Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February 2023 was +0.08 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is up from the January 2023 anomaly of -0.04 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 14 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.06 | -0.00 | -0.23 | -0.13 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | -0.00 | +0.01 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.50 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.15 | +0.27 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.22 | +0.74 | +0.02 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.26 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.26 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.17 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.01 | +0.59 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.06 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.46 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.84 | +0.55 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.31 | +0.24 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.50 | -0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.24 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.43 | +0.21 | +0.04 | +0.16 | +0.93 | +0.04 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.51 | +0.51 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.03 | -0.35 | -0.21 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.14 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.08 | +0.17 | 0.00 | -0.11 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.12 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for February, 2023 should be available within the next several days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Anomalies still very much below the trend. Which could be expected given ENSO conditions.
12th warmest February out of 45. Though there are three Februaries tied on 0.09.
The Monckton pause, by my reckoning now starts in July 2014, which would mean it’s grown by two months. But as Monckton said the last pause started in September, rather than August as I thought, he could claim it’s grown three months.
Fastest cherry-picked trend to present now starts in December 2010 with a warming rate of 0.29C / decade.
My crude statistical model is now predicting 2023 to be 0.09 +/- 0.14.
This would put 2023 around the 2018 mark, currently in 10th place, but with large uncertainties. Highest realistic ranking is probably 6th, lowest could possibly be around 20th, with a small chance of being slightly lower.
I suspect my model is cruder than yours Bellman, but I notice this month-on-month temperature increase corresponds with an uptick in ENSO 3.4 that started around September last year and has continued slowly since. That corresponds with a 5-6 month ENSO/TLT lag, which is the best-fit lag period I can find using correlation analysis on Excel. I haven’t adjusted for seasonal effects, etc, but it may signal the start of a slow rise in TLT over the next few months.
The model I’m talking about is much cruder. It’s simply predicting the final annual average from the average of the year so far, along with a linear trend. Doesn’t factor in ENSO or any other conditions.
I am looking at more sophisticated models for monthly values, and as with you I see around a 6 month lag in ENSO effects. On that basis I wouldn’t expect to see much change until June or July. After that will depend on if and when we get a new El Nino.
I get an optimal lag of 4 months for ENSO. My model now consists of 5 components (CO2, ONI, volcanic AOD, AMO, and TSI). The fit equation is T = -0.27 + [1.5*log2(CO2lag1/CO2initial)] + [0.14*ONIlag4] + [0.25*AMOlag3] + [0.05*(TSIlag1-TSIavg)] + [-2.6*AODlag1]. This model has a root mean square difference of 0.121 C. I will say the skill of the model with a 5 month lag of ENSO was only marginally worse.
BTW…when apply and train the model on an 8 dataset composite (UAH, RSS, RATPAC, ERA, NOAA, GISTEMP, BEST, Hadley) I get a RMSD of 0.093 C with the log2 CO2 term at 2.3.
I can see a big discrepency in my ENSO/UAH model post-1991 that lasts for ~18-months. UAH tanks, despite what appear to have been El Nio conditions at the time. I suspect Mt Pinatubo was the culprit. It might be interesting to model ENSO 3.4 and AOD against UAH to see if the fit improves, but it might be beyond my ‘paygrade’!
It’s definitely Pinatubo. Bellman and I are both using this aerosol optical dataset.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau.line_2012.12.txt
BTW…slight typo in my post above. I’m lagging the AOD data from that file by 3 months; not 1 month.
Anyway, use the data from that file to compensate and you’ll get a better fit on your ENSO/UAH model.
Bellman,
We only have two months of data. What are you expecting for the rest of spring, summer, fall, and December? You know theres going to be an El Nio right?
Huh? How does anyone “know” there will be an El Nino?
Please don’t say a model told me so. Because even if there was an El Nino tomorrow there is a 4 to 5 month lag as described in their posts. So most of the year will be cool already.
It will be difficult for the pause to go back much further than June 2014 due to the PDO cooling that occurred up until the 2/2014 phase change. It will probably require an AMO phase change which isn’t due for at least a couple more years.
One other way would be a strong volcanic eruption along the lines of Pinatubo.
“It will probably require an AMO phase change which isnt due for at least a couple more years.”
How do you know its due date?
This look like predictable behavior?
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iamo_hadsst_24month_low-pass_box.png
There is lots of noise but when it averages out you see a pretty clear ~30 year phase change. The last phase changes occurred in 1932, 1962 and 1996. The last one may have been delayed by the Pinatubo eruption.
I realize climate alarmists live in dread of this coming cooling. It appears to be at least in part driven by the ITCZ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQbSplM6o9Y
Here it is with more filtering.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iamo_hadsst_84month_low-pass_box.png
What I see is a single strong drop in 1960. There should be another one in 1900. Where is it?
It is hard to see how anyone can pull predictability from this data.
How accurate is the data from 1900? The AMO has been tracked back at least 400 years so it doesn’t appear to be a recent phenomena.
Another interesting tidbit, Europe is having its worst drought since 1959. That was right before the last negative AMO phase change. Coincidence or foreshadowing?
” The AMO has been tracked back at least 400 years”
Data? Is it periodic over that period?
“How accurate is the data from 1900?”
If so, then your confident prediction of its periodicity is based on what?
Nate, here’s a newer study I haven’t read yet. Looks like it does have some good information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00275-1
Here’s a better view of the AMO.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/AMO%20GlobalAnnualIndexSince1856%20With11yearRunningAverage.gif
Ok, wheres the last figure from?
“It will be difficult for the pause to go back much further than June 2014”
If next month is slightly cooler than this month, the pause will be starting in May 2014. Three months at 0 would put it back March. I don’t think it’s out of the question. But I doubt it will drop back into 2013 until there’s another strong La Nina.
For that period, the trend is indeed 0 deg C/decade.
But with 2 sigma error of plus/minus 0.41 deg C/decade!
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
So what does it tell you about the trend?
As I keep saying, I think these short term trends are meaningless.
I am a Hunga Tonga weather conspiracy theorist. Any theory on Freddy and the increase in water vapor in the stratosphere (5% more) causing this cyclone to appear perpetually on the weather map?
always fun to get a sine-wave breaker on the 13-month
best fit ECS model estimate 1.2-1.7, meaning that (as has been the case since at least 2013) trillions in direct spending has been wasted (per Climate Policy Initiative, which wants many multiple more!) in a misguided and futile attempt to cool the Earth based on incorrect climate models
that’s not even considering the secondary economic effects of climate legislation whose cumulative presumably reaches into the tens of trillions
on an Earth in which large portions of the surface are too cold for most life most of the time, and winter excess deaths far exceed summer
even though we’ve known for years now that the CERES data shows no DWLR signature since 2000
history’s greatest blunder unfolds before our rolling eyes
“even though weve known for years now that the CERES data shows no DWLR signature since 2000”
Nah. Its doing more or less what its been predicted to do.
“Combined changes in clouds, sea-ice,
WV and trace gases exceed influence
from temperature changes, resulting in
a positive overall trend in net TOA flux.”
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2022-10/Loeb_contributed_presentation.pdf
Is the net “heat trapping” mechanism of interest, as measured by ASR – OLR, occurring within ocean or within gaseous atmosphere?
It is taken up by all of the climate system. Per Shuckmann et al. 2020 the proportions are 89% ocean, 6% land, 4% cryosphere, and 1% atmosphere.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf
bdgwx, maybe you missed it but the third name on that paper was Hansen. That should have been a red flag.
But if not, the first sentence should have told you the paper was nonsense: “Human-induced atmospheric composition changes cause a radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere which is driving global warming.”
Hi Nate,
could you please help me with one question?
At the second page of your link pdf, Loeb writes:
LW: -0.28 + 0.20 Wm-2 per decade
Whats the meaning of this LW? LW escaping to space, or LW returning to earth?
Because later, at the third page, there is a -OLR, that it look like LWR returing to surface because of GHG.
Does it mean earth releases less LWR to space and less LWR back to earth? both at the same time?
thanks in advance.
Unknown,
LW trend = -.28 W/m^2/decade. Here negative sign means more energy escaping from Earth to space.
-OLR. OLR is Outgoing LW radiation a positive number. He adds a negative sign to it to account for it being a Loss of energy to Earth.
Thus he can sum ASR with -OLR to find the NET gain or loss of energy to the Earth.
“Is the net heat trapping mechanism of interest, as measured by ASR OLR, occurring within ocean or within gaseous atmosphere?”
You can see on the Global LW Trends chart, that surface Temp has warmed, producing more ULWR, but water vapor and trace gases are abs*orbing much of that.
In addition clouds and surface albedo both contributed to increase in abs*orbed SW.
The ocean surface albedo hasnt changed, but sea-ice is lower, so more of the ocean is exposed in the arctic.
So while most of the heat is trapped in the ocean, the mechanism is not within the ocean.
Using UAH and CERES data I get an ECS of 2.0 C per 2xCO2.
CERES does not observe DWLR. It observes UWLR. But the UWLR it does observe is consistent with expectations.
OLR increased because the surface warmed as a direct result of increased ASR caused by cloud thinning.
I’m looking forward to seeing what’s happened since 2020. But, with the La Nina cooling I have a suspicion the OLR has been dropping.
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297/htm
bdgwx,
“Using UAH and CERES data I get an ECS of 2.0 C per 2xCO2.”
Just curious – how are you accounting for lagged effects to calculate ECS. Just asking because often the informal results I see round the net are based on resulting warming at the time of doubling, akin to TCS.
Sorry – TCS should be TCR, transient climate response.
I obviously don’t know this for sure, but I believe there is a good chance the local minimum in is on UAH. I base this on the fact that the La Nina is waning and that the Jan. 2023 value was a rather large 2-sigma deviation below a simple 5-component model I have that predicts UAH TLT anomalies.
If the local minimum is in (a big IF right now) that means 2021/04 would be the minimum at -0.05 C with 2023/01 just above that at -0.04 C. On the old 1981-2010 baseline these would +0.08 C and +0.10 C respectively. The numerous predictions we saw here back in 2020 that guaranteed we’d be below 0 C on the 1981-2010 baseline are not looking good and that is with a rare triple dip La Nina. However, as not to be premature I’ll give it until 4 months after ENSO goes neutral before calling those predictions wrong.
physical imposture and quackery. the false arbiter.
Weak contrarian crap. USD should give us 30% more.
your statistically inclined compatriot has indicated that the ocean accounts for 89% of planetary heat uptake using secondary research. For the oceanic mass is taking up more radiation than it emits, rendering such Watts unavailable to the OLR.
I am sure you have a point, weak currency.
Whenever you are ready.
The ocean is the largest solar energy collector, by far. It should be considered in great detail when one is analyzing the balance sheet of solar absorbed vs that re-radiated from the system.
CAD,
If so, why is the ocean NOW taking up more than it emits? Is there a theory for that?
And why are the land surfaces warming more than the ocean surface?
And why is there a Net imbalance at the top of the atmosphere?
@Nate
I am not sure if it is controversial, but there appears to be the view that globally averaged shortwave net surface radiation is increasing, perhaps > +1.5W/m over the past 20 years.
This is usually attributed to nebulous feedback response to radiative forcing. I think it’s a convenient and lazy approach used to confirm preconceptions; a conclusion arrived at by use of foundational assumptions.
Things could be far more interesting than that. For I have proposed mechanisms on this thread before, by human disruption to biologically mediated cloud condensation process.
The climate, of course, is a subset of the ecological system. Change the ecology, and climates must change too. The biota critical to cloud microphysics, condensation, SW up, and further to advection, pressure gradients, and global circulation … the teleconnections run far afield (and deep).
> +1.5W/m, absorbed to some depth in ocean. On the terrestrial surface, not so deep. The landscape surface responding almost instantaneously from a radiative point of view. The ocean, not so much.
CAD, Loeb et al. 2021 has an ASR trend of 0.65 W/m2.decade which would be +1.3 W/m2 over the last 20 years. +1.5 W/m2 is within the uncertainty envelop though. I think you can rightfully describe some components of the ASR feedback as nebulous like the cloud component, but the water vapor and surface components aren’t controversial. And to say it is lazy and preconceived would be at odds with its long history dating back to the 1800’s and predating observations that are consistent with it.
Nate and bdgwx, you have to remember this “net imbalance” nonsense is some of the most blatant anti-science out there.
No one knows the “average” flux emitted back to space. That’s some conjured up figure from models that means NOTHING. Not to mention flux doesn’t average.
Then, they’re trying to subtract Earth emitted flux from solar flux. You can’t subtract different fluxes.
Such crap is so bad it’s not even up to the level of “bad”.
@ bdwx says “be at odds with its long history dating back to the 1800”
except for Angstrom who totally refuted Arrhenius.
Historical revisionism runs deep.
Additionally, Arrhenius completely ignored until the 1980s, when some folks went in search for their preferred historical foundations.
folklore, and such.
Arrhenius forgotten and ignored in his time, due to Angstrom.
But today, history revised.
FWIW:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
The saturated argument is cheap.
Back in the day it was believed Angstrom’s (or more technically Koch’s) 30 cm tube experiment refuted Arrhenius. But Angstrom and Koch didn’t have the knowledge at the time to understand that the experimental methodology limited their ability to identify the transmission curve of the 100C reference body. We now understand that the experiment is only expect to produce a change of 1%. Koch reported 0.4% (which is reasonably close to the real value) and concluded that this small change was insignificant. Had Koch actually lengthened the tube to say 250 cm (equivalent to optical depth of the real atmosphere) he might have thought it noteworthy the change was an order of magnitude greater. But neither he nor Angstrom thought to do so. They just saw the 0.4% and said it was saturated and moved on.
There is a pretty good write up of the experiment here.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii
Doh…you beat me to it Willard.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3ohhwytHcusSCXXOUg/giphy.gif
In response to @Willard and bdgwx, the realclimate attack upon Angstrom is not surprising.
The simple statement from Angstrom is that “Under no circumstances should carbon dioxide absorb more than 16 percent of the terrestrial radiation.”
This is due simply to the bandwidth of CO2 on a planck style function. It is not complicated. To suggest a “saturated” effect isn’t quite right.
It is quite odd the realclimate article avoided mentioning the simple outcome of Angstrom’s work in their obfuscation. It is amusing two individuals chose to refer to the same phony refutation and misrepresentation of Angstrom in their googling.
“there appears to be the view that globally averaged shortwave net surface radiation is increasing, perhaps > +1.5W/m over the past 20 years.”
It is the amount abs*orbed that has increased. The CERES satellite plus other data can be used to determine much of the causes of that.
As Loeb noted, it is increasing albedo from reduced land and sea ice. And it is cloud variations.
He argued that some of recent cloud changes had to do with the PDO.
“Then, theyre trying to subtract Earth emitted flux from solar flux. You cant subtract different fluxes.”
Clint again makes up his own fizuks rules.
cad…”The simple statement from Angstrom is that Under no circumstances should carbon dioxide absorb more than 16 percent of the terrestrial radiation.”
***
Angstrom is being overly generous, at best, CO2 can absorb no more than 7% of surface radiation.
Troll Nate, two infinitely large plates face each other. One plate is emitting 400 W/m^2 to the other plate. The other plate is emitting 800 W/m^2 to the “400” plate. The plates are so close together that there are no losses.
What is the “net” flux arriving the “400” plate from the “800” plate?
(When a troll is presented with an easy physics question, his head explodes. It’s fun to watch.)
More of Clint’s silly questions lacking any point.
Maybe he should just explain why he weirdly thinks energy input minus energy output cannot be used to find net energy gain.
Just answer the simple question, troll Nate.
If you have an actual physics point, make it.
Otherwise if you cant do simple arithmetic, Im not going to do it for you.
Buy a calculator.
The point, troll Nate, is that you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. You just mouth off.
Answer the simple question.
Put up or shut up.
We all understand that you don’t have any real physics point. You are just here to troll.
Go troll in traffic.
The point, troll Nate, is that you don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. You just mouth off.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1454061
Answer the simple question.
Put up or shut up.
Riddle me this, Pup:
How can a body receive more than it emits and still be in equilibrium?
Worthless willard, go back and find my example of a box containing bricks. The box and bricks are all at the same temperature. So when more bricks with the same temperature are added, more energy is being added, but the temperature does not increase.
If you can’t understand it, get a responsible adult to explain it to you.
(I know you are trying to distract from the fact that troll Nate can’t answer the simple question. Not to worry. I won’t let him forget. That’s why this is so much fun.)
You protest too much, Jiggly Pup.
A simple yes or no would do.
Alternatively, try this –
Take a garden hose, direct it toward your nose, and open the faucet.
Please report.
“The box and bricks are all at the same temperature. So when more bricks with”
Clint has been reading the trolling classic, ‘How to mislead with horrible analogies’.
Troll Nate, distractions won’t help you. Even worthless willard can’t help you. Two zeros are still zero.
You’ve made an idiot of yourself, again. You can’t answer the simple question.
That’s why this is so much fun.
You’re just going to have to play by yourself with your bricks, while the adults discuss real science.
Troll Nate, I knew you would not be able to answer. It was predictable: “When a troll is presented with an easy physics question, his head explodes. It’s fun to watch.”
Willard says: “Suppose we were to sit at sea level and shine an infrared flashlight with an output of one Watt upward into the sky.”
Pretty much all the IR from the surface gets trapped very low in the atmosphere. For CO2 I think Heinz Hug computed 99.94% in less than 10 meters. Your astronaut wouldn’t see any of it.
What you see from space is the emissions of IR from the atmosphere. Even talking about surface emissions will lead you down the wrong path.
As more CO2 is added to the atmosphere its ability to emit energy to space does not change. What changes is CO2 will trap a little more energy from the atmospheric window. This is the only warming effect.
Most folks are not aware there is also a cooling effect. This is driven by the increase in CO2 emissivity low in the atmosphere. You will see an increase of IR at the surface. This increases evaporation which enhances convection. Increased convection leads to lower high altitude water vapor. This reduces the water vapor GHE compensating for the increased CO2 warming effect.
Net change = more precipitation. You know, exactly what mother nature wanted with increases in CO2.
“Pretty much all the IR from the surface gets trapped very low in the atmosphere. ”
Uhhh…. in a clear dry sky there is a substantial IR window direct to space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window
Clint’s head explodes, as nobody wants to play his silly trolling games.
Nate says “there is a substantial IR window direct to space.”
Yes, and I also mentioned it just below your quoted text. I guess I should have mentioned it twice to avoid silly, pedantic comments.
“Pretty much all the IR from the surface gets trapped very low in the atmosphere. ”
This is still not correct, Richard.
And
“Absor*ption bands of carbon dioxide are centered at 15, 4.3, 2.7, and 2 μm. There exists a window between 8 and 14 μm for absor*ption bands of water vapor”
Thus this
“What changes is CO2 will trap a little more energy from the atmospheric window. This is the only warming effect.”
is also not correct.
> Willard says
It was a quote, RM.
Revise and resubmit.
Nate says:
‘Thus this
What changes is CO2 will trap a little more energy from the atmospheric window. This is the only warming effect.
is also not correct.’
It also doesn’t matter because the energy involved is so minimal. I can see I’m dealing with people far less educated in the science than I thought. Guess I will need to talk to them as I do to 3 year olds.
You post incorrect science statements. We point them out.
“I can see Im dealing with people far less educated in the science than I thought.”
So this is a non-sequitur.
Nate says: “You post incorrect science statements. We point them out.”
All you have is irrelevancies. It’s like someone saying yesterday was a nice sunny day. You would counter with “the sun was covered up by clouds at 3:15-17 pm. Hence, you are wrong.”
I don’t really mind it when you prove you have nothing intelligent to add.
Very low temperatures in the south of Pacific ahead of the approaching winter in the Southern Hemisphere. No chance of El Nino.
https://i.ibb.co/vBWYS7r/cdas-sflux-ssta-global-1.png
” No chance of El Nino. ”
Are you sure, Palmowski?
This below is NOAA’s prediction – you know, that one you trusted all the time during three La Nina years:
https://i.postimg.cc/PJGqGML3/nino34030323.png
As you can see, the observed, real data has passed over the La Nina treshold (-0.5) during February, and should, all things remaining nearly equal, enter the El Nino level during June.
But, it seems that in your opinion, NOAA’s predictions are only valid when the SSTs are cold, isnt’it?
Dumbkopf Bindiclown is back in forecasting, fun continues
On April 2, 2020 you forecasted UAH TLT anomalies saying “The last dip almost reached the zero line , the next one will cross it”
Nobody should ever believe what dachshund Eben writes.
He’s much better at denigrating people than observing data.
Aaah…
The little ankle biting and stalking dachshund is here again.
Magnifique.
First of all: unlike you and your alleged forecasting brazenly based on the forecasts of others, I did NOT forecast anything, but mentioned other people’s forecast. A big difference, dachshund.
*
Et si vous trouvez nécessaire d'utiliser des mots allemands pour me dénigrer, dachshund, écrivez-les au moins correctement.
Par exemple: Dummkopf.
Un mot qui par ailleurs vous va bien mieux qu'à moi, me semble-t-il.
“I did NOT forecast anything, but mentioned other peoples forecast.”
Is there any better way to announce how totally stupid you are ???
Eben does his own research. It is based on coolista hopes and dreams.
Do you have a prediction, Eben?
I do
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1130926
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1131807
So he doesnt have one. He’s just trolling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2021-0-21-deg-c/#comment-1131807
So you’re predicting la Nina continuing till October, are you, Eben?
Silly me, I didn’t see the date on Eben’s graphic.
https://i.postimg.cc/d3DyLDTM/18nino34-Mon.gif
You’re right, Nate. Eben is trolling – I should stay still trolling. Thought for a sec he might have been doing something new.
Bin, you seem to be confused about El Niño. NOAA defines an El Niño as MONTHS above +0.5C, not just a crossing.
By their definition, we barely have time for an El Niño in 2023.
Don’t try to teach me with your endlessly ball-on-a-string based pseudo-knowledge, Clint R.
Better look at this:
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
We’ll see where ONI stays for Feb 2023 when it gets published.
*
” By their definition, we barely have time for an El Nio in 2023. ”
You claim all the time I’d write ‘poor English, but… that’s all but posh.
*
Let us switch to
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso_tab=enso-sst_table
There you read:
” The likelihood of El Nio remains low during Mar-May (3%), increasing to 20% in Apr-Jun, and 47% in May-Jul, and then becomes the dominant category thereafter with probabilities in the 56-59% range from Jun-Aug to Oct-Dec 2023. ”
Your lunar spin denial is really sweating through everywhere.
Bindi, calm down, you are losing it big time over a small positive anomaly.
You mention ball on a string physics without saying whether you believe the ball on a string is rotating or not. Forget the moon. Does the ball have an innate rotation as it orbits the person swinging the ball?
Simple yes or no.
Then you will have to explain to everyone how the ball knows exactly how to rotate both with and without the string. (Feynman)
Anyway back to El Nio predictions and possibilities.
The likelihood of El Nio remains low during Mar-May (3%), increasing to 20% in Apr-Jun, and 47% in May-Jul, and then becomes the dominant category thereafter with probabilities in the 56-59% range from Jun-Aug to Oct-Dec 2023.
This milquetoast prediction lacks one small addendum.
It is not specific for 2023.
It is the general range of predictions for every year, tempered by the starting point of the current temperature..
They are not saying they know what will happen in 2023, just this is the usual scenario when they do not know.
La tua francese non meglio, ancora, ma non male.
angech
I’m afraid you don’t know enough about this ball-on-a-string discussion. Please keep concentrating on what you are really aware of.
Mon français ne se porte par ailleurs guère plus mal que votre italien.
Since nobody predicted the double then triple weak La Nia three years ago it is obvious that ENSO is unpredictable.
This does not stop short term trend following predictions being made all the time.
Add in reversion to mean followed by must go the other way for balance and we end up with El Nio always being the next big prediction.
There is no reason not to have 5 or 6 La Ninas in a row.
Statistically very improbable, practically a certainty given time.
Very disappointed in the break back above zero with UAH but given it is mainly sun driven which works like ENSO, unpredictable, we will just have to live with whatever comes.
2 cold months at the start means a less than maximal year very likely.
Three would be even better and four unbelievable.
Go Roy
angech
” There is no reason not to have 5 or 6 La Ninas in a row. ”
In theory you might be right. But in practice, not so because we would have experienced such things since measurement begin in 1871 during La Nina phases stronger than this one.
Bindi.
In theory you might be right. But in practice, not so because we would have experienced such things since measurement begin in 1871 during La Nina phases stronger than this one.
Yogi Bera could not have said it better.
150 years is a short time for a 5 year repeat of a 1 in 4 phenomenon.
2 in a row once in 8 years, 3 in 64 years 4 in 256 years etc?
Unfortunately for your comment proxy records of La Ninas should exist going back a millenium so your remark is wrong both in estimation, time and occurrence.
The strength of a La Nia phase does not reflect the likelihood of repeated occurrences either
“Since nobody predicted the double then triple weak La Nia three years ago it is obvious that ENSO is unpredictable”.
***
Not if Zharkova is right about the sunspot cycles. This could be the beginning of a 30 years La Nina cycle, although I ‘shudder’ to think so.
ren
If you are wrong, is there any chance you will announce that you were wrong? Or at least admit to being wrong when reminded?
Or will you perform your usual trick of trying to deflect from your error by posting an irrelevant graph without explanation.
As far as I can remember, he never admits having been wrong.
But I recall that he was often enough, especially concerning cold weather in Europe.
In fact, he has predicted La Nina for each of the past 7 years. That is, each of the years he has been present here. One of those turned out to be an El Nino, and his only successes coincided with successful predictions by the experts, so he has not added anything.
Nobody beats Bindiclown who got every single forecast in the last 3 years exactly opposite to reality
Did he indicate 100% certainty, as did ren?
Did he fail to acknowledge that he was wrong, as did ren?
Hold on to your ankles, Bondidong’s forecasting Gurkengruppe is out in full force
Hey, Ren, Binny van der Klown doesn’t like his climate alarm being exposed. He probably doesn’t mind wearing a long coat in the park and exposing himself to hapless women, but having his pet theory exposed is too much.
No one lowers the tone around here like you do, Gordon.
Solar wind
speed: 595.3 km/sec
density: 0.69 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 103
Updated 03 Mar 2023
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 169 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.47×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.9% Below Average
48-hr change: +2.0%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
The graphs says, Dec 2022 was: 143.6 sunspots and Jan 2023 was
110.9
Which should be Jan was 143.6 and Feb was 110.9 and I guessing
Mar will be around 100 and then starts to go much higher.
Actual March 3 count from the official source (the one that gives the monthly averages you linked to): 121
The graph definitely says Jan 143.6. Feb 110.9
What is the basis behind your guess of 100?
And why haven’t you included your regular SC25/24 comparison?
“Actual March 3 count from the official source (the one that gives the monthly averages you linked to): 121”
That doesn’t surprise me. Could give official source’s link and I might use it instead of SpaceWeather.com.
But I have been just looking at SpaceWeather.com. I am mostly interested in Neutron Counts, and not overly confident in spaceWeather numbers, regarding that.
“The graph definitely says Jan 143.6. Feb 110.9”
Not when I go to the link, but is these numbers- they aren’t even giving Feb
“What is the basis behind your guess of 100?”
Well, I doubt anyone could guess it. But I like to give number
and check to see how far wrong it is, What is easier, is say for
next week in time, and I think it will be less than 100.
What your guess?
We actual have observation of what coming- but I don’t have much
access to it, instead just looking at SpaceWeather.com {mostly}.
But, also got a forecast:
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
27 February – 25 March 2023
Solar activity is expected to be elevated throughout the outlook
period. A number of regions with a history of producing M-class and
X-class flares are expected to return and transit the solar disk
over the course of the next 27 days. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Which might say something different than what I am saying.
Here is the daily updated (temporary) data:
https://tinyurl.com/Daily-Counts
They make it clear that the daily updated data is to be taken with a grain of salt. The data is made “final” at the end of the month here:
https://tinyurl.com/Final-Counts
At the end of the month, sometimes the data generally increases, other times it generally decreases. Last month it greatly decreased. The temporary data was averaging 126, but fell to 111 when the final data came out.
I tried again, and when I hover over the last three data points it definitely says Dec 113.1, Jan 143.6, Feb 110.9.
I don’t like to guess. All I can say is that solar flux has increased noticeably over the past 48 hours, so I would expect a rise in spot numbers from yesterday’s 121 starting today or tomorrow, but who knows what will happen beyond that. I’ll check within the next half hour when the flux is updated.
I do feel more comfortable making an estimate of the 13-month average at the end of the month. I will say 96.5 plus/minus 1.5, which leaves Zharkova’s prediction behind. That compares with the average of 87 at the same point last cycle.
And I was confusing you with Eben regarding the SC25/24 comparison.
I had to use tinyurl links because the real links were not posting.
I stuffed up. Both links are the same – the “final” data. The real daily “temporary” updates are here:
https://tinyurl.com/Daily-Counts-2
The flux update ended up dropping back, so there won’t be much of a rise, if any. Perhaps a surge above 120 today then back down to 120 tomorrow. But I really don’t know.
Try to be less twerpy
Eben
What exactly is your issue? I have asked questions and answered his. What do you see as the problem with that?
Solar wind
speed: 518.7 km/sec
density: 2.74 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 133
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 175 sfu
Updated 04 Mar 2023
“Departing sunspot AR3234 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares. ”
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.47×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.4% Below Average
48-hr change: +2.4%
3245 came from farside and the small spots: 3244 and 3243
appeared and may grow more, but 3243 will be next to depart
to farside. I wasn’t expecting spots to grow, and wondering how
much this will continue in next day or so.
Antonin: “Dec 113.1, Jan 143.6, Feb 110.9.” is correct
But the graph appears to still give me wrong numbers:
it’s: Nov 113.1 Dec 143.6 Jan 110.9
Solar wind
speed: 585.2 km/sec
density: 0.72 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 137
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 180 sfu
Updated 06 Mar 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.93×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.2% Below Average
Couple small coronal holes going to farside
3243 spot grew and is going to farside and
and see spot coming from farside.
Thermosphere is energized and will probably
get significantly more energized.
Solar wind
speed: 558.8 km/sec
density: 5.19 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 173
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 188 sfu
Updated 07 Mar 2023
“SUNSPOT MEITOSIS: Sunspot AR3245 is splitting in two. This 24-hour movie from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory shows the sunspot’s primary core dividing like a eukaryotic cell as it turns toward Earth:
“The bright, linear gap between the sunspot’s two halves is known as a “light bridge.” It measures 20,000 km from end to end.”
The nature of light bridges is not fully understood. They often herald the break-up of a sunspot, with jets of plasma shooting up from the chasm as the sunspot decays. Some research suggests that magnetic fields at the base of a light bridge are busy cross-crossing and reconnecting–the same explosive process that sparks solar flares.
Does this mean sunspot AR3245 will explode–or quietly fall apart? No one can say. ”
Hmm. From a state of cluelessness, I would say it matters where the sunspots are splitting apart. And it seems AR3245 is closer to equator- it’s in southern and we are see more of northern? So, closer
to equator. So, in choice of exploding vs decay, it would likely explode??
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.90×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.7% Below Average
Solar wind
speed: 423.0 km/sec
density: 4.92 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 191
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 180 sfu
Updated 08 Mar 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 24.10×10^10 W Warm
{new high}
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.0% Below Average
48-hr change: +1.5%
The sun has no coronal holes on
nearside
Other than Neutral Counts, it seems
a very active solar Max, lately.
Solar wind
speed: 420.0 km/sec
density: 5.91 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 155
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 179 sfu
Updated 10 Mar 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 24.08×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.7% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.1%
Smallish coronal hole near equator
No new spots coming from farside
I think solar activity isn’t particularly
strong and will weaken over next week, but
I expect April to start strengthening- and
Neutron counts to lower.
Solar wind
speed: 421.2 km/sec
density: 1.03 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 135
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 171 sfu
Updated 11 Mar 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 24.12×10^10 W Warm
{warmest so far}
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.8% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.2%
Observation looking sun more towards
the coming farside, indicate large old
sunspot in northern hemisphere is returning to our
near side.
But I think heading towards lower activity in next week
or so. And at some point it gets a lot more active {which is
kind of obvious- but after next 6 months, it will not as obvious.
Solar wind
speed: 385.2 km/sec
density: 12.99 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 126
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
Updated 12 Mar 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 24.00×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.9% Elevated
So, I would say we starting to go near
equator. And I am wildly guessing, this will
take a bit of time, and then will take off and
it won’t last a year, but it will be quite active.
But in terms solar cycle, it’s the lack of duration
makes whole cycle, weak.
Solar wind
speed: 378.3 km/sec
density: 18.06 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 87
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
Updated 13 Mar 2023
[flux high vs spot number]
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.68×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.0% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.2%
{a few small/tiny coronal holes}
Spots going to farside, and still not
seeing spots coming from farside.
The lull before the storm?
Japan just found 7,000 islands it didnt know it had
” Japan has recounted its islands and discovered it has 7,000 more than it previously thought.
Digital mapping by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (GSI) recently found there to be 14,125 islands in Japanese territory, more than double the figure of 6,852 that has been in official use since a 1987 report by Japans Coast Guard. ”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/asia/japan-islands-double-report-intl-hnk/index.html
Linked from: https://instapundit.com/
Are they counting. better?
More from instapudit:
Nuclear oversight board reported concerns months before Y-12 uranium fire
“The Feb. 22 fire at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge wasn’t the first time in recent years the plant has experienced events that could have led to sparks, smoldering or fire involving uranium.
A report by a nuclear defense oversight board submitted to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Nov. 18, 2022, identified 15 such instances at Y-12 between 2016 and 2021.”
https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/tennessee/2023/03/03/nuclear-board-told-doe-secretary-of-fire-concerns-at-y-12-last-year/69962124007/
{oh, it’s his hometown’s news}
–DEMOGRAPHICS IS DESTINY: China has lost 41 million workers almost the size of Germanys workforce in 3 years. The data stems from a rapid rise in the number of people retiring, likely raising pressure on Beijing to accelerate unpopular plans to raise official retirement ages The drop reflects factors such as higher youth unemployment due to the pandemic as well as a shrinking number of people in the classic age group of the working-age population, said Stuart Gietel-Basten, a demographer at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
That last group is the one that matters. Young people can be enticed to work once they get hungry enough and the retirement age can always be raised to keep older workers in the workforce longer.
But when the cohort of working-age people is shrinking, as it is in China, youve got a real problem.–
You could lose workforce numbers by “modernization”- I am thinking mainly coal mining, though could be farming or whatever.
Also, I imagine they stopped making Ghost Cities- but I could be overly optimistically, imagining.
And more:
600 HAND AXES? THATS AN ARSENAL! NOBODY NEEDS 600 HAND AXES! WE NEED SENSIBLE HAND AXE CONTROLS. Nearly 600 obsidian handaxes from 1.2 million years ago found in Ethiopia show early humans were smarter than we think.
Posted at 7:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds
“Are they counting. better?”
Do you not read the articles you link to?
Digital mapping by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (GSI) recently found there to be 14,125 islands in Japanese territory, more than double the figure of 6,852 that has been in official use since a 1987 report by Japan’s Coast Guard.
However, the GSI this week stressed that the new figure reflected advances in surveying technology and the detail of the maps used for the count it did not change the overall area of land in Japan’s possession.
The answer is, yes.
It’s nice to be hopeful.
It seems Japan is a country which could be getting it’s act together.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-29378-2
Sad to see you sprouting other peoples nonsense without thinking but not unexpected Willis.
A lot of education.
A lack of competing perspectives.
Our results show that co-occurring extremely hot and dry events have globally consistent negative effects on the yields of all inspected crop types. Extremely cold and wet conditions were observed to reduce crop yields
Climate change as a problem has to make problems appear.
Short of sudden ice ages or infernos to scare people one has to resort to warmer (currently) or colder.
But warmer is not a problem. The globe has warm and cold areas ? So a heat induced drought in one area becomes a pleasant year in cold climes.
Corals move further south.
What to do as an alarmist?
Oh dear.
Well some areas will get wetter ( floods) as others get drier ( less floods)
So instead of it being a zero sum game we pretend that both floods and droughts become more common in the same area ( the world) while denying that they also become less common in other areas ( the world)
We end up with your prediction of a year long drought ravaged crop area inundated at the same time by a year ling flood hence unable to grow crops.
A dingbat observation and yet you push it as true without thinking about it ever.
Shame.
You’re begining to read like Robertson. All over the map with meaningless tripe using a thousand words where ten would do.
Cold is worse for crops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315%E2%80%931317
Oh, Kennui:
From your own source.
I thought you were big on “But MWP.”
ken…”Youre begining to read like Robertson. All over the map with meaningless tripe using a thousand words where ten would do”.
***
Come on, Kenny. Get that dyslexia treated and take a reading comprehension course. Lot of good material in my short stories.
Starship debut leading the rocket industry toward full reusability
written by Adrian Beil March 3, 2023
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/03/starship-debut-reusability/
“Starships first orbital flight is currently planned for March. This is the first time the anticipated flight date of the vehicle is in the current month, and with that, a future of fully reusable rockets is getting closer. But not only is Starship aiming for reusability, but the rest of the industry is also moving toward reusing rockets.
