radiate in a continuous spectrum.
Still, individuals components in a stellar, gaseous, mass can be identifies by a spike frequency in their emission spectrum or a missing spectral line in their basorp-tion spectrum.
Cool story, Gordo.
I’m not sure how any bit of it is related to the question I asked.
In fact, how is it possible that it’s always the answer to any question anybody asks?
willard…”The point I was making was rather simple:…”
***
typo…obviously you meant simple-minded.
You fail to grasp what the argument is about re the 2nd law. It’s so simple a child could grasp the meaning. Heat cannot be transferred, by its own means, from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Case closed. No positive balance of energies, no net transfer…nothing. Heat simply cannot be transferred cold to hot, by its own means. Such a contravention would break not only thermodynamics, but all science dealing with any energy.
Correctly Gordon, gaseous matter does radiate emit/absorb at all frequencies at all temperatures per Planck Law & Kirchhoff. If they did not, we would never have been able to identify the hydrogen and all the other chemical components in stars light years away.
Also Gordon, as Boltzmann added to Clausius statement on heat, energy can be transferred, by its own means, from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, in part because of the Boltzmann distribution of KE. Though, as Boltzmann pointed out, net thermal energy transfers by EMR from surface to atm. as shown in all the energy balance diagrams.
> You fail to grasp what the argument is about re the 2nd law
C’mon, Gordo. For the nth time, I’m working on claims. If you don’t know what your arguments support, you’re just shadowboxing.
Come to think of it, that’s exactly what you’re doing every night.
Either DLR breaks thermo or it does not. If you think it does as soon as there’s thermal radiation downward, you make Roy sad. And the very concept of DLR might not even make sense for heat transfer theory anymore.
“Also note how Graham still tries special pleading with “but it’s not heat,” redefining them so that they can’t operate in a radiative heat transfer theory.”
No, he does not redefine anything…DLR is not heat, as both groups agree. By thermal infrared radiation, Dr Spencer does not mean heat. As Ball4 agreed earlier:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1386722
What Dr Spencer said is a straw man. Just accept it.
Notice how Graham tries to deny that downwelling longwave radiation can be thermal radiation, B4.
He now seems to presume that unless it is heat, radiation can’t warm.
Would you agree with that?
DLR is thermal radiation, Little Willy…but thermal radiation is not heat. Thermal radiation is defined as I linked to further upthread. Heat will only be transferred from a warmer object to a cooler object.
Gordon,
“You miss the important fact that Plancks law is based on blackbody theory. Ergo, only blackbodies radiate in a continuous spectrum.”
No, one of Planck’s great contributions to Science is that the spectrum is quantized, in other words not continuous.
Bob,
Does Graham often try to wiggle his way out by suggesting that radiation must be heat or else it can’t transfer heat?
I’m not trying to wiggle my way out of anything, because I haven’t got myself trapped anywhere. You’re the one that is getting things wrong all the time, Little Willy.
DLR cannot transfer heat, so long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface.
For context, Bob, recall that Roy simply said that the PSI cranks either claimed that there was no GHG that acted as downward infrared thermal radiation or that if there was any warming, it was counterbalanced by an equivalent cooling.
Graham claims this misrepresents the PSI cranks.
To that effect, he first said that nobody denied that GHGs exist, which is false and a misreading of the first phrase. Then he claimed that nobody denied that backradiation exists, which is also false. Then he claimed that the majority of cranks did not deny that backradiation does not exist, which is also false. Now he is claiming that the cranks are arguing that backradiation exists, but not backradiation warming. Or something along these lines.
You can always count on Little Willy to give a completely false summary of events which are on record for everyone to read.
Bob,
Forgot to add – Graham also had to retract his accusation regarding the second part of the characterization when I reminded him of Pierre Latour. Now he is more into playing dumb about the semantics of a rate that eventually nullifies.
If you want receipts, you just have to ask.
Boltzmann has nothing to add to the 2nd law. It was carefully developed by an expert, Clausius, using heat engine theory and what a statistician adds is merely mathematical nonsense.
Show me a reference where Boltzmann claims heat can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.
Despite the definition of temperature in a statistical gas (ie. an imaginary gas) by Boltzmann et al, that temperature is the average kinetic energy of a gas, temperature is still a measure of heat.
How would you measure the average KE of a gas? Using a thermometer. A thermometer measures relative levels of heat, which is defined as the KE of atoms.
Willard,
Yes to your question, DREMPTY always plays semantic games.
“DLR cannot transfer heat, so long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface.”
Yes, that may be true in the long run, but since all these phenomena are stochastic, it’s the house advantage that heat is always from hot to cold, but sometimes the house loses.
Also, even if the heat transfer is from hot to cold, that doesn’t prevent the addition of greenhouse gases causing the surface to warm or achieve a higher average temperature.
They like to claim that since heat transfer is always from hot to cold, that means the atmosphere can’t warm the surface, but evidence always wins, and that is what is observed.
Heats and warms you gotta keep em separated.
And I saw Wilco last weekend, not too bad.
Gordon,
“Show me a reference where Boltzmann claims heat can be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.”
Boltzmann probably never claimed that.
I don’t claim that and neither do any climate scientist I have read.
There is always the rest of the story.
You know compensation, work, or heat transfer from hot to cold at the same time.
Heat transfer is always the difference between the energy transfer from hot to cold and the energy transfer from cold to hot.
“Yes, that may be true in the long run…”
Thanks, bob.
DREMPTY,
You are welcome,
But remember DLR still warms the surface.
Well, we can argue about that for the ten millionth time another day…
Wilco. Goddammit, Bob! I may have a chance to go see Lisa Leblanc next week:
https://youtu.be/RCCmgc9cZVc
Why do today what you can do tomorrow?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bob,
Just read back the thread and realized I forgot the sequence when Graham denied that there were cranks who denied that greenhouse gases existed.
Among them, Gordo.
Pretty much nobody denies that radiatively active gases exist, but some people use the phrase "GHGs do not exist", or similar, as a way of saying they think there’s no GHE. That’s what your "research" showed.
“DLR cannot transfer heat, so long as the atmosphere is colder than the surface.”
A floor can colder than the room’s air.
“It” will transfer heat, if the world is drier somewhere”
It is a water planet, water evaporate at it’s surface temperature vapor pressure, Or if it’s drier someplace in the world.
The tropical ocean is the heat engine of world. It is transparent to more than 1/2 the sunlight reaching entire Earth surface, and absorbs all if it. And while the surface is cooler as compared to a land ground surface in similar sunlit conditions.
Ocean warms, land cools.
The other thing is global average surface temperature in an Ice Age is the average temperature of entire ocean, which is currently about 3.5 C.
If ocean were 4 C, the global average surface temperature would be about 3 to 4 C warmer.
And in our Ice Age during interglacial periods our ocean has been 4 C or warmer.
We are in a cold interglacial period, which called the Holocene interglacial period.
And heading very, very slowly to periods where a mile of ice on North American- as it has like clockwork, in every other interglacial period. It slowly cools, then it rapidly warms which was called “global warming” our global warming happened but 10,000 years ago.
And such warm periods last for about 10,000 years.
Though we shouldn’t panic {like we did the last times], as it takes a very long time to cool.
ball4…”Clausius dq is an infinitesimal change in heating rate…”
***
Clausius said nothing about a heating rate, which would have been in the form of dq/dt. There is no time factor in entropy. It’s a simple summation of differential quantities of heat.
dq is a differential form meaning an infinitesimal change, as described by Clausius.
Nice try B4.
dq/dt is incorrect Gordon, as that would be an acceleration of heating not a heating rate. Your: S = 1/T (integral dq) already occurs over time it takes for the dq heating process to complete; S is therefore becomes a change in entropy when integrated.
Q is a rate since per a unit of time to make a delta U = Q + W.
Not even a good try on S, Gordon, however Gordon HAS made good progress understanding EMR is NOT heat as has DREMT. I am ever hopeful those two will make additional progress understanding atm. physics.
ball4…”dq/dt is incorrect Gordon, as that would be an acceleration of heating not a heating rate”.
***
Go back to school, if you ever attended school, that is.
d2q/dt2 would be acceleration. That is the 2nd derivative, the 1st derivative being dq/dt, which would be a rate of change of heat wrt time.
If s = distance, then ds/dt = velocity, the rate of change of distance wrt time. d2s/dt2 = acceleration, the rate of change of velocity wrt time.
The integral of the dq quantities ‘IS’ entropy, not a change in entropy. Clausius defined entropy as the ‘SUM’, that is integral, of infinitesimal (differential) quantities of heat.
Do I have to teach you everything?
This fascination the cult has with other people, including people that no longer comment here, is a purposeful distraction. The cult has NOTHING, so they have to distract from the issues. They all do it. They have no understanding of the relevant physics. They weren’t able to answer the simple problems I’ve posed.
Worthless willard always avoids discussing actual science. When he does, he gets it wrong, like his recent 3100μ photons which he claims Earth emits! Bindidon rejects simple analogies. They all make up stuff they can’t support — Folkerts, Ball4, Norman, RLH, the list goes on and on. Then, they follow up with insults and false accusations. They’re a mess.
They are so corrupt and perverted that I, more and more, choose to ignore them.
Pup, please stop trolling.
clint…”Worthless willard always avoids discussing actual science”.
***
Willard’s MO is straw man arguments. He cannot reply using science so he convolutes a post through random quotes from Wiki, etc., then tries to legitimize his reply by encouraging the original poster to think.
He is a troll because he represents an alarmist faction like realclimate, S0D, or SkS, where he is trained to go forth and disrupt legitimate science groups like here on Roy’s blog.
Ball4 has enough science terminology to sound like he knows what he’s talking about but his analysis is bs. He actually tried to spread the notion that heat is a transfer of heat. Now he is misquoting Boltzmann to make it appear as if Boltzmann condones the pseudo-science that heat can be transferred from cold to hot by its own means.
I am not sure at this point whether B4 is a troll or just demented. Perhaps a teenager on a sugar high.
Oh, Gordo. You keep using the S word. I do not think it means what you make it mean.
I already quoted Bohren on the page. Since it is your favorite source, that should make you happy. Do you really think that because you can name drop old heroes or reciting formulae that you are doing a little science?
Little Willy, please stop trolling…
Claes Johnson makes the rookie mistake of not reading the literature of the science he sets out to attack.
Claes Johnson’s straw man:
Professor Bohren’s [correct] view:
Yes TM, personalities can be interesting.
Got any science?
You left out the next bit, Tyson, from your Claes Johnson quote:
“Radiative heat can be transmitted by electromagnetic waves from a warm blackbody to a colder blackbody, but not from a cold to a warmer, thus with a one-way direction of heat energy, while the electromagnetic waves propagate in both directions. We thus distinguish between two-way propagation of waves and one-way propagation of heat energy by waves.”
Glad you brought this up.
The “next bit,” at its core, says that electromagnetic waves only carry “heat energy” in the direction from the hotter to the colder body.
In other words, electromagnetic waves emitted by the colder body in the direction of the hotter body do not carry “heat energy.”
So in the specific case of clouds for example, those waves emitted skyward carry “heat energy” but the same waves emitted downward do not.
Johnson is simply expressing an opinion there.
Not sure Claes would still believe impossible to unblur an image in 2022. Image editors evolved quite a bit since 2022, at least compared to the PSI cranks.
It’s MORE than an opinion, TM. “Heat” is the transfer of energy from hot to cold. “Cold” can NOT raise the temperature of “”hot”. Energy can flow both ways, but heat (the ability to raise temperature) can only flow one way.
> Cold can NOT raise the temperature of hot
There’s always a word missing in that phrasing, sock puppet.
Revise and resubmit, or stop trolling.
They are all over the place, Clint R. Usually the GHE-believers are quick to argue the “energy flows both ways, heat only flows one way, hot to cold” themselves! Now they are arguing against it!? What’s going on…
DREMT agrees that Johnson is simply expressing an opinion there.
No, in fact I was just now expressing my surprise that you would argue against what Claes was saying. Most GHE-believers would agree with that part of it (energy flows both ways, heat only flows one way, from hot to cold). Strange.
DREMT, they get tangled up in their own nonsense.
Over on the next post, Ent got all tangled up denying solar. (The cult believes the sky is hotter than Sun!) He couldn’t answer the simple question “Why are days warmer than nights?”
That’s why this is so much fun.
I hear you.
So you are indeed saying that in the specific case of clouds for example, those waves emitted skyward carry “heat energy” but the same waves emitted downward do not.
Same cloud, different physics above than below. That is peculiar!
Poor Ent…I wonder if his logos comments could help?
☺️
Graham indeed entertains peculiar beliefs, Tyson.
Backradiation exists, but it does nothing like it was meant to do. Greenhouse gases can radiate back to Earth, but only if the ground is warmer than the sky, presumably at night or at the poles. The greenhouse effect does not exist, but is negligible. And he agrees with everyone about almost everything.
It is quite a feast.
> warmer
Colder, that is.
GHGs radiate to the surface all the time, as well as in all directions; only if the atmosphere is warmer than the surface can the GHGs radiatively heat the surface. Little Willy cannot help but misrepresent. The majority of the time, the atmosphere is cooler than the surface.
[GRAHAM] There would be a negligible insulative effect from the second pathway. However, this may be nullified completely by other atmospheric processes. The overall effect of adding more GHGs to the atmosphere may even be negative. I do not claim to have all the answers…
Next, maybe Little Willy can learn about the difference between an insulative effect, and heating…
Maybe Graham ought to realize that his “heating” provides a tell.
A tell that I was referring to heating.
Interested readers might need a hint here:
Blankets.
So Graham returns to semantics instead of addressing the logical gaps in the argument he refuses to provide.
And he already provided himself with an empirical exit.
Two different physical processes, Little Willy. Not semantics.
Graham feigns to ignore the semantic quibbles he is about to resurrect.
Hyper-critical, hypocritical nonsense from Little Willy.
maguff…”The atmosphere is not a photon trap that corrals wayward photons and sends them back to Earth just as a truant officer returns wayward children to school. A truant officer can return children to school because they are distinguishable, whereas photons are not”.
***
I read one of Bohren’s books on the atmosphere and enjoyed it. In the statement above, he seems to agree with Claes Johnson, that GHGs cannot simply trap surface IR and re-route it back to the surface.
In the book, Bohren claimed that heat trapping is a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.
I think you have quoted Johnson out of context.
Very good, Gordo!
Where in Bohren do you see temperature treated as a flow?
Here is a typical comment from a GHE-believer. I have no doubt that Dr Spencer and many others would agree with it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1385597
“I am not saying what you seem to think I am saying. I am NOT saying that the cold atmosphere HEATS the surface in violation of the 2nd Law.
I have stated it many many times and still it seems you do not understand it.
A cold sky DOES have an effect on a warm surface. The warmer the cold sky the less radiant heat lost by the surface. These are facts that have been proven many times. Roy even set up an experiment to demonstrate it.
Yes reality is the Sun heats the surface which no one disputes. The radiant barrier the atmosphere creates allows the solar input to reach a higher steady state surface temperature.”
Note the emphasis on saying the colder atmosphere does not heat the warmer surface. This commenter (Norman) is clearly saying, the “back-radiation” from the atmosphere is not heat. When Dr Spencer said:
"As far as I can tell, their [GHE-skeptics’] central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature."
He could not have meant “GHGs that transfer heat downward” else he would be including himself and Norman in the GHE-skeptic category! The fact is, what Dr Spencer said is a straw man. GHE-skeptics agree that the atmosphere has GHGs (radiatively active gases) that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. Both sides claim the DLR is not heat.
dremt…”A cold sky DOES have an effect on a warm surface. The warmer the cold sky the less radiant heat lost by the surface”.
***
Newton’s law of cooling. The rate of heat dissipation of a surface is proportional to the difference in temperature between the surface and its environment. However, it is the temperature of the entire atmosphere over that portion of the surface that affects the rate of heat dissipation. Very little to do with GHGs and mainly to do with the 99% of the atmosphere made up of nitrogen and oxygen.
I am not trying to correct your statement, just sharing an observation. When you talk about radiant heat, I think you mean heat loss due to radiation. However, that notion has an issue, according to quantum theory. Radiation is a product of the process that dissipates heat, it is not the cause of it.
According to quantum theory, electrons at energy levels above ground state have higher levels of kinetic energy. When they randomly drop back to ground state, the electrons shed the excess KE as quanta of electromagnetic energy. That loss of kinetic energy when applied to all electrons transitioning downward represents a lost of heat in the surface, provided the heat is not immediately replenished..
During that process, radiation is given off. So, radiation is produced by the internal mechanism in atoms that reduces heat. It’s not as if radiation is cooling the surface, it is produced when another mechanism cools the surface.
There is a conundrum here, however. On a hot summer’s day, even as heat is dissipated, solar energy keeps warming the surface to a point where there is an equilibrium condition between heat produced by the Sun equals heat dissipated naturally. Only at night, after sunset, can the surface dissipate heat unobstructed.
I don’t think radiation alone is ever the sole indicator of heat dissipation, or even close. As R. W. Wood put it, the atmosphere in contact with the surface scavenges heat by direct conduction. That heated air rises and cooler air replaces it.
As we know, on some summer nights, it hardly cools at all. Therefore the atmosphere must be warm enough to maintain a state of equilibrium, and that atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen.
That was a quote from a comment by Norman, Gordon. Not my words!
Gordon is bad about that. He needs to slow down and be more careful before he starts pounding on his keyboard.
Still, an interesting comment though, all the same…
Gordon says: “Newtons law of cooling. The rate of heat dissipation of a surface is proportional to the difference in temperature between the surface and its environment. ”
Sure. That is an accurate description of proper physics.
But here’s the thing. Without any GHG’s the ‘environment’ for heat dissipation by radiation is 3K space. Heat dissipation would be large because the temperature difference is large. With GHG’s the ‘environment’ for heat dissipation by radiation is (at least for some wavelengths) the warm atmosphere. Heat dissipation is much weaker.
So the same amount of sunlight results in different temperatures — depending on the presence of GHGs. GHGs reduce heat dissipation from the surface, and this results in warmer temperatures.
Perhaps, Tim, but please do not say that to reduce heat dissipation that results in warming is! You would make cranks sad if you did.
Little Willy probably intended that to be sentences in English.
Fair. Let’s try again:
Perhaps, Tim, but please do not say what is “to reduce heat dissipation that results in warming”!
You would make cranks sad if you did.
[GRAHAM] Generally, they say back-radiation does not warm, not that it does not exist. You may find some people saying that it does not exist, but they would be an extreme minority.
[JOE] The [PSI cranks] have always said that backradiation doesnt exist.
What Postma actually said is:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2015/05/26/the-sophistry-of-backradiation/
“The Slayers have always said that “backradiation doesn’t exist”. We say that because “backdiffusion” doesn’t exist. What it is supposed to do doesn’t exist, and what it is supposed to do is to cause a warmer object to become warmer still due to the thermal energy from a cool object. This is only possible if heat flows from cold to hot, which it of course doesn’t. Hence backradiation doesn’t cause heating and likewise everyone already knows that backdiffusion doesn’t exist either.
At this point the sophist radiative greenhouse alarmist will switch the usage of the term “backradiation” to its form, and accuse us of denying that a cold object emits any radiation at all They make the sophist assumption that if you reject the notion that a cold object can heat a warmer object, then you must deny that backradiation exists in the form of radiant energy from a cooler object at all, because they implicitly assume that any radiation whatsoever can cause heating irrespective of its source temperature. They either won’t admit to, or can’t understand, that while the thermal energy from a cool object can and does indeed exist, this energy is not capable of passing heat to a warmer object; this is true with either diffusive, or radiative, energy exchange.”
He clearly does not deny that the cooler atmosphere emits thermal radiation to the warmer surface. In fact, his article as a whole should explain to Little Willy where he is about to go wrong with all the examples he is now going to dig up.
[GRAHAM] I’m not the one trying to redefine the meaning of words.
[JOE] We say that because “backdiffusion” doesn’t exist. What it is supposed to do doesn’t exist, and what it is supposed to do is to cause a warmer object to become warmer still due to the thermal energy from a cool object.
https://principia-scientific.com/john-tyndalls-experiment-not-prove-greenhouse-gas-effect/
Perhaps Graham ought to have a word with Joe, for he sure does seem to want to redefine the meaning of words.
A true Sophistry Master, that Joe.
Little Willy knows he was wrong, so the false accusations are now about to start flying.
Graham said that generally cranks say that backradiation does not exist.
Joe says that the PSI crew always said that backradiation does not exist.
Therefore Graham tries to move the goalposts.
See? Here they come…
I think it is somewhat fitting that Postma’s article (which readers will note Little Willy carefully avoided linking to) finally puts this issue to rest. Dr Spencer was attacking a straw man…the very sort Postma warned about. You could argue that it is understandable Dr Spencer made that mistake…but it is not understandable for people now to still misrepresent GHE-skeptics.
Readers will appreciate how Graham silently backtracks from his claim that only a minority of cranks said that backradiation exists.
They might also notice how Graham is going for the classic “yes, but what cranks mean is…”
If only he could voice the “yes” loud and clear.
We can always hope.
I don’t backtrack from my claim at all. The idea is that back-radiation does not warm, not that it doesn’t exist. You may find the odd person who actually thinks that the cold body does not even radiate to the warm body, but they are in the minority. Of course, if you go looking on the internet specifically for minority opinions, you will generally find them, because the internet is such a huge place.
Just read Postma’s article.
[GRAHAM] Generally, they say back-radiation does not warm, not that it does not exist.
[ALSO GRAHAM] The idea is that back-radiation does not warm, not that it doesn’t exist.
Readers might appreciate how cranks say that backradiation does not exist, but do not mean that backradiation does not exist.
Readers might be able to read and understand Postma’s article.
Readers will recall why I quoted Joe, and decide if Graham is moving the goalposts right now.
Sure, they can decide that I’m moving the goalposts if they want. It’s not true, but some people want to believe what they want to believe. I have always said that it’s not that back-radiation doesn’t exist, it’s that it doesn’t warm. Clearly Postma acknowledges that back-radiation exists, since as he says:
"while the thermal energy from a cool object can and does indeed exist, this energy is not capable of passing heat to a warmer object; this is true with either diffusive, or radiative, energy exchange".
lqtm
willard…”The [PSI cranks] have always said that backradiation doesnt exist”.
***
I don’t think you fully understand or appreciate the complexity of the atmosphere. The notion presented, that one photon of IR moves from the surface and is absorbed by one molecule of CO2 is utter sci-fi.
That’s the real problem, the idea that a one-to-one relationship exists between GHG molecules and the surface.
The photon is still very much a hypothesis…a definition. No one knows if they exist. The alternative and more likely theory, that EM moves as a wave, puts a different light on the problem.
Gordo,
You do not seem to get what is happening here. I am trying to establish claims. Ridiculing yourself with agitated gesticulation will not prevent me from getting them.
Think about it. For years if not decade you have complained about how misunderstood you and your fellow cranks are. And now that you got the attention you crave for, you lose focus.
Tell me more about you *think* downward thermal infrared radiation from greenhouse gases does not or cannot transfer heat to the surface of our planet. If you do not help me, I will find it anyway. Let us hope that it is not the usual crap about 2LOT.
Think hard.
[LITTLE WILLY] Tell me more about you *think* downward thermal infrared radiation from greenhouse gases does not or cannot transfer heat to the surface of our planet.
[NORMAN] I am NOT saying that the cold atmosphere HEATS the surface in violation of the 2nd Law.
willard…”You do not seem to get what is happening here. I am trying to establish claims. Ridiculing yourself with agitated gesticulation will not prevent me from getting them.
Think about it. For years if not decade you have complained about how misunderstood you and your fellow cranks are. And now that you got the attention you crave for, you lose focus”.
***
I get clearly what is happening, you are playing some sort of demented game by suddenly appearing to agree with skeptics in order to lure them into making statements you can use to back-stab them.
Whether back-radiation exists or not is immaterial. The point is, nothing in the atmosphere is warming the surface, especially to a temperature higher than it is heated by solar radiation. Therefore, that part of AGW theory is nonsense.
The other part, where trace GHGs in the atmosphere are slowing the rate of surface heat dissipation is also nonsense. The temperature of the atmosphere is 99% determined by nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 99% of the atmosphere.
What is known as the greenhouse effect is actually warming produced by nitrogen and oxygen that scavenge heat directly from the surface and are unable to radiate it away immediately. It’s not till the rising heated air reaches an altitude where air density becomes low enough that the heat will dissipate naturally.
Thermometers measure the temperature of the atmosphere and they are measuring the heated air warmed by the surface. The reason the global average is some 33C higher than a planet with no oceans and no atmosphere is twofold:
1)the lower estimated temperature cannot be accurately determined using S-B
2)The atmosphere and oceans retain heat for lengthy periods of time.
> I get clearly what
That explains why you keep throwing squirrels around, Gordo.
It only slows the showdown you have been looking for all these years.
Existence is not the issue here, but accountability.
Your mealy-mouthed replies are recognized for what they are, evasion of the point at hand.
Oh, Gordo.
You are too kind to play the white knight for Graham like that.
The point at hand is that Graham has yet to acknowledge that cranks have a very peculiar conception of backradiation. That is, when they accept it exists. Which they do every time they say that it breaks thermo or is a myth. At least according to Joe. To Claes it is less clear, for he claims it still breaks his model. But you know cranks – all united in denying the greenhouse effect in their own, mutually exclusive ways.
Would you like me to find back everything you yourself said about backradiation?
"…while the thermal energy from a cool object can and does indeed exist, this energy is not capable of passing heat to a warmer object; this is true with either diffusive, or radiative, energy exchange".
That is not a “very peculiar concept of back-radiation”…it is correct.
But it can make it warmer.
Well, that is a point of contention that would take the discussion off-topic.
No,
As Frank would say, it’s the crux of the biscuit.
OK, bob.
Gordon,
“The photon is still very much a hypothesisa definition. No one knows if they exist.”
Bullshit.
A PET scan wouldn’t work if there weren’t photons, so I wouldn’t have the current job that I have.
If a positron electron annihilation event only produced waves, you would not be able to locate the location of the annihilation event with adequate precision.
The photoelectric effect Einstein published his paper that won him a Nobel prize is proof of the existence of what he called wave packets, which were later called photons.
https://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~ljc/PE_eng.pdf
[GRAHAM] Generally, they say back-radiation does not warm, not that it does not exist. You may find some people saying that it does not exist, but they would be an extreme minority.
[CLAES] Backradiation corresponds to an unstable unobservable unphysical process.
https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-backradiation-is-unphysical.html
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1387051
[GRAHAM] Generally, they say back-radiation does not warm, not that it does not exist. You may find some people saying that it does not exist, but they would be an extreme minority.
[ALBERTO] “Backradiation” is regarded as a sort of “Arabian Phoenix” in the scientific and technical community. Of course, the academics and global warming believers are saying it exists, but nobody has ever actually found it!
https://principia-scientific.com/robert-brown-backradiation-and-mathematics/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1387051
[GRAHAM] I’m not the one trying to redefine the meaning of words.
[JOE] We say that because “backdiffusion” doesn’t exist. What it is supposed to do doesn’t exist, and what it is supposed to do is to cause a warmer object to become warmer still due to the thermal energy from a cool object.
https://principia-scientific.com/john-tyndalls-experiment-not-prove-greenhouse-gas-effect/
Perhaps Graham ought to have a word with Joe, for he sure does seem to want to redefine the meaning of words.
A true Sophistry Master, that Joe.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1387051
[GRAHAM] Generally, they say back-radiation does not warm, not that it does not exist. You may find some people saying that it does not exist, but they would be an extreme minority.
[KARL] even better we no longer have to argue about the oxymoronic expression “backradiation”
https://principia-scientific.com/problems-with-dr-roy-spencer-s-picture-in-his-yes-virginia-paper/
An oxymoron is a word or an expression that is self-contradictory.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1387051
[GRAHAM] Generally, they say back-radiation does not warm, not that it does not exist. You may find some people saying that it does not exist, but they would be an extreme minority.
[NABIL] Back-radiation does not exist and cannot exist and those photons that you are talking about do not head to surface in the first place.
https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/15/C5303/2015/acpd-15-C5303-2015.pdf
Nabil Swedan says:
“The link, Backradiati[o]n is not directly measured by IR sensitive cells, it is through wrong calibration of Thermopcouples. Take your IR camera, point it to the sky and see if you can capture back radiation photo, you will not because it does not exist.“
"You may find the odd person who actually thinks that the cold body does not even radiate to the warm body, but they are in the minority. Of course, if you go looking on the internet specifically for minority opinions, you will generally find them, because the internet is such a huge place.
Just read Postma’s article."
Oh, but Tyson, this only works when the skies are warmer than the ground.
Ask Graham about his Demeterian concept of Backradiation.
Little Willy has got himself all confused and excited again.
maguff…”Take your IR camera, point it to the sky and see if you can capture back radiation photo, you will not because it does not exist.”
***
I have never tried it but what Nabil claims makes sense. If you pointed the same IR camera at a heat source, like a human, it would surely show an image. So, if you used it to photograph the sky, you should at least see dots of colour, like the dots on a colour TV when no signal is applied to the input. However, some TVs cut off the screen input when no signal is there so you may not see the coloured ‘snow’, as they call it.
Imaging the Greenhouse Effect with a FLIR i7 Thermal Imager
Nice infrared picture, but there are things to note.
1)this is not proof of the GHE, it is proof only that infrared energy is being radiated from the sky and surrounding objects.
2)note the ambient temperature on the camera viewfinder, 27.5F which is about -2.5C. It’s below freezing. The roof of the house is measuring nearly 120F which is about 49C.
Have you ever tried to walk across a road in your bare feet when it is over 40C outside? It burns your feet. Do you think that walking on that roof with the ambient temperature at -2.5C would burn your feet?
Besides, the interior of the house would have to be at least 50C, presuming no insulation. With insulation, the interior temperature would have to be 80C or higher to allow the roof to reach a temperature of nearly 50C.
These cameras are not intended to be used to measure atmospheric temperatures. They have a prescribed focal distance of a few feet to maintain accuracy. Obviously this camera is unable to detect temperatures accurately when used in that context, so we don’t know what it is measuring.
3)look at the trees, they are measuring in the yellow range at about half scale. Half scale for a range of -14F to 119F is about 66.5F. That’s 19C. So, in an ambient temperature of -2.5 C, the tree leafs are measuring room temperature.
4)Some of the clouds are measuring in the green range, say about 60F. That is 15.6 C. Do you think on a day when the outside temperature reads -2.5C, that clouds at that altitude would be nearly 20C above freezing?
Where would they get the heat? Clouds immediately adjacent to them, which could be at much higher altitudes, are measuring about 1/5th scale, about 26F. That’s more like the ambient temperature.
You simply cannot use an IR camera in a field like this to get an accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature. It will be specified in the specification what range of target you can use.
5)There is no proof that any of the sky radiation is coming from GHGs. Most likely it is coming from diffuse solar radiation, in the infrared spectrum. A full 50% of solar radiation is in the IR spectrum.
For once you say something relevant, Gordo.
Pray tell more about the proof that IR energy is being radiated from the sky.
To where? Where does it come from? What form takes this energy?
I would have thought, after your recent posturing, you’d have the answers to your questions. All that’s important is that only solar energy can raise the temperature of the surface.
I do have the right answers to these questions, Gordo. But I do not have yours. For instance, we know that virtually all longwave radiations do not come from the sky, so I am intrigued by your earlier surmise that they *likely* could.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
[GRAHAM] Generally, they say back-radiation does not warm, not that it does not exist. You may find some people saying that it does not exist, but they would be an extreme minority.
[JOSEPH REYNEN] In [3], again by means of a finite element technique, the heat transport by conduction through two slabs with a finite thickness separated by a vacuum with a radiation heat transfer shows once more that the back-radiation does not exist.
https://principia-scientific.com/publications/Reynen-Planck.pdf
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1387051
HOW TO SWITCH FROM WHAT THEY SAY TO WHAT THEY MEAN
[G] Generally, they say back-radiation does not warm, not that it does not exist. You may find some people saying that it does not exist, but they would be an extreme minority.
[J] The PSI cranks have always said that backradiation doesnt exist.
[G] What Joe really said was…
[W] Graham said that generally cranks say that backradiation does not exist. Joe says that the PSI crew always said that backradiation does not exist. Therefore Graham tries to move the goalposts.
[G] See? Here they come. What Joe really said was…
[W] Readers will appreciate how Graham silently backtracks from his claim that only a minority of cranks said that backradiation exists.
[G] I don’t backtrack from my claim at all. The idea is that back-radiation does not warm, not that it doesn’t exist.
I’m sorry I wasn’t 100% careful with my every word, Little Willy. I think it’s clear (or should be by now), that this:
"As far as I can tell, their [GHE-skeptics’] central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature."
Is a straw man.
Shorter, and with better emphasis:
[GRAHAM] Generally, they say
[ALSO GRAHAM] The idea is
The mention of an idea usually focuses on meaning.
So there is a shift from words to meaning.
We can now move to the meaning of *thermal infrared downward radiation*.
Or, maybe you are just hopelessly over-analyzing my every word…
Maybe Graham is believing in the greenhouse effect after all.
[Rolls eyes].
Wanna bet?
I want you to stop trolling.
Once again Graham was wise enought not to take a bet he is now losing.
Believing in the GHE involves believing that GHGs are responsible for the Earth’s surface being 33 K warmer than it otherwise would be. I don’t believe that. Thus I cannot believe in the GHE.
Would DREMT believe 32K warmer? 34K? What exactly?
2 minutes? Seriously…
2minutes +/- 30 seconds, rounded srsly, most of that in the typing. 2minutes is also not a GHE but a time period for the GHE is useful. For earthen GHE would DREMT believe 32K warmer? 34K? What exactly?
And so Graham finally admits that none of his concedos mattered.
Perhaps he’s just incapable of putting an argument together.
Perhaps you are incapable of understanding what was explained to you.
Allow me to clarify, whether back-radiation exists or not is immaterial. Nothing in the atmosphere can warm the surface, especially to raise surface temperature to a temperature higher than it is heated by solar energy.
Nothing is being radiated back the way wrt to surface radiation, claimed to be forward radiation. GHGs radiate isotropically and there is no particular backward direction to their radiation. It just so happens the surface gets in the way of some of their isotropic radiation. That’s a moot point because the radiation cannot be absorbed by a warmer surface.
Back-radiation is a straw man created by alarmists (Sky Dragon cranks) to make it appear that trace gases in the atmosphere are a significant source of heat for the surface.
They deny that the transfer of heat from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface contradicts the 2nd law. To get around the 2nd law, they have created a fictitious balance of energy that is a balance between radiation sources and not heat sources, as required by the 2nd law. Ergo, they have contravened the 2nd law.
“GHGs radiate isotropically and there is no particular backward direction to their radiation. It just so happens the surface gets in the way of some of their isotropic radiation. That’s a moot point because the radiation cannot be absorbed by a warmer surface.”
That radiation intercepted by the surface, from the GHGs in the atmosphere, is known as “back-radiation”. Just a name for it. Not sure who came up with the name…
..it is also the name for radiation going from a cold object to a warm object.
dremt…”Not sure who came up with the name”
***
I was suggesting that since surface IR is regarded as forward radiation, someone has presumed radiation coming the other way from GHGs is back-radiation.
One of the tenets of the AGW theory is that surface radiation is absorbed by GHGs, which warm, and radiate it back to Earth, where it is supposed to raise the temperature of the surface.
It is not back-radiation in reality, since the GHGs are radiating in all directions, not just back the way to the surface. WRT the GHG molecule it’s forward radiation. In that respect, I get the objection to people claiming it is not back-radiation, even though I have no problem with the term in general. It does not matter to me since it has no effect anyway.
That’s what they are claiming to override the 2nd law. They are claiming that forward radiation from the surface is stronger than back-radiation, hence positive, that a positive balance of energy has been established, and that somehow overrides the 2nd law.
It’s the same old, same old, the belief that IR radiation is heat. They think that heat is being transferred both ways but the 2nd law is not contravened because the IR balance of energy is positive.
An absolutely nutty hypothesis. In order for it to be affected by the 2nd law, both quantities would have to be heat. Even then, no one cares, because the heat transfer will be hot to cold, and not the other way.
Yes, it is either that or they liken the whole process to insulation. Like here, in this quote from Norman:
“Yes reality is the Sun heats the surface which no one disputes. The radiant barrier the atmosphere creates allows the solar input to reach a higher steady state surface temperature”
Problem with that is, radiant barriers function via reflecting the energy back to the source. It is the reflectivity of the material that gives it the insulating property. Absorp.tion and re-emission by GHG molecules is not the same thing.
re Norman’s POV, what radiant barrier, and how would a radiant barrier affect heat dissipation at the surface?
Radiation is produced by another mechanism in atoms as a product of cooling. Radiation per se has nothing to do with the cooling, it’s an internal process that causes the cooling and with it, the emission of radiation.
You could block all radiation and the surface would still cool, provided there was a difference in temperature between the surface and the atmosphere. And it would continue to produce radiation.
That’s why homes use R-rated insulation mainly. It slows the conduction of atoms through the walls, hence heat loss. You could block all radiation from the house and it would still lose heat.
If you surround a radio transmitter antenna with a Faraday shield, does it lower the temperature of the antenna? The metal will absorb the emitted EM and convert it to electrical energy, and the more EM is produced the more it converts it to electrical energy. The antenna remains at the same temperature.
Granted, the production of EM in an antenna is due to valence electrons flowing though the antenna whereas the production of EM in a surface is due to electron transitions in atoms. We know how EM is produced by electrons and that radiation is produced after the fact. It is not a cause of cooling but an effect of cooling.
Come on, Gordo.
Whether Graham is lying or simply trolling me is immaterial too. But is has consequences.
You keep droning about the SB law, how CO2 is just a trace gas that happens to be critical for life on this planet, and other tangential war stories. If it makes you feel better, more power to you.
I am currently looking for claims. Clear, concise, crisp claims. If I find out that your favorite troll keeps whining about Roy misrepresenting his own team when he misrepresents it himself, then I suspect we need patient, methodical due diligence.
We have yet to analyze the concept of downward thermal infrared radiation.
Do you think the Canucks will win one game this year?
willard…”You keep droning about the SB law, how CO2 is just a trace gas that happens to be critical for life on this planet…”
***
This is what I am talking about, straw man arguments.
Where is your scientific proof that the trace gas is doing anything besides feeding plants? Where’s your scientific discussion re S-B being valid at terrestrial temperatures?
I accompany my ‘droning’ with scientific proof, all you offer are straw man arguments.
You keep using the S word, Gordo. It does not mean what you make it mean. Besides, look where it got Graham.
As for accompanying your droning with proofs, don’t be ridiculous.
I am neither lying nor trolling you, Little Willy, and no I am not misrepresenting GHE-skeptics.
I should have known, but I am still flabbergasted:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/oceanic-cloud-decrease-since-1987-explains-13-of-ocean-heating/#comment-88804
Then Gordo goes on with his usual bit about Clausius for two more paragraphs. I suppose that this is the Bohren B4 talked about? If so, I do not share the same impressions Gordo has of what contains his textbook.
2013. Ten years. Exactly ten years. The same damn stories.
Still amazing.
willard…”Bohren gave more credence to the alternate AGW theory that back-radiation from GHGs was warming the surface and causing more water vapour to be released into the atmosphere…”
***
If you read Bohren closely he is offering lip service to that theory as being more plausible than the heat trapping nonsense but he does not condone it.
Yes, ten years of the same story to rebut 10 years of pseudo-science from alarmists. Someone has to do it and I am available.
You would fail to notice, but the basis of my arguments has evolved.
> If you read Bohren closely
Excellent idea, Gordo.
For starters, you might have missed this remark:
This makes me believe that he would not have been a fan of your pet explanation. That’s an aside. What matters is that it’s not far from where he describes the greenhouse effect using the classic slabs analogue. To speak of an analogue is more precise word than model. And he also presents two interpretations of it, which cranks usually refer as models, explanations, or even theories.
There is the trap interpretation, and there is emission interpretation. He considers the two equivalent, for they’re just two ways to express the same theory. But he prefers the emission interpretation on the basis of a cool thought experiment. I believe that makes him side with backradiation.
In any event that leads him to discuss the notion of downward emission of radiation, which says is a “more physically relevant quantity than temperature.”
Do you now understand why I keep asking you to focus on downward thermal infrared radiation?
You should always beware your wishes.
“If you read Bohren closely”
From: Bohren, Craig (2006). Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation: an Introduction with 400 Problems.
Little Willy, Tyson, please stop trolling.
If we were to consider most other objects in the same orbit of the moon.
Lets take a meter round metal sphere or a rock.
Then it is obvious that the surface temperature of said object would be warmer by 6.9% more energy in December solstice [temperature would be warmer but by a lot less than a 6.9% change due to the SB law] and coldest in June.
Javierand others equate that to the land mass being larger.
Try as he may the fact is,
It is like two workers receiving different salaries. The one receiving the bigger salary is the one having more money.
The unanswered question is still why when the earth is receiving more energy the measured surface temperature is lower?
Looking at it logically If the earth was all water we would not be having this problem and the earth surface temperature would be warmer in December and colder in June.
Temperature is a measure of the energy being emitted to space by any object.
Instead of space you could put in, or to a thermometer.
A thermometer can only measure what uninterrupted energy it receives, in space or on the ground.
Therefore are the thermometers on land reading a true level of energy from the sun, surface and atmosphere dynamic which is adding to and overcoming the sun , ocean surface and atmosphere dynamic when combined?
The land surface is 68% in the northern hemisphere 32% in the south.
Conversely the ocean areas are 5/9ths of the North and 7/9ths in the South.
Somehow it seems more important to me to consider the energy distribution effects on larger amount of the surface rather than the smaller [just saying].
Why would a surface change in the amount of water to land cause such a vast disparity in the temperatures at the opposite times of the year.
Without a mechanism one would have to say that our definition of what a surface is, particularly of the earth with 2/3 water, is where the problem lies.
Remember.
If the earth was all water we would not be having this problem and the earth surface temperature would be warmer in December and colder in June.
o
angech
October 25, 2022 11:28 pm
Initial thoughts are that the oceans have the highest GHG concentrations over them hence the layers of IR back radiation are much closer to each other over the oceans.
This means that the atmosphere over the oceans is capable of having more IR passing through it per second than the atmosphere over land.
This means that IR from the side with more water is spread more horizontally as it goes out and thus heats up more of the rest of the worlds atmosphere while not going up in temperature as much itself [SB].
Problem solved.
I hope Javier likes it.
It is the opposite of that world spinning faster spreads the energy coming in resulting
in a slightly higher surface temperature than the stationary world.
In this case the larger volume of water in the south leads to a lower average surface temperature than the smaller volume in the north.
Only initial thoughts mind you.
Mars receives and emits 2,32 times less energy to space than Moon.
angech:
“Temperature is a measure of the energy being emitted to space by any object.”
–
Please look at Moon – Mars mean surface temperature (Tmean) comparison.
–
For Moon Tmean = 220K
Moon’s Albedo a = 0,11
For Mars Tmean = 210K
Mars’ Albedo a = 0,25
–
It can be shown for the same Albedo, Moon and Mars would have had the same mean surface temperature (Tmean).
–
Moon is 1 AU (Astronomical Unit) away from sun.
Mars is 1,53 AU away from sun.
When applying the distance square inverse law, Mars receives 2,32 times less solar energy than Moon does.
–
Moon and Mars have the same Tmean temperature. Mars receives and emits 2,32 times less energy to space than Moon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Interesting.
Sock puppet,
Please stop trolling.
Willard, you are good at this.
Is he a real sock puppet [who for?]
or do you just mean in light of his incessant posting?
Hate to think I am being sucked in by a sky dragon.
Doc,
Pup got banned a few times over the years. He returned under a few names. Every regular knows it. There’s no real secret there.
Always the same jabs. He used to be more inspired. Perhaps he’s just going through the motions these days.
Thanks Willard,
I guess you were referring to Clint R not CV.
My apologies for misunderstanding.
Christos is quite unique.
He peddles his schtick like no one, unobtrusively.
spot on.
CV
“Mars receives and emits 2,32 times less energy to space than Moon.”
angech:
Temperature is a measure of the energy being emitted to space by any object.
CV
“look at Moon/ Mars mean surface temperature (Tmean) comparison.”
-“Moon and Mars have the same Tmean temperature.””
You mean
For Moon Tmean = 220K
For Mars Tmean = 210K
–
Obviously they are not the same temperature.
There is a 10K difference.
It takes a lot more energy to get the temp from 210K to 220K.
From your figures one could guess it might be 2.32 times as much energy.
–
Energy coming from a planet measured by a thermometer measures the energy coming from that planet including the energy it receives from external sources and its own innate power level.
–
So your first statement is factually wrong in that Mars along with Earth Jupiter and the moon also manufacture some energy themselves.
Incoming from the sun is a 2.32 times difference. but outgoing has a very slightly higher component from Mars.
–
The MST of a planet measured from space is a measure of all the energy received by the sun that is reflected in the direction of the thermometer and emitted by the planet surface, a combination of the absorbed and re-emitted wavelengths plus the objects natural emissions.
–
This total sum is called the planet emissivity and is used to work out the MST.
Emitted light includes reflected light, re-emitted light and any wavelengths the planet itself actually makes lumped together.
The thermometer cannot tell the difference between the three, it averages them all together and says the Moon is warmer than Mars measured from space and that temperature is then called it’s MST as measured from space.
“Man, being the servant and interpreter of Nature, can do and understand so much and so much only as he has observed in fact or in thought of the course of nature. Beyond this he neither knows anything nor can do anything.” – Francis Bacon
Bacon is saying that man should approach nature with humility, because there are so many things that our senses cannot sense and our minds do not understand. Instead of wasting time on pointless meditations, speculations and glosses, we should be studying nature.
All of this makes sense in the context of the time Bacon wrote “Novum Organum”. It was a time when Aristotelian thought was still strong. Bacon wanted to break away from Aristotle and march on towards command of nature. In this sense he can be considered as one of the fathers of engineering.
While deduction is the anticipation of nature, and deductive theories may refer to non-observable entities, induction is driven by empirical observation and study.
I do not suggest that Bacon was altogether against deduction. But at the time of his writing, he wanted to push forward the notion that man can command nature, provided he understands it well. Bacon saw knowledge and power as interconnected.
Knowledge is power.
France is bacon.
“In this sense he can be considered as one of the fathers of engineering.”
Gadzooks TM, you really are an idiot. You throw trash here with absolutely NO regard for accuracy.
I suppose you’ve never heard of the pyramids of Egypt, Roman aqueducts, Great Wall of China, or any of the thousands of amazing engineering works done centuries before Bacon.
(Why do all these idiots congregate here?)
A: Many for amusement and Clint R is a terrific entertainer.
To my stalker: It’s ok, you don’t have to like or comment on my post. I know you’re watching.
To my stalker!
Ball4, Tyson, please stop trolling.
HYPOTHESIS. Cranks transposed the substantialist underpinnings of the caloric theory into the mechanical theory of heat.
While thy Wiki does an OK job into describing the caloric theory, this entry provides a better perspective:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chemistry/#Cal
Now, compare and contrast:
[GORDO] In order to have that balance, both quantities would have to be heat.
[GRAHAM] Thermal radiation is not heat.
Of course radiation is not heat. They are not the same things. Heat is not even a “thing.” It’s a process result. Neither is energy: it’s a (quantitative) property.
Bob might have been onto something when he keeps singing –
https://youtu.be/1jOk8dk-qaU
A physical system does not contain heat. It contains thermal energy. The idea that radiation must somehow be heat is exactly why we dropped caloric theory. To treat heat as a substance would force us to posit entities with which we’re stuck.
(The story is a bit more complex as caloric theory wasn’t as bad as scientists are usually taught, but for now it’ll suffice.)
So no wonder cranks interpret our usual analogies as heat moving around like substance and why physicists are always dissatisfied with analogies. But humans are stuck with thinking in terms of substance, and they need to think properly about it to let go of it.
To validate that hypothesis, I’ll revisit the crankiest comments of this thread, and perhaps others.
Heat can be transferred via radiation, but only from hot to cold. I am not treating heat as a substance.
Bang goes another of your essays.
Willard 10:40 am: “A physical system does not contain heat.”
Right. That means, as Bohren writes elsewhere, heat cannot then transfer out of that physical system, to start being not contained in another physical system.
Willard can now join my amusement when anyone such as DREMT incorrectly writes about heat transfer (11:12 am: “heat can be transferred”) between physical systems. Heat has no material existence so heat is not a “thing”.
10:40 am: “(The physical system) contains thermal energy.”
Yes. This is a proper use of the term “thermal” per Bohren’s writing. Substituting the long form thermo-dynamic intern-al for the short form “thermal” does not modify Willards intended verbiage and meaning.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1387233
[BOBDROEGE] Heat can be transferred by conduction, convection, and radiation. Wiki even says so.
Amusing.
You certainly are.
I am always amused when DREMT et. al. write a comment in an attempt to give Clausius’ heat material existence.
Thermal energy can be transferred by conduction, convection, and electromagnetic radiation (EMR). Wiki even says so.
Ball4 laughs at himself when by his own logic, he treats thermal energy as being a substance that can be transferred.
Therm-odynamic intern-al energy is not a substance, DREMT, since in physics energy exists in many forms with an ability (or potential ability) to do work. Clausius’ heat is only a measure of something else.
Thermal energy can be transferred by conduction, convection, and electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
Ball4 laughs at himself when by his own logic, he treats thermal energy as being a substance that can be transferred.
DREMT, therm-odynamic intern-al energy is not a substance that can be transferred.
So stop, by your own logic, treating it as a substance that can be transferred.
I never started.
You did when you argued that bobdroege and I were saying heat is a substance just because it can be transferred. That is your own faulty logic.
Your incorrect comment, DREMT 1:28 pm, not mine.
Ball4 said:
“Willard can now join my amusement when anyone such as DREMT incorrectly writes about heat transfer (11:12 am: “heat can be transferred”) between physical systems. Heat has no material existence so heat is not a “thing”.”
Ball4’s error of logic is: to say “x can be transferred” does not imply x is a substance.
B4,
Note how, according to Graham’s logic, the very concept of heat transfer implies a substance.
Note how Little Willy just makes things up.
Willard 2:18 pm, noted, DREMT’s logic often contains faulty physics.
Sometimes DREMT’s logic is even so convoluted as to be impossible to follow as demonstrated in this subthread where DREMT 1:07 pm incorrectly writes: “(Ball4) treats thermal energy as being a substance that can be transferred.” ha.
Readers will note that Ball4 was in trouble, Little Willy came in to bail him out with a false accusation, which Ball4 can use to avoid dealing with his failure of logic. The two will most likely engage in a back and forth, talking about me but not to me…
DREMT 2:15 pm: Sometimes your logic is even so convoluted as to be impossible to follow as demonstrated in this current subthread where you 1:07 pm incorrectly write: “(Ball4) treats thermal energy as being a substance that can be transferred.”
Just as well that I clarified at 2:15 PM, then.
B4,
Graham is simply trying to use a “by-your-logic” argument. And is logic is that as soon as a property is predicated, it must be predicated of some thing.
That misrepresents what I said, but if it keeps him happy during his long nights, I’m all for it.
My 2:15 PM comment clarifies, for anyone who did not get my point beforehand. That, as they say, is that.
B4,
You reply to Graham and you talk to me. Address does not transfer.
Also, to speak candidly should be fine as long as we understand each other. Humans will use metonymy long after your passing on Earth.
You act like a guy who, in a petanque game, would always get out the cord to measure the balls. Nothing obliges you to make sure where the point(s) should go. It is perfectly legal, normal, and civic to simply grant the obvious points. Even the razor’s edge ones, in fact, it if means the game becomes more interesting.
Sure, I’m rubbing Graham’s ears a bit. But that’s just a side effect of the conceptual analysis. The point of analyzing concepts is to analyze concepts.
I’ll meet your “verbiage” with abbreviation abuses, and raise you with ungrammatical copy-pasting.
DREMPTY,
I’ll try once again to get you to be more precise in your writing.
“Heat can be transferred via radiation, but only from hot to cold. I am not treating heat as a substance.
Bang goes another of your essays.”
Heat transfer by radiation is always from hot to cold.
But radiation can cause a temperature increase of the hotter object.
Otherwise the Earth’s surface would be a rather cold average of 255 K.
You are not criticizing my writing, bob, you are agreeing with me whilst adding something to what I said that you know I disagree with, in order to steer the discussion the way you want it to go.
No, you are being imprecise.
You use heat when you mean heat transfer.
The criticism stands.
I am not agreeing with you.
Energy transfer from cold to hot is an observable quantity.
“You use heat when you mean heat transfer.”
So you believe my comment should have read:
“Heat [transfer] can be transferred via radiation, but only from hot to cold. I am not treating heat [transfer] as a substance”
Don’t be silly, bob.
Graham forgets about “But radiation can cause a temperature increase of the hotter object.”
So an alternative reconstrual would be
Heat can be transferred via radiation, only from hot to cold. Radiation can still cause a temperature increase of the hotter object when considering heat transfer properly, that is not by reifing the overall process, which often describes a statistical effect.
[Rolls eyes].
Graham already goes for intimations.
Can I not just talk to bob without you butting in?
DREMPTY,
If you weren’t being silly and repeating the same old crap over and over, he might not but in.
You have work to do.
Thanks to the greenhouse effect, we are here, and not freezing our collective butts off.
Your criticism was shown to be false. Hence, when I said:
"You are not criticizing my writing, bob, you are agreeing with me whilst adding something to what I said that you know I disagree with, in order to steer the discussion the way you want it to go."
I was correct.
DREMPTY,
No, as usual you were wrong.
You were using heat when you mean heat transfer.
Heat means increase the temperature, which DLR does to the surface, even though the heat transfer is from the surface to the atmosphere overall on average.
You can believe there is no GHE, but that is just your opinion, and not supported by scientific evidence.
Yes, I want to steer the conversation in an empirical direction, which you want to avoid at all costs.
No, I was not wrong, bob.
You first said I was using heat when I meant heat transfer. I showed this to be false. You’re now saying something different.
Bob,
Graham still does not get that his reification happens when he implies that heat only transfers from hot to cold. One way to deny that what you just said applies is to consider what is hot and cold as singular body, of which is categorically determined if heat transfers or not. Hence why to remind him, as you often do, that radiation does not need to decide if it is warmer to go where it does.
When you see heat transfer has the end result of a series of wins and losses, it is easy to see the crank fallacy. They keep repeating that we cannot break even, but they forget that we can lose more than we actually do. And at this point Graham usually shifts to empirical grounds, then to armwaving, and then back to theory.
There needs to be a more direct way. It seems to me that nothing he says allow him to infer that the greenhouse effect does not exist. I will try to work on that.
[BOBDROEGE] Heat transfer by radiation is always from hot to cold.
[LITTLE WILLY] Graham still does not get that his reification happens when he implies that heat only transfers from hot to cold.
[BOBDROEGE] But radiation can cause a temperature increase of the hotter object.
[DREMT] DLR must either transfer heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface, or act to insulate the surface, for the GHE to obtain.
DREMPTY
“[DREMT] DLR must either transfer heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface, or act to insulate the surface, for the GHE to obtain.”
It’s actually neither, but I don’t expect you to understand.
The heat transfer is always from hot to cold, so DLR does not on average over the entire Earth, transfer heat from the atmosphere to the surface.
However, DLR is fully capable of transferring energy from the atmosphere to the surface, adding energy to what the surface already receives from other sources.
DLR is composed of photons, that don’t interact with other photons, ie they don’t prevent the surface from cooling down by emitting photons.
So DLR doesn’t insulate, the radiative gases insulate.
bob, I wouldn’t have expected you to argue that DLR directly transfers heat to the surface. Your sophistry is a bit more advanced than that.
"So DLR doesn’t insulate, the radiative gases insulate."
A pedantic quibble. You knew what I meant (especially since we’ve argued the exact same thing several dozen times). Most of you regularly claim that the process is akin to radiative insulation. Look at Norman’s comment, which I highlighted, with the "radiant barrier". I understand, but respectfully decline to agree.
And so Graham once again stops short of explaining the reasons for his disagreement.
In fairness, if we remove the areas where he disagrees, he agrees a lot with what everybody is saying. Sometimes he even believes in the greenhouse effect…
If you paid attention, you would already know. Then again, you would have to have the capacity to understand. Please stop butting in.
DREMPTY,
“bob, I wouldnt have expected you to argue that DLR directly transfers heat to the surface. Your sophistry is a bit more advanced than that.”
Except I didn’t argue that.
DLR transfers energy to the surface.
The heat is transferred in the other direction.
Perhaps it would be better if we just stopped using the term heat, which has too many different meanings, and that prevents you in particular from writing clearly.
The surface of the Earth has more energy due to the presence of IR active gases in the atmosphere, and adding more IR gases will make the surface of the Earth have more energy.
The second law will be followed for all macroscopic activities, realizing that as individual molecules don’t have a temperature, they also don’t have to follow the second law.
"Except I didn’t argue that."
I know, that’s why I said you didn’t. You have misunderstood. Stop pretending I don’t understand how to use the word "heat", and please re-read my previous comment until you correctly understand it.
> But radiation can cause a temperature increase of the hotter object.
Right on, Bob. It’s as if Roy was onto something when he used the expression “downward infrared thermal radiation.” And that something still seems to escape Graham. When he insists that “thermal radiation is not heat,” he implies that it must be for the greenhouse effect to obtain. Otherwise his clarification carries no weight.
Think about it. He believes in backradiation and in DLR. He even believes that the atmosphere could provide an insulative effect. So Graham believes in some greenhouse effect. At least in principle.
But but but, he also believes that this effect is negligible. He also believes that for some reason that is not completely spelled out, that somewhere there might be another atmospheric process that could nullify completely this negligible effect. Finally, he also believes that this effect could in fact could be reverse by adding more greenhouse gases.
How would you proceed to change his mind?
“When he insists that “thermal radiation is not heat,” he implies that it must be for the greenhouse effect to obtain”
Wrong. DLR must either transfer heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface, or act to insulate the surface, for the GHE to obtain.
“He even believes that the atmosphere could provide an insulative effect”
Via the non-radiative gases, not GHGs.
“But but but, he also believes that this effect is negligible”
No. The insulative effect from the non-radiative gases is significant.
I will ignore your other misrepresentations, for now.
DREMT 2:58 pm tries to physically misuse the term “heat” again & then to further fool more astute readers writing: “non-radiative gases” when there exist no “non-radiative gases”.
I think Graham is referring to the non-radiative gases as those that insure radiative transfer in the atmosphere.
Hence why we call them non-radiative gases.
“When he insists that “thermal radiation is not heat,” he implies that it must be for the greenhouse effect to obtain”
Wrong. DLR must either transfer heat from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface, or act to insulate the surface, for the GHE to obtain.
“He even believes that the atmosphere could provide an insulative effect”
Via the non-radiative gases, not GHGs.
“But but but, he also believes that this effect is negligible”
No. The insulative effect from the non-radiative gases is significant.
I will ignore your other misrepresentations, for now.
Bob,
So as you can see Graham believes in some kind of greenhouse effect.
It only works at night or under cold places, like ice sheets.
It mostly works for non-radiative gases.
Otherwise he believes in the same things as everyone else.
Success!
Little Willy is confused, as usual.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1384727
Bob,
To clarify, here is my source:
As you can see, Graham does not claim to have all the answers, and his trolling for more than five years reveals everything that needs to be said about his capacity to change his mind.
The second pathway involves radiatively active gases (GHGs), not the non-radiative gases (e.g. N2/O2). Just click on the link I provided to read the argument.
As you will see, Little Willy misrepresents the argument entirely.
bob read the comment at the time, as he participated in a discussion about it, so Little Willy posturing like he is filling bob in on something he is unaware of is entirely false.
Bob,
I misplaced my comment. Search for “As you can see, Graham cannot deny that he believes in the greenhouse effect.” For some reason Roy’s parser refuses my links tonight.
Sorry about that.
Or just use my link, bob, to scroll through and read comments you have most likely already read, so you can come back and repeat what you have already said, and take this discussion further off-topic. Do as Little Willy commands you…
Bob,
Note that Graham is baiting you to reconsider a comment to which you already replied:
Here is a little something for you:
https://imgflip.com/i/6yf1x4
Let readers appreciate Graham’s sage last words.
No, Little Willy. Quite the opposite. In fact I indicated to bob here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1387635
that I thought he was just trying to steer this thread off course. It is you that successfully baited me into discussing this again, granting bob his wish.
Readers can also fail to appreciate Graham’s sage last words.
Readers can also appreciate Graham’s unwise last words.
Readers can also feel disgust when reading Graham’s &c.
The concept of opposition is not always as clear as scientific reactionaries might suggest.
“Last words”
It’s weird how some of the things you come out with are oddly threatening.
Bob,
Would you agree that Graham enjoys having the last word, and often goes so far as to repeat virtually the same comment over and over again to have it?
Also, do you agree that the plural of “word” is “words”?
Thanks!
Compare and contrast:
[BOB] Heat transfer is always the difference between the energy transfer from hot to cold and the energy transfer from cold to hot.
[GORDO] No heat transfer is possible from the colder body to the hotter body…2nd law.
Bob does not need to posit heat as a substance being transferred.
Gordo does.
Energy is not a substance either. From those quotes, you could argue that bob posits energy is a substance being transferred. See how ridiculous you are being?
DREMPTY,
Take the second derivative of energy with respect to velocity and what do you get.
For those in the know, I just quoted Albert again.
Readers will note that a difference is not a thing.
What is being transferred from a body to another ultimately is.
DREMPTY,
It’s not me you are calling ridiculous.
It’s Albert, since we both rode bikes in the same town, we are best buds.
Energy is indeed a thing.
A “thing” is a material object (inanimate). Thus neither heat nor energy are “things”.
bob, in physics, conserved energy exists in many forms as the ability (or potential ability) to do work or raise/lower temperatures; that physical ability is contained in many physical systems & thus can then be transferred between physical systems.
Clausius’ heat correctly exists in physics only as a measure of something else.
Ball4,
Since my work involves the transfer of energy into matter, and then the transfer of matter into energy, I may have a different view of things than the average squirrel.
FWIW, a thing used to be an assembly of some sort:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly)
So a thing is what people make one to be. The concept of object is not far from the concept of thing, but we should bear in mind that there are mathematical objects. So a thing is more material, but perhaps less so than a body.
(The concept of system is another beast altogether.)
The point of all this is not to mock reification, but to ask: what kind of thing or object or body is the atmosphere?
Is it just Fermions, or do we include Bosons too?
In my line of work, we count things, which includes Bosons, which we count one by one or two by two.
Depending on which sort of tomography we are doing.
If its countable, its a thing.
Then DLR is a thing.
If its a thing, it’s a substance.
As long as people understand each other, Bob, I do not care much about ontology.
Just know that the concept of substance leads to difficulties:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/#ContCont
But then what does not, and who said that difficulties were not fun?
My own character would say – to be is to be the value of a bounded variable.
Willard,
I’d rather be rick-rolled than tricked into reading a philosophy text.
Bob,
Admittingly, formal metaphysics is an aquired taste, like atonal music or Finnish speed metal.
Perhaps this example would help:
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/05/confidence-in-radiative-transfer-models/#comment-18944
Unless one is knowledgeable enough to distinguish intrinsic from emergent properties, it might be safer to take a systemic view on complex “things” like an atmosphere.
Readers will note that Little Willy missed the point. Indeed, you could say that bobdroege is not arguing that heat is a thing, a substance, because he referred to it as a difference…but you could argue that he is saying energy is a thing, a substance, simply because he is using the term "energy transfer". I am simply pointing out how absurd your argument is. Just because Gordon used the term "heat transfer" does not mean he is saying heat is a substance. Any more than bob is saying energy is a substance…
But the second derivative of energy is a substance.
So that’s where I stand out in my field
Readers will note, as well as friends of P.W. Adkins, that DREMPTY doesn’t understand what Bob Droege is saying.
Those familiar with P.W. Adkins might point DREMPTY in this direction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
I understand you fine. You don’t understand my point, which transcends your personal opinion about energy.
DSREMPTY,
I find it ridiculous that the arguments on the greenhouse effect have devolved into discussion of whether or not heat or energy is a thing.
And I find all your arguments against the greenhouse effect rather silly, pointless, and counterfactual to the evidence.
All of them.
All the skeptical side needs is one good argument, and we are still waiting for anything close.
"I find it ridiculous that the arguments on the greenhouse effect have devolved into discussion of whether or not heat or energy is a thing."
I agree. Blame Little Willy for that, though.
Bob,
Graham is just whining again, this time because he can’t own that when Joe only has silly semantic arguments. For instance, when he says that “each term is not itself heat,” he presumes that Team Science needs to posit that heat is some kind of thing. Yet everybody knows that, strictly speaking, it’s just a difference.
So he’s projecting a reification that just isn’t there. And this is why he’s stuck into discussing about how many flow there really is, as if it had anything to do with what “on net” means, which is just a difference.
Worse, it would not matter much if heat was reified like he mocked if he managed his quantification properly. But no, he has to pull a Zeno:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2015/05/26/the-sophistry-of-backradiation/
With that kind of logic, we could refute compounding interests.
I mention Zeno not because it’s analogous. It is the very same trick. Abstract time steps and recurse.
Little Willy’s comment, as usual, is entirely off-topic, and mostly makes sense only in the deep, dark recesses of his fevered imagination.
DREMPTY,
“I agree. Blame Little Willy for that, though.”
I don’t think so Tim!
It takes two to devolve this discussion into the relative merits and non merits of all the skeptical arguments against the GHE.
You are far more responsible than Willard, you can’t resist trolling and always have to have the last word.
We would be freezing without the greenhouse effect.
And my not agreeing with your crappy arguments doesn’t mean I don’t understand them.
Maybe spend more time playing your guitar, it does make you smarter.
bob, look through the comments under this article. Look who has started the most new threads on the same subject. Little Willy is up there with Dug…in fact maybe worse! You defend Little Willy because he’s one of your own. That’s all there is to it. His behaviour in the comments here is indefensible, however.
Bob,
Graham relitigated every single word Roy used when he bannished Sky Dragon cranks. Since he kept moving the goalposts, issues had to be disaggregrated. And since he freaked out, he kept replying to every single comment I made. Now he’s blaming me when he could simply have stopped replying to every single comment I made.
As far as I am concerned, everybody can use the word “heat” however they please. As long as they’re being understood, who cares? Postel’s Law is a robust one.
That being said, scoundrels like Joe always end up using silly semantic arguments. And Graham is the most splendid mark for that kind of racket. Heat, warming, on its own accord, he falls for them all. You should see him figure skating around the concept of insulation down below!
To defuse this kind of con, sometimes all you need is a little conceptual analysis.
You act surprised that I responded to your new threads when every single one was about me or my arguments in some way. You deliberately bait, then act all innocent now, when you got the inevitable responses you were looking for at the time. Pure trolling. Again, the sheer number of new threads on the same subject that you have initiated is the indicator. You have spammed on the same subject for what now amounts to about a third of all the comments! Scroll up and see…this all began way up-thread.
The issue is quite simple once again –
Graham just can’t let go. He needs to have the last word. So he has to respond to every comment, whether they’re threaded or not.
And Graham likes to sealion. He needs to assert stuff that compels his opponents to work. Amassing evidence takes time and dedication. Whereas he can just repeat the same thing over and over again.
Of course Graham will blame me for all this. After all, I am the one who reminded him that he and other Sky Dragon cranks have been told off by Roy.
Next time hopefully he’ll beware his wishes.
Your research confirmed I was correct. Thank you.
DREMPTY,
He hasn’t quite sunk to your level though.
OK, bob.
Readers might also observe that we’re talking about the transfer of heat between two bodies. Which should leads them to the following questions:
Q1. What kind of body is the atmosphere?
Q2. What exactly are the entities involved in the second law of thermo?
…but, mainly readers will observe that another of your essays failed.
When a crank insists on the idea that thermal radiation is not heat, ask yourself why. When another crank talks about bodies and electrons when droning about the Second Law, ask yourself why again. And when cranks vascillate between asserting the existence of backradiation and reducing it to self-contradiction, ask yourself why again, and again.
Should thermal radiation be heat for the greenhouse effect to obtain? Should there be a transfer of heat between bodies for the second law to apply? What do they think backradiation and the atmosphere are exactly?
Intriguing presuppositions lie ahead.
…mainly readers will observe that another of your essays failed.
Repetitions repeating repetitively.
[JOE] while the thermal energy from a cool object can and does indeed exist, this energy is not capable of passing heat to a warmer object; this is true with either diffusive, or radiative, energy exchange.
Ask yourself: what kind of object does Joe think the atmosphere is? Does he really believe that is always colder than the surface?
So many questions. All the time in the world.
…readers will observe that another of your essays failed.
[MAXWELL] Claes Johnson’s theory explicitly predicts that an IR thermometer at room temperature will not absorb IR light emitted by the atmosphere. As we have all seen, a room temperature IR DOES absorb IR light emitted by the atmosphere. Therefore Johnsons theory is wrong.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98816
…will observe that another of your essays failed.
[GORDO] If you read Bohren closely he is offering lip service to that theory as being more plausible than the heat trapping nonsense but he does not condone it.
[CRAIG] It is at best an analogue […] One interpretation cannot be right and the other wrong if they are based on the same theory. The two interpretations are merely two different ways of saying the same thing.
Gordo is simply confused.
Craig’s next bit is worth quoting:
That’s in section 1.6, Emissivity and Global Warming.
What Craig says of interpretations also applies to theories. Of note is how Craig shows that adding slabs breaks the analogue, which is a trick readers already know, at least those who did not dozed off during the cranks slug fest on Eli’s plates.
In any event he ends up with this useful conclusion:
What Craig says about photons could be said of really good sock puppets.
What Dr. Craig Bohren says about photon vs. wave language, p. 4:
“Although the wave language undoubtedly has been and continues to be more fruitful of inventions, the photon language is perhaps more soothing because photons can be incarnated, imagined to be objects we can kick or be kicked by. Waves extending through all space
are not so easily incarnated.
We can readily conceive of the photon as a thing. And yet an
electromagnetic wave is just as much a thing as a photon: both possess energy and momentum (linear and angular) but not, it seems, mass.”
A photon can imagined like a thunderclap, or the sharp sound of a rifle shot. A short sharply defined pressure wave.
“Such a wave can be regarded as a collection of a large number of waves, each of a different wavelength, superimposed so that constructive interference creates the pressure zone, but destructive interference occurs every where else,”
P.W. Adkins.
Excellent quote, B4.
I particularly like his the photon language is perhaps more soothing because photons can be incarnated.
We should bear in mind that humans like objects. We conceive them very early in our developments. It makes sense to think of them as composed with other smaller ones.
We even use them to represent the atmosphere: houses, slabs, prisms. It is important to bear in mind that they’re used as mere analogical devices. Otherwise cranks will start to believe that these objects are part of scientific theories. They already have difficulties distinguishing models from theories, so we should thread lightly.
We’re still stuck in a world of objects. So our words will express theories using objectual speech for a while. Those who think that to speak in equations is the way out should recall that mathematicians and programmers still have objects and types.
Science is served when theories result in useful inventions; again Bohren p. 3:
“But which language is the more useful? In a letter to American Journal of Physics, M. Psimopoulos and T. Theocharis ask the rhetorical questions: “What new discoveries have (i) the particle or photon aspect of light, and (ii) the wave aspect of light, given rise to?
Answer: (i) we are not aware of any; (ii) holography, laser, intensity interferometry, phase conjugation.”
To this list we add radar, all of interferometry, on which much of the science of measurement is based, and interference filters, which have many applications.”
B4,
Waves are indeed rather cool. They help us understand shifting things…like waves. I think Craig’s intuition fails him here:
Trying this experiment in a nordic winter might show him otherwise. There are limits as to what central heating can do. Also, old folks used to condemn parts of their house to save energy. The same logic applies within the house itself.
Besides, has he ever heard of a heat pump?
Dr. Bohren on heat pumps, a useful invention resulting from thermodynamics theory:
“The so-called heat pump is essentially a refrigerator. In winter a heat pump functions as a heater, the low-temperature reservoir being the outside environment, the high-temperature reservoir being the inside of a house. In summer, a heat pump functions as an air conditioner, the low-temperature reservoir being the inside of a house, the high-temperature reservoir being its outside environment.
A newspaper article on heat pumps informs us that “the electric heat pump is flameless and doesn’t use any energy to create heat. It simply transfers heat from areas where it is not wanted into areas where it is.”
He adds: Please discuss.
Nice. Can’t find the quote in the book. Where is it from?
I thought of a heat pump because it’s outside the house, sometimes completely. I also must clarify that was thinking of the air-to-air heat pump, but there are others, e.g. geothermal ones. A heat pump still works in cold climates, but physical limitations and alternatives can render them economically dubious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_source_heat_pump#In_cold_climates
The carbon hierarchy to topple remains coal, oil, and gas.
Bohren, Craig (1998). Atmospheric Thermodynamics.
Tyson: yes.
Thanks!
Here it is.
Less fun to search, tho.
Bohren 1998 p. 180 on heat pump efficiency:
“The author of a newspaper article on heat pumps (see Problem 20 in Chapter 1) asserts that “new models are so efficient they produce up to four units of heat for every one unit of electricity they use.”
This statement seems false but is in fact true. Convince yourself that it is true (see Problem 11) but misleading. Someone reading this article and taking it at face value might conclude that burning fuel oil (or natural gas) to heat a house in winter is madness. Why burn oil when you can use a heat pump and get four times as much heating? This statement is true but incomplete.”
He again adds for students: Please discuss.
If you like these two Bohren texts, try his other publications like “What light through yonder window breaks” and “Clouds in a glass of beer: Simple experiments in atmospheric physics”. Terrific reads.
They will make DREMTs head asplode.
You’re tempting me to turn Roy’s into a physics book club, B4!
I’m sure Graham and Gordo will applaud the initiative.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Not confused. Bohren is a skeptic, I am making my claims from that perspective.
C’mon, Gordo:
The “thing” that is said is not the ones cranks like to hear.
Perhaps you could school me by looking back that the equations? You know me, I’m just a tiny ninja. Like Graham, I can only grok words.
Teach me, sensei.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
What happens to the light falling on Earth’s surface from the colder planet Mars or the colder Planet Jupiter?
–
Doesn’t its EM energy get absorbed? Doesn’t it warm Earth’s surface?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos 12:22 pm, Mars’ light (in photon or wave language) is absorbed, reflected, and transmitted through Earth surface on which the light is incident.
Light from another planet would be reflected light, of course. Even being reflected light, it may be compatible enough to be absorbed by Earth. Most likely not, however.
But if absorbed, that’s NOT an example of cold warming hot. The light originated from Sun.
Clint R, only about 5% of Mars light is reflected from the sun like most all natural systems & about 95% of Mars light incident on Earth’s surface is emitted by Mars planetary system.
Planet’s surface from natural systems albedo of Mars light to perhelion. Surface emission of orbital path depends, about 27% incident. Mars candy bars and parking lots reflect all, refracted by 43.8% perpendicular to the ecliptic, on Fridays.
clint…”…being reflected light, it may be compatible enough to be absorbed by Earth. Most likely not…”
***
Unless you’re a Moon Dog like B4, who lies out at night trying to get a Moon tan, the answer is likely not. Light reflected by the Moon is bright enough to light up a dark night to the point of making visibility easier, but one can hardly feel it. That means our skin is absorbing very little Moon light, if any at all.
Based on the colour of the Moon it appears to have a full spectrum of reflected sunlight. Apparently the colour temperature of the Moon is a bit lower than the Sun’s and it favours the red end of the spectrum. Still we can’t feel it.
I am reasoning that reflection on a non-mirror-like surface, like the Moon takes a lot of intensity out of the solar energy. I wonder what would happen if we had a giant mirror, the size of the Moon perhaps, at the distance of the Moon. Would we be able to sense the reflected light with our skin?
CV mentioned Mars and Jupiter. No one mentioned Moon.
christos…”What happens to the light falling on Earths surface from the colder planet Mars or the colder Planet Jupiter?”
***
I think that solar energy striking a surface like the Moon, Mars, or Jupiter, is absorbed by that planet and what we see as reflected light has lost the intensity of the solar energy. Therefore, the reflected light lacks the intensity to raise electrons in the surface of the Earth to a higher orbital energy level.
In a reply to Clint, which I saw before your post, I pointed out that the Moon has nearly the colour brightness of the Sun, shifted a bit to the red end of the spectrum, but we cannot feel moonlight. That’s because it is not absorbed by our skin and converted to heat.
There is nothing special about moon light illumination of the skin, Gordon. Like all light, human skin surface will absorb, reflect, and transmit moonlight.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“I think that solar energy striking a surface like the Moon, Mars, or Jupiter, is absorbed by that planet and what we see as reflected light has lost the intensity of the solar energy. Therefore, the reflected light lacks the intensity to raise electrons in the surface of the Earth to a higher orbital energy level.”
I think doubling of CO2 warms considerably more than light from the Moon, Mars and Jupiter.
It’s sort of like the 2,500 C thermosphere which is similar to Space which has no temperature.
But it seems to me, our ocean can “trap” the light the Moon, Mars, or Jupiter- and can’t trap longwave IR.
And your eyes can see this light.
What we know, is no one has measured the warming effect of doubling of CO2. And that we are in an Ice Age.
Since no one has measured how much warming is due to rising CO2 and can we assume there are many capable people, higher CO2 are not going lead us out of this Ice Age.
Not to mention that sea level rise has only risen a few inches.
Bob,
As you can see, Graham cannot deny that he believes in the greenhouse effect. As you said earlier:
Perhaps we can cut him some slack and accept that when he says that the greenhouse effect is negligible, what he really means is that it does not exist. Just as we can accept that when he says that the greenhouse effect does not exist, what he really means is that it’s negligible.
That way Graham he can have the best of both worlds. He can deny the greenhouse effect while accepting just about everything that would compel anyone but him to believe in it.
By “anyone” I mean a non-crank, of course. They are a negligible quantity. Please don’t presume I am suggesting they don’t exist.
They’re so desperate for a GHE they cling to “negligible”.
https://imgflip.com/i/6yf1x4
…so desperate for a GHE they cling to “negligible”.
A piece in three acts. From words to meanings, from meanings to implications, and then to intimations. No, not threats. Hints. Announcements.
Sooner or later Graham will make his whole position known instead of running around, crying, giggling, reinforced in his certitude of being misunderstood, mistreated, misloved.
But before that some work on implications need to be done.
More bizarre gibberish from Little Willy.
The first part ended here:
HOW TO SWITCH FROM WHAT THEY SAY TO WHAT THEY MEAN
We are into the second part, from meanings to implications.
Graham graced us with a glimpse of his position: the greenhouse effect does not exist; backradiation exists but does not warm; the atmosphere contains greenhouse gases; downwelling longwave radiation exists; when the atmosphere is warmer that the surface then DWIR is indeed heat; thermal radiation is not heat.
Anything else?
Ah yes: the thermal energy from a cool object is not capable of passing heat to a warmer object. We know that Joe holds this claim. We know that Graham also quoted it somewhat approvingly. We know that it’s a common trope.
Suppose we add it to Graham’s set of beliefs. Could we derive the proposition that the greenhouse effect does not exist from this set of beliefs? If not, what should we add?
What is the logical secret sauce behind the Sky Dragon crank playbook?
So many questions. All the time in the world.
Little Willy is always obsessed with knowing my position on something. Now, it is the GHE. Odd, because I have made my position painfully clear, many, many times now. He leaves out all the things he doesn’t understand – which is most of it. He calls this a “trope” – that heat cannot be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object. It is actually just a fact, that even most people on his own side of the debate accept.
All this came about simply because I said that this quote:
"As far as I can tell, their [GHE-skeptics’] central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature."
is a straw man. Which it is, as has been established already. The real reason this debacle is still ongoing is because Little Willy cannot ever admit he is wrong. So he just goes ballistic, and spams the comment section with multiple new threads on the same subject, for days on end. Now, about a quarter of the entire comment section has been taken up by this one debate.
Could he maybe just stop? Who knows…
“… that heat cannot be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object. It is actually just a fact, that even most people on his own side of the debate accept.”
No DREMT, since your statement is factually wrong.
Boltzmann showed how Clausius heat can pass from cold to hot in agreement with Clausius: 2. Universe entropy increases.
DREMT still hasn’t yet understood the basic physics of Clausius’ heat after all these years.
Most rational people on his own side of the debate accept…
… that Boltzmann showed how Clausius’ heat can pass from cold to hot in agreement with Clausius: 2. Universe entropy increases.
Heat cannot, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object.
B4,
What looks like a fog, is yellow, moves of its own accord, but is not a thing?
… statement was later improved by Boltzmann to show how Clausius’ heat can pass from cold to hot in agreement with Clausius: 2. Universe entropy increases.
DREMT doesn’t care to understand even the basics of atm. physics.
Dunno Willard 8:35 pm. I do observe most cars these days just have clear lens for their fog lamps.
Why not try explaining/substantiating what you are going on about then, Ball4?
DREMT 8:40 pm, I have many different times. At steady state temperature, molecules in a gas (or solid, liquid, plasma) object do not all move at the same speed, this is why temperature is an avg. Thus a measure of kinetic energy exchange between constituents of different temperature objects then can vary above and below that avg. On net, the exchanged KE sum will be hot to cold but the individual exchanges can be cold to hot object for individual KE exchange on interactions.
Proving that was difficult and happened after Clausius lifetime iirc. The proof was the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecular speeds derived in books on kinetic theory that are easy to find for free, I can help if you need a cite. Even so, these basic books will need to have certain level of more fundamental science pre-req.s accomplished for DREMT or anyone to understand how Clausius heat can pass from cold to hot in agreement with Clausius: 2. Universe entropy increases.
This is the reason Willard et. al. point out at times appropriately: use the word net.
A relevant original paper is: “On the Relationship between the Second Fundamental Theorem of the Mechanical Theory of Heat and Probability Calculations Regarding the Conditions for Thermal Equilibrium” 1877.
[GRAHAM] Why not try explaining/substantiating what you are going on about then
[B4, WERE HE A TROLL LIKE GRAHAM] Odd, because I have made my position painfully clear, many, many times now.
So…you were talking about individual molecules…but I was talking about objects. You are a skilful sophist, to be sure.
Heat cannot, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object.
B4 speaks of molecules in a gas, Graham hears individual molecules.
If Ludwig knew how online cranks would ignore his biggest deception in life, he might have lived longer.
“At steady state temperature, molecules in a gas (or solid, liquid, plasma) object”
Little Willy is also a skilful sophist…
Clausius’ heat is the motion of individual molecules, DREMT. So Clausius’ heat can, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object but not on net as M-B distribution proved in 1877 with individual molecules.
Q: Why didn’t DREMT confirm that?
A: DREMT demonstrates doesn’t have the pre-req.s accomplished to understand even the basics of atm. physics so DREMT can’t.
(CLOV) The molecules of an object (in our case a gas) do not move at the same speed.
(HAMM) You said object! You said object! You said-
I understood what you said, Ball4. That’s how I knew it was irrelevant.
Understood bt DREMT 10:58 am!
Good, then DREMT has finally accepted Clausius’ heat can, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object but not on net as M-B distribution proved in 1877 with individual molecules.
Heat cannot, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object.
That’s the simple reality. Your "net" when referring to "individual molecules" is just designed to try to confuse the issue with the separate "net energy" issue. You exist to make things as difficult for readers to follow as possible. Maximum confusion is your goal.
It’s not at all difficult DREMT for those that have accomplished the pre-req.s for the subject, you were proved wrong by year 1877 & even wrote you understood that is so 10:58 am. Really simple:
Clausius’ heat can, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object but not on net.
…you exist to make things as difficult for readers to follow as possible. Maximum confusion is your goal.
Graham plays a trolling game he cannot win. He can’t even break even. Will he ever be able to cut his losses? Never, for he believes that reason cannot, of its own accord, be transferred to him.
Graham can’t stop trolling.
Little Willy just shows up occasionally, with flurries of rhetoric.
Willard’s flurries do serve to point out where DREMT is wrong but DREMT IS physically correct commenting to have understood:
Clausius’ heat can, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object but not on net.
…exist to make things as difficult for readers to follow as possible. Maximum confusion is your goal.
…rational…on net…
…words…put together…
Cranks
omitting “net”
on the Net.
Net heat? Now there is an idea for cranks.
Even rational folks have their mardi gras.
Ask Tim Folkerts if heat can or cannot, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object. Perhaps he can give you an honest answer.
[NARRATOR] The question is not what the equation means anymore, but what it implies. We are in the second part of our play. We note to that effect that Graham has already reintroduced the concept of warming elsewhere. All we need is get back to temperature and the cycle of implications will be tight enough to see how his propositions support his thesis that the greenhouse effect does not exist.
Or is it that it cannot exist?
[NARRATOR] Little Willy confirms everything I said here is correct:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1387869
One day Graham will have to show how everything he said in this thread leads him to conclude that there is no greenhouse effect. Especially, he will have to explain how his interpretation of the Second Law prevents it. Suffice to say for now that the effect he denies is the result of one that one billiard ball colliding with another. There are so many balls that we need to refer to them in the aggregate.
If he cannot do that, then his denial would have to only rest on empirical ground.
> one that one
More than one.
One day I will toggle off that autocorrect.
You’re obsessed with me. Utterly obsessed. I have explained myself already. If you can’t understand, that’s on you.
Graham plays a trolling game he cannot win. He cannot break even either. Will he ever be able to cut his losses? Never, for he believes that reason cannot, of its own accord, be transferred to him.
Graham cannot stop trolling.
If you had stopped creating new threads about this issue, the discussion would have stopped several days ago. You’re the troll, as evidenced by the number of new threads you have started.
[MAXWELL] The fact that the 4 K cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang itself is absorbed by 300 K radar dish is all the demonstration one needs to know the [Sky Dragon Cranks] are wrong.
…you had stopped creating new threads about this issue, the discussion would have stopped several days ago. You’re the troll, as evidenced by the number of new threads you have started.
Graham blames me for his own emotiuonal incontinence.
Should I be concerned?
…had stopped creating new threads about this issue, the discussion would have stopped several days ago. You’re the troll, as evidenced by the number of new threads you have started.
[GRAHAM] Odd, because I have made my position painfully clear, many, many times now.
[ALSO GRAHAM] He leaves out all the things he doesn’t understand which is most of it.
Readers might appreciate the fog surrounding Graham’s position.
Yes, many astute readers appreciate that fog is thick. Speaking of fog, be sure to read Bohren’s answer for: Should car fog lamps be yellow?
Yes, I have made it painfully clear, and yet you still do not understand. The answer could be that you spend your entire time trying to catch me out in some gotcha rather than listening to what I am saying. Or maybe you are just not very bright. Or maybe you are just trolling me. Not sure. My baby-sitting duties must be over by now, though, surely…
No DREMT 8:13 pm, astute readers do “listen” to what you write, find what you write wrong physics, and attempt by commenting to inform DREMT of the correct physics – only to learn many times in an entertaining way that DREMT will fail to understand even basic atm. physics (like the GPE, GHE, and Clausius’ heat).
Astute readers can see Ball4 is a troll.
DREMT 8:25 pm melts down again. Pity.
Ball4 trolls again. Pity.
Maybe Graham plays the troll bridge without a troll.
Words said in response.
Or perhaps Graham plays the bridge troll without a bridge.
…said in response.
The mode would be trolling, and the overall distribution skewed toward no bridge.
…in response.
… plays a trolling game he cannot win. He cannot break even either. Will he ever be able to cut his losses? Never, for he believes that reason cannot, of its own accord, be transferred to him.
Graham cannot stop trolling.
Words said in response.
… a trolling game he cannot win. He cannot break even either. Will he ever be able to cut his losses? Never, for he believes that reason cannot, of its own accord, be transferred to him.
Graham cannot stop trolling.
If you had stopped creating new threads about this issue, the discussion would have stopped several days ago. You’re the troll, as evidenced by the number of new threads you have started.
…trolling game he cannot win. He cannot break even either. Will he ever be able to cut his losses? Never, for he believes that reason cannot, of its own accord, be transferred to him.
Graham cannot stop trolling.
…you had stopped creating new threads about this issue, the discussion would have stopped several days ago. You’re the troll, as evidenced by the number of new threads you have started.
… game he cannot win. He cannot break even either. Will he ever be able to cut his losses? Never, for he believes that reason cannot, of its own accord, be transferred to him.
Graham cannot stop trolling.
…had stopped creating new threads about this issue, the discussion would have stopped several days ago. You’re the troll, as evidenced by the number of new threads you have started.
Exercise for Readers #1
Suppose some crank C claims that only if the atmosphere is warmer than the surface can the GHGs radiatively heat the surface. Find out instances when this specific relationship happens for real between the Earth and its atmosphere.
Best of luck!
[BOBDROEGE] What about the occasional time when the atmosphere is warmer than the surface.
Would you agree that when the atmosphere is warmer that the surface then DWIR is indeed heat?
[GRAHAM] Yep.
“Would you agree” implies bob thinks the same. You are so hell-bent on trying to humiliate me that you end up just making yourself look silly.
[GRAHAM] Thermal radiation is not heat.
…that you end up just making yourself look silly.
[GRAHAM] There would be a negligible insulative effect from the second pathway. However, this may be nullified completely by other atmospheric processes. The overall effect of adding more GHGs to the atmosphere may even be negative.
…you end up just making yourself look silly.
Graham failed to clarify in this thread how he infers that the effect is *negligible*. In another thread he was less confident in that assertion, which he kept attributing to somebody else.
Looks like our messenger got a promotion!
…end up just making yourself look silly.
[B4] On net, the exchanged KE sum will be hot to cold but the individual exchanges can be cold to hot object for individual KE exchange on interactions.
[BOB] DLR is fully capable of transferring energy from the atmosphere to the surface, adding energy to what the surface already receives from other sources.
[GRAHAM] There would be a negligible insulative effect from the second pathway. However, this may be nullified completely by other atmospheric processes. The overall effect of adding more GHGs to the atmosphere may even be negative.
The overall effect of adding more GHGs to the earthen atmosphere may even be negative (reduced global temperature)…for the stratosphere as has been measured.
The lower troposphere though is warmed as measured in Dr. Spencer’s monthly reports. As Vaughan Pratt points out on this blog :”Lapse rate is the key to CO2-induced global warming.”.
…up just making yourself look silly.
[FRED] When I last looked, Miskolczi’s conclusions required atmospheric water vapor to decline as a compensatory mechanism opposing CO2 increases.
Looks like the second part of Roy’s claim was in the right ballpark.
Why of course there’s a reason why Roy chose his wording:
[MAXWELL] Without a serious accounting for the physical process that ‘entangles’ disconnected GHG molecules and the light passing through the atmosphere, it doesn’t matter if his math or code are correct. The physics itself simply doesn’t add up to form a coherent picture with what we already know to be true. I think Roy Spencer did a good job of discussing Miskolczi’s work and, I think, even admitted that he wanted it to be right. But it doesn’t add up.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98393
Already in 2011 this issue was settled.
And this shows that Roy wasn’t that much interested in targetting the PSI crew especially, but all the cranks he could think of.
And since Graham is a fan:
[VAUGHAN] After laborious calculations that entailed splitting the atmosphere into 2000 layers, Miskolczi computed the total kinetic energy of Earths atmosphere at 1/5 of its correct value. From this he obtained that the potential energy of the atmosphere (which he did compute correctly) was twice its kinetic energy when its easy to see from the constant-pressure specific heat of air that it is 2/5 of it. And it wasnt an isolated mistake, hed thought this for several years, including half a year after Viktor Toth had pointed it out to him.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98547
That gets us back in 2009 at most, but it’s probably earlier.
“Looks like the second part of Roy’s claim was in the right ballpark.”
Not even close…
Graham has a vivid imagination…
…just making yourself look silly.
[GRAHAM] …me
…making yourself look silly.
[GRAHAM] …making yourself look silly.
[ALSO GRAHAM] Believing in the GHE involves believing that GHGs are responsible for the Earth’s surface being 33 K warmer than it otherwise would be. I don’t believe that. Thus I cannot believe in the GHE.
…yourself look silly.
Look at IR spectra observed by a satellite spectrometer taken over the Antarctic Ice Sheet. I’ve posted it before.
Discuss among yourselves.
Indeed. There is also:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(2000)0392.0.CO;2
These ugly DOIs will be the bane of that standard.
Tyson, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
For Willard and Ball4, who seem to have jumped on the Craig Bohren bandwagon, Bohren is a self-confessed skeptic. The following link, which I have in my archives, is an interview with Bohren. The original link seems to be unformatted, so I have resorted to Wayback.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080222095130/http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm?csp=34
From Bohren…
“My biases: The pronouncements of climate modelers, who don’t do experiments, don’t make observations, don’t even confect theories, but rather [in my opinion] play computer games using huge programs containing dozens of separate components the details of which they may be largely ignorant, don’t move me. I am much more impressed by direct evidence: retreating glaciers, longer growing seasons, the migration of species, rising sea level, etc.
I have lived long enough to have seen many doomsday scenarios painted by people who profited by doing so, but which never came to pass. This has made me a skeptic”.
***
“Skeptics about global warming are often painted as hirelings of the oil and automotive industries. Such claims irritate me. I have never earned a nickel as a consequence of my skepticism. Indeed, I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by it. First, you have to understand how a large research university operates. The professors are expected to obtain research grants, and in the atmospheric sciences these grants come mostly from government agencies.
In the atmospheric sciences it is difficult to get grants unless you can somehow tie your work to global warming, that is to say, to scare science. Because of my reputation, I immodestly believe that I could have jumped onto the global warming bandwagon. But I refused to do so because I would have found this repugnant”.
***
“Now to more of my biases. I have an MS in nuclear engineering. About 40 years ago I was designing nuclear reactors. I got out of the business mostly because of boredom …. I have long felt that burning fossil fuels is madness in the long run regardless of what this will do to climate. Burning fossil fuels creates air pollution, which is not good for anyone’s health. Also, fossil fuels are the feedstock for all kinds of industries, and so burning them is like burning fine furniture to heat your house. And finally, most important of all, basing an economy on a commodity that [in my opinion] is controlled by the most backward, unstable, and violent countries in the world is madness.
Nuclear power is dangerous but so is non-nuclear power. Several years ago Petr Beckmann published The Health Hazards of not Going Nuclear in which he … tried to account for how many people die because of fossil fuels (not including automobile accidents). And this was before Gulf War I, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on. [In my view] these recent wars are mostly a consequence of oil….”
***
“Conservatives are correct in that a sudden decrease in the consumption of oil would have grave economic consequences. Like it or not, the U.S. economy (indeed the world economy) is based on readily available cheap oil. We as a nation made lots of bad decisions: cars instead of mass transport in cities, trucks instead of railroads, suburbs and so on. The food that almost everyone eats is transported long distances by trucks. We are no longer a nation of self-sufficient farmers. We depend on all kinds of networks of food, water, and power kept in operation mostly by burning fossil fuels.
Liberals have a curiously puritanical view of global warming. [They think, in my view, that] our contribution to it is evidence of our wickedness.
Stated simply (and probably unfairly), [I think] conservatives do not believe that global warming exists (because they don’t want it to exist) whereas liberals believe in global warming (because they want it to exist)”.
C’mon, Gordo. You got this from Senior’s. This is a known quote.
https://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf
That’s for a paper called A Demonstration of the Infrared Activity of Carbon Dioxide.
Craig might be a contrarian, but he’s no crank like you.
Nope. It’s an interview by April Holladay of USAToday. States that right in the article.
Comprehension???
I guess we won’t hear any more from you from Craig Bohren, knowing he is a skeptic, even if what he says makes sense.
C’mon, Gordo.
Note the date:
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2006/08/08/interview-of-professor-craig-bohren-of-the-pennslyvania-state-university-in-usa-today/
Me and Senior (hi Fernando!) go a long way.
willard…”Note the date:”
***
Your point???
The point is that I already knew that squirrel of yours, Gordo.
And once again you confuse cranks with contrarians.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordo,
You might also like:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html
If you read the correspondence, you’ll understand why I consign it here.
Would you like me to look into Liou to make sure?
In this paper it is shown that Smith (2008) used inappropriate and inconsistent formulations in averaging various quantities over the entire surface of the Earth considered as a sphere. Using two instances of averaging procedures as customarily applied in studies on turbulence, it is shown that Smith’s formulations are highly awkward. Furthermore, Smith’s discussion of the infrared absorp.tion in the atmosphere is scrutinized and evaluated. It is shown that his attempt to refute the criticism of Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2007, 2009) on the so-called greenhouse effect is rather fruitless. — Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi, Michael Zelger
clint…”In this paper it is shown that Smith (2008) used inappropriate and inconsistent formulations in averaging various quantities over the entire surface of the Earth …”
***
My critique of Smith was that he ignored 99% of the G&T paper and zeroed in on an insignificant 1%. G&T proved the GHE cannot exist and Smith should have addressed those points.
He co-authored a later paper by Halpern (Eli Rabbett) et al, rebutting G&T, in which they continued to demonstrate their abject ignorance of thermodynamics. When G&T claimed the 2nd law forbade a transfer of heat from cold to hot, Halpern et al replied that with two bodies of different temperature radiating at each other, the 2nd law would mean one body was not radiating.
Duh!!!
Ignorance runs deep in the alarmist community.
Smith is a cult hero to idiots like Bindidon. They can’t understand ANY of the science, so they grab on to anyone that can fake a knowledge of science.
Thank you for this Very Scientific comment, sock puppet.
Please stop trolling.
Gordon,
Check with Swenson,
All things radiate all the time.
Gordon writes incorrectly: “G&T proved the GHE cannot exist”
G&T did not do so or point out where Gordon writes they did do so since if Gordon can do so then earthen GHE 33K measurements exist to prove the writings of both Gordon and G&T are wrong.
BIG IF TRUE.
This all Bohren has to say about the greenhouse effect in his book Atmospheric Radiation….
“1.6 Emissivity and GlobalWarming
One cannot open a newspaper or magazine these days without encountering warnings about impending global warming because of the ill-named greenhouse effect. As a consequence of this extraordinary publicity, explanations of the greenhouse effect have been designed more with journalists and politicians in mind than scientists. Even those who publish more frequently in scientific journals than in the popular press either assert that the greenhouse effect is the result of closing the atmospheric window, thereby trapping radiation, or that it is the result of increased emission from the atmosphere. When adherents to both explanations clash, the result is indeed warming, although local rather than global.
If we set aside criticism of the term greenhouse effect (the function of greenhouses is primarily to suppress convection by enclosing a space heated by solar radiation), we are still left with the task of trying to square two apparently irreconcilable physical explanations.
The last paragraph in particular agrees with G&T and R.W.Wood.
“The last paragraph in particular agrees with G&T and R.W.Wood.”
No. Where in G&T and R.W.Wood writings, Gordon? You just made that up. As Willard later points out, in the last Bohren paragraph are two possible theoretically based explanations of the earthen GHE theory.
C’mon, Gordo.
I already responded to this:
Teach me, sensei.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
dremt…”Heat cannot, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object”.
***
As proof of that, look at the rigmarole one must go through to transfer heat from cold to hot, as in an air conditioner.
First, you need a compressor, power to run the compressor, a compressible gas, a radiator to vent heat, another, an evapourator, to collect heat, an atomizer valve, and various pipes to route the compressible gas when liquefied.
Liquefied??? Yes, the gas is liquefied when compressed by the compressor into a high pressure, high temperature liquid. The HP/HT liquid is forced through a radiator where the liquid is exposed to atmospheric air, where it dissipates heat. Then the liquid is forced through an atomizer valve where it is converted to a spray and allowed to expand in an evapourator, where it can absorb heat from a cold room, or space. Then the cycle repeats.
If it’s so easy to transfer heat from cold to hot, as alarmists seem to think, why does it take so much apparatus, and external power, to cool a room, or space?
ps. This is true for all energy. If you have a boulder at the bottom of a hill, you either use muscle power to lift it and walk it up the hill. Or you use a machine to lift it and run it up the hill using power. The silly, lazy boulder simply refuses to get itself up the hill.
Same with heat. It simply will not move from a lower energy (cooler) region to a higher energy (hotter) region. That applies equally to radiation even though the methodology differs somewhat.
C’mon, Gordo.
It’s a simple game:
0. There is a game.
1. You can’t win.
2. You can’t break even.
3. You can’t get out of the game.
But I do understand why Climateball would look like it.
That you can’t break even does not mean it is impossible to lose less than you would had you not shared with your fellows.
Same for the greenhouse effect.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A recap on downwelling radiation (backradiation) seems appropriate.
Given: T_atm=30C, T_surf=32C, Emissivity_surf=0.96, H2O_Vapor_Pressure= 1.9kPa. Assume a clear sky.
Find: Estimate the net longwave radiation at the surface.
Answer:
(a) What lack are correct measurements and validation of backradiation.
(b) Could the backradiation get us out of this Ice Age?
(c) Backradiation exists, but it does nothing like it was meant to do.
(d) 90.5 W/m^2
Bonus: what other fields, besides meteorology, use downwelling radiation calculations and/or measurements routinely.
Answer:
(a) Where large amounts of poured concrete must be properly cured, e.g. bridge construction.
(b) Hydrology.
(c) Agriculture.
(d) All of the above.
(e) Whether back-radiation exists or not is immaterial.
Yes, a recap seems appropriate.
Very few people on this planet deny that DLR/back-radiation exists. You will always find the odd few if you search on the internet specifically for it, since the internet is such a big place. When it comes to the Slayers, as Postma explained, their statement "back-radiation does not exist" really meant that "back-radiation warming does not exist", as perhaps they didn’t anticipate anyone would be silly enough to assume they thought colder objects/surroundings do not emit EMR. They probably should have expressed themselves more clearly in the first place, but they have clarified their position, so that’s that.
As far as I’m aware, GHE-skeptics generally argue that "back-radiation warming does not exist, and not that DLR does not exist.
And finally, in the words of Vaughan Pratt:
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
As we can see, even people who believe in the GHE can say that back-radiation does not warm. After all, only some of the time do they claim it’s back-radiation that warms/insulates the surface, the rest of the time they switch to other arguments; the GHE being something of a constantly moving target.
DREMT writing 1:35 pm is incorrect & confused since from wiki page on GHE for atm. radiation: “the part radiated downwards is absorbed by the surface of Earth. This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere did not radiate.”
And Vaughan Pratt essentially concurs adding: “Lapse rate is the key to CO2-induced global warming.” on this blog.
DREMT even wrote earlier today this is understood since 1877:
Clausius’ heat can, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object but not on net.
Very well stated, DREMT.
Please stop trolling, sock puppet.
Thanks, Clint. I notice the usual ankle-biters are still doing their thing.
… correctly showing where DREMT and Clint R are wrong and confused about the earthen GHE.
Yap, yap, yap…
[JIM D] The scientific term is surface downwelling longwave flux, sometimes qualified as broadband to indicate an integration over all IR wavelengths. There are measurements of this and papers about it. The science community has no dispute with the magnitudes of hundreds of W/m2.
[JUDY] I know, i discussed this extensively on the thread “why we have confidence in radiative transfer models” but this nonsense continues. Still trying to get to the bottom of why people don’t understand this. Or maybe this is all about sophistry and knocking down margin terminology like back radiation and greenhouse effect, that have been introduced to explain all this to nontechnical people.
NASA: The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature…
[ALSO NASA] Finally, a net of about 17 percent of incoming solar energy leaves the surface as thermal infrared energy (heat) radiated by atoms and molecules on the surface. This net upward flux results from two large but opposing fluxes: heat flowing upward from the surface to the atmosphere (117%) and heat flowing downward from the atmosphere to the ground (100%).
Yes, NASA’s errors in terminology probably didn’t help the situation…
Graham gets caught intimating things with his 100% and goes move along, nothing to see
…in your imagination.
[JUDY] The first attempt to put a sophisticated radiative transfer model into a climate model was made by Fels and Kaplan 1975, who used a model that divided the infrared spectrum into 19 bands. I lived a little piece of this history, when I joined Kaplans research group in 1975 as a graduate student.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
> And finally
Holy non sequitur, Batman!
Yap, yap, yap…
For those in the back, the non sequitur is between Graham’s claim that backradiation warming does not exist and Vaughan’s quote, which has nothing to do with any kind of “recap” but is pure bait. His whole recap has nothing to do with Tyson’s comment anyway.
A better recap would be that when Roy says that thermal downward infrared radiation exists, he means that it makes the greenhouse effect possible. How could it be otherwise?
What goes for the silly goose goes for our host.
Assuming that the PSI crew indeed claim that backradiation exists and is possible, how can they infer that it does not warm?
If it becomes a matter of fact, incantations of the Second Law won’t suffice.
To hide that non sequitur, Graham dances around in the ring, pretexting that his position is clear and he does not have to present it furthermore. If that’s true, then he’s done. He has no leg to stand on.
Yap, yap, yap…
[CLAES] If you give up back radiation, then the greenhouse effect evaporates up into the atmosphere. How can you give up so easily? Now you have to tell precisely what physics makes my argument incorrect, my argument showing that back radiation is fiction, an argument which you now apparently embrace. So what physics make my argument incorrect? You understand that you will have to answer.
[GRAHAM] When it comes to the [PSI crew], as [Joe] explained, their statement “back-radiation does not exist” really meant that “back-radiation warming does not exist”, as perhaps they didnt anticipate anyone would be silly enough to assume they thought colder objects/surroundings do not emit EMR.
[CLAES] If you give up back radiation [warming], then the greenhouse effect evaporates up into the atmosphere. How can you give up so easily? Now you have to tell precisely what physics makes my argument incorrect, my argument showing that back radiation [warming] is fiction, an argument which you now apparently embrace. So what physics make my argument incorrect? You understand that you will have to answer.
[NABIL] CO2 absorp.tion and emission of radiations is a correct science. It is the claimed heat trapping effect of CO2 that is fiction.
Nice to see him Graham stand with the empirical side of the PSI crew. A pity he has to throw Joe under the bus, however.