This is the case for rockets in the United States and programs such as the Ariane NEXT in Europe or Chang Zheng 9 in China.”
It’s the others which is interesting, but it’s Starship’s test launch which will set the tempo.
What problems will the test launch, find.
As said, ocean launch will become important. And when it become important, we will get ocean settlements.
In April, temperatures in the Nino 1.2 region will begin to drop again.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
Here we see a powerful high in the southeast Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/7p3Qr7h/mimictpw-samer2-latest.gif
I’m sure a lot of powerful highs are being experienced in the southeast Pacific. Time for a raid.
Exceptionally, Tropicaltidbits’ data show something useful.
When we look at NOAA’s forecast for the Nino1+2 region
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino12Mon.gif
we see that 3+4’s forecast
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
should be treated with some caution.
Temperature is still 0.25C plus or minus 0.25C.
Power out here in Tennessee. Luckily I have a fossil fuel-burning backup generator. Yahoo for fossil fuel.
Great snowstorm over the Great Lakes.
I wish I were in Tahoe with a 4-day lift ticket.
Come on Stephen, all they have in Tahoe is hills. Get up here to Whistler and enjoy a 7 mile run down real mountains.
https://edsbred.com/our-favourite-ski-runs-in-whistler-bc/
Is it a Generac? Or as some Yanks say, a Jinnirack.
Anyone blaming renewables yet?
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Less than a year after severe droughts rocked Europe, parts of the continent are dealing with a devastating repeat.
“The situation is really very [concerning] because it hasn’t rained in the last four to five weeks in several parts of western Europe,” said Andrea Toreti, co-ordinator at the European Drought Observatory.
“We see already critical conditions in terms of water content in the soil and having seen what happened last year, we know the risk, especially for sectors such as agriculture,” he said from Italy.
The lack of precipitation, mixed with a record-breaking heatwave, has caused some canals, lakes and rivers to shrink and completely dry up in some cases.
This is impacting several sectors in France, Spain and Italy, including agriculture, energy and river transport.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/europe-winter-drought-1.6763123
We had a drought last year in a rain forest climate. Since then it has rained buckets, snowed, and frozen. We are praying for more drought conditions and some of that global warming we have been promised.
C’mon, Bordon.
We all know that last year you ate a cheeseburger.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wow!!! Global warming has started since January. The planet is doomed I tell ya.
For the likes of Gordon who don’t understand how step increases can be consistent with an increasing trend, here is Dr Spencer himself to explain it to you. Note the link within the link.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245198
Who cares? RSS sold out to NOAA. Can’t trust them anymore.
What on Earth are you talking about? That’s a link to Roy explaining that apparent step ups can be consistent with long-term background warming.
It’s got zero to do with RSS or NOAA.
Ya mad raving senile duffer.
Wrong place for La Nina post. However, Roy does not make it clear if he means a step increase over a longer term or a step increase in a year following an extreme El Nino.
There was a 0.2C step-increase in 1977 which baffled scientists till it was attributed to the discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
The two step increases to which I refer are the ones following the 1998 EN and and the 2016 EN. Why did the global average not return to the previous level following them?
You just don’t get it. I don’t know and I don’t care, because that is natural variability and not an upward trend in climate. But whatever the reason, the “previous levels” (ie. the decade or so before 1998) were clearly at the low end of the “natural variability cycle”.
The answer is the the oceans. The AMO went positive just before the 1997-98 El Nino. Those effects were masked by ENSO for several years. That’s why it looked like a step up. It was really the AMO.
The 2014 PDO change preceded the 2015-16 El Nino. It stayed generally positive until after the 2019-20 El Nino which again made it look like a step change. The PDO had been negative from 2006-2014 which was a key reason the pause kept extending.
It will be interesting to see where ENSO goes in 2023. And, will the PDO return to a positive phase.
There is a post at your link by Dan Pangburn which may cast some light on this.
“Tim In the engineering physics of transient heat transfer, a step change in temperature is not physically possible. They are prevented by the effective thermal capacitance. Any perceived step change is therefore an artifact of measurement”.
***
Normally, a step-response in electronics is an almost instantaneous rise in voltage, like the leading and lagging edges of a square wave. However, with global temps, the step response to which I refer could occur over 6 months. It appears on Roy’s graphs in the red running average curve.
Look where the anomalies lay before and after the ’98 EN. Same with the 2016 EN.
Note that Dan is talking about a heat transfer. I am talking about a step response inside something like a piece of steel. If it has a temperature of 20C, and it is suddenly exposed to the hat in a blast furnace, its temperatures will almost instantly rise to a new level.
Gordon,
“However, Roy does not make it clear if he means a step increase over a longer term or a step increase in a year following an extreme El Nino.”
Yes he does – he links in his comment to an articled he wrote on this site. You should read it.
Roy Spencer – “Why did I do this? As a couple of people already guessed, it was mostly to show how a linear trend superimposed upon a cycle can yield periods of rapid change, followed by no change, then rapid change once again. In other words, a linear trend combined with a sinusoidal cycle can lead to plateaus.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-it/
IOW, step-ups.
… may still appear even when there is an underlying warming trend.
Dr Roy, what’s happening to lower stratosphere temps? They are part of the globe I assume. I’ve noticed a lack of warming trends and wonder how you might interpret this in the scheme of things. Any comments appreciated.
What you’ve noticed is La Nina.
Hope that helps.
David…the Arctic air currently invading parts of the planet is due to a sudden stratospheric warming apparently. It causes the polar vortex to break up, sending spokes of cold air south.
Gordo, It’s called Winter and is the result of the fact that the Tropics receive more solar energy than is emitted beck to space and the Arctic emits more radiant energy than solar energy received over the year. The warm, moist air from the tropics flows toward the poles and the cold, dense air MUST RETURN BACK TO THE TROPICS to complete the loop.
Does anybody know why it seems that RSS has not yet published temperature anomaly data for January? (Or maybe I cant find it?) Many thanks
Who cares? RSS sold out to NOAA. Cant trust them anymore.
Conspiracy theories aside, Gordo apparently doesn’t understand that RSS and UAH are measuring different areas, so it’s no surprise that their results differ.
And different methods. This is a good thing, as we want alternate ways of estimating the same phenomena as a check on each method.
And, over time, different satellites.
Pablo
You are right:
https://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v04_0.txt
ends with Dec 2022.
Last year we had to wait a month for Roy Spencer’s data as well; but two months, that’s a lot.
Another possibility would be that RSS moved the data to a new subdirectory…
Thanks, lets wait and see
The data for 2023/01 and 2023/02 are there.
Nino 4 index still below -0.5 C and falling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
And why is that more significant than Nino 3 which is -0.07 (using your UNOFFICIAL data) and rising?
Andrea…I know you have trouble thinking coherently, but in case you have missed it, we’ve had La Nina conditions the past 3 years. Do you have any good reason why it should suddenly shut off? Wishful thinking won’t do it.
Where in my comment did I say anything about La Nina, or wishing ANYTHING?
You know you’ve got the upper hand when the best they can offer is to change your name. Schoolyard stuff.
AQ,
Do you get a prize for having an “upper hand”?
You sound like the average dimwitted SkyDragon cultist who talks about “winners” and “losers”, because you can’t even describe the mythical “greenhouse effect”.
Try explaining the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling. If you can (and of course you can’t), does that make you a “winner” or a “loser”? At the moment, you look like an “idiot troll”, spending too much time with at least one hand in your trousers.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
I am so glad you ask –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Keep asking!
Cheers.
I mentioned elsewhere that the LN post was misplaced and misdirected. Sorry about that.
I had written it and walked off to do something else. When I came back, I absent-mindedly started a reply to you, then I noticed the unfinished reply. So I sent it, thinking it would go to the original place but it ended up in your post instead.
We already know that your replies are absent minded, Bordon.
Come on.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
In two days, another stratospheric intrusion over California with a strong cold front. Even more snow in the Sierra Nevada.
https://i.ibb.co/dWGLM9x/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f048.png
We were told if we wore masks or had the vaccine it would protect us and others and stop transmission. I did none of those things and it has proven to be a lie. The cult of climate change has been around too long for them to stop their cash cow and is the same, the cow needs slaughtering. Its now dipping back down in the UK to a very cold spell again as it should be warming up for spring. We don’t want 15 minute smart cities and clean air zones in the UK, its all about the money.
tim…”We were told if we wore masks or had the vaccine it would protect us and others and stop transmission”.
***
The irony is, it was the opposite. Last data I saw revealed that 70% of those being hospitalized, and/or dying, were fully vaccinated.
When mRNA expert, Robert Malone, tried to get the news out that the vaccines could not protect against getting covid, he was censored by the likes of Google. It’s pretty bad when the medical community become the liars and go to great lengths to censor medical people who disagree with them.
BTW…if you can’t find info you need on Google, check out yandex dot com.
What country was this?
And what percentage of THE ENTIRE COUNTRY were vaccinated.
AQ,
Ooooooh! Another gotcha?
Why do you ask? Can’t be bothered to find out for yourself?
If you disagree with the comment, why not just say so, and why – providing some information to support your opinion.
Otherwise, others might assume you are just trolling by pretending you are seeking information, when you are just trying to make someone look stupid for no good reason.
Idiot.
It is always appreciated when you sign off your comments.
Gordon Robertson
Yandex is a Russian search engine. Given the Russian government’s tendency to suppress dissent and censor embarrassing information, how can you be sure of Yandex’s veracity, reliability and objectivity?
Well, Tim, I’m sure you personal experience can be extrapolated to perfectly capture the society around you and, no doubt, the globe..
Meanwhile, epidemiologists and climate researchers will look at whole societies with several orders of magnitude more data. I’m no scientist, but I know which method I’m going to find less credible.
Let’s do a quick comparison between two countries that had very different COVID policies. Australia and Sweden.
Sweden: minimal lockdown and social distancing, provided recommendations to the public in line with the rest of the world – masks, social distancing, isolation if sick. for the most part did not enforce and society carried on with a few limits.
Australia: some of the most restrictive lockdowns in the world, fines for not wearing masks on public transport, businesses closed, vaccine mandates for sensitive industries (like aged care).
Sweden population: 10.4 million
Australia population: 25.7 million
Stockholm population density: 374 persons / sq km
Sydney population density: 442 persons /sq km
Total recorded COVID cases to date
Sweden: 2,698,535 (42nd in the world)
Australia: 11,385,534 (14th in the world)
Total COVID deaths to date
Sweden: 23,703
Australia: 19,459
Deaths per 1 million population
Sweden: 2320
Australia: 746
Sweden’s COVID death rate per capita is 3 times higher than Australia’s.
Despite having half the case rate per capita (reportedly).
This could suggest that Sweden is massively undercounting COVID infections. Or that it’s definition of COVID deaths is far looser than Australia’s.
When you look at the timing of when the deaths occurred….
https://tiny.cc/SwedenCOVIDstats
https://tiny.cc/AustraliaCOVIDstats
You see that a large fraction of Sweden’s deaths occurred prior to vaccinations.
You see that Australia sat on about 1000 deaths right up until September 2021, when they began to soar.
This coincides with the end of lockdowns in Australia, after most of the population had been vaccinated.
You can also look at excess deaths to see when overall deaths rose – as a check on reported COVID deaths, and see that the numbers are consistent in magnitude and timing.
http://tiny.cc/NationalExcessDeathsagain
The Occam’s takeaways for me are that lockdowns prevented deaths, and that opening up after vaccination prevented more deaths than would otherwise have occurred.
I’m sure others would have slightly less Occam reasoning to explain it differently.
Yes, and liars lie. I would not trust any statistics coming out of Australia.
The data is fake, is the excuse of Flat Earthers and losers.
On the subject of excess deaths
A great check on COVID deaths, and whether they are appropriately attributed, is to count every single death certificate in a given place for the period, and see if there was an unusually high number of deaths coincident with the reported COVID fatalities.
I’ll do that now with Sweden and Australia.
Sweden
Australia
The correlation between the magnitude and timing of reported COVID deaths with excess (all-cause) deaths is extremely high.
Furthermore, one peak for each country occurs in or near Summertime, a time when overall deaths are lower than Winter.
You can do the same for any country that has had high COVID fatalities, and also reports excess death statistics, and find similar results. You only need these websites.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-average-baseline
And you can select any country for which there is data.
Some notes: for smaller populations you can get largeish variability in excess deaths, and for larger populations, like the US, the percentage variability in excess deaths is smaller. Larger sample sizes even out anomalies. When excess deaths ticks above 15% range for populations in the millions, something very unusual is happening. Countries report their statistics at different times, so, for example, Australia hasn’t updated excess deaths stats since November. Check dates carefully.
If you’re curious about the comparison for the US, here it is.
https://i.imgur.com/DZDsLA5.png
Occam’s takeaway – COVID fatalities are not overreported in those countries.
This was the report that recommended precautions to restrict the spread of Covid-19 in the UK and estimated total deaths if no mitigation was applied. It was published on 16th March 2020.You can download it here.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-9-impact-of-npis-on-covid-19/
The key numbers were estimated total deaths without mitigation; 510,000 for the UK and 2.2 million for the US.
With mitigation the actual figures are 219,000 for the UK and 1.13 million for the US.
The difference is interesting. The UK achieved a death rate 42% of the unmitigated estimate. The US only managed 51%.
Perhaps the problem is people like Tim and Gordon, whose response to advice is “Nobody tells me what to do!” IIRC the Covid death rate was higher among Republicans than Democrats because so many Republicans refused to take elementary precautions. Think of it as evolution in action.
Ent, I don’t care how many vaccinations you get. I don’t care how many false statistics you make up. I don’t even care that you believe passenger jets fly backwards.
Your false beliefs are not only funny, they’re revealing.
Clint R
I can document everything I wrote.
For example
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-death-rates-higher-republicans-democrats-why-rcna50883
Sorry Ent, but finding links you can’t understand ain’t “documenting”.
Get a responsible adult to explain these two paragraphs:
Both papers come with limitations. The study from Sehgal’s team looked at counties, not individuals, which makes it difficult to determine whether other demographic factors — such as education level, proximity to health care services or the share of older residents — played a role in the trend.
The new Yale paper, by contrast, linked political affiliation to excess Covid deaths at the individual level, but it still used county-level vaccination rates. The research was also limited to two states.
You’re not even close to being a scientist. You believe whatever your cult wants you to believe. You’ll even make up crap to support your cult beliefs. Then, you troll here, trying to pervert reality.
You described possible uncertainties in their research. You haven’t falsified it.
To do so you would need to show clear data indicating that there was no difference.
It has also one of a number of studies, which all showed a similar differential.
Reality falsifies your cult beliefs, Ent. But, you’re blind to reality.
You actually believe passenger jets fly backwards.
“Reality falsifies”
Then bring some well-documented “reality” that counters what Ent has cited. If you’re telling him how to do science, demonstrate it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5K5i5Wv7jQ&t=1s&ab_channel=ChrisWilliamson
At 1hr 34 min
“If we allow society to force us into medical treatments maybe next they’ll want our skins to make lampshades.”
Can I play too?
“If we allow conservatives in Georgia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Texas to ban books by the thousands, maybe next they’ll want us to all live like the Amish.”
I was just reading Fahrenheit 451, partly because I am watching the discussion about banning SOGI from our schools.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19RYtY-dvWJJy–I5yZtlqllRMmkOWLZSA_41DzGVzF0/edit#!
I don’t agree that any books should be banned. Pretty much anything I’ve ever learned is from books. I think the books the ‘conservatives’ are angry about should be in our libraries for people to find if they are curious about any subject.
SOGI doesn’t belong in classrooms. The premise of SOGI as an anti-bullying program doesn’t make sense. Putting Drag Queens in our libraries for kiddie shows doesn’t make sense. Making bathrooms gender neutral doesn’t make sense. Promoting Gender Dysphoria to Children doesn’t make sense. Its the books that are being blamed, but I don’t think the books are advocating for the nonsense described here.
Antonin Qwerty says:
Can I play too?
”If we allow conservatives in Georgia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Texas to ban books by the thousands, maybe next theyll want us to all live like the Amish.”
Isn’t it always the case that a program actually promoted by a major political party gets compared to some outrageous social mediator agitator on the other side. LMAO!
Yes you can play and make an ass out of yourself in the process right along with that agitator.
The whole point was the ridiculous jump in association in claiming A leads to B, just like the initial example. (Mentioning the banning of books was just a side-issue.) Thanks for taking note of the ridiculous consequence – unfortunately it didn’t allow you to apply the same sense of ridicule to the original example.
See ‘Green’ agenda. Yes the green fascists (conservative greens, liberal greens, willard greens, etc) want us all to live like the Amish. No access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels for us plebs.
Please note my reply above to Bill Hunter.
I believe the Amish are a joke, just like all groups who make life choices based on religion.
I certainly do NOT believe we should live our lives like the Amish, and have never suggested we should do anything of the sort. Combating climate change requires a top-down approach, and if properly done should not require any serious change in life-style.
But I see you are yet another one who doesn’t understand that fascism is the politics of the RIGHT. Perhaps research the anti-comintern pact.
Hmmm, so you thing the Amish are a joke? Does that make you right wing or left wing?
Kennui, always falling for the smalltown hucksters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)
Yeah, ad hominem is a great way to avoid truth.
You’d probably want ketchup with your soylent green.
If you present an old contrarian industry PR guy as an authority figure on things he knows little about, dear Kennui, please do not whine if he is shot down by his own belligerent past.
If you present an old contrarian industry PR guy as an authority figure on things he knows little about, dear Kennui, please do not whine if he is shot down by his own belligerent past.
All you’ve done is show that, not only do you disagree, but you also can’t articulate your reasons.
At least Patrick More had the intelligence to see Greenpeace for the lying wankers they are.
Come on, Bordon.
Kennui would not need your help if you could provide any.
Why would he fear anything from his senior residential community on the Victoria island?
Connect with him with your mutual hatred of Justin and of reality and its liberal bias instead.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
”In 1966, Irving Stowe and his family moved to Vancouver, Canada, where he became a full-time activist. He drew up the Constitution for a small group trying to stop nuclear testing on Amchitka Island, the Don’t Make a Wave Committee. Fellow activists Marie and Jim Bohlen, Patrick Moore, and law student Paul Cot were among the earliest members. At the end of one meeting, Stowe flashed the “V” sign customary in the sixties and said, “Peace”. Bill Darnell responded “Let’s make it a green peace”, coining the phrase that has become ubiquitous.”
”In 1972 the Don’t Make a Wave Committee officially changed its name to Greenpeace.[3] Stowe died of pancreatic cancer two years later, at the age of 59.”
”Moore became president of Greenpeace Canada (the new name for Greenpeace Foundation) and a director of Greenpeace International. Other directors were appointed from the US, France, the UK, and the Netherlands. He served for nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada, as well as six years as a director of Greenpeace International.”
”In 1985, Moore was on board the Rainbow Warrior when it was bombed and sunk by the French government.”
Gill, Gill,
Your due diligence sucks:
Check your source again.
You didn’t give a source Willard
I assume you are talking about a predecessor organization to which Moore was a member at the time of forming Greenpeace.
Further Greenpeace didn’t start as an organization but as a boat. Patrick Moore a young PhD candidate was enlisted to inspect the first boat the Committee was considering purchasing later renamed Greenpeace. As to the organization, they unofficially changed their name in 1972 and officially created the entity Greenpeace in 1974. If that doesn’t make Moore a founder I don’t know what would.
Bottom line here is these organizations all have roots that extend back to predecessor organization or are organizations organized because of the resistance of an existing organization that had some kind of previous affiliation. In this case the Sierra Club was complaining about their name being used by the Committee.
Cold front with snowfall over northern California.
https://i.ibb.co/86YsZS8/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-04-183100.png
Arctic air is beginning to reach central Europe. The zonal circulation in the Atlantic is blocked.
https://i.ibb.co/6DdPDpJ/mimictpw-europe-latest-1.gif
Ireneusz Palmowski,
You missed Nuuk, Greenland, where earlier today the temperature reached 15.2C. It is the warmest ever recorded at the station in March (previously 13.2C), and higher than the April record (14.6C).
Keep up the good work!
The blue curve shows the current and the light grey curve the previous seasons surface mass balance measured in gigatonnes (1 Gt is 1 billion tonnes and corresponds to 1 cubic kilometre of water).
The dark grey curve traces the mean value from the period 1981-2010.
https://i.ibb.co/KDSS5vb/SMB-curves-LA-EN-20230302.png
Thanks for the Surface Mass Balance curves, but that’s a non sequitur to my post, no?
This graph shows a more appropriate rejoinder: https://ibb.co/Cw4GKqW
maguff…”You missed Nuuk, Greenland, where earlier today the temperature reached 15.2C. It is the warmest ever recorded at the station in March (previously 13.2C), and higher than the April record (14.6C)”.
***
Source of you propaganda???
Lemme guess…NOAA, GISS, Had-curt, BoM.
It’s currently 3C and will be for the next week or so. What were you reporting, last summer’s temperatures?
Currently, there is no chance of an increase in surface temperatures in the tropical Central Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/1dGrdgS/cdas-sflux-ssta-global-1.png
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
BUENOS AIRES, March 3 (Reuters) – Argentina is being hit by a blistering late-summer heat wave, with many places setting record temperatures for March, while residents, tourists and crops swelter in the sun.
Some towns and cities have posted temperatures as high as 40 degrees Celsius (104F), with Nueve de Julio and Ezeiza breaking records for the month. Buenos Aires itself hit 38 degrees Celsius, breaking a record previously set in 1952.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/argentina-melts-late-summer-heat-wave-records-tumble-2023-03-03/
Thats all due to Hunga Tonga
Indeed, Kennui:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/10/chile-wildfires-heat-wave-climate-change-south-america-chinese-balloons/
Perhaps you should go fro the Dust Bowlinstead of dumbing the ball on the MWP.
Woeful Wee Willy,
You seem to be unaware that droughts can persist (or not), be severe (or not), and are unpredictable.
The poet Dorothea McKellar, writing about Australia, wrote –
“I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.”
True then, true now. Droughts – followed by flooding rains.
Apparently, the vagaries of weather (and hence its average, climate) are a complete mystery to deranged SkyDragons like yourself. No, Willy, you cannot “Stop Climate Change!”. There is no GHE, Willy, and anyone who claims such a thing exists is simply deluding themselves.
As Richard Feynman said “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. One way we fool ourselves is by imagining we know more than we do; we think we are experts.”
You can’t even explain the role of your “GHE” in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, and yet you claim that the planet is now getting hotter – due to that same “GHE”! Who’s fooling who, do you think?
Mike Flynn,
You seem to believe that people read your comment.
Do you think they did?
I did not!
Potato.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Good news, everyone:
MRIDA, Yucatn, (March 3, 2023).-An anticyclonic system in the middle levels of the atmosphere will maintain a warm to hot weather in the west, center and Yucatan Peninsula during the afternoon, forecasting maximum temperatures of 40 to 45 C in areas of Morelos, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Veracruz (south), Campeche and Yucatan, according to the National Meteorological Service (SMN, Servicio Meteorolgico Nacional).
https://www.theyucatantimes.com/2023/03/rainless-weekend-and-intense-heat-for-the-yucatan/
wee willy w, in his desperation, has taken to reporting warming in sub-Tropical climates.
Bordon.
Look how you react to Ren spam.
Look at you now.
Come on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Is human space exploration with nuclear propulsion inevitable?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLD4DpuGWUA
There problems with it, such he starts with chemical with total mass
of 10 tons comparing to Nuclear rocket which by itself [not including
fuel and everything else weighs about 20 tons, but video goes into
lot different options, which could get to Mars in less than 1 month.
But I was interested in the tranjectories of anything getting to Mars in less than 3 month- which wasn’t mentioned in video. Anyhow it’s older video and linked from newest update:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMpS9p2wts8
“SpaceX Starbase and Starship Next Level Improvements and Upgrades, Amazing Starlink V2 Mini, Crew 6”
Which is interesting.
But I don’t think, nuclear propulsion is inevitable in terms of Lunar and Mars crewed exploration programs. And what I think is inevitable and/or needed for these programs is using Venus orbit.
And one thing I don’t mention much and was reminded by first video above.
Is that the fusion energy from our sun is about twice as much at Venus distance as compared to Earth distance from the Sun- or Nuclear propulsion might be inevitable, but it could related to what is generally called, solar energy.
Also mentioned is using nuclear power on Mars. I think we will use nuclear power on Mars, but tend to think this nuclear energy will quite similar to nuclear power plants used on Earth. And I think solar energy on Mars surface is more viable the solar power used on Earth surface.
Or I think Mars solar energy could be a bigger thing than Mars use of
nuclear energy. An advantage using nuclear energy on Mars, is heating water on Mars. So on Earth we people concerned about waste heat from
all powerplant used on Earth. And on Mars the “waste heat” will be heat which is bought. Or on Mars you don’t have nuclear reactors having “waste heat”, instead 1/2 value of nuclear energy is it’s “waste heat”- the hot or warmed water will be “sold” and be used for
a lot purposes.
There are all sorts of places where you can live underground never breathing fresh air and in a hostile environment that will kill you dead in seconds right here on Earth. You don’t need to go to Mars for that.
We are going to explore the Moon and then Mars.
And at moment, 1 month in orbit is “hostile”.
So we currently need 1 year in orbit, not be “hostile”- it’s possible
that is not possible, but we exploring space, and determining
if humans can live in space and return to Earth’s gravity- without
having long lasting health problems.
Being against exploration, is odd thing for someone has various
current advantages from past explorations of Earth.
So, I am assuming you not opposed to Space Exploration.
At moment US govt and roughly all governments are planning on exploring the Moon. I would say, they should be doing this, now,
because now, it’s thought there could be mineable water on the Moon.
There might be less than 1 million ton of possibly mineable lunar water or there might be more than 1 trillion tons of mineable lunar water.
If there is less than 1 million tons of mineable lunar water, it’s still ok, because US also wants to explore Mars, and you regard exploring as sort of training grounds, for exploring Mars.
With Mars, it seems certain there is trillions of tons of water which might be mineable, but mineable depends of costs.
Lunar water cost could be 100 times more expensive to mine than Mars water, and still be considered to mineable and it’s my opinion that
Mars water has to be about $1 per kg or less to be considered mineable. Lunar water can be more expensive because it’s use is related to making rocket fuel. And Mars water is related to use of water for farming. If all wanted water for on Mars was rocket fuel, you use the CO2 of Mars atmosphere to make rocket fuel.
But the significant of Mars is that Mars could be habitable planet- and there is lots of uses of the Moon, without living on the Moon.
The Moon has been very scientifically useful to us, and can be far more usefully to us, in regards to other scientific matters.
Earth is close to being impossible to leave, at one point in your history, it was “reasonably” thought to be impossible, or they only off by a small margin- and of course we got better at it.
Going to Moon and returning to Earth, had various ideas of how to do
it, but the simplest and fastest way to do it, was to make a huge rocket. The Saturn V rocket was that rocket, and the Soviet also tried to make a big rocket, and took too long and it blew up.
Anyways, US made about 20 Saturn V rocket and imagined it was too expensive, and stopped making them. 50 year later, we got the Starship and SLS. SLS can’t do what Saturn V could do, but there plans of to improve it- which we could see, it in few years. SLS
cost US tax payers about 40 billion dollars- and it was more expensive than Saturn V- mainly because it took about 4 times more time to make it.
Starship is bigger than Saturn V and it’s bigger, because it plans on being reuseable. The US tax payer paid nothing to to build the Starship, but they are going to spend about 4 billion for the starship to function as a lunar lander.
Or NASA asked bids for lunar lander, SpaceX said Starship could used as lunar lander, and it won the bid- and NASA was sued but law suit was dismissed.
Anyhow, still waiting for Starship test launch- which part of the bid
for NASA’s lunar lander.
Private space tourists are spending about $50 million dollar per seat
to go to Orbit. They can’t buy a seat for $100 million dollars to go around the Moon, nor spend $500 million per seat to land on the Moon
and return to Earth.
There is plan for 9 space tourist [who “won”/or who were selected for the seats] to use Starship to go around the Moon.
After NASA explores the Moon, private tourist probably be able to land on the Moon, and pay about $50 million per seat. And cost less than $5 million dollar to go to orbit. And do this without using Starship.
But assumes lunar water is mineable and is being mined and rocket fuel is being sold.
And after NASA has explored Mars for 10 years, a private tourist
could spend $50 million dollars to get to Mars, and to stay on Mars for 10 years, costing another 50 million dollars.
And assumes lunar water is not being mined, if lunar water is being mined, than 1/2 the price, $25 million to go, 25 million to stay 10 years on Mars.
But Musk idea is for it to be much cheaper than this.
One could public is paying millions of dollars per astronaut without considering the rocket they use. Musk is training astronauts, they will cost millions per astronauts, without considering the rockets
they use- and there people who pay to go to mars, they will pay for their training and cost of the trip, and they can be paid by people other than NASA or SpaceX. Or they just have money to to pay themselves- they have expensive hobbies.
Compared to University degree, it could be a better deal.
But history indicates people done far more dangerous things without
as much of a chance reward.
No one going to climb Mount Everest, anymore. It’s already been done, it’s too expensive and too dangerous.
Solar energy is not viable on Earth, because it’s circumference of
about 40,000 km is too big. Earth has 24 time zone or 40,000 / 24 =
1666.67 km distance between time zones. AND at best it has average
6 hours of solar peak hours. This gives you a battery problem.
There are other problems- one is Earth is covered 70% with ocean, and
roughly speaking, for Humans presently the ocean is inaccessible.
But let’s focus on the 6 hours and circumference.
Mars has 1/2 of the circumference {and Moon has 1/4 the circumference]. Both Mars and Moon have average peak solar hours of
12 hours per day. Or if you had solar energy covering 6 time zones
on Earth, you get similar peak solar energy power on a grid.
On Mars or Moon topography can “deliver” more time zones- or you get
solar energy on average more than 50% of the time. And if one spot on Earth could give you on average of 7 peak hours, that is where you put a lot solar panels. Maybe there is 7 hour, but there isn’t an 8.
In lunar polar region it reported there are spots which give 85% of the time having peak solar hours, and there places in or near Polar regions on Mars where get 14 hours on average or about 60% of the time. And in polar region one has much shorter distance to time zones. So rather than one spot, you have grid linking the spots.
This could give 24 hours but you start with 14 hours and expand to say 16 to 18 hours per average 24 day, which means you don’t have much of a battery problem- though safety reasons, you have 1 hour back up battery power systems, which for emergency power use, could last a week.
Solar energy would be viable only if you could figure out how to make a constellation of solar satelltites and transmit the energy to earth without altering the earth energy budget.
Government have spent trillions of dollars to alter the Earth’s energy budget {and have failed to do it] and want to spend trillions of more dollar trying to alter the Earth energy budget.
But no one asks, do you want to cool this icehouse global climate
or warm it?
And people are confusing weather with global average surface temperature. Govts have also spent millions dollar trying to change the weather, and predicatively, will in the future.
It seems if someone want to pay, SPS could warm or cool Earth- and could do either for less than 1 trillion dollar, and could do it, either one.
But main problem is no one seems to know what global warming is.
First the term, global warming was synonym for interglacial period.
And obviously the beginning of Holocene had a lot of global warming.
And to a lessor degree, there one a period called the little Ice Age,
and we have had a some global warming and we aren’t in the Little Ice Age, now.
There are uneducated and deranged people who appear to want to return
to similar conditions as were occurring during the Little Ice Age.
For these nutjobs, pre-industial was gloriously time- which included
a time when Dems made slavery legal and want more of US states have slavery legal. But other than this Southern right, there were other things happening also, which still happening.
Another glorious thing, was, women didn’t have the right to vote.
And no had electricity. Farmers didn’t tractors.
There is nothing about this time, which was good, and that includes
the weather.
Who cares if solar is viable on the Moon or on Mars when less than 0.001% of humanity will ever live there.
More 1/2 of humanity could live in Venus orbit.
It’s a hard sell to bring space rocks to Earth orbit,
and all people in Venus orbit, will want space rocks brought
to Venus orbit. Some could say we don’t want the fossil rocks, but
most could realize the rocks are needed, though they will want various laws governing it. Besides people living on Mercury will want space rocks- and they will say Mercury is closer to Earth, as more solar energy, and faster to way to get to Jupiter- and rest of solar system. And they they got ski resorts.
Yeah, half of humanity could live in Venus orbit. Its a pretty good bet there never will be anyone living there. In terms of resources, Venus is just a gravity hole.
If you want to make colonies you need to find other planets with climate at least as habitable as Earth, ready to farm, ready to inhabit without undergoing Genesis like terraforming. Else the cost will be too high in terms of human life.
If you find such a planet I will go in an instant.
“In terms of resources, Venus is just a gravity hole.”
It has solar energy.
With Earth the only shortage is energy. And at Venus L-1
you get constant solar energy- people don’t need to be on
an electrical grid. You could say it’s roughly the same as Earth’s L-1 but has twice the sunlight. But Venus orbit is a better hub than Earth is.
Venus is closest planet to Earth. You get to Mars quicker from Venus to Mars than from Earth to Mars. Venus has short launch window period to Earth and shorter window to Mars. And spacecraft can use Earth’s gravity hole for gravity assists, on way to Mars, or Jupiter.
You could bring space rocks to Earth, but in near term, it would be political problem, whereas bringing space rocks to Venus would not be issue from Earthlings living on Earth. This similar with bringing space rock to Mars- but Venus has more solar energy than Mars or Earth.
The only argument is we don’t know if artificial gravity works.
If have to have natural Earth gravity of around 1 gee, Venus planet
could work- though that is more complicated- expensive.
But to explore Mars, we have to know whether artificial gravity works and/or what is minimal amount natural gravity works to keep humans healthy.
If the Moon have trillion of tons of mineable water, it can send lunar water and other lunar resources to Venus {in the short term- like, within 10 years from now]. If the Moon has less than billion tons of water, than Mars can send water to Venus [also in short term- +20 years]. But if you want vast amount of water, it’s going to come from space rocks- and for + billion people, you need such vast amounts of water.
In five days, another stratospheric intrusion over California with a cold front.
https://i.ibb.co/Kjc14yM/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f120.png
A year without Polar Vortex, at North Pole. A strong PV has yet to form. Wimpy attempts, but no muscle. Now there’s a high pressure system over the NP! (If we can believe the “null school” model.) What’s with that nonsense?
Is Hunga Tonga still disrupting upper flows?
This is not the end of winter in North America and Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/SQLqs1Q/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
Weather in North America and Europe will become even more complicated by mid-March.
https://i.ibb.co/JzK72Bf/gfs-z100-nh-f240.png
It’s funny how the climate alarmists have suddenly become silent due to the colder than normal weather. We are setting records for cold weather yet the authority figure in Canada, Environment Canada is awfully quiet about it.
It’s funny how contrarians say dumb shit that isn’t true.
” BTW… if you cant find info you need on Google, check out yandex dot com. ”
Here everyone can see that Robertson is only looking for information from sources that are as contradictory as possible: simply because he (along with a few others) constantly turns to these authorities.
I don’t know exactly how that is in the Anglo-Saxon context, but for example all German and French contrarian blogs
– deny the existence of viruses
– Allegation that COVID19 was a gigantic manipulation
– say that Russia is a NATO casualty rather than a relic of the USSR trying to revive it
– etc etc etc.
Anyone who relies on Yandex for information definitely has a damaged brain.
No, Binny van der Klown, I stated the reason. Google is censoring bona fide scientists, which seems OK with your Nazi mentality.
There is zero logic behind censoring any scientist for a legitimate opinion, especially when it is in their area of expertise.
Why would a search engine deny the existence of viruses, although Google specializes in censoring any science that questions the validity of virus theory?
And why do you continue to claim I deny the existence of a virus?
Never claimed covid was a manipulation, I claimed the virus was never physically isolated and that any theories related to it re cause/effect and vaccines are bogus. I have never claimed covid does not exist or that it doesn’t harm people.
There is no evidence to support the propaganda that Russia invaded Ukraine in an attempt to re-invent itself. The evidence points clearly to the fact they invaded to recapture the Donbas region only, as Putin claimed.
I am curious as to whether you just hate Russians or if you hate all the WW II Allies. I don’t hate the German people for what the Nazis did and I don’t hate the Russian people for what Stalin did. There was nothing either could do about it.
We need to all lighten up fast or we will obliterate much of this world. As long as people maintain their psycho attitude toward Russia and Russians, we have no hope of saving this planet from a major nuclear holocaust.
Here in Vancouver, over the years, and present, we’ve had Russian hockey players on the Vancouver Canuck’s hockey team. They are no different than anyone else once you get to know them. Some of them, like Larionov of the famous Russian KLM line, are downright decent humans.
Robertson
” No, Binny van der Klown, I stated the reason. Google is censoring bona fide scientists, which seems OK with your Nazi mentality. ”
Anderson recently called me a Nazi, and even associated me with Adolf Hitler.
That makes him an asshole in my eyes and I call him that now.