Yap, yap, yap, yap…
[JOE] Each term is not itself heat.
So wise. Much insight.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Recapping the recap…
And Gordon Robertson
“…That’s a no-brainer since EM radiation consists of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. There is nowhere to store heat in an EM wave.”
Re-yapping the re-yap…
[GRAHAM] …me
Obsessive stalkers will obsessively stalk…
3:42 AM, Graham had to reply.
See? He even tries to work out what the time is, where I am…plus, how would he know where I live? Should I be concerned?
😧
[JUDY] The problem of infrared atmospheric radiative transfer (clear sky, no clouds or aerosols) is regarded as a solved problem (with minimal uncertainties), in terms of the benchmark line-by-line calculations.
[GRAHAM] Just because GHGs absorb and emit radiant energy in the thermal infrared range does not mean there is a GHE.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Thank you all (Ball4, Clint R, Gordon Robertson) for your respond on my question about:
“What happens to the light falling on Earths surface from the colder planet Mars or the colder Planet Jupiter?
Doesnt its EM energy get absorbed? Doesnt it warm Earths surface?”
–
We all agree (myself included) that a portion of it gets absorbed by Earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
… well, except for DREMT and Clint R.
No problem, CV.
I can imagine some scenario where an insignificant photon from a cold object might be absorbed by a hotter object. But nature is not fooled. A cold object cannot raise the temperature of a hotter object.
Did you know there are people that actually believe ice cubes can boil water?
Funny, huh?
Clint should now inform DREMT earth surface can indeed absorb photons from the atm. as Clint R comments 2:32 pm.
In addition, Clint R can learn DREMT’s ref. Prof. Vaughan Pratt informs on this blog that Vaughan uses an ice cube at around -10F to warm an object at around 80F and points out this does not contradict 2LOT:
Prof. Vaughan’s actual comment: “Interposing a 250 K object between a 300 K object and a 200 K object warms the 300 K object while cooling the 200 K object.”
Braindead4, if you’re confused about some source you’ve found, let me see it’s entirety. Maybe I can help you.
Of course a quid pro quo will be expected.
– Judith Curry
Sorry Pup, but that’s a non sequitur.
Curry ain’t no Pratt.
Not a non sequitur but a quid pro quo.
Quite ironically it’s ice blocks that finally convinced Vaughan:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98219
Please stop trolling.
Sorry Pup, but that’s another non sequitur.
It should be as easy to know who wrote that comment as to recognize that you are a sock puppet, Pup.
Please stop trolling.
Now you’re combining “red herring” with “non sequitur”, Pup.
It’s like you don’t know what you’re doing, huh?
Please stop trolling using concepts you fail to master, sock puppet.
Yeah Pup, you weren’t able to provide anything, just as Braindead4 could not either.
Birds of a feather — all bubbles, no substance.
I didn’t need to provide anything Clint, you wrote only if confused & I wasn’t confused about some source. DREMT’s go to Vaughan Pratt is correct.
Has Clint R yet informed DREMT (and Gordon) that earth surface can indeed absorb photons from the atm. (or moon) as Clint R comments 2:32 pm?
That’s no surprise, B4. You seldom support your nonsense anyway. Worthless willard has to cover for you.
You just make up stuff and spam this blog with it. Just like you misrepresent my comment.
#2
Please stop trolling using concepts you fail to master, sock puppet.
Pretty clear cut. Ball4 said:
"on this blog…Vaughan uses an ice cube at around -10F to warm an object at around 80F and points out this does not contradict 2LOT:
Prof. Vaughan’s actual comment: “Interposing a 250 K object between a 300 K object and a 200 K object warms the 300 K object while cooling the 200 K object.”
Clint R asked to see the full comment in its entirety…i.e: he asked Ball4 to link to the comment and discussion he’s referring to. Little Willy linked and/or quoted comments which were not the one requested. Ball4 refused to provide a link to the comment. Clint R’s comments thus seem justified.
B4,
You might also like:
I’m sure you can recognize Vaughan’s prose.
When Little Willy’s in the wrong, he just veers off-topic. As he would say:
Every. Single. Time.
No DREMT, I didn’t refuse since Clint only asked for the link if I was confused & I wasn’t. Pratt’s comment is from this blog.
(GRAHAM) Vaughan agrees with me.
(VAUGHAN) DLR and increasing temperature of air at the surface combine to warm the surface.
(GRAHAM) Every. Single. Time.
OK, I will do your job for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/does-a-greenhouse-operate-through-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-86583
Readers might notice two interesting things in that exchange:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/does-a-greenhouse-operate-through-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-86606
I will let the readers find them out for themselves.
Wasn’t my job DREMT, does confirm Prof. Platt tho.
Pratt said a lot of things in the past, Ball4. More recently, after the Seim & Olsen experiment, he said:
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
When Graham is in the wrong, he just veers off-topic.
Every. Single. Time.
That James Goodone has style:
I’m starting to like him.
It’s been made more clear DREMT. Prof. Pratt also made clear an experiment like S&O that ignores lapse rate cannot debunk GHE.
Correct, Ball4. Pratt still believes in the GHE…but clearly he has a problem with the idea of back-radiation warming the surface.
Not really DREMT, Vaughan Pratt has no problem with atm. DLR warming the earthen surface since in DREMT’s own link Prof. Pratt uses an object such as an ice cube at around -10F to illustrate such an ice cube object will warm an object at around 80F and Pratt also points out this does not contradict 2LOT.
This is known since 1877 & by DREMT because DREMT earlier wrote DREMT understood:
Clausius’ heat can, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object but not on net as M-B distribution proved in 1877.
People can change their minds, Ball4.
Puppets can change their socks, B4:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/does-a-greenhouse-operate-through-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-86607
Who are you trying to insinuate James Goodone is?
(James) Regardless of how those 300 Joules per 1 m section area are distributed, the sum is always 300, it can not exceed 300.
(Roy) Please, James, that is the same old tired Sky Dragon Crank argument
I repeat the question.
(Roy) if the total *downward* energy flux was only 300 W/m2, then the temperature would never rise above about 35 deg. F assuming an infrared emissivity of 0.9)even colder if you assume convective losses. Downward energy fluxes from the sky of over 300 W/m2 are routinely measured by the BSRN networkfor instance,
(James) such a measurement must be wrong, exactly like if someone claimed he measured 2+2 and got 5.
Why can you never just answer a straightforward question?
((Steve) Do you not realize the solar input was determined by actual measurement of the Suns effect on the temperature of a receiver of a certain size and mass? This measurement was then used to mathematically calculate the solar flux. Measurements provide the data for the calculations. Measurements are also used to confirm results of calculations. Math doesnt win when it contradicts actual measurement. In that case the numbers input into the math calculation must be wrong. So, if the ground is warmer than 300 W/m2 could make it, then there must be some additional source of heat energy.
(James) If you mean back radiation can be treated as an additional energy supply, then no, it can not, because this assumption is equivalent to creating energy out of nothing.
…because you’re a troll. Got it.
christos…”We all agree (myself included) that a portion of it gets absorbed by Earths surface”.
***
I did not agree to that, I claimed reflected light from the Moon, for example, is not absorbed at all on Earth. I claimed all of it is absorbed by the Moon and the portion reflected lacks the intensity to be absorbed.
Ok then Gordon’s moon light is a special kind of light that can’t be absorbed in a real process violating Clausius 2nd law as then dq is zero (ref. Gordon’s written formula for incremental S).
I am reminded of Sir Eddington. But maybe Gordon is on to something.
What exactly makes moon light so special that it doesn’t have to obey Clausius’ 2nd law Gordon?
I have seen moon light reflected in a mirror & my eyes can spot the moon despite my eye retinas, according to Gordon, reflecting ALL (100%) of the moon light & not absorbing or transmitting any at all.
Okay Braindead4, you don’t understand radiative physics, thermodynamics, or how your eyes work. You believe ice cubes can boil water and Earth has a “real 255K surface”.
Besides trolling, is there anything you DO understand?
Gordon,
If the light from the Moon is not absorbed at all on Earth, how do we see it?
And further more, how did you get so stupid?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
HOW TO FORMULATE THE SECOND LAW
Compare and contrast the following qualitative formulations, starting with its first form:
(Heat Engines) It is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W. Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir.
(Refrigerator) It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. […] It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.
(Entropy) In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.
(Thermal Bottleneck) No heat engine can use all the heat produced by a fuel to do work.
(Game) You can’t break even.
Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
For a conceptual map explaining qualitatively the Second Law:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclawcon.html#c1
More precisely: (Entropy) In any cyclic process, universe entropy will either increase for a real process or remain the same in an imaginary no loss process.
willard…”It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy”.
***
Absolute nonsense.
For one, energy is the wrong word in this context, we are talking about a specific energy, thermal energy, aka heat.
For another, no energy can flow from a lower state of energy to a higher state of energy, by its own means.
Your source are a load of idiots.
******************
“(Entropy) In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same”.
***
More rubbish from idiots. A cyclic process is a reversible process. As Clausius claimed, the entropy is zero over a cyclic process.
Where these idiots get their information is a mystery.
And Willard is a complete moron for daring to repeat this trash.
> A cyclic process is a reversible process.
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thermo2.html
If you’re not happy with that, you can always check back Clausius. He formulates the same equality and the same inequality.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ball4…”So Clausius heat can, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object but not on net as M-B distribution proved in 1877 with individual molecules”.
***
The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution was not based on atoms or molecules, it is a purely statistical analysis based on theoretical atoms/molecules in an ideal gas.
The theory has nothing to do with heat transfer, it does not apply to the 2nd law. This is yet another troll comment by B4 in an attempt to disrupt rational thought and science.
Heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot…..the real 2nd law.
That’s not Clausius’ 2nd law Gordon, here it is for any real process:
2. Universe entropy increases
M-B showed in 1877 universe entropy increases for a real process in which:
Clausius heat can, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object but not on net as that M-B distribution proved in 1877 with arbitrary individual molecules.
More bubbles from Braindead4. They pop as soon as he blows them. The poor idiot has NOTHING, just foams at the mouth.
Sock puppet, please stop trolling.
Blowing bubbles again I see, Pup.
#2
Sock puppet, please stop trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Yes, the non-radiative gases of the atmosphere act as insulation. But CO2 is NOT warming the surface. CO2 emits energy to space, but the 15μ photon emitted back to Earth (back-radiation) could not melt ice.
If you want to talk “net effect”, the net effect of CO2 is to cool the planet. It intercepts higher frequency photons from Sun, 2.7μ and 4.3μ, which could definitely warm the surface.
Why do we call these gases non-radiative again, Pup?
Please stop trolling.
…because they (N2/O2) don’t absorb/emit IR radiation anything like as efficiently as the radiatively active gases.
P1) Radiatively active gases can lose energy through collisions with other molecules, and via radiation.
P2) N2/O2 can only really lose energy through collisions with other molecules (which will mostly be other N2/O2 molecules). They can radiate IR, but not as efficiently.
C) N2/O2 molecules (collectively) "hold onto their thermal energy" more so than radiatively active molecules, so they "delay cooling" more so than radiatively active molecules, so they are the planetary insulators, and not the radiatively active molecules.
This explains Clint R’s statement:
"Yes, the non-radiative gases of the atmosphere act as insulation"
This time Graham did not say:
He simply said that they “delay cooling” more so than radiatively active molecules. One has to wonder why.
Readers ought to observe that to “delay cooling” is VERY DIFFERENCE than to warm.
I’m keeping it simple, Little Willy. K.I.S.S.
"Delaying cooling" in the presence of a constant heat source (the Sun, in case that wasn’t clear), should lead to "warming". The process can be considered "insulation".
An alternative explanation to KISS:
Ut. Supra.
Which is irrelevant, because as I already explained in P2), most of those collisions will be with other N2/O2 molecules. Thus, N2/O2 molecules (collectively) "hold onto their thermal energy" more so than radiatively active molecules. You knew that, of course, because I explained it at the time in the discussion you have quoted that from.
An alternative expression for non-radiative gas seems to be non-ab-sorbing gas:
https://www.oceanopticsbook.info/view/atmospheric-correction/level-2/non-absorbing-gases
If I ever had to name molecules that collectively hold onto their thermal energy, that’d be it.
Cool, thanks for agreeing.
Readers might also note:
http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L15/2.html
Must be a vocabulary thing.
Must be a "Little Willy completely misses the point as always" thing.
To insulate. Verb. In Sky Dragon Crank alternative universe, the collective action of molecules of holding onto their thermal energy while letting upwelling radiation out into space.
Little Willy is apparently unaware of conduction, convection, and latent heat, as well as not understanding that the role of planetary insulation is indeed to “slow cooling”, whether you argue for the GHE or against it.
Readers might also note:
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/climate-change/how-does-the-greenhouse-effect-work/
Graham is basically trying to suggest that the non-radiative gases are the true cause of the greenhouse effect, because they are acting like that insulating blanket.
It’s really that dumb.
We are at the insult stage…
“Yes, the non-radiative gases of the atmosphere act as insulation. But CO2 is NOT warming the surface. CO2 emits energy to space, but the 15μ photon emitted back to Earth (back-radiation) could not melt ice.
If you want to talk “net effect”, the net effect of CO2 is to cool the planet. It intercepts higher frequency photons from Sun, 2.7μ and 4.3μ, which could definitely warm the surface.”
Now you should better understand what Clint R is saying. No need to misrepresent him again, going forward.
And so Graham moves to the next step of the chemistry denial – asserting that CO2 in fact cools the atmosphere.
Every. Single. Time.
> cools the atmosphere.
Erm. The planet.
…no need to misrepresent him again, going forward.
P1)
As I have said before: GHGs warm the lower atmosphere because the collisional de-excitation time for GHG molecules in Earth’s lower atmosphere is much shorter than the radiation lifetime of excited molecular states.
At low gas densities in the upper atmosphere an excited GHG molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) re-radiate IR energy which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.
P2)
N2/O2 do not have dipole moments and therefore cannot radiate nor absorb in the IR.
C)
That’s an opinion unsupported by data. The physical reality is here: https://ibb.co/TPnCT9t
Tyson, you are not addressing anything from my P1). Radiatively active gases can lose energy through collisions with other molecules, and via radiation. That’s all I said there. Do you disagree?
For my P2), you write that N2/O2 molecules cannot radiate IR. This is not true (argue it out with Ball4), but if it was true, it would only strengthen my argument.
The conclusion (C) follows from the premises (P1/P2).
My comment stands since it is very straight forward and clear, and it even includes a graph of observational data.
Now, it’s a glorious morning here in God’s country and I’m eager to get out and enjoy it.
I will take it you agree with P1), then.
DREMPTY,
“Thus, N2/O2 molecules (collectively) “hold onto their thermal energy” more so than radiatively active molecules. You knew that, of course, because I explained it at the time in the discussion you have quoted that from.”
No they don’t, they don’t hold on to the thermal energy any more than the CO2 molecules, they readily give the thermal energy back to the radiatively active molecules which then radiate the energy in all directions, a lot of it eventually reaching the surface.
And the surface accepts it readily, because it’s the same wavelength that the surface emits in the first place.
DREMPTY,
“CO2 emits energy to space, but the 15μ photon emitted back to Earth (back-radiation) could not melt ice.”
Says who?
If there are enough of them, the ice will melt.
Same way a 10u photon can melt steel.
You have to stop regurgitating arguments that you don’t understand.
bob, it’s a lot, lot more likely that a N2/O2 molecule will bump into another N2/O2 molecule than a radiatively active molecule. I can’t keep explaining the same point to you over and over again.
If you are going to start bringing up lasers, then the discussion has reached its end.
DREMPTY,
“bob, its a lot, lot more likely that a N2/O2 molecule will bump into another N2/O2 molecule than a radiatively active molecule. I cant keep explaining the same point to you over and over again.”
Yes, but the thing is, when O2 and N2 molecules bump into each other, nothing happens, but when O2 or N2 bump into CO2 or H2O, that collision can excite the CO2 or H2O molecules such that they can subsequently emit IR.
You have a problem with lasers, that’s because the laser argument blows your arguments out of the water, and you have no rebuttal.
The laser argument has been refuted a thousand times.
If “nothing happens” when a N2/O2 molecule bumps into another N2/O2 molecule, then that just supports my argument all the more. N2/O2 molecules “hold onto their thermal energy” far more so than radiatively active molecules.
> If “nothing happens”
And so Graham goes for the counterfactual.
For the 1001th time.
DREMPTY,
“The laser argument has been refuted a thousand times.”
No, it has not, there are two things about the laser argument.
First it points out that the temperature of the source of IR has nothing to do with whether or not the IR photon is absorbed when it hits the surface.
Second, remember that the IR photon does not carry the information about the temperature of the source. Say you have two photons with identical frequency, energy and wavelength, about to hit the surface, one comes from the Sun and one from a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.
Is one photon rejected and the other one absorbed, or both rejected, or both absorbed?
“If nothing happens when a N2/O2 molecule bumps into another N2/O2 molecule, then that just supports my argument all the more. N2/O2 molecules hold onto their thermal energy far more so than radiatively active molecules.”
YEs, but the fact that they shortly bump into a radiative molecule anyway destroys your argument.
Still looking for that good argument against the greenhouse effect aren’t you?
“YEs…”
Thanks, bob. Knew you would understand. That was all you needed to agree with, so your “but…” is irrelevant. As is the frequently debunked laser argument.
DREMPTY,
The part after the but is not irrelevant, it means the N2 and O2 hold on to the energy for about 10^-5 seconds, which is just about instantaneous.
Sorry you lose again
Collectively, longer. I win again.
Nope, it’s each.
Collectively, O2 and N2 molecules “hold onto their thermal energy” longer than GHG molecules do. As you have already agreed. So, that’s that.
DREMPTY,
Yet that has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect as the O2 and N2 freely transmit the energy to the CO2 molecules that can emit the energy, some of it downward which hits the surface causing the temperature of the surface to increase.
The CO2 and the N2 and O2 are at local thermodynamic equilibrium.
Meaning they are at the same temperature.
"…some of it downward which hits the surface causing the temperature of the surface to increase"
False. The temperature of the surface is not increased.
DREMPTY,
Yeah right,
The surface temperature of the Earth is greater than that possible just from the heat supplied from the Sun.
OK, bob.
TYSON:
“This is the basis of the atmospheric GHE.”
–
Yes, it is the basis of the atmospheric GHE.
–
Planet Earth has a very thin atmosphere, GHG are trace gases in Earth’s already very thin atmosphere.
–
The GHE on Earth’s surface is so very much insignificant, it cannot be measured.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas:
Your opinion is duly noted.
Thank you.
–
Now, let’s see:
The actual global average lunar temperature is more like 220K.
Earth receives 28% less solar energy, because Earth’s Albedo is a=0,306 vs Moon’s Albedo, which is only a=0,11.
–
It can be shown that Earth’s global average surface temperature (everything else equals) should be Tmean = 210K.
–
Earth’s MEANSURFACE TEMPERATURE ACTUALLY IS
Earth’s mean surface temperature actually is Tmean = 288K.
–
288K – 210K = 78C difference.
It is impossible for the very much insignificant the Earth’s very thin atmosphere’s GHE to warm Earth’s surface 78C up.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Global Tse – Te for Earth is only 288K – 255K = 33K Christos.
“255K” is meaningless. It refers to an imaginary sphere. It doesn’t apply to Earth.
Funny fairy tale, Clint 1:31 pm. The earthen 255K is measured by radiometer so is not imaginary. Keep providing the unending entertainment as you do so well.
In the real world, a “radiometer” does NOT measure temperature. But in Ball4’s make-believe world it measures anything Ball4 can imagine.
But, that ain’t science.
Right on, Pup.
And a mercury thermometer only measures mercury volume.
Pup, we already know you’re worthless.
But thanks for the ongoing confirmations.
Do you even metrology, Pup?
Please stop your sock puppet trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tyson,
I thought you’d like this suggestion by Mosh:
I particularly liked this testimony:
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/05/confidence-in-radiative-transfer-models/#comment-18963
Considering the current geopolitics, it was a prescient example.
willard…”How RTE [Radiative Transfer Equations] get used in engineering”.
***
I have read the theory in several mechanical engineering texts, yet not one of them can supply a practical example to corroborate their claims that radiation between bodies of different temperatures can transfer heat both ways.
The only demonstrations they give are part of a conduction, convection, radiation example. We know conduction and convection can never transfer heat cold to hot, by their own means, and when radiation is part of the example it too transfers heat hot to cold.
Never do these texts offer an example of heat transferring both ways. They could not do it if they tried since there is no way to measure a two-way transfer.
Gordon,
Read the texts more closely, heat and heat transfer is always the difference of two or more energy transfers.
Heat transfer is never one way because it is defined differently.
Gordon babbles incoherently so is wrong again writing there is no corroboration: “that radiation between bodies of different temperatures can transfer heat both ways.”
EMR is not heat. EMR transfers energy both ways between objects of different temperatures. Moonlight is absorbed on Earth, earthshine is absorbed on the lunar surface.
bobdroege, Ball4, please stop trolling.
I don’t know where that nonsense equation came from. It has no scientific derivation or significance. I imagine someone thought it made sense because conductive heat transfer is related to (Th – Tc). But subtracting different fluxes is NOT science. It’s nonsense.
It’s kind of like the moon nonsense. That got started in ancient astrology and never got corrected because it doesn’t make any difference. Something that isn’t happening doesn’t make a difference.
There is a lot of atm. physics Clint R doesn’t know. For example, Clint R 2:51 pm obviously doesn’t know my radiometer reads out in 32 degrees F when measuring a lab glass of ice water.
But Clint R is one of the funniest entertainers regularly commenting on this blog.
There are only two things I know for sure,
If Clint R says it isn’t science, it most assuredly is.
And I forgot the other one.
Some of you cult idiots are welcome to solve this simple problem, since you believe in the invalid R-T equation:
A solid sphere (temperature maintained at 400K) with surface area = 1m^2, and emissivity = 1, is inside a large hollow sphere. Everything is in a vacuum, and there are no other heat sources.
What is the temperature of the hollow sphere at steady state.
Pup,
Please stop sock puppet riddles.
It’s been over two hours, and the idiots have NOTHING.
No surprise.
Funny.
Clint R 9:52 am wrote welcome for cult idiots that believe R-T eqn. is invalid to solve the riddle. Gordon and DREMT haven’t responded yet with a solution so Clint R is sad & accordingly writes no surprise.
Now that’s NOT what I wrote, is it Ball4? You can’t answer the simple problem, so you have to pervert reality.
No surprise.
(And I won’t respond to your any more nonsense. You’re done for the day.)
“inside a large hollow sphere.”
typical Clint problem, not fully specified.
No T of surroundings specified.
Clint R,
Again you fail to pose a problem that can be solved.
Looks like you have two votes to kick you off of the island.
The cult idiots have all the values needed to plug into their invalid equation, yet they STILL can’t solve the problem. It’s almost as if they are here just to prove me right!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint fails to full specify his problem. To what end?
Looks like pure trolling.
CLint R,
I can make it as close to 0 K as I want, because you did not provide all the information necessary to make a unique solution.
Also check the steel greenhouse of willis over at what’s up my butt.
It does appear Gordon and DREMT aren’t going to solve Clint R’s riddle as Clint insists they do 4:50 am or they just find Clint R an amusing entertainer around here and are also laughing at Clint’s humorous challenge for good reason like many other blog commenters.
Keep up the great entertainment befuddled Clint R.
Once again we see the cult can’t do anything but troll. They were so sure of their bogus equation, but now they learn it can’t be used for anything. It’s BOGUS. So, as usual, they’re diverting, distracting, and whining.
They’re trying to claim I left something out, but all of the info they need for their bogus equation is there. Their bogus equation has NOTHING to do with ambient temperature. That’s one of several reasons the equation is invalid. So all of their whining just proves me right.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Befuddled Clint R doesn’t realize the R-T equation (Clint R term) is the 1LOT in equation form so Clint R is really writing the 1LOT is invalid. Quiet everyone, don’t let Clint R know you are laughing at Clint not with Clint. That’s really why this is so much fun.
Maybe Gordon and DREMT will eventually show up to provide Clint’s riddle solution as Clint R insists they do 4:50 am.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Gordo,
Could you name one or two of the texts you read?
Also, the point was to provide working examples, not classroom stuff, e.g.:
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/05/confidence-in-radiative-transfer-models/#comment-18978
I rather like the freedom of speach. Reminds me of Freeze Peach.
All this loose Freeze Peach talk is having a chilling effect on freedom of climate crankiness.
Watt’s just added another layer of echo chamber soundproofing:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/10/keeping-up-with-orwells-proprietor-of.html
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
One thing is obvious, the alarmists on this blog do nothing more than babble incoherently.
Another thing is obvious: then Gordon 2:12 am is an alarmist.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4, please, complete your comment.
–
Earths mean surface temperature actually is Tmean = 288K.
I said yesterday:
288K 210K = 78C difference.
It is impossible for the very much insignificant the Earths very thin atmospheres GHE to warm Earths surface 78C up.
–
Reply
Ball4 says:
October 28, 2022 at 1:00 PM
Global Tse Te for Earth is only 288K 255K = 33K Christos.
–
Well, Ball4,
It is (also) impossible for the very much insignificant the Earths very thin atmospheres GHE to warm Earths surface 33C up.
–
But I was commenting the 78C difference.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
For the lunar surface temperature by thermometer, all the data known is from Apollo sparse measurements calculated for the lunar equator. For multi-annual global avg.s, rounded and approximate depending on time period observed:
Earthen global measured Tse lunar Apollo calculated equatorial Tse = 288K – 210K = 78K
For the earthen measured global multi-annual avg.s by thermometer and satellite radiometer:
Tse Te = 288K – 255K = 33K
If that 33K difference were impossible, as Christos writes, the difference would not have been measured as such. The 255K turned out reasonably well predicted earlier than the first satellite measurements became available around 1970 for ~33K earthen GHE.
The physical atm. is thin relative to earth radius but our atm. is not optically thin as it contains IR active gases.
The “255K” is bogus. It comes from the calculated result of an imaginary sphere’s surface. Earth’s surface is 288K. It makes no sense to compare Earth to an imaginary sphere.
That’s what cults do.
Pup,
Sock puppets troll.
Pup, you’ve got no science, again.
At least you’re consistent….
All you got are proofs by assertion, Pup.
Please stop trolling like a lazy sock puppet.
Are you making an assertion, Pup?
I am not the one pretending to do a little science with a that kind of observation, Pup. And you know what happens when silly sock puppets challenge me to support my claims. They stop trolling for a while.
You’re pretending that your bogus equation is valid, Pup.
But, you’re not pretending when you avoid using it to solve the problem. That’s when the rubber meets the road. Reality always wins.
Sock puppets are bogus identities, Pup.
Nobody cares what they think.
That’s WRONG, Pup. You care. In fact, you’re obsessed with me.
Since you track every comment I make, I’ve been hoping you might learn something.
But so far, you still require full time adult supervision.
… which Clint R lacks.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I care about your trolling, Pup. Sock puppets should contribute something. Like everyone else. You contribute NOTHING.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Norman,
Here could be an application of the “site:” search.
Yesterday Graham obligingly gave us an old august 2013 thread in which I noticed the comments from some James Goodone. If you search for site:drroyspencer.com “james goodone” you should see that he only commented in the month. But if you read his comments, you may recognize a familiar voice.
Notice the “creation of energy out of nothing” trope. If you search for it on the website, I find another hit:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-187919
If you search for “Notagain says” in that page, you should recognize tropes and a familiar attitude.
James also used “creating” instead of creation. If you search for “creating out of nothing” you get more results. Here is one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/in-defense-of-the-term-greenouse-effect/#comment-302687
Anything except non-radiative gases, of course. It is well-known that they are the one, true insulators that make the Earth warmer, I mean less colder.
There is nothing like a good ol’ NOTHING to makes one point clear.
From there, you could connect more tropes. This time you’d search for “SkepticGoneWild.” From the trope of that crank you could make more searches.
Pup is not that good a sock puppet.
If the atmosphere was simply a dry mix of its major constituents, O2 and N2, the Earth would freeze over completely.
GHGs absorb most of the surface radiation and what actually escapes out into space is mostly emitted from the colder atmosphere.
For the following refer to the linked image https://ibb.co/dpnmL7C
When you look down from an aircraft at 20km altitude, you “see” the thermal radiation from Earth that gets out to that height. Some of that radiation comes from the surface, and some comes from high in the atmosphere, where it is much colder. The bites taken out of the spectrum are in those bands where GHGs absorb radiation from the surface, and so the radiation that eventually escapes to space is being emitted from high in the atmosphere.
When you look up from the surface, you “see” the thermal downwelling radiation from the atmosphere. In the IR frequencies of the GHGs thermal radiation is blocked very efficiently and the downwelling radiation shows the temperature of the warm air right near the surface. In the terrestrial window the atmosphere is transparent, and no radiation is absorbed or emitted.
TM, you seriously need help with your physics.
Unless you just want to pervert science….
Pup,
Please stop your lazy trolling, your past sock puppets were better that this.
Pup, you need to always use block quote. Since you have NOTHING, your keyboard training can help you fake it.
Pup,
All sock puppets have is TROLLING.
Yes Pup, trolling is all you’ve got. You couldn’t even spell “science” if you didn’t have spellcheck.
I ain’t the one who hides behind a series of sillier and sillier sock puppets, Pup. You are.
Please stop trolling like a silly sock puppet.
Here’s a plan, Pup.
Search all old comments for people that are saying close to the same thing. Then, assume all those people are the same.
That’ll keep you busy until your babysitter arrives.
Here is what you do not get, Pup –
Sock puppets do not get to claim any unique identity.
At least not until they stop trolling using the same crap from years if not decades.
Pup, it’s not my fault you can’t understand physics. I always keep it simple, just for kids like you.
Pup,
Please stop trolling like a silly sock puppet.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard, note that these cranks have stopped claiming “that the N2 and O2 are the planetary insulators, not CO2.”
It is all quiet on that front.
N2 and O2 are the planetary insulators, not CO2.
For comparison DREMT, the radiative GHE insulation provided by collision-induced absorp_tion by molecular oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) amounts to 15% of the earthen GHE (reduction in OLR) caused by CH4 at year 2012 atmospheric concentrations.
Yeah, but we’re not talking about radiative insulation. We’re simply talking about the fact that N2/O2 hold onto their thermal energy much longer than GHGs.
Tyson,
Graham still claims that non-radiative gases are the truest insulators. So in some peculiar way, he believes in the greenhouse effect. I suppose he would call it the non-greenhouse effect.
The theory is missing only two parts. The first is easy – waiting for his guru to revise atomic theory. The second part is even easier – mansplaining the atmosphere of Venus.
Belief without evidence = faith. Q.E.D.
Your cult keeps changing your definition of the bogus GHE. That’s because there is no version that works.
If you believe otherwise, give us your best definition, and your best evidence to support that definition, and we will quickly debunk it so we can stop this useless back-and-forth. You can then shut down your cult and sell all the furniture, and try to have a meaningful life.
Tyson,
Graham may be holding to a single paper written in a predatory journal:
Maybe not.
What others are saying about Thomas Allmendinger’s paper:
“The paper is laughable,”
“It is so riddled with unsupported, fantastic and … or … unintelligible claims, arranged in a disorderly fashion and sprinkled liberally with innuendo,”
Forgot the link. I might as well give the synopsis of that episode:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1363420
No, nothing to do with Allmendinger. If Allmendinger’s correct, it falsifies the GHE in a different way. So many different ways to falsify the GHE, so few ways for it to be correct.
No. No. An infinity of noes.
You tried to imply that my (and many, many others) argument about the N2/O2 being the planetary insulators had something to do with Allmendinger. As per usual, you were completely wrong. You rarely get anything right, in fact.
Pray tell how “N2/O2” are “the planetary insulators.”
Use your physics words.
No need to repeat an argument I’ve already won.
Every. Single. Time:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1362415
Every single time you get it wrong. My argument is not related to Allmendinger, his arguments or his experiments. Just be told.
Poor Graham, forever misrepresented about stuff he certainly will not clarify. He repeated himself so many times already. I Thomas has style:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1362463
Every. Single. Time.
Just keep providing quotes that demonstrate the difference between our arguments, Little Willy. Thanks for your help.
Graham confuses assertions and arguments once again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1363357
Alternatively, he could support his own car waving and show how he reconciles it with Thomas results instead of going full denial every single time.
I do not reconcile my argument with his results. If his results are correct, the GHE is falsified, but for different reasons. If his results are invalid, my argument still stands.
And so Graham once again reveals that he is confusing the scientific process with playing the trolling advocate.
Either his favorite assertion coheres with experimental results or it does not. If it does, then it needs to cohere with time explanation to which he already paid lip service. If it does not, then we ought to wonder if any of this have explanatory power.
For now all we got is Graham saying that noble gases keep their energy. Implications, relevance, interpretation, explanation, everything else is missing.
> time
Thomas.
Come on, autocorrect. You are drunk.
The GHE does not cohere with his experimental results. You seem to forget that part.
I have already explained the argument in full, as you know:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1384727
It is pretty straightforward.
Willard at 12:24 PM
The missing link (besides the obvious no IR activity) in the “N2/O2” are “the planetary insulators” meme is that it doesn’t explain how that retained heat leaves for outer space. Since N2/O2 do not emit (because they don’t absorb) IR energy, the molecules would have to carry that heat away by convection and leave the atmosphere.
Gordon Robertson likes to say that it “dissipates”. He never explains what he means by that.
Yes, Tyson – CO2 helps cool the atmosphere, by radiating IR to space.
Roy’s parser is making a scene, Tyson.
Check for #comment-1389554 below.
Little Willy “accidentally” started yet another new thread on a subject related to me and my arguments. This time, he quotes a comment from bob without including a link so readers can see what I said in response.
Poor Graham. Forever the victim.
Readers will have to wait for the thought experiment I had in mind to connect Graham’s “theory” with Thomas’.
The two are completely unconnected. Not that it is my theory, anyway.
DREMPTY,
“Yes, Tyson CO2 helps cool the atmosphere, by radiating IR to space.”
That only happens in the stratosphere and mesosphere.
It’s a signature of the greenhouse effect.
CO2 does not cool the lower atmosphere.
Willard at 2:14 PM
“Roy’s parser is making a scene, Tyson.”
He’s throwing a tantrum rather!
Typical crank reaction when confronted with physical truths.
Best way to deal with tantrums is to put him in time-out.
Calm down, Tyson. By "Roy’s parser" Little Willy was not referring to me.
Nice one, Tyson!
Oh, I see, the two trolls are just trolling.
It’s true that Graham is quite the parser, Tyson!
I call his speciality parsomatics:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/parsomatics
Yes, still trolling, I see.
Ball4:
“If that 33K difference were impossible, as Christos writes, the difference would not have been measured as such. The 255K turned out reasonably well predicted earlier than the first satellite measurements became available around 1970 for ~33K earthen GHE.
The physical atm. is thin relative to earth radius but our atm. is not optically thin as it contains IR active gases.”
–
“The 255K turned out reasonably well predicted earlier than the first satellite measurements became available around 1970 for ~33K earthen GHE.”
–
Ball4, the 255K is predicted, not measured!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Earth’s mean surface temperature is 288K.
–
There is not the above surface atmosphere’s a mean surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos 2:13 am, earthen Te = 255K was predicted then that prediction was confirmed when subsequently measured by Earth satellite around 1970 just like Diviner program satellites measured lunar Te from lunar orbit.
Many subsequent satellite readings have re-confirmed and improved the earlier earthen Te = 255K measurements. Christos has a lot to learn about how the earthen Te = 255K is measured & still monitored year around today.
Ball4, you’re just making stuff up, again. You can’t provide evidence of any satellite measuring Earth’s surface at 255K. The 255K is for an imaginary sphere. It’s not reality.
The reality is I have already provided the evidence! Several times. Problem is, Clint R is so befuddled that Clint can’t make any sense of the evidence:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
Problem is, you don’t understand any of this so your “sources” don’t even match your claims.
That link is to satellite data of radiative fluxes! You need ONE satellite, reporting ONE 255K temperature at a known elevation.
Your desperation matches your ignorance.
Earthen Tse – Te = 288K 255K = 33K is a global avg. of many measurements. One satellite, reporting one 255K temperature at a known elevation is therefore not needed but Clint is free to look up evidence Clint needs for one satellite, reporting one 255K temperature at a known elevation here:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
Correct b4, you can’t support your claims.
I just did support my claims with measured data so Clint R humorously remains befuddled.
Nothing new.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Mars and Moon have two major differences which equate each other:
The first major difference is the distance from the sun both Mars and Moon have.
Moon is at R = 1 AU distance from the sun
Mars is at 1,524 AU distance from the sun
Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth and Moon have.
Consequently, the solar flux on the Mars top is 2,32 times weaker than that on the Moon.
The second major difference is the synodic rotation period both Mars and Moon have.
Moon performs 1 rotation every 29,531 earth days.
Mars performs 1 rotation every 24,622 hours or 0,9747 rot /day.
Consequently, Mars rotates 29,531 *0,9747 = 28,783 times faster than Moon.
So, Mars is irradiated 2,32 times weaker, but Mars rotates 28,783 times faster.
And for the same albedo, Mars and Moon have the same satellite measured mean surface temperature Tmean = 210K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you are reporting the lunar mean equatorial sparsely measured thermometer temperature 210K and Mars global brightness temperature Te 210K.
Thank you, Ball4, for your respond.
–
“Christos, you are reporting the lunar mean equatorial sparsely measured thermometer temperature 210K and Mars global brightness temperature Te 210K.”
–
The Mars global brightness temperature (also called effective temperature Te) 210K coincides with the Mars mean surface temperature (the measured) which is also Tmean = 210K.
–
The Lunar (mean equatorial sparsely measured thermometer temperature 220K) is very close to the Diviner satellite measurements, but also there is something else should be explained on the matter:
–
Only for the non-rotating planet the mean equatorial temperature is equal to the planet mean surface temperature. For the slow rotating Moon, the mean surface temperature is slightly less than the mean equatorial temperature. And it is also confirmed by the Diviner satellite measurements.
–
Moon is the closest to the sun, so, the fact Moons mean surface temperature is slightly less than Mars mean surface temperature is only empowers the above observation:
–
Mars is irradiated 2,32 times weaker, but Mars and Moon have the same satellite measured mean surface temperature Tmean = 210K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Your writing is very confused Christos, Mars global mean surface temperature is 215K so the Martian GHE is 5K:
Mars Tse – Te = 215K – 210K = 5K
At 12:18 pm you wrote lunar surface temperature is 210K then at 1:25 pm you wrote it as 220K. Which one is it?
Also, rotating or not, a planetary mean equatorial temperature will always be higher than the global mean temperature.
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
–
“rotating or not, a planetary mean equatorial temperature will always be higher than the global mean temperature.”
–
Of course, it will be always higher, I am very glad you know that! It is a nuance not everyone is capable commenting.
Now, that you know, you should be willingly admitting, for the slowly rotating Moon, the global mean surface temperature is only slightly less, than its equatorial mean temperature.
–
Also:
“Your writing is very confused Christos, Mars global mean surface temperature is 215K so the Martian GHE is 5K:
Mars Tse Te = 215K 210K = 5K”
–
Ball4, you, of all people, shouldn’t have written that, because by that you insist on planet Earth having GHE 78C:
Earth Tse – Te = 288K – 210K = 78C
Which is impossible for anyone to accept.
–
Also:
“At 12:18 pm you wrote lunar surface temperature is 210K then at 1:25 pm you wrote it as 220K. Which one is it?”
–
Well, I’ll let you to discover it yourself. There are plenty of publications on that.
After all, Moon is the most investigated object (after Earth) in solar system.
–
BTW, how much do you estimate is the GHE on the Moon surface?
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth Tse – lunar Te = 288K – lunar equatorial 210K = 78C is not a GHE, is just a number. The lunar global mean temperature is unknown.
Again, global martian Tse – martian Te = 215K – 210K = 5K GHE
which is possible for many to accept. Publications do not write the lunar surface temperature is 210K AND 220K in one paper, that’s only in Christos’ confused writing.
Thank you, Ball4, for your respond.
–
Ball4:
“Earth Tse lunar Te = 288K lunar equatorial 210K = 78C is not a GHE, is just a number.”
–
Good to know you said so!
–
Now, also say:
“Earth Tse – Earth Te = 288K – 255K = 33C is not a GHE, is just a number.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
And so once again Graham handwaves to a description that Bob already rebutted:
Graham dropped the bolded part and now speaks of “delay cooling,” which is a good thing for even Gordo is not on board. And he’s stuck on repeat about the idea that inert gases delayed cooling by “holding” onto their energy.
As if it explained anything. Whatever it may mean, if Graham and Thomas disagree, then we’d need a Sky Dragon crank showdown on that question.
…and I rebutted bob’s rebuttal.
I have dropped nothing.
Nothing has changed.
Allmendinger still has nothing to do with it.
By jumping to a conclusion.
Not sure what you’re talking about, bob.
What?
You don’t understand your own arguments?
I understand my own arguments. I guess you were just trolling when you said "by jumping to a conclusion". I’ll ignore that, then.
Nope, you still jump to conclusions, quite often, because you don’t believe in empirical evidence.
You’re just trolling. Got it.
DREMPTY, please stop trolling.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham’s rebuttal was so beautiful it deserves to be repeated:
(R1) The vast majority of which are other O2 and N2 molecules. Thus, collectively, the O2 and N2 molecules do “hold on to the heat” most effectively, and the third pathway provided by far the longest “delay in cooling”. The O2 and N2 are the planetary insulators, not CO2.
Just like we said.
The idea that noble gases “held” to their energy and and (thus?) delayed cooling does not address the fact that they exchange energy rapidly, not slowly. While the “delay” bit is also kinda irrelevant, it begs to be explained.
(R2) You are assuming here that the warmer surface can absorb energy from the cooler CO2 molecules, and be warmed by it.
This accusation of begging the question deserves some love. And it’s unclear why he would dispute downwelling longwave radiation when he spent a thread asserting that Sky Dragon Cranks accepted it.
I do not dispute downwelling longwave radiation. I dispute that it warms.
None of this discussion will make any sense without seeing the original argument:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1384727
I think reading the argument linked to above more carefully explains away most of your confusion.
“Anyway the bolded part in part three is incorrect, O2 and N2 rapidly, not slowly, exchange energy with other atoms and molecules in the atmosphere.”
I disagree that the bolded part is incorrect. Here is the start of part three:
"The bulk gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are warmed by conduction and convection from the surface. They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun. Latent heat from water is also added to the bulk gases. O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space."
No mention of the rate they exchange energy with other atoms and molecules in the atmosphere. Just that they (collectively) are slow to shed the heat that has been transferred to them from the surface. I’m not sure how that can be denied. They cannot radiate anything like as effectively as GHGs, after all.
There was one guy arguing here the thermalization argument, that the CO2 molecules transfer the energy to N2 and O2 molecules faster than the CO2 molecules could emit the energy by radiation.
But that argument is false because it goes in the other direction just as fast.
And he did have sources for the speed of the exchanges.
If the time between collisions is smaller than the time it takes for a CO2 molecule to emit the energy by radiation (as it tends to be, lower in the atmosphere where the molecules are closer together), then surely CO2 molecules are less likely to emit? When N2 and O2 transfer the energy to CO2, surely the CO2 has to emit before it collides with another N2 or O2 molecule?
But then the rate of emission by CO2 molecules is dependent only on the concentration of the CO2 molecules and their temperature, not on the time frame since the last transfer of energy from a O2 or N2 molecule.
I believe I have mentioned that before.
Well, bob, if they receive energy from an O2 or N2 molecule, and collide with another O2 or N2 molecule before they have time to emit, they’re not going to emit, are they? Not sure how anything you’re saying changes that fact.
DREMPTY,
CO2 emits at a first order rate, so some emission comes before collisions.
You are arguing something contradicted by the evidence, because we have evidence the CO2 emits.
Of course CO2 emits. The question is, how frequently is emission likely to occur lower in the atmosphere, compared to higher in the atmosphere?
DREMPTY,
More often in the lower atmosphere, because it’s warmer.
DREMPTY,
And more often in the lower atmosphere because it’s more concentrated.
“The question is, how frequently is emission likely to occur lower in the atmosphere, compared to higher in the atmosphere?”
…relative to CO2 concentration, I mean.
DREMPTY,
If the rate is dependent on concentration, and concentration is dependent on elevation…
You do have a science degree, right?
The confounding factor, though, bob, is the time between collisions compared to the time it takes for a CO2 molecule to emit the energy by radiation. The lower you are in the atmosphere, the less is the time between collisions.
DREMPTY,
You know you are dealing with random events and averages, right?
I know that’s a non-response.
DREMPTY,
I forgot to mention again, that the emission rate is not affected by the amount of time between collisions.
The emission rate is determined by temperature and concentration.
So do you understand yet?
DREMPTY,
The only point you are making is that you don’t understand what’s going on.
I know you will claim that you do understand it.
…and the lower you are in the atmosphere, the less is the time between collisions, so the less likely it is that a CO2 molecule will have time to emit.
Graham repeats that he does not dispute the Downwelling Longwave Radiation [DLR], yet here is what he dismissed:
(B1) O2 and N2 also pass the energy back to the IR active gases in the lower atmosphere
(B2) which radiate half of that energy back to the surface
(B3) that constitutes the majority of the greenhouse effect.
Suppose we reject B1-B3. Where’s the DLR? If it’s not radiative gases who dunnit, it must be the non-radiative ones.
At some point Graham will have to explain how non-radiative gases replace the radiative ones in the DLR.
How do you get yourself so confused? The non-radiative gases do not replace the radiative ones in the DLR.
I agree with B1 and B2. What I dispute is that the radiation from the GHGs that reaches the ground, actually warms it. Just like Vaughan Pratt, I do not agree that back-radiation warms the surface.
Prof. Vaughan Pratt agrees DLR can warm the surface, only DREMT incorrectly claims DLR all reflected at the surface.
After the Seim & Olsen experiment, Pratt remarked on this blog:
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
You are mistaken DREMT, as I pointed out earlier wiki on GHE does not say: “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.” Anyways, Prof. Pratt well knows the earthen DLR will just keep system at steady state equilibrium temperature at times.
Im not mistaken, Ball4, thats what Pratt said. Its completely irrelevant what the Wiki entry says.
It’s not irrelevant that DREMT is mistaken. Prof. Pratt well knows the absorbed earthen DLR will just keep system at steady state equilibrium temperature or warm it at different times. Remember:
… in DREMT’s own link Prof. Pratt uses an object such as an ice cube at around -10F to illustrate such an ice cube object will warm an object at around 80F and Pratt also points out this does not contradict 2LOT.
This is known since 1877 & by DREMT because DREMT earlier wrote DREMT understood:
Clausius’ heat can, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object but not on net as M-B distribution proved in 1877.
Pratt’s comment about the lack of back-radiation warming came after the comment you’re referring to, Ball4. Many years after.
Vaughan’s remark was about the backradiation model of the greenhouse effect. He does not dispute that backradiation warms the Earth.
Then why did he say:
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
?
Graham may never get the concept of implication.
Let’s see:
He agrees with Bob that O2 and N2 also pass the energy back to the infrared active gases in the lower atmosphere. He agrees that the lower atmosphere radiates half of that energy back to the surface.
He only disagrees that when the lower atmosphere radiates energy back to the surface, it warms it.
According to Graham, energy radiated back to a surface does not warm it. If the disagreement is only about the meaning of warming, why try to come up with a new conception of non-radiative gases? Looks to me that it’s just a sideshow to cover for a silly semantic game.
"According to Graham, energy radiated back to a surface does not warm it. If the disagreement is only about the meaning of warming, why try to come up with a new conception of non-radiative gases?"
It’s not a disagreement about the meaning of warming, and I’m not trying to come up with a new conception of non-radiative gases. I, like Vaughan Pratt, am simply pointing out that back-radiation does not warm the surface…but that side of things has all been discussed a thousand times before.
The "N2/O2 are the planetary insulators, not CO2" argument is a lot easier to follow once you have done away with the silly idea that back-radiation can warm the surface.
Prof. Vaughan Pratt hasn’t ever pointed out that earthen back-radiation does not warm the surface, that’s only imagined incorrectly by DREMT.
If the system is in steady state equilibrium for temperature, earthen back-radiation absorbed by L&O surface maintains the equilibrium.
Indeed he has, Ball4. After the Seim & Olsen experiment, he remarked on this blog:
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
You are mistaken DREMT, as I pointed out earlier wiki on GHE does not say: “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.” Anyway, Prof. Pratt well knows the earthen DLR might just keep system at steady state equilibrium temperature.
I’m not mistaken, Ball4, that’s what Pratt said. It’s completely irrelevant what the Wiki entry says.
It’s not irrelevant that DREMT is mistaken. Prof. Pratt well knows the absorbed earthen DLR will just keep system at steady state equilibrium temperature or warm it at different times. Remember:
… in DREMT’s own link Prof. Pratt uses an object such as an ice cube at around -10F to illustrate such an ice cube object will warm an object at around 80F and Pratt also points out this does not contradict 2LOT.
This is known since 1877 & by DREMT because DREMT earlier wrote DREMT understood:
Clausius’ heat can, of its own accord, be transferred from a cool object to a warmer object but not on net as M-B distribution proved in 1877.
Pratt’s comment about the lack of back-radiation warming came after the comment you’re referring to, Ball4. Many years after.
Vaughan simply disputes backradiation as a good model to explain the greenhouse effect.
Like Graham, he does not disbelieve it exists.
DREMT 4:58 pm, DREMT is repeating a mistaken comment which makes DREMT’s own comment mistaken. Wiki on GHE does not say what Pratt claimed.
Irrelevant, Ball4.
Its not ever irrelevant for a DREMT comment to be mistaken, that is observed by many to happen much of the time!
"Wiki on GHE does not say what Pratt claimed."
That is what is irrelevant.
That is entirely relevant because it makes DREMT’s comment mistaken.
Not really, Ball4. Wiki articles change, people edit them. Pratt’s comment was a year or so ago…perhaps they edited the page, as he suggested. Regardless, it’s besides the point, which is:
Pratt suggested something saying "part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it", needed to be changed. In other words, he disagreed with it.
DREMT 5:41 pm finally admits there is no way to verify Pratt’s claim abut wiki, so remains mistakenly repeating an unverifiable claim given the bulk of Pratt’s writing.
Pratt suggested that something saying "part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it", needed to be changed. In other words, he disagreed with it.
Here’s how thy Wiki reads nowadays:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Even Graham might not dispute the emphasized bit. Vaughan certainly does not. At least the latter recognizes that he was disputing the felicity of a model, not greenhouse theory.
…suggested that something saying "part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it", needed to be changed. In other words, he disagreed with it.
Graham does not always believe that thermal radiation can hit a surface, but when he does he denies that it can warm it.
…that something saying "part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it", needed to be changed. In other words, he disagreed with it.
One day Graham might realize that I already quoted Vaughan acknowledging that backradiation exists and warms the Earth.
…something saying "part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it", needed to be changed. In other words, he disagreed with it.
Alright. Let’s consign what Graham believes:
(G1) Graham agrees that O2 and N2 pass the energy back to the infrared active gases in the lower atmosphere.
(G2) Graham agrees that the lower atmosphere radiates half of that energy back to the surface.
(G3) Graham disagrees that when the lower atmosphere radiates energy back to the surface, it warms it.
(G4) Graham does not disagree about the meaning of the word “warming.”
Perhaps it’s the meaning of radiating energy back to a surface?
The plot thickens. And here’s where Graham might need to come up with a new conception of non-radiative gases:
(G5) Graham believes that O2 and N2 are the planetary insulators, not GHGs.
More so considering (G1).
It’s not about the meaning of words, Little Willy. The back-radiation intercepted by the surface does not warm the surface.
Graham does not always believe that O2 and N2 are the planetary insulators, not GHGs, but when he does he agrees that O2 and N2 pass the energy back to the infrared active gases in the lower atmosphere.
…half of which will radiate upwards, and may be intercepted by other GHGs which pass it back to O2 and N2…
…and, of that which is radiated downwards, some may also be intercepted by other GHGs which may radiate it upwards, or pass it back to O2 and N2…
…ultimately, O2 and N2 "hold onto their thermal energy" longer than GHGs.
Maybe so DREMPTY,
But O2 and N2 don’t contribute to the greenhouse effect.
And if there wasn’t CO2 and the other greenhouse gases, N2 and O2 would do nothing to prevent the heat loss to space.
So you got nothing.
bob, that’s not exactly correct. As of 2012 concentrations, molecular O2,N2 contribute about 15% of the CH4 contribution to earthen GHE.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/wg2TARannexB.pdf
All Graham needs to wonder is how the increase of the temperature of the surface-troposphere system is happening.
"But O2 and N2 don’t contribute to the greenhouse effect."
Obviously not. There is no GHE.
"And if there wasn’t CO2 and the other greenhouse gases, N2 and O2 would do nothing to prevent the heat loss to space."
How would there be heat loss from the atmosphere to space, if the atmosphere can’t efficiently radiate, due to lack of GHGs?
DREMT is mistaken again.
Little Willy fancies a change of definition of the GHE…
Graham cannot recognize the definition to which Vaughan alluded.
Oh well.
Yes, that’s the one you fancied changing GHE definitions to…we can all see that back-radiation warming is not on the menu.
Graham fails to recognize that the IPCC is authoritative.
Unless it suits him, like when Vaughan quotes it.
DREMPTY,
“How would there be heat loss from the atmosphere to space, if the atmosphere cant efficiently radiate, due to lack of GHGs?”
Because it’s the surface radiating to space.
Slowing that down is part of the greenhouse effect.
Ball4,
So O2 and N2 contribute about 4.5% of the warming since the industrial revolution.
Is that about right, and do you have a source, that tells how that happens?
Not really bob, amount of molecular N2 and O2 hasn’t appreciably changed in that period as has CH4. Re-read my 5:11 pm: “As of 2012 concentrations ..” and:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL051409
bob missed the point I was making…
…another point worth considering: it is the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface which is important to us humans, not the temperature of the surface itself.
DREMPTY,
Who takes these surface temperature measurements?
Odd response, bob.
DREMPTY,
So a non-response from you, where did I mention surface temperatures anyway?
“another point worth considering: it is the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface which is important to us humans, not the temperature of the surface itself.”
Which makes this claim rather strange.
Look, a squirrel!
Yes, you have no idea what point I was making with my last couple of comments, do you bob? Oh well. Readers will.
DREMPTY,
Looks to me like you don’t even understand the point you were trying to make.
I think the point was clear:
How would there be heat loss from the atmosphere to space, if the atmosphere cant efficiently radiate, due to lack of GHGs?
Your response was a dodge.
Indeed, Bob. How would the atmosphere of the Moon let energy out if there was no trace of CO2? Non radiative cases would not pass any energy, they hold to it!
Also, Venus.
DREMPTY,
No greenhouse gases, no atmospheric radiation to space.
No greenhouse gases, no preventing the surface from directly radiating to space.
It’s the temperature of the surface that determines the amount of radiation to space.
What part of this do you not comprehend?
You’re still dodging the point, bob.
DREMPTY,
You haven’t made a point, so there is nothing to dodge.
bob, let’s see if a different question will get the wheels turning:
If there is little to no heat loss from the atmosphere to space, because the atmosphere can’t efficiently radiate, due to lack of GHGs, and the atmosphere can still be warmed via conduction and convection from the heated surface, exactly how hot will the atmosphere get?
Bear in mind it can be warmed, but cooling is not so easy.
DREMPTY,
Is that a rhetorical question, or do you really not know how to figure it out.
Science lessons are still 50 bucks.
Just a question designed to get people thinking, bob.
DREMPTY,
Do you think you can answer the question?
Are you capable of thinking clearly about the question?
Enquiring minds want to know.
I think bob gets it.
“and I rest my case. Until we know how hot the GHG-free atmosphere can get in the day vs. how cold it gets at night, we are not in a position to say what its average temperature would be.”
A GHG-free atmosphere seems to indicate no ocean.
And least GHG is deserts.
Land heats up quickly and cools down quickly and dry desert land
is the most extreme.
So the GHG-free atmosphere is desert planet.
More than desert planet than Mars, which has average of 210 ppm of water vapor.
It seems it’s going to be windy. Right now, it quite windy in my desert. And it is cold.
On average, it’s said there is 40 watts of longwave IR which goes directly from surface into space and looking at universe is limited in longwave IR due to water vapor and CO2. And as far as I know such observation is not limited by rising CO2 levels. But generally you have dry locations and high location to us more of wavelength- though mostly it less atmosphere to look thru. And straight up is best and looking low on horizon is not good.
My guess is a reason average is as low as about 40 watts average, is because 70% of surface is at sea level and is ocean.
Also we have a lot clouds.
If we have no Ocean, do we have these huge basins, or do want to fill it with sand or Granite rock. Solid rock is better to lower the amount of global dust storms.
If one leaves the basins empty, is seems the bottom of basins will be hot though sunlight would be a bit dimmer and will radiate less directly into space. And 30% of land will be cold and radiate more into space.
But if fill in ocean, it seems we radiate a lot more than 40 watt on average directly to space.
The thought experiment I had in mind will have to wait. Let’s pay due diligence to what the IPCC says about the greenhouse effect.
I already quoted the glossary above. The definition comes from TAR:
archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/044.htm
This page refers to Chapter 6:
archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/212.htm
A relevant quote is this one:
archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/218.htm
Just like Judy said.
Searching for “downwelling long-wave” in the website, i.e. site:https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/ “downwelling long-wave”, we get:
archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/318.htm
From that I infer that the IPCC must have improved its estimates of DLRs since 2001.
DREMT, you’re doing a fantastic job of babystiing the cult today — four and five at a time! You should ask for a raise.
They STILL can’t answer simple questions, or provide a definition of the GHE (with corresponding evidence), that can’t be debunked.
That’s probably why this is so much fun.
Pup,
Try to “refute” that one:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/wg2TARannexB.pdf
Sock puppets can’t refute by trolling, let alone definitions.
That’s a much improved version, Pup. It’s actually mostly correct, until the last two sentences:
“This causes a radiative forcing, an imbalance that can only be compensated for by an increase of the temperature of the surface-troposphere system. This is called the enhanced greenhouse effect.”
Notice they are no longer claiming CO2 directly warms the surface. They now hide behind a couple of layers of blah-blah. There’s no “radiative forcing” from a non-heat source. And Earth does NOT have an “imbalance”. Both of these concepts are made-up, just like the nonsense we see here.
Not sure where you got your “CO2 directly warms the surface,” Pup.
Do you hide your source underneath your sock puppet?
Well Pup, you’ve been to keyboard school. Do a search.
You need to know your cult’s beliefs.
Sorry, Pup.
You’ll have to build another sock puppet for that one.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R,
I answered your silly question, as close to 0 K as I want to, as I can change the specifications that you didn’t specify in your problem to my hearts content.
There are numerous attempted debunkings of the greenhouse effect, but the Nobel Prize committee has refused to grant the well deserved prize to any of them. Therefore none of them actually debunk the greenhouse effect.
Look to Dr Roys montly chart and the Keeling curve for evidence that supports the greenhouse effect.
Oh yeah, you are a braindead moron.
That’s correct bob. The equation has no value.
Getting a corrupt organization to give a reward for science is like getting Dug to honor his promise for his nonsense being debunked.
And rising temperatures with rising CO2 is typical. CO2 follows temperature.
Come on, Pup.
Don’t tell me a veteran sock puppet like you can’t do better
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
You’re trolling, right?
Clint R,
The equation has value, you have yet to prove it’s wrong, you have to do more to debunk it than declare it debunked, or of no value. You have more work to do.
A reason the Nobel committee is not corrupt is they have ignored all the crap science you promote.
Yes, but they are rising in sync, temperature is not following CO2 this time.
bob, you debunked the bogus equation by not being able to use it, given all the information it requires.
Thanks to you, and the others, for proving me right, again.
Clint R,
I was using the equation correctly, just modifying the parameters on your stupid problem to get any answer I wanted.
It’s your failure to understand how to pose a homework problem.
Same old, same old.
Yes bob, you debunked the bogus equation by not being able to use it, given all the information it requires.
Thanks to you, and the others, for proving me right, again.
Clint R,
You didn’t specify the size of the outer sphere, so it’s temperature is dependent on it’s surface area, which I can make as large as I want, since you didn’t specify that dimension in your problem.
So it isn’t the equation that’s the problem.
You are the problem.
If you want to be a part of the solution, well, I am a chemist and would happily oblige.
I took notes from Jeffrey.
That’s correct bob, the equation does NOT take into account all surface areas. That’s one of the reasons it’s a bogus equation.
It’s just part of your cult’s nonsense like: fluxes simply add, cold can warm hot, ice cubes can boil water, Earth is the same as an imaginary sphere, etc., etc., etc…
Clint R,
“Thats correct bob, the equation does NOT take into account all surface areas. Thats one of the reasons its a bogus equation.”
Yes it does, your failure to properly use the equation is the root of your problem.
What’s always fascinating is how devoted these cult idiots are to their false religion.
Here, I stated this R-T equation was invalid, bogus, anti-science. The cult denied it. So I gave them a simple problem to solve, using the bogus equation. They couldn’t do it. But instead of realizing the equation is no good, they claim I’m the one that is wrong!
It’s the same every time with these idiots. They have no interest in reality. They’ll do whatever they have to, to protect their false religion. It’s pretty much the same for any cult.
Clint R,
R-T equation?
As we can see, they need a lot of attention, Clint!
Willard October 30, 2022 at 9:47 AM
This paper is unreadable. The conclusion that “Comparing the results in sunlight to those obtained in artificial light, the effective wavelength could be assessed delivering the value of 1.9 μm. Therefore, the greenhouse theory has to be questioned” is nonsensical since even cranks know that the 1.9 μm wavelength is inconsequential to the GHE as shown here https://ibb.co/KjLmgRD.
Other red flags are:
The paper was published in the predatory International Journal of Physical Sciences which charges a Manuscript Handling Fee of $550 (USD).
The author, Thomas Allmendinger, retired in 2012 and never worked or did research in climate science. His Bio says that after retirement he “tackled climate physics as a novel research field within a private occupation, delivering considerable results”.
Bottom line is that there aren’t any legitimate scientific refutations of GHE.
Poor Tyson was unable to understand the paper. What a shame. Several of his GHE-defending friends did see how the results contradicted the GHE, however, and went to considerable effort to try to discredit Allmendinger and his experiments when I first brought it up.
Not that it has anything to do with the current discussion, however.
DREMT your unhelpful (as always) comment is duly noted.
I await a plausible explanation of how the 1.9 μm wavelength is relevant to the Earth’s GHE https://ibb.co/KjLmgRD.
P.s.: “Not that it has anything to do with the current discussion, however.”
That’s presumptuous since not every discussion is about or has to involve you, no?
His experimental results, if valid, show that N2/O2 can be warmed directly by the Sun just as efficiently with or without GHGs to assist, due to this direct absorp.tion of IR at supposedly 1.9 microns. Pure GHGs were warmed no more efficiently than a pure N2/O2 mix.
That one is easy, Tyson –
N2 and O2 holds on to their energy and they let upward radiation pass.
This is why they are the real true insulators.
"That’s presumptuous since not every discussion is about or has to involve you, no?"
Little Willy regularly proves Tyson wrong.
Graham once again fails to notice the flow of the exchange and his own role in it.
Little Willy regularly proves Tyson wrong.
Tyson still awaits a plausible explanation of how the 1.9 μm wavelength is relevant to the Earth’s greenhouse effect:
https://ibb.co/KjLmgRD
Not the first time Graham dodges that one.
I’ve given a response on that, and wait to hear back from Tyson. Nobody needs your running commentary on the discussion, Little Willy.
Your response at 8:12 AM is hardly a plausible explanation.
You are not so daft as to believe that Allmendinger, “experimenting” in his backyard, has discovered a basic error in Spectroscopy; that he has discovered something that all the Spectroscopists in the history of Spectroscopy have missed.
Here’s what we know, as should you:
N2: 78% of dry air Absorbs no radiation (of any wavelength).
O2: absorbs a little UV (but nothing else).
He explained why he thinks Spectroscopy has not picked up on this before in the paper, but no, I do not "believe" anything. I remain skeptical about the paper.
I spent quite some time, before, simply trying to get across to people that all I was saying was that more research was required.
[TYSON] I await a response
[GRAHAM] I’ve given a response on that, and wait to hear back from Tyson.
How to drag and stall, Sky Dragon Crank edition no 34572.
Ah, Tyson got back to me. Rendering Little Willy’s response here, null and void.
Tyson already dismissed gathered non-response from Graham, and Graham still fails to realize that I am the one who had to answer him.
Thomas has no theorical explanation.
8:12 AM was my response to Tyson, 9:32 AM was the response received from Tyson.
*But what if Thomas was right* by Graham does not answer the question as to why cranks focus on an emission band that has no relevance for radiation.
The Thomas has no theorical explanation for his results answers that question by the negative. And my hypothesis as to why is that Thomas is happy with conning Sky Dragon marks.
It does have relevance to radiation, Little Willy. Radiation from the Sun, as I explained in my 8:32 AM response to Tyson.
Sorry, my 8:12 AM response.
> He explained why he thinks Spectroscopy has not picked up on this before in the paper,
Both claims would be big if true.
Well, those reading the paper(s) can decide for themselves.
Indeed, Tyson.
The most intriguing part of the paper remains its speculative metaphysics:
https://academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/article-full-text-pdf/E00ABBF60017
So beautiful.
I think he should be a little more specific here: https://ibb.co/FXR0zgN
The two trolls are back to doing what they do best – trolling. The serious discussion lasted for about five minutes.
We are at the insult stage already?
No, just the "accurate description" stage.
Exactly, Tyson.
Instead of realizing that his results might not be correct, Thomas has decided to con marks like Graham.
I fully accept that his results might not be correct.
At least Thomas has the honesty to say that there is no theorical ground to believe that his results bear any credibility.
That will not prevent Graham to use them as a Big-if-True trolling trick.
Nothing prevents Little Willy from OTT hyper-criticism.
Graham forgets that we are at the *accurate description* stage of the exchange.
Not according to your comments.
And so Graham returns to trolling.
But as he ever left that mode?
You are not writing accurate descriptions of anything, Little Willy. You cannot correctly represent me, Allmendinger, or even Tyson, in this discussion. All you are doing is yapping away in the background, distracting from any progress that could be made.
More whining from Graham, therefore more trolling.
All you are doing is yapping away in the background, distracting from any progress that could be made.
Graham’s main strategy is to stall.
No wonder he keeps whining about exchanges that never progress.
And of course he’ll call these exchanges discussions!
Sky Dragon cranks’ first world problems are tough.
…you are doing is yapping away in the background, distracting from any progress that could be made.
Once more, for the guys in the back:
https://academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/article-full-text-pdf/E00ABBF60017
Once again, big if true.
…are doing is yapping away in the background, distracting from any progress that could be made.
(Switch) If the bait does not work, whine.
…doing is yapping away in the background, distracting from any progress that could be made.
[GRAHAM] O2 and N2 pass the energy back to the infrared active gases in the lower atmosphere.
[ALSO GRAHAM] If there is little to no heat loss from the atmosphere to space, because the atmosphere can’t efficiently radiate […]
Big if true.
Question: what do O2 and N2 do to the energy if there is no infrared active gases?
A possible answer:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/08/22/heat-transfer-basics-and-non-radiative-atmospheres/
You’re "[ALSO GRAHAM]" quote is from a discussion I was having with bob about what would happen if there were no GHGs in the atmosphere. If there were no GHGs in the atmosphere, then there would be little to no heat loss from the atmosphere to space, because the atmosphere can’t efficiently radiate.
[GRAHAM] There would be no heat loss.
[SOD] The Earth would cool down until it reaches -18C.
One of these two responses has to fall.
Only one of them requires we revise chemical physics.
The choice is very hard.
Well, Little Willy, how can there be heat loss from the atmosphere to space, if without GHGs it cannot efficiently radiate?
Only the surface can really radiate, in such a scenario.
After 73 months of trolling, Graham *still* fails to realize that non-radiative gases let radiation go through. Compare the Moon with Venus.
Here is an old post cited in the comments:
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/molecular-radiation-and-collisional-lifetime/
Eli of course has a ton of posts on this, but why not stick to contrarian sources?
"Graham *still* fails to realize that non-radiative gases let radiation go through"
No, I get that, Little Willy. You’re not listening:
"How can there be heat loss from the atmosphere to space, if without GHGs it cannot efficiently radiate?
Only the surface can really radiate, in such a scenario."
Graham is still fighting the concept of non-radiative gas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
If no gas is affected by infrared radiation, what happens to OLR?
I’m not fighting the concept of non-radiative gases, Little Willy. Please focus on what I’m asking:
"How can there be heat loss from the atmosphere to space, if without GHGs it cannot efficiently radiate?
Only the surface can really radiate, in such a scenario."
Heat loss from the atmosphere. Not heat loss from the surface, through the atmosphere. Heat loss from the actual atmosphere itself.
If the atmosphere cannot efficiently radiate, because it contains no GHGs, but it is still being warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surface below, then the atmosphere is being warmed, but cannot really cool very efficiently. So, how hot will the atmosphere get?
Graham does not always assert things, but when he does he’s asking.
Little Willy has no idea how to respond. My guess is, he’s hoping for bob to come and rescue him.
Graham portrays his riddles as deep insights when in fact it hides their ridiculous underlying physics.
I said nothing about deep insights.
Shorter Graham:
[SHORTER GRAHAM] I said nothing
You’re just trolling again…but it’s OK, Tyson is here now. You’re safe.
Graham closes his bait and switch:
(Bait) If the bait works, repeat the bait.
(Switch) If the bait does not work, whine.
Little Willy continues with his false accusations.
(Switch) If the bait does not work, whine.
I’m not whining, just pointing out that you continuously make false accusations.
Switch) If the bait does not work, whine.
…not whining, just pointing out that you continuously make false accusations.
witch) If the bait does not work, whine.
…just pointing out that you continuously make false accusations.
“Only the surface can really radiate, in such a scenario.”
And?
Then the surface will need to average 255 K to balance solar input.
…pointing out that you continuously make false accusations.
“Please focus on what Im asking:”
But you’re actually not interested in getting an answer.
…out that you continuously make false accusations.
Your focus is not on the truth.
…that you continuously make false accusations.
I’ve already answered that here.
I’ll say it again:
Put another way:
“If there were no GHGs in the atmosphere” all emission would be from the surface rather than the atmosphere. GHGs raise the emission height.
Yes, you made a bald assertion, and what followed did not support your assertion.
"“If there were no GHGs in the atmosphere” all emission would be from the surface rather than the atmosphere."
Most emission would be from the surface rather than the atmosphere, yes. The O2/N2 still weakly emit a little, as Ball4 keeps arguing and you keep ignoring. Now, back to my point…
…if the atmosphere cannot efficiently radiate, because it contains no GHGs, but it is still being warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surface below, then the atmosphere is being warmed, but cannot really cool very efficiently. So, how hot will the atmosphere get?
Busted!
You’ve been trolling on this site for years and have obviously not read any of Dr Spencer’s posts.
He presented the best description of what an atmosphere w/o GHGs would look like in his What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? post.
The question is not as you say “how hot will the atmosphere get?”
Well, Tyson, instead of appealing to Dr Spencer’s authority, perhaps you could actually try an independent thought, for a change?
So, back to my point…
…if the atmosphere cannot efficiently radiate, because it contains no GHGs, but it is still being warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surface below, then the atmosphere is being warmed, but cannot really cool very efficiently. So, how hot will the atmosphere get?
In the day, the heated surface will be exposed to radiation from the Sun far in excess of 1,000 W/m^2. Remember, no GHGs, means no water vapor, which means no cloud cover. Heat will be transferred to the N2/O2 via conduction and convection. How hot the atmosphere gets on average will depend on how much it can cool, at night. At night, the surface is no longer heated…but also, the atmosphere still cannot efficiently radiate. Heat could be transferred back from the atmosphere to the surface, once the surface has cooled below the temperature of the atmosphere above it.
So it all depends on how fast and to what extent the atmosphere can warm in the day, vs. how fast and to what extent the atmosphere can cool at night.
In the day, we have conduction plus convection as warming mechanisms for the atmosphere, and no real cooling mechanism.
At night, we have conduction back to the surface as a cooling mechanism.
Discuss.
> but it is still being warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surface below
Big if true.
Little Willy embarrasses himself.
DREMT at 2:44 PM.
Now you’re just being silly.
How does convection and/or conduction work when emission is from the surface?
Earth’s emission temperature is fixed at 255K.
The atmosphere is in contact with the surface, Tyson. When the surface is warmed by the 1,000+ W/m^2 from the Sun in the daytime (in other words, warmed to temperatures far, far in excess of 255 K), the surface will in turn warm the adjacent atmosphere through conduction and convection.
“Most emission would be from the surface rather than the atmosphere, yes. The O2/N2 still weakly emit a little, as Ball4 keeps arguing and you keep ignoring. Now, back to my point”
It seemed the dust in the atmosphere radiate more than O2/N2.
Our solar system probably has more mass of rocks than dust, but it has a lot dust. Lots small rocks impact Earth daily as does dust.
And then you have particles put into atmosphere from Earth processes.
The Ocean generates salt particles and organic stuff, but it’s not dusty like land can be.
Earth is only planet with greenhouse effect, if greenhouse means the sunlight goes thru the atmosphere and heats the ground and atmosphere prevents longwave radiation from radiating into space.
Or Venus atmosphere is not transparent in terms of sunlight reaching it’s rocky surface. Or Venus is heated in the upper atmosphere and clouds are part of heating Venus.
If Venus had water clouds rather the acid clouds, Venus would heated a lot less.
But if put Venus at Earth distance, the acid clouds heat a lot less though if water clouds, even less.
Or our sunlight does warm our clouds, a little bit, but the earth surface would warm more, if not block by clouds.
Or Venus absorbs a very small amount energy compared to Earth and Venus get about twice as much sunlight.
If Venus had 1/2 as much sunlight, it obviously would absorb less.
One has to ask, why planet covered with 70% of it surface absorbs so much energy.
The top 1/2 inch of the ocean is very transparent to sunlight and I would say about 80% of sunlight reaching the earth surface passes thru the top 1/2″ of ocean water.
> “If there were no GHGs in the atmosphere” all emission would be from the surface rather than the atmosphere
Exactly, Tyson:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/05/the-hoover-incident/
…and I agreed, you’ll notice.
Now, back to my point…
Tyson,
I also notice this comment of yours:
That seems to explain why Graham riddles.
Little Willy reveals that he cannot follow a discussion.
Tyson,
Perhaps this escaped Graham:
It was a long comment for his attention span.
What’s escaping your short attention span is that we’re now trying to discuss what happens in an atmosphere with no GHGs.
Tyson,
You need to stop burying ledes:
Graham keeps missing them.
I missed nothing, as you can see if you just scroll up and read my response to those very words.
He reminds me of this great quote by “Iron” Mike Tyson:
“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”
DREMT of course!
OK, Tyson.
The backstory is also relevant:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/05/the-hoover-incident/
SoD has a knack for burying ledes.
Relevant to what? In what way is it relevant?
More interesting backstory in that post:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/03/lunar-madness-and-physics-basics/
Time to bury the lede!
No explanation of what relevance, if any, it has.
Moar backstory:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/03/lunar-madness-and-physics-basics/#comment-2743
Little Willy seems desperate to change the subject of his own thread…yes, back-radiation exists. It just doesn’t warm the surface, as Vaughan Pratt claimed recently on this blog when he said:
“Certainly the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect needs correcting, where it says “Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, thus warming it.””
“Science of Doom” just doomed themselves:
“In particular, the energy absorbed at the surface from incoming solar radiation is about half of what is absorbed from downwards back-radiation.”
That’s the same nonsense peddled by the cult. It just means they don’t understand the science of radiative physics, thermodynamics, and heat transfer. They actually believe the sky supplies Earth with more energy than Sun.
It’s call “stuck on stupid”.
Graham agrees that backradiation exists, Pup.
You two sock puppets might need to discuss this in private before trolling back here.
"Graham agrees that backradiation exists, Pup."
So does Clint, as you would know if you ever paid the slightest attention to his posts.
[S] The energy absorbed at the surface from incoming solar radiation is about half of what is absorbed from downwards back-radiation.
[P] That’s the same nonsense peddled by the cult.
[W] Graham agrees that backradiation exists, Pup.
[G] So does Pup.
Art.
Your inability to read and understand what others say is indeed an art form, Little Willy.
A clarification:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/08/22/heat-transfer-basics-and-non-radiative-atmospheres/
Sure.
Compare and contrast:
[SoD] The only heat transfer mechanism in a vacuum is radiation and therefore heat can only be transferred into and out of the total climate system by radiation.
[GRAHAM] if the atmosphere cannot efficiently radiate, because it contains no GHGs, but it is still being warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surface below
Every. Single. Time.
No contradiction, Little Willy. The atmosphere is only a part of the "total climate system". You can only transfer heat into and out of the "total climate system" by radiation, sure…but obviously, heat can be transferred within that "total climate system" by other means.
Unless you are trying to argue that the surface cannot transfer heat to the atmosphere through conduction/convection!?
DREMPTY,
The atmosphere is within the total climate system.
You are completely missing the point and your resulting argument is a non-sequitur.
"The atmosphere is within the total climate system."
Exactly, bob. Thanks for agreeing.
DREMPTY,
So the atmosphere can’t shed the heat, so the surface has to, so we are at -18 C, with no greenhouse effect.
Thanks for agreeing with me that there is a greenhouse effect and it keeps us nice an toasty.
But we don’t want it any toastier, maybe bring back the climate of the 1970s so I can be cool and rock my old bellbottoms.
I’ll have to ask my daughter where she gets them these days.
Incorrect, bob. We are talking about the temperature of the atmosphere, not the surface temperature (and the surface estimate of 255 K without GHGs is wrong anyway).
See below:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1391036
DREMPTY,
But remember, if you remove all the non-condensing greenhouse gases, there will be very little water vapor and a lot more ice, so your claim that the albedo will be higher, thus colder.
And 255 K is the maximum, it would be likely lower than that.
Down-thread you go, bob…you can add your erroneous nonsense to the garbage from the three other trolls currently harassing me down there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1391036
DREMPTY,
With no greenhouse effect, the atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface.
Thanks for playing
Down-thread you go, bob
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1391036
Compare and contrast:
[GRAHAM] obviously, heat can be transferred within that “total climate system” by other means.
[SoD] In our thought experiment the atmosphere is unable to absorb or emit radiation.
Every. Single. Time.
Radiation might be verboten, but not conduction/convection.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1390143
Keep reading that comment until you understand what is being said.
Readers might also like:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/08/16/convection-venus-thought-experiments-and-tall-rooms-full-of-gas/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1390143
Keep reading that comment until you understand what is being said.
OK, I’m done for the day.
Tyson may be onto something:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
You cult children need so much help.
First, you don’t need to use “[A-word]”, “absorb” works just fine. It’s “absorp.tion” that needs to be properly encoded.
Next, CO2’s 15μ photon can NOT heat the surface. The photon from an ice cube’s peak energy has about 40% more energy than a 15μ photon. You’re trying to warm the surface with something that has less energy than ice.
It’s called “stuck on stupid”.
[PUP, October 31, 2022 at 6:49 PM] Its called stuck on stupid.
[PUP, October 31, 2022 at 2:48 PM] Its called stuck on stupid.
Our sock puppets are stuck on stupid.
It took you 5 minutes to respond, Pup. You’re slipping.
How about finding some more things you don’t understand?
That makes this so much fun.
Pup,
You’re trolling like a silly sock puppet again.
Please stop.
You don’t understand any of this, do you Pup?
You just troll here constantly because you have NOTHING going in your life.
And, you can’t learn.
(Now, let’s see if you can respond within 3 minutes.)
You contribute NOTHING to this blog, Pup.
Sock puppets are usually good at comic relief.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
willard…”If the atmosphere could not intercept (absorb) any of that surface-emitted IR energy, the energy would readily escape to outer space and as a result it has been estimated that the Earths average surface temperature would be only about 0 deg”.
***
We know the process of heat in versus heat out involves far more than radiation. There is a storage mechanism, both in the atmosphere and in the oceans and other water sources. That’s what raises our temperatures above 0C.
I have acknowledged before that the Earth would be a lot cooler if heat in equaled heat out in real time. AGW/GHE believers think a trace gas in the atmosphere makes the difference but I think it is the two gases, nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere that contributes to the main heating.
Lindzen explained how. In the Tropics, it’s obviously much hotter than in other climes. The Sun heats the surface there to high temperatures and that heats the atmosphere directly via conduction. Therefore, the 99 percenters are involved. They retain that heat for long periods of time because they cannot radiate it away. When the heated air rises, it is transported poleward in both directions, where it transfers heat to other area.
The oceans get a lot hotter as well, and ocean currents transport that heat poleward. Therefore, heat is stored in both the atmosphere and oceans. Even in winter, areas like western Europe and the Pacific NW are warmed by ocean currents from the tropics.
In summer, in either hemisphere, the solar heating of the surface and oceans extends much farther north and/or south.
No need for an AGW or GHE explanation, there is a very natural explanation.
C’mon, Gordo:
Dick believes that gases which absorb infrared radiation (known as greenhouse gases) inhibit radiative cooling of the earths surface and hence increasing greenhouse gases must lead to warming.
He’s no Sky Dragon crank. You are.
Think.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
willard…why are you unable to discuss science without reference to idiots like scienceofdoom? Even an ape could give a better explanation of science than them.
Have you no background of your own to lean on?
Come to think of it, Gordo, I *do* have a question –
Do you know the Principle of Carathodory?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
C’mon, Gordo.
Of course I do:
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2022/10/21/ids-nth-law-of-thermobviousness/
You really should beware your wishes.
That’s a fairly accurate rendition of what your cult believes, Pup. But, it’s WRONG.
Absorp.tion is based on compatibility between the absorbing surface and the wavelength of the arriving photon. All photons do NOT get absorbed. Your cult beliefs lead to the false concept that ice cubes can boil water.
Your cult is anti-science, as you are. You don’t understand any of this, and you can’t learn.
Pup,
I am sure Jeff will appreciate your visit just as much as you will appreciate reading a bit more about Jeff. He loves trolls who throw in irrelevant factoids. You might even realize that he actually is on your side on most things.
Go get him, sock puppet!
That’s good, Pup.
You’re the Pup here, Pup.
Silly sock puppet who trolls with nothing in his hands.
At least Graham tries to intimate things.
That’s okay, Pup.
I’m aware you don’t understand any of the science.
Again, your response time is slipping. Anything longer than 3 minutes is unacceptable.
Procrustes was better at trolling than you, sock puppet Pup –
He contributed SOMETHING to human history.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
willard…”The radiation impinges on a surface capable of absorbing radiation, therefore energy must transfer”.
***
The Earth’s surface is capable of absorbing radiation from the Sun because the Sun is much hotter than the surface. That respects the 2nd law.
The 2nd ***LAW*** is very simple. It is absolute, there are no modifications related to net energy. It states clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body.
No exceptions, Willard.
Quantum theory from Bohr confirmed the 2nd law by stipulating that the frequency of the absorbed EM has to match the angular frequency of an electron to excite it to a higher energy level. Such a frequency of EM is not possible from a cooler body.
I realize this is wasted on you. I am stating it for a third party who might like to see a scientific rebuttal of your pseudo-science.
Come on, Gordo.
We are not in a steam engines world anymore. In classical thermo the Second Law is not even a law. It is a definition. Laws are symmetrical. Ludwig could not prove the arrow of time. He had to posit it. If the universe had to obey to your interpretation of the law, life on Earth would not be possible. And the universe would stand alone, without the need for an improbability drive machine or some kind of event to shake its entropy.
It is all about heat capacity anyway. Look at the equation. Meditate on it.
Heat is added to the Earth system. It performs work. That work transforms the atmosphere. Climate changes.
Stop repeating yourself and try to think.
Gordon,
“Quantum theory from Bohr confirmed the 2nd law by stipulating that the frequency of the absorbed EM has to match the angular frequency of an electron to excite it to a higher energy level.”
Bohr’s theory stipulated no such thing.
Remember that according to Bohr’s theory of the Hydrogen atom, the hydrogen atom in it’s ground state could absorb more than one specific wavelength of light. Remember all the series Lyman, Paschen, Balmer, and the rest?
So there’s no matching to the angular frequency of the electron, whatever that means.
And
“Such a frequency of EM is not possible from a cooler body.”
And further more, the second law only applies to macroscopic events, it doesn’t work with respect to individual atoms and one on one encounters, that’s what upset Boltzmann.
That’s not true either, a cool body emits a spectrum of radiation, including higher energy photons.
Gordon remains wrong that 2LOT states clearly that heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body.
2LOT for any real process is actually: 2. Universe entropy increases
About what I asked up-thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1390143
Please bear in mind, I was asking how hot could the atmosphere get. Thats the atmosphere, not the surface.
Not the surface. OK?
Now, some people might think the surface could only get to 255 K. Thats wrong, anyway, because an atmosphere devoid of GHGs would also be devoid of clouds. No water vapor, no clouds can form. No cloud cover, the albedo will be lower than 0.3, so the surface temperature would be higher than 255 K…in fact it would be above freezing…
…but that is all besides the point, because I was talking about the atmosphere, and not the surface. Just to stress that one more time: the atmosphere, not the surface.
Not the surface.
“if the atmosphere cannot efficiently radiate, because it contains no GHGs…how hot will the atmosphere get?”
Much cooler than last few annual periods.
The optical opacity of the global atm. would decrease to much nearer IR transparency. At steady state equilibrium the near surface atm. bottom of troposphere lapse rate temperature would be close to in balance with global irradiance 240 in TOA & 241 out bottom of troposphere.
Remember, no GHGs, means no water vapor, which doesn’t mean no cloud cover, just means all water has condensed into water droplets. The albedo would remain unchanged as surface ice would increase while atm. reflection would decrease same amount.
With L & O surface natural avg. emissivity of about 0.98, I’ll let problem poser DREMT compute an est. for the cooler bottom of the atm. lapse rate steady state global mean temperature.
“Remember, no GHGs, means no water vapor, which doesn’t mean no cloud cover, just means all water has condensed into water droplets”
No, Ball4.
https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/clouds/cloud_development/clouds.htm
“Clouds are formed when air contains as much water vapor (gas) as it can hold.”
No GHGs means no water vapor in the first place, which means no cloud cover. So the albedo would be much lower, and the surface would not be below freezing.
“At steady state equilibrium the near surface atm. bottom of troposphere lapse rate temperature would be close to in balance with global irradiance…”
You’re not omniscient, Ball4. You can’t just declare this without showing your work. The only way to possibly know what the temperature of the atmosphere would be is to work out how hot it would get during the day, when warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surface, but unable to efficiently cool by radiation; and compare it to how much it would cool from that temperature at night, via conduction back to the surface. Radiation will not factor into it, so there are no easy answers I’m afraid.
“The only way to possibly know what the temperature of the atmosphere would be..”
No DREMT, there is another very commonly known method in meteorology using the 1LOT consistent with 2LOT entropy increase at steady state T and I’ve already given you enough information already to compute the answer.
So, again, I’ll let problem poser DREMT learn about meteorology to compute an est. for the cooler bottom of the atm. lapse rate steady state global mean temperature instead of me spoon feeding the computation.
DREMT’s original problem was just no GHGs & not what happened “in the first place”; DREMT doesn’t need to cancel evaporation/condensation to get a solution as they are equal and opposite over time in a steady state energy budget balance.
Ball4 is just waving his hands. That’s fine, I’ll ignore him.
Well said, B4.
Also, good idea to let Graham stew in his own juice.
That’s OK, I’ll just ignore Little Willy also.
“…No cloud cover, the albedo will be lower than 0.3…”
What do you want the albedo to be in this thought experiment?
Here’s an example of a clear day in the Nevada desert. I calculate a ground albedo of ~0.22. https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6363b32b2cd44.pdf
“…but that is all besides the point, because I was talking about the atmosphere, and not the surface…”
The dry adiabatic lapse rate of 10K/Km is independent of radiative cooling, so surface temperature does matter.
Considering the day/night cycle, the lowest air layers will be warmed from below and rise expanding adiabatically. This rise will stop when the air has cooled to below ambient temperature and fall back down.
Convection will be very limited.
I was thinking of using a similar albedo to the moon, e.g:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation
“If we wish to estimate what the temperature of the Earth would be if it had no atmosphere, then we could take the albedo and emissivity of the Moon as a good estimate. The albedo and emissivity of the Moon are about 0.1054[49] and 0.95[50] respectively, yielding an estimated temperature of about 1.36 °C.”
“The dry adiabatic lapse rate of 10K/Km is independent of radiative cooling…”
…and it applies to the atmosphere. You want to include the surface as part of the atmosphere, but you can’t. You have this idea of what the surface temperature is constrained to, and you want to say that this will also apply to the atmosphere, but the temperature of the atmosphere is entirely dependent on how much conduction and convection will warm it in the daylight, vs. how much it can cool by conduction when the sun goes down. Its only limits are how hot the surface can get during the day vs. how cold it gets at night. There is no reason why the bottom of the atmosphere couldn’t work out to be warmer than the 1.36 C, on average. We just don’t know…because no-one has ever tried to calculate it, as far as I can tell.
Not sure how you conclude that convection would be limited.
DREMT, you are wrong, there is no net global warming or cooling by convection/conduction over a decade as there are just as many updrafts as downdrafts along the ideal dry or natural lapse rate in the troposphere.
As opposed to Ball4’s straw man, here is what is actually being said:
“In the day, the heated surface will be exposed to radiation from the Sun far in excess of 1,000 W/m^2. Remember, no GHGs, means no water vapor, which means no cloud cover. Heat will be transferred to the N2/O2 via conduction and convection. How hot the atmosphere gets on average will depend on how much it can cool, at night. At night, the surface is no longer heated…but also, the atmosphere still cannot efficiently radiate. Heat could be transferred back from the atmosphere to the surface, once the surface has cooled below the temperature of the atmosphere above it.
So it all depends on how fast and to what extent the atmosphere can warm in the day, vs. how fast and to what extent the atmosphere can cool at night.
In the day, we have conduction plus convection as warming mechanisms for the atmosphere, and no real cooling mechanism.
At night, we have conduction back to the surface as a cooling mechanism.”
DREMT’s 8:33 am is again all based on false & inaccurate premises. Clouds are not vapor, they are made of visible water droplets so no GHGs in clouds that can be seen & consistent with what DREMT posed 12:18 pm.
After DREMT passes a 1st college course in meteorology, DREMT will be able to compute an est. for the cooler bottom of the atm. lapse rate steady state global mean temperature DREMT earlier posed rather than me spoon feeding the energy balance computation.
Ball4: there are no clouds in my thought experiment. Thank you.
Wrong, DREMT. Here’s what your thought experiment was as proposed: “Thats wrong, anyway, because an atmosphere devoid of GHGs would also be devoid of clouds.”
An atm. “devoid of GHGs” is not devoid of clouds because clouds are not gas. Clouds are made of liquid water. If DREMT had studied meteorology as instructed, DREMT would have not made such an egregious mistake.
Btw, I see DREMT has been fired now that a new emergency moderator has been installed, one that can really snip Dug. So, can go back to calling DREMT the sock just plain original Joe.
From my source further upthread:
“Clouds are formed when air contains as much water vapor (gas) as it can hold.”
No water vapor, no clouds can form. Simple.
No, I’m not Postma. Lol.
As proposed, 12:18 pm the thought experiment had formed all the clouds it could because as proposed the atm. had condensed all the water vapor into clouds since as stated there exists “an atmosphere devoid of GHGs”.
The former DREMT remains mistaken and Joe doesn’t know enough about basic meteorology to compute the resulting now lower troposphere lapse rate starting temperature as was foreseen.
No water vapor, no clouds can form. Simple.
No, I am not Postma. Lol.
The remaining clouds formed by removing (i.e. condensing) all the previous water vapor from an atm. now “devoid of GHGs” thus cooler. It’s really pretty simple, Joe was egregiously mistaken there would be no clouds in Joe’s own thought experiment.
What is the new lower troposphere devoid of GHGs starting global mean T, Joe? Don’t know how to compute it by 1LOT consistent with 2LOT? That was then truly foreseen.
Graham is not Joe, B4.
Joe is no Mood Dragon crank, and both live 6 hours apart. Next week it will be 7 hours when Alberta will return to EST.
That particular commenter is now the ex-DREMT having been recently replaced. Joe screenname disappeared at the time of the great banning for writing exactly the same wrong atm. physics stuff as the now replaced DREMT.
My own bet is that Graham drank the Sky Dragon crank kool-aid flavoured like Joe does it best.
As you can see, Ball4 cannot be reasoned with on any subject.
Ok. If I use your value of 0.1054 for albedo, and zero GHE, I get a mean global surface temperature of 271.01K (-2.14C).
If your thought-experiment-Earth still has oceans and sea ice you can see why your proposed albedo would be too low.
” There is no reason why the bottom of the atmosphere couldn’t work out to be warmer than the 1.36 C, on average.”
Conservation of energy is the reason. Energy in = Energy out. The lower atmosphere will warm by conduction via contact with the surface.
“Not sure how you conclude that convection would be limited.”
Dry (no water vapor in the air) adiabatic expansion guarantees that the rising air cools down at a rate that is faster than that of its surroundings. Since the rising air always expands to the same pressure of its surroundings, it also becomes denser and stops rising. This is the definition of a stable atmosphere.
“If we wish to estimate what the temperature of the Earth would be if it had no atmosphere, then we could take the albedo and emissivity of the Moon as a good estimate. The albedo and emissivity of the Moon are about 0.1054[49] and 0.95[50] respectively, yielding an estimated temperature of about 1.36 °C.”
Not that the surface temperature is particularly relevant.
“Conservation of energy is the reason. Energy in = Energy out.”
…but we are not violating conservation of energy to note that an atmosphere which can be warmed, but which cannot efficiently cool, might well end up warmer on average than the surface below.
“The lower atmosphere will warm by conduction via contact with the surface.”
…exactly…but it cannot radiate (cool) very efficiently. It can be warmed, but cannot real cool. Now you are getting it. Convection just assists the warming of more of the atmosphere than could be warmed without it. There would also be advection.
[TYSON] The lower atmosphere will warm by conduction via contact with the surface.
[GRAHAM] Exactly.
[ALSO GRAHAM] At night, we have conduction back to the surface.
Yes, I’d thought of everything. Thanks, Little Willy. Of course, if you don’t think that there would be conduction from the atmosphere back to the surface, at night, then there is really no way for the GHG-free atmosphere to cool at all. In which case, it would just get warmed, and never cool. It would get very warm indeed, in that case.
It took a few days, but Graham finally spelled out what he meant when he said that without greenhouse gases there would be no way for radiation to get out of the system.
There would be a way for radiation to get out of the Earth system, Little Willy. I have not said otherwise. Radiation can leave the system directly from the surface. However, the GHG-free atmosphere itself can only be warmed by conduction/convection from the surface, and cannot efficiently radiate due to lack of GHGs. So the GHG-free atmosphere can by warmed, but not efficiently cool.
[GRAHAM] Id thought of everything.
[ALSO GRAHAM] You are not omniscient. Show your homework.
Oh, wow…talk about desperate.
"I’d thought of everything" was said with tongue firmly in cheek.
” It can be warmed, but cannot real cool.”
Now you are just being silly.
It is called the day/night cycle: https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6363b32b2cd44.pdf
The GHG-free atmosphere can be warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surface below it during the day, but it cannot efficiently cool via radiation during the day or night. I’m not being silly, you’re just ignoring everything I’ve said.
[GRAHAM] Radiation can leave the system directly from the surface.
[ALSO GRAHAM] CO2 helps cool the atmosphere, by radiating IR to space.
Every. Single. Time.
Yes, every single time you try to find a contradiction or problem where there is none. You just throw two quotes together, seemingly at random, completely divorced from their original context, and hope that people will think "oooh, there’s a contradiction there".
Graham may never realize that convection and conduction will never compensate for the radiation that goes out of the system unless he comes out with something that would replace the greenhouse effect.
With some imagination, he could handwave to aerosols. But no, he has to armwave with collisions of non-radiative gases that hold to their energy.
Because, when you hold your energy, something something.
And when there’s heat conduction, something something.
And heat *could* escape but it won’t without greenhouse gases, because something something.
All this is quite ridiculous.
Little Willy, why don’t you just admit that you have absolutely no understanding of my arguments, whatsoever?
Willard does understand, as do I, that some of the former DREMT’s comments are simply wrong. Read a good college text on meteorology, Joe, until understood.
Will Graham finally admit that he has no real homework to show for himself, only a not well thought insinuation that an atmosphere without greenhouse gases would magically make the planet *above freezing* and that his ma fully transparent atmosphere might only escape a runaway state by emitting to space *even though* that is usually the role he reserves for greenhouses gases in his cranky universe.
What he calls an argument is just spaghetti programming turned to to words.
OK, I am done for the day.
1) Using your albedo of 0.1054 the mean global surface temperature is 271.01K (-2.14C).
2) The dry adiabatic lapse rate is 10 K/Km. Therefore the tropospheric temperature profile is: 271.01-10*Height.
3) The lowest air layer is warmed by conduction from the surface and its initial temperature and pressure are 271.01K and 1003mb.
4) Combining the 1st Law and the Ideal Gas Law we know the temperature profile of the rising air as it expands adiabatically.
5) Convection is limited by 2 and 4 above being practically identical.
6) If on the other hand you have latent heat to warm the rising air, it would create a moist lapse rate that is smaller than the dry lapse rate. But that’s not possible in this situation.
Ah, we are at the “repeating ourselves” stage. In which case, I repeat these comments:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1390143
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1391349
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1391421
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1391500
…and I rest my case. Until we know how hot the GHG-free atmosphere can get in the day vs. how cold it gets at night, we are not in a position to say what its average temperature would be.
“Until we know how hot the GHG-free atmosphere can get in the day vs. how cold it gets at night, we are not in a position to say what its average temperature would be.”
You keep saying we, but you are the only one struggling with this.
Unknowable does not equal incalculable. It is a [loosely formulated] thought experiment after all, not a case study. It’s just physics!
I agree Tyson, if the ex-DREMT would study up on a basic meteorology text to end the struggles, then Joe would learn there exists a 1LOT energy balance method to be in a position to reasonably estimate what its global multi-annual average lower troposphere lapse rate starting temperature would be with optically thin atm. in the problem Joe posed at 12:18 pm 11/2.
The problem posed ended up showing the limited expertise of ex-DREMT in understanding basic physics principles.
Yeah, right. They always have the answers…they’re just never willing to share them for one reason or another. Strange that.
Graham always ends up without any explicit argument.
No greenhouse gases, no the radiation gets straight out. Or not, for the process could be inefficient without CO2. And some heat will be transferred to the atmosphere by convection and conduction, which will be kept there because non radiative gases hold on to its energy. And head will be conducted back to Earth. But it is not backconduction, because the day is not the night.
No connection in that story makes any sense. It is only meant for his usual back and forth that ends up in whining or his usual fixed point.
Yes, we have already established that you never understand any of my arguments. Nobody is surprised, because you have no physics understanding. Others get it, which is all that matters.
Others do get it that ex-DREMT’s physics understanding is mostly wrong since ex-DREMT is admitting doesn’t know how to use 1st principles of energy balance to solve own problem of thin optical atm. for global atm. lapse rate starting T & will never work to increase ex-DREMT physics understanding. Pity.
However, ex-DREMT does provide funny entertainment around here.
Obvious troll Ball4/Trick does his thing.
Yes Graham once again whines about being misunderstood.
He always repeats the same things. He always omits to connects the dots he draws. He is always misrepresented by everybody.
Poor Graham.
Little Willy says that he does not understand, then when I agree that he always misunderstands, he falsely accuses me of whining about misrepresentation! An amusing troll.
Graham whines once more instead of providing a complete picture.
Connect the dots lis too useful for his trolling to let go of it.
Scroll up. There is a comment with a link to four other comments. Read them. Everything is explained with crystal clarity. All dots joined.
Graham clearly intimates something when he suggests that a transparent atmosphere would be less efficient than one with greenhouses gases. But what are the implications that he infers?
Crickets.
From meaning to intimation. Always skipping over the second step.
Everything is clearly explained.
Graham provided riddles, nothing that would look like homework.
…verything is clearly explained.
… and wrong.
Ball4 understands but disagrees, Little Willy does not understand. Will Ball4 help Little Willy to understand? Of course not. They will both just troll me.
As you can see, Tyson, the thought experiment is not an exercise about conservation of energy, but an exercise in how to keep the energy out of a conversation.
Perpetual motion that leads nowhere.
See what I mean?
Conduction will indeed be so limited it can basically be ignored, Tyson.
Still fun to see Graham conceptualising back conduction !
Convection will be limited, that is.
As for back conduction:
That is not back-conduction, Little Willy, because presumably at night the surface would be cooler than the atmosphere above it.
Come to think of it, it might be a good idea not to ignore convection.
As for conduction, well, I suppose if one wants to build back conduction it is a must.
Otherwise why bother?
Little Willy, nobody is talking about back-conduction.
[GRAHAM] Nobody is talking about back-conduction.
[ALSO GRAHAM] At night, we have conduction back to the surface
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1392889
I want a pony.
So, what is the thermosphere?
[GRAHAM] Computer, how do we determine atmospheric stability?
[COMPUTER] Stability is determined by comparing the temperature of a rising or sinking air parcel to the environmental air temperature. Imagine the following: at some initial time, an air parcel has the same temperature and pressure as its environment. If you lift the air parcel some distance, its temperature drops by 9.8 Kkm-1, which is the dry adiabatic lapse rate. If the air parcel is colder than the environment in its new position, it will have higher density and tend to sink back to its original position. In this case, the air is stable because vertical motion is resisted. If the rising air is warmer and less dense than the surrounding air, it will continue to rise until it reaches some new equilibrium where its temperature matches the environmental temperature. In this case, because an initial change is amplified, the air parcel is unstable. In order to figure out if the air parcel is unstable or not we must know the temperature of both the rising air and the environment at different altitudes.
http://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/atmo/chapter/chapter-5-atmospheric-stability/
Are clouds water vapor?
Why do we have both the stratosphere and the troposphere?
What would happen if our current atmosphere had no convection at all?
How can we estimate the temperature profile of an atmosphere in which no radiation ever gets absorbed?
What does *adiabatic* mean?
What is the equation for heat capacity?
Willard at 10:36 AM
All is revealed in this comment> where DREMT appeals to the authority of wiki:
“If we wish to estimate what the temperature of the Earth would be if it had no atmosphere…”
However, his “thought experiment” involved Earth with an atmosphere but no GHGs, not Earth without an atmosphere!
In both cases the surface temperature is fixed by the radiation balance between incoming shortwave and outgoing IR radiation, but in the case of Earth with an atmosphere the temperature declines with altitude in the troposphere.
Yes, the inconvenient truth is that Earth has a fixed dry adiabatic lapse rate.
The dry adiabatic lapse rate depends only on the local gravitational constant and the specific heat of the atmosphere. It is 10 K/Km for Earth, and 4.5 K/Km for Mars, for example.
The dry adiabatic lapse rate is the rate at which the air would cool with altitude if there were neither water vapor condensation nor GHG radiation.
Nothing is “revealed”, Tyson. I referred to that Wikipedia article because the calculations for the effective temperature of the Earth using the same albedo as the moon and an emissivity of 0.95 yield a temperature value above freezing. That is all. You are reading something into it that isn’t there.
The lapse rate is not “an inconvenient truth”. It has nothing to do with my point. You have no reason to assume that the temperature at the very bottom of the atmosphere will be the same as what is calculated for the effective temperature. It could well be much, much higher, then decline with height according to the lapse rate.
The basic facts remain – the atmosphere without GHGs can warm more efficiently than it can cool. So there is no reason for it not to be warmer at the bottom on average than the calculated effective temperature.
For this “thought experiment,” the calculated uniform temperature of the Earth without GHGs, which balances the solar input against radiative loss, is ~271.01K.
DREMT claims without proof (i.e., an opinion) that, accounting for day/night differences, “there is no reason for it not to be warmer at the bottom on average than the calculated effective temperature.”
The only way for a planet to be radiatively warmer than the incoming sunlight allows, is for some of that thermal radiation to be blocked from leaving. That means the atmosphere must not be transparent to IR.
So, does DREMT support a GHE without GHGs?
"For this “thought experiment,” the calculated uniform temperature of the Earth without GHGs, which balances the solar input against radiative loss, is ~271.01K."
For the 10th time, the effective temperature of the Earth without GHGs (assuming an albedo the same as the moon’s, and an emissivity of 0.95) is 274.51 K, or 1.36 C. This is not a "calculated uniform temperature of the Earth", this is the effective temperature.
"The only way for a planet to be radiatively warmer than the incoming sunlight allows, is for some of that thermal radiation to be blocked from leaving. That means the atmosphere must not be transparent to IR."
It’s nothing to do with radiation, that’s where you’re going wrong, right from the start. We’re talking about the temperature of the atmosphere without GHGs. Without GHGs, the atmosphere cannot be warmed by radiation. The radiation from the surface passes straight through it. The radiation from the Sun passes straight through it. The atmosphere is warmed by conduction/convection from the surface, and cannot radiatively cool.
“This is not a ‘calculated uniform temperature of the Earth’, this is the effective temperature.”
Since all the emission takes place at the surface you can call it anything you want.
“The atmosphere is warmed by conduction/convection from the surface, and cannot radiatively cool.”
Conduction and convection are two separate processes.
The air layer in contact with the surface is warmed by conduction. Higher layers cool at the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
There is no water vapor in the atmosphere to contribute any sensible and latent heats (hence the dry in dry adiabatic). Any convection would be limited to localized thermals, and not wide enough to influence the average temperature.
I’ll just keep repeating myself, then, since that’s all you’re doing. You’ve not said anything that either:
a) refutes the point I’m making.
b) demonstrates that you even understand the point I’m making.