From now on, the same applies to you and every other person who insults me so cowardly and disgustingly.
*
By the way, Robertson: You’re a coward with your Putin sucking anyway: simply because you would never, ever dare to stay even a day in Russia.
The Nazis are currently nowhere else in larger numbers than there, and would have you in one of their cute jails within hours because they would immediately distrust your Putin sucking.
Insults like ‘Nazi’, in the absence of any facist like behavior, are used only by idiots that can’t otherwise articulate their point of view.
No room for it here. Get lost Robertson till you grow some respect for others.
Merci / Danke / Thanks.
You are undoubtedly the most repulsive personality on this blog
danke schon bitte schon
Eben
Everyone here insults others.
YOU are the only one who never accompanies your insults with even a modicum of science.
Even Flynn has experimented with a few short-lived ill-fated forays into science.
AQ, please stop trolling.
Ken,
Blinny, the Nazi, believes anyone who disagrees publically with AGW propaganda should be locked up. Is that Nazi enough for you?
Anderson
Who calls me a Nazi is an asshole.
Basta ya.
“Blinny, the Nazi”
Sure, and Stephen is KKK Grand Wizard.
” The evidence points clearly to the fact they invaded to recapture the Donbas region only, as Putin claimed. ”
Robertson is really a Putin sucker par excellence.
If the Russian Nomenklatura had intended to ‘invade to recapture the Donbas region only’, why then did they let the war start from Belarus quite in the near to Kiyi? The very first missiles reached on 2022, Feb 24 a little airport near Kyiv, located in Hostomel’:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Antonov+International+Airport+(GML)/@50.5662528,30.2155092,13z/data=!4m15!1m8!3m7!1s0x40d4cf4ee15a4505:0x764931d2170146fe!2sKyiv,+Ukraine,+02000!3b1!8m2!3d50.4501!4d30.5234!16zL20vMDJzbjM0!3m5!1s0x472b2fc4c0e43f09:0xf0732526eacb3413!8m2!3d50.5910657!4d30.2073829!16zL20vMDk0cmNt?hl=en
Binny,
Maybe you should read Russia’s public statements about their aims, and how they intended to achieve them.
Whether you agree with Russia’s reasons for their actions or not, Russia seems to be serious about achieving what they set out to – which doesn’t seem to include taking over Ukraine, regime change, destroying Kyiv, or anything else which outsiders seem to be concerned about.
Somewhere in the region of 65% of the world’s population don’t seem to care too much about the Russia/Ukraine conflict, which annoys the 35% who seem to be hell-bent on going broke to keep the killing going. The US, in particular, has indicated its willingness to fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood.
And for what? Democracy? World peace? Exterminating all the “sub-human” Russians? Nazi Germany tried that in WW II. Maybe they’ll have better luck this time?
A complete waste of time and effort – not to mention all the involuntary deaths along the way.
I support your right to say what you wish, but I doubt you are preparing to rush off to Ukraine to help out. Actions speak louder than words. I’m happy not to participate, and quite prepared to accept the consequences.
Mike Flynn,
Perhaps you should read the ZZ propaganda the same way you read the Murican one.
Just a thought.
Imbecile.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
Stop blathering your egomaniac nonsense.
Bindidon please stop trolling.
“And for what?”
To maintain one of the single-most important agreements to come out of WWII that shaped the new United Nations grown out of the League of Nations.
“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”
When tanks and missiles cross a national border, particularly in Europe, which suffered the worst of the axis atrocities, that crosses a a sharply drawn line.
It’s incredible to me that 80 years after WWII any Westerner could respect the military invasion of a European country, or for that matter any belligerent in an international conflict.
The beginning of WWII, the invasion of Poland, was justified by Germany as a liberation of ethnic Germans in Poland.
I’m sure the Russian apologists of today would have been making the same excuses for Hitler, imagining that their views were correct merely because they were unpopular outside of Germany.
Bindidon says:
”Robertson is really a Putin sucker par excellence.
If the Russian Nomenklatura had intended to invade to recapture the Donbas region only, why then did they let the war start from Belarus quite in the near to Kiyi?”
Sheesh Bindidon do you ever put your brain in gear.
Why did we bomb Baghdad and invade Iraq to free Kuwait? Are you a complete dunce when it comes to military strategy? Must be one of the Johnson democrats that wanted to fight a war while lacking a winning strategy.
“The evidence points clearly to the fact they invaded to recapture the Donbas region only, as Putin claimed.”
Recapture the Donbas region? When did Russia ‘lose’ the Donbas region and who took it from them? That ‘clear evidence’ will be interesting to see – where can it be found?
Exactly.
Should Robertson return it will be to blithely side-step this point and talk about Nazis.
“Recapture”
If he was a sharper tool I’d say he’d blown his cover as an apologist for Russian Imperialism.
” The evidence points clearly to the fact they invaded to recapture the Donbas region only, as Putin claimed.”
Which was part of a another sovereign nation, whose sovereignty they vowed to respect in a treaty.
And why did they ANNEX vast swaths of Ukraine, even beyond the Donbass?
And I recall, Gordon, that earlier in the war you had suggested they should leave Ukraine once they had de-Nazified it, whatever that means.
Now you seem to believe they need to abs*orb large part of Ukraine into Russia.
He probably believes that Putin should also ‘recapture’ all those Baltic and Eastern European countries that dared to break free from Russian tyranny.
jd…it’s coming unless the Baltic states get smart and stop ostracizing natural Russians who were trapped in their countries by arbitrarily designed borders.
There is a tendency in the West to regard people in those countries romantically as democratic souls who have broken free from the tyranny of the USSR. In other words, they have chosen our lifestyle in the West over the Evil Empire. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Many people in those countries are closed-minded SOBs that have no idea what freedom means. Many of them want to recreate conditions in the former USSR where they were comfortable. That’s means descending into a fascist mentality that leads to the opposite of what democracy is meant to be.
The Ukraine, for example, has been rated the most corrupt country in Europe since it formed in the early 1990s. That is partly due to the types I described above. They are corrupt SOBs with a far different agenda than that of democracy.
Look what Zelensky has done in the Ukraine. He has used the war as an excuse to control the media and to reform the Ukraine in his corrupt vision of Western democracy. Here is an interview with a Ukrainian journalist…
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/28/zelensky-celebrity-populist-pinochet-neoliberal/
Wow, Gordon Robertson, what a Putin, Russian aggression apologist! I had no idea that there were still such “useful idiots” in the free world. It was understandable during the cold war because both sides did their best to undermine and defeat the other side, and both sides created disasters and problems to others. But now we have a Europe full of fully-democratic countries (unlike the sham elections rarely held under Soviet domination), especially those who experienced life under that Soviet domination and who are terrified of being forced back into that nightmare.
And, incredibly, we have someone like Gordon Robertson who denigrates their free choice and threatens their freedom by supporting Putin and his ‘right’ to subjugate democratic nations not as powerful as his.
Shocking and shameful, as well as dangerous to the rest of us and our liberty.
Perhaps you would feel better and more comfortable in Russia and under Putin’s control?
FYI for those who don’t know the ‘useful idiots’ concept.
https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Useful-Idiots-ONLINE-COLOR.jpg?d=1200×630
Snow cover in the northern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/VVzRGxZ/gfs-npole-sat-seaice-snowc-d1.png
Heavy snowfall in the Sierra Nevada.
https://i.ibb.co/hH3F8My/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-04-215516.png
ken…”Yes the green fascists (conservative greens, liberal greens, willard greens, etc) want us all to live like the Amish. No access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels for us plebs”.
***
You forgot to mention that does not apply to the climate fascists. Only we, the hoi polloi, the great unwashed, will be required to do without.
Most of the greenies are ‘useful’ idiots that don’t realize the reduction in lifestyles will apply to them too.
Bezdek says 90% reduction in fossil fuels will result in 90% reduction in real income.
“Most of the greenies are ‘useful’ idiots that dont realize the reduction in lifestyles will apply to them too.”
I’m Amish, so yeah, it doesn’t apply.
Come on, Bordon.
Why would you underline the double standard Kennui applies about the ad hominem?
Well, it is the same as your own double standard, but at least you are not hypocritical about it.
In any event, you are wrong –
Nature bats last and is an ambidextrous hitter:
https://climateball.net/but-politics#left-right
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Nature bats last”???
I certainly hope you are not a supporter of Guy McPherson’s utter nonsense.
You might like:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/dialog-on-nature/
Willard, please stop trolling.
I might …. if I had a clue what it was about.
There’s only one way to find out.
Learn to speak Millennial?
y tho
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
[KENNUI] Insults like Nazi, in the absence of any facist like behavior, are used only by idiots that cant otherwise articulate their point of view.
[ALSO KENNUI] Most of the greenies are useful idiots that dont realize the reduction in lifestyles will apply to them too.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard objects to being called ‘useful idiot’?
My apologies Willard. No one who is familiar with your posts would describe you as ‘useful’.
No offense taken, Kennui.
If you could wipe that foam from your mouth, your nurse would thank you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Month by month, little by little, W is watching the edifice of CAGW wash away. In a few hundred months of anemic warming the white flag will be raised. That is when another delusion bites the dust.
Fernando!
Where were you?
In a few hundred months, you will be dead, just in time to miss your loss.
Sad.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
andrea…”Combating climate change requires a top-down approach, and if properly done should not require any serious change in life-style”.
***
You need to deal with your naivete, not climate change, which is a fantasy created by people with the same naivete as you, or worse, manipulators with another agenda.
If you have been following the debate here on the Moon, you can’t help but notice that the majority, by far, of those supporting the fantasy that the Moon rotates on a local axis are the same ones who claim climate change is an issue. They support their views on the Moon’s alleged local rotation on mainly appeals to authority, thought experiments, philosophical arguments based on reference frames, and an utter denial of physics.
Exactly the same with their approach to the alleged science behind climate change. Every alarmist subscribes, without the slightest question, to the greenhouse effect theory, the anthropogenic warming theory, the notion that a trace gas in the atmosphere can cause catastrophic warming leading to catastrophic climate change, and the incessant appeal to authority fostered by the shysters, the IPCC.
Catastrophic climate change is a fraud perpetuated by people like you because you are willing to believe it, despite blatant evidence to the contrary.
Which naive person here believes in the fantasy that the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow?
That person has never admitted to how utterly lacking in basic science understanding that was, worse than the average 12 year old, so I have no choice but to assume that they still hold on to that belief. And they have the gall to believe that they can lecture others on science.
AQ,
Please stop trolling.
S,
Please stop preaching to the converted.
AQ,
Please stop trolling.
Flynn,
Please progress beyond ctrl-C ctrl-V.
There are so many more keys on the keyboard that a monkey could use.
AQ, please stop trolling.
Anyway, enough of this, Flynn. I get tired of winning against a copy-paste drone. Let’s bring the original comment back to the surface. I’ll even allow you to troll over it once, provided your owner is following behind with a plastic bag (and your weekly pay cheque).
…………
Gordon,
Which naive person here believes in the fantasy that the moons phases are caused by the earths shadow?
That person has never admitted to how utterly lacking in basic science understanding that was, worse than the average 12 year old, so I have no choice but to assume that they still hold on to that belief. And they have the gall to believe that they can lecture others on science.
AQ, please stop trolling.
Only Useful idiots are wont to distract discussion about climate change with pointless diatribes about lunar characteristics.
Get lost fool.
ken…”Only Useful idiots are wont to distract discussion about climate change with pointless diatribes about lunar characteristics”.
***
If that’s aimed at me, you missed my reasoning for discussing the Moon. The same people who defend climate alarm are the same one’s claiming the Moon rotates. You seem to be one of the spinners yet you write about climate like a skeptic.
In that case, if you’re calling me a fool, who is the real fool? Maybe someone who thinks the Moon is orbiting the Sun???
GordonR:
On spin and non spin, the latter always has to observe from within the “orbit” cylinder. Take a Ferris wheel with chipmunks running frantically to turn it around its “axis” in one direction.
The non-spinner has to observe the cradles from the inside the orbit and will see all sides of the cradle (horizontal). A sphere could be substituted for the shape. According to non spinners this complies with a spin observation not a non spin!! I am fully aware that gravity causes all this as there is more mass at the base of the cradle/ball. My point is not about what causes it but what the moon non spinners see!
Moon spinners see the cradle/ball not spinning with simply the cradle anchoring joints or axel spinning as the cradle stays pointing in one direction wrt distant fixed stars. Non spinners see the axel not spinning.
I have never seen any authority contradict the tidally locked moon conclusion. Given that NASA sends people and objects to the moon and beyond I am quite happy being in accord with their conclusions and Newton. Given that none of the non spinners have ever worked on such projects but still firmly believe that they are right then after some six years pounding the table incessantly would it be too much to ask that a paper be written and published to rebut NASA et al. That might avoid another half dozen years. Who knows what the appropriate word may be – genius or geniass.
Re: “Catastrophic climate change is a fraud ..etc” I agree most of it is nonsense at least with regard CO2.
tony, you have no knowledge of orbital motions. Consequently, you go with the “consensus”.
Being a braindead cult idiot is a choice. It’s an easy road, as opposed to learning.
Guess that means you are not up to the challenge!
Thought that would be the case.
tony m…”GordonR:
On spin and non spin, the latter always has to observe from within the orbit cylinder. Take a Ferris wheel with chipmunks running frantically to turn it around its axis in one direction”.
***
I appreciate the measured critique but I think you are over-complicating the problem. I don’t use the word spin, which I equate with something like a spinning top. The motions in a spinning top are more complicated than the very simple motion of the Moon. The top acts more like a gyro than the simple motion of the Moon.
Newton claims in Principia that the Moon moves with a linear motion that is converted to a curvilinear motion by gravity. He also acknowledges that the Moon keeps the same face pointed at the Earth. That motion is clearly curvilinear motion without local rotation.
I am not using Newton as an authority figure, I have offered an independent proof of his claim. All of us as non-spinners have introduced various example of bodies moving in a similar manner to the Moon, albeit not with exactly the same motion. The point of these devices is to illustrate clearly that the bodies in question keep the same face pointed at at an axis while not rotating about a local axis.
Consider replicating the lunar motion with a kind of rocket ship you can ride like a motor cycle. You are traveling in a space where the effects of gravity are not sufficient to significantly overcome the linear motion of your vehicle. If you approach Earth at a proper angle and distance, and you are not accelerating, but maintaining a constant velocity conducive to an orbit, Earth’s gravitational field will start bending your linear motion toward Earth.
If you are moving too slowly, it will bend you too close to Earth and into a collision course with Earth. If you are moving too fast, you will be bent into a parabolic/hyperbolic path and shoot past Earth. If your speed is just right, so Earth’s gravity pulls you closer at such a rate that your orbit fits Earth’s curvature, you will go into a natural orbit.
Having gained orbit, you are moving CCW with your left shoulder pointed at Earth. You will move with a constant tangential velocity while gravity and your linear momentum form your orbit. Spinners are arguing that you are rotating about your centre of gravity as well as orbiting and that’s where we disagree. There is no rotation whatsoever about the COG it is straight curvilinear motion.
GordonR:
You are making it sound too simple.
There are reasons for tidal locking that relate more to plasticity for want of a better term like ocean tides, crust movement, sea movement relative to its bed etc. Even the moon has different characteristics between front facing us with huge blotches called maria (sea) by Galileo and nothing like it on the far side.
Mercury is tidally locked but with a different period of 3:2 cf 1:1 for our moon.
The challenge is for non spinners to write a paper for publication showing moon does not rotate on its own axis.
I don’t have a problem with the tidal locking mechanism, personally. Some "Non-Spinners" don’t agree with it, some do. Of course, the mechanism results in what the "Spinners" see as a "1:1 spin-orbit lock" for our moon and many moons in the solar system. The "Non-Spinners" see that as a "0:1 spin-orbit lock". Nothing has to change with the mechanism itself, it’s just the result that’s seen differently.
Mercury’s "3:2 spin-orbit lock" (or "1.5:1 spin-orbit lock") would be seen as a "0.5:1 spin orbit lock" by the "Non-Spinners".
The "Spinners" would have the Earth rotating on its own axis 366.25 times per orbit, whilst the "Non-Spinners" would have it rotating on its own axis 365.25 times per orbit, though that’s not a spin-orbit lock, obviously.
Just subtract one, basically.
The reason for that is that "Non-Spinners" see "orbit without spin" as being like the "moon on the left" in the GIF below, and "Spinners" see "orbit without spin" as being like the "moon on the right". Nothing more to it than that.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“Of course, the mechanism results in what the “Spinners” see as a “1:1 spin-orbit lock” for our moon and many moons in the solar system.”
That’s how science sees it.
“The “Non-Spinners” see that as a “0:1 spin-orbit lock”.”
That’s how a teeny tiny anti-science cult sees it.
P.S: Anyone new to the debate will probably see the acronyms "MOTL" or "MOTR" mentioned a lot, and might be wondering what they stand for. If you hadn’t guessed, it’s "moon on the left" and "moon on the right", and refers back to the GIF linked to above.
Gordo the first to being the effing Moon rotation argument to this comment thread. Boo.
No, once again it was your old pal Bindidon who mentioned it first:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1454072
You’re right Bindidon first mentioned it, as a slight. Gordon’s lengthier attention re-inspired the argument.
Bindidon started it up again this month. As he usually does. Can’t blame Gordon just because more people chose to respond to his mention of the lunar discussion than Bindidon’s.
More people tend to be triggered by "Non-Spinners", when they comment about the moon, than "Spinners". Partly because there are more "Spinners" than "Non-Spinners", and partly because the "Non-Spinner" view is the controversial one.
barry…”Gordo the first to being the effing Moon rotation argument to this comment thread. Boo”.
***
I didn’t start it, I only responding to and supported the first post. If I recall correctly, it was Clint who posted it first. I’m glad he did, if it was Clint, it has forced me to dig into my engineering physics and beyond.
It’s always good to challenge ingrained ideas and beliefs. On the other hand, and I am as guilty as anyone else, it’s very difficult to examine and let go of ingrained ideas that are simply wrong.
Hope this winter means were going to have an awesome summer.
We can only hope. My fear is that Zharkova is right about the Sun and we are heading into a mini ice age of 25 – 30 years.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal
Imported China coal, $188 per ton
Lowest it’s been in a year.
How far can it crash?
And why?
$182 per US ton
$180 per US ton
This is getting towards something you could call new reality.
Or China is still at peak Coal, but the significantly lower
price, seems to making this seem more of long term problem, unless
next month the price in back to around $400 per ton.
Mad fluctuate {up and down every week or month] would be worse signs of crisis, then just staying around $400 per ton.
Of course it might drop below $150 a ton.
Though it seems it could be just mostly about the massive naval build up, and just stopped doing it, and have a gut of steel.
Or compare to stockpiling coal, stockpiling Steel makes more sense. So had huge demand metal to make ships, and followed some buying steel, to prevent crash of steel prices and have strategic supply
of it.
Hmm,this:
“The results of our analysis showed that although total annual crude steel production of key Chinese steel enterprises (and most likely entire Chinese steel industry) is assumed to peak in 2030 under all scenarios, total final energy use of the key Chinese steel enterprises (and most likely the entire Chinese steel industry) peaks earlier, i.e. in year 2020 under low and medium steel scrap usage scenarios and in 2015 under high scrap usage scenario (Figure 3).”
https://www.globalefficiencyintel.com/new-blog/2017/chinese-steel-energy-emissions-forecast
So important aspect of that is to keep steel in the country, so future energy use is less.
Is “related”.
Literally nothing out of the ordinary is happening at all.
Yes, no truly original texts are being published.
Former NOAA Meteorologist: Natural Cycles Now Steering Our Planet Into An Extremely Cold Period
Were going to see a big dip in temperatures worldwide during the next 10 to 15 years colder than the 1950s and 60s
https://youtu.be/qNSPiMmuIvI?t=102
Very convincing, I am going to guess March will be +0.0 C, but can I pencil you in for -0.2 C?
I was thinking as compromise, why not dump 1 million tonnes of CO2
onto Antarctic.
According to Cargo Cult that should cool Earth. And if does cool Earth dump more CO2 into Antarctia, until everyone feels it’s cold enough.
I already think it’s cold enough.
He says “Cooling is now occurring in the Arctic”.
2022 was the 3rd warmest year in the UAH record for the Arctic, despite being a La Nina year.
The two which beat it were 2016 and 2010 – strong El Nino years.
All of the last 7 years are in the top 10.
Yet despite the clear evidence, you choose to believe this nonsense statement. THE ARCTIC HAS NOT COOLED.
Let’s see if you can manage to directly address my argument – with facts instead of fluff. And I trust you are above using just one month of data.
aq…”2022 was the 3rd warmest year in the UAH record for the Arctic, despite being a La Nina year”.
***
This is a game called find the Arctic warming, then explain it.
Open the link below (Archives) and it should open at the year 2022. Find the January 2022 link and click on ‘Maps’. Each time you select a different month, select the ‘Maps’ link.
Note the brighter orange spots indicating warming and ask yourself why the warming is found only in certain areas of the Arctic while the rest of the Arctic is cold.
Then go to November 2022 and explain why the warming spots are in an entirely different region of the Arctic. You can then look at the other months in 2022 and explain why the hot spots move around.
Could CO2 do that?
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/archives.html
I have posted in the past examples how climate shysters use averaging and smoothing to hide variations and cycles, it is clever deception to bamboozle the masses. That video does great job exposing this con.
Please explain in what sense the CLIMATE can be cooling if the average is rising.
AQ,
Climate is the statistics of weather.
Thermometers respond to heat. If they get hotter, increasing heat is the reason.
Eight billion people produce more heat than one billion people. No GHE needed.
Planetary cooling for four and a half billion years – GHE notwithstanding.
Go back to your fantasy. Reality is too much for you, it seems.
No need to be shy, Eboy.
Your cycle nut has a name:
https://www.desmog.com/david-dilley/
And since you like to curate predictions:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150903183556/http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/26/suppression-of-science-former-noaa-meteorologist-says-employees-were-cautioned-not-to-talk-about-natural-cycles/
Vintage 2015.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Large temperature spike in the middle stratosphere over the North Pole, above the summer average.
https://i.ibb.co/g6KKTWv/pole30-nh.png
… rubs eyes in disbelief …
ren reports warmth!!
Oh wait – it’s the stratosphere … he is still cherry picking from the minority to support his agenda.
Thanks for catching that, IP. The cult idiots and trolls won’t understand the significance, as you know.
Right now, the only vortex directly over the NP is a clockwise vortex. The normal Polar Vortex is COUNTER-clockwise and has been pushed far off the Pole into Russia!
Strange goings-on….
Gordon R:
Russia: You have some valid points on duplicity and double standards of the media and Govts but you also need to give us a clearer view of the reasons Ukraines former president was ousted. Would any country tolerate foreign Govt interference and control as is outlined in this Time article:
The Untold Story of the Ukraine Crisis
2 Feb 2022Protesters built an encampment on Kyiv’s central square that winter,demanding Ukrainian leaders fight corruption and integrate with the West.
[I cant put up the site article rejects it so you need look for it with that title – easy
The habitual gross lies; murders of own people and foreign civilians which could readily be classified as genocide; the use and abuse of children whisked away for indoctrination and propaganda purposes etc make it hard to understand any of your support for this coward.
One of the biggest lies is that the West agreed not to expand NATO eastward. Total horse manure as stated by Gorbachev that at the time of German reunification no one expected the Soviet Union breakup so that issue never arose.
The West had asked whether the Soviets wanted a condition not to expand lethal weapons into EAST Germany as part of the reunification deal. That was declined.
[pls most here are not anti the Russian people but anti lying/murderous dictators/kleptocrats. In my own case my second daughter is half Russian so love them dearly:)]
Gordon R:
Russia: You have some valid points on duplicity and double standards of the media and Govts but you also need to give us a clearer view of the reasons Ukraines former president was ousted. Would any country tolerate foreign Govt interference and control as is outlined in this Time article:
The Untold Story of the Ukraine Crisis
2 Feb 2022Protesters built an encampment on Kyiv’s central square that winter,demanding Ukrainian leaders fight corruption and integrate with the West.
[I cant put up the site rejects it so you need look for it with that title – easy]
Gordon:R ctd
The habitual gross lies; murders of own people and foreign civilians which could readily be classified as genocide; the use and abuse of children whisked away for indoctrination and propaganda purposes etc make it hard to understand any of your support for this coward.
One of the biggest lies is that the West agreed not to expand NATO eastward. Total horse manure as stated by Gorbachev that at the time of German reunification no one expected the Soviet Union breakup so that issue never arose.
The West had asked whether the Soviets wanted a condition not to expand lethal weapons into EAST Germany as part of the reunification deal. That was declined.
[pls most here are not anti the Russian people but anti lying/murderous dictators/kleptocrats. In my own case my second daughter is half Russian so love them dearly:)]
tony m…
Tony – convert links to a different link. I would suggest tinyurl website, but it doesn’t seem to be working today.
I managed to shorten your article web address at a different site.
https://tiny.cc/
tiny.cc/TimeUkraine
You can also customise what the link name, which I did. It’s pretty easy to figure out. Otherwise you just copy the link it comes up with.
Copying the link is a bit of a fiddle, but you’ll see that the link I made goes to the right place.
This is a good workaround for the strange filters on this website. This isn’t the only URL shortner, either.
tsk, this new site is not as easy as I thought. You got to add https://
So:
https://tiny.cc/TimeUkraine
There, that should work, I hope.
Thanks barry, I hadn’t seen that piece.
Barry:
Tinyurl works a treat.
Thank you.
Bit late here to address other comments.
Tony,
“foreign Govt interference and control”
Interference, yes, and that can rightly be criticised. Control, no. Ukrainian destiny in this conflict that began nearly 10 years ago has been authored by Ukrainians. A lot of criticism, particularly the pro-Russian kind, tries to portray Ukraine as second fiddle to larger forces against Russia, which is exactly the narrative Putin started.
https://time.com/6150787/putin-us-risk-ukraine-war/
The article you linked is an excellent insight into Putin’s mind as Russia invaded last year, but there is much more to the story. The author of that article, a Western journalist with years in Moscow, has written a series of articles over the last year.
https://time.com/author/simon-shuster/
All recommended reading.
tony m…”you also need to give us a clearer view of the reasons Ukraines former president was ousted. Would any country tolerate foreign Govt interference and control as is outlined in this Time article:”
***
You re missing the point. Since when is it OK to oust a president in a democratic country? What exactly was his crime? He rejected the EU offer to join them based on the harm it would do to the average Ukrainian and accepted a Russian offer that was better. He did nothing that could justify a violent coup against him.
Re your second point, that is exactly what Zelensky is doing in the Ukraine today. He has brought in foreigners to run key government positions and he is recruiting foreigners to fight his war, that was started by a Ukrainian civil war. He has shut down the media, and the parliament, and brought in other Draconian measures.
I shared your views about Putin when the war began but a friend sent me a link to the video by Oliver Stone, ‘Ukraine on Fire’. Your emotional rant about Putin and Russia suggests you need to calm down and be more objective. I am not patronizing you, I am saying this on behalf of anyone who does not want to die in a nuclear holocaust.
The video was made in 2016, some 6 years before the war began. Even then, I was resistant to accepting anything Stone claimed, given his reputation, so I researched what was claimed very carefully.
I was shocked to learn what is going on in the Ukraine today and what had gone on in the past, dating back to 1929. You need to read through the following article to get a better grasp of the UON, that was started in 1929. The UON is clearly a fascist organization that breeds violence. I am convinced they are behind the ouster of the Ukrainian president.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/bandera-mythologies-and-their-traps-for-ukraine/
The subject of the story, Stefan Bandera, was wanted at Nuremberg for war crimes, yet he is celebrated in the Ukraine today, by some, as a hero. Thousands turn out for candlelight vigils to honour him and other Nazi collaborators during WW II, and a law was passed in 2016 that made him and other Nazis into heroes.
Some of the Bandera worshippers sit in the Ukrainian parliament.
The Ukraine is not and has never been a democracy, despite the rhetoric presented on their behalf. They are deemed the most corrupt country in Europe and the corruption continues to this day. No democracy would have permitted a president to be ousted in a coup.
re Tony’s link as posted by Barry…
“Throughout his 21 years in power, Putin has seen Ukraine as a fraternal nation, tied to Russia by bonds of faith, family, politics, and a millennium of common history. He has spent the past seven years using every tool at his disposal, including coercion and outright invasion, to preserve those ties, as the Ukrainian people increasingly turn toward the West”.
***
This Time story is typical Western media propaganda. I have no interest in defending Putin, my primary interest is in preventing a nuclear war. The Western media have invented their own version of why Putin invaded. One version is the Time version, that Putin’s nose is out of joint because he thinks the Ukrainians have a lot in common with Russia and they are rejecting him.
The other meme is that Putin’s aim is to regain the former USSR territory. Putin told us why he invaded: to reclaim the Donbas region for pro Russian Ukrainians and to rid the area of Nazi forces, like the Azov battalion.
Putin has had 20 years to begin a reclamation project and has done nothing. Why would he start suddenly and with the Ukraine?
The Time story completely ignores the history of the Ukraine dating back to 2014 when a civil war broke out over western Ukrainians forcefully expelling a democratically-elected, pro-Russian president for whom they had voted.
When Russia re-annexed the Crimea, which was given to the Ukraine by Russian dictator, Khruschev, a Ukrainian, the western media called it the same thing, an unwarranted invasion. The Russians did it in reprisal for the illegal ouster of the Ukrainian president.
Why did the West ignore the illegal removal of a sitting president and focus only on the reprisal action by the Russians? And why are all you guys taking in the biased account rather than trying to understand the truth? Is a nuclear war something you think you might enjoy? Or are you in denial of the possibility?
Time magazine makes it sound like Putin’s identification with Ukrainians is something strange. Come on!!! The Ukraine was part of the USSR since 1920 or so and many native Russians relocated there. When the former USSR broke up circa 1985, the Ukraine was formed with arbitrarily drawn borders with no effort put into considering who was who within those borders.
Similar problems are arising in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. The problem is the same in those countries as the Ukraine. You have nationalist idiots who cannot get along with anyone of a different ethnicity.
A civil war broke out in 2014 over that diversity. People in eastern Ukraine openly identify themselves as pro-Russian and they asked Putin for help when a president they had voted to elect was illegally ousted by armed nationalists.
PUTIN WAS ASKED TO HELP THE UKRAINIANS in the East, this is not something he has undertaken out of a sentimental identification with Ukrainians. Whoever wrote the article is the sentimental idiot.
The evidence the article is wrong is in what has happened. One of the first things the Russians did was find the Azov battalion, in Mariupol, and eliminate it, which they did. The second part was to win the Donbas region and solidify it. That is still a work in progress.
At no time have the Russians tried to expand their action. They faked a move from the north on Kyiv, an obvious tactic to draw the Ukrainian army away from the real target.
Come on, Bordon.
Yesterday you were claiming there was no evidence that teh Vlad wanted to invade Ukraine,
Today you try to mansplain all the reasons why he does.
Could you at least wait a week before contradicting yourself?
“Putin told us why he invaded”
And you’ll take his word for it.
“People in eastern Ukraine openly identify themselves as pro-Russian and they asked Putin for help when a president they had voted to elect was illegally ousted by armed nationalists.”
And if there was a revolution in Mexico ousting a pro-American government, do you think that would automate an American invasion of Northern Mexico to save pro-American (and actual American) people living there?
A minority of people in the Donbas region want integration with Russia.
https://theconversation.com/most-people-in-separatist-held-areas-of-donbas-prefer-reintegration-with-ukraine-new-survey-124849
https://web.archive.org/web/20230226064843/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/15/russia-ukraine-donbas-donetsk-luhansk-public-opinion/
After the 2014 revolution, Russian separatists protested and eventually overtook the government buildings in the two major cities with Russian support and direction. This was further than protesters went in Kiev. If you have a problem with civil overthrow of government, Gordon, you should level it equally at the Russian separatists in Ukraine’s East. The actions of the separatists are not covered in glory if you ask the Ukrainians in their areas. You should spend time examining the people you sympathise with.
Russia provided support to the separatists with arms and Russian troops. The separatists expanded their area of control within Ukraine. Then the Ukrainian government fought back. Trench warfare had been ongoing in the region since 2014 with thousands of lives lost. Russia has been arming one side.
It is in the separatist-held areas of the region, which Russia has been arming and cultivating, that there is more support for integration with Russia.
Most of the people in the region do not want Russia to liberate them, and are against the Russian invasion.
It’s not black and white. There are competing interests and there is history. Crossing the Ukrainian border makes Russia the belligerent in an international war (regardless of how Russia unilaterally decides where Ukraine’s borders are). This can’t be tolerated.
“This was further than protesters went in Kiev.”
This should refer to Russian separatists imposing military control, but got shuffled in the pre-post editing.
“I have no interest in defending Putin, my primary interest is in preventing a nuclear war.”
Run the logic of that through.
Any time Russia wants to take a bit more of its territory back or ‘help ethnic Russians in neighbouring countries (there are plenty of ethnic Russians in Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Estonia etc), we should just let the tanks roll in in case we start a nuclear war. If you think Ukraine is an isolated case, I refer you to Russia’s war against Georgia to ‘help’ Russian separatists in that country, who Russia backed and armed. The ultimate Russian invasion was likewise predicated on aiding pro-Russian forces that Russia had spurred to initiate hostilities.
Where would you draw the line, Gordon. When would you stop appeasing under the threat of nuclear weapons?
GordonR:
“You re missing the point. Since when is it OK to oust a president in a democratic country? ”
*************
The term democracy and the name Putin as its defender are the typical contradiction in terms. Just ask the Belarus people, Venezuelans or Navalny.
The Ukrainian entanglement with Russia goes back a long way significantly Katherine the Great end of 18th C (and even before) but it really is relatively immaterial.
The Soviet involvement:
“In 1922, Ukraine and Russia were two of the founding members of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and were the signatories of the treaty that terminated the Union in December 1991. The end of the Russian Empire also ended the ban on the Ukrainian language.”
So the Union was started and ended “freely.” Ukraine became a sovereign nation; Russia had no right to interfere or try to control the politics in Ukraine in the same way that Brits and French have no rights in Canada or Oz or at an extreme Romans in Wales/England, France or Ukraine/Crimea.
The BBC reported 22 Feb 2014:
“The vote to ‘remove Viktor Yanukovych from the post of president of Ukraine’ was passed by 328 MPs.
Such ballots, passed by what is called constitutional majority, are binding and enter into force with immediate effect, .
Where do you get the idea that his ousting was anything but legal?
Barry has more than capably answered your points.
Someone here said – Richard I think, or was it Scoot R? – that SSTs in the NINO1 region is a great indicator of where ENSO is headed.
https://tinyurl.com/2k7jzj2d
On this date, we’re high into el Nino territory for that metric.
Richard?
Hmmm … NOAA only has the latest weekly value at +0.4.
That’s the NINO1.2 value, and I think is the 7-day average centred on Feb 22. I’m giving BoM result for NINO1 with the week centred on Feb 23.
However, it looks like the BoM figure is likely to be higher than NOAA NINO1, though I’m having trouble finding that value on NOAA’s website.
Nino1, Nino2, and Nino1.2 are different metrics. So is BOM and NOAA.
Yes we know.
NOAA only does Nino1.2 AFAIK.
Thanks, I didn’t know that.
Are you saying that an El Nino is going to happen this year?
He is stating that if YOUR metric is correct then it should happen with the same confidence as you predicted the 2022 La Nina.
Are you saying it is not?
No, Richard M.
“Are you saying that an El Nino is going to happen this year?”
This is about Richard (or Scott), not me.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/02/uah-tropics.jpeg
Last month. This month to follow.
The Nino 1 area is best for signaling ENSO futures but it also helps to watch the equatorial undercurrents. If the warming of Nino 1 comes from the undercurrents than an El Nino is almost assured.
That doesn’t happen to be the current situation … yet. The warming has come from shallow surface waters. There have been signs that the undercurrent will get moving. Once again it is looking likely. We shall see.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/anim/wkxzteq_anm.gif
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PifQ_ToAYZA
The same lefty liars who lie here lied about COVID.
Only Useful idiots are wont to distract discussion about climate change with pointless diatribes about their fight for freedom.
Get lost fool.
(H/T Kennui)
Same propaganda machine. Lied about COVID. Lie about everything else.
Same contrarian talking points. Same obliviousness toward personal behavior. Same disregard of the evidentiary process.
You’re begining to read like Kennui.
Coming from the most prolific propagandist.
Ninja, Troglodyte,
Ninja.
Your predicament is mostly self inflicted.
Willard, please stop trolling.
My predicament is in Wiltard’s head. Notice I didn’t use the word brain. You have to have a brain to be described with one.
https://instapundit.substack.com/p/how-i-was-wrong-about-covid?sd=pf
How I Was Wrong About Covid
When even libertarians trust the government too much.
“In retrospect, I should have been more skeptical. Its hard to believe that I, of all people, trusted the government too much, but there you are. Well, lesson learned.
In mitigation, I should note that co-bloggers Sarah Hoyt and Charlie Martin were as skeptical as I should have been.”