…if the atmosphere cannot efficiently radiate, because it contains no GHGs, but it is still being warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surface below, then the atmosphere is being warmed, but cannot really cool very efficiently. So, how hot will the atmosphere get?
In the day, the heated surface will be exposed to radiation from the Sun far in excess of 1,000 W/m^2. Remember, no GHGs, means no water vapor, which means no cloud cover. This extreme heat will be transferred to the N2/O2 via conduction and convection. How hot the atmosphere gets on average will depend on how much it can cool, at night. At night, the surface is no longer heated…but also, the atmosphere still cannot efficiently radiate. Heat could be transferred back from the atmosphere to the surface, once the surface has cooled below the temperature of the atmosphere above it.
So it all depends on how fast and to what extent the atmosphere can warm in the day, vs. how fast and to what extent the atmosphere can cool at night.
In the day, we have conduction plus convection as warming mechanisms for the atmosphere, and no real cooling mechanism.
At night, we have conduction back to the surface as a cooling mechanism.
Note that radiation is not involved in the warming or cooling of the atmosphere itself. So, radiation-based calculations, such as the effective temperature calculation, tell us nothing about what the temperature of the atmosphere could be.
I just told you there is no convection to speak of.
Conduction is limited to the air layer contacting the ground.
1,000 W/m^2? At which latitude? What hour of the day? For how long? Unless you’re dealing with a flat earth, are you? Don’t you see how silly that is!
Last but not least, let the record show that you now are saying that the GHE is 288-274.51= 13.49ZK. Still short of the actual 33K GHE, but a long way from your previous emphatic “no GHE.“
1,000 W/m^2? A surface temperature of 274.51K emits ~310 W/m^2 so the net heat input is 690 W/m^2 before adjusting for latitudinal and zenith angle differences.
Unless you’re thinking of a flat Earth. Are you?
Gordo does not always plays riddles, but when he does he’s making a point, a point he even claims is explicit.
Because that’s how we play riddles.
Oh dear, Tyson is completely losing it.
Tyson, the Earth isn’t flat. I’m talking about the theoretical maximum that parts of the planet receive. Without any cloud cover, it’s going to be high, e.g. (from Wikipedia again, article "Stefan-Boltzmann Law"):
"Another interesting question is to ask what the temperature of a blackbody surface on the earth would be assuming that it reaches equilibrium with the sunlight falling on it. This of course depends on the angle of the sun on the surface and on how much air the sunlight has gone through. When the sun is at the zenith and the surface is horizontal, the irradiance can be as high as 1120 W/m2.[15] The Stefan–Boltzmann law then gives a temperature of 375 K or 102 C."
I’m not saying there’s a GHE…
…and I disagree that there would be no convection.
GordoGraham does not always plays riddles, but when he does he’s making a point, a point he even claims is explicit.Because that’s how we play riddles.
No riddles here. The point has been clearly made…I guess you have to be intelligent enough to understand it, though.
DREMT at 5:15 PM
“This of course depends on the angle of the sun on the surface…”
Hence my questions: At which latitude? What hour of the day? For how long? Unless youre dealing with a flat earth, are you?
Why I ask? Because the angle (hence the intensity) at which the sun’s radiation strikes the surface varies by cos(θ) from 0 at sunrise to 1 at zenith and back down to 0 at sunset. Certain locations may receive 1,000 W/m^2 at noon during summer, but certainly not the whole earth. Unless you are thinking that the Earth is flat, are you?
I shouldn’t have to explain this!
You obviously did not understand your own wiki quote!
You’re not explaining anything that I wasn’t already well aware of, Tyson.
The sun can warm the surface with radiation well in excess of 1,000 W/m^2. The surface will be much, much warmer in the day than either 255 K or 274.51 K.
The atmosphere will be warmed every day by conduction and convection from this heated surface. Without GHGs, it cannot efficiently cool.
Please let me know how many times I need to repeat myself.
DREMT at 5:15 PM
“I’m not saying there’s a GHE…”
Your own calculations speak for themselves.
You are presently saying that there is a 13.49K GHE using the Moon’s albedo. If you use the Earth’s albedo though, you get to the generally accepted value for GHE of 33K.
No, Tyson, I am not saying there is a GHE of any amount. You are assuming that I think the difference between the effective temperature and the measured global average near-surface temperature is due to a radiative GHE. I do not.
No, not assuming anything.
I’m simply using your own calculations which give a GHE of 13.49K.
…if you assume that the difference between the calculated effective temperature and the measured global average near-surface temperature is due to a radiative GHE. Which I do not.
13.49K is directionally correct for Earth’s GHE so you were on the right track with your “thought experiment.” I give you credit for that.
You only need to work on the albedo because 0.1054 is too low for a planet with ice sheets, glaciers, and sea ice.
Well, 71% of the Earth surface is water, and water has an albedo of 0.02-0.05. So I think my value for albedo was reasonable. However, the effective temperature calculation was not even intended to be part of the thought experiment, it only came up because people were questioning what the albedo would be without GHGs. It is all besides the point really.
— TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
November 6, 2022 at 6:27 PM
DREMT at 5:15 PM
This of course depends on the angle of the sun on the surface
Hence my questions: At which latitude? What hour of the day? For how long? Unless youre dealing with a flat earth, are you?–
At equinox [About march 20 and Sept 20 and when sun at 90 degrees about horizon, zenith].
At 15 degrees latitude {north or south] and also at noon, the sun is 75 degrees above horizon. 30 degree: 60 degrees. 45 degree latitude:
45 degrees above horizon. Etc.
At equator at Equinox, you have 6 hours of peak solar hours:
at 11 am and 1 pm the sun 15 degree away from zenith.
At 10 am and 2 pm the sun is 30 degrees away from zenith
At 9 am and 3 pm sun is 45 degrees away from zenith.
Two things affect how much sunlight is heating a level surface.
One of the things can observed by the amount shadow created by a vertical pole. When near or at zenith, there no shadow, when 45 degree from zenith, it’s 1.14 the times of pole height. Which means sunlight is smeared over more surface area or less sunlight be square meter. But point at sunlight [not level] it’s not smear over greater area. And 30 degree above horizon, the shadow is 2 times the height of pole or level surface gets 1/2 as much watts per square meter.
The other factor is the amount atmosphere the sunlight travels thru- at 30 degree above horizon, the sun travels thru twice as much atmosphere and more sunlight is reflected into space.
And when sunlight is below 30 degree it continues to progressively to worsen.
The amount of GHGs [or dust or whatever] effect how direct sunlight gets thru 1 atm and effect is doubling going 2 atm [30 degree above horizon]. And does not effect the first thing.
With ocean whether sunlight is direct or indirect doesn’t matter in terms of warming the ocean. Low angle sunlight of say 30 degree horizon, is effected by 2 things, but sunlight warms the top surface of the ocean more. Or said differently, sun at zenith heats ocean to greater depth. Anyhow, the shallower heating of ocean surface water has significant “climate/weather effects”. In terms land, if land facing south and sloped, the land gets more warmth from sunlight:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_exposure_(terminology)
[Or if on the backside of hill- not very good when in higher latitudes.]
[T] You are presently saying that there is a 13.49K GHE using the Moon’s albedo. If you use the Earth’s albedo though, you get to the generally accepted value for GHE of 33K.
[G] You are assuming that I think the difference between the effective temperature and the measured global average near-surface temperature is due to a radiative GHE. I do not.
[T] I’m simply using your own calculations which give a GHE of 13.49K.
[G] If you assume that the difference between the calculated effective temperature and the measured global average near-surface temperature is due to a radiative GHE. Which I do not.
[T] 13.49K is directionally correct for Earth’s GHE so you were on the right track with your “thought experiment.”
[G] The albedo only came up because people were questioning what the albedo would be without GHGs. It’s besides the point, really.
[NARRATOR] Two questions then spring to mind:
Q1. If the 13.49K is not the greenhouse effect, then what does it come from?
Q2. What was Graham’s point, really?
A1) The 13.49 K is the difference between the calculated effective temperature of the Earth without GHGs and the measured global average near-surface temperature of the Earth. As opposed to the 33 K difference between the calculated effective temperature of the Earth with GHGs and the measured global average near-surface temperature of the Earth. The 13.49 K difference without GHGs is lower because without GHGs, and thus clouds, the albedo is lower, so the effective temperature is higher.
A2) My point is that without GHGs, the atmosphere cannot be warmed or cooled via radiation, so radiation-based calculations like the effective temperature calculation do not apply to the temperature of the atmosphere. The average temperature found at the bottom of the GHG-free atmosphere thus depends on how how hot it can get via conduction and convection from the heated surface during the day, vs. how cold it can get via conduction to the cooling surface during the night. Since the atmosphere can be warmed more efficiently than it can cool, there is no reason that the average temperature at the bottom of the GHG-free atmosphere might not be much warmer than the calculated effective temperature.
The dreamland of ex-DREMT:
“without GHGs, and thus clouds,” is wrong since clouds are not GHGs.
“without GHGs, the atmosphere cannot be warmed or cooled via radiation” is wrong since massive quantities of atm. N2,O2 do radiate toward space and toward the surface.
The warming would be less during the day and surface cooling higher at night direct to space with an optically thin atm. as shown in textbooks making ex-DREMT wrong.
Once again:
https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/clouds/cloud_development/clouds.htm
“Clouds are formed when air contains as much water vapor (gas) as it can hold.”
No GHGs means no water vapor in the first place, which means no cloud cover.
You can argue whether N2/O2 can radiate with Tyson, who argues that it can’t.
“The warming would be less during the day and surface cooling higher at night direct to space”
We are not talking about the surface, we are talking about the atmosphere.
See what I mean?
Graham once again wrote lots of words not hide non answers.
In his first he is supposed to replace an *effect*.
In his second he is supposed to state a positive point, not a negative one.
Wrong again ex-DREMT 7:25 am, no GHGs means all water vapor has condensed into liquid droplets (clouds) in the first place, which means cloud cover remains with an optically thin atm..
Ball4 is obviously wrong, and cannot be reasoned with.
Graham does not get B4s humor.
Oh well.
Little Willy does not get that Ball4 is serious.
Oh well.
> a GHE without GHGs?
Of course that’s where Graham is goind, Tyson.
Why do you think he holds to non-radiative gases?
He’s already moved from “no GHE“ to, yes to the GHE, but only 13.49K.
Completely wrong, Tyson. My position has never changed. You’re just hopelessly confused.
Don’t forget, Tyson: Graham does not believe in the greenhouse effect, but he believes in backradiation!
He believes the whole Earth receives “far in excess of 1,000 W/m^2” during the day. He believes the Earth is flat!
No, he does not. God, you people are pathetic.
Most Sky Dragon cranks don’t believe in backconduction.
And yet:
[GRAHAM] At night, we have conduction back to the surface.
Just like most of the people who don’t believe there’s a GHE.
Most Sky Dragon cranks dont believe in backconduction, yet:
[GRAHAM] At night, we have conduction back to the surface.
Back-conduction would be conduction going against the temperature gradient. Conduction from the atmosphere to the surface goes with the temperature gradient if the atmosphere is warmer than the surface, at night.
What I like best about cloudless nights is how warm they are.
The warmth leaves the Earth, warms the non radiative gases in the atmosphere, which both hold to their energy and conduct some of it back to it to the Earth, keeping it warm above freezing, at least at place with low albedo. Albedo is the unsung hero of the thermal conductivity of non radiative gases.
If nights were longer they would be warmer still, for the feedback loop would be greater. The inefficiency of the atmosphere to radiate energy out of the system would shine even more. Pun intended.
Yep, Little Willy hasn’t got a clue about any of this…but he keeps commenting anyway.
Deep down Graham knows that he is only trolling us and that his bait has not worked.
I’m not trolling anyone. I’m being trolled, though.
What I like best about conduction is that it allows the Earth to cool off while keeping the surface warm at night.
^^ Trolling ^^
Also, Tyson –
Do not forget that this conduction that warms back the surface comes from non radiative gases, which are the only gases comprising this weird atmosphere.
And you know how non radiative gases are the best conductors in the world. They hold to their energy so well that they immediately transfer energy through their particles.
Let us hope Graham thought of dispensing his imaginary atmosphere with lots of hydrogen and helium!
DREMT’s “thought experiment” jumped the shark several days ago.
It hasn’t been time wasted though since he now agrees, by his own reckoning, that there is in fact a GHE. This back-conduction-to-warm-the-surface business is a bridge too far.
There is no back-conduction. Thanks for proving that you don’t understand, Tyson.
No GHE.
DREMT keeps trying to make the surface warmer than the calculated uniform equilibrium temperature. Problem is that the warmer the surface gets, the more heat that is radiated to space.
DREMT’s 375 K case for example, radiates 3.5 times more heat than my 274.51 K.
At night DREMT is further heating the surface by “Conduction from the atmosphere to the surface” thus compounding the radiative negative feedback that is making his “thought experiment” even cooler.
The fact that DREMT offered no justification for any of his assertions is irrelevant. DREMT’s Earth without GHGs is spiraling into a snowball.
Tyson,
Did you know that without conduction a planet can never cool off?
Ask Graham for details.
"DREMT keeps trying to make the surface warmer than the calculated uniform equilibrium temperature. Problem is that the warmer the surface gets, the more heat that is radiated to space."
Perfectly incorrect, Tyson. You’ve not heard a word I’ve said, apparently. I am not talking about the temperature of the surface. I’m talking about the temperature of the atmosphere.
"At night DREMT is further heating the surface by “Conduction from the atmosphere to the surface” thus compounding the radiative negative feedback that is making his “thought experiment” even cooler."
It’s nothing to do with the surface, Tyson. Again, you have everything perfectly incorrect. Conduction from the atmosphere to the surface at night is a way for the atmosphere to cool. Without it, you have no way for your atmosphere to cool down at all…because you don’t believe that a GHG-free atmosphere can radiate at all.
DREMT at 2:57 PM
“I am not talking about the temperature of the surface. I’m talking about the temperature of the atmosphere.”
Really?
Here’s your complete quote:
I’m not lying, Tyson. My argument is about the temperature of the atmosphere, and not the surface. That you’re getting yourself more and more confused is not really my problem. I have explained myself very clearly throughout.
The fact that the surface temperature at various parts of the globe could be very warm indeed at certain times of the day was worth pointing out because of how the GHG-free atmosphere could be warmed to a high temperature, by conduction and convection from that heated surface, during the day.
You seemed to be acting like the surface would never get above the effective temperature, and that needed correcting. However, my argument remains clear – a GHG-free atmosphere that can be warmed more efficiently than it can cool, is going to get hotter than you might expect.
DREMT at 3:39 PM
“I’m not lying, Tyson”
You’re lying again! Your whole quote was about the temperature of the surface and how it could reach “375 K or 102 C”.
I can put up with a lot of crap, but lying is where I draw the line!
I do not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do.
I don’t really tolerate people falsely accusing me of lying, Tyson, but there you go. I’ll let you off, because I’m in a good mood.
I literally just explained to you why I made that comment.
Now…Tyson, scroll up to my comment of November 2, 2022 at 12:18 PM. Read what it says. Come back here and apologize, whenever you’re ready.
> The other interesting question
What was the first question again, Tyson?
Whenever you’re ready, Tyson.
“It is 10 K/Km for Earth”
The depth of ocean is:
3.7 kilometers and times 10 = 37 C cooler at present sea level after ocean has been removed.
I have said 70% of earth surface is ocean and because it’s 70% [without considering other factors] is controls global surface air temperature.
Following same “rule” the ocean basin temperature controls global temperature at “sea level”.
The hottest air temperature would be in the deepest parts of the ocean basin. But also the deepest parts of ocean receives the least sunlight. One might want to look at a large portion of the ocean which receives “more” sunlight.
On any planet it receives the most sunlight in region near it’s equator and because earth has tilt of about 23.5 degrees, we call the region between 23.5 degrees, north and south, the tropics.
Mars tropics is about 24 degrees. And we tend to not use term tropics
for our Moon [with it’s 1.5 degree tilt- why not just say, near the lunar equator].
And the Pacific is largest ocean basin and largest tropical ocean- you might look at the pacific ocean topographical map.
But without doing that, when Mediterranean sea dried up it’s lower basin area had an air temperature of about 80 C. Which was warmed warmed land surface surrounding the sea- and that happened during cold times of glacial periods.
If assume say at 4000 meters below sea level is was 80 C, “sea level” would 40 C.
Other looking largest area which warm, one could look at large area where it’s cold.
So we might say tropical ocean basin part gets more than 1/2 of the sunlight reaching the entire Earth surface, but northern and southern part of Pacific basin could getting hardly any sunlight- in deeper part, far less sunlight than UK and Germany currently get- and without Gulf stream warming them, they would have average yearly temperature of about 0 C.
So without any warming from deep tropical basin [which could be 80 C or even more] the northern southern could has average air temperature of say -20 C, and perhaps the tropics part makes it 0 C. And maybe 4000 meter is 60 C rather than 80, giving sea level temp of 20 C in tropics.
The continental lands areas, are deserts like the rest of world.
And like our deserts they can get hot and cold. But unlike our desert, unless talking about very high deserts, they have less atmosphere above them. So they could get hotter ground temperature but probably not a high air temperature, and they could have much colder nights and winters.
So seems Earth is quite cold, unless you living at bottom of the sea- though there far more “bottom of sea” than we currently have in terms of land area.
And it seems Earth would absorb much less the 240 watt- say at most 200 watts and would emits as much as 200 watts to space, largely from the ground.
> his “thought experiment” involved Earth with an atmosphere but no GHGs, not Earth without an atmosphere!
Alternatively, Graham wants his cake and eat it too.
Little Willy is utterly clueless.
Here’s the big if cake:
[GRAHAM] if the atmosphere cannot efficiently radiate, because it contains no GHGs, but it is still being warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surface below, then the atmosphere is being warmed, but cannot really cool very efficiently.
And here’s where it’s eaten:
[ALSO GRAHAM] Radiation can leave the system directly from the surface.
See what I mean?
The surface will have cooled with an optically thin atm. so too will the atm. at the bottom of the lapse rate. Pity ex-DREMT cannot calculate the simple new surface energy balance.
More vague hand-waving from Ball4/Trick to ignore.
Pity ex-DREMT ignores the atm. radiation energy balance details easily found in textbooks. The basic physics are humorously beyond ex-DREMT’s ability to understand.
More vague hand-waving from Ball4/Trick to ignore.
In fairness, B4, Graham did guesstimate what would happen if the Moon had an atmosphere that consists of non radiative gas.
Is there any reason there are three of you trolling me?
The reason is the fact non-trolls realize ex-DREMT needs correcting so often.
—–
Willard 8:04 am, ex-DREMT doesn’t yet understand the physics well enough to reasonably est. a 1-bar lunar optically thin atm. lapse rate starting temperature.
Yet you haven’t corrected anything.
… in ex-DREMT’s dreamland.
No, Ball4, in reality.
You’re hung up on the albedo issue – whether no GHGs means no water vapor which means no cloud cover, or not. You cannot be reasoned with on that subject, so that discussion’s over.
Tyson and Little Willy are confused about the idea of conduction from the atmosphere to the surface, at night. They keep ridiculing that idea. So, OK, for the sake of argument, let’s assume they are correct to ridicule it. Let’s assume there is no conduction from the atmosphere to the surface, at night, with the GHG-free atmosphere scenario. They’ve just done away with a means for the atmosphere to cool down! Tyson assumes the atmosphere cannot radiate at all. In which case, there would be absolutely no way for the atmosphere to cool, either in the day or at night. Yet he agrees the atmosphere can be warmed, via conduction from the surface.
So Tyson, without even understanding it, is arguing for a GHG-free atmosphere that can be warmed, but cannot cool down. In other words, he is arguing for a very, very warm atmosphere indeed.
Little Willy just yaps along in the background.
Perhaps, B4, but do you think our Sky Dragon crank will ever grace us with his theory of the non-radiative gas effect?
DREMT lies like a dog.
As I said yesterday:.
DREMT lies like a dog Part II.
From another of my comments yesterday:
Tyson starts accusing me of lying, yet his own quote shows he agrees that the GHG-free atmosphere can be warmed by conduction from the surface.
Here are Tyson’s beliefs, which I have gathered from reading his comments:
1) The GHG-free atmosphere can be warmed by conduction from the heated surface.
2) The GHG-free atmosphere cannot be warmed or cooled via radiation.
3) The GHG-free atmosphere cannot cool by conduction back to the surface.
Thus he apparently believes the GHG-free atmosphere can be warmed, but cannot cool. So he must believe the GHG-free atmosphere gets very, very warm indeed.
I suspect readers understand the difference between DREMT’s use of “the atmosphere” and my own the air layer contacting the ground.
It’s easy to see how his three-card Monte is hiding the scale with clumsy wordsmithing.
Of course it’s the air layer contacting the ground that is warmed by conduction from the surface, Tyson. Then convection (and advection) helps to spread that energy throughout the atmosphere.
That you are arguing for a very warm atmosphere simply follows from your beliefs.
Now you are adding advection. Your desperation is palpable!
Explain advection in this context.
No desperation here, Tyson. Mostly just repeating stuff I’ve already said, that you apparently never paid attention to the first time.
I’ll explain it in one word – wind. Or are you denying that there would be wind, in a GHG-free atmosphere!?
It has no effect on the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
…the lapse rate has no relevance to my argument. We are looking at what the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere will be. You know – the bit we all live in.
By the way, you disagree with Dr Spencer, who thought the atmosphere would be isothermal without GHGs.
Tyson,
Please wake me up when Graham will be at the backadvection part of his non-greenhouse gas effect story.
Poor Little Willy…there was never even a "back-conduction" part of my argument. He just misunderstood. He never really gets anything right, but still thinks he has a part to play in a discussion. The others enable him by patting him on the back for his idiocies.
Willard at 4:02 PM
DREMT has now switched from the atmosphere to
“We are looking at what the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere will be. You know the bit we all live in.“
A very sad spectacle!
Yes, your ongoing rhetoric, false accusations and misrepresentations are indeed a sad spectacle, Tyson.
Take a deep breath. Stop commenting. Scroll up. Read through everything that’s been said over the last week or so. Think for a few days. Then when you’re ready to admit I’m right, just come back and let me know.
Compare and contrast DREMT’s evolution:
Here he said:
“Please bear in mind, I was asking how hot could the atmosphere get. That’s the atmosphere, not the surface.
Not the surface. OK?
…
…but that is all besides the point, because I was talking about the atmosphere, and not the surface. Just to stress that one more time: the atmosphere, not the surface.
Not the surface.”
Now he says:
“…the lapse rate has no relevance to my argument. We are looking at what the average temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere will be. You know – the bit we all live in.”
Three-card Monte!
Since it is still your “thought experiment,”tell us what you want the thickness of this “bit we all live in” to be.
I know you will soon be running and dodging when it doesn’t go your way, but it’ll be good to have a reference for a future compare and contrast post.
What’s the problem? The surface is the ground, or water, surface. The atmosphere is all the gas above the surface. Clearly I was talking about the bottom of the atmosphere, since that’s the part we live in. It’s still separate from the physical surface itself.
Is it a three cards Monto or a pea and thimble game, Tyson?
Please *do not* tell him about the thermosphere!
Tyson can actually just scroll up to my comment of November 6, 2022 at 11:12 AM, and read where I already said to him:
"The lapse rate is not “an inconvenient truth”. It has nothing to do with my point. You have no reason to assume that the temperature at the very bottom of the atmosphere will be the same as what is calculated for the effective temperature. It could well be much, much higher, then decline with height according to the lapse rate.
The basic facts remain – the atmosphere without GHGs can warm more efficiently than it can cool. So there is no reason for it not to be warmer at the bottom on average than the calculated effective temperature."
So his acting like all this is new to him, and some kind of trick or deception, rings a bit hollow…
Did you know the fact that an atmosphere void of GHGs warmed better than it cooled the surface, Tyson?
Next we will learn the fact that it protects us better from UV than with ozone!
DREMT
I can see what you are saying. I do not agree that the atmosphere would be more efficient warming than cooling with no GHG. During the day the surface would heat via solar input and conduct to the atmosphere (I think Roy would be correct that convection would stop with no GHG). I think at night the surface would rapidly cool losing much more heat via radiant energy directly to space and the atmosphere would cool via conduction back to the cold surface.
I am sure you are correct that without GHG the surface would be warmer than the effective temperature based upon a 30% albedo. If you use the energy budget it shows the surface reflects about 23 W/m^2.
So I think your 13.9 K warmer is correct. Without GHG the surface effective temperature would be warmer than 255 K but still cooler than 288 K. I think the living surface temp would be above freezing so you would not get an ice-ball Earth.
I am not sure why you, seeming intelligent, reject the GHE? It puzzles me as it can easily be seen in actual measured values.
One is the surface temp seems to have an average temperature of 288 K. The radiating temperature of the Earth is 255 K. I am not sure why you reject clear evidence in favor of a lunatic Joe Postma explanation. He is not a rational thinking person. He is a lunatic with a little cult of voices that praise him. I would hope you consider real evidence (which Postma cannot do) and see the GHE is quite real and scientifically verified with measurements. Think about it.
“I can see what you are saying.”
Thanks…I think Ball4 does, too. It is Little Willy and Tyson that have been having enormous difficulty understanding. Perhaps you can help them understand?
“During the day the surface would heat via solar input and conduct to the atmosphere (I think Roy would be correct that convection would stop with no GHG).”
Well, Dr Spencer thinks convection would stop because he thinks the atmosphere would become isothermal without GHGs! The latter part is very much opposed to what Tyson has argued. Maybe you can debate that with him…
“I think at night the surface would rapidly cool losing much more heat via radiant energy directly to space and the atmosphere would cool via conduction back to the cold surface.”
As I have been trying to explain to the others, yes…though “much more heat” is questionable. As I have tried to explain, how hot the atmosphere can get on average over a day/night cycle depends on how efficiently and to what extent it can warm vs. how efficiently and to what extent it can cool. As conduction back to the surface is the only real cooling mechanism for the GHG-free atmosphere, yet it can warm via conduction and convection, I would say it can warm more efficiently and to a greater extent than it can cool.
DREMT
My point would be the atmosphere (being only heated by the surface in your scenario) could only get as warm as the average Surface temperature, it could not get warmer. Rate of conduction is based upon the temperature difference so the colder the surface gets at night the greater rate of heat conduction. I do accept that an Earth with no GHG would be warmer than the effective temperature as calculated by using an albedo 30&. But if the surface was a black body and reflected no solar input it would be warmer at 278 K. But that is still cooler than what the Earth Surface currently averages. So you still need some type of GHE to decrease radiant heat trasfer.
Backradiation does not mean, as you suggested for back conduction, that the flow of heat is reversed. With DWIR you still lose heat from the surface just a lot less than without it.
You do not like the word radiant “insulation” to describe the GHE as in your use of the word an insulator would restrict most of the heat loss. The average effect is surface emits (loses 398 W/m^2) the radiant barrier property of the atmosphere emits 240 to space making it an barrier of 240/398 60%. In your mind maybe insulation should be more effective than that. If you thought of the atmosphere as a medium insulating effect you might agree with the GHE. Adding more CO2 does slightly increase the insulating effect.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
With this tool you can see the calculated increase in DWIR from a doubling of CO2 is around 3.5 W/m^2.
I used Standard atmosphere, chose looking up and set the altitude to 0 which would be what the ground “sees” You can play with other values. This would not be real world as real world is far more complex but it does show with no other mechanisms in play an doubling of CO2 will increase DWIR.
“My point would be the atmosphere (being only heated by the surface in your scenario) could only get as warm as the average Surface temperature, it could not get warmer. Rate of conduction is based upon the temperature difference so the colder the surface gets at night the greater rate of heat conduction.”
…but in the day time, the GHG-free atmosphere would get warmer than the average surface temperature, because the surface, warmed directly by the Sun, will be warmer than the average surface temperature itself. Once again, it depends on how efficiently and to what extent the atmosphere can warm in the day, compared to how efficiently and to what extent the atmosphere can cool at night.
“Meet me in the middle,” says Graham. Norman takes a step towards him. Graham takes a step back. “Meet me in the middle,” repeats Graham.
What will it be when Graham will realize how hot it can get on the Moon during day time?
What will it be when Little Willy and Tyson finally realize I am not trying to trick anyone?
When will Graham admit that the atmosphere could only get as warm as the surface?
I’ve made my position abundantly clear. Not going to spend all day locked into a pointless back and forth about it, either.
Graham has indeed made clear that he is returning to his *second by second* trick to bypass the hard limit coming from the emission side of things.
But when will he admit with Roy and. Norman and Tyson that convection would stop?
Dr Spencer and Norman think convection would stop because they think the atmosphere would be isothermal without GHGs. Tyson does not think the atmosphere would be isothermal without GHGs. Nor does Nick Stokes. Nor does Stephen Wilde.
[TYSON] Dry (no water vapor in the air) adiabatic expansion guarantees that the rising air cools down at a rate that is faster than that of its surroundings. Since the rising air always expands to the same pressure of its surroundings, it also becomes denser and stops rising. This is the definition of a stable atmosphere.
And then Graham wonders why Tyson insists in not conflating the atmosphere with its boundary layer.
[STEPHEN] A radiatively inert atmosphere will still have a convective circulation due to the density induced decline in temperature with height and uneven surface heating.
The same existential trick. Again.
Short sentences. Drama.
[NORMAN] Backradiation does not mean, as you suggested for back conduction, that the flow of heat is reversed.
Additional quotes.
[ALSO NORMAN] You do not like the word radiant insulation to describe the GHE as in your use of the word an insulator would restrict most of the heat loss.
[ALSO NORMAN] I can see what you are saying.
Which is more than could be said for you or Tyson, who have failed to understand my argument the entire time…still not convinced that either of you get it.
Once upon a time, Norman tried to meet Graham in the middle.
Then Graham took a step back and tried to exploit Norman.
Once upon a time, Little Willy decided to label everything DREMT did as bad. He never went back on that decision.
Norman may not bear being exploited like that by Graham.
But if he did not that would prove he is a Very Bad person.
Either way Graham made the world a little better.
Endless, relentless, hyper-critical nonsense from Little Willy.
For a little moment the world was a little less better.
Then Graham responded to my comment.
Now the natural balance between Good and Evil is once again toppled with my comment.
Will Graham restore the world like it once was?
…relentless, hyper-critical nonsense from Little Willy.
Instead of emptying our ocean, could replace the ocean with rock- a vast region covered with flat solid rock, all at “sea level”.
Again tropical region get most of the sunlight- it’s a hot and dry desert which like the Moon doesn’t absorb much sunlight. And has no tropical ocean to be the heat engine of the world.
Tropics is about 40% and rest of world is 60%.
The rest of world will have lower global air temperature. The polar region is very cold [though it’s small region]. Canada, Europe, Russia, and China are much colder than they are now. And southern ocean which now, level rock, at similar latitudes, are just as cold.
The Moon doesn’t reflect much sunlight, it surface doesn’t absorb much sunlight and it have slow rotation.
Earth has atmosphere which can absorb energy from the sunlight and it surface can absorb more heat, and rotation allows more heat to be absorbed.
The Moon’s average temperature is increase a a bit because when sun is near zenith it can be 120 C also a larger area not near zenith can heated over 80 C.
Earth atmosphere can absorb more heat, if it’s cool enough to to be heated.
One could say Earth ground could be heated to 80 C and air to +50 C, but it not going to warm much higher even if tidal locked with the sun [always in sunlight].
Or if tropics was always hot, it will not absorb much sunlight. But it not going to always hot, but if day starts warmer, it’s will not absorb as much compared to cooler.
To determine the Maxinum, one use the ideal conductive blackbody model, but don’t make spherical, make it belt around tropics.
This give amount absorbed, and it can be hotter during the day, but will reduce a bit, how how much it can absorb.
Or one make tropical ocean be made of blackbody surface and solid copper. Which starts the morning at 40 C, it will not absorb as much as compared starting the day at 20 C.
Or the higher the average temperature of tropics, the less it absorbs. [and warmer it is the more it radiates another aspect of it].
Which lead me to issue how much does the tropics absorb, and it seems unless the morning in tropics is quite cool, then Earth doesn’t absorb much sunlight. Or it hot enough, it could absorb less than the Moon.
Earth’s tropical ocean heat engine works best, when you have a cold and dry world, like we currently have.
If we had a more warming world, the tropical ocean warms the rest of world less, and instead, it dumps the heat into space.
Though the average temperature of the tropics can increase, because existing tropical deserts can become forests which can have a higher average temperature. But land area in tropics is small portion of the tropics, and desert land area in tropics is even smaller portion-doesn’t affect average tropical temperature, much.
Global warming is about warming, not about hotter. Global warming is about making pole to tropics a more uniform in temperature. And it’s about making deserts, green.
DREMT at 4:40 PM
“What’s the problem? The surface is the ground, or water, surface. The atmosphere is all the gas above the surface. Clearly I was talking about the bottom of the atmosphere, since that’s the part we live in. It’s still separate from the physical surface itself.”
DREMT is both dishonest and ignorant!
It is clear now that he has been talking about the Planetary Boundary Layer (PBL) and didnt know it(?).
The PBL and the free atmosphere are different environments.
The PBL is that part of the troposphere that is directly influenced by the presence of the earth’s surface and responds to surface forcings with a timescale of about an hour or less. The PBL thickness is variable and ranges from hundreds of meters to a couple of kilometers.
The PBL behaves differently from the free atmosphere. Diurnal variation is one of the key characteristics of the boundary layer over land. The free atmosphere shows little diurnal variation.
So, the question DREMT is asking is:
“how hot will the
atmospherePlanetary Boundary Layer get?” No?"DREMT is both dishonest and ignorant!"
DREMT is neither…but he is getting tired of your abusive attitude. Either clean up your act, or begone. Why do you expect me to join you in a discussion you have been completely unable to follow, whilst you throw false accusations and abuse my way?
Norman understood…you didn’t. That’s on you, not me.
Okay.
If you’re not dishonest then you were ignorant of the fact that you were asking about the PBL and not the free atmosphere.
Either way, all my comments in this discussion have been in reference to the free atmosphere and are therefore accurate and correct.
…so, to be clear, you think Dr Spencer is incorrect.
…and also, to be clear, I think it has been perfectly obvious from my comments what I have been talking about. I think this is just your last-ditch attempt to remedy what has been a disastrous performance from you in this debate.
We are supposed to believe, for instance, that when you ridiculed the idea of conduction from the atmosphere back to the surface at night, you did not understand that I was referring to the atmosphere near the surface!? Sorry, Tyson, but that is just not believable.
Tyson,
Since Graham is too clumsy with his phone to provide a source:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78768
Willard 9:43 am, many assume Dr. Spencer means the atm. will get there (to isothermal) but I do not assume that is his point of “slowly approach”. His point is there will always exist an atm. heat pump even with nil GHGs.
Exactly, B4.
But since Graham only has words to live by, here we are.
Astute commenters will have learned by now, as many learned years ago, much of DREMT’s wording describes DREMT’s dreamland not physical reality.
…in Ball4’s dreamland.
Little Willy left out a sentence:
"So you don’t need to have a radiative flux (or GHG) for lapse rate."
Tyson,
I forgot this sentence:
> It is a heat pump, driving heat down and enhancing a temperature gradient until equilibrium.
Sorry for the omission.
Willard at 11:33 AM
In the spirit of full disclosure it behooves us to reference a temperature profile of the atmosphere when discussing its structure.
I propose this: Atmosphere layers and vertical distribution of temperature.
We don’t want someone (DREMT) confusing the Atmospheric Boundary Layer with the Free Atmosphere again!
Thought experiments seldom end well unless there’s real interest for inquiry, Tyson. Graham only uses them to play riddles. And now that his “second by second” trick is called on, he’s moving on.
You still might like:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78795
You can verify the boundary layer for yourself. On a hot, clear sky Phoenix summer afternoon the temperature of an asphalt road may be 40C or higher. If you are standing on such a road, your feet will be at 40C but your nose may be sniffing air at 35C (or less).
The distance from your feet to your nose is of order 1 meter. Thus the lapse rate is order 5C/m or 5000C/km, ~500 times the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
Additional sentence.
[GRAHAM] I’m done
[ALSO GRAHAM] Additional sentence.
I’m done arguing with Tyson, is what I meant. The comment didn’t post in the right place. It was meant to be a direct reply to his 11:32 AM abuse.
Additional sentence.
Sure, but I’ll always be having an additional one.
That’s how Graham reveals he’s having a little inconsequential fun.
So much fun that he needs to come back and PST old threads.
You’re the one having fun, remember? You said so in your "Mind Your Units" travesty.
[GRAHAM] I’m just having a bit of fun.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-679401
"With both sadness and joy I must report that the Sky Dragons {1} invaded Roy’s.
Joy, because I’m having fun. As an editor friend observed (pers. corr.): this place looks like the perfect Thunderdome for you. She’s not wrong. To follow the comments I reinstalled an RSS reader, like the good ol’ times at Judy’s."
– Little Willy
October 11, 2022 at 11:13 AM:
Of course I am having fun, Little Willy. Why the hell do you think people comment here. Because they are paid? Because they want to practice mindful politeness?
You goose.
Graham will always be having an additional one.
For the fun of it.
You certainly can’t bear it, and when bad people can’t bear things, the world is just that little bit more of a better place.
Something something vendetta.
Vendetta something something.
…certainly cant bear it, and when bad people cant bear things, the world is just that little bit more of a better place.
Once again:
Is DREMT’s question: “how hot will the
atmospherePlanetary Boundary Layer get?”DREMT, in typical fashion, now blames me for his ignorance!
I’m done with your abuse. Sorry for your argument loss, but I’m extremely happy with the win.
… in DREMT’s dreamland not in physical reality.
No, in physical reality.
… of DREMT’s dreamland.
Incorrect.
… only in DREMT’s dreamland.
…only in Ball4’s dreamland.
“Meet me in the middle,” says the Sky Dragon Crank.
Team Science takes a step towards him.
The Sky Dragon Crank takes a step back.
“Meet me in the middle, repeats the Sky Dragon Crank.
Little Willy lies.
Everyone is repulsed.
Little Willy lies again.
Everyone is repulsed again.
[THE RIDDLER] Riddle me this: I have a head, a tail, but never any legs. Do you know what I am?
A full-time troll, with a personal vendetta against me, for some unknown reason.
Graham, a Sky Dragon Crank who trolled this website for 74 months and more, after having responded to every single comment I made on this page, soldiers on.
If every single comment you made wasn’t about me or my arguments, I wouldn’t feel obliged to respond.
And so I make Graham troll.
Everything is always about him.
To you, everything seems to be all about me. Yes. You demonstrate that all the time.
Let readers judge for themselves.
I’m sure they will.
Readers might like:
http://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/atmo/chapter/chapter-5-atmospheric-stability/
Yes, readers might like the 50 or so links that Little Willy is now about to randomly link to, hoping they have something to do with the discussion.
“A full-time troll, with a personal vendetta against me, for some unknown reason.”
You sure are.
[GRAHAM] Yes, readers might like the 50 or so links that Little Willy is now about to randomly link to, hoping they have something to do with the discussion.
[ALSO GRAHAM] If every single comment you made wasnt about me or my arguments, I wouldnt feel obliged to respond.
Every. Single. Time.
Every single time you fail to point out any contradiction when you arrange two of my quotes together.
Readers will judge for themselves how it is possible to respond to an argument with quotes that have anything to do with anything said.
Readers will judge for themselves whether Little Willy is capable of forming coherent sentences.
Let readers judge why Graham goes for gaslighting when his bluff is called.
Explain what the hell you are talking about with your 12:56 PM comment.
Explain yourself, says the Sky Dragon Crank.
You explain yourself.
Then the Sky a dragon Crank says –
You make no sense.
You shrug. Then the Sky Dragon Crank responds –
Then explain yourself.
Any time I don’t understand you, you play the same game. I’m not making it up, I really have no idea what you were talking about.
Every time Graham gets contradicted, he fails to understand,
Graham fails to understand a lot.
What does this mean:
"Readers will judge for themselves how it is possible to respond to an argument with quotes that have anything to do with anything said."
It’s complete nonsense.
Graham does not always fail to see the relevance of a link, but when he does he is sure it is all about him.
I’m sure that you’re posting links that you think have some relevance to the discussion about my arguments which has taken place over the last several days.
Graham does not always fail to see the relevance of a link I post, but when he does he is *sure* it is about him, somehow. Because something something vendetta.
So to be sure he is on the safe side, he responds.
…sure that you’re posting links that you think have some relevance to the discussion about my arguments which has taken place over the last several days.
Let readers decide how much better the world has become now that Graham reached his usual fixed point.
…that you’re posting links that you think have some relevance to the discussion about my arguments which has taken place over the last several days.
Readers might also like:
https://www.thermopedia.com/cn/content/1186/
Temperature-of-the-Boundary-Layer-vs-Free-Atmosphere
The PBL and the free atmosphere are different environments.
Diurnal variation is one of the key characteristics of the boundary layer over land. The free atmosphere shows little diurnal variation.
Bohren 1998 on the PBL in the troposphere: “For well-mixed layers of the atmosphere, far from surfaces, in which phase changes are not taking place, the dry adiabatic lapse rate often is the lapse rate of air temperature…the significance of the dry adiabatic lapse rate is not that it is necessarily the actual lapse rate but rather…it demarcates the boundary between statically stable and unstable atmospheres.”
The near-surface atmospheric temperatures are what we are most interested in, obviously, because that is where we live, as human beings. However, a lot of the statements I have been making apply to the whole GHG-free atmosphere. For instance:
“…if the atmosphere cannot efficiently radiate, because it contains no GHGs, but it is still being warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surface below, then the atmosphere is being warmed, but cannot really cool very efficiently.”
The warming by conduction takes place at the boundary with the surface, of course, but that warming, spread throughout the atmosphere by convection and advection, supplies the energy for the entire GHG-free atmosphere. The energy doesn’t come from anywhere else, since it is thought that the Sun cannot directly heat the N2/O2. So the heat source for the entire GHG-free atmosphere is the heated surface.
The entire atmosphere, without GHGs, cannot really cool very efficiently. The only real way for the entire atmosphere to cool is via conduction back to the surface, at night. Now, obviously that takes place at the boundary with the surface, again, but how else can the rest of the atmosphere cool? It can only radiate very inefficiently, without GHGs.
Ex-DREMT 3:12, the entire earthen optically thin N2/O2 atm. & surface can cool via radiation to deep space both day and night. Over time, the planetary system would balance with solar energy (sunshine) absorbed equal to terrestrial energy emitted (earthshine) at a lower avg. global temperature (est. found in text books) for we human beings.
“Ex-DREMT 3:12, the entire earthen optically thin N2/O2 atm. & surface can cool via radiation to deep space both day and night.”
The surface can radiate. The GHG-free atmosphere cannot radiate very efficiently.
Surface, N2, and O2 are matter & all matter radiates.
Ball4
Your statement is about worthless.
YOU: “Surface, N2, and O2 are matter & all matter radiates.”
Yes they do radiate but what frequency and what relative amount.
N2 forms some complexes in the atmosphere that emit some IR but it is several magnitudes below GHG so your point has no real meaning as it does not indicate anything of value. I think DREMT did adequately explain this to you in his post when he stated “The GHG-free atmosphere cannot radiate very efficiently.”
Graham uses that ringtone to argue that the atmosphere cannot *cool* efficiently, Norman.
And the question is what happens to the surface emissions. Does a non-radiative atmosphere retain them better than one that contains radiative gases? If not, then there is no more pea underneath the thimbles.
“what frequency”?
Matter radiates at all frequencies Norman. Ex-DREMT left out the surface radiates more efficiently direct to space so will be cooler as is the lower more optically thin atm. with less GHGs.
Eventually global earthshine will equal global sunshine even with nil GHGs in the 1bar atm.
Ball4
I highly disagree with your statement: “Matter radiates at all frequencies Norman.”
If you must make bold assertions please provide evidence for them. I strongly believe you are totally wrong and I will provide evidence to demonstrate this. You talk as one who does not comprehend Quantum Physics. Discrete emission which astounded early researchers as they had assumed a continuous emission band.
Here is evidence you are not correct with IR.
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
There are several frequencies CO2 will not emit in. This is what it absorbs and it can only emit in those bands.
Here is visible light:
https://ch301.cm.utexas.edu/svg/H-emission-spectrum.svg
That one is an actual emission spectrum.
This demonstrates Quantum Physics and shows that matter will only emit in certain frequencies. Unless your matter is a blackbody it will not emit in all frequencies and cannot.
If you have an proof of your assertions provide them or stop making them please.
You suggest others should read atmospheric textbooks I suggest you read some Quantum Physics textbook and correct your incorrect thinking.
Willard
A non-radiative atmosphere would do very little to stop surface emission. I am not sure if scattering takes place so much with IR as it does visible (mostly blue and higher frequencies).
I think DREMT just brings up specific points. In his case it would be correct that with no GHG the surface would be warmer than the calculated effective temperature since the calculated one does not alter the albedo that would change drastically without GHG as long as the water did not freeze. If the oceans freeze it is game over as the albedo would be very high and the surface would absorb less solar input than currently. Also GHG do absorb about 47% so incoming solar which does not reach the surface but acts to warm the atmosphere.
I will just say again: the GHG-free atmosphere can warm more efficiently than it can cool. Energy in to the GHG-free atmosphere can be transferred more efficiently than energy out of it. I don’t see how anyone can argue otherwise (and nobody successfully has, so far).
Norman 12:06 pm, what a lecture! Please really look in detail at the ideal Planck function* radiant (light) energy emitted at each frequency for all matter. Insert any real temperature for real matter and find nonzero radiative energy emitted at any & all frequencies. Try it, just don’t look at it. Plug it up on your computer on your own (no online calculator please). Find matter continuously emits radiation of all frequencies & all temperatures, all the time.
As far as your lecture on quantum mechanics, realize in the band of interest, infrared spectra of molecules that inhabit the atmosphere, spectroscopy, is the science of details. A comment here is far too short to even scratch the surface in that field of science. This is not even a scratch:
Although the energies of macroscopic oscillators are quantized in principle, the spacing of energy levels, as they are called, is so small macroscopically that in practice the levels are continuous. We are forced to come to grips with the discreteness of energy levels only when we consider systems with very high natural frequencies & not important in atm. science. Natural frequencies increase with decreasing mass (Bohren eqn. 2.76) and hence the consequences of discrete energies are not negligible only at the atomic scale, a world humans do not inhabit.
For example, the volume of a flea’s eyebrow is order of 10^-15 m^3. If the density is that of water, the eyebrow mass is order 10^-12 kg. If the flea is on a tall Great Dane, order 1 m above the ground at shoulders, the eyebrow PE above the ground is order 10^-11 joule. As small as that PE is, it is still 10^21 times greater than the difference between energy levels of a macroscopic harmonic oscillator with natural frequency 100 Hz.
Your “evidence” from the webbook shows CO2 non-zero transmittance at every frequency! CO2 absorbs and emits at every frequency on that graph per Planck eqn. with a measured emissivity(f).
Consider for your “evidence of hydrogen emission spectrum: if that test had used a much faster film and much longer exposure time.
And let me know.
“Unless your matter is a blackbody it will not emit in all frequencies and cannot.”
No, again look at your computer output for the ideal Planck function. The real body (non-black) will have a non-zero measured emissivity at all frequencies that is less than ideal (1.0) but again, non-zero.
*NB: One source is Bohren 2006 p. 6, eqn. 1.11: “The Planck function is worthy of respect, if not awe, in that it contains not one, not two, but three fundamental (or at least believed to be so) constants of nature: the speed of light in a vacuum c, Planck’s constant h, and Boltzmann’s constant kB. You can’t get much more fundamental than that.”
DREMPTY,
In the absence of greenhouse gases, the surface will be warmed by the atmosphere just as efficiently as it is cooled by the atmosphere because it does it the same way.
“I will just say again: the GHG-free atmosphere can warm more efficiently than it can cool. Energy in to the GHG-free atmosphere can be transferred more efficiently than energy out of it. I dont see how anyone can argue otherwise (and nobody successfully has, so far).”
you are just talking and have no clue.
"In the absence of greenhouse gases, the surface will be warmed by the atmosphere just as efficiently as it is cooled by the atmosphere because it does it the same way."
We’re not talking about the surface, though, bob. We’re talking about the atmosphere. The GHG-free atmosphere can warm more efficiently than it can cool. Energy in to the GHG-free atmosphere can be transferred more efficiently than energy out of it.
Energy in will enter the GHG-free atmosphere via the heated surface, through conduction, in the day. The air warmed by the surface will rise, and be replaced by cooler air…which will then be warmed by the surface…and so on. Quite an efficient system, really.
Energy out of the GHG-free atmosphere will leave (mainly) via the surface, through conduction, at night. Yes, the atmosphere can radiate, but only weakly. Note that the conduction from the atmosphere to the surface does not have the same system going for it as with the energy in.
“The air warmed by the surface will rise, and be replaced by cooler air”
Only happens in ex-DREMT’s dreamland. In the physical world, the convected air rising will be replaced by ambient air advected in at each level. I know it’s tough to get meteorology correct for ex-DREMT who hasn’t yet passed a course in the subject.
https://www.quora.com/Does-hot-air-rise-and-push-cold-air-out-of-the-way-or-does-cold-air-fall-and-push-hot-air-out
Norman,
I think Graham brings up specific points to intimate stuff for which no valid implication has been forthcoming after more than a week of number painting. Compare and contrast:
(November 9, 2022 at 7:38 AM) The GHG-free atmosphere cannot radiate very efficiently.
(November 9, 2022 at 3:12 AM) The entire atmosphere, without GHGs, cannot really cool very efficiently.
Since you agree that a non-radiative atmosphere would do very little to stop surface emission, little could help him derive the second claim from the first. Hence the just-so stories about how non-radiative gases hold on to their energy and how a non-radiative atmosphere would radiate back to Earth. And notwithstanding the fact that it’s hard to say what kind of work his concept of radiative efficiency is supposed to do here.
His non-greenhouse effect theory definitely deserves points for creativity, but pending a new physics the greenhouse effect might be here to stay.
> would radiate back to Earth
Would conduct back to Earth, of course.
Little Willy still doesn’t get what Norman proved he understood two days ago.
3:18 pm author has, like ex-DREMT, not studied how reality of free convection works in the atm. as is well known in basic meteorology. To understand physical reality of free convection in a fluid warmed from below in a gravity field, visually, go to youtube and search on convection & stay out of the dreamland of ex-DREMT.
3:18 PM question may have one author, answers have many different authors, many with their credentials shown. That’s kind of the point of Quora, Ball4.
The reality of physical testing will show which author is naturally correct, if any; physical science is all about experiment not voting.
"…physical science is all about experiment not voting"
Did I say it was about voting, Ball4? Or are you just trolling again? You are attacking me, personally, saying I am not sufficiently educated in meteorology to understand this or that. So my link shows people with the credentials you are looking for saying the same thing as I did. That’s all. I’m not saying that physical science is about voting. I’m just trying to bring to light that your abuse is not justified.
The physical testing of a fluid warmed from below in a gravity field for learning about free convection (e.g. visually on youtube) will let ex-DREMT know which author is physically correct, if any.
Too often, ex-DREMT relies on finding some internet authors without first checking if their assertions agree with physical experiment. Educating ex-DREMT in proper physics of meteorology through testing, while never ending, is not in any way abusive.
Ball4
You actually did not provide any evidence to support your claims (which do go against Quantum Physics).
The Radiant Planck curve is for a Blackbody. No real matter will achieve this.
Here read this it might help you.
https://www.britannica.com/science/blackbody
You could extend the length of time exposure for emission spectra and it will not become continuous. If you believe it will then show some evidence. There are too many unscientific declarations on this blog with no supporting evidence. Time to show some and not dance around. Give me an image of a continuous spectra of hydrogen emission. I have not seen one or heard of anyone demonstrating a continuous blackbody exposure if you extend exposure time on a film plate.
If such exist let me see it.
I didn’t rely on "finding some internet authors without first checking if their assertions agree with physical experiment".
I made a simplified statement about convection which most people would agree with. Then when you challenged me on it, I decided I would provide a link to some obviously qualified people agreeing with my statement. Of course, there is always going to be more to it than the simplified statement. So what?
As for you supposedly educating me – you never actually teach anything. You nit-pick on points, then never fully explain yourself. You have no interest in helping anybody on this site learn anything. You’re just here to nit-pick, score points, and cast aspersions on others. You’re a troll.
If you actually have a relevant point on convection, then make it. Explain yourself, fully.
Ball4
Some more information.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Solano_Community_College/Chem_160/Chapter_07%3A_Atomic_Structure_and_Periodicity/7.03_The_Atomic_Spectrum_of_Hydrogen
“Atoms of individual elements emit light at only specific wavelengths, producing a line spectrum rather than the continuous spectrum of all wavelengths produced by a hot object.”
Graham will not admit that Norman’s “a non-radiative atmosphere would do very little to stop surface emission” puts an end to his charade.
…because it’s irrelevant to my point, Little Willy. My point is about the atmosphere, not the surface. I am fully aware that the surface emission goes straight through the atmosphere to space. That’s not a problem for my argument, if you would only try a little harder to understand it…
DREMPTY,
“Were not talking about the surface, though, bob. Were talking about the atmosphere. The GHG-free atmosphere can warm more efficiently than it can cool. Energy in to the GHG-free atmosphere can be transferred more efficiently than energy out of it.”
Yes we are talking about the surface, because that is the only object available to warm or cool the atmosphere with out the presence of greenhouse gases.
And, by the way, can you provide any equations that support your techno-babble?
Norman 4:09 pm, as I wrote, the Planck distribution is ideal BB (emissivity 1.0) & the emissivity(f) of real Planckian matter is measured less than the ideal 1.0. Have you ever seen a rainbow? Even the eye can detect a continuous (visible) spectrum from the water cycle in the real atm. solar illuminated.
The spectra you are used to seeing are recorded using film set to record the various lines. What I asked was to consider much faster film and much longer exposure times to record the Planck distribution function from a 1bar hydrogen gas. You have not done so.
For example, to learn what fast film and long exposure times record, consult instrumentally measured spectrums being continuous when illuminated by sunlight e.g. ref. Bohren 2006 fig.s 4.14 thru 4.16.
Ball4
A rainbow is continuous because solar energy is near black body radiant spectra.
You just meander around without really proving anything.
No Hydrogen will not show a continuous emission spectra if you use fast film or long exposure. I asked you to read the link about hydrogen spectra. It is not able to produce a continuous spectra because of the known process in what produces the emission spectra.
You either read it or I am done with this line as it is going nowhere. You are not supporting anything and rambling. Give evidence. Learn the science. Understand what Quantum Physics states and why. Unless you understand the underlying science you will continue to post incorrect comments.
Norman, the Planck spectrum is continuous for H2 like any other element. Go back to basics and build from there, or not. Out.
Ball4
I have given you plenty of links proving you are wrong. No H2 Does NOT have a continuous spectrum of emission. You are the one who really needs to go back to the basics. I have embedded enough links in my posts to educate you. If you choose to remain ignorant of the correct science and just post nonsense, that is up to you. You can learn or stay ignorant. You have a choice.
Well, with nothing from bob worth dignifying with a response, I guess that’s that. Ball4 nitpicks, Little Willy still doesn’t get it, and Tyson has gone AWOL. Norman is the only one who has really contributed anything worthwhile.
This old argument winner has made his point.
And so Graham still exploits Norman’s concedos instead of trying to meet him in the middle, dodges Bob’s point by misrepresenting his own argument, and soldiers on.
Readers may recall *why* Graham introduced what he calls his *point*, which is basically an appeal to ignorance, i.e. unless and until we know about the temperatures of a fully non-radiative atmosphere, we can’t exclude that non-radiative gases are the true insulators of our atmosphere. Or something along those lines.
Which is hard to tell, for Graham will never spell out what he’s trying to do with his “specific points.”
…this old argument winner has made his point.
… entirely in ex-DREMT’s own dreamland.
“If a hydrogen atom could have any value of energy, then a continuous spectrum would have been observed, similar to blackbody radiation.”
At the atomic level Norman 4:16 pm, but humans do not inhabit that world to observe the light from an atom, we observe light from the gas.
Humans inhabit the macroscopic world where the spectrum of 1bar macroscopic hydrogen gas is observed continuous as a rainbow when illuminated by sunlight since at each frequency of light there exists a radiance that is non-zero by the Planck distribution & emissivity at that frequency.
Proof the H2 spectrum is continuous in our world is Planckian & in your 4:16 pm Balmer and Rydberg series just keep increasing n.
Ball4/Trick is lost in his own dreamland.
… which is reality according to proper experimental evidence.
Definitely a dreamland, according to anyone who’s ever had any communication with Ball4.
… which is physical reality when ex-DREMT’s “anyone” hasn’t bothered to review and understand the proper experimental evidence.
As anyone who’s ever actually had a discussion with Ball4 would agree, Ball4/Trick lives in his dreamland.
Hapless/Rajinderweb/Graham will not admit that Norman’s “a non-radiative atmosphere would do very little to stop surface emission” puts an end to his charade.
It doesn’t.
… in ex-DREMT’s dreamland of no experiments.
…as anyone who’s ever actually had a discussion with Ball4 would agree, Ball4/Trick lives in his dreamland.
Graham is just here to nit-pick, score points, and cast aspersions on B4. He’s a troll.
…anyone who’s ever actually had a discussion with Ball4 would agree, Ball4/Trick lives in his dreamland.
Where does the atmosphere of the Earth stop and space begins?
The higher part of Low Earth Orbit, the exosphere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosphere
Between 500 m and 10,000 km is not very precise.
I’ll bet you that I can do between 2 and 3 hundred pushups.
Any takers?
There are no buildings in space.
There are no buildings…for now:
https://www.science.org/content/article/outer-space-may-have-just-gotten-bit-closer
First emphasis is for Tyson, second is for gb.
US give astronaut wings for 50 miles up [80.4672 km}.
As mentioned 100 km is international definition [karman line] is related to an object [without added power/velocity] to stay in orbit for at least 1 orbit. But the density varies depending solar activity, and depends of upon object [cross section and it’s mass].
Practically speaking 100 km is too low to count as Low Earth orbit- but internationally it’s accepted as the beginning of space.
Wiki:
“A medium Earth orbit (MEO) is an Earth-centered orbit with an altitude above a low Earth orbit (LEO) and below a high Earth orbit (HEO) between 2,000 and 35,786 km (1,243 and 22,236 mi) above sea level.”
“The boundary between MEO and LEO is an arbitrary altitude chosen by accepted convention, whereas the boundary between MEO and HEO is the particular altitude of a geosynchronous orbit, in which a satellite takes 24 hours to circle the Earth”
Well I would agree GEO could be called a high Earth orbit, but L-points are generally what I mean by high orbit- though sometimes I say Earth’s highest orbits when referring to L points.
Though one could argue, only Earth/Moon L-points are a earth orbits- Earth/Sun 5 L-points don’t go around Earth- I call then orbits, anyhow.
But a tiny bit of Earth atmosphere hits the Moon [goes beyond the moon- but it’s a tail rather than being spherical/atmosphere like.
Experts disagree on exactly where one stops and the other begins. The Karman line is an attempted definition of a boundary between Earth’s atmosphere and space. It’s defined as space beginning 100 km above sea level.
What are the thermodynamic properties of molecular oxygen?
The answer may surprise you!
These scientists use one weird trick to modify the mean structure of the mesosphere and thermosphere!
DREMT at 3:01 AM
I am flattered that DREMT needs my help again, but not surprised since:
First I guided him from “no GHE” to his very own calculated GHE of 13.49 K (288-274.51=13.49 K), or 1.36 C. Although still short of the actual 33K GHE it is a move in the right direction for him.
Then I introduced him to the PBL, complete with measured data for his perusal.
What is it that he needs me to explain to him now? Perhaps the difference between Microclimatology and Climatology?
I’m here to help!
DREMT at 3:01 AM What’s the problem?
I’m here to help!
This old argument winner has made his point.
… entirely in ex-DREMT’s own dreamland.
…Ball4 said, lost in his own dreamland.
Mama don’t allow no assertion arguments round here.
No problem for me, then.
REMINDER
This is where Graham’s “if the atmosphere cannot efficiently radiate” comes into play.
A counterfactual he presents as a point, it must be noted.
This old argument winner has made his point. Some still do not understand. No surprise.
Of note:
[BOB] Yes we are talking about the surface, because that is the only object available to warm or cool the atmosphere with out the presence of greenhouse gases.
…some still do not understand. No surprise.
Compare and contrast:
[BOB] And if there wasn’t CO2 and the other greenhouse gases, N2 and O2 would do nothing to prevent the heat loss to space.
[GRAHAM] How would there be heat loss from the atmosphere to space, if the atmosphere can’t efficiently radiate, due to lack of GHGs?
Perhaps there’s some teleconnection between the surface and space…
…still do not understand. No surprise.
Richard Lindzen has said the warming effect of Earth atmosphere adds about 1/2 of the 33 C.
Everyone agrees the radiant warming effect of water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas.
Earth without an ocean would have less water vapor, what causes water vapor is Earth’s warm ocean surface temperature.
The ocean covers about 70% of the Earth surface and it’s average surface average is about 17 C. And Land average surface temperature is about 10 C. The northern average land temperature is higher than the Southern Hemisphere land, this is largely due to the cold Antarctica continent. And cold island of Greenland has small effect of cooling the average of large amount land in the northern Hemisphere. And average temperature of 48 states of US [called continental US is about 12 C which roughly the same as average temperature of land in the northern hemisphere. There is a lot land more south of US which is in northern hemisphere and largest countries in the world are north of the 48 states. Europe [excluding Russia and other countries one might think is part of Europe] average temperature is about 9 C which has large warming effect from tropical warmed water being transported to via the Gulf Stream, and much of this warming effect is not caused by the greenhouse effect, though one could say Europe would be much drier without the transported tropical waters warming it. Though one say large effect of gulf stream is prevent all the arctic ocean from being frozen {all the time]. What also prevent the arctic ocean from freezing is if the entire was warmer.
The average temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C.
It also said the that 90% of ocean is 3 C or colder.
It also said by NASA and NOAA that more than 90% of all recent warming is warming this cold ocean.
It seems if ocean were 5 C rather than 3.5 C, the arctic ocean would be mostly ice free in the winter. And this would make Europe much warmer than it is now.
Many of the worry related to Global warming is connected to idea that having ice free polar sea ice in the summer, which lead to ice free arctic sea ice in winter.
And two known ways of doing that would be more warmth transport by gulf stream and/or a warmer ocean.
Anyhow the ocean has not warmed much, due to lack of measurement one can’t the average of 3.5 C has changed much, nor is it possible for it change much within period of time as small as century.
Conduction is a very poor mechanism for heating the air above ground. The process of conduction in air is very slow.
The air molecules are not held closely together and have less chances to bump into other molecules. That is why the transfer of heat by conduction in air is very slow.
Woolen clothes and blankets slow down the transfer of heat. It so happens because the wool traps air in it. The air is a bad conductor of heat.
Double-pane windows are used in buildings to slow the transfer of heat. Air between the two layers of glass acts as an insulator.
“Conduction is a very poor mechanism for heating the air above ground. The process of conduction in air is very slow.”
Unless the ground is wet. One can transfer an enormous amount heat via evaporation into the atmosphere
It called evaporative cooling, One has enormous “loss of heat” due to water turning into gas but when gas turned back liquid energy is “gained back”.
So wet or damp ground doesn’t heat up much from sunlight, as it lose heat via evaporation. It losing heat or warms the air by having a H20 gas molecules being to same temperature as heated ground and when forms into liquid in the air.
Air has tiny droplets of water which constantly condensing and evaporating, a warmed wet ground creates water vapor and H20 gas with condense on to tiny droplets {will also evaporate again- as said, they constantly evaporating and condensing. Or this is the wet lapse rate.
Water vapor also rise quickly and condense into colder droplets of clouds. If you forming large droplets of clouds, generate a lot heat, heat air rises, pulling up lower air, and creating more droplets, and then big enough to rain.
Anyhow wet ground can’t heated much, dry ground can heat up to 60 to 70 C. With air above them of 20 to 40 C.
or there is poor conduction heat between dry ground and air above it. Have a hot dry concrete slab, and spray water on it- it heat the air very quickly. .
Conduction and evaporation are, indeed, the primary mechanisms for transferring heat from the surface to the air. But after that, conduction from air-to-air can be neglected. It’s all turbulent mixing and convection after that.
What would happen if there was no source of atmospheric opacity?
…Little Willy would troll.
Possible answers –
https://gizmodo.com/how-the-world-would-look-if-air-were-truly-transparent-1541521338
My favorite one is the loss of the ionosphere.
…Willy would troll.
God blessed America.
God bless the USMC.
God help the rest!
OORAH!
The GHG-free atmosphere can warm more efficiently than it can cool. Energy in to the GHG-free atmosphere can be transferred more efficiently than energy out of it.
Energy in will enter the GHG-free atmosphere via the heated surface, through conduction, in the day. The air warmed by the surface will rise, and be replaced by cooler air…which will then be warmed by the surface…and so on. Quite an efficient system, really.
Energy out of the GHG-free atmosphere will leave (mainly) via the surface, through conduction, at night. Yes, the atmosphere can radiate, but only weakly. Note that the conduction from the atmosphere to the surface does not have the same system going for it as with the energy in.
So, there’s no reason why the near-surface atmospheric temperature can’t average out to be much higher than might be predicted by the calculated effective temperature. It all just depends on how hot the GHG-free atmosphere can get in the day vs. how cold it can get at night, and since the energy in can be transferred more efficiently that the energy out, that is going to bias things on the warmer side.
The weather may be warmer today, but the climate will necessarily be cooler over climate timeframes with an optically thin nil GHG atm. since energy in to surface will equilibrate with energy out over the long term. Simple.
Pity ex-DREMT avoids the reality of experiment to understand basic textbook atm. radiation principles.
More vague hand-waving and desperate cries of "nothing to see here!" from Ball4/Trick to ignore.
DREMPTY,
Same equation same efficiency of heat transfer.
Prove me wrong.
Energy in – conduction and convection.
Energy out – conduction.
Incorrect, convection only occurs in gases, not at the gas to surface interface, there it’s only convection.
You lost another argument.
Energy in will enter the GHG-free atmosphere via the heated surface, through conduction, in the day. The air warmed by the surface will rise, and be replaced by cooler air…which will then be warmed by the surface…and so on. Quite an efficient system, really.
Energy out of the GHG-free atmosphere will leave (mainly) via the surface, through conduction, at night. Yes, the atmosphere can radiate, but only weakly. Note that the conduction from the atmosphere to the surface does not have the same system going for it as with the energy in.
Experiments show ex-DREMT is wrong again, the air warmed by the surface will rise in a gravity field, and be replaced by ambient air until that rising air equilibrates with surroundings at ambient.
A more important detail is how Graham ignores how the surface radiates, B4. Hence why he keeps,saying that the atmosphere only weakly radiates, whatever that might mean. Also notice the algebraic trick:
convection + conduction > conduction
Where is radiation?
Yes, ex-DREMT writing radiatively “energy in can be transferred more efficiently that the energy out” forgets that energy in and energy out by radiation are inverse processes so this is experimentally found true for atm. radiative energy transfer: energy in can be transferred just as efficiently as the energy out.
Thus an optically thin atm. absorbs just as “inefficiently” (ex-DREMT term) as an optically thin atm. emits “inefficiently”.
I was not talking about radiation, Ball4. Please stop misrepresenting me.
DREMT 7:38 am: “The GHG-free atmosphere cannot radiate very efficiently.”
Graham was talking about energy in and out, B4.
Everybody knows that radiation is not energy.
Please stop misrepresenting Graham.
Energy in to the GHG-free atmosphere is via conduction and convection. Radiation does not enter into it.
See, B4?
For planets with an optically transparent atmosphere, no radiation ever reach their surface.
Please stop misrepresenting Graham.
… radiation does not enter into it (absorb) or exit it (emit) very “efficiently”.
Little Willy, radiation from the Sun passes straight through the GHG-free atmosphere to the surface, where it is absorbed. Radiation emitted from the surface passes straight through the atmosphere to space. So no, radiation is not an energy input to the GHG-free atmosphere.
As for the energy out from the GHG-free atmosphere, Ball4 will insist that it radiates. However, everybody else here is perfectly happy to accept that the radiation from the GHG-free atmosphere is negligible, to the point that it can effectively be ignored completely. Indeed, Dr Spencer did not even mention it, when he said:
“So, how is this different from what happens in the real world? Well, notice that what we are left with in this thought experiment is an atmosphere that is heated from below by the ground absorbing sunlight, but the atmosphere has no way of cooling…except in a very shallow layer right next to the ground where it can cool by conduction at night.”
Do you finally understand, Little Willy?
Dr Spencer did not even mention it, when he wrote “if there is no greenhouse effect” so ex-DREMT is misrepresenting what Dr. Spencer meant by “this” thought experiment.
Does ex-DREMT finally understand?
No misrepresentation, Ball4. Dr Spencer said:
"To better understand why this happens, it is an instructive thought experiment to ask the question: What if there was no greenhouse effect? In other words, what if there were no infrared absorbers such as water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?"
See, B4?
Radiation in the atmosphere exists, but is negligible. If only the non radiative atmosphere could cool, but no, it does not. Only radiation can cool. So a non radiative atmosphere could warm the surface back, making it warmer than with a putative greenhouse effect.
Radiation comes in and gets out of the surface without interacting much with a non radiative atmosphere. The very opposite to a radiative atmosphere. One is very inefficient. The other very efficient. I will let you decide which is which.
In any event, it is *absolutely impossible* that more convection could beat a little convection with little conduction.
Everything is as it should be.
Wrong yet again ex-DREMT 12:47 pm.
Dr. Spencer wrote “no greenhouse effect” which means even gases such as O2,N2 do not radiate. O2,N2 do radiate in DREMT’s misrepresentation of Dr. Spencer with ex-DREMT’s “GHG-free atmosphere”.
Does ex-DREMT finally understand?
OK, so Little Willy still does not understand. Remarkable.
Willard 1:06 pm, I get your drift, I have found it amusing over the years when commenters make the earthen atm. N2,O2 et. al. “non-radiative” such as ex-DREMT 4:00 pm they then fail to realize in that scenario the sun (a big sphere of gas) stops shining at all so Earth atm. is frozen to the surface.
I haven’t made it non-radiative. The N2/O2 atmosphere radiates. To an extent that can be pretty much ignored, as Dr Spencer did.
Ex-DREMT 4:00 pm: “the non-radiative gases (e.g. N2/O2)”
Ex-DREMT just makes up stuff & can’t keep his stories consistent which is avoided by commenters that do keep their stories straight by learning basic atm. science principles. .
I’m happy that what I’ve explained has been clear. Those that wish to muddy the waters will continue to do so. No surprises there.
Perfectly muddy waters are from ex-DREMT 4:00 pm: “the non-radiative gases (e.g. N2/O2)” . . . then 1:46 pm:”N2/O2 atmosphere radiates.”
Very humorous and clearly perfectly muddy.
If you had only two categories: "radiative gases" and "non-radiative gases", just about every commenter here would put N2/O2 into the "non-radiative gases" category, because they only radiate very weakly. You’re just desperate, as usual, Ball4.
If just about every commenter here did put N2/O2 into the “non-radiative gases” category as did DREMT at 4:00 pm really is true (it isn’t), then all those commenters would humorously have not realized the sun isn’t shining anymore as I pointed out previously.
Does ex-DREMT finally understand?
I understand that you’re a relentless, boring troll that cannot be reasoned with on any subject.
You forget about Graham’s usages of “negligible,” B4:
(U1) This is almost speed of light, so delay is negligible.
(U2) It is not an argument that the GHE is small. It is an argument that the GHE is negligible.
(U3) There would be a negligible insulative effect from the second pathway. However, this may be nullified completely by other atmospheric processes. The overall effect of adding more GHGs to the atmosphere may even be negative.
So we should not say that the Sky Dragon cranks deny that the greenhouse effect exists. They only mean it’s negligible. By the same logic, of course radiation in a nonradiative atmosphere exists. It just so happens it’s negligible.
By contrast, back conduction from a nonradiative atmosphere is far from being negligible. It could be so strong in fact as to more than compensate for the (existent, but negligible) greenhouse effect.
"By contrast, back conduction from a nonradiative atmosphere is far from being negligible. It could be so strong in fact as to more than compensate for the (existent, but negligible) greenhouse effect."
That’s not the argument that’s being made, Little Willy. Conduction from the atmosphere to the surface at night (which is not "back-conduction", by the way) is pretty much the only way that the GHG-free atmosphere can cool. As Dr Spencer explains:
“So, how is this different from what happens in the real world? Well, notice that what we are left with in this thought experiment is an atmosphere that is heated from below by the ground absorbing sunlight, but the atmosphere has no way of cooling…except in a very shallow layer right next to the ground where it can cool by conduction at night.”
Notice that Dr Spencer does not include radiation from the atmosphere as a means by which the GHG-free atmosphere can cool to space…because such radiation is very, very weak. Here is what I am trying to say, one more time, Little Willy:
The GHG-free atmosphere can warm more efficiently than it can cool. Energy into it can be transferred more efficiently than energy out of it. It is the atmosphere that is thus warmer than might otherwise be predicted.
You are fixated on the surface, for some reason.
Graham always finds a way to connect whatever is said with his ringtone of the moment, this time Roy’s “but the atmosphere has no way of cooling.”
The atmosphere has no way of warming much more than what the surface will give it. And with a non-radiative atmosphere, the surface will emit radiation back to space without being blocked by it. So the
And as Roy said in this very thread:
And in a waterless world, evaporation ought to be “negligible.”
Even convection could be “negligible” unless we consider the tiny heat pumps in the atmosphere.
Yes, conduction from air-to-air can indeed be neglected, when you’re talking about a GHG-free atmosphere. You don’t need to worry about the probability of a non-GHG molecule bumping into a GHG molecule, for instance. Makes it all a lot simpler to understand. Although, Little Willy seems hell-bent on finding ways of not understanding.
What DREMT is writing “The GHG-free atmosphere can warm more efficiently than it can cool.” is wrong because in reality warming & cooling are inverse processes.
In physical reality, the GHG-free atmosphere can warm just as “inefficiently” (ex-DREMT term) as it can cool “inefficiently”.
And, yet again ex-DREMT misrepresents Dr. Spencer’s written words “no greenhouse effect” by using DREMT’s words “GHG-free atmosphere”.
Even if it could be interpreted as right, B4, Graham’s intimation is mostly irrelevant, thus negligible.
…understand that you’re a relentless, boring troll that cannot be reasoned with on any subject.
… on any unreasoned subject.
…that you’re a relentless, boring troll that cannot be reasoned with on any subject.
If the atmosphere is fully transparent, does it matter if there is one?
Yes 1:10 pm, 1bar atm. allows, at least, surface water, clouds, living stuff, & enables a similar albedo to current, more optically thick atm.
Water but no GHGs?
Color me skeptical.
Ex-DREMT has missed the water cycle in his ill-posed scenario where past and present evaporation immediately condenses to cloud so, yes, a conundrum. Ask the dude.
Nothing to do with me, Ball4. Leave me out of it.
Nothing to do with Graham, B4:
Please leave him out of this.
Correct…nothing to do with me. Little Willy asked a question, Ball4 responded. His response prompted another question from Little Willy, then Ball4 tried to make it about me…but this is not my thread, not my question. You two can work it out between yourselves.
All I would say is, personally, if you are considering a hypothetical planet like Earth but with no GHGs, then just eliminate the GHGs. How can you have water without water vapor? Well, in reality, you cannot…but it is just a hypothetical. So on this hypothetical Earth you have water but no water vapor. No evaporation, no condensation, no clouds. Just accept it and move on, would be my advice. Or, have the planet completely water-free, is the other option.
You cannot include the water cycle if you are excluding water vapor from the atmosphere, in any case.
DREMT
From a paper written by Judith Curry about formation of Continental Polar Air.
https://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_JAS40.pdf
In figure 2 (which are measured values) it looks like the near surface air does not stay nearly as warm as air above. Even though air is a good insulator against conduction it also holds very little heat relative to other materials so it takes a lot less heat flow to cool, which seems to be the case from the available evidence.
A cubic meter of air has a mass of 1.222 kg. It has a heat capacity of 1 joule/gram-C
Water has a mass of 1000 kb/m^3 with a heat capacity of 4.18 joule/gram-C so with the same volume of each water will hold about 4000 times more energy.
I do not think air will help much to hold in heat and will cool with the surface (near surface air) Air higher up may reach a temperature above the average ground temperature.
It is an interesting point. Glad you brought it up as it makes one think to attempt to resolve your question.
“…it also holds very little heat relative to other materials so it takes a lot less heat flow to cool…”
…or to warm.
“…I do not think air will help much to hold in heat and will cool with the surface (near surface air)…”
…and will also warm with the surface, in the day. So, how warm it is going to get on average depends on how efficiently and to what extent it can warm in the day vs. how efficiently and to what extent it can cool at night. With the cooling at night you do not have the convection to assist…
“So on this hypothetical Earth you have water but no water vapor. No evaporation, no condensation, no clouds. Just accept it and move on, would be my advice. Or, have the planet completely water-free, is the other option.”
I was picking the second option, the “have water but no water vapor”
is more complicated. But I thought about with Mars- cover the water
with glass or cheaper ice. Actually two kinds ice, H20 and CO2- CO2 ice would cheaper than H20. Covering Mars with frozen lake, could be a warmer Mars [not that it matters].
A problem with doing this on Mars, the ice has heavy enough or anchored- and it would worse with a warmer earth.
Or “25 C 77 F has vapor pressure of 0.0313 atm”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water
In terms of pounds per square inch: 0.0313 atm x times 14.7 =
0.46011 pounds per square inch, or square foot: times 144 = 66.25584 pounds. Or if metric there is 1550 square inches in square meter:
0.46011 times 1550 = 713.1705 lbs which is 323.48869731 kg
And cubic meter of glass weighs: 2,500 kg
So, a 1/5 of meter thick [20 cm} is 500 kg is enough weight if water was 25 C
30 C water is 0.0419 atm or 0.61593 psi or 954.6915 lb or 433.0407801 kg and 20 cm thick glass is heavy enough for 30 C temperature water.
Can make it less than 8″ thick glass? Well you use structure strength of glass- you have small windows with heavy frame [or anchor window frames]. with window frames you could plexiglass which has more structural strength than glass.
Anyhow, maybe you think the ocean water will get quite hot:
50 C 122 F has 0.1218 atm or 1.79046 lb per square inch or 2775.213 lbs per square meter.
Which makes it even more complicated.
Of course I think of things like cost in terms of Mars- with Earth is is more wealth than Earth has.
per square meter
“Which makes it even more complicated.”
Anyhow making a vast structure to cover the vast oceans involves
many aspects- it’s complicated.
Our cold ocean holds a lot of heat and ocean can absorb all the energy of millions of nuclear bombs, and not heat up much.
And our ocean makes the temperature of the Earth surface more uniform. It is very massive, and gravity moves it- it’s constantly flowing and “trying” to reach an equilibrium which never happens.
Our atmosphere is similar, it’s less massive and can move faster but also never reaching an equilibrium.
We in icehouse climate due to changes in the topography of our rocky surface.
It is considered true that your sun is increasing it’s energy output
over periods of hundreds of million of year- if it just about amount of sunlight, Earth should getting warmer- but last few million years, Earth has been quite cold.
If just about Earth’s internal heat, it does not cool much in couple
million years- and we had four other Ice Ages, and up and down quite
about in last 1/2 billion years.
Or in terms of what known, it’s about the changing topography of our rocky surface. Which points the significant of our ocean controlling
Earth’s climate.
Of course, this not my theory or something- rather this is accepted
science.
And also accepted the CO2 levels aren’t the control knob.
You could say we run an experiment and it’s been proven CO2 changes
in CO2 levels has had effect that we have yet to have measured.
Let’s go over other things, global warming is directly connected to global water vapor.
Is there any argument about this?
1/3 of land area is desert.
Our world has low amount global water vapor.
Or this proves our world is cold.
Our ocean surface average temperature is about 17 C and our land is
about 10 C. Both 17 C and 10 C are cold.
Our tropical ocean is about 26 C which you could call warm but
rest of ocean averages about 11 C, which is quite cold.
And if rest of ocean was warmer, we would have a higher global water vapor {and less desert area}.
The tropics get more sunlight, and has more greenhouse effect and has thick warm surface water. The tropics roughly remains the same [since forever]. And average temperature of entire ocean of 3.5 C has little effect upon the tropics, but it would larger effect upon the rest to ocean surface which averages about 11 C- the closer to polar region and the colder the surface waters, the larger the effect.
No misrepresentation, Ball4. Dr Spencer said:
"To better understand why this happens, it is an instructive thought experiment to ask the question: What if there was no greenhouse effect? In other words, what if there were no infrared absorbers such as water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?"
Please stop misrepresenting Graham, B4:
surface + non radiative atmosphere > surface + no atmosphere
The warmth a non radiative atmosphere provides to a planet without is very non negligible. He less greenhouse stuff there is, the less non negligible it is.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
> He less greenhouse stuff there is, the less non negligible it is.
The less greenhouse stuff there is, the less non negligible it is.
No, Little Willy…please stop trolling.
What would be the albedo of a waterless Earth?
In a way, it doesn’t matter…because with a waterless Earth you have nothing to freeze and become ice, leading to a change in the albedo. With the water Earth but no GHGs it was more important to know what albedo to use, because if you used one high enough that it pushed the effective temperature below freezing point, then the albedo gets even higher with all the ice.
I think if Mars covered in snow, Mars would be warmer.
Mars would absorb more energy.
I don’t believe in a Snowball Earth.
Or have seen no evidence of average temperature of Earth’s ocean
getting as cold as 2 C or colder.
I used to think [and say] Earth ocean temperature has been 1 to 5 C,
but I was wrong- or I just assumed this was the range of ocean temperature, but not aware of anyone else who has said this.
Or I would say, I was alone in making this silly mistake.
Anyhow I wondering what the ocean average temperature would need to be to have a shush ball Earth [which some people think is possible] and seemed to me, the ocean would have to be around 2 C- at least in our present configuration of world.
And at point I realized there was evidence of our ocean being this cold. A related question is how much would sea level lower if ocean was 3 or 2 C?? Or maybe it wouldn’t lower.
Such questions, cause me look, and I did not find anything.**
I think polar sea ice inhibits a liquid ocean to warm arctic region- and snow on the sea ice would add more insulation.
One aspect is snow is black to shortwave IR [1/2 of sunlight] but all sunlight is transparent to ice/snow, though visible light is significant more transparent then the shortwave IR.
**What is the average temperature of all the water in the oceans?
“The usually quoted value is 3.52 degrees Celsius. This is the volume-weighted average, calculated some decades ago from many thousands of measurements throughout much of the ocean. It is in fact the potential temperature. Deep water has a slightly elevated temperature due the slight increase caused by the slight warming caused by squeezing under the great pressures at depth. The potential temperature is the temperature it would have if brought to the surface. In recent decades the ocean has warmed slightly, as the general warming is gradually entering the the ocean. This warming has so far affected mostly the upper layers. I have not seen a value for the increase in the whole ocean (data are of course still coming in); probably it is less than a few hundredths of one degree.”
And some one else said:
“There is still research on going. Ocean is a big under-explored place.
Satellites have established the variability of the sea surface temperature.
I have to get you a reference but if you average out all the water over the entire volume of the sea…. it works out to roughly 4C (3.5-3.8C).”
I think I am just going to continue to say about 3.5 C.
And it’s has guessed/estimated it could have warmed by .1 C recently and it was quess/estimated ocean cooled by about .1 C during the Little Ice Age. So, I am guessing we recovered from LIA.
I also guess our ocean was much warmer 10,000 years ago but not as warm as 4 C. Whereas other interglacial which sea levels “4 to 9 meters higher the ocean was “4 C or more”.
I will make guess and see anyone can show evidence I am wrong:
It seems the range of ocean temperature in last 1 million years has been about 3.5 to 4.5 C.
It could be it was 3.3 to 4.7 C. That doesn’t count as wrong- 3 or 5 C counts as wrong.
Also if our present ocean is 3 or 4 C, I am wrong.
And would be very happy to be shown that I am wrong.
[GRAHAM] In a way, it does not matter.
[ROY] The global-average temperature at which this occurs would depend a lot on how reflective the Earths surface is to sunlight in our thought experiment.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/
I explained exactly what I meant.
Without greenhouse gases, would there be weather on Earth?
I heard it claimed, there is weather in large buildings.
It’s also said the Moon gravitation causes weather.
Click on the link just above, gb.
Roy explains it very well.
Lindzen, Richard S. ; Hong, Siu-Shung
Abstract
A numerical program is developed to study the behavior of atmospheric tides in atmospheres with arbitrary distributions (with respect to altitude and latitude) of mean temperature and zonal wind. This program is used to calculate solar and lunar semidiurnal tides for various realistic models of seasonal distributions of wind and temperature.We find that the main effect of winds on the solar semidiurnal tide (for which we have thermal excitation distributed from the ground to about 80 km) is to give rise to significant mode coupling between the main semidiurnal mode and higher modes-leading to an enhancement of the latter.
…
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974JAtS…31.1421L/abstract
–Thus, it is the greenhouse effect that continuously de-stabilizes the atmosphere, trying to create a temperature profile that the atmosphere cannot sustain, which then causes all different kinds of weather as the atmosphere convectively overturns. Thus, the greenhouse effect is actually required to explain why weather occurs.
This is what makes water such an amazing substance. It cools the Earths surface when it evaporates, it warms the upper atmosphere when it re-condenses to form precipitation, it warms the lower atmosphere through the greenhouse effect, and it cools the upper atmosphere by emitting infrared radiation to outer space (also part of the greenhouse effect process). These heating and cooling processes are continuously interacting, with each limiting the influence of the other.–
I agree about water.
Water is of course, the major element of the greenhouse effect.
Disagreeing about CO2 would turn you into a strange luckwarmer, gb.
–Willard says:
November 13, 2022 at 9:57 AM
Disagreeing about CO2 would turn you into a strange luckwarmer, gb.–
The effects of CO2 seem have a vagueness in regard to amount time.
Or higher CO2 appear to follow warming by about 800 years- for example.
We have a cold ocean, cold ocean causes lower CO2 levels- this why even at 400 ppm of CO2, this is low level of CO2.
Next issue is technology- we get more electrical power from a energy
source due to better technology and other reasons.
Coal, is almost as bad as using wood, there better options. nationally then using a lot Coal or wood.
We wer
e using less coal, until China starting using a huge amount of coal. There various reason using coal or wood
is easier to do, despite being inefficient. Natural gas requires infrastructure, though one say just importing it, require less investment then actually mining it. And China has also been mining coal for centuries, so just increasing production is fairly easy- though 4 billion tonnes per year, can’t be put in a box called easy- that is an insane amount.
I have strange idea, that predicting thing far into the future, may be fun, but it largely a waste of time.
I may like to think of 50 years in future, but such prediction will obviously not be accurate.
But generally speaking I see a lot being done wrong, which also has good chance of trying something else [which might also be bad direction] but what close to certain, the future will be different.
And we have billions of people becoming less poor, they are predictably going try different things.
Or I am excessively optimistic.
So, strange lukewarmer [or luckwarmer] could close enough to being correct.
But I would also point out there is lack agreement in general regarding the effects of rising CO2 level. Or what effects that have occurred from the already risen CO2 levels.
[But it has been less than I once thought it could be.]
But there are others who somehow are so crazy as to say or I assume, think, that Earth is currently too hot.
They should find their thermostat, and turn it down.
But I advise them to not kill themselves, as generally, far more people die from being too cold than die from being too hot.
[70 F [21 C] in winter could be too cold, but for most people it seems to me to be safe enough, but if old and/or frail, maybe bump it up a bit. But if seems too warm, try 68 F]
While luckwarmers are usually technopoptimists, gb, they do not dispute the greenhouse effect. And they accept that CO2 is the beast of burden in the spectrum of atmospheric things.
Dewitt, Jeff, Lucia, Mosh, etc. They all accept what everybody accept. They don’t go for copes such as “the effects of CO2 seem have a vagueness in regard to amount time,” at least not regarding the greenhouse effect.
“While luckwarmers are usually technopoptimists, gb, they do not dispute the greenhouse effect. ”
What I am disputing?
It seems to me, I am excessively agreeable- and this mainly because
I don’t care too much about it.
It’s somewhat interesting. But should be obvious, that I am more interested in Mars global climate. Historically, I have been, recently Venus climate has been becoming more interesting for me.
For a long time, I was interested in space rocks. But I reach the point where I think Venus is the place to bring space rocks to.
And as I have said, I am very interested in religion of the cargo cult of global warming.
Unfortunately I think it will fade away like the hysteria about over population, mainly because we going to have a under population problem, pretty soon.
And it should take longer, to actually get a global cooling problem {Which won’t be much of a problem}.
Anyhow, I think we going to go from .13 C to .12 C per decade warming fairly soon, and I wondered if anyone thought we would instead return to the .14 C per decade.
Or does anyone imagines we going a lot warmer anytime soon?
It could be people are more worried a nuclear war.
But it seem the War in Ukraine is having more discussion about doing some kind thing to end this war- so, that would be good.
I think there a 50% chance SLS will launch on Wednesday- which would be important if it happens.
> What I am disputing?
Among other things, sensitivity (“the effects of CO2 seem have a vagueness in regard to amount time”), causation (“higher CO2 appear to follow warming by about 800 years”), perhaps generality with “we have a cold ocean.” But China is another level of the Contrarian Matrix altogether:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
Basically, all but the first sentence is part of the luckwarm playbook.
“Among other things, sensitivity (the effects of CO2 seem have a vagueness in regard to amount time), causation (higher CO2 appear to follow warming by about 800 years),”
Well there is issue of causation which has been mentioned quite a bit [particularly in regard to Al Gore movie] but also if CO2 warms the entire ocean, it does takes a long time.
“Covering more than 70% of Earths surface, our global ocean has a very high heat capacity. It has absorbed 90% of the warming that has occurred in recent decades due to increasing greenhouse gases, and the top few meters of the ocean store as much heat as Earth’s entire atmosphere.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-heat/
And btw are: By Rebecca Lindsey AND LuAnn Dahlman
from NOAA
On your list of lukewarmer? You said:
“Dewitt, Jeff, Lucia, Mosh, etc.”
Are they part of the etc?
Anyhow:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
“More than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the Earth system due to human-caused global warming has been absorbed by the oceans.”
I believe they talking mostly about higher CO2 levels
And we are talking CO2 levels {I think}.
And you said:
“perhaps generality with we have a cold ocean.”
Both above links are about warmed waters in the deep ocean and deep ocean is cold, or it is NOT about surface of ocean which is much warmer.
And finally:
“But China is another level of the Contrarian Matrix altogether”
It seems you failed to address my question:
What I am disputing?
But in terms of China. And using Coal for a long time???
wiki:
“The history of coal mining goes back thousands of years, with early mines documented in ancient China, the Roman Empire and other early historical economies.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining
Did I mention lately China’s average temperature which is about 8 C
And china is another name clay fired dishes, they made lots of china {porcelain} , and steel, brick, etc and it gets cold there.
China was superpower which planned to explore the whole world- but decided against it and burned the exploration ships to make that decison final.
For good reasons, there really was nothing in world, worth exploring.
Bingo squares like But China is more of a deflection than a disputation:
https://climateball.net/but-china/
What is disputed is usually implicit, e.g. we cannot do anything about AGW until China etc. Since it is false, it is only intimated, And if you have been questioning causation since that old movie then of course you are disputing it.
Playing dumb over what you mean or intimate by that kind of move never ages well.
Please beware your wishes.
“What is disputed is usually implicit, e.g. we cannot do anything about AGW until China etc. ”
Oh, I had no idea. We of course could do something, but it shouldn’t be burning wood for electrical power [and subsidize it calling it carbon neutral and lots of other stupid and ineffective stuff].
I was not saying that, but I would say western countries created the China which emits most CO2 emission on the world.
I am a bit of Marxist in this regard, I am not going bore you with it, but if want hear about, just talk to any Marxist- or anyone with pulse, who are concerned about the working class. Who might also be concerned the slave labor in various foreign countries.
A real solution would involve nuclear energy.
I not a big fan of nuclear energy, but is something a government could do about it. But space exploration is also another pathway- and I would say a much better pathway for governments to do- and they doing it, but much slower [and mostly of course in the wrong direction] than I want.
Oh, also ocean settlements is also solution/pathway to reducing CO2 emission- but that is complicated.
But as I have said, space exploration will lead to ocean settlements.
I would rather we get started it sooner, so it less of frantic thing when the time comes. Not that I am oppose to frantic things, but are advantages to getting ahead of the game.
> China which emits most CO2 emission on the world.
Thanks:
https://climateball.wordpress.com/but-china/#most-emission
***
> A real solution would involve nuclear energy.
But Nukes is another square:
https://climateball.net/but-nukes/
Yes, Dr Spencer explains it well:
“So, how is this different from what happens in the real world? Well, notice that what we are left with in this thought experiment is an atmosphere that is heated from below by the ground absorbing sunlight, but the atmosphere has no way of cooling…except in a very shallow layer right next to the ground where it can cool by conduction at night.”
This agrees with what I have been saying. Where we disagree is the same place Nick Stokes, Tyson, Stephen Wilde and others disagreed – Dr Spencer thinks the atmosphere would eventually become isothermal, and thus convection (and all weather) would cease. The rest of us argue it would not.
DREMT is incorrect as is often the case since Dr. Spencer also argues “it would not” when writing: “Without greenhouse gases, the atmosphere would slowly approach an isothermal state”.
Correct, B4. Also notice:
Roy argues that it is the capacity to cool the outer atmosphere (a region that Graham kept ignoring widen he riddled Tyson) that keeps the Earth warm, not unlike a blanket. Like Bob keeps saying, that the upper atmosphere keeps cooler is one part of the greenhouse effect.
Whether the atmosphere becomes isothermal or not is secondary to the fact that only Sky Dragon cranks try to generate more energy out of mere displacement.
The earthen naturally measured avg. midlatitude atm. already is isothermal above the tropopause for about 9km of height. This occurs because, above the tropopause, there the fluid becomes warmed from above in a gravity field.
As GHGs reduce out of the current mix, the tropopause height declines and that stratosphere isothermal region descends toward the ground. Extending this process toward completion is what Dr. Spencer is writing about but water vapor and O2,N2 radiation would not cease to exist in the natural atm. so the isothermal state would never totally exist in the 1bar surface air. The atm. then would “slowly approach an isothermal state” as entropy production continues.
And why is there a tropopause again, B4?
At the tropopause, the fluid stops being warmed from below in a gravity field and starts being warmed from above in a gravity field thus convection becomes nil & long haul airline passengers become happier at cruise height.
So without greenhouse gases there may not be a tropopause anymore, correct?
At 1bar surface pressure, an optically thin atm., there would still be a tropopause with nil GHGs because the massive quantity of N2,O2 would still radiate in and out just as “inefficiently” ex-DREMT term.
Without greenhouses gases, B4, from where is the system radiating to space?
Let us hope this level is not above the troposphere!
Ball4 says I am incorrect, Little Willy agrees…but then Little Willy quotes something confirming I am correct.
Once again Graham finds a bit that seems to agree with what he says and he rejects the rest. Just like he did with Norman not so long ago. And now he tries to deflect from discussing effective emission height.
11:12 am, mostly from the surface direct to deep space & that surface OLR would still be reduced by about 15% of the opacity of the former 2012 methane concentration just by O2,N2 before TOA.
The effective emission level (Chapman level) would not be from the tropopause but, like today, probably not far from it at (atm. total optical depth 1). Physically, the effective emission level is a trade-off between high density (i.e. relatively higher emissivity) 1bar surface atm. and small enough amount of opacity from overlying N2,O2 atmosphere to permit the lower level emitted radiation to escape directly to space.
EEL at (atm. total optical depth – 1)
Methane is a greenhouse gas, B4!
I don’t try to deflect from anything, Little Willy. I simply responded to what was directed towards me. You’re more than welcome to discuss effective emission height with Ball4, just be aware that effective emission height has nothing to do with the point I’ve been making.
12:31 pm, yes, and methane’s former atm. optical opacity (ppm CH4 as of 2012) would be the same as from O2,N2 atm. optical opacity in DREMT’s made-up scenario of “no GHGs” as I wrote.
B4,
My understanding is that GHGs increase emission height, so I’m not sure what you mean. Basically, not GHG, no radiative height to speak of. The opposite of Jupiter, if you please.
Ball4 is claiming that N2/O2 act like GHGs, Little Willy.
Yes, the EEL declines in height (similar the tropopause) as GHGs reduce out. For a physical example, look at Mars with non-dusty optically thin much less surface pressure atm. where the EEL is order 1km vs. earth order 5km in the tropical midlatitudes.
Well, B4. Mars is “dusty” and being dusty is not exactly being transparent. Of note:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/149926/dusty-differences-between-mars-and-earth
The author is discussing the martian tropopause in pressure: “tropopause-the natural pressure barrier between the troposphere and the stratosphere.” Here we are discussing tropopause in temperature lapse.
There are very slightly different (+/- 0.5K of 5K) martian GHEs for its clear atm., dusty atm., and dusty atm. with clouds, thus slightly different EELs.
Thy Wiki on the atmosphere of Mars reads:
It cites a paper in which we can read that there’s no stratospheric inversion on Mars:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6859
The paper’s self-limited scope is examining commonalities in solar system optically thick atmospheres which Mars does not possess as I pointed out due to such low surface pressure (~0.006bar).
The paper IS a good source to learn about the mechanics of grey absorbers in a thick atm. and grey IR optical depth. The published online paper should be on Willard’s reading list Nature Geoscience letter 12/8/2013, especially the attached SI sections.
Do you have any reference for that intriguing concept of pressure tropopause, B4?
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
Which assertion is correct:
A1. The lapse rate depends on surface temperature.
A2. The temperature at any altitude depends on the surface temperature.
A3. Conduction and convection determine atmospheric temperature, not surface temperature.
A4. All of the above.
“A1. The lapse rate depends on surface temperature.”
Lapse rate is varied by wetness/dryness of air
“A2. The temperature at any altitude depends on the surface temperature.”
Roughly true, within the troposphere- there are various weather
effect. And ozone is considered warm the statosphere [which effects lower atmosphere]
“A3. Conduction and convection determine atmospheric temperature, not surface temperature.”
Well, I would say ocean surface temperature and evaporative cooling determine global air temperature.
Not sure what others would say.
Tropical ocean is the heat engine of world [evaporative] and ocean has higher average temperature than land and is 70% of surface.
Land heat up it air faster, but also cools down faster- this particularly true of dry land.
Regarding. A3, think of it this way. If surface temperature did not matter, albedo would not matter. If albedo matters, then surface temperature impacts atmospheric temperature.
Surface temperature impacts GHG-free atmospheric temperature. How hot the surface can get in the day vs. how cold it can get at night will impact how much the atmosphere can be warmed or cooled, and what temperature it will thus average out at. As will the efficiency by which the warming and cooling can occur (the GHG-free atmosphere can be warmed more efficiently than it can cool).
No ex-DREMT, the GHG-free atmosphere can be warmed as efficiently as it can cool since warming and cooling are inverse processes.
I have explained exactly what I mean, and I’m correct.
Warmer global temperature is not how hot the surface air temperature is.
An GHG-free atmospheric temperature can have hotter surface air but one will have less greenhouse effect, globally.
The tropics is not hot, yet it gets the most sunlight and the region has the most greenhouse effect. A common part of definition of tropics is uniformity of air temperature.
A tropical island paradise isn’t that it too hot to be comfortable.
And semi tropical region suggest moderate or more uniform air temperature. And it’s not dry, it not desert like conditions- droughts are rare. Google:
-What is semi tropical?
Semi-tropical places have warm, wet air. … a semi-tropical island. adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun] Semi-tropical plants and trees grow in places where the air is warm and wet.-
Yeah, having trees also important- not cactus or scrub type trees, but you don’t need coconut trees or tropical plants, either.
It also seems that rather than having a calm, still world, it could be world with lots places with constant gale force winds.
And despite the false news, global warming is less violent weather and hottest temperature recorded was over 100 years ago [which is evidence to me- of global warming].
Anyhow global climate is related to global topography. If make planet smooth and flat, one likely to some kind harmonic type thing will cause wind to rip your skin off though probably also areas which tend to be dead calm. Not to mention we live on very volcanic planet and with space rocks crashing into our atmosphere.
But I suppose it’s all about would earth average temperature be -18 C.
Again, seems it depends topography- and also where volcanoes are.
It seems if in a big deep basin and there are several active volcanoes, you want to get out of that basin.
You they more than 80% of all volcanic activity is in the ocean- but also say our ocean hasn’t been explored, much.
> I suppose it’s all about would earth average temperature be -18 C.
I would rather think that it’s all about how to contrapose what we know about the greenhouse effect and get the same thing, gb.
A non-greenhouse effect, if you please.
Your number makes me think of a question, which I will ask below.
“Warmer global temperature is not how hot the surface air temperature is.”
Well, the near-surface air temperature is what we experience on a daily basis as being our +15 C global average “surface” temperature.
“Well, the near-surface air temperature is what we experience on a daily basis as being our +15 C global average surface temperature.”
But a land temperature which is close to 15 C is rare. The State of California happens to have this average temperature and I live in region of California which around 15 C. Large chucks ocean area could around 15 C, but more common are higher averages and lower averages.
If we were is greenhouse global climate there would be less difference which are average. You would have more areas with 15 C Average, though California average would probably be about 18 C, Florida which is about 23 C, would stay around 23 C- though there would be sea level rise and it would be under water- which if we had a cheap way to ocean settlements would not be a problem.
But we in ice age and it take huge amount work to make Earth become a greenhouse climate. I would tend to want to be in an ice Age- a bit warmer might nice, but mile high ice sheet on North America is interesting change- and could be fun. Not problem if most people are living in Ocean settlements- you could have more living area at around 15 C, then we have now. But most people would probably in live in space where there is “no temperature”. And design gives you warm and an refrigerator or making things cold- does require energy.\
Though many think getting rid of heat is a game buster for living in space- but they are simply wrong.
“or making things cold- does require energy.\”
or making things cold- doesn’t require energy- doesn’t need electrical power or any energy- though it would controls which maintain- energy to open and close valves- something like energy need for smart phone.
Most are wrong because a significant factor of having spacefaring civilization is having water as cheap [or cheaper] in space as compared to Earth.
And at moment water at $500 per kg is “cheap” on the Moon. But if there is mineable lunar water, in decades it could less than $10 per kg {still very expensive]- and within in centuries Lunar water could cheaper than Earth water [lunar space elevator- and use water to make hydropower electricity- dry Moon imports water, cheaply].
There is no shortage of water in this solar system- or this universe.
And seems likely to me, that in more than a century, Venus orbit could have the cheapest water [and cheapest rocket fuel or rocket propellent}.
How do we determine the thickness of an atmosphere?
What is temperature inversion?
Where do we find the famous (or infamous to Sky Dragon cranks) -18C in the atmosphere?
“Where do we find the famous (or infamous to Sky Dragon cranks) -18C in the atmosphere?”
Lapse rate and average temperature.
US average of about 12: 30 / 6.5 = 4.61 km about average surface elevation.
At night it lowers, as it does in winter and summer on average is higher.
But also drier when higher so, on average about 5 km up
Average tropical ocean about 26: 44 / 6.5 = 6.769 or
about 7 km up
[Tropics has lot very high clouds with ice particles rather then water droplets- and there are glaciers in higher elevations in the tropics.
And if going to talk tropics, should also mention the equatorial Bulge, wiki:
“The difference of the radii is thus about 21 km. An observer standing at sea level on either pole, therefore, is 21 km closer to Earth’s center than if standing at sea level on the Equator. As a result, the highest point on Earth, measured from the center and outwards, is the peak of Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador rather than Mount Everest. But since the ocean also bulges, like Earth and its atmosphere, Chimborazo is not as high above sea level as Everest is.”
]
Anyways, most of the troposphere of the tropics is quite cold.
Very good:
https://brian-rose.github.io/ClimateLaboratoryBook/courseware/radiation.html
A nice online book.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
What happens to the temperature profile of an atmosphere that stops to convect?
Does Mercury has a troposphere?
Where does the mercury in our troposphere come from?
Mercury, and Earth’s Moon, have collisionless atmospheres, what is called an exosphere. The density of molecules is so low that the molecules don’t collide with one another-they only collide with the surface. They follow ballistic trajectories while they are in the air, but they don’t necessarily escape, they only hop around on the surface.
Well played!
As for the other question:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL097953
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Not interested In learning why your ref. used the term re: martian dust storms.
If one insists that back radiation -an observable, measurable flux- is not heating because there is a larger upward flux, then why stop there?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Starship Progress
“Full test duration of 14 engines”- Musk
http://www.transterrestrial.com/2022/11/14/starship-progress-3/#comments
14 engines has more power than Falcon Heavy and about same as
Saturn V first stage engines [which as I recall were 5 Kerosene and LOX engines]. And made a huge cloud of dust.
If do 33 engine it should be exciting/terrifying, but they probably try a 20 something engine with next static fire.
I tend to think the launch pad should be taller or it’s going to create a mars global dust storm.
And as far as I know SLS is still a go for next Wednesday.
But probably still about 50% chance of a go- weather not great and
rocket could have the normal problems of a countdown.
Is the lapse rate modulated downward due to cooling effects of GHGs?
Here is a statement:
> You still think that the solar input is -18.
Find the problem with it.
By -18 C, you mean if spherical body at 1 AU from the sun was emitting 240 watts and absorbing 240 watt and it absorbed the most and emitted the most [was an ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere] then, it’s uniform surface temperature would be about -18 C.
There are many problems with that comparing it to Earth or any planet.
First we know and ideal thermally conductive blackbody at 1 AU from our sun would have uniform temperature of 5 C.
A uniform temperature of 5 C can be said to have an average temperature of 5 C, but a uniform temperature is different than average temperature.
Earth does not have anything close to an uniform temperature- because it is in an Icehouse global climate.