[And it seems to me, Sarah Hoyt is pretty crazy.]
Everyone was wrong.
But most people don’t even follow the “news”- so you could also say
most people were not wrong. There good reasons why no one likes the “news”- the people most brainwashed are the people of the “news”.
If we living in a simulation, it might true if you regard the “news”
as the news. An inherent aspect of any simulation is that you know it’s wrong- people involved “news junkies” know it’s wrong, but they
continue being news junkies. Or fits the definition of simulation.
Or Scott Adams is living in simulation.
But with a simulation, you might assume there was some purpose to it.
Obviously, it’s a distraction.
WHO and China committed war crimes.
Practically there is not much which can be done it. One could learn the lesson that bloated US govt, is bad idea.
But again, other collapsing due to it’s mass, not much can be done
about it.
Anyhow in terms of the climate religion, it seems only children are scared about it. And they will get over it.
Stephen…I agree in principle, however, we must be careful about blaming just the Left. The UK has been run by rabid right-wingers the past 5 years and they started the hysteria in the UK about covid while implementing lockdowns and vaccines. They have also started a program in Oxford and Cambridge to ban motor vehicle traffic between certain areas in those cities and that is related to climate hysteria.
During his appointment to advise the Trump admin, Will Happer revealed that GOP backroom advisors convinced Trump not to implement Happer’s suggestions for fear it would alienate the voter base. The Trump admin also ignored NOAA’s refusal to release documents requested by the government to investigate their climate alarmist views.
Till Happer revealed that fact about Trump, I thought he was calling the shots. Apparently not. I think he speaks his own mind but he also follows the agenda of the backroom boys.
I am trying to send the message that climate hysteria is not restricted to the Left. There are right-wingers like Schwarzenegger who implemented climate change agenda in California when he was governor. Here in the province of BC, Canada, a former government, who are right of Attila the Hun, implemented a carbon tax.
The Federal Liberal party, a strange amalgam of right and left, are currently implementing a Draconian policy based on extreme climate change rhetoric. They also used the war measures act to control the truckers’ Freedom Convoy. There is no way the Liberals can be called Lefties because they go out of their way to appease and support corporations and the corporate agenda.
Boris Johnson a rabid right-winger?
Oh, yes. He just looks like a goofy innocent, under it all, he’s right of Attila the Hun. Maybe not quite as right as old Maggie ‘Iron pants’ Thatcher, but in the ballpark.
And certainly not as far right as Trump.
Trump’s not far right. I wish he were. I’m far right as you’re far left.
Trump’s a radical – even his supporters would agree with that, gleefully.
Plenty of his policies and rhetoric were based on conservative to ultra-conservative platforms. At CPac recently he talked up the largest deportation scheme ever should, sorry “when” he becomes president.
The only reason I don’t think he himself is a conservative is that he doesn’t really seem to have personal ideology aside from making money, winning back the presidency and basically being a winner. He seems much closer to a radical libertarian, not that I believe he could ever articulate what any political ideology is, bar the button-issues he’s latched onto to fire up his base.
Arctic air will soon reach the UK and western Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/bF8WTWc/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The February 2023 average Arctic sea ice extent was 14.18 million square kilometers (5.47 million square miles), the third lowest February in the satellite record (Figure 1a). February extent was 1.12 million square kilometers (432,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average of 15.30 million square kilometers (5.91 million square miles), but 210,000 square kilometers (81,000 square miles) above the record low set in February 2018.
Source to be added later.
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2023.png
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/osisaf_nh_iceextent_daily_5years_en.png
https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/sie_monthmean.uk.php
Nice colors.
wee willy…how do you measure sea ice extent from a satellite?
Why are you asking questions that reveal you learned nothing from trolling this website daily for more than a decade, Bordon?
Come on.
Be a good wanker, answer the question.
Come on, Bordon.
Go JAQ off with someone else.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Measure the circumference of the satellite. Place the satellite on the edge of the ice. Roll the satellite, while counting the number of revolutions around its axis (I’m sure that now we are in your field of expertise) till you get to the other edge of the ice.
I like it Ken. Problem is, there are 40 foot high pressure ridges where ice floes meet. It’s tough rolling the sats up and down the pressure ridges.
Do the real sats measure the area inside the thousands of pressure ridges? If the ice is compressed due to winds and ocean currents do the sats distinguish between that and when the ice is more spread out?
Stick with me, Ken, I’ll get you through the science.
Gordo again proves he has no clue about science. There have been a series of polar orbiting satellites with instruments which measure passive microwave emissions from the surface. They are rather like Roy’s MSU-AMSU, except that lower frequencies are employed.
https://nsid*c.org/learn/parts-cryosphere/sea-ice/quick-facts-about-sea-ice (REMOVE *)
swannie… and exactly what do those emissions tell you about ice extent?
The captain, Henry Larsen, of the RCMP cutter St. Roch, told us the problem. He sailed the cutter, St. Roch, both ways through the Arctic Ocean, from west to east and then east to west. On the west to east leg, it took him two years because the ice had compressed against the Canadian north shore and he had to lay up till it moved.
Larsen told us that is normal for the Arctic Ocean, where ice movement and compression/expansion is unpredictable, and that it is caused by winds and ocean currents. On the way back, he sailed right through in 81 days.
If a sat is viewing the ice when it is compressed it will naturally look smaller than when it is uncompressed.
Duh!!! When compressed the ice rises vertically in 40 foot pressure ridges where the ice pushes against other ice.
Gordo wrote:
Gordo might actually read the reference for a change instead of tossing out some off topic anecdotal commentary. Those emissions indicate grid cells where there is lots of sea-ice and others where there is not so much or none at all. The 15% cutoff is used to define a boundary around the areas which are covered.
” Source to be added later. ”
*
For example:
https://tinyurl.com/ytpx6r5u
i.e.
https://masie_web.apps.nsid*c.org/pub//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/N_02_extent_v3.0.csv
The last line in the file:
2023, 2, NRTSI-G, N, 14.18, 12.57 [Mkm^2]
(12.57 is the ‘area’ aka 100 % pack ice).
*
In the Antarctic, the situation isn’t better, despite many claims it would be.
Sorry, wrong link.
https://tinyurl.com/dehfau5x
i.e.
https://masie_web.apps.nsid*c.org/pub//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/N_02_extent_v3.0.csv
Willard
” Why are you asking questions that reveal you learned nothing from trolling this website daily for more than a decade, Bordon? ”
*
You could ask the same question to Flynnson about his adamant denial of the technical possibility of measuring sea levels with satellite-based devices.
Binny,
You wrote –
“You could ask the same question to Flynnson about his adamant denial of the technical possibility of measuring sea levels with satellite-based devices.”
You look like a moronic SkyDragon cultist when you make stuff up, hoping that nobody will actually be bothered to check what Swenson actually said.
No wonder you haven’t got the intestinal fortitude to actually quote what people said. Just another deranged SkyDragon sauerkraut, making stuff up as you go along, because reality is too much for you!
Go on, man up, Binny. Or just keep on with slimy innuendos. Others can make up their own minds.
By the way, have you figured out the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
Glad you ask –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
For the ten thousandth time at least.
Lampshade.
Witless Wee Willy,
“For the ten thousandth time at least”?
You SkyDragon cultists just refuse to accept reality – what are you babbling about?
I suppose you are claiming you have figured out the role the GHE played in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling at least ten thousand times , but you cant actually explain it in words, so you have made a silent video about it!
Can you name one person who is likely to believe you? I certainly wouldn’t waste my time looking at some irrelevant video which you prepared – particularly if you can’t express your ideas in English.
Just like that other SkyDragon fool, David “Wormy” Apple, who used to flap an irrelevant multicolored graphic in people’s faces, claiming it was an explanation of the GHE!
If you can’t explain something, you clearly don’t understand it.
” By the way, have you figured out the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? How hard can it be? ”
Idiot.
Binny,
You have no answer, then?
Must be too hard for you. How about a description of the GHE, then? I suppose you don’t have one of those, either.
It seems that an effect you can’t describe, has an effect you can’t explain!
That will no doubt convince someone that you are not stupid, ignorant, or both.
Only joking, of course.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Yes, at least ten thousand times.
In the last thread you clocked a hundred times.
It is a new thread and you already asked more than 20 times.
You have been asking since 2010.
So it is a conservative figure.
Perambulator.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Could anyone who uses tinyurl for a workaround at this site tell me if it’s working for them? It’s no longer creating urls when I go to the site.
I tried, and it didn’t work
Thanks
Test:
https://tinyurl.com/yspanet4
Test 2
https://tinyurl.com/vs4x4srk
barry
Works perfectly.
But… recently, I had more than once in a row the surprise of a tinyURL link containing exactly what I wanted to circumvent: d~c, or r~p~t.
These of course you can’t enter into the blog; and you can’t create a tinyURL link out of an old one :–(
That’s bad luck. I think you can name your tinyurl with the customise feature. I’d never tried it, but I did the same function on a similar website yesterday.
https://tiny.cc/TimeUkraine
The original link just had numbers.
That website is another workaround if tinyurl makes the verboten string – if you can copy the link you make there, which is fiddly.
Thanks guys. I have the tinyurl tool on my browser. Click it while on a web page and you are directed to the tinyurl home page with the link ready to copy.
yesterday neither that nor pasting a link to the box in the home page worked. Click to make tinyurl – no tinyurl link appears at all.
Just one more question before I nuke my cache and other things.
Is this the exact link you see when you go to the tinyurl website?
https://tinyurl.com/app
If not – don’t click on that link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRH1n6ktPUA
Scott said Robert F. Kennedy Jr might be running for President.
That would be interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.
On topic of great, his name was mentioned.
Oh, wiki says it:
–On March 3, 2023 in a speech in New Hampshire, Kennedy stated that he is considering a run for president in 2024, saying I am thinking about it. Ive passed the biggest hurdle which is that my wife has green lighted it. —
Sounds like you’re a supporter.
And you made this comment because you are trolling? Or did you have another equally ridiculous reason?
I don’t know much about him, but he seems obviously to be a liberal Dem.
Dennis Prager gave him as an example of a great person.
Wiki says, “In 1983, when Kennedy was an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan, he was arrested and pled guilty to heroin possession and was sentenced to two years’ probation and community service.”
Anyhow, could have two New York Dems: Trump and Kennedy vying to be US President.
That would have to be interesting.
But chances are, he probably won’t win Dem primary-
but, just trying to do that, also could be very interesting.
Ummmmm … I’m not American, but doesn’t Dem mean Democrat?
How is Trump a Democrat?
And isn’t he now a Floridian?
Anyway, Kennedy certainly looks interesting. Right on climate, wrong on covid.
Trump ran in Republican primary, but before he became
a politician, he was New York Dem.
The Dem party can said to be quite unified, but politics
is local and one could say there are difference between California Dem and New York Dem. Reagan was California Dem and he transition
to Republican. With Trump there was not really transition from Dem to Republican politician, rather he just decided he could win the Republican primary. He was called a blue collar billionaire. It’s not as though there weren’t Republicans running blue collar issues, but unions and blue collar issues was something Dem traditionally generally got most support from, but it was a major thing Trump ran on and won on. It’s quite common for Dem pols to say, the party left them, rather they left the party. And used to be a creature call conservative dem and blue dog dems [Oh, apparently still are 7 members which call themselves this- but it was much larger and broader thing]
Anyhow Trump was not conservative or blue dog dem, he was a New York Dem- but also always been what one could call eccentric.
It seems Kennedy certainly is environmental activists, but wasn’t too long ago, that Lefty Dems were against vaccinations in general- and I guess he just continued with this issue. And it seems to me, the tide
is turning on this, now- and Dems are quite capable of turning on dime on all issues.
I keep hearing Trump is/was a NY Dem. He’s the best conservative President we’ve had since Reagan. In many ways better than Reagan. The leftists scared Trump. He saw where they were trying to take the country. They always have been that way only many didn’t see them for what they were. Trump woke up.
“Hes the best conservative President weve had since Reagan. ”
Perhaps best Republican President since Reagan.
As a wild guess, less than 1/2 of people vote Reps, are conservative.
And Reagan had dems voting for him. And even Trump had Dems voting for him. And quite possible that conservatives would vote for Dems.
aq…”Im not American…”
***
You won’t find a country called America on a world map. If you do, let me know.
As far as Americans go, we are all Americans in North and South America.
Ironically, Hawaiians don’t live in America.
BTW…Dem is just another word for Dumb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXKUNc9yI2A
Wagner Group, Russian PMCs & Ukraine – History, motives & privatised warfare
Very funny.
And terrifying- if Russia has most
nuclear weapons [and they work]- and
the idea you want to weaken Russia,
it appears more imagination is needed.
-Then, Prigozhin said, on Monday morning my representative at the headquarters had his pass canceled and was denied access to the groups headquarters, according to a Google translation of his comment.
The Wagner Group founder said his units continue to smash the Armed Forces of Ukraine near Bakhmut. But at the weekend, Prigozhin claimed that his fighters were being deprived of ammunition and that if they had to retreat from Bakhmut, the whole front line would collapse.-
13 Hours Ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/06/ukraine-war-live-updates-latest-news-on-russia-and-the-war-in-ukraine.html
I posted this link above with regard to the Ukraine. Thought it might be of a more general interest. The author is a Ukrainian academic who is not supportive of the Zelensky regime. She can no longer print such articles in the Ukraine due to Zelensky’s suppression of the media.
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/28/zelensky-celebrity-populist-pinochet-neoliberal/
A quote from the previous link…
“However, never in the pre-Maidan history of Ukraine had the country appointed foreign citizens to top ministerial poststhis became possible only after the Maidan. In 2014, Natalie Jareskoa citizen of the USwas appointed Ukraines Minister of Finance, Aivaras Abromaviciusa citizen of Lithuaniabecame Ukraines Minister of Economy and Trade, Alexander Kvitashvilia citizen of Georgiathe Minister of Healthcare. In 2016, Ulana Supruna citizen of the USwas appointed the acting Minister of Healthcare. Other foreigners assumed offices of lower ranks. Needless to say, all these appointments resulted not from the will of Ukrainians but from the recommendations of the global neoliberal institutions, which is not sur.prising given that the Maidan itself was not supported by half of Ukraines population”.
***
This exactly what we are facing in Canada and the US. Our countries are becoming more and more run by external influences. There is little doubt that the global warming/climate change propaganda is related to influences external to both countries.
As Mearscheimer has pointed out, there is a global neo-liberalization taking place. People can blame the US for it but as the saying goes, it takes two to tango. I am saying there has to be vested interests elsewhere in the world driving this lunacy of climate change propaganda as there was with the covid lunacy.
****
More fascism from Zelensky”’
“However, in his reforming zeal, Zelensky went further. In early February 2021, first three oppositional television channelsNewsOne, Zik, and 112 Ukrainewere shut down. Another oppositional channel Nash was banned in the beginning of 2022, before the beginning of the war. After the war broke out, in March, dozens of independent journalists, bloggers, and analysts were arrested; most of them are of leftist views. In April, television channels of right-wing leaningChannel 5 and Pryamiywere shut down as well. Moreover, Zelensky signed a decree obliging all Ukrainian channels to broad.cast a single telethon, presenting only one pro-governmental view on the war”.
***
This is the little creep we are supporting in the West. Note that Zelensky shut down these stations before Russia invaded.
************
Here’s the most damning indictment of Zelensky and his current administration….
***
“The nationalistic Myrotvorets website was launched in 2015 by a peoples deputy holding a position of adviser to the Ministry of Interior of Ukrainethis is how the UN report describes this. The name of this peoples deputy is Anton Gerashchenko, a former advisor to the former Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov. It is under Avakovs patronage in 2014 [that] nationalistic punitive battalions were created to be sent to Donbass for suppressing peoples resistance against the Maidan. Myrotvorets has been part of the general strategy of intimidating the opponents of the coup. Any enemy of the peopleanybody who dares to express publicly anti-Maidan views or challenge Ukraines nationalistic agendamay occur on this website. The addresses of Oles Buzina, a famous publicist [journalist], shot dead by nationalists near his apartment building in Kyiv, and Oleg Kalashnikov, an oppositional deputy killed by nationalists in his house, were also on Myrotvorets, which helped the killers to find their victims. The names of the murderers are well known; however, they are not imprisoned because in contemporary Ukraine, whose political life is controlled by radicals, they are considered heroes”.
***
This support my argument that Ukrainian nationalists are the problem in the Ukraine. Note the comment from the academic…
“The names of the murderers are well known; however, they are not imprisoned because in contemporary Ukraine, whose political life is controlled by radicals, they are considered heroes”.
Political life is controlled by nationalists, who have a close association to Nazis.
Also, in the current Ukraine, if you don’t agree with the 2014 coup, you are charged as an enemy of the state.
Some democracy!!!
Come on, Bordon.
This is an old trope:
> After receiving criticism of his country because of the deaths caused by the 1903 anti-Jewish Kishinev pogrom, the Russian Minister of the Interior Vyacheslav von Plehve pointed out “The Russian peasants were driven to frenzy. Excited by race and religious hatred, and under the influence of alcohol, they were worse than the people of the Southern States of America when they lynch negroes.” Soviet artist Dmitri Moor produced the lithograph Freedom to the Prisoners of Scottsboro!, after the 1931 trial of the Scottsboro Boys of Alabama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
Gordon Robertson
So you peddle your Russian Propaganda on this blog as if were undisputed truth.
I watch this war and Russia is quite ruthless. I think they have over 70,000 cases of war crimes Russia has so far committed. Detailed evidence based acts. Only evidence based accounts can be used in a Court.
You choose to ignore this and blindly believe some woman you know nothing about. Putin can have Hospitals and Train Stations attacked with missiles and only Zelinsky is the bad guy. What???
Why is this information false and your Russian propaganda the correct one? How do you evaluate which is true and what is your decision based upon?
https://www.state.gov/fact-vs-fiction-russian-disinformation-on-ukraine/
Norman,
You wrote –
“Why is this information false and your Russian propaganda the correct one? How do you evaluate which is true and what is your decision based upon?”
Replace “Russian” with “Western”, and the question remains valid.
Accept reality. All participants believe God is on their side. There are no winners – the dead lose, every time. About 65% of the world’s population don’t care who “wins” – why should they?
Look at US WW2 propaganda about Japan and Germany – the brutal despotic enemy. How things have changed! A miracle! All is forgiven – as long as the Germans fight the Russians as US proxies (didn’t work out too well last time), and the Japanese can fight the Chinese again (repeating a previous poor outcome?).
No doubt the US regrets including past allies Russia and China as permanent members of the UN Security Council, with veto powers. Good luck with predicting the future of any conflict.
You might be better off predicting future climate states!
Norman…are you interested in experiencing a nuclear war? I’m not. If you don’t want one, the best way is to speak to the guy who has the ability to start one. Ask him what is bothering him and listen to what he has to say, not to idiots who peddle newspapers and magazines, and especially not to politicians with a conflict of interest.
On the other hand, if we keep poking him with a stick, as Meresheimer put it, with each poke, we get closer to that war.
I just posted a link to a Ukrainian academic who has given a fair interview. She has assessed the situation in the Ukraine and you are telling her she’s wrong.
Gordon Robertson
Do you ever consider to vet your sources?
I checked up your Grayzone. It is far right lies that support dictators. It is a terrible source for good information. You know nothing about her, she could be a Russian supporter for money. Unknown but you blindly trust this source. Why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone
norman …I don’t care who Grayzone is. As with Heartland, I listen to what the person has to say and if it makes sense, I go with it.
In the Graystone interview, the academic related a story, but better, than what you can find elsewhere on the Net. She did not side with the Russians or the Ukrainians, she laid out the problem with both sides. That’s what good academic do.
If you want you and your family blown to kingdom come, that’s not just your business, it’s my business too. The way you are going and the way other’s are going it is inevitable.
I understand you being a stubborn ass with your views on Claes Johnson, Stefan Lanka and so on, but this is different. Putin has the ability to terminate your life and he has threatened that because idiots have pushed him into a corner. It’s time to back off and listen, then do what we can to end this conflict in the Ukraine.
And I mean the entire conflict, not just the war but the civil war too. We need to listen to what people i eastern Ukraine have to ay as well. That’s how it all started, no one listened to their beefs.
Gordon Robertson
No he is not pushed in a corner. He is a madman who threatens nukes. His Nation was never threatened. He chose to invade Ukraine against the will of the majority of Ukranian citizens. They have fought for over a year. This would be strong evidence they don’t want Russia in their country. They want to exist as an independent country.
That Putin even brings up Nukes means he needs to be stopped. He is a real danger. \
If the world does not stop Putin now when will it? He can invade the Baltics and Poland (NATO countries) and say “Nukes!” and the rest of the world backs down. That he brought up the use of nukes in this conflict shows he is too unstable to be leader of anything. Nukes are only a deterrent to nukes. If your army can’t win a war then pull out.
You must really turn your brain off to ignore what he is doing to Ukraine. As always you ignore facts and evidence and go with yoru “feelings” on things.
FWIW, the Greyzone is what we call a tankie outlet:
> As David Smilde, senior fellow at human rights group WOLA and Professor at Tulane aptly stated, they instrumentalize the realities of the global South for their own purposes – whether that be personal identity work or political battles they consider important – and its a form of colonialism
https://medium.com/muros-invisibles/grayzone-grifters-and-the-cult-of-tank-fbd9b8e0dbe2
It is Ukraine, not “the” Ukraine.
It has been that way since it was liberated more than 30 years ago.
AQ,
And nit-picking about semantics will result in less human lives being lost because . . .?
Maybe you could explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
That would certainly make people sit up and take notice!
Mike Flynn,
Grammar, not semantics.
Besides, Bordon knows what he is doing:
> The use of the article relates to the time before independence in 1991, when Ukraine was a republic of the Soviet Union known as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, she says. Since then, it should be merely Ukraine.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844
Goulash.
Whacky Wee Willy,
And nit-picking about either grammar or semantics will result in less human lives being lost because . . .?
Maybe you could explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
That would certainly make people sit up and take notice!
Mike Flynn,
ZZs say the Ukraine because they are ZZs.
Bordon goes full ZZ.
Parasol.
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you send me an address I’ll send you a quarter so you can call someone who cares.
What is a “quarter”?
AQ,
A fourth part. I’m surprised you don’t know how to look things up for yourself. Are you a typical representative of the SkyDragon cult?
Do they all ask pointless gotchas?
So he’s going to send me a fourth part.
What of?
And when will I gets part 1, 2, and 3?
AQ,
“And when will I gets part 1, 2, and 3?”
Best ask Gordon, you greedy bugger. I’d give you three-fifths of five-eights of nothing at all, but Im exceptionally generous in addition to my overwhelming modesty and humility.
Is there a point to your trolling, or are you just being an idiotic SkyDragon cultist?
You might as well keep it up – unless you can demonstrate a superior standard of incompetence in some other area. Maybe you could claim there is a GHE, whose description is so secret that you can’t reveal it!
Carry on – I want to laugh at your next bout of ineptitude.
So many empty promises, broken by so many empty words.
Mike Flynn,
A quarter is 25 cents.
Calls from phone booths cost 50 cents.
Bordon is old, and you are on sabbatical.
Chanticleer,
Woeful Wee Willy,
Your delusional opinions are noted, and duly ignored.
Mike Flynn,
You do not know that, and these are not the magic words.
Aa.
Somebody should “dime out” Gordo, as the drug dealers used to say.
This blog gets the arrogant and ignorant anti-science trolls it merits.
Thanks for admitting that, Bin. You and Swanson are quite the team.
Swanson makes the invalid diagrams, and you believe they are ALL correct. But, not one was correct!
You two excel in anti-science.
Snow cover in the northern hemisphere will now increase in Europe. It is beginning to snow in England.
https://i.ibb.co/pvvRkmF/gfs-npole-sat-seaice-snowc-d1.png
NOAA’s ENSO anomalies for the week centred on March 1:
1.2 … + 1.1 (up 0.7)
3 … + 0.1 (up 0.1)
3.4 … -0.2 (up 0.1)
4 … -0.4 (up 0.1)
Looks like La Nina is over.
However it won’t be official for a while as it is based on a 3-month average.
For it to officially end with JFM, ENSO 3.4 will need to average -0.07 or higher for March.
If that doesn’t happen, it won’t end officially until early May when the FMA figure comes out.
It is looking more likely than not that the La Nina is coming to end. I had mentioned last year that I thought there was a decent chance that the low in 2021/04 could be eclipsed if a triple dip La Nina occurred. Well, we got a triple dip La Nina and yet the 2021/04 low is still intact.
At least you have a good excuse, bdgwx. No one knew Hunga Tonga was going to erupt.
Looks like that is your excuse, not his. It must be a full time job trying to dig up a “plausible” explanation for every bump in the record. I hope they pay you well.
Ant, just like the other anonymous trolls, you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Your cult headquarters, NASA, has admitted the record-setting H-T would result in an increase in global temperatures.
But, science is not your area of interest.
Typical that you would replace “could” with “would”.
From the press release you are referring to:
“Millan [from NASA] speculates that the water vapor could start having a warming effect on the planets surface temperature once the accompanying cooling particles dissipate IN ABOUT THREE YEARS.”
OOPS – you “forgot” that detail.
Okay Ant, now that you’ve found out what I was referring to, do you realize how immature your 1:44pm comment was?
Do YOU realise now how much of a LIE your 11:58 and 2:04 comments were?
Even now, you won’t admit that you were wrong, and you will certainly continue to push this lie beyond this thread.
Ant, obviously you know you’ve been exposed, hence the “L-word”. You trolls are so predictable. You have NOTHING, so your last resort is personal attacks.
If I had a medal for every insult your ilk has hurled at me, I wouldn’t be able to walk from carrying the weight!
Your lie – that Hunga Tonga was responsible for warming in 2022.
The NASA comment which proves that a lie:
“Millan speculates that the water vapor could start having a warming effect on the planets surface temperature once the accompanying cooling particles dissipate IN ABOUT THREE YEARS”.
“Troll, ignorant, worthless, idiot, braindead” … do you consider those insults? Would you cry some more if I applied them to you?
Ant, as I indicated, NASA has admitted that H-T would/could/will/might result in a warmer surface, temporarily. You can choose your own wording. I don’t do semantics with people that don’t understand the science.
The science is that the water vapor ejected by H-T will NOT cause any warming. The warming will come from other phenomena being disrupted. This disruption, and accompanying warming, was clearly seen in 1922.
This is all over your head. That’s why you resort to personal attacks. You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an ignorant troll.
That’s not an insult. It’s reality.
2022
The KISS principle works as well in international relations as it does in science. With the Ukraine issue, who invaded who? Keep it simple. Russia is the invader.
Trying to justify invading another country is like trying to claim ice cubes can boil water because Earth is in a natural warming trend.
Reality is simple, like a ball-on-a-string. See Occam’s Razor.
Occam’s Razor says Moon orbits on its axis and, what with libration, clearly does not behave like a ball on a string.
There was a popular movie where the word ‘Squirrel’ was a major distraction for the antagonists. ‘Ukraine’ is being used to distract those of you with attention span problems from the real issues like government lying about climate.
Ukraine is going to be a real problem because our leaders are hoping you’ll fall for supporting a war that has no impact on Canada or USA.
I can’t see our young men signing up for military service in droves. Can you say ‘Conscription’?
Ken, you always manage to reveal your ignorance — “…Moon orbits on its axis…”
And apparently you STILL can’t understand the ball-on-a-string.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Equations of ball on string are pretty straight forward. They don’t apply to an elliptical orbit such as apparent moon around the earth. They really don’t apply to Earth and Moon orbit around the sun where the momentum of the moon is within 45 degrees of left and right from straight ahead.
Yup Ken, you STILL can’t understand the simple ball-on-a-string.
But I always enjoy your display of ignorance — “…momentum of the moon is within 45 degrees of left and right from straight ahead.”
Whatever that means….
/ This would be 60 degrees left
—> Straight ahead
\ This would be 60 degrees right
At no time does the moon go:
<—- backwards
Which it would need to do if it were actually making a circle around a stationary earth.
Ken, there’s really no need for you to go to all that trouble to prove you don’t understand orbital motions.
But, it’s funny when you do….
ken…”Equations of ball on string are pretty straight forward”.
***
We agree wholeheartedly on climate propaganda and on covid propaganda, let’s see if we can fix the disagreement on the Moon. I don’t mean that as a put down or to be patronizing, I have studied this as part of an engineering curriculum and I simply want to share it. If you disagree, or don’t even bother to follow my reasoning, someone else reading this may benefit from the scientific description.
The momentum of the Moon is never different than a straight line motion. There is no variation in direction for linear momentum, and there is no such thing a curvilinear momentum for a mass moving like the Moon. Linear momentum, as with the Moon, is simply a mass with a constant linear velocity and velocity along a curve does not apply unless you have a mass attached to an axle by a solid lever.
You are correct in claiming the Moon and a ball on a string have different kinematics since the ball is attached to the string and the Moon is not attached to the Earth. However, you are missing the point of the BoS. It was introduced only to demonstrate a body rotating while keeping the same face pointed at the axis about which it is rotating.
It was never intended as a model of the Earth-Moon system, it was introduced to demonstrate a body rotating about an external axis while keeping the same face pointed at its external axis while not rotating about its own internal axis. The spinners have argued that the ball is actually rotating about its internal axis as well, which is ridiculous. The tension on the string prevents it from rotating at all about its internal axis. As Clint pointed out, if the ball was rotating on a local axis it would wrap itself up in the string.
If you can agree with the BoS description above then it is simple to transfer that to the Moon. There is obviously no string holding the Moon in orbit, it is a constant gravitational field holding it. Newton theorized this with his cannon ball thought experiment. If you shoot a cannon ball with enough velocity that it cam clear the horizon, it will simply, barring air friction, keep orbiting the Earth. That’s all the Moon is doing.
It has sufficient linear velocity at its altitude to balance the very light gravitational attraction of Earth. The magic ratio is 5 vertical metres to 8000 horizontal metres. If gravity can draw the Moon to Earth at a rate of 5 vertical metres for every 8000 metres moved horizontally by the Moon, the Moon will remain in orbit.
Therefore it doesn’t need to rotate on a local axis to keep the same face pointed at Earth. If you could build a road right around the Equator, and drove a car along it, the car would follow the surface without rotating about its COG. Same with the Moon.
Ken
Here you can see how a tiny minority of pseudoscientific ‘think’ers cruelly manipulate our students worldwide:
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec10.html
This has to end really soon, hasn’t it?
But don’t worry, Ken!
Clint R and the Lunar Spin Denial Gang will save us from this terrifying-looking disaster.
This is all Binny van der Klown has, yet another appeal to authority. He/she/it cannot think for himself/herself/itself, he/she/it relies on what others tell him/her/it to think.
What are two its? A twit.
ken…”Occams Razor says Moon orbits on its axis”
Bill Ockham (not Occam) was a philosopher, what the heck would he know about the lunar orbit?
It has been philosophy and not science that has led us into this nonsense about the Moon rotating on a local axis. If even one of them had taken the time to verify the absurd claim, it would soon have become apparent the folly in their presumptions.
Come on, Bordon.
Twas an expression.
Your ad hominem is ridiculous.
And you are still stuck with Newton, whom the Moon Dragon crank of your time, a mathematician, constantly attacked.
Unless you want to dismiss Isaac as an alchemist?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Shell’s new boss signals U-Turn in cutting oil production.
The Times. 06 March 2023
Drill, baby, drill.
TM,
“We focus on value over volume”
Oil and Gas companies’ Managements need to be reminded periodically of their fiduciary obligation to the shareholders. Because it’s impractical generally to get approval on projects from all, or even a majority of shareholders, we expect managers to only pursue those projects which meet the hurdle profitability criteria.
It’s good to see one of the original Seven Sisters return to its roots.
AW,
Hear, hear.
More from the Shell chief:
Can’t say that I disagree much with his assessment.
Another side of the situation is that of Peak Oil.
Part of the economics involves investment related to the cost of energy, since it takes energy to “produce” the oil from underground. As the cost of the energy required increases, the price of the resultant oil must also increase to cover that expense. Of course, the oil companies must return a profit to stay in business, or run up more debt in hopes of recovering those costs later. In the UK, the added taxes may result in net losses.
Peak oil is not about economics, but instead involves energy accounting, as “energy return on invested energy”, EROEI. As the rate of energy expended increases per barrel, at some point, the net energy produced would approach zero and there would be no net gain by continuing to pump from a well. Continuing such activity might make sense economically if some of the energy came from low cost alternates, such as natural gas of coal, but in other situations, such as off shore deep water, the production wells are plugged and the rigs are removed while the wells are still capable of producing more oil.
The increased use of fracking and mining for tar sands are energy intensive activities. They will eventually be gone, like the cheap energy of the 1960’s. If the world’s economies haven’t transitioned to renewables by then, our fossil fuel addicted populations will be in serious trouble. And, those populations are still increasing in numbers, while the “under developed” nations expand their individual rates of consumption.
Sorry for the environmentalist rant, but it all doesn’t look positive to me, especially when the facts of climate change and food production are included.
“Peak oil is not about economics…”
It is all about the economics. A barrel of oil has no value until it’s processed into its many derivative value-added products.
https://ibb.co/n6y5x1J
TM, I understand the vast importance of oil for the world’s economy. That’s not the point.
Every well drilled will eventually end up with no significant production and there are already many thousands of those depleted wells especially in the US where the Oil Age began. The petroleum companies are caught in a continual race to find and produce oil from new fields to replace that lost as the older ones are depleted. Eventually, they will lose that race and world oil production will begin an inexorable decline.
Even before that point arrives, the simple fact that it takes energy to produce oil from newer sources will result in crossing a threshold where it takes more energy to produce the next barrel than is contained in that barrel. After that, oil will no longer be an energy source. Of course, as your graphic demonstrates, oil will continue to be a source for valuable products, including liquid fuels.
The recent advances in fracking, particularly for natural gas, have also resulted in increasing production of liquids recovered from that gas. Those liquid products are not, strictly speaking, oil, though crude oil might also be a source for the same chemicals. Because of this, there is tendency to lump crude oil and natural gas in counting total production, which obscures the facts about oil depletion.
Of course, economics is important, given our reliance on market based economies. The market price for gas was low before the Ukrainian war, so the energy from nat gas used to produce crude oil gave the appearance of low dollar costs for oil production. The disruptions resulting from the war are still working their way thru the world’s energy systems, so we can’t see the full effects as consumers. But Peak Oil lurks in the background, mostly ignored by the general public, as we drive our gas guzzlers to work and shopping, complaining about the high cost of gasoline or diesel fuel.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_d*cus_nus_w.htm
(Remove the “*” to view link)
ES,
I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here:
” After that, oil will no longer be an energy source”
followed by
“oil will continue to be a source for valuable products, including liquid fuels“
One barrel of oil has an energy content of 5,799,000 BTU. That’s equivalent to about 11 years worth of a human’s of physical labor. Worse case scenario is oil becomes so scarce that governments confiscate ALL of oil business and ration consumption.
I know what EROEI is. The problem with calculating it is where to draw the boundaries for both energy input and output. I call it the ring-fencing problem.
I’m not agnostic on Peak Oil, especially now that world population has reached 8 billion. On a per capita basis the world reached peak oil at around 4 billion.
Lastly, you’re wrong to say that “…petroleum companies are caught in a continual race to find and produce oil from new fields.” Exploration work is so small these days that nobody even talks about.
That’s all I have to say about that.
TM, When I wrote “oil will continue to be a source for valuable products, including liquid fuels”, I was simply pointing out that some of the energy used to produce oil could come from natural gas or renewable sources, thus the result would be the conversion of the energy from the nat gas or renewables into a more useful liquid fuel, such as jet fuel.
You wrote:
Your comment offers no mention of which regions are considered. If one watches the presentations from the CEOs, both mention much more investment going forward. That effort is being expended to develop already known areas in the US, as well as new projects in other countries. They also speak of increasing production to meet the expected demand due to the future growth in world population.
You may be right with your claim that per capita production reached a maximum at some 4 billion people, though that’s a different kind of peak. If true, it suggests that the future price of oil will trend upwards from here on until enough renewables arrive on line to replace petroleum. The average man-on-the-street in the US won’t be happy.
Chevron CEO Mike Wirth discusses the energy sector at CERAweek conference – 3/6/23.
https://youtu.be/Amdio1QY52A
Mike Wirth gets it.
Good for him!
What does he get?
AW,
The Oil & Gas business is not for the meek. Only the strong survive. If everybody loves you, you’re not doing your job.
maguff…the oil companies are typified by Standard Oil during WW II. They were selling oil to the Nazis till Roosevelt caught them at it and put an end to it. When queried on their reasoning, Standard replied that free enterprise must prevail above all.
You don’t seriously think Chevron gives a damn about Green energy do you? They are hedging their bets that oil is on its way out. When the people get it that they will no longer be able to drive their cars or heat their homes, they will revolt, and Chevron will be right back onside.
Hot off the pressthis AM:
Exxon CEO Darren Woods discusses the energy sector at CERAweek conference 3/7/23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn_unyEpd_w
These trans activists are just extreme queers, aren’t they? Extreme leftists. I wouldn’t trust them around kids. JK Rowling spoke against Trump, but she wishes he would return.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMqommbLC1M
Are you lost ??? You are on the wrong board
No he is not lost. The gaslighting that goes with trans activists is exactly the same aim as the gaslighting regarding climate change.
The aim of both is to destabilize Western Societies and impose totalitarian socialism on all of us.
Kennui,
Troglodytes do not get a free pass at spamming the comment threads with whatever they please because it’s “like climate change.”
Speaking of which, your isolationist move, i.e. “our leaders are hoping youll fall for supporting a war that has no impact on Canada or USA,” is exactly the one that Nazis invested in the US of A:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sylvester_Viereck
Never forget that teh Donald did not invent the America First slogan.
I am fully aware of the appeasement messages that were rampant in the days leading to WW2.
Ukraine isn’t the same. Ukraine instability is as much a threat to the stability of Russia as the wars in Yugoslavia were to NATO countries in Europe.
Stop making false comparisons to promote your leftist agenda Willard.
I don’t think you’re aware of anything outside the Newscorp bubble, Kennui.
WW2 started way before the US of A decided to join in, and Ernest Lundeed, to name one name, has been an isolationist almost all his life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Lundeen
Only someone who has no inkling of the 20th century would be surprised by troglodytes and tankies singing Kumbaya in Ukrainian to exemplify their bottomless lack of political acumen and their overall cowardice.
“Ukraine isnt the same. Ukraine instability is as much a threat to the stability of Russia as the wars in Yugoslavia were to NATO countries in Europe.”
How is that view justified? Ukraine is not going to threaten Russia. Ukraine hasn’t armed people over the border and encouraged them to take over local government buildings and expand their area of control. Ukraine didn’t mass troops on Russia’s border and pretend it was drills.
Russia is concerned about Ukraine aligning with Europe and joining NATO as some kind of national security threat. It’s ridiculous.
There is no credible argument that once Ukraine joins NATO that this will lead to an unprovoked offensive war on Russia.
But this is the justification Russia uses, as well as ‘protecting’ pro-Russian people in the Donbas that Russia armed and set on.
You have to be really cocooned to imagine that Russia’s vaunted worry about potential European aggression is a credible position, and ignorant to imagine that armed Russian ethnics in the Donbas are innocent victims crying out for Russian relief.
Nothing excuses an international invasion in this day and age, and certainly not the internal strife of a neighbouring country that is no threat to the aggressor.
Ukraine’s trend towards Europe is, rather, a threat to Russia’s regional ambitions.
It is so interesting that the very same people who are all about freedom and liberty, are opposed to freedom and liberty for anyone they consider to be too DIFFERENT from themselves.
It is a story as old as time.
Hahaha – Sky “news”.
Hahahahahahahahahhahahaha- BBC,CNN,NBC,CBS,ABC,MSNBC “news.”
stephen…”These trans activists are just extreme queers…”
***
Right on, Stephen.
Strong correlation between ignorance and intolerance on display here.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
MUMBAI/NEW DELHI (Reuters) -India is likely to experience heat waves between March and May, especially in the key wheat producing central and northern states, the weather office said on Tuesday, as the country recorded its highest ever maximum temperature in February.
A heat-wave for the second straight year could dent production of wheat, rapeseed and chickpeas, and complicate governments efforts to bring down food inflation.
Higher temperatures could also lift power consumption above supplies during the summer season.
Enhanced probability of occurrence of heat wave during March to May season is likely over many regions of Central and adjoining Northwest India, the India Meteorological Department (IMD) said in a statement.
https://www.1470wmbd.com/2023/02/28/india-to-get-heat-waves-this-year-after-hottest-february-on-record/
Famine is coming. Higher food prices for the rest of us.
Is this the best you alarmists have? Heat waves in India??? Bombay is close to the Equator, it gets hot there wee willy.
C’mon, Bordon.
Which part of “hottest February on record” you do not get?
Which part of “since 1901” do you not understand? Maybe you could explain the role of the “greenhouse effect” in this supposed “record”, but I doubt it.
Feel free to prove me wrong – if you can!
You really are a deranged little SkyDragon cultist, aren’t you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE. Just SkyDragon fantasy.
Mike Flynn,
Have another spoon –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Lunule.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Which part of since 1901 do you not understand? Maybe you could explain the role of the greenhouse effect in this supposed record, but I doubt it.
Feel free to prove me wrong if you can!
You really are a deranged little SkyDragon cultist, arent you?
Accept reality. There is no GHE. Just SkyDragon fantasy.
Repetitive linking to something which you acknowledge is completely irrelevant, is a sign of delusional SkyDragon cult belief.
You really have no clue, do you?
Mike Flynn,
Another –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Spoon.
Which part of hottest February on record you do not get?
Is still snowing outside and its now March.
Perhaps “hottest February” is a relative term?
Perhaps you just made a relatively dumb comment, Kennui.
You might as well try to force your way in the parliament to throw snow balls.
Willard, please stop trolling.
norman…” He [Putin} chose to invade Ukraine against the will of the majority of Ukranian citizens. They have fought for over a year. This would be strong evidence they dont want Russia in their country. They want to exist as an independent country”.
***
I don’t recall anyone holding an opinion poll on the matter. Beside, an opinion poll is not valid when you ask the western Ukrainians who are assaulting the Ukrainians in the east, whether to invite the Russians to mediate.
I don’t recall an opinion poll taken when armed nationalists ousted a democratically-elected Ukrainian president in 2014.
The fighting over the last year has not been about stopping a Russian expansion. The Russians took what they have now in short order and they are currently fighting to maintain the boundary regions. That is a clear indication that they wanted only the Donbass region as they have already stated.
They wanted the Donbass region for the Ukrainians who live there, so they could determine their future by themselves. As it stood before the war, Kyiv was dictating terms to eastern Ukrainians and murdering any opposition to the illegal 2014 coup.
It’s all here, Normie, read it and weep…
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/28/zelensky-celebrity-populist-pinochet-neoliberal/
All the land lost, including Crimea, came about due to Ukrainian stupidity. The Ukrainian nationalists have to be stopped, they are no better than the Nazis of WW II. If the Ukrainians had handled their internal matters in a democratic manner, they would have lost no land. They can thank their idiotic fascist, nationalist minority movement for their current situation.
C’mon, Bordon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War)
C’mon.
They look just like the little green men that assaulted the Trucker’s Convoy in Ottawa.
Of course they do to you, Kennui:
https://angusreid.org/trudeau-convoy-trucker-protest-vaccine-mandates-covid-19/
Well done!
Dr John Campbell apologized for supporting the mask mandates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3vY2LyQn1A&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell
Truth is coming about the vaccine too as it relates to the excess deaths being observed. I do hope that your life isn’t adversely affected by COVID vaccines.
So yeah, there may be a large percentage of Canadians who still don’t get it that the masks and the vaccines don’t work. Just as per the climate change claptrap; the extraordinary delusions of the crowd isn’t supported by the facts.
Funny what you find relevant to mention on a Climateball setting, Kennui:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)
Also funny how you conflate truth seeking with going down an algorithmic rabbit hole, in this case by a retired nursing teacher who received his Ph.D. for his work on developing methods of teaching via digital media such as online videos.
If you would like to know more about the tricks your crank uses to fool troglodyte like you:
https://youtu.be/pqQC0tTECvQ
Gordo, Do you remember Yulia Tymoshenko who was jailed for several years before her release after the “Revolution of Dignity”, on 21 February 2014? There would appear to be much more to Ukrainian politics leading up to 2014 than you want to talk about.
Opinion polls have been held in the Donbas region by journalists before the war. The majority don’t want to be integrated with Russia. Where do you think minority pro-Russian separatists got the materiel to hold statelets in the region?
Proof of spin, put one on the Moon and debate is settled
https://youtu.be/msVRIEjcFFo
–At the Equator, 0 latitude, a Foucault pendulum does not rotate. In the Southern Hemisphere, rotation is counterclockwise. The rate of rotation of a Foucault pendulum can be stated mathematically as equal to the rate of rotation of the Earth times the sine of the number of degrees of latitude.Feb 17, 2023–
And:
“Why does Foucault pendulum not work at the equator?
Because of this, the amount of time that it takes for the pendulum to make one full rotation (with respect to its surroundings) is equal to one sidereal day (23.93 hours) divided by the sine of the latitude of its location. Since sin(0)=0, the plane of a pendulum located at the equator will not appear to move at all.”
So going to pole, and so should work- monthly or yearly.
Since Starship so tall, you hang it from top of it.
Nobody on my planet youses math
Nor English apparently.
All we need to do now is build one on the moon. Given that the purpose is to prove the moon rotates about its axis, the funding, for proving what we already know to bemindbogglingly obvious, will be difficult to obtain. Anyone care to donate?
Actually a Foucault Pendulum could be used to prove Moon is NOT spinning, Eben.
Do you know how?
Fake it by spinning the room it is sitting in?
AQ,
Please stop trolling.
Remind me why you stopped using ‘Mike Flynn’.
AQ, please stop trolling.
Oh that’s why. Thanks for the illustrative example.
AQ, please stop trolling.
“The experiment has also been carried out at the South Pole, where it was assumed that the rotation of the Earth would have maximum effect.[24][25] A pendulum was installed in a six-story staircase of a new station under construction at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. It had a length of 33 m (108 ft) and the bob weighed 25 kg (55 lb). The location was ideal: no moving air could disturb the pendulum. The researchers confirmed about 24 hours as the rotation period of the plane of oscillation.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
Eben,
You wrote
“. . . put one on the Moon and debate is settled.”
A few hurdles – no one has done it, so your statement is still speculation. Second, the Foucault pendulum measures sidereal rotation, not solar, so the definition of “rotation” comes into play. Third, location will affect the result.
Best solution – put a Foucault pendulum on the Moon, document the results. Until then “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.
Even on Earth, a Foucault pendulum at the equator shows the Earth not to be rotating. Tricky things, pendulums!
Sidereal rotation is 1 complete rotation of the earth. 23h 56 min.
Why do you think the foucault machine would behave differently on the moon? It will measure the time of one rotation about its axis.
Moon is rotating about its axis once every 28 days. We don’t need a pendulum to prove it because we can observe the fact of it from earth.
Ken,
You don’t accept the reality that the Earth takes 24 hours to make one rotation about its internal axis?
Oh well.
Noon to noon (one day) is 24 hours. No more, no less. Time measurement is tricky too. There are even two types of solar time (in addition to sidereal and synodic), and the “equation of time” reconciles the two as they wander here and there.
Hence, the general use of “mean time” (as in Greenwich Mean Time).
As to a Foucault Pendulum, if positioned at the equator, it will show that the Earth is not rotating at all! Believe that if you wish.
The Moon falls continuously towards the Earth, as Newton figured, which is why you only see the bottom of it – being underneath it, so to speak.
Feel free to claim that there is a GHE, if you like. Or just accept reality.
Swenson, the earth is on a circular orbit around the sun.
It takes 23 56 minutes for the earth to complete one full rotation on its axis.
Because of the earth’s circular trajectory around the sun, it takes another 4 minutes for any given point on earth to face the sun at exactly the same longitude; hence the 24 hour day experienced by all of us.
Sidereal time is basic astronomy.
Ken
Typical Flynnson blah blah, not impressing at all.
Who would be stupid enough to place a pendulum at the equator of any celestial body in order to (dis)prove its spin?
Flynnson, probably.
This guy is so dumb and brazen…
Ce n'est pas étonnant que la langue allemande a inventé l'expression 'dummdreist' tout spécialement pour décrire les crétins de son genre.
Flynnson is on this blog only to appear as the Great Contrarian, and to kid us all with always the same stoopid ‘4.5 billion year cooling’ posts written in his posh, smugly 5 o’clock teatime English.
I think he is even dummdreist enough to tell gullible people that putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Ken (cntnd)
You wrote, quite correctly:
” Sidereal rotation is 1 complete rotation of the earth. 23h 56 min. ”
Flynnson’s typically diverting, nonsensical answer:
” You dont accept the reality that the Earth takes 24 hours to make one rotation about its internal axis?
Oh well.
Noon to noon (one day) is 24 hours. No more, no less. ”
What a bare nonsense!
Everybody having a working brain understands that only sidereal motion periods (i.e., those measured with regard to a position sufficiently fixed in space) make sense, as they aren’t distorted by the spatial motion of the periods’ measurement point itself.
Who cares about Flynnson’s pseudo-knowledgeable blah blah?
Nobody – except himself and his admirers, if any.
Question for Bindidon, Ken, Eben, Barry, Ant, or any other Spinner:
How can you prove Moon is NOT spinning, by using a Foucault Pendulum?
I’m saying you don’t know enough about the subject to get it right. Prove me wrong.
Question to Pup the Riddler –
Did you do the Pole Dance Experiment?
You’d divide the expected period of moon rotation (27.3 days) and divide by sin (theta). Theta would be the latitude at which the pendulum is placed on the moon relative to the moon’s equator.
Then you’d observe the pendulum to see if there is apparent movement with respect to the moon’s celestial sphere and that the apparent movement takes the same time as the calculated period.
If you didn’t get the expected result then you’d have proven the moon is not rotating about its axis.
Given there are not other gravitational influences on the pendulum, I don’t see how there would be any result other than that calculated. Laws of Physics are the same on the moon.
As we’re seeing, none of the cult is even attempting this one. That shows, once again, that none of them has a clue about the relevant science.
I should warm them that this is not a trivial question, like many of the questions/problems I present. To answer this correctly, the cult idiots would need an understanding of both “orbiting” and “spinning”, plus an understanding of how Foucault’s Pendulum works.
That ain’t going to happen….
Questions for the Clint R troll:
(1) When will you give us a proof that YOU know how Foucault’s pendulum works? Until now you were only able to babble we wouldn’t know.
(2) When will you give us a proof that Foucault’s pendulum can’t show a celestial body’s spin, when positioned on the body at a meaningful latitude (i.e., not at or near to the body’s equator)?
Don’t try to fool people again with your brazen claim that a pendulum can’t tell the difference between orbit and spin, once is enough!
Sorry Bin, your troll tactics no longer work with me. You’re a proven phony.
You can’t even answer the simplest questions. You know NOTHING about the science. You know how to keyboard, and you know how to find links you can’t understand, but that ain’t science.
You couldn’t even answer the simple question that even barry was able to answer. You’re even more braindead than barry!
The Poll Dance experiment, Pup.
You cannot do the simplest experiment.
No wonder you kept changing sock puppets over all these years here.
So far, no takers. As expected.
Ken made a futile attempt, but is still confused about “orbit” vs. “spin”. Like the rest of the cult, he can’t learn.
That’s why this is so much fun.
You can’t prove the Moon is not spinning with a Foucault pendulum. Except for at the equator (derived from location of polar axis), the bob will move off the line regardless which view is correct.
Trying to guess your view – you would place the pendulum on the inside face of the Moon directly in line with the CoM, and swing the pendulum from pole to pole. Because the Moon is *not spinning*, the bob won’t move off the line. If this is your thesis, it should also work on the far side in line with the CoM.
That’s it for me on the Moon in this thread. Happy to answer your question, Clint, but the discussion has been done to death.
That would work barry, but I’m not sure the Spinners would accept it is proof.
My proof is more substantial, and involves comparing the MOTL and MOTR, using the pendulum.
That’s a hint. See if you can figure it out now.
Thanks for answering. And, it’s not a bad answer. That puts you far above the rest of your cult. Who knows, maybe you can inspire the others to start using their brains….
Hockey Stick Proxy Pine Con Job revisited
https://youtu.be/1-mFnG-i7Fg
Thanks, Eben, should be compulsory viewing for climate alarmists.
Snowfall in Ireland and England on a cold front from the north.
https://i.ibb.co/0cYy5PN/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-07-071945.png
So much for wee willy’s propaganda about heat waves in Europe.
For those who believe the meme that models don’t project temperature rise.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/02/2022-updates-to-model-observation-comparisons/
Sorry…I have a realclimate filter active, won’t allow me to read trash. It’s a simple AI filter that checks for brain-deadness at a site.
Heavy frost and snowfall in the Midwest.
Snowfall in the mountains of California.
https://i.ibb.co/hFmQt9r/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-07-073207.png
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A week which will rewrite climatic history is kicking off in Asia. We will see unbelievable loads of unprecedented heat from Middle East to Japan.
Extremely rarely if hardly ever we can see this kind of anomalies in such a huge area for 10/15 days.
https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1632735283648122884
Derp
Do you know how far back records go in Middle East and Japan?
Your post amounts to tripe.
In GHCN daily, for example:
– Japan: 1931
– Saudi Arabia: 1946
And in China, 18th to 12th centaury BC.
You are not even trying, Richard:
https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/japan/climate-data-historical
“This page presents Japan’s climate context for the current climatology, 1991-2020”
18th to 12th centaury BC</strong predates that by just a little.
I thought you knew that China was not Japan, Richard. Note that it is not for a lack of trying from both side. Interestingly, two of these tries (by China) were halted by very violent storms.
Ignoramus who appeals to ignorance.
wee willy…you are becoming increasingly desperate. Is this desperation related to the losing battle you alarmists and spinners are experiencing or is it a simple plea for attention?
When you first got here, I imagine you thought it would be easy pickings to create disarray among the skeptics. After having your butt kicked so many times, however, you have become a masochist.
I remember very well that in their original critique of MBH98, McKitrick and McIntyre were brazen enough to state that the use of PCA (Primary Component Analysis) in statistical evaluations of the data was not permissible!
But they quickly dropped that after half the world considered their criticism as nonsense (today McKitrick would NEVER claim that PCA is not permissible, since Zharkova herself uses this method for her double sun dynamo analyses, he he).
The very last remaining criticism of MBH98 and its subsequent revisions since then were… the pines, OMG :–)
“The ‘hockey stick’ shaped temperature reconstruction of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) has been widely applied. However it has not been previously noted in print that, prior to their principal components (PCs) analysis on tree ring networks, they carried out an unusual data transformation which strongly affects the resulting PCs. Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1) and overstates the first eigenvalue. In the controversial 15th century period, the MBH98 method effectively selects only one species (bristlecone pine) into the critical North American PC1, making it implausible to describe it as the ‘dominant pattern of variance’. Through Monte Carlo analysis, we show that MBH98 benchmarks for significance of the Reduction of Error (RE) statistic are substantially under-stated and, using a range of cross-validation statistics, we show that the MBH98 15th century reconstruction lacks statistical significance”
Sixteen years later, people are still arguing about Mann’s 1998 Nature paper (MBH98) on multiproxy (112) reconstructions. McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M) wrote a paper in Energy and Environment in 2005, and I find myself still arguing about that.
The 2005 paper was a major resource for Congressman Barton’s 2006 inquisition of Mann. One of its featured criticisms was the Gaspe dataset, number 53, and in particular the fact that Mann had padded some missing data from 1400 to 1403 with the 1404 value. And Barton directed Mann et al to explain.
One thing not often now mentioned is that in that paper, M&M actually did what many other critics should have done. They repeated the calculation with their criticism made good, to see what effect it had. This was in their Figure 1. They showed the effect of marking those four Gaspe years as missing, and then the effect of using a centered mean rather than Mann’s famous calibration mean. They got a surprisingly large difference, which has been much cited in recent days. This post reports on my investigation of that surprise
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/03/mcintyre-mann-and-gaspe-cedars.html
Thanks Willard for digging up this head post from Nick. moyhu is always a good resource for such things.
I wonder if ever a post by Nick on his blog got so many responses.
*
Robh’s comments
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/03/mcintyre-mann-and-gaspe-cedars.html?showComment=1393952001984#c2856780310908010144
and, immediately following,
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/03/mcintyre-mann-and-gaspe-cedars.html?showComment=1393952394235#c1397851122368628581
were imho the most interesting because they hit the nail on the head.
Blindsley Hood, I welcome you to the Robertsonian Contrarian Information Distortion Club.
Like him, if you see within 100 positive opinions a negative one, you will post that one and silently dissimulate the remaining 99.
By the way, you once more didn’t even feel the need to publish the source of your negative information.
It is MM2005b, so basically check kiting.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004GL021750 as a moment with Google would provide.
So the same M.
Bristlecone pine still your favorite series?
It’s completely irrelevant. There have been dozens of papers since broadly confirming the results, including by ‘skeptics.’ Pointing out any individual series is like ignoring a flood and pointing at a faulty faucet.
“Bristlecone pine still your favorite series?”
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Come on, man. This sort of rhetoric is childish.
barry…”Its completely irrelevant [pine-bristlecone].
***
Irrelevant??? The National Academy of Science faction who referenced pine bristlecone dismissed it because it was the only proxy MBH used to cover the entire 20th century. The dismissal of NAS literally wiped out the entire 20th century for the hockey stick.
It did not wipe out the blade portion because Mann et al had abandoned the proxy data for real data at that stage, based on Mann’s ‘trick’ for hiding the decline. The proxy data was showing cooling while the real data was increasing. A quick snip and Mann fixed that. When queried later, he saw nothing wrong with that.
NAS also noted that the only proxy used by MBH for the 13th or 14th century was from one tree.
Come on, Barry, you are beating a dead horse, never mind your wife.
No, Gordon, YOU are beating a dead horse.
You can eject both MBH papers into space to be consumed by the Sun.
You can get the entire research world to reject the papers as flawed.
There are still several dozen millennial reconstructions that came after MBH broadly confirming the same result – that the last 2 decades of the 20trh century were likely warmer than any similar period over the last 2000 years.
In light of this MBH doesn’t matter any more. You are dredging up an old argument that doesn’t matter squat to current understanding of global temps of the last 2000 years. Plenty of research that doesn’t use the bristlecone pine, or Yamal series to reach the same conclusion. Papers using borehole data, or leaf stomate, or sediment, or dendrochronology that doesn’t use PC analysis or the series that have been criticised.
You seem to be completely unaware of all this.
Here is a list of papers on millennial reconstructions.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/papers-on-reconstructions-of-modern-temperatures/
I count 32 after MBH99.
here are papers on borehole measurements – no dendrochronology:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/papers-on-temperature-reconstructions-from-boreholes/
I count 8 after 1999.
Neither list is exhaustive. There are yet more papers on millennial temperature reconstructions. The vast majority produce a hockey-stick shape like MBH, some with more or less variation through the handle, and most with higher temps in the blade than anywhere else on the timeline.
Why does MBH even matter in light of more modern research?
Answer: it doesn’t.
Except if you are trying to generate a narrative of corrupt climate scientists to tarnish every other research on CC.
While we’re flogging a dead horse….
“The dismissal of NAS literally wiped out the entire 20th century for the hockey stick.”
This was the peer-reviewed North Report commissioned by the NAS.
Here’s the wiki page on it:
“In its summary, the NRC committee noted the development of large-scale surface temperature reconstructions, especially MBH98 and MBH99, and highlighted six recent reconstructions: Huang, Pollack & Shen 2000, Mann & Jones 2003, Hegerl et al. 2006, Oerlemans 2005, Moberg et al. 2005 and Esper, Cook & Schweingruber 2002. Its main findings were; 20th century instrumentally measured warming showed in observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models, large-scale surface temperature reconstructions “yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium”, including the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, “but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.” It concluded “with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries”, justified by consistent evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies, but “Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600”, and very little confidence could be assigned to hemispheric or global mean surface temperature estimates before about 900.[6]
The NRC committee stated that “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators”. It said “Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium”, though there were substantial uncertainties before about 1600. It added that “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium’ because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.” It noted that “Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.”[7]
At the press conference, North said of the MBH papers that “we do roughly agree with the substance of their findings. There is a small disagreement over exactly how sure we are.”[9] All three from the NRC committee panel said it was probable, though not certain, that current warming exceeded any previous peak in the last thousand years.[3] When asked if they could quantify “less confidence” and “plausible”, Bloomfield explained that their wording reflected the panel’s scientific judgements rather than well defined statistical procedures, and “When we speak of ‘less confidence’ we’re more into a level of sort of 2 to 1 odds, which IPCC, they interpreted ‘likely’ as that level, roughly 2 to 1 odds or better.”[9][12]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Report
The NAS-commissioned report was critical of some aspects of the MBH reconstructions, but found no evidence of malfeasance, and supported the general conclusions of the study on its own merits, as well as in light of subsequent millennial reconstructions.
I think it is at this point. Gordon, that you now trash the NAS report, which you just now held up as a valid document to criticise MBH.
We are reminded that Gerald North was the source for the graphic of the Medieval Warm Period graph favored by the climate denialist after it appeared in the first IPCC Report. North testified before Congress that the graphic was a cartoon, not an accurate depiction of the data.
North was? The old sketch in the IPCC 1990 is derived from Lamb (1965).
http://tiny.cc/Lamb65MWP
The H.H. Lamb Figure 3 is for the Central England data.
I did happen to watch the Congressional hearing back when and was struck by North’s statement about the “sketch”, which is similar to that of Lamb, but smoothed. Perhaps North was one of the authors for that section of the IPCC report.
North was chair of the Research Council that reviewed MBH and other work on millennial reconstructions for congress at the time, and one of the scientists on the case that spoke. He isn’t a listed author for Ch 7 of the 1990 IPCC report, where the schematic appears.
Lamb 1965 isn’t referenced in FAR 1990, its just that there is no other analogue for the schematic in the literature of the time. Lamb 1977 and 1988 are referenced, but they are scholastic works ands I can’t find them openly available online.
Barry, Finding copies of older versions of Lamb’s text books would be difficult. The text in the 1st AR suggests the “sketch” refers to Greenland, Iceland and Western Europe, not global, climate. From North’s vitae, he coauthored a book with Tom Crowley, Crowley, T. C. and G. R. North, 1991: Paleoclimatology. Oxford Univ. Press. 340 pages. (1996: First Paperback Printing).
The fact remains that the “sketch” (and variations) has been kicked around the denialist sphere for decades, usually without proper attribution.
Looking back thru my files, I noticed that Tom Crowley was a witness at a hearing before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Hockey Stick Temperature Studies (July 19, 2006). Maybe it was he who claimed to be the source of the “sketch”, replying to a question.
The best resource I have found on the subject of MBH98/99 and the controversy in general is John Mashey’s 250 page report titled “Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report”.
This is the link for v1.0. Apparently it is up to 1.11, but I cannot find the complete manuscript for it.
https://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/strange-scholarship-v1-02.pdf
The Committee’s Hearings are available for anyone who might still be interested. Here’s a link to the Library of Congress where one may download a large PDF file with much of the presentations and the Q and A’s for the witnesses.
Tom Crowley discusses the “sketch” from the First AR on PDF page 592, stating:
He also presented other comments in follow up replies to questions after the hearing, with further discussion about the “sketch” on PDF page 601.
In the North Report, the schematic is attributed only to ‘IPCC (1990). A description of the schematic which is somewhat consistent with (Lamp 1965):
“Historical observations, preserved mainly in documentary form, can provide valuable records about past climate states (Lamb 1982). For example, the schematic temperature curve for the last millennium included in the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (IPCC 1990; see also Figure O-3) drew heavily on documentary evidence.”
https://climatechangelive.org/img/fck/file/surftemps2000yrs.pdf – p. 38
The reference is given on p. 14, above a reproduction of the schematic.
Barry, thanks for the reference. I noticed that Tom Crowley was a reviewer.
I should have posted Crowley’s post hearing comment:
Also, I hadn’t noticed that Gerald North was on the panel and there was a back-and-forth with Chairman Barton starting around PDF page 76.
binny van der klown…”I remember very well that in their original critique of MBH98, McKitrick and McIntyre were brazen enough to state that the use of PCA (Primary Component Analysis) in statistical evaluations of the data was not permissible!”
***
I don’t recall M&M making such a statement, do you have a link? The statistician, Wegmann, appointed by the US government to investigate MBH98, verified the claims of M&M. He went further, he claimed the entire IPCC section 9, friend of Mann, were nepotic, only citing the works of each other in their papers.
Of course, Wegmann was knocked by Bradley of MBH as having plagiarized him. Not a word about Wegmann’s scathing indictment of their work, just a claim of plagiarism.
Duh!!! Since when is it plagiarism when an investigators quotes from you work as evidence of incompetence?
The plagiarism claim came about when Wegmann did cite Bradley and thought it enough to cite him once. Apparently not, the egomaniac, Bradley, wanted cite references everywhere his work was mentioned. Apparently, Bradley did not understand the meaning of plagiarism as applied to an investigation.
Anyone defending these clowns has it bad as far as alarmist views are concerned.
Wegman misunderstood the field, and subsequently the report was heavily plagiarised from a variety of sources, including Wikipedia, without attribution.
The plagiarism was at some point blamed on his juniors in authorship – students – but the corollary is still that as lead author he either gave little attention to the report or was unable to formulate his own analysis.
barry…all you are doing here is perpetuating the red-herring argument of plagiarism. It’s not the story, the story is the incompetent statistical analysis and the subsequent hiding of declining proxy temperatures which the IPCC knew about and condoned.
MBH and the IPCC are the slimeballs here, not M&M.
It’s all explained with great clarity in this video posted by Eben.
…from Eben…
https://youtu.be/1-mFnG-i7Fg
“MBH and the IPCC are the slimeballs here, not M&M.”
This sentence exactly captures the intellectual level you bring to the discussion.
Goodies and baddies, black and white, good and evil.
Being limited to binaries like this means you can never properly understand complex issues.
It doesn’t matter that a larger, peer-reviewed report on MBH98/99 generally found the conclusions valid. It doesn’t matter that Wegman was less persuaded of MBH’s work, nor that he and his time were completely unfamiliar with the research they were auditing.
What matters is that there have been dozens of millennial reconstructions since then that broadly support the conclusions that the late two decades of the 20th Century were likely the warmest of any similar period in the last 2000 years.
You are litigating a case that doesn’t have any bearing on the current state of knowledge.
And you are doing it in the vain hope that if MBH was accepted as terrible, fraudulent science, this would make some sort of meaningful dent in the science behind AGW.
But it doesn’t. Throw MBH out the window. Crush it under your foot. Set fire to the 2 papers.
The understanding of NH and global temps over the last 2 centuries won’t change a tiny bit.
Why haven’t YOU accepted that?
Plenty of information to get context and various opinion at the wiki page of the report.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegman_Report
binny…even better, here is an explanation, thanks to a post by Eben, in McKitrick’s own words. You do realize he is an expert in statistics, don’t you, he has taken more than 4 times the courses in statistics as an climate science student?
He asks the simple question of why everyone in the climate field missed Mann’s fraud and incompetence.
from Eben…
https://youtu.be/1-mFnG-i7Fg
The entire MBH thing is discussed here in detail and also how the IPCC cheats.
McKitrick did not make any such claim, that PCA usage in statistics is not permissable, He stated only that the analysis by M&M of the PCAs uses by Mann did not achieve the results claimed by Mann.
What did McKitrick say about the 30 subsequent millennial reconstructions that broadly supported MBH?
Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t act as a blanket which rises the average surface temperature +33 oC.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Alarmists present the temperature difference associated with greenhouse gases to be as big as possible, because to do so increases the importance of greenhouse gases.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No.
Alarmists see the 33 Kelvin GHE as 99% due to CO2.
99% of the 33 Kelvin GHE can be traced back to H2O.
Bin, there is no “33K GHE increase”. That’s cult nonsense. That figure comes from comparing Earth’s actual average surface temperature to an imaginary sphere.
That ain’t science.
This has been explained to you numerous times, but you can’t learn.
This opinionated, religious cult blah blah is exactly of the same vein as your opinionated, religious cult ball-on-a-string blah blah.
Ignored.
And the more you repeat this blah blah, the more it will be ignored… not only by myself but also by all people having a working brain.
Bin, when do you expect this “ignoring” to start?
So far, it ain’t happening.
“99% of the 33 Kelvin GHE can be traced back to H2O.”
–
Please, Bindidon, prove it scientifically, that alarmists do not attribute the +33 oC to the atmospheric greenhouse effect!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It seems that you did not understand what I wrote:
” Alarmists see the 33 Kelvin GHE as 99% due to CO2. ”
Those who are no alarmists say:
” 99% of the 33 Kelvin GHE can be traced back to H2O. ”
Or do you think that H2O suddenly has stopped being a greenhouse gas?
33 Kelvin GHE comes neither from H2O or CO2, it comes from false flat earth energy budget model where the sun shines evenly 24 hours a day evenly over the whole planet.
People like Didlydon eat up this nonsense fizzix hook line and sinker
https://i.postimg.cc/VNX19KDs/energy-budget.png
And for the real slow people
https://i.postimg.cc/Pqnnqmhg/4316.jpg
We read all over the internet that the Earth’s blackbody temperature would have been -18C, but the actual average surface temperature is +15C; consequently this 33C difference is supposed to be the greenhouse effect. But is this true?
–
Eben:
“33 Kelvin GHE comes neither from H2O or CO2, it comes from false flat earth energy budget model where the sun shines evenly 24 hours a day evenly over the whole planet.”
–
Very much agreed.
Thank you Eben!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
The flat Earth meme must be the stupidest idea Sky Dragon cranks ever produced.
The disk is simply the area of the light that falls on a *sphere*.
A sphere is 3D.
Even you should realize that Eboy is shitposting again.
The angry, ankle biting dachshund is quite arrogant these days.
He seems to really know everything [ what he gullibly sucks out of youtubes ].
This energy budget picture is of zero interest here.
Bin says: “This energy budget picture is of zero interest here.”
Bin, that “picture” that Eben provided is from your own cult’s nonsense.
https://i.postimg.cc/VNX19KDs/energy-budget.png
This is so typical of you cult idiots. You don’t even understand your cult’s nonsense. You just BELIEVE, without understanding or questioning. Typical cultists.
Eben, we have gone over this ad-nauseum. We know those energy budget models are for a spherical Earth because they divide the TSI by 4 for the incoming solar component. The divide by 4 comes from the relationship between the cross-sectional area of a sphere and its surface area. Just because Joe Postma doesn’t understand that simple geometric relationship does not mean that the rest of us (which should include you) are equally stumped by it.
” … where the sun shines evenly 24 hours a day evenly over the whole planet. ”
What a dumb stuff.
1. The Sun lits only one hemisphere at a time: half of 4*pi*r^2 is 2*pi*r^2.
Integrating over a hemisphere means to integrate the square of the cosine of the incidence angle: integ(a=[0:pi/2], cos^2(a)) is 0.5.
End result is pi*r^2.
2. While the Sun lits only one hemisphere at a time, the IR response at Earth’s surface doesn’t stop at night as thinks genius Flynnson.
It is everywhere present, and decreases on increasing latitude exactly as incoming solar radiation: more IR is produced per grid cell at the surface in the Tropics than in the Arctic, due to both less radiation and less surface.
Upwelling IR in Fort Peck, Montana (~ 48 N):
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=fpk&date=2023-02-28&p6=upir
is between ~240 and ~300 W/m^2.
Upwelling IR in Desert Rock, Nevada (~ 37 N):
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/surf_check.php?site=dra&date=2023-02-28&p6=upir
is between ~320 and ~440 W/m^2.
The average over the whole sphere, weighted by latitude, gives the IR energy produced according to the solar irradiance on the same day of the year – without accounting for any atmospheric effect, i.e. as if we were on the Moon.
Willard:
“The disk is simply the area of the light that falls on a *sphere*.”
–
A flat disk when seen from an angle appears as ellipse.
Light on a sphere never appears as ellipse!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Clint R
I repeat:
This energy budget picture is of zero interest here.
That it matters in other discussions is not as unknown to me as you guess.
Try to understand
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1456099
before you boast.
” A flat disk when seen from an angle appears as ellipse.
Light on a sphere never appears as ellipse! ”
Maybe Christos Vournas misunderstood what Willard wrote.
In the E-in versus E-out radiation balance, you always see on the left side of the equation ‘pi * r^2’.
The total solar irradiance hitting an hemisphere of 2*pi*r^2 is obtained by weighting the 1,370 W/m^2 by the square of the cosine of the incidence angle; that gives pi*r^2.
The angle you mean does not play any role here.
Why the weighting factor is computed using the cosine square I have been explained years ago; I have forgotten the explanation.
All wrong Bin, as usual.
(Plus, you’re doing a terrible job of ignoring me.)
An imaginary sphere with Earth’s surface temperature would be emitting about 390 W/m^2 to space, NOT 240 W/m^2. Your cult is trying to use the bogus 240 W/m^2, as indicated in the bogus “energy budget”. None of it makes any sense. That’s why some of you are so confused about a “real 255K surface”. You want there to be such a thing, but there isn’t. It’s part of the hoax.
This is all over your head, but that’s not my fault.
Bindidon:
“The average over the whole sphere, weighted by latitude, gives the IR energy produced according to the solar irradiance on the same day of the year without accounting for any atmospheric effect, i.e. as if we were on the Moon.”
–
Thank you Bindidon. Please provide that “average over the whole sphere…” IR, it is very interesting, and it is very important information!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
” The average over the whole sphere, weighted by latitude… ” is something one has to calculate. It is not my job.
Please search in papers and textbooks how this is done.