Global warming is having a more uniform global temperature, and we would need a LOT of global warming to be a lot closer to having an uniform temperature. And global climate state is called a Greenhouse global climate.
Or Earth has had more uniform global climates in the past, and these are called a greenhouse global climate.
Another way to say this, is that Earth is currently very dry, and Earth has been very wet in the past [and very long time ago].
But during interglacial periods Earth has been wetter, and our current Holocene interglacial period was much wetter than it is now.
And past interglacial period, have been wetter than at any time the Holocene interglacial period.
There are also other problems with it, but we will start with this.
> you mean if spherical body
Exactly.
Input ain’t no temperature.
Next, any planet [or Moon] will be heated more near it’s equator- an ideal thermally conductive blackbody, transports this heat evenly.
So poles would have same temperature as the equator in sunlight.
Every planet is colder in the poles. Moon is very cold in the pole- colder enough to freeze water in vacuum- which very cold- around 50 K. Though 100 K [-173 C] can also freeze water in vacuum but over 1000 of years some of ice evaparates, at 50 K it takes millions of years for water to evaporate [or a very slow process] though obviously an impactor will evaporate water, also.
And Earth poles are also very cold in winter.
Earth does have the tropical ocean heat engine, which warms the world, and Ocean transport heat to poles.
It seems to me, some think the tropics can transport heat better,
or some other crazy idea. But without having tropical ocean heating the rest of world, we would have a much lower global average temperature.
Or as I say, ocean warms, land cools.
Are clouds made of water vapor?
Clouds consist of liquid water droplets or ice particles suspended in the atmosphere. They are formed by the condensation of atmospheric water vapor when the temperature falls below the saturation temperature. Cloud liquid water content is defined as the total mass of cloud water in a vertical column of atmosphere per unit of surface area.
Exactly, Tyson:
https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/clouds/cloud_development/clouds.htm
So if we are being consistent, either we remove all the water from the thought experiment, or it stays as is.
Not so. The entire point of the thought experiment is to remove GHGs, and think about what the effect would be. If it stays "as is" and you keep water vapor, then you are not removing all the GHGs, so the thought experiment isn’t even being run.
You can either:
1) Remove all the water from the thought experiment, in which case there is nothing to freeze and become ice, and thus no chance of the albedo changing, no matter what the effective temperature is that you calculate.
2) Remove water vapor, but not water. In which case, no clouds can form, so the albedo will be so low that the effective temperature of the Earth will not be below freezing, and thus the albedo will not change because the water will not turn to ice.
Either way is irrelevant to the point I’ve made, but it seems to be a sticking point for you guys. You might dislike 2) because it seems silly to have water and for that not to be able to evaporate and form water vapor, but it’s just a thought experiment, after all. If you are going to have a thought experiment without GHGs, then you have to either have water and accept that it won’t evaporate for the purposes of the thought experiment, or do away with water altogether. You are not including the water cycle in any case, even with 2).
Willard at 11:39 AM
“remove all the water”
Desert sand albedo is ~0.40.
“it stays as is”
Ocean albedo is ~0.10.
Ice albedo is 0.2-0.7.
"The albedo of clouds, snow, and ice-covered surfaces is around 0.5–0.8, that of fields and forests is 0.03–0.3, and that of water is 0.02–0.05 except when the angle of incidence becomes nearly parallel to the water surface."
– DANIEL A. VALLERO, in Fundamentals of Air Pollution (Fourth Edition), 2008.
Thanks, Tyson.
You might like:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/10/the-albedo-of-earth/
You are welcome.
You might also like:
You both might also like:
"Open Ocean – 0.06"
– Wikipedia, article "Albedo".
My pleasure, Tyson.
I’m sure you already know:
http://www.climatedata.info/forcing/albedo/
What kind of trees do you think an Earth with a non-radiative atmosphere can haz?
Tyson’s value for ocean albedo was wrong, but sure, thanks Tyson for being wrong.
Clarification, Tyson –
When you say Ocean albedo is ~0.10, I think you mean:
http://www.climatedata.info/forcing/albedo/
Thanks!
Willard at 2:43 PM
Clarification…
The ocean surface albedo is not an intrinsic property and as such, is dynamic and highly variable. It is sensitive to four physical parameters: solar zenith angle, wind speed, transmission by atmospheric cloud/aerosol, and ocean chlorophyll concentration.
My post of 11:24 AM shows that zenith angle alone causes it to vary from 0.02 to 0.58 (Data from DANIEL A. VALLERO, in Fundamentals of Air Pollution (Fourth Edition), 2008.).
I know, Tyson.
I was mostly corroborating your estimate while linking to a cool website.
[TYSON] Ocean
[WIKIPEDIA] Open ocean
Since reported values seem to range from 0.02 – 0.10, the value from Wikipedia of 0.06 seems reasonable.
Graham’s claim that Tyson’s value for ocean albedo was wrong, but sure, Graham has another excuse.
Yes, Tyson was wrong. His estimate for ocean albedo was too high.
[TYSON] Ocean albedo is ~0.10.
[CLIMATE INFO] Ocean albedo is 0.07-0.10.
[GRAHAM] Tyson is wrong.
[TYSON] Ocean albedo is ~0.10
[VALLERO] …and that of water is 0.02 0.05 except when the angle of incidence becomes nearly parallel to the water surface.
[WIKIPEDIA] Open ocean – 0.06.
[LITTLE WILLY’S REFERENCE] 0.07 – 0.10
[DREMT] Tyson was wrong. His estimate for ocean albedo was too high.
[TYSON] Ocean
[WIKIPEDIA] Open ocean
Talk about desperate…
Talk about a Sky Dragon crank who cannot concede anything,
Yes, I guess that’s what you are.
Talk about a Sky Dragon crank who cannot concede anything…
OK, his name is Little Willy and he is desperately obsessed with this guy DREMT who he has lost every single argument he has ever had to.
Talk about a Sky Dragon crank who cannot concede anything!
I just did.
Let readers determine what Graham just conceded.
By "I just did" I mean I just talked about a "Sky Dragon Crank" who cannot concede anything. As I said, his name is Little Willy…
Let readers decide if Graham concedes anything when he redefines *Sky Dragon Crank* to include someone who endorses mainstream views on the physics involved in the greenhouse effect.
I concede that you are a Sky Dragon Crank, like all the other cranks who believe in the Sky Dragon – namely, CO2-induced warming.
Let readers decide how, by redefining Sky Dragon Crank by the opposite meaning it was first given, Graham concedes anything.
I very much doubt there are many still reading at this stage. We are both just wasting our time in a pointless back and forth that nobody but us has any interest in.
Let readers decide if they are reading,
Sure.
Let readers decide if Graham concedes anything with his NO U.
Let readers decide if Little Willy has ever conceded anything in his life.
> Are clouds made of water vapor?
NG’s response:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110506004056/https://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2010/12/the-tyndall-gas-effect-part-2-seeing-is-believing/
Did anyone here actually say or even imply that clouds were made of water vapor?
As readers can see, Graham “cannot be reasoned with on any subject.”
Answer the question, honestly.
readers can see, Graham “cannot be reasoned with on any subject.”
As readers can see, Little Willy does not answer questions, but expects many questions to be answered for him.
see, Graham “cannot be reasoned with on any subject.”
…readers can see, Little Willy does not answer questions, but expects many questions to be answered for him.
Graham cannot be reasoned with on any subject.
…can see, Little Willy does not answer questions, but expects many questions to be answered for him.
Graham cannot be reasoned with on any subject.
…see, Little Willy does not answer questions, but expects many questions to be answered for him.
Graham cannot be reasoned with on any subject.
…Little Willy does not answer questions, but expects many questions to be answered for him.
Graham cannot be reasoned with on any subject.
…Willy does not answer questions, but expects many questions to be answered for him.
Graham cannot be reasoned with on any subject.
…does not answer questions, but expects many questions to be answered for him.
Graham
…can be reasoned with on any subject. As readers can see, Little Willy does not answer questions, but expects many questions to be answered for him.
cannot
Little
be
Willy
reasoned with
does
on
not
any subject.
answer
What does happen to the temperature of air when air is displaced?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
How does an isothermal atmosphere warm the surface?
As those who understand my argument will know, this is not a question I need to answer.
What is evaporation?
How can an atmosphere without greenhouse gases be adiabetic?
I don’t think adiabatic processes can happen anywhere in the atmosphere. What’s to stop heat being transferred into and out of a theoretical column of air?
Come on, Gordo:
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Thermodynamics_and_Statistical_Mechanics/Book%3A_Heat_and_Thermodynamics_(Tatum)/08%3A_Heat_Capacity_and_the_Expansion_of_Gases/8.08%3A_Adiabatic_Lapse_Rate
Any isothermal atmosphere would do.
That is not the definition of an adiabatic process. An adiabatic process is one in which heat is not transferred out of the system or into the system. In other words, the only variable is work.
I don’t know where they got their hokey definition of adiabatic but it is plainly wrong.
An example often offered as an adiabatic process is a bicycle pump. Work is done on the air in the pump to compress it but theoretically no heat enters or leaves the system. Anyone who has worked with such a pump knows better, some heat escapes out of the hose connector.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re just making stuff up once again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Why do the Moon and Mercury have exospheres but no tropospheres?
Haven’t you watched ‘The Martian’ with Matt Damon. I’m sure it is explained in the movie. After all, it’s a documentary, isn’t it????
C’mon, Gordo.
Good one.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
willard…”Which assertion is correct:
A1. The lapse rate depends on surface temperature.
A2. The temperature at any altitude depends on the surface temperature.
A3. Conduction and convection determine atmospheric temperature, not surface temperature.
A4. All of the above.
***
You forgot an answer…
A5 None of the above.
The lapse rate is a theoretical concept that presumes rising, heated air causes the negative pressure gradient. Of course, that is pseudo-science since it contradicts the Ideal Gas Law.
The negative pressure gradient is caused by a varying gravitational field, weakening as altitude increases. In fact, it diminishes in proportion to the altitude squared. Although the change in gravity would not be noticed appreciably by a larger mass, the tiny masses of atoms/molecules are affected by it. The gas is far more dense near the surface and becomes less dense with altitude.
Whoever created the lapse rate theory is in denial about this fact. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of air molecules, which is heat. According to the Ideal Gas Law, temperature and pressure are proportional in a constant volume. However, the atmosphere is a unique situation where the volume has no walls or roof. The pressure is created entirely by gravitational force. Without gravity, there is no pressure. All molecules would have escaped to space without it.
Air density at the top of Everest, near 30,000 feet, is 1/3 the density of air at sea level. That cannot be explained by any other factor than gravitational force.
> that is pseudo-science since it contradicts the Ideal Gas Law.
See, gb?
That is the kind of comment that makes you indistinguishable from a Sky Dragon crank.
A true luckwarmer would never say that kind of thing.
> See, gb?
Sorry, gb.
Welcome back, Gordo!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
If the only way to transfer energy from the surface to space was radiation, at what temperature the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would keep the surface?
Gordon
The negative pressure gradient is caused by a varying gravitational field, weakening as altitude increases. In fact, it diminishes in proportion to the altitude squared.
Sure, but please consider: earths radius is 6378 km, and increases to 6388 km at 10 km altitude while the pressure drops from 101kPa to 24,3 kPa.
Applying the formula F=G*m*mE/R2 results in a gravity difference of 0,031 Nm2/kg2
The difference in gravity between the poles and the equator is 0,043 Nm2/kg2
According to your assertion the pressure at sea level at the equator would be lower than at 10 km altitude.
Something else is going on, you may be interested in what it is.
Although the change in gravity would not be noticed appreciably by a larger mass, the tiny masses of atoms/molecules are affected by it.
Please look up the experiment of the cannon ball and the feather in a vacuum.
sibbele…”The difference in gravity between the poles and the equator is 0,043 Nm2/kg2
According to your assertion the pressure at sea level at the equator would be lower than at 10 km altitude”.
***
The problem is a lot more complex than it seems. For one, its a lot hotter near the Equator, therefore the atmosphere expands and you have forces countering gravity.
At the Poles, the air is a lot colder, and denser. It would be difficult to determine what effect gravity has on the molecules and what effect is produced by the expansive forces of heat.
I realize this is not an easy or straight-forward problem but I am going on the evidence that temperature varies with air pressure in a linear manner. I don’t think the opposite is true, that pressure varies with temperature. The latter does not explain why the atmosphere is 1/3rd less dense at 30,000 feet than at sea level.
**************
re cannon ball and feather…if what you are claiming is what I think you are claiming that’s not a good comparison. A feather will be affected by the molecules in the atmosphere and move side to side on its way down. How about a cannon ball and a small steel ball?
As I pointed out, air molecules are not in the same mass range as such large objects. When Newton created f = ma, he knew nothing about atoms or molecules.
No one claimed that molecules drops at 9.8 m/s^2. If they did, all molecules would be tightly compacted around the surface, just as if you had dropped a bazillion small steel balls.
Air molecules tend to move around erratically as they do in any container. I have no idea what makes them move in a container and I don’t pretend to understand what causes them to move in the atmosphere. I do know that heat can cause them to move faster in a container.
Some scientists have claimed that air acts as a weight in a vertical column, that higehr molecules press down on lower molecules. I think that is nonsense. There is no interaction between air molecules in a vertical column.
Neither a cannon ball, a feather, nor a small steel ball can move around like a molecule therefore I presume it is the far lighter mass of the molecules that allow them to move randomly, even in a gravitational field. On the other hand, they are graded by pressure, which means there are less molecules available at higher altitudes.
Have you seen the machines they use in lotteries? Balls with numbers on them are blown around in a container till one drops into a door and is extracted. What happens if you shut off the air? All the ball would drop to the bottom of the container.
Something causes air molecules to move and somehow they are affected differently at different altitudes. There are 1/3rd less molecules at 30,000 feet than at sea level. Why??? It has to be a varying gravitational field, in my opinion.
How do we determine if the (theorical profile of) temperature in a planetary atmosphere is stable against convection?
On Earth, atmospheric temperature declines with height above the surface in the lowest 10-15 km. The rate of this decline is called the lapse rate.
The lapse rate and temperature in the troposphere are determined primarily by a balance between radiative cooling and convection of heat from the surface.
When the atmosphere resists vertical motions, it is stable; when the atmosphere enhances vertical motions, it is unstable.
By comparing the density changes undergone by a rising parcel of air with the density of the surrounding environment, the enhancement or suppression of the vertical motion can be determined.
If the lapse rate of the surrounding environment is steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate, this part of the environment is thermally unstable and there is a resulting upward acceleration in a rising parcel of air; the atmosphere is enhancing the vertical motion and is unstable.
When the rising parcel of air reaches an elevation where its temperature is the same as that of the environment, its acceleration drops to zero; this part of the environment is thermally stable (it resists upward or downward motion).
maguff…”The lapse rate and temperature in the troposphere are determined primarily by a balance between radiative cooling and convection of heat from the surface”.
***
bs. What you describe is an insignificant variable component built upon the static component created by the negative pressure gradient created by gravity. Without radiative cooling or thermal convection there would still be a lapse rate as defined by temperature versus altitude.
If what you claim is correct, the lapse rate would vary by location on the Earth. It doesn’t, at least not significantly. At sea level on the Equator or the Poles, air pressure is the same. At 30,000 feet over the Equator or the Poles, air pressure is the same, or similar.
Mt. Kilimanjaro is near the Equator and it has a similar pressure gradient to Everest or McKinley in Alaska. Everest is about 28 degrees north of the Equator and about 52 degrees south of the north pole. Denali is about 63 degrees north of Equator.
Kilimanjaro…..19,340 feet….pressure = 375 mmHg
McKinley……..20,310 feet….pressure = 360 mmHg
Everest………29,031 feet….pressure = 253 mmHg
Note that Kilimanjaro and McKinley, both near 20,000 feet, have similar air pressures yet they are located at very different latitudes, hence surface heat.
Of course, pressure is directly proportional to the number of air molecules in the air and that number at the top of Everest is 1/3rd the number per unit volume at sea level.
There is no way surface radiation or convection has a significant effect on the air pressure. Since temperature is also proportional to the number of air molecules it stands to reason that temperature is related to air pressure and not to heat transported from the surface.
The temperature at the Everest base camp at 18,000 feet is normally below 0C. The Khumbu ice fall at the base is always frozen. There would be no significant heat affecting either the temperature or the pressure 10,000 feet higher at the peak.
If you go much lower to the town of Katmandu, temperatures are always temperate. It is located near the same latitude as southern Spain or San Diego in California. If your theory is correct, then warm air from that region should rise and warm the Everest base camp. It doesn’t, so clearly the temperature on Everest is purely a function of air pressure due to gravity.
Suppose then we have an atmosphere of nitrogen, which does not absorb or emit infrared. Sunlight is converted to heat at the surface. To maintain energy balance, heat is radiated back to space. Radiations of course go straight through the atmosphere.
At what temperature will the surface warm?
Of interest to most human beings is not the temperature of the surface itself, but the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface.
dremt…”Of interest to most human beings is not the temperature of the surface itself, but the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface”.
***
I think we should start boring holes in the surface and inserting thermometers. I hear Willard enjoys inserting thermometers in all his body orifices. It’s an alarmist thing.
HEALTH WARNING
Do not try this at home. Make sure you carry oxygen with you if you do so elsewhere.
…interest to most human beings is not the temperature of the surface itself, but the temperature of the atmosphere near the surface.
Follow through on your idea. Solar energy is converted to heat at the surface. Since the nitrogen atmosphere is in contact with the surface, it will absorb surface heat via conduction, cooling the surface. Then the warmed nitrogen will rise.
As it rises, it begins to cool naturally due to the thinning of the nitrogen molecules. You need to take that natural cooling into consideration.
Glad that you finally got Grahams innuendo, Gordo.
The question here is – at what temperature will the surface warm?
The question here is – at what temperature will the atmosphere near the surface warm?
Let an object A warm an object B. Can B ever be warmer than A, and if so under what conditions?
In this exercise, it can help to think of A as a planet surface and B as an atmosphere.
Yes, when the surface has warmed the atmosphere above it via conduction and convection during the day, and then during the night the surface cools below the temperature of the atmosphere above it by radiating through the atmosphere to space.
PS. One can also think of A as an atmosphere and B as the planet surface, of course.
I’ll just add that I was thinking of a GHG-free atmosphere when writing my 10:23 AM comment.
Suppose some entrepreneur E* wanted to heat their power plant on a planet with no greenhouse gases.
E* envisions that he could use the atmosphere itself. It is well known that non-radiative gases are Very Good at holding their energy, and that a non-radiative atmosphere inefficiently emits its energy to space. Hence the trademark – the Perfect Convector ™.
How warm would E* be able to heat the power plant using his Perfect Convector?
You need to seek professional help.
DISCLAIMER
Any resemblance between E* and Elon Musk is fortuitous.
…need to seek professional help.
Ever heard of a heat pump, Willard?
Your thought experiment is better applied to claims that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. According to the theory, all we need is a container transparent to infrared and one can set up such a container in their living room and it will naturally recycle heat to warm the room.
At least, that is the basis of the back-radiation theory in AGW.
C’mon, Gordo.
Search for “heat pump” on this page.
Your deflection is boring, and you did not answer the question.
Little Willy keeps bashing straw men, then gets upset when people do not play along. He needs to seek professional help.
I think Willard may be beyond professional help. I think he is at the stage of lip tribbling.
Graham cannot bring himself to tell Gordo how a heat pump works in our world and why it may not be that efficient in his thought experiment.
If he can get it to work at all, that is.
"I think Willard may be beyond professional help. I think he is at the stage of lip tribbling."
He’s certainly not at the stage of understanding people’s arguments.
Graham cannot bring himself to tell Gordo about greenhouses.
I have no idea what you’re going on about. Genuinely.
Graham does not always respond to Gordo, but when he does he skips most of what Gordo says.
No idea what your problem is.
More whining from Graham to be ignored.
OK then.
What is the dry adiabatic lapse rate?
What is the main limitation of the Carnot cycle?
And so Graham has yet to find a source where orbital motion is defined as motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face.
He won’t find any because an orbital motion is independent from the orientation of the orbiting object.
Almost all celestial bodies spin anyway, including the Moon.
“And so Graham has yet to find a source where orbital motion is defined as motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face [oriented towards the inside of the orbit]”.
Wrong. Any definition mentioning “rotation about an external axis” does that job nicely. The “Spinners” need a definition mentioning “translation in a circle or ellipse”. Good luck with that.
That comment was meant to be there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2022-0-32-deg-c/#comment-1398083
And Graham still fails to get that a rotation around an external axis does not imply anything regarding the body doing the rotating.
I am correct.
willard…”And so Graham has yet to find a source where orbital motion is defined as motion in which the orbiting object keeps the same face”.
***
Linus Pauling was once asked why he had not used a double blind study. He replied that such a study is not necessary when the outcome is so obvious.
Same here. No source is required when we non-spinners can offer elegant proofs to prove a body in orbit, keeping the same face pointed to the external axis, cannot possibly rotate about a local axis.
Sources are normally used to corroborate an argument, kind of a backup proof. I am still awaiting your proof that the Moon is rotating about a local axis.
Albert Einstein once ate a marshmallow.
It was a good marshmallow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX9cemDYSDM
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
What kind of trees an Earth with a non-radiative atmosphere can haz?
What is the difference between the oceans and the open oceans?
Why is Willard asking so many questions? And why is he not trying to answer any of them?
It appears Willard has extended his trolling to keeping the rest of us engaged in this old thread.
Trying to learn something.
Open ocean has big waves.
Say had 20 meter diameter pipe full of freshwater and floating 1 meter above the waterline and more than 100 meter long.
Would it stop big waves if hitting it’s length?
Second question, would make waves that one that one could surf?
Ships that are many times larger than your pipe get tossed around by big waves. They simply lift the shift and drop it down, that is, if they don’t roll it over.
A problem with sailboats comes about when they are lifted by a large wave and sail down the opposite side. They can get going too fast and ram into the next wave, causing the bow to submerge and the tail end to flip over the bow lengthwise.
I have read accounts of this (pitchpoling) where the mast gets ripped right off and takes part of the deck with it. Then you’re in trouble if you don’t get the hole patched.
Read an account of three people deciding to sail around the The Cape, at the bottom of South America. They hit pretty rough water and their sail boat pitchpoled, tearing a 4 foot square section off the deck out.
Luckily they had a guy onboard who was a shipwrite, from Vancouver, Canada, of all places. He managed to quickly repair the deck to keep water out then jury-rigged a small mast from spars, etc. They managed to sail to a port in Chile.
Scary stuff. Although I enjoy reading about such adventures, I prefer staying dry as a landlubber.
— Gordon Robertson says:
November 20, 2022 at 6:21 AM
Ships that are many times larger than your pipe get tossed around by big waves. They simply lift the shift and drop it down, that is, if they dont roll it over. —
Well purpose of my pipe is to cause surfing waves and be a breakwater- I also want to be able to move breakwater [and the ocean settlement]. And it’s cheap.
One could say it’s primary purpose is, to be cheap, then to cause surfing, and be able to be towed to different locations [though not particularly quickly.
It’s mostly made Aluminum which somewhat thin, and has outer layer of titanium thinner sheet metal. And it strength is related balloon tanks which has used in rocket, and you roughtly say SpaceX Starship is sort of a “balloon tank construction” or it gets it’s strength when it’s pressurize- though it does need much pressure.
So it floats poorly [only small part of it is above waterline- about 1 meter of 20 meter diameter is above waterline. And floats and has “ballast” because filled with freshwater which has slight lower density than sea water. Or there is no air in it, and water is pressurized to 15 psig or in other words, has absolute pressure of 15 + 14.7 psi of sea level atmospheric pressure-[29.7 psia]
So, if broadside to waves, does cause wave to rise and break over the pipe?
It’s quite massive, but not nearly as massive compared to other ships, such the Russian,the Typhoon:
“These nuclear giants were built by Soviet Russia in the 1960s and 70s for facing the US and its allies in the ongoing cold war. Larger than three football fields combined, they were laden with extraordinary features such as swimming pools, saunas and golf courses. Typhoon class submarines measured 566 feet lengthwise, 76 m breadthwise and reached a height of 38 m with a displacement of over 48,000 tonnes.”
https://www.marineinsight.com/know-more/biggest-submarines-in-the-world/
And not nearly as massive as US, Ohio-Class submarines, either.
Oh, was wrong, it has more displacement weight than Ohio and Ohio is
longer: “Length 560ft (170m)”
And Ohio has displacement weight of 18,750 tons submerged.
[I would guess it has more displacement weight when submerged.]
The pipe if 100 meter long has displacement weight of about
32000 tonnes, if made 170 meters long, times it by 1.7 =
54400 displacement tonnes.
So also a bit more than Typhoon, which is 566 feet long [172.5 meters]
Anyhow per meter length twice displacement weight as Ohio and
slightly more than Typhoon Class sub.
C’mon, Gordo.
I’m making a point about playing riddles.
And I’m still waiting for your responses.
…but you are the only one playing riddles, Little Willy.
I made my argument crystal clear, and nobody has said a thing to challenge it. All this waffling on about lapse rates and albedo etc completely misses the mark.
So if you want to learn something, fine, keep asking questions…but do not pretend you are making some kind of point.
I am a still waiting for your answers, Gordo.
Grahams riddle is as insignificant as the warming he purports to have found in it.
Forgot the question.
Of course you did, Gordo.
…you are the only one playing riddles, Little Willy.
I made my argument crystal clear, and nobody has said a thing to challenge it. All this waffling on about lapse rates and albedo etc completely misses the mark.
So if you want to learn something, fine, keep asking questions…but do not pretend you are making some kind of point.
One day Graham will concede that, in his thought experiment, the warming he purports to find in the atmosphere is insignificant compared to the heat loss through radiation.
More insignificant than whatever he consider exists but is insignificant.
What heat loss through radiation? The GHG-free atmosphere can’t really radiate very efficiently at all.
[GRAHAM] Radiation goes straight through the non radiative atmosphere.
[ALSO GRAHAM] What heat loss through radiation?
The radiation that passes straight through the atmosphere is coming from the surface. Not the atmosphere.
And the radiation that the surface emits goes straight to space too.
This is not a negligible loss.
The question then becomes how does convection and conduction compensates for it, if at all.
We’re not talking about the radiation budget of the surface (though you seem to be forgetting about the Sun, which supplies the surface directly with insolation). We’re talking about the GHG-free atmosphere…which is not warmed by radiation, and does not really cool by radiation. Do I really have to write out the argument again? Can’t you just look back at the many, many times I’ve written it all out for you already?
For the results of the thought experiment to make any sense at all, we need to compare them to a benchmark. The most natural one is when the atmosphere contains radiative gases. The difference between a scenario where all radiation goes into space and a scenario where some of the radiation is retained by the atmosphere is far from being negligible.
Graham is on the verge of discovering relative performance.
…do I really have to write out the argument again? Cant you just look back at the many, many times Ive written it all out for you already?
More vague handwaving and desperate cries of “nothing to see here” from Graham to ignore.
…I really have to write out the argument again? Can’t you just look back at the many, many times I’ve written it all out for you already?
ore vague handwaving and desperate cries of nothing to see here from Graham to ignore.
…really have to write out the argument again? Can’t you just look back at the many, many times I’ve written it all out for you already?
re vague handwaving and desperate cries of nothing to see here from Graham to ignore.
…have to write out the argument again? Can’t you just look back at the many, many times I’ve written it all out for you already?
Let readers decide how warm a non radiative atmosphere can become when most if not all radiation is emitted back to space when compared to an atmosphere with GHGs.
Sure, let readers (who are more likely to actually understand my argument than Little Willy) decide.
What is the difference between the longwave radiative fluxes at surface and at the top of the atmosphere?
What would happen if the atmosphere was isothermal?
Is it possible to make noble gases react?
When does the temperature of an atmosphere depend on the temperature on surface?
5001 – A Comment Odyssey
Willard the Idiot wrote –
“Let readers decide how warm a non radiative atmosphere can become when most if not all radiation is emitted back to space when compared to an atmosphere with GHGs.”
Well, seeing as how there is no such thing as a “non radiative atmosphere” (all matter above absolute zero radiates continuously), Wonky Wee Willy is just playing one of his “silly semantic games” with himself, and managing to lose!
The exceptionally dim witted Wee Willy seems to imply that CO2, oxygen, and nitrogen, all at the same temperature, somehow magically heat up when mixed, and cool down when separated.
What an ignorant and stupid idiot he is! Rational readers won’t have to waste much time before agreeing.
Mike Flynn,
The idea of a non radiative atmosphere is not my idea.
So if you find it silly, please confer with Graham.
Long live and prosper.
"The exceptionally dim witted Wee Willy seems to imply that CO2, oxygen, and nitrogen, all at the same temperature, somehow magically heat up when mixed, and cool down when separated."
Good point…
Why does the Moon have an axial tilt, and how does it his axial tilt defeat Moon Dragon cranks?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
What is the Moon nutation?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Is the solar system (in) a vortex?
Is Little Willy really this bored?
What about tidal force?
Would a Foucault pendulum work on the Moon?
All been discussed a dozen times before. Nothing new.
Is there a Standardized Lunar Coordinate System for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Datasets?
What would it mean for a rocket in an elliptical orbit to be “not rotating”?
How do scientists determine the Pole Star of a celestial body?
How, indeed. With most celestial bodies, which are actually rotating on their own axes, it makes sense…but with "tidally-locked" moons such as Earth’s moon, which isn’t rotating on its own axis, does it make any sense to assume its so-called "axis" doesn’t change orientation whilst orbiting?
Is it assumed, or do they have some way of determining whether the orientation of the so-called "axis" of the moon remains constant, or otherwise?
A lot of genuine questions to be answered (no riddles, genuine questions).
Willard at 11:45 AM
“How do scientists determine the Pole Star of a celestial body?”
The point in the sky toward which a celestial body’s axis of rotation points is known as the north celestial pole. Currently, Earth’s north celestial pole lies within about a degree of the fairly bright star Polaris, which is consequently sometimes known as the north star or pole star.
The closest “bright” star to the Moon’s north celestial pole is called Al Dhih (the hyena’s claws), also known as Omega Draconis or 28 Draconis. I put “bright” in quote marks because as stars go, it’s not particularly noteworthy; however, it’s closer to the lunar celestial pole than any other naked-eye star, so it’s as close to a “pole star” as you’re going to get for the lunar north pole.
If you’re navigating towards the lunar south pole, you also don’t have a lot of good stars to choose from. The brightest star within a few degrees of the lunar south celestial pole is Delta Doradus.
Both stars are visible to the naked eye, but you really have to know where to look in order to see them. If you’re going to be navigating the lunar surface by the stars, better bring along a star chart.
Copied word for word from a Quora answer, then presented as your own work, interesting.
You did not mention that Polaris is the tail star on the Little Dipper (Ursa Minor). Also, it has not always been the Pole Star. The axis of the Earth has changed over the years.
“Also, it has not always been the Pole Star.”
Precisely the reason for my saying “Currently, Earths north celestial pole lies…”
The actual question asked was:
“How do scientists determine the Pole Star of a celestial body?”
You didn’t answer it. Maybe time for you to dishonestly copy another Quora answer word for word and present it as your own work, then when confronted on it, just act like it isn’t a problem.
An astute reader will see that the answer is neatly contained within the definition, to wit,
For the less “astute” DREMT I may spell it out as follows, for the case of the north star:
Q: How do scientists determine the Pole Star of a celestial body?
A: Locate a visible star that is close to the north celestial pole and map its diurnal path; this apparent motion is within a small circle of <1 degree.
You are welcome. I'm here to help.
Have there been a lot of travellers to the moon’s “North Pole”, then?
Your question is nonsensical. Please explain.
An astute reader will already understand what was meant.
For the less "astute" TYSON I will spell it out as follows:
Your "explanation" only works when you’re actually on the celestial body in question. So it makes sense for the Earth, but no other celestial bodies. Unless you’re saying we’ve been to the moon’s "North Pole". Hence my question.
You are welcome. I’m here to help.
Pity, that is what I thought you meant.
It is nonsensical because you imply that a celestial body only possesses a pole star if its poles have been visited by humans!
I have never visited Earth’s north pole but I can easily locate and map Polaris from my mid-latitude home location.
“Unless you’re saying we’ve been to the moon’s ‘North Pole’.”
Actually, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has been mapping the Moon’s surface since 2009 and spent the first three years of its mission in a low polar orbit. More recently the CAPSTONE mission arrived at the Moon’s north pole for a six month mission. So, yes, we’ve visited the Moon’s north pole many times. But I digress.
Here in America we’re taught from an early age that Man’s reach is greater than his grasp. You on the other hand seem to have a very anthropocentric view of the physical world.
Good talk. Goodbye.
"It is nonsensical because you imply that a celestial body only possesses a pole star if its poles have been visited by humans!"
No, I imply no such thing. Other celestial bodies have pole stars. They’re obviously not discerned using the explanation you gave. Hence the question is still unanswered.
Exactly, Tyson.
Hence why the question Gaslighting Graham asks is a bit 🤦.
…an obsessive troll starts up his monthly stalking once again.
dremt…”The actual question asked was:
How do scientists determine the Pole Star of a celestial body?”
***
Some info on that from the distorted mess in my brain.
They lay the universe out as an Earth-centred sphere. Then they declare an equatorial plane and locate all the visible stars on the hemispheres related to that plane. Where the Earth’s N-S axis meets the celestial hemispheres, they find the closest star and call it the Pole star. As far as I recall, there is no star immediately in the vicinity of the southern axis.
One thing I found somewhat illogical is their orientation of the hemispheres in space. Rather than declare N-S, E-W from within the sphere based on a human observer, they declare those coordinates from outside the shell. Therefore, as you look upward, you find east and west is reversed.
Thanks, Gordon. It’s not so much a problem for how they work it out for the Earth, or even other celestial bodies that are actually rotating on their own axes. I get that. It’s really just about the moon, which is not rotating on its own axis. How do they determine:
a) that the moon’s so-called "axis of rotation" always points in the same direction throughout the orbit.
b) where the so-called "axis of rotation" is pointing.
dremt…I regard any reference to the lunar axis as being fictitious. At that, it should be defined as an axis perpendicular to the Earth-Moon orbital plane but apparently they think the Moon is inclined to that plane by a few degrees.
It strikes me they have defined an arbitrary axis based on who knows what.
Thinking more about it, I see your point. If there’s no axis where is the phantom axis pointing? It’s like the sound of one hand clapping.
Since the Earth-Moon axis is tilted about 5 degrees to the ecliptic, the Sun-Earth orbital plane, and the Earth’s axis is tilted something like 23 degrees to the Ecliptic, one would think an imaginary lunar axis perpendicular to the Earth-Moon axis would point in relation to the 23 degrees and 5 degrees.
It hurts my brain to work that out at the moment.
Come on, Gordo.
The answer to Gaslinghting Grahams riddle is simple.
Scientists calculate it.
The distorted mess of your brain can be cured. Let it dry up a bit.
Pure hand-waving from Gaslighting Little Willy.
maguff…”More recently the CAPSTONE mission arrived at the Moons north pole for a six month mission”.
***
Capstone??? Sounds like the Bourne Identity.
GR “Capstone??? “
https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/tag/capstone/
Yes, the Moon has a North and a South Pole.
It has locations on its surface that have been designated the terms “North Pole” and “South Pole”, yes.
Gaslighting Graham has been provided all the resources to get to that, Tyson.
For some reason he did not find it.
Oh, well.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The North and South Pole are each 90 degrees away from the equator on the surface of the Moon as shown here: https://i0.wp.com/cosmicreflections.skythisweek.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/HRF8CG-scaled.jpg?ssl=1
…which of course does not prove that the moon rotates on its own axis.
The Moon’s equator is an example of a great circle.
Every great circle has two poles, being the points which are 90 degrees away from the circle on the surface of the sphere.
The Moon’s axis of rotation passes through its North and South poles.
…and the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Your opinion is duly noted.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) spent the first three years of its mission in a low circular polar orbit. During this phase it completed one polar orbit in a little less than two hours.
The orientation of this orbit remained fixed in space, relative to the stars, while the Moon slowly spins on its axis beneath it as they travel together around the Earth, allowing LRO to scan the entire surface of the Moon every two weeks.
LRO’s ground track showing the path of this orbit on the surface of the Moon: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio.
The orientation of this orbit remained fixed in space, relative to the stars, while the Moon slowly changes orientation due to its own orbital motion beneath it as they travel together around the Earth.
Your opinion is duly noted.
Changing orientation of a rigid body is the same as rotating the axes of a reference frame attached to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientation_(geometry)
Therefore:
DREMT at 7:34 AM
“The orientation of this orbit remained fixed in space, relative to the stars, while the Moon slowly changes orientation due to its own orbital motion beneath it as they travel together around the Earth.”
Is the same as:
The orientation of this orbit remained fixed in space, relative to the stars, while the Moon slowly
changes orientation due to its own orbital motionrotates on it axis beneath it as they travel together around the Earth.Q.E.D.
Mistaking a change in orientation, for axial rotation, is the "Spinners" most fundamental mistake.
The issue transcends reference frames, as I’ve explained countless times, and have no interest in discussing further.
iow, you’ve got nothing.
OK, think what you like.
maguff…”Changing orientation of a rigid body is the same as rotating the axes of a reference frame attached to it”.
***
Quoting Wiki or anyone else does little good if you don’t understand the physics behind the article. A rigid body in the real physical world can only change if it has an internal rotational momentum or an external force is applied to change its orientation.
Your statement above applies only to a human observer. If a body is oriented in a certain manner, a human can change the human perspective by looking at the body from a different angle. Or, if the body is oriented in a human-defined reference frame, the human can observe it from another human-defined reference frame and change the orientation for a human observer. That’s not the same as a body re-orienting due to natural mechanical forces.
In other words, when the Moon is moving in its orbit, there is no reference frame. It doesn’t care if a human is observing it, all it has is a linear momentum where the direction is constantly re-oriented by Earth’s gravity. It has the same side always pointing toward Earth, therefore it is moving like a car running around an oval CCW, which in North America means the driver side always points inwardly. It is not possible for the car to rotate about its COG without the driver side no longer pointing directly at the track.
That means the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis and all the manipulation of reference frames in the world won’t start it rotating.
GR at 4:10 PM
You obfuscate.
The question is whether a change in orientation is the same as an axial rotation, and the answer is yes, as my Wiki quote adroitly shows.
GR at 4:10 PM
Cont’d.
A more precise definition is: a change in orientation is the result of a rotation.
A good example is the Print -> Page setup script on your printer. You can print in either Portrait or Landscape orientation by a simple rotation of the page.
"a change in orientation is the result of a rotation"
Sure, but an object can rotate about an external axis, without rotating about its own internal axis, and there’s still a change in orientation for the object.
DREMT at 8:32 AM
Only in your imagination, which is the reason you never provide any evidence or references.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
I have spent several years on this site providing references and evidence which supports what I say about rotation, and it has been confirmed by others, for example Ftop_t. For you to suggest otherwise is wildly dishonest.
Your only argument is that a change of orientation is not a rotation.
There is no evidence for that because it is not true, except in your imagination.
For you to suggest otherwise is wildly dishonest.
No, a change in orientation does indicate a rotation…
…but an object can change its orientation because it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own internal axis.
Pretty straightforward.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/2952/2018/01/31185835/CNX_UPhysics_04_05_Posvect.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Rotation_illustration2.svg
Also, just use an online transmographer to rotate an object around an external point. One single motion, as per the diagram linked to above. Simple.
You obfuscate, I keep it simple.
That grid is fixed on the object. Obfuscation.
Lol.
The top nose of the object is at ~ X=4 and Y=1.75 throughout the orbit!
Dumb.
Oh my! You really can’t see that.
Use an online transmographer. Rotate an object around an external point. One single motion. Report back when you are ready to apologize.
In the correct analysis the grid S’x’y’ is fixed on the translating object which orbits in the inertial frame Sxy around point S.
As is yours. Thank you.
[TYSON] Here is what the LRO mission used to navigate its satellite.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Here is the same content farm article and the draft of a handout I always cite. Checkmate, science!
The issue is pretty simple, so it doesn’t take much to settle it.
[DREMT December 3 at 11:04 AM] Mistaking a change in orientation, for axial rotation, is the “Spinners” most fundamental mistake.
[DREMT December 4 at 12:17 PM] No, a change in orientation does indicate a rotation…
Correct, and no contradiction; because "axial rotation" means "rotation about an internal axis", whereas the "rotation" I was referring to in my second comment was "rotation about an external axis".
You’ll get there.
Well spotted, Tyson!
Yes, well spotted that there was no contradiction, for the reason I literally just explained.
You might also like that one, Tyson:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Your “explanation” only works when you’re actually on the celestial body in question.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] No, I imply no such thing.
The “thing” is the idea that a celestial body only possesses a pole star if its poles have been visited by humans!
No problem there, either, Little Willy. Tyson presented an explanation for how Earth’s North Pole star was discerned, which only works if you are actually on the celestial body in question. Hence that particular explanation does not help for discerning the Pole Stars of celestial bodies you are not "on". So the question of how the moon’s "Pole Stars" were determined remains unanswered.
As you can see, Tyson, Gaslighting Graham is a gift that keeps on giving.
One day he’ll get there.
As everyone can see, Gaslighting Little Willy is a troll, that keeps on trolling.
Well spotted Willard. You might also like:
Gaslighting, refers to situations in which someone attempts to drive someone else crazy. It involves the attempts of one person, the victimizer, trying to impose his or her judgment on the second person, the victim. Usually the victimizer uses gaslighting to disavow his or her own mental disturbance by making the victim feel that he or she is going crazy. And, importantly, this is a process with which the victim complies.
Used that online transmographer yet, Tyson?
Still waiting for your apology.
Well spotted Willard Part 2. You might also like:
maguff…”A change in orientation of an object does not necessarily equal axial rotation”.
***
What possible objection could you have to that statement? A car moving around a circular track is changing orientation all the time but not rotating about its COG. An airliner orbiting the Equator at 35,000 feet is changing orientation all the time but not rotating about its COG. If it did through 360 degrees, it would crash.
Come on, Gordo.
The objection you are looking for is exactly the one that names you speak of orbits as pure translations.
Think.
> names you speak
makes you speak
The autocorrect is drunk again.
Yes, that explains things nicely. Well found.
Tyson, go and have a play with the transmographer, and it might all finally tie together and make sense to you.
Remember, all you need to do is use it to rotate an object around a fixed, external point. One single motion, and you will note it moves like a ball on a string, with one side always oriented towards that fixed, external point.
Yes, I particularly like the way you mix reference frames.
Classic three-card Monte stuff!
I particularly like your false accusations. Classic trolling.
Nice find, Tyson:
Not far from it.
…and not much further on, Clint R explains himself:
“Both statements are correct.
The ball-on-a-string is a model of pure orbital motion. One side of the ball always faces the center of orbit, as does Moon.
The ball-on-a-string is NOT a perfect model of Earth/Moon actual motion because Moon has a slightly elliptical orbit. But, one side of Moon always faces the center of orbit, because it is orbiting. If it were also rotating about its axis, Earth would see all sides of it.”
It takes courage to argue that the motion of the Moon is purely orbital (whatever that means) and that a pure orbit is not exactly a model of the Moons motion.
Courage or an immense talent for gaslighting.
You can accuse Clint R of whatever you wish, though it seems a bit unfair when he’s not here to defend himself.
Gaslighting Graham is having “comprehension issues” once again.
No "comprehension issues" here. Clint R made those comments, so they’re his to defend, really. However, it’s not difficult to understand what he’s saying, so long as you’re not determined to get it wrong.
Gaslighting Graham is playing “I’m just the messenger” again.
Gaslighting Little Willy has a problem with everything I say and do, even if it was not me that said it in the first place.
Poor Gaslighting Graham.
Always the victim.
Correct.
At least Gaslighting Graham admits that gaslighting me does the opposite of trying to get things straight, as usual.
DREMT,
I have no need for a transmographer. Calculus suits me just fine.
No, you definitely need to use the transmographer. You don’t seem to understand the basics of rotation. Give it a go. "Shodor" have a good one. Use it to rotate an object "around a point" at 0,0 forty-five degrees at a time. You should be able to see that in one motion it moves like a ball on a string, thus settling the issue.
Let me get this straight, Tyson.
Gaslighting Graham tries to convince you that a change in orientation indicates a rotation, but a rotation does not indicate a change in orientation?
Moon Dragon cranks are not very good at trolling!
Gaslighting Little Willy does the opposite of trying to get things straight, as usual.
For once Gaslighting Graham is being honest.
I am honest. Never been sure what your problem with me is, exactly.
At least Gaslighting Graham admits that gaslighting me does the opposite of trying to get things straight, as usual.
Gaslighting Little Willy, you have got yourself confused again.
maguff…”Mistaking a change in orientation, for axial rotation, is the Spinners most fundamental mistake”.
***
That’s true. The Moon is moving in its orbit with curvilinear translation, which means the near face is constantly changing it orientation wrt to the stars. Less intelligent minds mistake that for rotation about the Moon’s COG. It’s apparent the near face and far face are always moving in parallel, which rules out rotation about a COG or internal axis.
DREMT at 4:45 PM
The issue was settled theoretically by Isaac Newton in 1687, as subsequently confirmed by NASA’s many space missions.
If a transmographer, against all scientific evidence, leads you to conclude that the Moon does not rotate on its axis with respect to the fixed stars, then you have misapprehended it.
Calculus works fine for me, as it did for Newton!
Tyson, the transmographer does not settle the whole moon issue. It should help you to see that an object can change orientation by rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, however. Go on, give it a go. Stop being so lazy.
[DREMT December 4 at 4:45 PM] “…use the transmographer… thus settling the issue.”]
[DREMT December 5 at 7:45 AM] “…the transmographer does not settle the whole moon issue.”]
Do you want to know what settles the whole issue? Isaac Newton in 1687, as subsequently confirmed by NASA’s many space missions.
Q.E.D.
Tyson, instead of spending so much time looking for contradictions which don’t exist (the moon issue is one thing, the issue of whether or not an object can change orientation without rotating on its own internal axis is another thing), why not try spending a bit of time using the transmographer? It will settle the issue for you that an object can change orientation without rotating on its own internal axis. Just try it.
Settle this for me transmographer man.
You posted this link: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Rotation_illustration2.svg
Do you agree that before the rotation, the grid’s y-axis is oriented N0E?
Do you agree that after the rotation, the grid’s y-axis is oriented ~N60W?
A simple Yes or No will do.
You can’t see the wood for the trees.
p.s.: here’s the original source of that image https://tinyurl.com/vyynbxyf
The caption, translated from Ukrainian, reads:
“Rotation of the object on the plane around the point O.”
So, yes, the grid is fixed on the object.
That’s right, the object is rotating about point O, and not about its own internal axis. One single motion. Using the transmographer, you will note that your "grid" stays fixed, whilst the object moves exactly the same way, in one single motion, about the external point.
The object’s position (orientation) inside the rotating grid is unchanged before (cyan), and after (green) the rotation.
With respect to the fixed frame (cyan), it has changed orientation (rotated) from N0E (cyan) to ~N60W (green).
That’s right, the object is rotating about point O, and not about its own internal axis. One single motion. Using the transmographer, you will note that your "grid" stays fixed throughout the whole thing, whilst the object moves exactly the same way, in one single motion, about the external point.
The object rotates about its axis wrt a fixed (inertial) grid.
The object does not rotate wrt a rotating grid.
Just as calculus predicts.
Exactly, Tyson.
The main problem with your characterization is that Gaslighting Graham cannot build a moat with a verbose terminology to prevent addressing the physical issue of having to deal with momentum in the spinning universe he built especially for the Moon.
Tyson, you just don’t get it. If only you would just go and use the transmographer, you might have a chance at understanding.
Even Little Willy understands that the motion of the object can be described as rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
If the Moon did not rotate about its axis you would see all its sides as it orbits Earth once a month, not just its near side.
Tangible proof is found in the LRO orbit which is fixed wrt the stars.
Twice a month lro’s complete orbit is in view of Earth; NASA performs stationkeeping maneuvers then because the space craft is in ground station contact throughout the operation.
Calculus helps predict this.
Apparently transmographer man can’t match this reality.
Tyson keeps talking about the moon, I’m just trying to talk about the object. The object can be described as rotating about an external axis, whilst not rotating about its own internal axis. Tyson has a lot to learn about rotation.
Oh well, I know I’m right. That’s enough for me.
Not from you I don’t. Transmographer man.
Seems like you do, since you obviously don’t understand rotation.
“Tyson keeps talking about the moon…”
Yes, it’s an inconvenient (for you) truth that we have a real world example of 1:1 spin-orbit tidally locked for our perusal.
No, not at all. In fact, it’s highly convenient. Thank you.
“…I’m just trying to talk about the object…”
From Pole Star, to “fictitious poles”, and now “the object.” Aren’t those goal posts heavy? You keep moving them all over creation.
The false accusations continue…
It’s all in the record. The Internet never forgets.
Yes, the records show that I’m not shifting the goalposts. What’s happened is, we’ve had a meandering discussion related to the moon issue, and at various points the subject has shifted between various sub-topics.
The only topic has been the Moon’s undeniable axial rotation wrt the fixed stars as it orbits the Earth.
Your unsuccessful gaslighting meanders notwithstanding.
No gaslighting from me. Will there be many more false accusations to come?
How did NASA spot domes on the Moon that shouldn’t be there?
By Skimming the Moon?
Yes. You might also like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdtqXqGaGu4
Does the Moon have angular momentum?
Yes. Angular momentum is the product of the moment of inertia and angular velocity.
Last word.
What is a polar orbit?
What is "cyber-bullying"?
Why has Gaslighting Graham felt compelled to troll about Dragon crank stuff in each and every thread at Roy’s for more than 75 months now?
It’s my right to talk about whatever I want to talk about. What I want to do is spread awareness that:
a) The authorities and institutions can be wrong (moon issue is as good an example as any, due to its simplicity).
b) They are wrong about the GHE.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] What I want to do is spread awareness
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I very much doubt there are many still reading at this stage. We are both just wasting our time in a pointless back and forth that nobody but us has any interest in.
Yes, not much awareness being spread under this old article any more, but I also get easily drawn into long, pointless back and forths with people. So here we are.
A medieval king was hunting in Africa. He killed a lion, an elephant, and a hippopotamus, and awarded the skins to his three squires back home in his kingdom.
Thus, the three squires became known as the Lion Squire, the Elephant Squire, and the Hippo Squire.
As the years passed, the Lion Squire and the Elephant Squire became very jealous of the Hippo Squire because they wanted the hippo skin too. So, they hatched a plan to assassinate the Hippo Squire and divide the hippo skin between them equally.
Now the Lion Squire had eight sons, and the Elephant Squire had ten sons, but the Hippo Squire was childless. The Lion Squire and the Elephant Squire sent their eighteen sons to kill the Hippo Squire, but the Hippo Squire drew his sword and single-handedly slaughtered all eighteen of them.
What does it prove?
It proves of course that the squire of the hippopotamus is equal to the sons of the squires of the other two hides.
Suppose I push an object (for example, a uniform sphere 10 m in diameter) at ~ 17000 mph so it is the right speed to orbit. Suppose when I let go of it, it is not rotating relative to the fixed stars. I just created a new, small moon.
What torque will start it rotating relative to the stars? Will the torque act all at once so the sphere will immediately start rotating relative to the stars once every ~ 1.5 hours? Or maybe it will spin-up to this rate over the course of a few minutes? a few weeks?
Explain the source of the torque, and show that it is the right magnitude.
Why does Graham get easily drawn into long, pointless back and forths with people and then resort to victim-bullying?
Why does Little Willy always throw false accusations about? This time "victim-bullying"!
Just because I get easily drawn into long, pointless back and forths with people doesn’t mean I consent to or welcome a relentless stream of abuse from these people.
Don’t get me wrong, I know I raised the "cyber-bullying" issue earlier, but it’s not like either Tyson or Little Willy’s constant abuse (or any of the many others) actually gets to me. I believe it’s intended to, though, which is the point. Little Willy’s behaviour in particular could be construed as threatening, by some, especially when he casually drops into discussions that he knows where I live, thinks he knows my real name, what I look like, etc etc. He’s obviously obsessed with me to a disturbing extent, which is what makes it a bit worrying.
And since Gaslighting Graham likes definitions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_playing
The cyber-bullying continues (ineffective as it is)…
dremt…”The cyber-bullying continues (ineffective as it is)”
***
More of a bad red-herring argument, or non-sequitur, than bullying.
C’mon, Gordo.
A red herring is an ignoratio elenchi.
A non sequitur is something else altogether.
Think.
No, Gordon, it’s all definitely (ineffective) bullying.
maguff…”I have no need for a transmographer. Calculus suits me just fine”.
***
Then why do you lack the ability, using calculus, to follow the example I have proved, using calculus, to see it is impossible for the Moon to rotate on its local axis while keeping the same side pointed to Earth?
Let’s use the system in the attached image then: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/2952/2018/01/31185835/CNX_UPhysics_04_05_Posvect.jpg
Reference frame Sxy is fixed.
Reference frame S’x’y’ is rotating with angular velocity Ω, as it orbits point S with angular velocity ω.