Arrogant ignoramuses like Clint R very certainly won’t be able to help you because all what they are able to do is to discredit and denigrate what others do.
— Eben says:
March 7, 2023 at 3:10 PM
33 Kelvin GHE comes neither from H2O or CO2, it comes from false flat earth energy budget model where the sun shines evenly 24 hours a day evenly over the whole planet.–
It “comes” from cargo cult religion, not understanding their religion. Or they aren’t very religious.
It “comes” from a ideal thermal conductive blackbody.
This model indicate an uniform temperature of a sphere at 1 AU
distance from the Sun being about 5 C.
So, what that model indicates is something at 1 AU distance should be
around 5 C.
And that model is shown to be mostly correct because Earth’s average temperature is the ocean’s average temperature which is about 3.5 C.
One might ask, why is Earth colder than 5 C
One might also ask why is average ocean surface temperature warmer
than average land surface temperature.
You also ask, why is Europe average land temperature about 9 C and Canada’s average land temperature about -3 C.
One might be interested in Canada, because we are living in an Ice Age.
Anyhow the reason for Europe’s average temperature is known by everyone- the warmed tropical water are transported via the Gulf Stream which causes Europe’s average land temperature to be a lot warmer.
> as an ellipse
There is something very simple that escapes you, Christos.
The Sun is very far away.
Oh, and you also miss that the surface would be the same.
So make that two simple things you miss.
“Just because Joe Postma doesn’t understand that simple geometric relationship…”
…he understands it perfectly. What a ridiculous false accusation.
The greenhouse cargo cult is focused a lot in Earth’s past climate’s- all religions are focused a lot on the past.
And we don’t know much about the past- largely because we aren’t very
religious. We do make a large amount effort saying we are religious, but being religious requires a lot work.
A large part of our past, was warmer than we are now.
We presently are in icehouse global climate, and in the coldest
time of this icehouse climates.
But if look at recent past, within last million years, we have had many short periods which were a lot warmer than we are now.
When Earth is warmer, it is wetter. Or it has less desert areas- we
have about 1/3 of land areas which are deserts. And whenever Earth gets colder than we are right now, we get even more deserts.
We tend to not call a continental ice sheet a desert, but they land areas which are quite dry and land area not covered in ice which near
ice sheets, are also dry- or people will call them deserts.
Or if earth is drier, it’s colder. though a sandy dry desert has large temperature extreme- they can be hot and cold.
So cult interested are focused on tens of millions of years we were warmer, and these are called a greenhouse global climate, and the shorter times of thousands of years during interglacial periods.
With shorter times, Earth rapidly warms and gets a lot more wetter- the Sahara desert becomes largely grasslands [which seasonally become dry, but get enough rain to have grasslands] and also large forests, and lakes and rivers, which we don’t have due to lack of rain in our present period of time.
A modestly informed cargo cult member know that this rapid warming is related to earth’s changes in it’s orbital motions- generally known as the Milankovitch cycles.
But it seems they tend not to be religious, enough, to really get how small changes in Earth orbital motions can have such a dramatic effect.
One could say it’s not their fault, but if they regard topic of global warming is actually important- it is their fault.
But very common for people not to take their religion seriously- particularly when it’s a dominate or state religion, in which, social standing in the church is the most important aspect.
But skeptics aren’t helping much, either.
I will concede that the priests do mention than snowing is not cooling effect.
Or having snow on the ground is not a cooling effect.
Or I say, if Mars was covered in snow, Mars would be warmer.
But maybe I should say, if Mars was wetter, it would be warmer, and more people would agree. But just being agreeable, doesn’t seem very useful.
Sadly Joe Postma thinks S/4 is flat geometry. It may be ridiculous, but it isn’t false.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/
He understands perfectly well the relationship between the cross-sectional area of a sphere and its surface area.
Perhaps Joe does not get that a sphere is not flat, or that the light falling on a hemisphere is equivalent to what falls on a disk when we correct for angles.
That would explain why he succeeds to double the power of the Sun while doubling the surface on which the light arrives on Earth, a point Graham still fails to appreciate.
Little Willy’s misrepresentation can only be deliberate. It’s not possible that he’s still confused. Either way, I’m not getting drawn into another long, pointless back and forth on this subject. bdgwx misrepresented Postma, and that’s just a fact. That’s the end of it.
Joe confuses the area that receives the light with the area that emits the light. In doing so he doubles the power the Earth receives by doubling the area that receives it.
If Graham cannot understand, that is fine.
"Joe confuses the area that receives the light with the area that emits the light."
False. The area that receives the light is half that of the area which emits it.
"In doing so he doubles the power the Earth receives by doubling the area that receives it."
False. The power (in Watts, W) that the Earth receives and emits is a constant throughout. He divides that power by half of the surface area for the irradiance (W/m^2), compared to the surface area over which the radiant exitance (also W/m^2) leaves. Divide the same number (power) by a larger surface area, and you get a smaller flux. Divide the same number (power) by a smaller surface area, and you get a larger flux.
480 W/m^2 received over half the Earth’s surface area, whilst 240 W/m^2 is emitted from the entire Earth’s surface area at the same time.
Nothing complicated, or untoward, about it.
So Graham still does not understand.
The area that receives the light, when corrected for angles, is a disk.
A hemisphere is twice a disk.
So in effect Joe *doubles* the surface area that receives light.
Graham does not understand, and it is fine.
JP even posted a video in response to Dr. Spencer in which he reiterated his belief that S/4 is a flat Earth model.
"JP even posted a video in response to Dr. Spencer in which he reiterated his belief that S/4 is a flat Earth model…"
…he means that locations on Earth experience day and night, rather than being arranged on a flat plane permanently facing the Sun. See Eben’s diagram. He’s simply noting that averaging over time, by dividing by four for the input, is not physically as accurate a description of the situation as 480 W/m^2 input over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output over the entire sphere, moment by moment.
He is not confused by the relationship between the cross-sectional area of a sphere and its surface area. Your accusation is false…but funny.
"The area that receives the light, when corrected for angles, is a disk.
A hemisphere is twice a disk.
So in effect Joe *doubles* the surface area that receives light."
The disk comes into it when calculating the total power received (and thus emitted), in Watts (W). Solar constant (W/m^2) multiplied by the disk surface area (m^2), and corrected for albedo = total power received (W). Then refer back to my previous comment. You’ll get there, if only you mind your units.
Joe Postma says in regards to the S/4 model, “The connection to Flat Earth theory is that what this does is to create a uniform input of 342 W/m2 onto a surface.” Notice that he is unequivocally reiterating his belief that S/4 is a Flat Earth model. He defends his belief by erroneously stating that the 342 W/m2 figure is a uniform distribution. Of course anybody who actually studies 3 layer box energy budget models knows that none of the fluxes including the 342 W/m2 are uniform. In fact, great care is taken in these models not to assume uniformity. Some authors refer to the non-uniformity of fluxes as a “rectification effect”. JP does not demonstrate an understanding of any of this. This is evidenced by the fact that he calculates the Earth-Sun distance as being 2x as far as it really is because HE and HE alone assumed the Earth was flat. The irony here is palpable.
It’s amazing how you people are prone to simply repeating yourselves, without paying any attention whatsoever to what the person you’re talking to is trying to explain.
Here is your original statement:
"The divide by 4 comes from the relationship between the cross-sectional area of a sphere and its surface area. Just because Joe Postma doesn’t understand that simple geometric relationship does not mean that the rest of us (which should include you) are equally stumped by it."
This was a completely false accusation. Correct yourself, or stop responding to me. Actually, do both.
Since Graham does not understand any of this, he will not get that irony.
It is all fine.
The irony is, of course, that it’s actually Little Willy that doesn’t understand any of this.
Gaslighting Graham *still* does not understand my position:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
He might never will.
Just as Gaslighting Graham might never get what Joe says.
It is all fine.
He still links to that embarrassment of an article!
Even Entropic Man eventually came to understand the point being discussed.
Oh well, I’m fine with Little Willy’s failure.
“is not physically as accurate a description of the situation as 480 W/m^2 input over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output over the entire sphere, moment by moment.”
There is never 480 over the whole lit hemisphere. The lit hemisphere gets a varying flux throughout the day as the sun rises, reaches local noon then sets.
In any case this is a red herring when long term climate change is of interest.
Worse than that, Nate – the whole idea of using a hemisphere confuses the input and the output, as the input should be calculated in term of a disk, otherwise Sky Dragon cranks would forget that the angle of incidence of the rays change things. So not only Gaslighting Graham does not get Joes model and flat Earth meme, but he fails to get EMs point.
This is all fine with me.
“the whole idea of using a hemisphere confuses the input and the output, as the input should be calculated in term of a disk”
The input power (in Watts, W) is calculated in terms of the disk, as I already explained.
“otherwise Sky Dragon cranks would forget that the angle of incidence of the rays change things.”
The angle of incidence of the rays does change things, but the 480 W/m^2 input and 240 W/m^2 output are both spatial averages. The area perpendicular to the Sun’s rays receives more than the average, like 960 W/m^2, and areas where the rays are coming in at an angle might receive less than the average, but for the entire hemisphere it averages to 480 W/m^2 as the input which is falling across it at any one moment.
“not only Gaslighting Graham does not get Joes model and flat Earth meme, but he fails to get EMs point”
No, there’s nothing I don’t get. It’s you lot that (perhaps purposely) misinterpret the flat Earth meme. The flat Earth meme has nothing to do with the disk used in the calculations. It has absolutely no connection to that, whatsoever. So stop trying to tie it to that.
It’s simply that in using 240 W/m^2 as the input average, you are averaging out day and night…you are now making a temporal average, not just a spatial average. A location on a sphere, however, experiences day and night, because half of the sphere is always lit, whilst the other half is always in shadow, and the Earth rotates. So a location on a sphere cannot continuously receive 240 W/m^2. It will be less than that at some times, and much more than that at other times. A location on a flat Earth where the locations are all laid out constantly facing the Sun would be able to receive 240 W/m^2 continuously, if it was further from the Sun than our real Earth. So, that’s where it comes from. That is why he is comparing the 240 W/m^2 input to a flat Earth.
“Its simply that in using 240 W/m^2 as the input average, you are averaging out day and nightyou are now making a temporal average, not just a spatial average.”
This is true. As it is for a rotisserie cooking meat. Both still achieve an average heating rate, and both have a long term T rise, which is of interest.
The simplest models still consider the laditudinal variation. The more complex GCMs capture the day-night cycle.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018JD029474
So in the end, as a complaint that climate science is getting it all wrong, this is just a red herring.
And so not only misunderstands my position, EMs, Roys, Nates, and most of the commenters here, but Gaslighting Graham still does not get what an energy balance model is meant to do. Which is to equate an input with an output.
Can the Earth receive more that it emits and still be at equilibrium?
No, it cannot.
So no amount of but days and nights or but second by second will change that fact.
"Can the Earth receive more that it emits and still be at equilibrium?
No, it cannot.
So no amount of but days and nights or but second by second will change that fact."
480 W/m^2 input over the hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output over the entire sphere does balance energy. The Earth is not receiving more than it emits with those figures. Poor Little Willy. Still confused by the simplest things.
So Gaslighting Graham still misunderstands the issue.
If the Earth cannot receive more than some quantity Q on average, Joe will NOT succeed in getting more than Q on average however he slices or dices it.
So his intimation (and Grahams) that by a new savant accounting of days and nights second by second over one hemisphere he might get more than Q (and therefore AGW etc) is beyond ridiculous.
Gaslighting Graham still cannot fathom that there is nothing else behind his con.
And it is fine with me.
"If the Earth cannot receive more than some quantity Q on average, Joe will NOT succeed in getting more than Q on average however he slices or dices it."
Spatial or temporal average? Or both? What are the units of Q?
Little Willy always keeps things as vague as possible, so he can continue his con.
After having displayed once again his misunderstanding of the whole issue, Gaslighting Graham Just Ask Questions he would not ask if he minded his units properly.
Fine with me.
Perhaps he should disclose the temperature on the night side of the Earth in Joes *hemispherical* model, purported more realistic by Sky Dragon cranks?
The reasons why I asked will be obvious to anyone intelligent who has followed the discussion. That Little Willy failed to answer, and responded in the way he did, just shows his intellectual dishonesty.
"Perhaps he should disclose the temperature on the night side of the Earth in Joes *hemispherical* model, purported more realistic by Sky Dragon cranks?"
I have no idea what the temperature on the night side of the Earth would be. It depends on so many factors, like the heat capacity of all the materials making up the Earth system, and how fast they can cool without a heat input, and by what mechanisms, etc. Then, how would you average this?
Oh well, not my problem. All I needed to do was point out that both bdgwx and Little Willy were misrepresenting and falsely accusing Postma. With that achieved, all I can really do is levitate with self-satisfaction into another absolute, glorious victory.
And so Gaslighting Graham *still* misunderstand the issue.
In Joes half-baked model, the other side of the Earth is not far from 0K.
That is meant to me a more plausible model.
Gaslighting Graham fell for another con, and I am fine with that.
"…the other side of the Earth is not far from 0K."
That’s just not possible, Little Willy. Even if the Earth was not rotating on its own axis, and instead always presented the same face towards the Sun…it has oceans, and an atmosphere. So heat would always be transported from the lit side to the dark side. You need to think a bit more deeply about these things…
…and, once again, all I needed to do was point out that both bdgwx and Little Willy were misrepresenting and falsely accusing Postma. With that achieved, all I can really do is levitate with self-satisfaction into another absolute, glorious victory.
Its pretty obvious from Eben’s comment here that Joe Postma misled ignorant people to think there was a major problem with the simple energy budget models.
“33 Kelvin GHE comes neither from H2O or CO2, it comes from false flat earth energy budget model where the sun shines evenly 24 hours a day evenly over the whole planet.”
And Roy said:
” Joe Postma has posted a YouTube video rebutting my article. If you listen to him from 2:30 to 2:45, Joe refuses to accept that the S=1,370 W/m2 solar constant energy that is intercepted by the cross-sectional area of the Earth must then get spread out, over time, over the whole (top-of-atmosphere) surface area of Earth. [This why S gets divided by 4 in global average energy budget diagrams, its the difference between the area of a circle and the area of a sphere with the same radius.] I am at a loss for words how he can refuse to accept something that is so obviously true its simple geometry. I stand by everything I have written here.”
Did Roy make this up?
Joe Postma really does think S/4 is a Flat Earth model.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/01/14/flat-earth-in-modern-physics/
He says and I quote “You will note, with half a brain, that those figures represent the Earth as flat and with 342.5 W/m as the solar input”.
That also happens to be the post where he calculates the Earth-Sun distance incorrectly.
bdgwx:
"It’s you lot that (perhaps purposely) misinterpret the flat Earth meme. The flat Earth meme has nothing to do with the disk used in the calculations. It has absolutely no connection to that, whatsoever. So stop trying to tie it to that.
It’s simply that in using 240 W/m^2 as the input average, you are averaging out day and night…you are now making a temporal average, not just a spatial average. A location on a sphere, however, experiences day and night, because half of the sphere is always lit, whilst the other half is always in shadow, and the Earth rotates. So a location on a sphere cannot continuously receive 240 W/m^2. It will be less than that at some times, and much more than that at other times. A location on a flat Earth where the locations are all laid out constantly facing the Sun would be able to receive 240 W/m^2 continuously, if it was further from the Sun than our real Earth. So, that’s where it comes from. That is why he is comparing the 240 W/m^2 input to a flat Earth."
If you’re just going to keep repeating yourself, so will I.
I don’t think I’m misrepresenting his position. He has said multiple times that the S/4 model is a Flat Earth model. His statements are unequivocal. Now, if you can post evidence showing that he actually thinks the S/4 model is spherical but is only saying it is flat because of an ulterior motive then so be it. But until that time I don’t really have a choice but to accept his statements as-is.
BTW…different topic…the 340 W/m2 and other figures you see in these models is not a statement of uniformity. It is a statement of the average and nothing more. For example, 340 W/m2 is computed from the temporal and spatial integral of the incoming solar input on the Earthly sphere over the analysis domain which is usually 1, 3, 5, 10, etc. orbital cycles. For example, 340 W/m2 * 31556736 s * 511e12 m2 = 5.48e24 j which is the energy delivered by the sun in 1 orbital cycle and is the same result as if you had done the full integration over the orbital path and down the sphere and divided that by time and area. Note that the full integration is given by integral[integral[2r^2 * s(t) * cos^2(l), pi/2, pi/2, dl], 0, 31556736, dt] where s(t) is the solar input at time t, l is the latitude, and r is the radius of Earth at 6378000 m.
"I don’t think I’m misrepresenting his position."
Well, you are…I’ve explained why, and you’ve offered nothing in response except to repeat yourself.
"He has said multiple times that the S/4 model is a Flat Earth model. His statements are unequivocal."
I’ve explained what he means by "Flat Earth". You’ve offered nothing in response except to repeat yourself.
Here’s what you said originally:
"The divide by 4 comes from the relationship between the cross-sectional area of a sphere and its surface area. Just because Joe Postma doesn’t understand that simple geometric relationship does not mean that the rest of us (which should include you) are equally stumped by it."
Postma does understand that simple geometric relationship, and it’s absolutely ridiculous of you to suggest otherwise. You’re wrong, bdgwx.
I stand by what I said. Now if you’re going to make this about semantics and how when he says “Flat Earth” he actually means “Spherical Earth” then we’ll need his yay or nay on that point. But that still doesn’t resolve the issue where he calculated the wrong Earth-Sun distance demonstrating a misunderstanding of the geometry of the S/4 model. So no, I don’t think he has adequately shown that he understands the simple geometry.
OK, once again (try to pay attention this time):
"It’s you lot that (perhaps purposely) misinterpret the flat Earth meme. The flat Earth meme has nothing to do with the disk used in the calculations. It has absolutely no connection to that, whatsoever. So stop trying to tie it to that.
It’s simply that in using 240 W/m^2 as the input average, you are averaging out day and night…you are now making a temporal average, not just a spatial average. A location on a sphere, however, experiences day and night, because half of the sphere is always lit, whilst the other half is always in shadow, and the Earth rotates. So a location on a sphere cannot continuously receive 240 W/m^2. It will be less than that at some times, and much more than that at other times. A location on a flat Earth where the locations are all laid out constantly facing the Sun would be able to receive 240 W/m^2 continuously, if it was further from the Sun than our real Earth. So, that’s where it comes from. That is why he is comparing the 240 W/m^2 input to a flat Earth."
Did you notice I highlighted the sentence which explains why he deliberately "calculated the wrong Earth-Sun distance"? Really pay attention to that. Try to start thinking, for the first time in your life.
And so Gaslighting Graham still misunderstands the issue. Let’s try to joggle his memory:
[GG] Joe is not challenging the Earth’s effective temperature. He agrees that it is 255 K.
[AT] Well, if he’s getting an effective temperature of 255K, then hes doing the same calculation as everyone else and his whole complaint about dividing by 4 doesnt make any sense.
[W] If Joe divides by 4 like everybody else to get his output, does it mean that half of his Earth is flat?
[GATOR] The whole schtick is that Joe and apparently [Gaslighting Graham] are trying a fast one “the flux is higher, therefore ‘hotter’ and climate scientists divide by 2 to make it colder! Thats nonsense. If you want to fight them on that then obviously on the dark side of the earth the temperature should be 3k right since theres no sunlight on that side of the earth. They can have 303K on the sunny side if they accept 3K on the dark side. See how stupid that is?
[GG] you want me to say the “dark side” is 3 K and the “light side” is 303 K. That might make some sense if the Earth were not rotating, but it is rotating. All the while, the lit hemisphere is receiving 480 W/m^2 in real time.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190916
The “rotating” and the “in real time” armwaving is Gaslighting Graham’s way to break the 255K limit. I mean, he does it all the time. He even succeeds in making non-radiative gasses control the Earth’s radiation with it!
There are many places where Joe indeed disputes the 255K limit. Including in his Magnum Opus, which he has yet to read.
And once again, for the most beautiful part, the lit hemisphere of the Earth, once we correct for angles, receives 240 W/m^2. It can’t receive more.
Gaslighting Graham still ignores that geometrical fact.
I’m fine with that.
Just because 240 W/m2 (and other figures) is a temporal (1 orbit) and spatial (global) average does not 1) mean that the 3 layer box energy balance models are Flat Earth or 2) that Joe Postma thinks they are. Now if JP doesn’t actually think they are Flat Earth models then he needs to stop saying they are and he needs to figure out how to compute the Earth-Sun distance correctly.
"And once again, for the most beautiful part, the lit hemisphere of the Earth, once we correct for angles, receives 240 W/m^2. It can’t receive more."
Lol.
"He even succeeds in making non-radiative gasses control the Earth’s radiation with it!"
???
bdgwx, I’ve explained it. That you’re too stupid to understand is your own problem. Stop responding to me, and go and troll somebody else.
And so Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more.
Here is just one instance where Joe suggests that the 240 figure is not a hard limit on what the Earth can emit or receive:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/01/14/flat-earth-in-modern-physics/#comment-40094
Sky Dragon cranks suck at geometry.
Gaslighting Graham might never get any of this.
Fine with me.
…all I needed to do was point out that both bdgwx and Little Willy were misrepresenting and falsely accusing Postma. With that achieved, all I can really do is levitate with self-satisfaction into another absolute, glorious victory.
And so Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more.
Perhaps he will never get that Joe’s main selling point is that his model can bypass the 240 w/m^2 limit:
https://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/foundation-of-climate-science.jpg
He even has a name for it.
If Gaslighting Graham does not get any of this, it’s fine with me.
…I needed to do was point out that both bdgwx and Little Willy were misrepresenting and falsely accusing Postma. With that achieved, all I can really do is levitate with self-satisfaction into another absolute, glorious victory.
And so Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more.
Perhaps he will never get that Joe names his macguffin the Tropospheric Adiabetic Gradient.
If Gaslighting Graham does not get any of this, it’s very fine with me.
…needed to do was point out that both bdgwx and Little Willy were misrepresenting and falsely accusing Postma. With that achieved, all I can really do is levitate with self-satisfaction into another absolute, glorious victory.
And so Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more.
Perhaps he will never get where Joe is going with his “Flat Earth” meme:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/
If Gaslighting Graham does not get any of this, it’s absolutely fine with me.
Obviously I understand Postma correctly. He actually wrote an article basically saying that I did, and that Little Willy didn’t:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/04/27/oid-ownership-inversion-deflection-an-algorithm-to-hijack-and-deflect-factual-statements-made-by-a-debate-opponent/
It highlights the sort of underhand tactics people like Little Willy engage in.
Obviously Gaslighting Graham still misunderstands where Joe goes with his macguffin:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2023/01/20/will-happer-another-zeta-comedian/
Gaslighting Graham might never get any of this.
Fine with me.
As usual, the topic of discussion veers further and further away from what it was originally about. Please do continue to promote more of Postma’s arguments, though.
And so Gaslighting Graham still does not understand.
Joe obviously found a way to replace the greenhouse gases and to bypass the hard limit put by the zero-dimensional energy-balance models.
A silly macguffin.
Just like bd said.
And Joe blames some kind of “Flat Earth” model for that, which makes zero sense for obvious geometric reasons.
Just like bd said.
Gaslighting Graham may never get any of this, and that’s fine.
“Just like bd said”.
This is what bdgwx actually said:
“The divide by 4 comes from the relationship between the cross-sectional area of a sphere and its surface area. Just because Joe Postma doesn’t understand that simple geometric relationship does not mean that the rest of us (which should include you) are equally stumped by it…”
…and it was a false accusation.
It’s not false though. If it isn’t enough that he says S/4 is a Flat Earth model then surely the fact that he uses S/4 to calculate the Earth-Sun distance incorrectly would be enough to prove he doesn’t understand the geometry.
Scroll up. Re-read through my comments until you understand them, then apologize. Until then, stop responding to me.
Gaslighting Graham still does not get Joe’s MacGuffin:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/04/12/how-to-solve-the-dual-pane-parallel-plate-problem/
Gaslighting Graham may never understand any of this.
Fine with me.
Yes, I explained what he means by “Flat Earth”. Several times.
Postma probably did understand the geometry. But anyone reading his articles will come away not understanding, like Eben. And feeling quite satisfied that the scientists must be doing it all wrong, and falsely getting GW. After all they are putting the Earth at double the distance!
He is selling patent medicine to the gullible.
Anyone who has been misled by bdgwx can just read the first two sections of this:
https://principia-scientific.com/publications/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
Namely, “Earth’s Radiative Equilibrium“ and “The Standard Atmospheric Greenhouse Model“, and see for themselves that Postma does understand the geometry and is well aware of the correct Earth to Sun distance.
If he does truly understand the geometry of the 3 layer box energy balance models then why does he call them Flat Earth models and calculate the Earth-Sun distance incorrectly?
bdgwx…only you have been talking about "3 layer box energy balance models".
I have explained to you, thoroughly, several times now, both the reason why he uses the term "Flat Earth" and why he made the point of saying how the Earth-Sun distance would have to be much larger than it really is for a "Flat Earth" plane in space to receive 240 W/m^2 continuously. These explanations I made to you are based on reading and understanding what he has to say. Maybe you should try it.
You are stretching my belief that you are a genuine commenter to breaking point.
Joe is running a con that Gaslighting Graham still does not understand:
[W] Quick question: in Joes diagrams, there is an equation at the top right. Do you know what it means? I only found it at one place in his work.
[GG] No, you will have to ask Joe on that one.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-191002
So bd is right to emphasize multiple box models, for Joe’s con relies on a silly caricature to con Sky Dragon cranks like Gaslighting Graham!
He might never get this. Fine with me.
Don’t actually agree with Postma on quite a lot of things. I won’t tolerate misrepresentation, though, which is why I challenged bdgwx. Little Willy is just a disgrace, everyone here (on both sides) knows that already.
First, I’m not the only one talking about these models. They have been a point of discussion for over a hundred years since Dines first proposed them in 1917.
Second, I have seen both your and JP’s explanations. The explanations do not convince me that JP understands the simple geometry of the models. If he describes the model as Flat Earth and calculates the Earth-Sun distance incorrectly then there is only two options: 1) He really doesn’t understand the simple geometry of the model or 2) he makes statements he doesn’t believe and choses to say them anyway for an ulterior motive. I’m assuming #1, but I’m willing to accept #2 if it can be shown.
Remember, HE and HE alone is the one that calculated the Earth-Sun distance using the S/4 figure from the model. No one who understands the geometry of the model would do that.
What would convince me that he now understands the simple geometry of the model is if he retracts his blog post and says something along the lines of…my bad, I thought S/4 was the zenith flux, but I now understand that it is the average flux after integrating the solar input over the entire area for 1 orbital cycle.
So you either have a learning disability, or you’re dishonest. That’s OK, I don’t judge.
Even my stalker agreed that Postma understands the geometry.
There’s just no talking to some people. Keep responding…I’ll have the last word, no matter what, so waste your breath if you want.
And so Gaslighting Graham still misunderstands the issue.
If the Earth really was a flat, one-sided disk facing the Sun, it would get 1,368 W/m^2.
So either Joe is running a con, or he’s a little confused. That he is confused is not that hard to guess, e.g.:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2023/03/04/phosters-archons/
Joe can confusedly run a con, of course. And Gaslighting Graham, who may never get any of this, is one of his marks.
I’m fine with it.
Exactly. He is either confusing the geometry of the model or he is conning his audience. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the former unless evidence is presented that he is misrepresenting these models intentionally for an ulterior purpose.
” and see for themselves that Postma does understand the geometry and is well aware of the correct Earth to Sun distance.”
Why does he pretend that scientists are getting this horribly wrong, so wrong that the even the Earth sun distance is wrong?
If he understands, then he is being disingenuous and intentionally misleading people, just like Fox News news has been doing, probably just to sell his book.
There is nothing defensible about Postma’s behavior. And clearly Roy Spencer agrees with that assessment.
Postma is all about creating fake controversies and strawmen.
“Now, I used the term ‘day-time and night-time denial’ within this paper, but I can use that term without compromising my conscience because that is what the atmospheric GHE model
actually really does…it really actually does deny that there is such a thing as day and night on this planet Earth”
How moronic is that? Very.
Nobody in climate science is denying the diurnal cycle!
They are simply doing what science does all the time for many problems. They are using a SIMPLIFIED model which averages over the diurnal cycle, in order to make an approximate estimate of the temperature CHANGE that will happen on a much much longer time scale.
Of course, all would agree that incorporating the diurnal cycle would be BETTER, as would including the ocean and continents, and the general circulation pattern of the Earth, and ENSO. All of which is being done in GCM models.
And it turns out that ignoring the diurnal cycle, and the other things, STILL gives a reasonably good estimate of the GW that is observed and is found in the BETTER models.
So this is one great big silly strawman.
"If the Earth really was a flat, one-sided disk facing the Sun, it would get 1,368 W/m^2."
Exactly. A location on that flat, one-sided disk would get 1,368 W/m^2…continuously. No night and day. And the only way the Earth could be receiving only 342 W/m^2 continuously (240 W/m^2 after correcting for albedo) is if it were a flat, one-sided disk facing the Sun, further from the Sun than we currently are. That is why he did the calculation for the increased "Flat Earth"/Sun distance. To work out how far from the Sun we’d need to be to actually receive only 240 W/m^2 continuously from the Sun, with no night and day.
Thanks, Little Willy. You should have cleared up bdgwx’s confusion on that one.
Gaslighting Graham still does not get the problem.
An energy balance model.
Balances energy.
At all time.
Instantly.
It is always the case that the Earth cannot receive more than it emits.
It is always the case that the Earth cannot emit more than it receives.
Unless that balance gets tipped off.
Gaslighting Graham’s concerns has nothing to do with the geometrical fact that Joe misrepresents.
To bypass the 240 W/m^2, Joe is running a con.
And Gaslighting Graham falls for it.
He may never recover from his delusion.
Fine with me.
480 W/m^2 input over the lit hemisphere and 240 W/m^2 output over the entire sphere does balance energy.
All the time.
Instantly.
And so Gaslighting Graham still does not get the problem at hand.
An equality.
Features.
Two equal.
Quantities.
In this case, energy.
Not flux, energy.
It is an energy balance model.
Gaslighting Graham clings to a silly flux argument that helps the con Joe runs.
He months never get it, fine with me.
Yes, it’s the energy that balances, not the flux values. You’re getting there.
“A location on that flat, one-sided disk would get 1,368 W/m^2continuously. No night and day. And the only way the Earth could be receiving only 342 W/m^2 continuously (240 W/m^2 after correcting for albedo) is if it were a flat, one-sided disk facing the Sun”
Which is irrelevant since nobody in climate science is claiming the Earth is flat and it doesnt get 342 W/m^2 continuously.
So this is a red red herring.
Anyway, as I believe I might have mentioned before…all I needed to do was point out that both bdgwx and Little Willy were misrepresenting and falsely accusing Postma. With that achieved, all I can really do is levitate with self-satisfaction into another absolute, glorious victory.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
If the Earth really was a flat, one-sided disk facing the Sun, it would get 1,368 W/m^2.
No climate model posit that quantity.
So Joe is geometry challenged or is being a trolling idiot.
Could be both.
In either case Joe is running a con.
Gaslighting Graham may never get &c.
“No climate model posit that quantity.”
…and that’s part of the problem he’s getting at, you see. Locations on our real Earth do receive 1,368 W/m^2, corrected for albedo – upwards of 960 W/m^2 – at certain times of the day. So climate models should posit that quantity…and I’m sure others will be along to claim (without evidence) that the more complicated models do include such values.
“So Joe is geometry challenged or is being a trolling idiot.”
Neither. He’s just pointing out that locations on our real Earth do not receive 240 W/m^2 continuously from the Sun. The only way they could is if they were on a flat Earth, constantly facing the Sun, further away from the Sun than our real Earth. Hence both the “Flat Earth” meme and the calculation of the increased “Flat Earth”/Sun distance.
“Neither. Hes just pointing out that locations on our real Earth do not receive 240 W/m^2 continuously from the Sun. ”
Nor is anyone in climate science claiming such. Nor does any position receive 480 W/m^2 for any significant amount of time.
So, some people here, knowing this, still continue to defend an indefensible strawman argument.
Well, the discussion has moved down-thread now, anyway:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1457690
Down-thread we all go.
Christos Vournas
Yes the Earth’s atmosphere does act like a blanket that increases the surface temperature.
The surface emission averages 390 W/m^2 or so (depending on model) and the TOA emission averages 240 W/m^2.
For a brightness temperature, when worked out, that gives a surface warming of 33 K because of the atmosphee.
It is impossible to use any logical, rational thinking or evidence on the likes of Clint R. He is a cult minded troll who uses different posting names to get reactions with stupid comments. I think maybe you are not such a foolish person as Clint R (hope not).
If you look at real evidence and think it through you come to the same conclusion scientists do.
Thank you Norman for your response.
It is 1 AM in the morning, too late for me, so I am telling goodnight and thank you to everyone now.
Bindidon:
” The average over the whole sphere, weighted by latitude is something one has to calculate. It is not my job.”
I am not asking how it is calculated, what I am asking is if you have any information about how much it is, because I haven’t found any yet, and it is very important for me to know.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
yes, Norman, when the Sun heats the surface and the oceans, and those heat the atmosphere via direct conduction, the atmosphere, made up 99% of nitrogen and oxygen, can’t easily radiate the heat away. So, we have a relatively warm blanket of air around the immediate surface for part of the year.
The 33k theory breaks down dramatically, however, when you add the pseudo-science about a trace gas, making up 4/100th of 1 percent of the atmosphere, being responsible for a 33k warming.
As gbaikie likes to point out, the oceans play as large a part, if not greater, than the atmosphere, keeping the planet warm and cozy (in some parts of the planet).
If the Earth had no oceans and no atmosphere, there is simply no way to estimate an average temperature. S-B won’t work for various reasons, partly because it does not give an average temperature over the entire planet and partly because it does not apply as written at terrestrial temperatures. Therefore the basis of the 33k argument is not there.
The Earth is unique, with its position related to the Sun, its rate of rotation, and it’s axial tilt. The truth is we simply don’t know what the average temperature would be with no oceans and no atmosphere.
We also have no idea what the average is with oceans and an atmosphere. The 15C value is purely theoretical and has no meaning other than being a number.
Norman, glad to see you’re trolling again. I was wondering what happened to you.
Your cult beliefs still have you confused: “…the TOA emission averages 240 W/m^2.”
No, that’s wrong. We don’t know what the outgoing flux at TOA is. But we know fluxes don’t average. Just like we know that don’t simply add.
Did you ever find that “real 255K surface”?
christos…”Earths atmosphere doesnt act as a blanket which rises the average surface temperature +33 oC”.
***
I agree, and I appreciate your calculations.
If the atmosphere acted like a blanket, it would block incoming solar radiation as well. Also, a real blanket cannot block radiation of any frequency, unless it is created from metal, it can only slow down the loss of heat via conduction.
GHGs can absorb a small amount of surface radiation, about 7%. However, that radiation represents a loss of heat at the surface. It is electrons in surface atoms that produce the radiation when they drop to a lower kinetic energy orbital. That loss of kinetic energy is a loss of heat, since heat is the energy associated with the kinetic energy of atoms. The loss of kinetic energy in the electrons represents a loss of heat. That’s how the surface cools.
In other words, heat is lost at the surface as the radiation is created. Therefore, that radiation cannot be claimed to represent surface heat.
Heat is not trapped by GHGs in the atmosphere, it is re-created as new heat, but only in GHGs. Therefore no surface heat is trapped.
Claiming the atmosphere is a heat-trapping blanket is a metaphor. The atmosphere ‘acts’ like a blanket in some ways, but it is nothing like a blanket in other ways. For example, claiming that CO2 at 0.04% concentration is a blanket is like claiming a few threads of cloth are a blanket.
“A Japanese company has put out the call for passengers whod be willing to pay more than $175,000 for an hours-long ride in a balloon-borne capsule that will rise as high as 15 miles (25 kilometers).”
https://cosmiclog.com/
It’s about what you pay per seat, for suborbital.
So, hours of “fun” vs about 10 mins of “fun”.
Captain Kirk, with his rapidly going from light to dark, saw
death, and you don’t get that with a balloon ride.
Given the rigth wind conditions, You’d get to see a US jet attack up close too.
175 grand to roll the dice. There’s no guarantee you’ll be coming down. Just as Richard Branson about his ballooning adventures.
Might as well go to Vegas.
Novelist charts a course for the future space frontier
By Alan Boyle
Post date March 7, 2023
https://cosmiclog.com/
“If Jeff Bezos needs a blueprint for building a space station beyond the moon with ore from an asteroid, he just might want to start with Critical Mass, a newly published sci-fi novel by Daniel Suarez.”
…
“Building space outposts and moving heavy industry off-Earth to preserve our home planets environment is an overarching theme in Bezos long-term space vision. We want to go to space to save the Earth, he said in 2016. I dont like the Plan B idea that we want to go to space so we have a backup planet. This is the best planet. There is no doubt. This is the one that you want to protect.
Suarez agrees with Bezos sentiment, but not because the billionaire founder of Amazon and Blue Origin came up with the idea.. “
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Alarming images of scenes normally associated with dry, hot summers, are a stunning testament to the unprecedented winter heat wave gripping Europe.
France has recorded the longest winter drought since record-keeping began in 1959, joining a host of other European countries experiencing severe conditions.
Snowmelt from French mountains is crucial to replenish depleted rivers and reservoirs. The weather service has warned that levels are much lower than usual for this time of year in the French Alps, the Pyrenees and other ranges.
As a result, some water-abundant landmarks have been reduced to barren, muddied pits.
https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/frances-driest-winter-since-1959-204229773.html
The wildfires from this summer are still burning.
” The wildfires from this summer are still burning. ”
*
Correct:
https://www.tf1info.fr/meteo/video-six-mois-apres-les-incendies-le-feu-brule-toujours-en-gironde-2245217.html
What is burning is under the burnt trees: lignite.
And that stuff won’t stop burning soon.
*
Interesting btw is that if you seek for e.g. burning coal rafts in German, Google immediately presents links to Centralia.
But… if you search the same thing with the same key in English, you merely see discussions about coal as a primary energy source; you need to add Centralia in the key to get info about it.
natural variability, wee willy, it’s weather.
So you say, Bordon:
> One of the most visible consequences of a warming world is an increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. The National Climate Assessment finds that the number of heat waves, heavy downpours, and major hurricanes has increased in the United States, and the strength of these events has increased, too.
https://www.c2es.org/content/extreme-weather-and-climate-change/
So you say.
Weak Wee Willy,
“One of the most visible consequences of a warming world is an increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events.”
So they imagine, Wee Willy, so they imagine.
Doom! Doom! Thrice doom!
You’re a devout SkyDragon cultist, so you have to believe this sort of nonsense. You should immediately take up your placard, don your sackcloth and ashes, and run about crying “Stop Climate Change!”
Too silly even for you? Why am I not surprised?
Go on, prove me wrong – send a photo of you demonstrating to Stop Climate Change!
You really all mouth and no trousers.
Mike Flynn,
Here you are, braying about predictions I suppose.
Why am I not surprised?
Why should I care?
Armchair.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Just checking the link you provided to make sure you’re not on the board of directors. Do you post anything from sites that are not alarmist?
Here what we’re dealing with. Chris Landsea is a renowned expert on severe weather systems like hurricanes. The following is a link to his resignation letter from IPCC reviews.
In essence, Landsea was stabbed in the back by Kevin Trenberth, which does not surprise me at all. Trenberth has been quick with the knife on past occasions, like the time he criticized a journal editor, forcing him to resign.
https://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
The IPCC is notoriously corrupt with such matters and I regard the people at your link as being equally corrupt.
C’mon, Bordon:
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Chris_Landsea
Not that your Climateball story about Landsea has anything to do with what I said.
Willard,
You are babbling. You wrote “Not that your Climateball story about Landsea has anything to do with what I said.”
Please stop trolling.
Christopher William “Chris” Landsea is an American meteorologist, formerly a research meteorologist with the Hurricane Research Division of the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, and now the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.
Research and achievements
Landsea earned his doctoral degree in Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. He served as chair of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclone. Landsea was recognized with the American Meteorological Society’s Banner I. Miller award for “best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting.”
***
So, wee willy, whose opinion would you prefer, someone’s like geologist Michael Mann, or perhaps mathematician Gavin Schmidt?
Bordon,
Junior started his career by publishing his crap about hurricanes with Landsea. I have a new square for that move:
https://climateball.net/but-hurricanes/
I know more about that square than you know about Climateball.
My point was not about hurricanes anyway.
Come on.
Give yourself a chance.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
California will receive heavy rainfall from the Pacific Ocean in four days.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/03/12/1200Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/orthographic=-124.65,46.32,562
ren…the good thing about rain is that you don’t have to shovel it.
Unlike the content of most of your comments.
AQ, please stop trolling.
How could I forget yours. Thanks for the reminder.
AQ, please stop trolling.
Time to bring out the bulldozer. Oh wait – that’s you.
AQ, please stop trolling.
barry…”Ukraine hasnt armed people over the border and encouraged them to take over local government buildings and expand their area of control”.
***
The Kyiv government sent a neo-Nazi battalion, the Azov battalion, into the Donbass region to fight rebelling Ukrainians. While there, they committed atrocities. In Odessa, factions of the battalion ad its fascist political counterparts, Right Sektor, sent to suppress dissent against the Kyiv government, herded dissenters into a government building ad set it on fire. Many dissenters died in the fire.
It is opined, with no proof, that the Azov battalion, who were located in Mariupol, were responsible for the movie theatre explosion there. It was blamed on the Russians, of course, but how would they have known it was being used as an air raid shelter, and why would they bomb a non-strategic target? Fascists would have no qualms blowing up their on building for the sheer propaganda value.
I just posted a link to an article featuring an interview with a Ukrainian academic. She revealed that the Kyiv government under Zelensky has murdered dissenters, Zelensky has also shut down several TV stations and anyone who has openly opposed him.
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/28/zelensky-celebrity-populist-pinochet-neoliberal/
You write about the Ukraine as innocents who only want to live in a democratic peace. That is sheer nonsense. The Ukraine has been rated the most corrupt country in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine
“Since regaining independence from Russia; Ukraine has faced a series of politicians, criminal bosses, and oligarchs who used corruption of police, political parties, and industry to gain power”.
note…this is technically incorrect, since the Ukraine never had a recognized country before the USSR formed it into a soviet circa 1920. Prior to 1920, it was an amalgam of tribe-like entities who never saw eye to eye. Therefore, dissent in the Ukraine has been an on-going phenomenon that extends to present day Ukraine.
One cannot overlook the fact that the UON, a Ukrainian fascist nationalist group, formed illegally in 1929, who fought with the Nazis in WW II, and which likely gave Stalin the excuse to start a famine in the Ukraine in 1933 due to their violence, are still active in modern Ukraine.
The current Ukraine is a cesspool of corruption and that needs to be addressed before any peace can be brought to the region. UON descendants are in the Ukraine today and they are armed. That is an unacceptable situation in a democracy.
“In 2012 Ernst & Young put Ukraine among the three most-corrupt nations from 43 surveyed, alongside Colombia and Brazil.[9][10] In 2015 The Guardian called Ukraine “the most corrupt nation in Europe”.[11] According to a poll conducted by Ernst & Young in 2017, experts considered Ukraine to be the ninth-most corrupt nation from 53 surveyed.[12] According to Transparency International’s 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index, (a scale of least to most corrupt nations), Ukraine ranked 122nd out of 180 countries in 2021, the second most corrupt in Europe, with Russia the most at 136″.
Zelensky is simply not the heroic leader we have been urged to accept. He is as corrupt as the other leaders who got the Ukraine into the unenviable position of being rated the 3rd most corrupt country in the world.
After Russia no doubt.
Bordon:
https://theintercept.com/2022/03/01/ukraine-russia-leftists-tankie/
Try not to be a tankie.
Come on.
Willard, please stop trolling.
As always, the Putin sucker deliberately dissimulates how many thousands of Ukrainians lost their life, how many ten thousands of Ukrainians lost their home, how many millions of Ukrainians lost their country due to the Russian superfascists in the Kreml, and tries to dissimulate all that behind his endless, ridiculous hints on the ‘Azov battalion’.
*
” The current Ukraine is a cesspool of corruption and that needs to be addressed before any peace can be brought to the region. ”
Ukraine isn’t a land of angels.
Only idiots like Robertson who lives far far away in his Vancouver, think we in Europe would think that.
How many Ukrainian pimps, do you poor ignoramus think, are there in Germany alone? How many prostitutes are brutally trafficked from Eastern Europe to Western Europe by these shitty pimps every year?
*
You are such a gullible idiot who believes all the trash propagated by Russian blogbots: the same who fill blogs in France, Germany and anywhere else.
*
What needs to be addressed, you poor Putin sucker, is that Russia attacked Ukraine, and NOT to denazify it, much less liberate Russophones: Russia did it because Moscow’s nomenklatura has ONLY ONE GOAL: to reintegrate Ukraine into a reborn USSR.
And if that succeeded, you idiot can be sure that the next ex-USSR satellite will meet the same fate as Ukraine.
Berlin 1953, Budapest 1956, Warsaw 1980.
People like Robertson don’t have an idea of all that.
Binny,
Winston Churchill – “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.”
You sound slightly outraged by someone saying something with which you disagree.
Have you a particular reason for supporting the continuing loss of life in Ukraine? Do many Germans still consider Russians to be sub-human brutes, deserving only of extermination?
65% of the world doesn’t seem to care who “wins”. Do you support democracy, and a majority vote?
I have no intention of fighting for either side, nor of providing them with a single bullet.
You?
Mike Flynn,
As Winston Churchill once said –
> Underidoderidoderiododeridoo
https://youtu.be/6cPME5TKVYU
So what are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I care deeply about innocent Ukrainians who are suffering through this war. I care just as deeply about why they are suffering, and I am not willing to accept propaganda about why. And don’t blame Putin, they had been suffering for years before he even thought of invading.
If we in the West are partly responsible, and we are, I want to advise anyone willing to listen. It doesn’t cost you anything to listen and you are perfectly free to disprove me using reliable sources. Thus far, all I have gotten from critics are ad homs, insults, denial of valid sources I have provided, and a general appeal to authority.
Clearly, you don’t give a hoot about Ukrainians because you’re willing to wait another years or more while that little ass Zelensky feathers his nest and imposes his authority. I’m not. We need an immediate investigation into claims of corruption in the Ukraine, the violent interference of armed nationalists in the Ukraine, and the interference of the West that is detrimental to them becoming a democracy.
The nationalists must be disarmed and investigated.
If there is discussion leading to an investigation and it satisfies Putin, and a vote is held, as he has desired, and he is not willing to leave eastern Ukraine in the hands of a peace keeping force, that’s another matter.
“I want to advise anyone willing to listen. It doesnt cost you anything to listen”
Yes, it costs me my time. I haven’t time to read your pointless, ill-informed maunderings.
Russia didn’t say anything about NATO ending the instability in Yugoslavia. Neither should we trouble ourselves about Russia ending instability in Ukraine.
Got any children for the upcoming conscription?
Ken,
You wrote – “I havent time to read your pointless, ill-informed maunderings.”
It seems not only did you read them, you thought they were important enough to you to respond to them.
Why not just not read what he wrote? Can’t you control yourself?
ken…you’re so bitter. I teach you all the good physics and you have no appreciation.
“And dont blame Putin, they had been suffering for years before he even thought of invading.”
Oh? Their homes were being blown to smithereens for years before the invasion?
Your an imbecile, Gordon.
“The Kyiv government sent a neo-Nazi battalion, the Azov battalion, into the Donbass region to fight rebelling Ukrainians. While there, they committed atrocities.”
The Russians are committing atrocities in Ukraine.
“You write about the Ukraine as innocents who only want to live in a democratic peace”
Bullshit. You assign me a 2-dimensional, rainbows and puppy dogs view on the Ukraine because it’s easier than contending with what I actually do say.
IOW, you’ve created a straw man. Worse than that. It’s not even a distortion of my view, it’s an outright fabrication.
Military invasion is not the answer to Ukraine’s domestic strife, if for no other reason than it brings more strife. But that is not even the most important reason, which is obviously not worth repeating to someone who didn’t take it up the first 4 times.
“One cannot overlook the fact that the UON… are still active in modern Ukraine.”
To what degree, Gordon? According to most reports that are not Stone’s or Russian authored, this group is not running the country, nor are they widely accepted. The political wing of the party got 1.6% of the vote last election.
Militant nationalist parties are active all over the world. They are not causus belli for an international war. Russia has hyped their involvement in Ukrainian affairs, and I would guess that Stone did, too.
“Zelensky is simply not the heroic leader we have been urged to accept.”
It is convenient for you to attach these shallow ideas to your intellectual opponents, but it is just a cheap rhetorical trick.
Stop straw-manning everyone’s remarks. Deal with what they actually say and strop writing missives to an imaginary opponent.
Can we make a flat Earth?
In terms of economics, making anything having natural gravity takes
an enormous amount of mass. And moving such large masses around requires a lot of energy.
The upside is star travel could take a lot more energy.
I think we become a spacefaring civilization pretty quickly, but
being spacefaring civilization traveling lightyears of distance would seem to take a lot time and effort to do.
And making a flat Earth could be easier.
To make more gravity with less mass, one should use the densest material. One material might Uranium or thorium- Thorium is about 3 times more common than Uranium. Wiki:
“Thorium is nearly half as dense as uranium and plutonium and is harder than both.” AND:
“Thorium is the 41st most abundant element in the Earth’s crust. Natural thorium is usually almost pure 232Th, which is the longest-lived and most stable isotope of thorium, having a half-life comparable to the age of the universe.Its radioactive decay is the largest single contributor to the Earth’s internal heat;”
Earth’s crust is mostly oxygen:
“Oxygen, silicon, iron and aluminum are the most abundant elements in the Earth’s crust, accounting for 88.1% of its mass.”
The crust of any planet is largely about bodies in solar system impacting the surface- or it’s yardstick of what is in the solar system. Or not counting Hydrogen and Helium, it same about same abundance of mostly, “Oxygen, silicon, iron and aluminum” So, it’s tempting to use iron and it’s density is significant. Thorium:
“Thorium is estimated to be over three times as abundant as uranium in the Earth’s crust, and is chiefly refined from monazite sands as a by-product of extracting rare-earth metals. And:
“Experimental measurements of its density give values between 11.5 and 11.66 g/cm3: these are slightly lower than the theoretically expected value of 11.7 g/cm3 calculated from thorium’s lattice parameters, perhaps due to microscopic voids forming in the metal when it is cast.” And iron is about 8. And as state above, uranium
is twice as dense as thorium.
If doing a lot refining uranium and get a lot more depleted uranium {it being a “waste product”} then it seems that or some alloy with uranium [to make denser and/or cheaper] but seems like lot refining uranium. Another related aspect, is you refined nuclear waste materials, it sense isolated the densest element. And store this dense radioactive behind the thorium as a neutron “shielding material” which also makes nuclear fuel.
One might ask who want to live on top of nuclear breeder reactor- well Earth not “breeder reactor” but is a nuclear reactor.
gb,
There is evidence of at least one natural fast fission reaction at Oklo, in Africa.
There may have been others slightly deeper, and hence still hidden.
At present, heat generated by radioactive decay within the interior, and warming the surface from beneath, is at least twice that generated by human activities.
The following article shows the logarithmic decrease in interior heat output, dependent on differing half lives –
The K/U ratio of the silicate Earth: Insights into mantle composition, structure and thermal evolution.
The Earth is a large nuclear reactor, slowly running out of fuel (very slowly indeed).
gb,
Sorry – the quotation marks vanished.
The article is “The K/U ratio of the silicate Earth: Insights into mantle composition, structure and thermal evolution.”
If the quotation marks don’t appear this time, it must be God’s way of telling you not to read the article.
Please link to a paper which confirms your claims about the size of the geothermal contribution. Make sure it is peer-reviewed (so not one of those sites that provide automatic approval), and don’t tell me to “do your own research” because I have looked and found nothing which goes close to supporting your claim.
This was for Swenson/Flynn. Someone moved the dartboard.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Please link to a paper which confirms your claims about the size of the geothermal contribution.” it’s generally considered polite to at least quote which “claims” you are disputing, but delusional SkyDragon cultists rarely do, preferring to put words in to peoples’, or to be so vague as to be utterly useless.
What “claims” in particular do you believe to be incorrect, and why.
You seem to playing the old “justify your claims” card, without stating what the “claims” are!
You first – provide a peer reviewed article from a journal whose authority I accept, stating whatever you believe contradicts anything I have stated.
Don’t appear more stupid than you have to – show some backbone, provide some facts to support your deranged SkDragon beliefs! Only joking, of course. You can’t even describe the GHE,
What a donkey you are. Do you have any more demands? Any reasons why I should comply?
Try harder next time, fool.
YOU made the claim. It is YOUR job to justify it. Until YOU do so it is not my job to counter it. Remember – I have not YET stated that you are wrong.
AQ,
You wrote –
“YOU made the claim.”
What claim would that be? One that you can’t state, and can’t state whether you agree with it or not?
Gee, that sounds like a delusional SkyDragon cultist pretending to be clever by being obscure and cryptic.
I don’t have to “justify” anything, you idiot. If you believe you have a “job” to “counter” some unstated “claims”, good for you. You have a strange “job” – unpaid, and no-one cares whether you do it or not!
Maybe you have convinced yourself that I value your opinion. If you have, it is just another symptom of the SlyDragon fantasy which you inhabit. I don’t care about your silly SkyDragon opinions – why should I?
Go ahead – grow a backbone – state whether you think whether I am right or wrong! See if anybody gives a toss what you think! Good luck, dummy.
So your claim that the earth’s surface is warmed at least twice as fast by heat from the interior than by the increase in the greenhouse effect remains unjustified, hence unworthy of consideration. Clearly you are incapable of performing a relevant calculation, so if there is no such peer-reviewed paper to support the claim then only one conclusion can be drawn – you made it up.
AQ,
You wrote “So your claim that . . .”. You idiot. I claimed no such thing!
Go on, try and quote my words, ninny. The words you attempt to attribute to me are the product of your SkyDragon fantasy, nothing more.
Make some more stuff up – “increase in greenhouse effect”? Really? Would this this be the same “greenhouse effect” which you can’t describe, or some other “greenhouse effect” which you can’t describe either?
Maybe it’s the “greenhouse effect” responsible for four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? Can you describe that one, perhaps?
“Consider” whatever you like – the facts don’t change. Complaining about some words you concocted yourself does not make you seem like the sharpest tool in the shed, so to speak.
Carry on being a delusional fool – maybe you could name one person who values your opinion, but I doubt it.
aq…”So your claim that the earths surface is warmed at least twice as fast by heat from the interior than by the increase in the greenhouse effect…”
***
No brainer, there is no warming from alleged GHE.
Swenson – quoting you:
“At present, heat generated by radioactive decay within the interior, and warming the surface from beneath, is at least twice that generated by human activities.”
As you only stated the earth’s internal heat due to radioactive decay, you are claiming that ALL geothermal heat has an even greater effect on earth’s temperature.
And – it is not increasing, so has no effect on temperature rise at the earth’s surface.
What person with a normal job and outside interests is able to reply to all comments within an hour every waking day of every week of every month of every year.
Gordon
Researched what causes the moon’s phases yet?
AQ,
You dingbat, writing “As you only stated the earths internal heat due to radioactive decay, you are claiming that ALL geothermal heat has an even greater effect on earths temperature.”, just shows your inability to accept reality.
You quoted me (correctly) saying “At present, heat generated by radioactive decay within the interior, and warming the surface from beneath, is at least twice that generated by human activities.
You dimwit, your “interpretation” is a product of your deranged SkyDragon cult beliefs.
Have another look. Maybe you are too ignorant to realise that the Earth was created in a molten state and has since cooled, and radiogenic heat has slowed the rate of cooling – amongst your other examples of ignorance.
You don’t seem to be able to dispute anything you quoted me as saying – only the silly words you put in my mouth!
Try harder. Accept reality.
All I am asking is that you justify your claim that “At present, heat generated by radioactive decay within the interior, and warming the surface from beneath, is at least twice that generated by human activities.”
What is so difficult about that?
Interpretations can come later.
AQ, please stop trolling – you’re just not that good at it.
AQ,
You wrote –
“All I am asking is that you justify your claim that “At present, heat generated by radioactive decay within the interior, and warming the surface from beneath, is at least twice that generated by human activities.”
What is so difficult about that?
Interpretations can come later.”
Not difficult at all. You can ask all you like, and I can just laugh at your requests. Feel free to “interpret” anything you like. It won’t bother me in the slightest. I am under no obligation to “justify” anything – to you or anybody else!
If you choose not to believe my statement, maybe you could provide your reasons. I’m pretty sure you won’t, because all you are trying for are pointless delusional SkyDragon gotchas!
You really are dimwitted and ignorant aren’t you?
A quick search reveals that your Oklo site releases about 100kW of thermal power.
That is 1/20,000,000 of the power capacity of all the world’s coal-fired power stations.
It is less than 1/1,000,000,000,000 of the total solar power at the top of the atmosphere.
How many other sites do you have in your list?
Heads up – you are WRONG. And in case you are tempted, don’t try to claim the power output of the proposed nuclear plant there as the natural power output.
AQ,
You wrote – “Heads up you are WRONG.”
About what, precisely? Or are you just being cryptic and obscure?
Maybe you could quote what it is that you claim is wrong, and why.
As to Oslo, I merely pointed out an apparent example of a prehistoric natural fission reaction, probably involving a peculiar set of circumstances resulting in a critical mass of an isotope occurring without human involvement. I made no mention of the extent, likely energy release – or anything of that nature. Just a curiosity.
Are you quite mad, or do you suffer from a mental defect which prevents you from seeing words as they are written?
[laughs at wriggling, jiggling, warmist worm]
I literally told you what you were wrong about. Try reading the part before my conclusion and improving you comprehension ability.
And nice try pretending you are physically capable of laughing or have ANY sense of humour.
Actually Swenson’s right.
The back of my envelope tells me that our civilization releases about 10^20 Joules/year, geological heat flow is about 10^21 Joules/year and AGW is adding 10^22 Joules/year.
In flux units that is 0.01W/m^2, 0.1W/m^2 and 1W/m^2.
The only claim I am challenging is his one about how much power is released by radioactive decay in the earth’s interior.
And your numbers have geo flux at 10% of the increase due to man, compared to his claim of over 200% just from the radiative component.
EM,
Thanks for the backup about internal heat. My figures are a little different, but no matter.
Obviously, AGW adds precisely nothing per year – manmade heat is ephemeral. As soon as fires are allowed to go out, their heat is lost to outer space in short order. No heat accumulation, sad to say. If there were, heat could be “trapped” in hot places, transported to cold places, and “released”. What a good thing that would be!
AQ is a strange SkyDragon cultist – he writes “The only claim I am challenging is his one about how much power is released by radioactive decay in the earths interior.” Of course, because he is an ignorant nitwit, he can’t actually say why he is “challenging” anything at all.
Oh dear, he doesn’t want to accept reality, and prefers some imaginary fantasy instead. Bad luck for him – reality doesn’t care, and neither do I.
You misunderstand.
The human heat production and the geological heat flow are indeed lost to space and therefore do not affect global average temperature.
The AGW figures are the imbalance between solar input and OLR. This is the net gain in energy of the whole climate system, which is changing the temperature.
AQ,
you wrote –
“I literally told you what you were wrong about. Try reading the part before my conclusion and improving you comprehension ability.”
Well, no, you didn’t, and anyone who read your bizarre SkyDragon attempts to portray fiction as fact can make up their own minds.
Try again.
aq…”Make sure it is peer-reviewed”
***
translation…make sure it is approved by a climate alarmist referee. They run all the climate journals now.
If you require a peer reviewed paper it indicates your utter dependence on authority approval. In other words, it means you lack the ability to read and understand.
Gordon,
Peer review doesn’t seem to serve any useful purpose these days.
No matter how many ignorant people agree to the contrary, facts remain facts.
Without experimental support, speculation remains just that.
People like AQ just appeal to authority – in the guise of peer review.
Pathetic. 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.”
swenson…”Peer review doesnt seem to serve any useful purpose these days”.
***
Not only that, it’s corrupt.
Japans H3 Rocket Explodes. Its a Win for SpaceX and Even Mitsubishi.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/japan-h3-rocket-spacex-mitsubishi-15c28cc1
I was hoping it wouldn’t.
“Reaching space isnt easy, and the attempts to do so can be dramatic.
High-profile problems show investors just how amazing SpaceXs journey is. And the opportunity that lies ahead for space investors.”
“It failed to reach orbit, prompting the control center to self-destruct the rocket and its payload, an earth observation satellite.
Overall, the explosion isnt a bad thing.”
It depends on cost of satellite.
I spent more 10 years saying we should use test payload which are water. Govt pays low price for water payloads, put payloads into
orbit, and when get enough water in orbit, split the water to make rocket fuel. So after launching rocket say 3 times with water payload, then you put expensive satellite on it.
This particularly case with military satellite which can cost a billion dollars, each.
But also good if the payload is people.
Earth has NO polar vortex tonight. (If we can believe nullschool.)
There is no PV at either pole. North Pole has a cyclonic formation, but it has CW rotation. Normal PV at North Pole has CCW rotation.
Is this change of seasons, some major upper level disruption, or did someone forget to pay their taxes?
Try raising the elevation.
AQ, please stop trolling.
A piece of useful advice devoid of any insinuation is “trolling”?
Who would have thought it.
AQ, please stop trolling.
” AQ, please stop trolling. ”
Flynnson seems to be falling into dementia: this endlessly repeated nonsense, as well as ‘4.5 billion years of cooling’ etc., is a clear indication.
Binny,
Still having problems trying to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, are you?
Maybe you could try whining and complaining that it’s all my fault that you are delusional.
Of course, AQ is free to troll away until his fingers drop off. If you don’t agree, tough. There is precisely nothing you can do about it – you are just an impotent and incompetent sauerkraut, after all.
Have you managed to find a description of the GHE, yet? Don’t blame me if you cant – it doesn’t exist.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here it is –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Gubbins.
I actually watched about 5 minutes of this nonsense.
Her name is Sabine Hossenfelder, if there has not been a sex-change operation. Supposedly has a PhD in physics, and we know how worthwhile that is — a hot vacuum tube burning your fingers is proof of the GHE, or fluxes simply add so you can boil water with ice cubes. She youtubes and writes books to supplement her income.
The Youtube video promised no gobbledygook, but thats all there was. Except this interesting statement: It’s a hoax. Bring back coal. at about 302. At least she got something right.
She went right to “Earth would be at 255K without the GHE, never mentioning the 255K is for an imaginary sphere.
Just the same old cult nonsense.
Too bad she wont join us here to answer some simple, easy physics questions….
Clint R,
Ah. Sabine Hossenfelder. No wonder the idiotic Willard was so coy about mentioning the author of the nonsense he posts time after time after time . . .
Here’s a very short quote from Sabine Hossenfelder – “According to the currently established laws of nature, the future is determined by the past, except for occasional quantum events that we cannot influence.”
She has some odd ideas, but has a large presence on YouTube, Twitter, has written a couple of books, and is referred to as a “science communicator”.
I believe she has abandoned particle physics – apparently grumbly about not getting grant funding to write about her somewhat odd ideas. Now describes herself as “Physicist, Writer, Content Creator”
Weird Wee Willy appeals to some bizarre “authorities”.
Thanks for wasting 5 minutes of your time. Saved me the effort, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the idiot SkyDragon keeps posting the same irrelevant nonsense, trying to get me to waste my time at his bidding!
He’s a slow learner, is Wee Willy.
Mike Flynn,
What makes you think Pup is not pulling your leg?
You can search, so you can clock –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cabotage.
Weird Wee Willy,
If it’s not the “physicist, author, and content creator” and thoroughly delusional Sabine Hossenfelder, I’m sure you’d tell me.
Why don’t you appeal to an authority with some authority?
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
Is mind reading a science?
Here is your just dessert –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Vainglory.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Snowfall in Ireland, England and Benelux.
https://i.ibb.co/n36LpPG/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-08-075523.png
Frost in the UK is about to get even stronger.
https://i.ibb.co/m4L6K9z/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-08-081358.png
I’ve changed the setting on my freezer from 5 to 6. It’s colder now than it was before. And it made me think, “What global warming?”
barry,
You wrote –
“And it made me think, “What global warming?””
It’s pretty simple. If your refrigeration unit has to use more electricity, the amount of waste heat from the refrigeration unit increases. Hence, “global warming”.
Unless you can come up with another reason, of course.
Mike Flynn,
There is indeed a correlation between the number of refrigerators in the world and the increase in global temperature of the Earth.
You might be onto something.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Anthony Watts has posted pictures of air conditioner/refrigerator heat radiators, warming thermometers recording so called “GHE warming”.
I’m just pointing out facts. You obviously dont keep up with factual observations.
That’s why nobody values your opinions, I suppose,
Mike Flynn,
There is an inverse correlation between AGW and piracy –
https://pastafarians.org.au/pastafarianism/pirates-and-global-warming/
Kennebecker.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Net Zero CO2 Emissions Economy by 2050”- Only way to do it, is
become spacefaring before 2050 AD.
Just looking at what NASA plans are, before 2050 AD is unrealistic.
But biggest issue is related to what is discovered, one of factors
is how much mineable lunar water is there, and another factor is can people live in orbit for years- how does artificial gravity work.
So, to have mineable lunar water, you need more than 1 million tons of lunar water at lunar poles. To become spacefaring before 2050, you need billions of tons of mineable water at poles. And there could be
trillion of tons of mineable water at the poles. Another factor is how much volatile other H20 are there at the lunar poles, and such volatiles included H2 and helium, but more important could CO2- and also methane, CO, and others. There could be millions of tons of mineable CO2 at lunar polar region. And billion tons of H20 and a billion tons of CO2 could better than 1 trillion tons of water.
Normally [without trying to “Net Zero CO2 Emissions Economy by 2050”]
I limit lunar exploration to just the lunar surface- to say, few meters of depth. Mainly because I don’t expect NASA to fully explore the Moon, or all NASA needs to explore is whether there is mineable water, and if there is mineable water, later lunar “development” done because there is mineable lunar water, will result in further discoveries.
And part of going to Moon is evaluating, what is found with was predicted would be found from orbital observations which can only “see” 1 meter or maybe as much as two meters below the surface.
But to find trillions tons, it could involve looking tens of meters or hundreds of meters below the surface- or that water could be billions of years old. Or you would be chasing a theory- rather than
a follow on, to what has been explored.
Anyways If find 1 million or a lot more- tens of million of tons 0f mineable lunar and trying to “Net Zero CO2 Emissions Economy by 2050”
You spent more time and money looking deeper or add say 5 years to the lunar crew mission and making educated guesses of where the larger amount of water, might be found. But you don’t need billion of tons of water to use the Moon- but it would speed up things if there was. But lots things also do this- such as amount of H2 and CO2 at the surface.
I generally prefer, 5 to 7 crew lunar landing and spending about 5 years, before focusing on Mars crew exploration.
If lunar water is mineable, all nations on Earth will be a lot more interested in exploring/investing the Moon, but become spacefaring one needs to explore Mars. More Lunar water, would increase amount Mars exploration you do in shorter period of time, but not wasting much NASA budget and time on Lunar exploration, is a more direct and more plan able way of doing this.
So, want to crew on Mars before 2032.
You want to test artificial gravity before 2026 and if artificial
gravity doesn’t work as well as one might imagine it would, you might have delay crew to Mars and instead focus on the Moon, more.
Net Zero has nothing to do with space faring.
Net Zero is nothing but a green fascist scheme to remove your rights and freedoms by taking away your access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels.
15 minute cities includes fines and further restrictions if you go outside your 15 minute bubble.
I’d suggest getting off the moon and into the affairs of your community. If these green sickos get their way there will never be space colonies. See your favorite sci-fi dystopia for details.
–Net Zero has nothing to do with space faring.
Net Zero is nothing but a green fascist scheme to remove your rights and freedoms by taking away your access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels.–
Well I hear your complaints but Net Zero and space exploration are various government’s laws and policies- including Canada. And in
terms of both trillions of citizen’s wealth has been spent and wasted related to them. And in regards Net Zero, the utilize of space has related to it- though the specific term “space faring” is more of term private citizens used term rather government lingo- as not really something government are allowed/encouraged to discuss [legally speaking].
Let me give some background, Space Power Satellites [something UK and Chinese governments mentioned they doing, lately] are considered impractical at this point in time by most people familiar with the topic- and I agree. But everyone would agree, that if we were spacefaring civilization, they would likely be practical.
And most people think it’s “possible” we could become a spacefaring civilization by 2050 AD {assuming govts would actually explore space]. A small number think we have get rid of govt involvement in
space activities- because they aren’t exploring space and getting in the way of doing this- I don’t exactly share this view, but I understand why it’s said.
The US military has discussed beaming electrical power from Space to military operations- to get cheaper electrical power and to save military lives.
If Starship is launched- and works, the US military probably will do this. But this in limited use of SPS, and probably why chinese are testing SPS.
As it said, Military tend to plan based on past wars.
But it seems US would have won the Afghanistan war, if they had
a limited SPS- and it would saved a trillion dollars.
The Falcon 9 achieves the shuttles dreams
by Francis Castanos
Monday, March 6, 2023
-Fly a lot and prosper
In 2022, the Falcon family (Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy) flew 61 times; all but one were of the Falcon 9. This is a remarkable number for many reasons, if only because of a forgotten number related to the Space Shuttle: the 19691972 dreamed vehicle, not the controversial one we got in 1981 to 2011. —
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4542/1
That one way to look at it.
But what is difference between Saturn V and Starship?
Not much.
It’s been long known that you want reusablity, and known
you have to have large rocket to do it.
The only shocking is Falcon 9 is a pretty small rocket to imagine
it could be reusable. But only first stage was reuseable- but if using 9 engines, one could some sense to it.
To say we are 50 years behind schedule, is not an overly wrong.
Re: “But it seems US would have won the Afghanistan war, if they had
a limited SPS”
I am listening to scott:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baXew1zGEKQ
And in his beginning, he bring up [what is obvious] and related
to above.
But Scott is wrong about China. I more worried about a china collapse
than China winning any war. You could say China is winning war because it’s killing a lot 18 to 45 year old Americans, with it’s
poisoning. But that is short sighted- you shouldn’t poke the bear.
China has a lot problems, which aren’t being solved by making Americans angry.
scott, later on.
Drugs and Jews
I think we should end the federal war on drugs.
Or should do, as Obama promised to do, but he did
a 180 once he was President.
But a federal war on drugs in regards to Military actions
or border enforcement is something, I wouldn’t “end war on
drugs. So federal domestically, rip out all war on drugs stuff
passed, and even earier fed domestic laws regarding drugs.
So States have whatever laws they want in regards to drugs,
but fed can have international policy regarding drugs.
Jews, Jews are people and religion. Jews which are anti-religious
could have “conspiracies” in regard to them. But jewish conspiracies
historically are said to involve Jews which are religious- that is wrong and evil.
This post is off-topic and a bit personal. It’s about the COVID thing. The reason for posting it is to encourage us all to have a less partisan, black/white view about issues in general. There’s no twist in this story, no high stakes, no great loss.
My flatmate didn’t want to get vaccinated for COVID. She wanted to wait. I wasn’t allowed to work without being vaccinated. I had to commit to doing everything possible to avoiding illness, promptly informing and isolating if I was unwell. My friends expected that everyone around them was compliant. I was telling them that my flatmate wasn’t, and they were not coming to visit, for the most part. Eventually I gave her an ultimatum – vaccinate or find a place to live where the residents were not troubled by it.
That was a conversation I agonised over before undertaking, pitting right to choose against the common good, her rights against my needs and social milieu. I spent a long time trying to work out the right thing to do.
My best friend is an anti-vaxxer. Not just for COVID – all vaccines. He is highly intelligent, smarter than me in many respects. Your best friend should be smarter than you, if you can make that happen.
I am godfather to his daughter. I held her before she was a day old, I was the first person outside the family to baby-sit her away from the family for a few hours (she was 6 months old), I’ve changed her nappy, read her to sleep in her bed, navigated her wilfulness and her endless need for attention, and been blessed by her love.
Because I take my godfathering role seriously, I felt obliged to have a discussion about vaccination with my best friend. My god-daughter is unvaccinated against anything. We sated our positions respectfully. We probed them. Neither of us changed our minds. I wish I had pushed harder, because at some time in the future, she may disagree with her parents and take the courses of vaccination they decided she didn’t need. Some of the viruses that vaccines can prevent or mitigate the risk of catching could make her infertile, or risk a pregnancy, and so can some vaccines. I want het to know these things eventually, so she can make fully informed choices. I will revisit this conversation with my friend. Maybe with he and his wife together. That seems right. I feel duty-bound. I’m sure they are not ill-informed, nor would they fail to inform her fully at some point, but still.
A dear friend of mine in Melbourne – one of the most locked down places in the world during the COVID period – is preparing a documentary on these lockdowns and the undoubtedly ill-effects they have had. I asked her to explain what she had learned to me, and was moved by her passion for the well-being of the people of Melbourne. It wasn’t a surprise. Her compassion is one of the things I love about her. She told me how the media had failed to unearth and report the uncertainty around COVID vaccination and pregnancy, and that the government advice had overlooked it. I agreed with that, having already mulled it over online a few weeks earlier. I also pointed out that the gov websites had encouraged everyone to speak with their doctor, and seek medical advice if concerned. We approached the issue as intellectuals, debating the various merits and flaws in ‘messaging.’ She wanted my take as part of her contexting for the docco.
She had just recently interviewed my best friend – he was her teacher, and we all know each other – and got his views on lockdowns, vaccination, and his general dissent from the government/health authorities position. She was more amenable than he to the mainstream view, but still more in the mindset of criticising the psychological, economic and health downsides of lockdowns. Their conversation would have been as reinforcing and revelatory as the ones I’ve had with my friends about masking up, vaccinating and the common good.