You’ll agree that it’s a trivial calculus proof that vector rPS’ is not rotating wrt S’x’y’ but is wrt Sxy.
No transmographer need.
P.s.: as you know, this analysis requires that vectors are specified in component form with the corresponding unit vectors.
Why are you so averse to learning, Tyson? Just use the transmographer, it will take less than five minutes of your time. Rotate an object around point 0,0 forty-five degrees at a time. It will move like a ball on a string, keeping one face always oriented towards the center, and it will do so in one single motion.
Not two separate motions, a translation and a rotation on its own internal axis…one single motion, a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
Transmographer man, you already gave us the answer, remember?
“…a change in orientation does indicate a rotation…”
And this: https,//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Rotation_illustration2.svg, whereby you proved that “the body” changes orientation wrt the fixed frame of reference as it rotates about point O.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Rotation_illustration2.svg
Yes, a change in orientation does indicate a rotation (for instance, a rotation about an external axis), but it does not necessarily indicate a rotation about an internal axis.
As you would understand if you just used the transmographer, instead of being unnaturally opposed to learning, the object changes orientation because it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own internal axis.
It is one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
Really quite simple.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Rotation_illustration2.svg
wrt the fixed frame (cyan), “the body” starts out facing east and then faces north-east after rotating α degrees about its center of mass and point O. Two equal rotations.
Indeed, quite simple.
There is only one axis of rotation – at point O.
One axis of rotation, one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
Pimple simple.
You don’t know how to calculate the center of mass?
That’s the problem with your simplistic transmogapher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centroid
There is only one axis of rotation at point O.
One axis of rotation, one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
I know I’m right, and always will be, about rotation.
So are you saying that “the object” has no centroid?
A simple Yes or No will do.
I am saying that there is only one axis of rotation at point O.
One axis of rotation, one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
I know Im right, and always will be, about rotation.
There is one axis of internal rotation; it’s called the centroid, in addition to the orbital axis at point O.
Q.E.D.
You have only demonstrated that you do not understand rotation. You think there are two axes of rotation! Lol. Time for you to use the transmographer. Seriously.
There is only one axis of rotation at point O.
One axis of rotation, one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
I know I’m right, and always will be, about rotation.
“You think there are two axes of rotation! Lol.”
Perfect. That answers my question of 1:33 PM. It took some work but now we know.
Without knowledge of where the centroid of your “object”, you’d lost this debate before it even began.
Don’t be lazy and go figure that out.
Sorry, Tyson…I’m eternally, beautifully, gloriously correct.
There is only one axis of rotation at point O.
One axis of rotation, one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
I know Im right, and always will be, about rotation.
Just use the transmographer to see for yourself.
Gaslighting Graham forgets a smol detail:
There is only one axis of rotation…if the rotation around O turns the shape with it. Something gravity does not do.
And even then it would be perfectly possible to add a second axis of rotation, in fact an infinity of other rotations.
I know I’m right, and always will be, about rotation.
Gaslighting Graham forgets another smol detail:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1233363
Gaslighting Little Willy simply cannot, will not, must not, ever just deal with one thing at a time. He’s a complete scatterbrain – he comes across like his thoughts are always flying around chaotically from one thing to the next. He can’t just slowly and rationally take one step at a time, agree on one point, and then move on to the next…
…he also seems to lack the ability for joined-up thinking, so can’t put all the pieces together correctly when he’s dealt with each piece (not that he ever fully deals with each piece, because before one thing is settled he’s off to the next).
It’s always a complete waste of time trying to reason with him.
Gaslighting Graham will never be able to (or perhaps cannot) understand that problems need to be taken as a whole. Otherwise people get scammed by scam artists such as Gaslighting Graham who always try (and fail) to divide and conquer.
He keeps injecting stuff in every discussion, like he did recently with the CSA Truther, but God forbid that anyone does the same!
The fact that the Moon spins is not a fact of geometry.
It is a fact of physics.
One thing at a time, Gaslighting Little Willy.
Perhaps one day Gaslighting Graham will realize what indeterminacy means.
…thing at a time, Gaslighting Little Willy.
C’mon, Gordo.
To prove you wrong is trivial:
https://youtu.be/5zb5ctxvPjI
Think.
Calculating the Centroid of Compound Shapes
I’m leaving this here for DREMT if he ever wants to learn how to calculate the centroid of his own example object.
Sure, the object has a centroid.
Now, back to axes of rotation…
There is only one axis of rotation at point O.
One axis of rotation, one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
I know I’m right, and always will be, about rotation.
Now you’re getting it!
The “object” initially faces east wrt the fixed (cyan) grid, and after rotating α degrees it faces north-east.
Two rotations: one about O and one about the object’s centroid.
See. That wasn’t so hard.
No, Tyson.
There is only one axis of rotation, at point O.
One axis of rotation, one single motion, a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
I know I’m right, and always will be, about rotation.
Sometimes Gaslighting Graham concedes that two interpretations are possible.
Some other times, when for instance he cites the CSA truther, he asserts that there’s only one interpretation possible.
Which is it?
I don’t assert there is only one interpretation possible, I am just trying to get across to those people who don’t understand the "Non-Spinner" interpretation, what that interpretation is.
I have a lot of people coming at me with different arguments. Some of those arguments make it seem like the people making them don’t even understand the "Non-Spinner" interpretation at all.
Tyson is one of those people. Until he gets the point about rotation, he doesn’t even have a shot at understanding the "Non-Spinner" interpretation. He is apparently trapped in a world-view where only the "Spinner" interpretation can possibly make sense to him. He literally can’t even comprehend that there is another way of looking at it.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I don’t assert there is only one interpretation possible
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Here is a video where it is shown that the “Moon does not (and in fact cannot) rotate by even a single degree.”
You seem to be confusing things I assert with things that other people (like the guy in the video) assert. It doesn’t bother you to put words in my mouth, though, so who is surprised?
And so Gaslighting Graham does not even understand the CSA Truther demonstration.
So beautiful.
I understand the demonstration and obviously support the idea that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, but I can see it both ways.
The moon rotates about its axis every 27.3 days and orbits the earth every 27.3 days.
A) What is the moment of inertia with respect to its axis?
B) What is the moment of inertia with respect to the earth?
C) What is the moons angular momentum with respect to its axis?
D) What is its kinetic energy with respect to its axis?
(H/T Tyson)
An object O goes from A to B. The path is not a straight line. Does it translate or does it rotate? As is, the question is indeterminate. Could be either, could be both.
But in reality the question is secondary. This is a physics problem. What we want to know is its acceleration and its velocity, more precisely where they come from. Take the infamous ball on string:
https://youtu.be/BdtzuJG97AY?t=108
This is the bit that makes [Gaslighting Graham] and Pup squirm a bit, for there’s no string that pulls on the Moon.
So what is the force that propels the Moon, and where does it come from?
Moon Dragon Cranks always skip that part very fast.
Note that Gordon Robertson refuses to use Calculus to demonstrate lunar rotation.
Assuming that he knows Calculus, then he understands perfectly well that it objectively demonstrates lunar axial rotation wrt a fixed reference frame.
More likely is that he doesn’t know Calculus, though.
We’ll put you down as "ineducable", Tyson.
Have you noticed how Gaslighting Graham never uses calculus either, Tyson?
Yet he brags about an undergraduate diploma in a Very Scientific field.
With honours. At least the diploma has that.
Have you noticed how ungracious DREMT is in defeat?
Yes, Tyson. I did.
…put you down as "ineducable", Tyson.
Here is the CSA Truther series:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=1iB3wyBi24U
In one of the videos, our truther appears to demonstrate that the Moon CANNOT spin.
His demonstration relies on the fact that if one moves the Moon like the arm of a clock, it turns at the same rate the arm does.
Since the Moon is not connected to the Earth with an arm, our Truther would need a force that replaces this rigid connection.
Would he need gravity to be a rigid connection to the Earth?
No. It’s just a demonstration of the motions. You could try linking to the correct video, as well.
Gaslighting Graham does not always show a demonstration according to which the Moon turns on itself as it turns around the Earth, but when he does he fails to realize that the CSA Truther relies on the rigidity of the arm connecting the Earth to the Moon to portray orbit and spin as the same.
He’s not portraying "orbit and spin as the same". The motion portrayed is the "Non-Spinners" interpretation of "orbit without spin", or "orbital motion without axial rotation", or "orbital motion" alone, or "normal orbital motion". Motion like the "moon on the left".
The rigid arm simply allows the moon to rotate about an external axis (the Earth), with or without additional rotation about an internal axis from the motor beneath the moon. With no rotation about an internal axis, the moon moves as per our moon, with one face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
Setting the motor to rotate the moon at various speeds and directions (once per orbit in the same direction as the orbit, or once per orbit in the opposite direction as the orbit), shows you the results of those combined motions.
All of which should have been understood quite some time ago…
Willard, the link below is to a much better video, with no three-card Monte tricks or gaslighting, just science.
Earth’s Moon: Why One Side Always Faces Us: https://youtu.be/j91XTV_p9pc
Thanks for that video, Tyson!
Have you noticed how Gaslighting Graham still fail to realize that the rigid arm from the CSA Truther’s demonstration already makes the Moon spin?
You might also like:
https://youtu.be/j91XTV_p9pc
Wrong link:
https://youtu.be/0c-_Uzzqgkk
"the rigid arm from the CSA Truther’s demonstration already makes the Moon spin?"
No, the rigid arm makes the moon rotate about an external axis. The motor beneath the moon makes the moon spin.
See, Tyson?
Gaslighting Graham still fail to understand the CSA Truther’s trick!
There is no trick. The rigid arm makes the moon rotate about an external axis. The motor beneath the moon makes the moon spin.
Ftop_t already showed you a demonstration using Desmos with exactly the same functionality – you could start and stop external axis rotation, or internal axis rotation, or have them both running at the same time.
You’re completely in denial.
Notice how Gaslighting Graham still pulls the trick when he says –
“The rigid arm makes the [M]oon rotate about an external axis.”
The rigid arm does a little more than that!
No, it doesn’t, Little Willy. That is "rotation about an external axis". That’s what it looks like. Motion like the "moon on the left".
Tyson,
Notice how Gaslighting Graham is in complete denial:
Of course it does –
When the arm moves, it rotates the Moon because as the Moon is fixedly attached to the arm.
That means that orbiting the Moon eo ipso spin it!
And then he wonders why nothing can solves the issue, when this is exactly what I told him the very comment I made to him a few years ago!
Denial is strong in this one.
The rigid arm makes the moon rotate about an external axis. The motor beneath the moon makes the moon spin.
Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the "moon on the left".
I thought you already understood that.
Tyson,
Gaslighting Graham still does not get that an orbit is INDEPENDENT from spin and that the CSA Truther guy breaks that independence by fixing the Moon axis!
He doesn’t "fix the moon’s axis". The moon can rotate, or not rotate, on its own axis, independent of the motion of the rigid arm.
See, Tyson?
Gaslighting Graham is still parsing what is being said for an escape clause.
If the Moon wasn’t fixed to the arm, the Moon would be free to rotate at any rate without the motor!
The most beautiful part is that he himself provided so many examples for such model: a Ferris wheel, a bike pedal, etc.
My favorite is of course the yo-yo with a free axle, but I might be biased.
I’m not parsing my way out of anything. I’m correct. The demonstration correctly simulates the motions according to the "Non-Spinner" way of looking at it, where "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the "moon on the left". It’s just you are incapable of seeing it from that viewpoint, apparently (I never realised you were this short-sighted on the subject).
You could set up a similar apparatus in which the "orbital motion without axial rotation" was like the "moon on the right". Not sure how you would engineer it, exactly, but I’m fairly sure it could be done. Then you would find that you could combine two motions and end up with an overall motion like the "moon on the left".
Tyson,
I also found back the two pennies:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-877149
That model completely DESTROYS the CSA Truther’s trick!
Not at all. Tim simply provides a model for seeing things the "Spinner" way, which I completely understand. That’s where "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the "moon on the right".
Do you understand the "Non-Spinner" way of looking at it yet?
Tyson,
Notice how Gaslighting Graham keeps arguing by assertion.
Yet Tim proves that it’s quite possible to coordinate an orbit with a spin so that a 1:1 spin-orbit lock obtains, which completely DESTROYS teh CSA Truther’s claim that it is impossible!
That usually indicates that we’re reaching the PST limit.
Yes, as I’ve said several times already, if your "orbital motion without axial rotation" is modelled to be like the "moon on the right", then of course you can "coordinate an orbit with a spin so that a 1:1 spin-orbit lock obtains" and that will be motion like the "moon on the left". Absolutely. That’s the "Spinner" way of looking at it.
"which completely DESTROYS teh CSA Truther’s claim that it is impossible"
It’s impossible if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the "moon on the left". As it is set up to be, in the CSAI video demonstration.
Tyson,
Notice how Gaslighting Graham still backtracks to his pet GIF at the most bizarre times.
The GIF establishes the physics of the spin-orbit lock.
Tim’s argument refute the geometry point made by CSA Truther guy.
Worse is that his pet GIF involves angular momentum and torques…
If I agree with you…you still argue with me.
Tim’s example doesn’t refute the CSAI video in any way. Tim’s example illustrates the "Spinner" way of looking at it. The CSAI video illustrates the "Non-Spinner" way of looking at it.
Neither Tim’s example, nor the CSAI video, settles the issue.
Tyson,
Gaslighting Graham confesses:
In reality it is not one, single motion. There is an orbit, and there is a spin. At least two motions, and both are complex enough to involve, if we want to model them faithfully, rotation and translation.
So teh CSA Truther indeed engineered many motions into one!
I don’t "confess" anything. In the video, the rigid arm makes the moon rotate about an external axis. The motor beneath the moon makes the moon spin.
Readers will appreciate Gaslighting Graham returns to his trick:
“the rigid arm makes the moon rotate about an external axis”
The trick, to repeat, consists in hiding the 1:1 spin-orbit lock with that rotation.
As soon as readers ask themselves why the Moon keeps its orientation to the Earth, the trick is revealed!
There are no 3-card monte tricks or gaslighting in the CSAI video. You’re just unable to understand rotation about external and internal axes, even when it is clearly demonstrated to you in the simplest possible way. The operator of the apparatus used in the video can stop and start rotation about either an external axis (located in the Earth) or an internal axis (located in the moon), and can run them both at the same time. There is absolutely no way for there to be any "trick". With only external axis rotation happening, and the motor to the moon’s internal axis rotation switched off, the moon moves as per our own, with one face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
Readers might appreciate that the answer to the question is –
Indeed, the CSA Truther would need gravity to be a rigid connection to the Earth!
Only a rigid connection can make the Moon spins as the Earth rotates, like in his tricky video.
"Indeed, the CSA Truther would need gravity to be a rigid connection to the Earth!
Only a rigid connection can make the Moon spins as the Earth rotates, like in his tricky video."
The moon is not spinning as it rotates around the Earth, when there is motion like the "moon on the left". I don’t know how you get yourself so confused. There is literally a motor underneath the moon in the video, which is not switched on, whilst the moon rotates around the Earth. You can turn on that motor, to spin the moon at different rates and in different directions whilst orbiting, and he shows the results.
Readers might appreciate how Gaslighting Graham reveals the trick himself:
“There is literally a motor underneath the moon in the video”
Literally.
Like literally showing the trick himself.
It’s not a trick, Little Willy.
With the external axis motor switched off, the moon does not orbit. With the internal axis motor switched on, the moon does not orbit, but it rotates about an internal axis.
With the external axis motor switched on, the moon orbits. With the internal axis motor switched off, the moon orbits, but does not rotate about an internal axis.
Note here that "orbits" means "rotates about an external axis".
Tyson,
We are getting into gaslighting territory:
Notice how Gaslighting Graham associates being “switched on” to rotating. Also notice how he hides the attachment:
The Moon remains rigidly fixed to the Earth’s arm, which makes no physical sense for celestial bodies.
Gravity simply does not work that way.
"Notice how Gaslighting Graham associates being “switched on” to rotating."
Well, that’s how the apparatus is set up, Little Willy. When the motor for the rigid arm is not switched on, it doesn’t move. So no, there is no external axis rotation then. When the motor for the moon is not switched on, it doesn’t move. So no, there is no internal axis rotation then.
How simple do I need to make this?
There are two separate motions that can occur. One is like the "moon on the left", and the other motion is internal axis rotation. If the first motion was engineered to be like the "moon on the right", somehow, instead, then you could combine two motions and get an overall motion like the "moon on the left".
However, the first motion is not engineered that way. The first motion is already like the "moon on the left". Thus you cannot combine two motions and get an overall motion like the "moon on the left".
Tyson,
Gaslighting Graham is irremediably confused:
🤦
He still tries to sell the idea that the Moon can only spin if a motor specifically rotates it without considering that the Moon indeed spins by the simple fact that it is fixed to the arm!
No, the moon "rotates about an external axis" because it is fixed to the arm.
See, Tyson?
Gaslighting Graham once again goes for legalistic mumbo jumbo.
The Moon orbits because it is attached to an arm that moves.
The Moon spins because its orientation is fixed to the arm.
The CSA Truther simply concealed that with this configuration moving the arm of the Earth already simulates a spin-orbit lock!
The moon’s orientation is not fixed to the arm. The moon can rotate on its own axis, or not rotate on its own axis, independently of the motion of the arm, thus its orientation can change accordingly.
If the moon had been attached to something in some way which resulted in it moving like the "moon on the right", without the moon motor activated, then the independent motion of the moon about its own axis in addition to the "orbital motion" could result in an overall motion like the "moon on the left".
However, the moon is attached to something in a way which results in it moving like the "moon on the left", to start with, without the moon motor activated. So, then the independent motion of the moon about its own axis in addition to the "orbital motion" will always result in an overall motion different to the "moon on the left".
See, Tyson?
Gaslighting Graham is still parsing what is being said for an escape clause.
If the Moon wasn’t fixed to the arm, the Moon would be free to rotate at any rate without the motor!
The most beautiful part is that he himself provided so many examples for such model: a Ferris wheel, a bike pedal, etc.
My favorite is of course the yo-yo with a free axle, but I might be biased.
The moon being fixed to the arm, but able to rotate on its own axis independently of it via the motor, provides the correct circumstances for simulating the motions according to the "Non-Spinner" perspective. You are deliberately, it seems, not responding to my second and third paragraphs. I keep making the same points over and over again, and you refuse to even acknowledge them, let alone make a rebuttal.
See, Tyson?
Gaslighting Graham still insists in parsing words into meaninglessness:
There’s no addition to speak of – to rotate the Moon around the Earth while rotating its orientation IS doing two things at the same time!
Incorrect. In the demonstration, the moon’s orientation changes through 360 degrees as a result of "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis".
It’s one single motion.
Notice how Gaslighting Graham is reduced to repeating his assertion, Tyson:
He simply forgets that the CSA Truther has fixed the Moon, which means that his setup hides the reason why his trick appears as a single motion!
Your video was great to expose the fallacy – the orientation of the Moon is not fixed like the CSA Truther makes it, in fact only gravity suffices to instill a 1:1 spin-orbit lock!
I’ll repeat that for the rest of my life, because it’s correct. Just like I could repeat that 2 + 2 = 4 for the rest of my life. "Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis", is motion like the "moon on the left". It is one single motion. When the moon in the video is moving like the "moon on the left", there is only one motor running…the one that is powering the arm. So, there is only external axis rotation occurring. There is only one axis of rotation for that motion.
Tyson,
Now that the CSA Truther trick is clear, let’s focus on Gaslighting Graham’s. Here it is:
As always with him, look at what he’s not saying.
Is he saying that it could be two motions? No, he does not. He is just saying that it is one motion. When push comes to shove, he backtracks to say that it’s just a perspective, that he can understand both, that he does not really care about the Moon issue, etc.
Also, does he say what is moving? No, he does not. Once we undestand that Moon as moving along the Earth, then Earth and Moon forms one object.This seems to be what your centroid example is addressing.
So, he’s just confusing interpretations and objects. After having spent so much time on this, he should know better. But well, he really really really needs to feel misunderstood.
Always the victim.
Little Willy, it’s literally engineered in such a way that it can only be one motion, in the video. We’re talking about the video, remember? It is a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis. One single motion. One rigid arm, rotating the moon about an external axis, with the motor to rotate the moon about an internal axis switched off…and it is motion like the "moon on the left".
That’s not to say that you couldn’t engineer something to produce an overall motion that appears the same, yet be comprised of two motions. That’s what I’ve been saying to you, over and over again, for the last several comments.
https://tinyurl.com/the-CSA-Truther-trick
Tyson,
It took some time but at last Gaslighting Graham confesses.
The CSA Truther guy engineered a model that hides the spin-orbit lock.
How did he do that?
Simple.
The CSA Truther guy simply locked the spin and the orbit of the Moon together. Only thus can he show that they can’t be detached without showing an absurd situation!
What a trickster!
I don’t "confess" anything. In the video, the rigid arm makes the moon rotate about an external axis. The motor beneath the moon makes the moon spin.
The "spin and orbit of the moon" are not "locked" together, Little Willy. The moon can rotate on its own axis independently of the "orbital motion". It’s just that the "orbital motion without axial rotation" is set up to be like the "moon on the left".
Readers will note that when Gaslighting Graham writes
“In the video, the rigid arm makes the [M]oon rotate about an external axis. ”
he still ignores the point I keep making –
The rigid arm keeps the Moon fixed in its orientation to the Earth.
Therefore, the rotation it imposes on it already contains the spin.
So there’s no “extra” spin to add!
Sily trickster, that CSA Truther guy!
No, there is no spin contained in the motion. It is one single motion, a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. Only the motor controlling the rigid arm is active, the motor beneath the moon itself is inactive.
You could engineer something to produce a similar result and it be comprised of two motions, sure. However, that is not what has occurred in the video.
Gaslighting Graham keeps arguing by assertion (“No, there is no spin contained in the motion”) and he keeps trying to pull teh CSA Truther’s trick:
“the motor beneath the [M]oon itself is inactive”
There is an active motor, that motor is attached to the Moon, and the contraption replicates a 1:1 orbit-spin.
The only way out for our tricksters to get the point is to show what force could replace that arm and attach itself to the Moon.
I hope we can all agree that gravity does not work that way.
The only way out for Gaslighting Little Willy to get the point is for him to realise that the apparatus correctly shows the motions for the “Non-Spinner” viewpoint, and it is designed specifically to do so. The moon’s attachment to the arm and motor is a feature, not a bug…and definitely not a “trick”. It does not need to demonstrate how gravity works.
The demonstration shows how the “Non-Spinners” see:
1) “Orbital motion” plus “rotating on its own axis”, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
2) “Orbital motion” alone.
3) “Orbital motion” plus “rotating on its own axis”, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbit.
In that order. Little Willy gets all upset over 2), but has nothing to say about 1) or 3).
The only way for Gaslighting Graham to still play dumb about the CSA Truther video is to fail to realize that he was trying to prove that the Moon CANNOT spin.
And to do that, he offered a geometry demonstration based on a toy model.
In other words, Gaslighting Graham must presume that geometry is strong enough to refute physics.
Since we *could* observe the Moon spinning and we *do* have many numerical models of the Earth-Moon system in which she spins, then the only valid conclusion is that Moon Dragons are pure cranks.
These two conceptual mistakes sink the Moon Dragon crank ship.
Thank you.
"…he was trying to prove that the Moon CANNOT spin."
No, he was not. Gaslighting Little Willy tries to tell me what I was trying to do! In fact, I’ve repeatedly said, for instance:
"You could engineer something to produce a similar result and it be comprised of two motions, sure. However, that is not what has occurred in the video."
Let’s take it one step further, and actually do that, for the "Spinner" perspective.
Take an XY Plotter and make a program that moves the pen in a circle, at the press of the button. Let’s call that button the "orbital motion" button. Attach a fake "moon" to the pen, and a motor which can rotate it on its own axis, or not.
With the "orbital motion" button unpressed, the moon does not orbit. With the "moon motor" switched on, the moon does not orbit, but it rotates about an internal axis.
With the "orbital motion" button pressed, the moon orbits. With the "moon motor" switched off, the moon orbits, but does not rotate about an internal axis. That motion, in this case, would be motion like the "moon on the right", due to the way the XY Plotter functions.
With the "orbital motion" button pressed, the moon orbits. With the "moon motor" switched on, rotating the moon in the same direction as the "orbital motion", once per orbit, the moon would move as per the "moon on the left".
So that is how you could engineer an apparatus to demonstrate the "Spinner" perspective.
I would not criticize that apparatus by saying "it’s a trick", or "gravity does not work like a big XY Plotter in space". I would simply acknowledge that it demonstrates the "Spinner" perspective, that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the "moon on the right".
Similarly, you should not be criticizing the apparatus shown in the CSAI video by saying "it’s a trick" or "gravity does not work that way". You should simply acknowledge that it demonstrates the "Non-Spinner" perspective, that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the "moon on the left".
Gaslighting Graham *still* does understand the CSA Truther demonstration.
If we accept it, the Moon CANNOT spin.
Yet Gaslighting Graham pretends being the Master Understander of both sides.
If only he had any geometry and logic intuition!
"Gaslighting Graham *still* does understand the CSA Truther demonstration."
That’s correct, I still do understand the CSAI demonstration. Thank you.
"If we accept it, the Moon CANNOT spin"
That’s your conclusion, not mine. You seem to find the video deeply troubling. I can watch the video, think "well, that’s a demonstration of the motions from the "Non-Spinner" viewpoint, but it doesn’t prove it’s the correct way to look at it". Just as I could watch a video of the XY Plotter apparatus, and think, "well, that’s a demonstration of the motions from the "Spinner" viewpoint, but it doesn’t prove it’s the correct way to look at it."
Readers might think of it this way –
If the CSA Truther was right, toothed wheels would not work.
Since we no that toothed wheels mechanism work, the CSA Truther *must* hide a trick.
Once we know that, it is not hard to see which one.
Except for Gaslighting Graham, perhaps.
Little Willy just makes things up as he goes along.
"If the CSA Truther was right, toothed wheels would not work"
False premise, so the rest of your comment is dismissed.
I am glad that Gaslighting Graham finally agrees.
The CSA Truther indeed not right.
The CSAI video correctly shows the motions for the "Non-Spinner" viewpoint. Those that don’t understand it by now, probably never will. Shame.
Gaslighting Graham deflects with an irrelevant point.
The question here is –
Does he understand what MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT MOON DOES NOT ROTATE BY EVEN A SINGLE DEGREE means?
"Gaslighting Graham deflects with an irrelevant point."
We can take this as an announcement of what Gaslighting Little Willy is about to do…
"The question here is – "
Yep. There we go.
Readers might appreciate that the CSA Truther alleges to prove that the Moon does not spin one degree.
So it cannot spin.
This is not a mere matter of perspective.
One day Gaslighting Graham will learn.
He can allege whatever he wants, the video demonstration with the apparatus just shows the motions involved (correctly, and clearly), it does not settle the issue, and I personally would not claim that it does. I am not responsible for the claims of other people. I brought up the video because others were discussing various experiments which demonstrated the motions relevant to their perspective. I think his experiments show my perspective in the clearest light of any experiments that I can think of. I will probably continue to link to it in future.
If we accept the CSA Truther guy’s contraption, here is what follows:
As soon as the Earth rotates, the only way for the Moon to keep its near side facing the Earth is if it stands still.
In other words, if we accept the contraption, then we must accept that the Moon cannot spin.
This is not a matter of opinion.
Gaslighting Graham always have problem with proofs.
…and if we accept the XY Plotter contraption, then the only way the fake moon can move like our moon is if it rotates on its own axis.
See? It cuts both ways. So it is just a matter of perspective, overall. These experiments do not settle the issue. They just illustrate each position, clearly. You still seem to have problems understanding, even so…
Those were the days:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1216745
Those were the days.
Yes, you embarrassed yourself then as you embarrass yourself now. Great days.
Gaslighting Graham fails to get what is an isometry and lulzes about embarassment.
Let’s indulge him:
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
Hence why Flop’s trick of trying to model the Moon’s orbit on a non-circular ellipse with one single rotation (i.e. without any translation) fails.
Ftop_t was talking about one thing, understanding axes of rotation, and you responded about isometry, changing the subject obliviously. You always try to change the subject when you lose an argument. Just as you are doing now.
Readers will recall that Flop was pontificating on the basics of what is a rotation.
In geometry, it is an isometry.
And Gaslighting Graham just said that my problem was geometry.
Flops trick of trying to make the Moon follow a pure rotation in a non-circular ellipse does not preserve isometry.
Readers will also notice that every time Gaslighting Graham gets confronted with this basic fact he goes for the food fight.
My previous comment was correct.
Readers may notice that Gaslighting Graham does not deny that a rotation, in geometry, is an isometry.
They may also notice that he’s not denying that this suffices to show how Flop’s trick worked.
Yet he denies that Flop’s trick was a trick.
Readers may ask – why is that?
The discussion about the video is over. Little Willy wants to bait me into a change of subject…but why should I?
If I follow him down another rabbit hole, what precedent does it set? Discussions should be kept on topic to their thread.
When confronted with the LRO video *showing* the Moon spinning, Gaslighting Graham tries to switch to geometry.
When confronted with the fact that the CSA Truther tried to prove that the Moon *canno* spin, Gaslighting Graham mumbled some defensive crap.
When confronted with the fact that Flop misrepresented rotation by breaking isometry, Gaslighting Graham tries to start a food fight.
When confronted with the fact that he is trying to start a food fight, Gaslighting Graham still continues the food fight.
Readers might notice these things.
The long and the short of it is that the CSA Truther misrepresents angular velocity, that Flop misrepresents rotation, and that Gaslighting Graham only has a food fight to show for himself.
Little Willy lost the debate over the CSAI video, and continues to try and bait a change of subject.
The CSA Truther tried to demonstrate that a 1:1 spin-orbit lock was impossible.
We all know that a 1:1 spin-lock is possible.
Readers might wonder why Gaslighting Graham keeps trying to defend the indefensible.
"We all know that a 1:1 spin-lock is possible."
Yes, it’s possible…if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the "moon on the right". As I have thoroughly explained and demonstrated. Little Willy’s ongoing confusion is quite comical.
Gaslighting Graham does not always concedes that a 1:1 spin-orbit lock is possible, but when he does he switches from geometry to physics.
I don’t "concede" anything, I’m just reminding you of what I’ve repeatedly explained, and demonstrated with the XY Plotter experiment. A "1:1 spin-orbit lock", where the resulting motion is like the "moon on the left", is possible if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is like the "moon on the right".
You really are completely clueless, aren’t you?
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Yes, it’s possible
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I don’t concede anything
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham is not conceding anything, but is only trolling…
Little Willy, please pay attention:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1407162
Readers might recall that the 1:1 spin-orbit tango locking our Moon to the Earth could not care less about the meanings Gaslighting Graham wishes to enforce.
In physics, what needs to be explained comes first.
If it was a geometry problem, it’d be different.
Too bad for him that it’s not a geometry problem.
The physics behind the tidal locking mechanism, over time, just results in motion like the “moon on the left”. That physics does not care if you consider the “moon on the left” to be comprised of one motion or two.
LOL
Readers await with bathed breath the day Gaslighting Graham will finally offer a model of the motion of the Moon that would replace the numerical ones we have. They *all* have two main components. A spin and an orbit. These components synchronize into a 1:1 spin-orbit lock.
Will Gaslighting Graham ever produce one?
I would not advise readers to hold their bathed breath.
qltm
OK, Little Willy.
🤦
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Suppose B* believes that 99.9992% of the total angular momentum of the Moon orbiting the Earth does not comprise a rotation. He also believes that only rotations have angular momentum.
Which possibility do you find the *most* and the *least* plausible:
(P1) B* does not believe that spin implies angular momentum.
(P2) B* believes that the Moon spins.
(P3) B* trolls commenters from this website for the lulz.
(P4) B* believes there’s another yet unknown kind of angular momentum.
(P5) Little Willy has misunderstood Bill.
Most plausible.
See also:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] If B* thinks the [M]oon has actual “spin” angular momentum then B* thinks the [M]oon rotates on its own axis. Since I know Bill doesnt think the [M]oon rotates on its own axis, I assume he doesn’t think the [M]oon has actual “spin” angular momentum.
…and the problem with that is…?
🤦
Are you aware that there are two types of angular momentum, "spin" and "orbital"?
A corollary question for readers –
Does Gaslighting Graham know that there are only two types of angular momentum and realize that if the angular momentum from an object is not 100% of one kind the part that remains is of the other?
Yes, I get that. That’s why I was sure to say "if Bill thinks the moon has actual "spin" angular momentum".
I accentuated the "actual" because from reading Bill’s comments before, I think he accepts that there is an "LSpin" part to calculating the total angular momentum of the moon, but he thinks of it as an abstract mathematical concept only. I don’t think he thinks of the moon as possessing real, actual "spin" angular momentum.
That is why I think you have misunderstood Bill.
Let’s recap:
If B* believes that the Moon has two kinds of angular momentum, then
either:
Case 1 – B* does not (really) believe that the Moon spins.
Case 2 – B* believes that angular momentum does not determine spin.
Since we Gaslighting Graham really cannot contemplate the possibility that B* holds a belief that is contradictory to his and that is false, of course he’ll try to gaslight the audience and pretend B* is misunderstood.
It should be obvious to readers that B* is mostly trolling for the lulz and that amongst the Moon Dragon cranks, only Gaslighting Graham has a strong opinion on the Moon spin.
“…amongst the Moon Dragon cranks, only Gaslighting Graham has a strong opinion on the Moon spin.”
That may be true because Gordon Robertson is just a lackey. I have wondered about his state of mind in writing to NASA asking that they change their website, just for him!
I don’t actually care about the moon’s spin anything like as much as I care about two subjects, which are related to the moon topic, but not dependent on it. I would still remain correct about these subjects even if I was wrong about the moon’s spin (which I don’t think I am, anyway, but just for the sake of argument). They are:
1) Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the "moon on the left".
2) Reference frames do not resolve the moon issue.
I think it is far more interesting the way people respond to points on those two subjects than to hear their opinions on the moon itself.
Exactly, Tyson.
Gordo is just too confusedly contrarian in general to make me believe he is taking any of this srsly.
He’s just lonely.
The gaslighting duo try their best to gaslight me into believing that all the other "Non-Spinners" are not serious, only joking, and I’m the only crazy one who actually believes it.
Christos’ sudden infatuation for Gordo is still a positive outcome.
I like the way you two keep talking to each other over my head. It’s a classic bullying tactic, too. Ineffective though your cyber-bullying always is.
One thing I was wondering, Tyson –
How did you succeed in enduring Gaslighting Graham’s trolling for more than 75 months?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
(P1)= least plausible
(P2) & (P3)= most plausible
Show your work:
The moon’s angular momentum with respect to its axis= 2.36×10^29 (0.0008%)
The moon’s angular momentum with respect to the Earth= 2.87×10^34 (99.9992%)
Let’s just wait and see what Bill says.
Fair enough, Tyson.
Gaslighting Graham will explode when he’ll click on your homework!
Explode with what? Familiarity? Seen it all before, discussed it all before, done and dusted, dusted and done. Nothing new under the Sun.
Forgot the link, Tyson:
https://tinyurl.com/graham-s-head-will-explode
The link has already been posted, so you’re clearly just trying to get the last word again.
https://tinyurl.com/is-Bill-a-spinner
…and again.
Where is the Moon’s center of gravity?
The moon rotates about its axis every 27.3 days and orbits the earth every 27.3 days.
A) What is the moment of inertia with respect to its axis?
B) What is the moment of inertia with respect to the earth?
C) What is the moon’s angular momentum with respect to its axis?
D) What is its kinetic energy with respect to its axis?
Let L be the Moon-on-the-left and R be the Moon-on-the-right.
Let G stand for geometry and P for physics.
Let also () denote an evaluation function, and “1” and “0” assign truth or falsity to the result of interpreting if a situation applies to our Moon or to a counterfactual Moon.
For example, “G(L) = 1” means that the Moon-on-the-left satisfies a geometrical interpretation that applies to our current Moon.
Evaluate the following functions:
G(L) = 1
P(L) = ?
G(R) = ?
P(R) = ?
Best of luck!
https://tinyurl.com/why-the-gif-is-indeterminate
PROPOSITION. The Moon Dragon crank ordeal can be reduced to choosing between a translation in the direction of the force or a translation perpendicular to it.
More attempts to get the last word, from Little Willy.
REMINDER
https://youtu.be/sNUNB6CMnE8
The spinning of the Moon as captured by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Your misunderstanding on this is a geometry issue, not a physics issue.
Gaslighting Graham, whom besides falling for the CSA Truther trick fell for Flops trick, hath spoken!
Neither of them were tricks, and yes, I hath spoken…
…and once again, I’m correct.
Flop succeeded in tricking Gaslighting Graham by hiding a translation behind his rotation around a non-circular ellipse.
The CSA Truther succeeded in tricking Gaslighting Graham by hiding a spin behind his rotation of the Moon by the arm of a clock.
Readers might notice a pattern.
Yes, readers may notice a pattern – Little Willy has no idea what he’s talking about.
Yes, readers might notice a pattern – Little Willy has no idea what he’s talking about.
Readers might start to notice why Gaslighting Graham earned his nickname.
Readers might start to notice that Little Willy has no idea what he’s talking about.
Readers might recall:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/#comment-1230489
It was fun to show how buggy was Flop’s “elliptical” rotation!
Readers might recall that Little Willy has never had any idea what he is talking about.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1191264
Linking to past discussions will also help readers to see that Little Willy has no idea what he is talking about.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1188899
See what I mean?
This one is key:
https://tinyurl.com/LRO-shows-the-Moon-spins
I think they see what I mean.
If you pick an answer to this question at random, what is the chance that it will be correct?
(A) 25%
(B) 50%
(C) 60%
(D) 25%
EXAM QUESTION
Take that pencil and mount it vertically on an x-y plotter. Put a dot on the body of the pencil on the side facing us. Stick it into an orange so that we can still see the dot. The pencil, fastened to the plotter, is not rotating. Neither is the orange.
Program that plotter to move side to side; both the pencil and the orange are moving, but neither the pencil nor the orange is rotating.
Program that plotter to move along a square; both the pencil and the orange are moving, but neither the pencil nor the orange is rotating.
Program that plotter to move along a circle; both the pencil and the orange are moving, but neither the pencil nor the orange is rotating.
Question – how long will it take for Gaslighting Graham to respond to this comment?
Willard – 1,447 comments.
DREMT – 1,362 comments.
Total number of comments – 5,321.
Time to let this article go, don’t you think? Maybe just move on with our lives?
Compare that to my 218 comments.
A very economical win for me.
Well played, Tyson!
If you build a honey trap, Dragon cranks will come:
https://tinyurl.com/dragon-cranks-honey-trap#comment-1407538
Yes, Tyson didn’t comment very much, nor did he have any real impact on any of the discussions. Not sure why he’s still here, but I guess members of their Team can never work alone. It always has to be at least two against one.
Such an ungracious loser!
You are indeed.
“It always has to be at least two against one.”
Another false exculpatory from the eternally misunderstood victim, DREMT. Boo hoo.
Just stating a fact, no need for you to cry about it.
See what I mean, Tyson?
Nobody sees what you mean by "honey trap".
The Dragon Crank Honey Trap strikes again!
A trap implies bait, so I guess it’s just trolling.
Next Gaslighting Graham will argue that a honeypot implies a pot.
Yep, obviously just trolling.
Obviously Gaslighting Graham has been using tricks (by Flop and the CSA Truther among others) to troll this website for more than 75 months.
Lol.
How to calculate the orbital plane, the orbit position, and the spin of the Moon?
The answer with SHOCK YOU!
Readers might wonder what is the 1 + 1 argument
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1186788
Or, as Bob says, one minus one equals zero.
Which is the amount of valid argument Gaslighting Graham ever produced.
…and that 1+1 does not equal 1 argument is painfully obviously correct. Even if you add a rotation about an internal axis in the opposite direction to the rotation about an external axis, you still of course do not get motion like our moon.
What is angular velocity?
What is a honey trap?
Hint: it is also called a honeypot.
Another hint:
https://tinyurl.com/dragon-cranks-honeypot
This Astronaut Has One Weird Trick with a Ball on String!
Little Willy has already agreed before that a ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis. So why he brings this up, nobody knows.
Readers might recognize that, when faced with evidence that puts his silly tap dancing around his pet GIF to rest, Gaslighting Graham plays dumb.
So, you have changed your mind? You no longer agree that a ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis?
Gaslighting Graham continues to play dumb.
Readers will notice that the astronaut was not making a point of geometry.
He was making a point of physics.
He was showing what happens when you cut the string tied to a ball that has been swirled.
Gaslighting Graham dodges points so well that readers might justifiably believe that he does it intentionally.
So, have you changed your mind? You no longer agree that a ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis?
Has Gaslighting Graham finally understood that geometrical interpretations need to be constrained by physics?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/lord-monckton-responds-to-spencers-critique/#comment-1408283
Looks like a no.
OK, Little Willy.
🤦
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
https://tinyurl.com/Ball-on-string
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
OPEN MOON DRAGON CRANK PROBLEM
An object O goes from A to B. The path is not a straight line. Does it translate or does it rotate? As is, the question is indeterminate. Could be either, could be both.
But in reality the question is secondary. This is a physics problem. What we want to know is its acceleration and its velocity, more precisely where they come from. Take the infamous ball on string:
https://youtu.be/BdtzuJG97AY?t=108
So the question is – what’s the force that propels the Moon, and where does it come from?
Moon Dragon Cranks always skip that part very fast.
https://tinyurl.com/what-propels-the-Moon
SPOT THE ERROR
Hint.
Readers might also wish to consider that Gaslighting Graham backtracked from this position recently, when defending the CSA Truther’s gimmick.
I have not back-tracked one iota. The statement is obviously 100% correct, and always will be. You are just hopelessly confused.
Gaslighting Graham does not always accept that a 1:1 spin-orbit lock is possible, but when he does he also claims it’s impossible.
I kid you not.
He’s probly just conflating description with construction once again.
You are just hopelessly confused. As the transmographer, among other things, confirms, rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is motion like the “moon on the left”. So, if you add rotation about an internal axis to that motion, at any rate and in either direction, you of course no longer have motion like the “moon on the left”.
You can add rotation about an internal axis to translation of an object in a circle and get motion like the “moon on the left”, however.
Readers might notice that the transmographer is the same 1+1 trick.
The orientation of the Moon is not determined by its orbit.
The Moon is not fixed by an arm or a string or anything.
Gravity does not work that way.
The transmographer can only *simulate* a 1:1 spin-orbit lock by *abstracting away the spin.
Gaslighting Graham does not simulate gaslighting. He indulges in it.
Everything I said was correct, but never mind.
Let readers decide.
“The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.”
The tangential velocities of parts of the ball are different because the ball is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own internal axis, prior to release. So that is the physical explanation. The ball rotates on its own axis after release because it is now moving in a straight line, but the tangential velocities of parts of the ball are different in that moment of release. You should know this, though, as this has been discussed so many times.
So, have you changed your mind? You no longer agree that a ball on a string can be described as not rotating on its own axis?
Let readers decide how confused is Gaslighting Graham.
He is supposed to explain how a 1:1 spin-orbit is both possible and impossible.
He now mumbles his usual petitio and feigns an explanation of a phenomena that Moon Dragon cranks cannot really explain.
I just posted my 3:39 AM comment in the wrong place, that’s all. It belonged in the thread above.
“He is supposed to explain how a 1:1 spin-orbit is both possible and impossible.”
You are the one that’s confused.
Gaslighting Graham goes for the No U.
Sometimes he denies that a 1:1 spin-orbit lock is impossible.
Sometimes he asserts that it is possible, but but but.
Had he any geometrical intuition he would realize that he accepts the CSA Truther conclusion to its full extent.
You are just hopelessly confused.
Readers may allow BG to correct Gaslighting Graham and to offer a riddle of his own:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1187232
He is not correcting me.
Let readers allow BG to continue:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1188377
Gaslighting Graham is utterly confused.
Brandon is incorrect, here, but his confusion is understandable. I repeat my previous explanation, which remains unchallenged.
… as wrong.
Go away.
Gaslighting Graham wastes his time gaslighting a bit more, this time about basic physics.
Agree to disagree.
MikeR to the rescue:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-585061
The CSA Truther, Flop’s trick, and Gaslighting Graham’s transmographer are basically the same one-plus-one trick:
https://tinyurl.com/Moon-dragon-crank-one-plus-one
There is no trick, troll.
Gaslighting Graham is all over the place.
Completely desperate.
Grow up.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Grow up.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I guess I will just have to put you on ignore/automatic PST for the rest of the article.
Exactly. One of us has to be the adult. So here goes:
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Moon Angular Momentum Secrets Exposed!
Heres the Juicy Details
DUMBBELL CHALLENGE
Here are three dumbbells moving around a fixed center:
https://postimg.cc/k63hJyqm
The challenge, would you be willing to accept it, is to rind the dumbbell with the lowest rotational energy.
Best of luck!
https://tinyurl.com/dumbbell-challenge
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] You cannot synchronize rotation about an external axis with rotation about an internal axis, and end up with motion like our moon! 1 + 1 does not equal 1!
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I am not saying a 1:1 spin-orbit resonance is impossible.
Readers might wonder how a spin-orbit lock is possible, considering that is *exactly* the synchronization of an orbit with a spin!
Translation in a circle plus rotation about an internal axis. That is how it is possible.
Readers might wish to remind themselves of the following two facts:
To orbit is usually understood as involving a rotation around a barycenter that is outside the satellite.
To spin, for celestial bodies, is usually understood as to involve a rotation around an axis that is in its midst.
Therefore a 1:1 spin-orbit lock is characterized by a two rotations that are synchronized. It explains why the Moon *can* spin while showing the same face (loosely speaking) to the Earth.
Your brain simply doesn’t work properly. Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is motion like the “moon on the left”. So if you add rotation about an internal axis to that motion, in either direction and at any rate, you of course no longer have motion like the “moon on the left”.
The only way to combine two motions and get movement like the “moon on the left” is to combine translation in a circle with rotation about an internal axis. Think of the XY Plotter demonstration.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once more.
For those in the back:
ORBIT.
IS.
INDEPENDENT.
FROM.
SPIN.
Only by making one depend on the other do Moon Dragon cranks confusedly hold that the Moon cannot spin.
You are completely brain dead. Stop wasting my time.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting furthermore.
Stop wasting my time, and learn some kinematics.
Readers might bookmark:
https://tinyurl.com/Moon-dragon-crank-one-plus-one
OK, Little Willy.
[ASTROPHYSICISTS] Here axis is a shift ton of numerical models on tidal locking.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Impossible. Go away. Learn some kinematics.
Now you are just making stuff up.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a bit more.
Agree to disagree.
Readers will appreciate that Moon Dragon cranks have yet to explain:
https://tinyurl.com/what-propels-the-Moon
I await your explanation for the same thing.
THE HAMMER THROW
A better analogy than the vulgar ball-on-string:
https://tinyurl.com/the-hammer-throw
Little Willy is all over the place. Completely desperate.
Readers might appreciate this simple refutation of the 1+1 trick:
https://postimg.cc/7Cf6cN89
Obviously not a refutation.
Readers might also appreciate this classic:
https://tinyurl.com/follow-the-yellow-arrow
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Do properly operating bike pedals rotate?
Bonus question (really easy one) –
How long is a day on the Moon?
How long is a year on the Moon?
What is the relationship between the two?
TIM HAZ THREE PENNIES
https://tinyurl.com/tim-haz-three-pennies
Tim sometimes explains the same thing using two pennies:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-877149
willard…”[Tim]To make the mark on the penny penny always face in would require giving the penny an initial spin that equals the rate that C2 is moved around C1″.
***
Tim is full of it. He has yet to demonstrate what he claims is possible. That is, try getting a coin to orbit another one while keeping the same side of the coin pointed at the stationary coin while rotating the coin through 360 degrees.
It’s not possible.
Come on, Gordo.
Torque:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
Think.
Come on, Gordo.
You have yet to demonstrate it is not possible.
It would be hard, since it is trivial to point out that C2 can indeed spin one degree toward C1 for every degree it orbits around C1.
All these years and you have yet to find that out?
Pity, really.
Sociopaths will be sociopaths.
What’s the difference between angular momentum and torque?
THE HAMMER THROW
A better analogy than the vulgar ball-on-string:
https://tinyurl.com/the-hammer-throw
A close-up:
https://cdn.education.com/files/static/science-fair/barycenter-balancing-point/barycenter-earth-and-moon.png
Found back the source:
https://www.education.com/science-fair/article/barycenter-balancing-point/
H/T Richard.
You are just throwing everything at the wall, and hoping something will stick. You will never stop, so I guess I will just have to put you on ignore/automatic PST for the rest of the article.
More attempts to get the last word, from Gaslighting Graham.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
TIM AND GRAHAM ON TORQUES
[GG] If the cannonball does indeed rotate about an external axis
[T] But it does not rotate about that axis
[GG] Why does the torque about the external axis not cause the cannonball to rotate about the external axis?
[T] Because that is not how torques work!
[GG] So torques do not lead to rotation?
[T] You are getting there. A torque (as calculated about a specific axis) applied to an object leads to a change in angular momentum (as measured about that same axis). This may or may not lead to rotation about that axis.
[GG] And gravity is not rigid enough a connection for you?
[T] Absolutely NOT rigid enough! Were gravity “rigid”, it would be impossible for a moon to get further from or closer to its planet, it would be impossible for a moon to do anything besides face its planet.
[GG] It only needs to be rigid enough that the torque about the external axis results in rotation about the external axis
[T] But it is NOT EVEN THAT RIGID! There are just not enough ways to tell you this.
Can you jump? Gravity does not hold you rigidly at a specific distance from the center of the earth. Can you do a somersault? Gravity does not hold you rigidly in a specific orientation relative to the center of the earth.
[GG] Gravity just connects the cannonball to the center of the Earth. Not rigidly, but rigidly enough.
[T] it would be fascinating to hear your mathematical definition of “rigid enough”. How you you calculate “rigidness” and what value constitutes “rigid enough”?
[GG] Think what you want. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL.
https://tinyurl.com/tim-and-graham-on-torques
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Area Astronaut Explains Free Fall, Inertia, and Barycenter
https://tinyurl.com/space-station-baseballs
The astronaut says nothing about barycentres per se. She simply defined it as the centr of mass. Also, note that her system is joined by a rigid rod of some kind. In that case, the entire system is constrained to rotate about the COG.
In the Earth-Moon system, that does not apply. The Earth and Moon are not simultaneously rotating about a barycentre. That’s because the forces between them are insufficient to pull them out of their respective orbits.
The mass of the Moon is barely able to raise the oceans on Earth by 1 metre or the sold surface by 1 cm. The mass of the Moon, then, is sufficient to move water by 1 metre and solid surface by 1 cm but not nearly enough to dislodge the Earth from its solar orbit. Same with the action of the Earth on the Moon.
Newton II is often misunderstood to mean that any force can accelerate any mass. Newton did not say that. He stated clearly that ***IF*** a force can move a mass, then F = ma. That obviously doesn’t apply between the Earth and the Moon, neither of which can move the other physically toward the other.
All the Earth can do with the Moon is hold it in an orbit. If it could accelerate the Moon toward it, both would have collided long ago.
Come on, Gordo.
Without a center of mass, there would be no orbit at all.
You seem to be suggesting that you now understand why appealing to a ball on a string is a bit silly.
Are you?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
MOON DRAGON CRANK OPEN PROBLEM
Take a ball on string. Swirl it over your head. Release it.
The ball spins on its own axis.
At what rate, and why?
DREMT December 7, 2022 at 3:42 PM
“Let’s just wait and see what Bill says.”
bill hunter December 10, 2022 at 11:40 AM
“orbital angular momentum isn’t a real angular momentum.
it is just a conceptual element of any angular momentum around an external axis. spin angular momentum can be both real and unreal. what it is is dependent upon whether the axis of rotation is internal or external.”
So, bill hunter is a spinner, or a troll, or both.
Yes, I noticed he had responded. I would say his commentary on angular momentum does not make it clear whether he’s "Spinner" or "Non-Spinner" regarding that sub-topic…however all his other commentary on the moon issue makes it clear he’s a "Non-Spinner" overall, so I’ll stick with that.
Indeed, Tyson.
Imagine being able to detect 0.0008% of imaginary things
bill can’t tell the difference between moment of inertia and angular momentum.
It’s settled then. He’s just trolling.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
What is MacCullagh’s formula for the potential energy of a planet?
Why is the Moon getting further away from Earth?
If the Moon and the Earth are attached to opposite ends of the string, why does an observer on the Moon see the Earth rotating?
Compare and contrast:
[GRAHAM] I did not start the moon rotation debate.
[ALSO GRAHAM] Someone has to be the adult.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Does the Moon have constant momentum?
XMAS PUZZLE FOR MOON DRAGON CRANKS
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charon_(lune)#/media/Fichier%3APluto-Charon_System.gif
Is this the MOTL or the MOTR?
Do Moon Dragon cranks believe that Haley’s comet “rotates” around the Sun?
What is the North Pole of the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system?
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.