I later sent her by email, as I’d promised, information that supported the utility of lockdowns. I’ve posted a little of that upthread, if you’re interested.
She thanked me for it, and told me that it didn’t really fit in with the narrative she was expositing.
I sat with that reply for a while, mulling over what it meant. Did it mean that useful information was going to interfere with her “messaging?” Was it more simply outside the scope of her project?
So here I was with two very close friends in seeming diametric opposition to my own views on an issue of extreme significance. Of life and death at bottom.
And here I am with a flatmate who is not an anti-vaxxer, but had taken to heart the notion that the trial time for vaccines was too short, and only took them because I gave her an ultimatum.
There has not been one iota of rancour between us. Bestie came and stayed a few nights ago, and we talked about many things, watched far to many episodes of zombie TV series and talked about the world. He was far more eloquent than I. He is more practised at it, and is much more surrounded by people who discuss matters on a higher level. He revisited his antipathy to lockdowns, urged me to look at the ‘twitter files that ‘no one is reporting on’ (and I will). My docco-making friend in Melbourne is reconnected with me now, and my flatmate and I have never been closer.
We all have the luxury of real-life experience. My best friend and I had 35 years of shared experience before we disagreed about COVID. My docco-making friend and I were lovers once. I see my flatmate every day and we can patch a rift face to face any time.
Not going to moralise about online discussions with the context of my personal friendships as a backdrop, but jeeze it would be a vast improvement on the state of the chat here if we all knew each other. Surely I’m not the only one who is fatigued by the Punch and Judy.
What I really miss here, compared to RL conversations, is how those real life conversations actually progress, instead of being mired and circular and with a currency of invective. The us and them is tiring. The tribalism. Being a part of that is not my RL way. It is appallingly part of my my here, egged on by all and sundry, including, sadly, me.
Have a good day/evening/night.
Online you can be as anti-social as the moderators permit and get away with it.
In RL you have to live with the consequences.
I have no solution to the conflict between individual freedom and the common good.
Were they right to lock up Typhoid Mary? And were they right to let her out again?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon
The four horsemen of the apocalypse unanimously prefer Typhoid over COVID.
I don’t know why you’d consider conflating Typhoid with COVID. There really is no comparison in terms of lethality.
He’s not conflating the diseases, I think. He’s commenting on the issue of individual freedom/common good with a more acute and specific example.
Those principles butt up against each other all the time and have always been current. I was faced with a fairly acute choice in 2020, that would materially affect someone’s life. I think I would have had less trouble dealing with it if the disease had been typhoid.
After all said and done I’m glad that I’m not one of the people who took the vaccine. Also, it seems the places that did the lock downs are much worse off than we are.
By the way, I’m not an antivaxer. I’m an anti mRNA experimental use vaxer.
My wife and I are big fans of Clarkson’s Farm on Amazon. It is incredible to us how socialistic you Brits have become. Clarkson was digging a hole and moving the dirt to a different location. His attorney asked him if he obtained a permit to move the dirt. Clarkson says, “Bloody Hell, there are even dirt police?”
I don’t think it’s just England.
In “Back to the Future” a policeman asks the scientist what was on the trailer. When told it was weather equipment he asked “Do you have a permit for that?”
Policemen are often wrong. Watch “Audit the Auditor” on Youtube.
I’m not sure that lockdowns didn’t help. I gave figures upthread that the UK’s vigorous lockdown reduced the death rate to 42% of the worst case scenario, while the US with a less vigorous lockdown only managed 51%.
Ent, those numbers are based on a profoundly wrong model projection.
Kinda sorta like the profoundly wrong climate model projections.
Can you say GIGO?
Lockdown didn’t reduce death rate from COVID. Neither did masks. Neither do vaccines work. Vaccines are very likely causing more deaths than the COVID its supposed to protect you from.
Santa Claus doesn’t exist either.
“Lockdown didnt reduce death rate from COVID. Neither did masks. Neither do vaccines work. ”
There’s a science devoted to the way diseases infect populations. It is called epidemiology and it works. I know of what I speak, having received lectures on the subject.
The epidemiologists calculated that if nothing was done to limit the spread of Covid-19, the UK would lose 510,000 people to the disease and the US would lose 2.2 million.
In practice the UK lost 210,000 and the US about 1.13 million.
Something cut UK Covid deaths by 58% and US deaths by 49%.
If it wasn’t lockdown, masks and vaccines, what do you think caused the difference?
The problem is that you are assuming the models used are correct.
The difference in death rate between UK, US, and Sweden is not significantly different. Sweden did not impose lockdown.
Your assumptions are wrong.
We’ve learned a lot about epidemiology in the last couple of years. Today’s epidemiology isn’t the same as when Jonas Salk or Louis Pasteur was around. Everything is political now, even epidemiology. Robert Malone didn’t get the COVID vaccine.
You can’t say the models projected so many deaths. The deaths were actually this much different from the model projection and therefore the measures taken actually worked. More likely the models were wrong.
You have to compare places where measures were different ie places that are similar in population (age and co-morbidity) and race (vitamin D uptake is race based characteristic), climate (flu season, sunlight) and geography (swamp or mountain), to where no measures were taken.
Ken, I posted a little on the statistics of lockdowns comparing 2 countries with very different responses.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1455729
No models involved. I’d be interested in what you think of the straight comparisons.
To be clearer, I compared the death rates in those countries, Sweden and Australia, and corroborated COVID mortality with all-cause excess mortality WRT timing and magnitude. Might be worth your time.
ent…”If it wasnt lockdown, masks and vaccines, what do you think caused the difference?”
***
The immune system. Epidemiologists gave it virtually no credit for saving lives. Besides, figures in the UK and the US were highly inflated.
Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, even though he claimed only to have inferred it, eventually came to the conclusion that HIV does not cause AIDS and that a healthy immune system will handle it. The data proves he was right, over 90% of AIDS deaths involved homosexual males, bisexual males, and IV drug users. Out of the 60% who were homosexual males only the hard cases (about 16% of all homosexuul males) who dabbled with drugs, multiple partners, etc., died from it.
In the end, Montagnier claimed AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle. Duesberg claimed the same thing 20 years before and it ruined his career. Fauci saw to it he never again got funding.
Antman routinely spews horsecrap.
barry,
You may find the stories at https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/ of interest. You may even find cases that parallel your own experiences.
Thanks.
One of McGoofin’s top propaganda sites.
Seems to have enough info to look these people up and fact-check Stephen.
barry, your concerns about the conversations here do not match up with your own behavior. You’ve called people “lying dog” just because you didn’t understand the science. You’ve even gone as far as to claim Newton was a “spinner”, in a desperate attempt to protect your cult.
You probably need to clean up your act before you start pontificating.
If you finish reading my post you’ll see that I criticise myself along with others.
Clearly Newton wasn’t a spinner.
Spinners just are confused by Newton’s references to the analytical pieces of the moons rotation around the earth.
It should be easy to see that equivalency but the spinners are in denial of that equivalency because they lack the vision to see the equivalency. None of that changes the physical location of an axis though.
Reading between the lines they start making stuff up like ellipses not being a rotation simply because entire classes of mechanical experts have no real need to study them.
But I suspect none of the spinners ever really advanced beyond routine tasks or ever really had a significant design challenge.
If Newton had considered this an important distinction he certainly would have noted it in his typically detailed quantitative manner. But nevertheless the spinners are completely perplexed by the non-spinner position despite Newton not addressing the issue.
I would discourage trying to use this board for a psychotherapy
Were that the only thing you would discourage.
It was outreach, if anything.
barry
The all time angry, ankle-biting dachshund is now playing the moderator against his will, of course.
Here is Tom Marrazo on the societal rift theme caused by the crowd’s reaction to COVID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNvb49Pu4ik&ab_channel=TomMarazzo
Tom Marazzo is a Canadian military veteran, former teacher, and leader in the 2022 Canadian convoy protest.
Here is Tom wanting to speak with the management:
https://www.collingwoodtoday.ca/local-news/former-georgian-college-instructor-becomes-face-of-convoy-protest-in-ottawa-5048825
“it would be a vast improvement on the state of the chat here if we all knew each other. ”
Its a very good point. I think if we sat down and discussed these things over a beer, there might be disagreement but also the realization that the other guy is a regular person, with genuine concerns, and not evil.
I actually did that once.
An American I argued with up and down on a couple of boards for years visited Australia with his wife. We had called each other cretinous or deceitful many times, engaged in ‘eyeball gouging’ (his description) over and over. The subject was pretty much always climate change. We started at it in 2007 and kept going for 8 years. He pops by here once in a blue moon (Steve Case).
He tells me he’s going to be in Sydney – we’ve already swapped emails to prove each other wrong – on a given date. I buy a couple of bottles of wine as a gift and meet him.
He was on some kind of kontiki tour, so he was sitting with a bunch of people in a restaurant, freshly off the plane, and we were never really going to get into it in company. We were both pleasant, I was very nice to his wife, in case he’d steeled her for an unwavering cretinous liar, but also, of course, because that’s what you do.
I get a Christmas e-card from him once a year. Our chat is less acrimonious, rarely happens now, but he still lets me know I’m an eye gouger.
We were different in real life. And had we been going hammer and tongs online thereafter, I’m not sure if we’d have fallen into our old ways.
But I know the argument would have been more respectful if we had it in real life.
we are all, hopefully, going to be different in real life. I love my brother and we have dramatically different opinions on many things. Love is about accepting a person unconditionally as that person is, not about how we expect the person to be.
It doesn’t matter what we think or what we opine, I’d get along with you fine in person if you are civil. Heck, I would even get along with Binny.
I have no doubt about that.
barry…”And here I am with a flatmate who is not an anti-vaxxer, but had taken to heart the notion that the trial time for vaccines was too short, and only took them because I gave her an ultimatum”.
***
I have no desire to insult you over your post about your flat-mate but I do admit to feeling annoyed that you imposed your opinion on her. You forced her to do something against her will and that is insensitivity to the point of cruelty.
In what follows, I am not taking shots at you, I am simply trying to convey to you how I see you based on your words. My opinion is meaningless but you have bared your soul and may or may not appreciate some feedback.
The damage is done Barry, I suspect your flat-mate will never let that go, and why should she? You betrayed her, showing a lack of compassion, empathy and love. Love must be unconditional, and the moment conditions come into it, there is no love. Do you think she’ll ever respect you again for compromising and challenging her values? Maybe she is afraid of you and accepted your ultimatum. However, where there’s fear there can be no love, only resentment.
The thing that bothers me so much is your illiteracy wrt to viral theory. You have not demonstrated that you have spent any time researching it, yet you were willing to confront a flat-mate based on what you had been told about covid by authority figures.
That’s how I pick you up, you won’t think for yourself, rather you rush off to authority figures to form your opinions. I have posted links to the work of Stefan Lanka who discovered the first virus in the ocean. Lanka posted a 100,00 Euro prize for anyone who can prove the measles virus exists. He was challenged in court and won through appeal. That’s what you call putting your money where your mouth is.
Lanka has never claimed measles does not exist, he has simply read through the papers claiming to have discovered the virus and found them lacking. He pointed out that the scientist claiming to have discovered a measles virus had actually only inferred it from cells in a sample, He had never seen the virus on an electron microscope.
I don’t present Lanka as an authority figure. My first opinion was that he was either a genius or a nut job. It took me several years of reading him and watching his progress to get it that he was onto something. I’ve had the advantage of watching the HIV/AIDS fall apart and covid, a declared dangerous virus, fade off into the endemic category. Lanka predicted both situations.
Rather than read his words and get back with an opinion on it, you resorted to the opinions of authority figures. Why do you have so much trouble considering alternate points of view, especially when they present evidence to back them?
There should have been doubt in your mid re covid and especially about a vaccine rushed out in 3 months when the normal research period is 6 years.
You did not indicate whether your flat-mate was someone simply sharing your flat or whether she is a significant other. None of my business. However, if she is a significant other, that changes the storyline. My g/f berates me all the time for my opinions. However, I would never, under any circumstances consider cajoling her into accepting my opinions or laying an opinion down as an ultimatum.
If I felt that strongly, I would have moved out and left her with her dignity intact. I don’t think you had any right laying down the law to her.
Just my opinion and I realize it’s worthless.
“You forced her to do something against her will and that is insensitivity to the point of cruelty.”
As I said, I agonised over my decision before I came to a conclusion. It was not done lightly or without due consideration given to her position, which I respected.
I did not force her. She was always at liberty to tell me to go to hell and go live somewhere else. There were plenty of places to go at that time, with people leaving the city, so if she felt strongly enough, she could have done that. It seems the comfort of staying outrode the concern about the vaccine.
She’s fine, by the way, and so am I.
“you were willing to confront a flat-mate based on what you had been told about covid by authority figures.”
Yet again this fantasy barry that doesn’t exist. it must be comforting to invent 2-dimensional characters to judge.
I went straight to the research literature from the moment the pandemic began so that I could be across the science. Which is how I know that you have no fucking clue about it, instead having got your notions from some weird alternative echo-chamber that is nowhere near the body of science on SARS COV2.
The vaccine issue and climate have one thing in common. Many of the people who are commenting in the media have very little understanding of the actual science. The climate is a huge question mark. Anybody who says they can predict the future on either side of the issue is simply wrong.
Vaccination is different. There is no vaccine I know about where the infection is better for you than the vaccine. Vaccination has side effects that are almost always short lived, and only in the very most rare case worse than the outcome from the virus itself. The huge problem with this is that statistics are the only way to evaluate anything to do with health because anecdotes have zero useful value. The only statistics in health that are valid must use the gold standard of the double blind study.
Bindidon:
“In the E-in versus E-out radiation balance, you always see on the left side of the equation pi * r^2.
The total solar irradiance hitting an hemisphere of 2*pi*r^2 is obtained by weighting the 1,370 W/m^2 by the square of the cosine of the incidence angle; that gives pi*r^2.”
–
“The total solar irradiance hitting an hemisphere of 2*pi*r^2 is obtained by weighting the 1,370 W/m^2 by the square of the cosine of the incidence angle; that gives pi*r^2.”
–
Thus the total solar irradiance hitting a hemisphere is:
π*r^2*So = π*r^2*1,370 W/m^2
–
The next very important step is to determine what has left of
“the total solar irradiance hitting a hemisphere”
for the planet radiation balance left side of the equation
E-in versus E-out
–
Because it is one thing the E-in and it is another thing
the
E-in- the-not reflected-portion of
“the total solar irradiance hitting a hemisphere” .
–
In other words- the what has left after reflection and dispersion of the incident solar flux.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
240 W/m^2
Ken:
“240 W/m^2”
–
Thank you Ken for your respond.
–
π*r^2*444 (W) it is the Total what has left to INTERACT with the Earth’s surface.
–
We do not average solar flux over the planet surface, because S-B law does not permit it.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Kingston Deverill UK
https://i.ibb.co/7g1R3L4/20230308-1600.jpg
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A state of emergency was declared in Vanuatu as category 4 Cyclone Kevin brought gale-force winds and torrential rain to the Pacific nation battling its second major cyclone in a week.
Cyclone Kevin passed over the capital Port Vila late on Friday and was moving across the southern island province of Tafea on Saturday morning, bringing wind gusts in excess of 230km/h, according to the countrys meteorology department.
Spread across 13 principal islands in the south-western Pacific, Vanuatu has already been hit by extreme weather this week, after Cyclone Judy battered Port Vila on Wednesday, cutting power and forcing some residents to evacuate.
Source: Reuters.
Yet another wee wily propaganda piece. Vanuatu is about the same latitude as Suva, Fiji and I got sunburned sitting in the sun there for 10 minutes. It’s super-hot in Vanuatu wee willy, they have a permanent heat wave there.
Hot weather ww, no climate change.
Bordon,
Do you see a link?
It is just a press release.
From Reuters.
A news agency.
You cannot be that dumb.
Cmon.
we see through your sly attempts to post articles which suggest anthropogenic warming.
C’mon, Bordon.
There is no need to “suggest” AGW.
That’s a gimme.
I’m rather suggesting that ren’s goose chase is silly.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Ken.
The typhoid Mary example was not aimed specifically at Covid. The question about Mary Mellon related to the the conflict between protecting individual freedom of choice and the protection of other people from typhoid..
Mary was an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid. She worked as a cook and infected a large number of the people she cooked for.
She was identified as a carrier after a number of the families she cooked for came down with, and sometimes died of typhus.
She was quarantined and later released after promising not to work as a cook. She went back to cooking, more people died and she ended up quarantined permanently.
She’s an early example of an identified carrier and the uncertainty is quite large, but in the trade she is estimated to have infected about 150 people of whole about fifty died.
About half of the deaths occurred before her first quarantine and half after she was released.
You could argue that the cost of her freedom was 25 lives. Was it a fair price?
If you were deciding public policy during Covid you had to balance precautions against economic activity. In other areas of government it is regarded as worth spending 2 million on rebuilding a dangerous corner per life saved from car crashes.
Conditions IIRC lockdown etc saved 200,000 lives in the UK and cost 400 million.
Donald Trump had a similar choice.
Canada constitution has Section one: 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The measures used to suppress COVID never met the test of ‘reasonable’ or ‘demonstrably justified’. You should have to be able to prove measures such as lockdowns work, that masks work, that the vaccine has been adequately tested so as to prevent adverse consequences and works as advertised, before imposing mandates or health orders of any kind.
Two weeks to flatten the curve; okay. After that any decisions have to be evidence based. We’re still waiting for the evidence that any of the measures taken actually did anything to slow the spread of COVID and didn’t in fact cause worse outcomes than otherwise expected. Such as Vaccine Escape Variants that have prolonged the potential for crisis.
By contrast the case of Typhoid Mary is hands down ‘demonstrably justified’.
Ken,
I disagree. Government can always justify in the name of security. There are no justifications for mandates from the Federal Government. They are still mandating vaccines for noncitizens entering the US. Someone needs to sue to stop them. Our wonderful Executive Branch under Biden.
Thats the difference between ‘justify’ and ‘demonstrably justify’.
ken…”Canada constitution has Section one: 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms…”
***
The Charter is becoming a joke. It has been replaced by the War Measures Act, a convenient way of controlling protest.
I wonder what Jordan Peterson thinks about the Canadian Constitution.
That is impressive. As pragmatic a constitution as I’ve seen anywhere.
Bet Gordon hates it.
ent…the UK government were not dealing with typhoid or anything like it. Covid was an unproved entity at the time until deaths began to escalate in the Milan area of northern Italy. The cause of death was attributed to covid with absolutely no proof simply because people were dying in Wuhan China from similar symptoms. No one has explained how this alleged virus migrated across the planet to Italy, killing 25,000 people in a small area of Italy while leaving the rest of Europe essentially alone.
However, the lung infections, or pneumonia, that mark covid are also symptomatic of normal flu, and Italy had experienced 20,000+ deaths from the flu in 2016. Besides, the Milan area is one of the most polluted in Europe and people there were likely to be suffering from lung conditions.
The tests for covid have proved to be fraudulent and the vaccines offered as a solution, equally so. The truth is, this so-called pandemic could have been handled without depriving people of basic human rights.
Following the Italy debacle, the UK government panicked and fell under the influence of a paper by Neil Ferguson of the Royal College. His paper was based on a computer model that predicted an enormous number of deaths from covid in the UK and world wide unless lockdowns were implemented. Once they were implemented, Ferguson was caught disobeying them, having an affair with a married woman.
The irony here is that Ferguson had been dead wrong with similar predictions dating back to the year 2000. His prediction for covid deaths in Canada was not even close and questions have been raised about the covid death numbers in the US due to their way of rating the deaths.
For example, a person who was not known to be infected with covid, and died, was listed as a covid fatality if he/she had been in contact with someone who was rated covid positive in the past month. That questionable rating system coupled with the fact that hospitals received up to $40,000 per patient if a person could be rated as covid positive, led to an outright inflation of the number of covid deaths claimed.
You are supporting a Draconian solution to a a virus that was eventually declared endemic, rather than pandemic. The message is clear. epidemiologists seriously over-estimated the danger of covid, depriving many of us our democratic rights as a result.
This is what happens when you allow theoreticians to have the run of countries. It is also happening with the climate change idiocy.
Have a look at my findings, Gordon. No models involved.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1455729
I also submitted a comparison of Sweden and the US a while back and although it’s a bit higher than normal they virtually imposed no lockdowns. The guy to read re Sweden is epidemiologst Johan Giesecke. He is an advisor to the WHO and he is Swedish. He pulls no punches.
Giesecke admits Sweden was a bit slow on the uptake but that most of their deaths by far were in old age homes. The reason they exceeded their neighbours like Norway is they have state run homes and they have three times the number of people in homes compared to other countries.
The question you need to ask is whether the difference in number of deaths was worth the anguish all people were put through. How many seniors, and others, died of stress related issues relate to lockdowns. I know one senior in his 90s who was at a loss over what to do with himself since he was cut off from his friends he saw on a regular basis.
It’s a tough question because it suggests it’s OK to sacrifice a certain number of the elderly and that is wrong, no matter the justification. More seniors could have been saved had authorities acted more quickly to protect them. That is Giesecke’s claim for Sweden.
Here in the province of BC we have a socialist government who are supposed to be on top of such matters but who also failed the elderly. They made no attempt to monitor the workers in rest homes till it was too late. Some of the workers were working two jobs (in rest homes) and were prone to infection.
During the pandemic, the government completely ignored another issue, the eroding base of doctors available. Today, I don’t have a doctor because mine retired. I am currently on a 6 month waiting list for a doctor. That could have been averted had the government not become hysterically focused on covid.
Our health minister is an idiot who was running around at one time screeching, ‘Vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate!!!’. Those are his actual words. We had an unelected health official essentially running the province and she was filling our heads with nonsense about statistical curves and falling off statistical cliffs.
When people protested at City Hall and at hospitals, the Solicitor General referred to them as ‘wack jobs’. I happened to encounter a couple of young women returning from the protest and had a talk with them. Both were health care professionals.
If you don’t think governments reacted hysterically then I understand better why you react to climate change propaganda in the same manner.
Extrapolating Swedish statistics to Australia we saved 30,000 lives.
Absolutely worth it.
1) Sweden’s death toll continued to exceed their neighbours per capita after the first year. IOW, even setting aside the disastrous mortality in aged care in Sweden, it still did worse per capita.
Sweden’s neighbours were far behind Sweden’s COVID death toll until they opened up, when they began to catch up. Luckily, most people were vaccinated by then, so they saved more lives opening up later. Lockdowns saved lives, possibly in the tens of thousands.
2) I think governments acted with an abundance of caution, for the most part. No idea if you’ve faithfully characterised your honchos, but the public-facing medicos and pollies in my country were stable, dogged, steadfast in their messaging.
The hysteria was all in small sectors of the public, screeching about government control and behaving like adolescents who couldn’t figure out what a pandemic is.
I was actually heartened that governments around the world risked their economies to save the lives of mostly elderly people, who are generally a drain on economies. Were any jurisdictions tempted to let the herd thin to ease fiscal pressure? Not in my neck of the woods, and my take is that the COVID period showed some fine old humanity from the political class.
Frankly, I’d rather hear advice on a medical matter from a medical expert than a politician. Your mileage may vary.
Frankly, those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither. (Ben Franklin)
Nowhere is there infinite liberty.
But China was one place where that quote seems to be valid. People were basically locked in their homes for indefinite periods.
Here, not hardly.
Franklin’s aphorism doesn’t fit here. Governments weren’t becoming tyrannies. They were protecting their people with the information that they had. That should be obvious now that the crisis is over and all the government restrictions lifted.
Who needs a model to estimate the worst case scenario.
You just need to know the population, the proportion of that population likely to be infected and the untreated death rate.
For Covid in the UK the figures are 70 million, O.7 and 0.01.
The worst case becomes 70 million*0.7*0.01 = 490,000 deaths.
The actual epidemiological worst case calculation is rather more complex, but gives similar results.
You also misunderstand that the worst case is what you get it you do nothing about it. Both BSE and Covid provoked a considerable response, resulting in considerably fewer deaths than the worst case.
Infection fatality rate in the US stands at at least 0.34.
This is the total number of COVID deaths as a percentage of the total population, not just the infected population, with or without vaccines. And the COVID deaths are extremely well corroborated by timing and magnitude of excess, all-cause deaths for the same period.
The actual unvaccinated infection fatality rate, therefore, is likely higher.
There is no doubt vaccination and social restrictions saved lives, and much more than those potentially lost to those exigencies.
Look what it has done to the world financial system. There is a significant fissure in the system. Tens of millions will die, not due to COVID, but due to restrictions that caused the fissure.
As 10s of millions worldwide could have died of the disease, it seems like damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
I doubt there are solid figures for what you’re saying here, but in the even longer run the world has tried a course of prevention that has had unintended ill-effects, and if we are a responsible species we will investigate that and learn how to mitigate the problems the next time we get a pandemic, particularly with a worse disease, like Spanish flu.
“You should have to be able to prove measures such as lockdowns work, that masks work”
And how do you do that with a new disease that the medical world is scrambling to find out more about?
You are responsible for the safety of millions of people. You are also responsible for protecting their liberties.
In the face of a pandemic with a novel virus there is no easy answer, and the one you gave that I quoted there is way too pat.
barry…”And how do you do that with a new disease that the medical world is scrambling to find out more about?”
***
By remaining calm and observing. As it was, they turned things over to theoreticians with no experience handling epidemics, especially understanding the difference between endemic and pandemic.
Theoreticians? Isn’t that just a word that’s useful for critics? I mean, it’s not going to be how any of the people providing information or the policy-makers would have described themselves. It’s not in their job description.
So the term is just a rhetorical device.
Governments were informed by the medical community. That’s exactly how it went. The WHO issues facts and advisories, the national medical institutions provided more insight into current research, and governments of all stripes made their choices. For the most part, governments around the world enacted restrictions of some kind, whether they were right-wing or left-wing.
You’re not really responding to the dilemma by writing it off, and you’re not accurately portraying the uncertainty and risk in the early days of the pandemic.
It’s beyond obvious that governments took the risk seriously and made choices based on the potential damage to health, the health system, and with economies in mind. This is a 3-dimensional issue, not reducible to binary soundbytes.
There is a large body of evidence for masks that existed before COVID. The preponderance of the literature clearly states masks don’t work. There were several people whose entire expertise was in masks stating that the paper and cloth masks won’t work to prevent viruses. Heck, it even says so on the box they come in.
It doesn’t matter if there is a new disease that the medical world is scrambling to find out more about. If the mask didn’t work for other respiratory ailments why would any sane person think they would work for COVID? Same Same for lockdown, social distancing etc, particularly when it was obviously being made up on the spot.
You might be responsible for the safety of millions. That doesn’t give you licence to launch the lifeboats when there is an iceberg on the horizon.
Flu cases were dramatically down in 20-21 and 21-22. Back up this year.
Can you explain?
The anti-mask brigade pushed misinformation.
They said that a virus particle is too small to be filtered by a mask. They were correct.
What they didn’t say was that virus particles do not travel in isolation. They travel in droplets of saliva or phlegm coughed up by those infected.
These droplets are large enough to be filtered out by a mask.
The utility of masks was responsibly discussed in the open in my country. Early on there was impartial news saying the virus itself was too small to be prevented. It wasn’t any ‘brigade’ confusing the public, it was incomplete information from reputable sources.
Eventually we learned that wearing masks was more effective for preventing the infected making it airborne than potential infectees catching it from the air, and as the disease could be symptomless, it was a general safeguard in enclosed areas.
A thin piece of material that could save lives. Why the fuck not wear it?
Ken,
Why do you suppose that doctors and nurses wear masks in theatre?
Are they all terribly mis-informed? Why do they do it if masks are useless?
I did some data analysis on this last year. I looked at the percentage of unvaccinated people and the COVID mortality rate, state by state, for Fall-Winter 2021-22, using NYT and Worldometer data.
Plotting them together, there was a strong correlation between the two for the 50 states. Correlation coefficient = 0.7.
It showed that when unvaccinated rate was higher, mortality was significantly higher.
Plenty of research corroborates that finding. Reduced mortality, reduced severity of illness and following complications for the vaccinated.
I’m glad I don’t have that synthesized mRNA COVID molecule floating around in my body.
I had 2 shots of the Pfizer – I read that it was possible mixing vaccination types could be more effective. I’ll let you know if something goes wring, stephen.
I got COVID for the first time in January, six months after my 4th dose. Barely felt it. Isolated myself for 7 days, though it is no longer required – I will NOT be a vector for the disease if I can help it. I had a dry throat for a couple of days, coughed about 10 times in total, and some mornings woke up with a smidge of congestion. It was really nothing at all. No one could say if it was because of the vaccines, but statistically I was in line for an easier time of it than unvaxxed.
Curses. This posted prematurely while I was still working on it. Ignore everything after Typhoid Mary.
You crazy Irishmen!!! Anything for a laugh.
wee willy…”Christos,
The flat Earth meme must be the stupidest idea Sky Dragon cranks ever produced”.
***
Christos…please note…Sky Dragon is a reference to CO2 and its alleged ability to heat up the atmosphere. Climate alarmists are Sky Dragons, not skeptics, who don’t believe in Sky Dragons.
Wee willy is advising you that he is a Sky Dragon crank and that he and his fellow Sy Dragon cranks are flat-earthers. Wee willy and his brethern are too stupid to figure that out.
I shine a light on a wall (from a fair way back).
I place a tennis ball in front of the wall, thus reducing the amount of light striking the wall.
Next to the ball I fix a disc of opaque material to the wall, with radius equal to the radius of the ball.
Ignoring minor effects due to non-parallel rays, which object blocks the most light from hitting the wall?
Let’s see if you can answer for once without going on the offensive.
[Swenson will come along and claim ‘gotcha’, serving its purpose of allowing you to escape, not understanding he is admitting to evasion to avoid being caught out.]
Could you re-phrase the question without resorting to a thought experiment? The theories of GHE and AGW are nothing more than thought experiments.
When Tyndall, circa 1850, discovered that molecules like CO2 can absorb IR, he did offer an opinion they ‘might’ do they same in the atmosphere. No one has ever proved that to be true, both the GHE and AGW theories are built upon Tyndall’s opinion that it might be possible.
All your thought experiment is doing, like IPCC opinion, is furthering Tyndall’s opinion. It proves nothing.
The GHE is based on the opinion that greenhouses warm because the glass traps infrared. That makes no sense because the mechanism by which IR allegedly heats the greenhouse is missing. It’s an assumption with no scientific basis. How can trapped IR warm air molecules so as to increase their overall temperature?
An expert on gases, R. W. Wood, did not think they could and he proved it with an experiment. He concluded greenhouses warm because the heated gases cannot escape due to a lack of convection. A computer programmer claimed to have proved him wrong but he messed up the experiment by substituting plastic wrap for glass. Nahle repeated the Wood experiment and confirmed it.
AGW theory is even worse. It uses a corrupted form of the 2nd law to claim heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, that warmed it, so as to raise the surface temperature beyond what it can be heated by solar energy. That not only contradicts the 2nd law, it is a classic case of perpetual motion. In other words, you cannot recycle heat to increase the temperature of the source.
There is nothing in the GHE or AGW theories that can be proved scientifically.
Gordo trolls again:
No it’s not. It’s based on the physicsof infrared radiation of gasses, something Gordo still has no clue about.
ES,
it’s a great pity you cannot describe the GHE, isn’t it?
Care to try?
Make sure that your description includes fact – for example, four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
Oh, you have suddenly remembered an urgent appointment, have you? What a surprise!
Delusional SkyDragon – try to be more evasive next time.
Mike Flynn,
There is no try –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Bumbershoot.
swannie…”Its [GHE] based on the physicsof infrared radiation of gasses…”
***
I am sure you can enlighten us as to how that heats a greenhouse. And if you remove those trace gases from a greenhouse, will the greenhouse not warm?
Wee Willy Wanker,
its a great pity you cannot describe the GHE, isnt it?
Care to try?
Make sure that your description includes fact for example, four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
Oh, you have suddenly remembered an urgent appointment, have you? What a surprise!
Delusional SkyDragon try to be more evasive next time. Provide a meaningless link, if you wish. You could link to a silly Sabine Hossenfelder video, which contains answers to neither question, if you think it makes you look intelligent.
Repeat it as many times as you wish!
[laughing at deranged obsessive SkyDragon cultist]
Still with your silly gotcha, Mike Flynn?
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Umbel.
Gordo surely knows by now that the warming effects of a greenhouse are not the same physics as those of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. He asks a stupid question anyway, trolling for comments.
AQ,
Your comment doesn’t even rise to the level of a gotcha.
It’s more of a completely irrelevant attempt to make yourself look clever, and to draw attention away from the fact that you can’t even describe the GHE!
Well, at least your tennis ball is different from overcoats, leaky buckets, stove tops, and all the other irrelevant and pointless analogies thrown up by other deranged SkyDragon cultists!
Keep “thinking”.
Bordon,
You can only be playing dumb.
Sky.
Dragon.
Cranks.
Sky Dragon cranks.
Come on.
not so, wee willy. The term Sky Dragon comes from the book Slaying the Sky Dragon, written by skeptics. The title is a metaphor for ancient knights slaying mythical dragons that breathed fire. CO2 is the dragon and fir is a clever and apt reference to global warming.
The book set out to slay the theory that CO2 warms the atmosphere.
That makes all you alarmists a load of Sky Dragon groupies. You are also a load of Sky Dragons which we skeptics here are tracking down and slaying one by one, not by the sword but by the keyboard.
Wrong on all counts, Mike Flynn –
First, skeptics did not write that book – Sky Dragon cranks did.
Second, they slayed nothing, so “slayer” does not fit them.
Third, the “sky dragon” they attack is a huge strawman, as anyone who read the book could attest.
Fourth, you’re the silliest of all the Sky Dragon cranks.
Pareidolia.
Is your horse called Rocinante?
Weepy Wee Willy,
Are you trying to insist that I am both Mike Flynn and Gordon Robertson, or are you just confused, as usual?
You made four rather odd assertions. Maybe someone will value your unsupported opinions, but I am fairly sure you can’t name anybody who will admit to such a silly thing.
Maybe you should try some other means of diverting attention away from the fact that that you can’t even describe the GHE? Possibly by linking to a strange Sabine Hossenfelder video which also doesn’t contain a description of the GHE?
You are definitely a sandwich short of a picnic, as the saying goes.
Keep at it.
Mike Flynn,
Facts are facts, and playing dumb is playing dumb.
You are Mike Flynn.
You are playing dumb.
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Octothorpe.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Rutgers Snow Cover Northern Hemisphere 1979-2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LdPNI4CcBLVBSpHryzUR_eCzumq4hQRP/view
No comment needed.
Except that the filename is incorrect because the data is absolute.
I think you’ll find that your areal cover differs significantly from the volume data.
AQ,
You wrote –
“I think youll find that your areal cover differs significantly from the volume data.”
Bindidon may care what you “think” or he might not.
Have you any particular reason for making your silly and pointless comment? You do realise that “ice volume” is a product of the same type of model based on wishful thinking as “climate” models, do you?
You are a gullible SkyDragon cultist, aren’t you?
Maybe you could describe the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling – I promise not to laugh.
So you are not interested in knowing that ice volume is currently significantly HIGHER than the average?
Please make up your mind which side of the fence you are on.
Clearly I meant SNOW volume. Specifically NH snow volume.
AQ.
You wrote –
“So you are not interested in knowing that ice volume is currently significantly HIGHER than the average?”, and then followed up with – “Clearly I meant SNOW volume. Specifically NH snow volume.”
You nitwit – when you wrote “ice volume” it wasnt at all “clear” that you meant “snow volume”.
Your gotcha falls rather flat – telling me what I am not interested in something just shows you are presuming to possess mythical mindreading skills! Complete and utter nonsense – you must be off with the fairies, laddy!
Presumably, you think I should be interested in ice (whoops, you meant snow) volume increase for some reason that you can’t quite explain.
Oh well, you SkyDragons are a strange lot, I suppose. You can’t actually describe the GHE, can you? Pity.
Still with your silly gotcha, Mike Flynn?
Ask again –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Had you followed the exchange, you would not have missed what AQ was talking about.
Daffodil.
You KNOW that my original comment didn’t mention ice.
I was responding directly to Bindidon’s post on snow cover.
When I did make that mistake I corrected it 90 minutes before you even had the chance to reply.
And please learn the meaning of a question mark. It is used when you ASK – not “tell”.
You couldn’t lie straight in bed.
Perhaps if you didn’t make it your business to jump on every thread you wouldn’t have to keep lying to dig yourself out of embarrassing holes.
AQ,
You wrote –
“So you are not interested in knowing that ice volume is currently significantly HIGHER than the average?”
It seemed to be a response to me, but if you were actually addressing Bindidon, you chose not to say so – or maybe you are just inept and incompetent.
Writing “You KNOW that my original comment didnt mention ice.
I was responding directly to Bindidons post on snow cover.” just confuses the issue, yourself, or everybody in sight. Have you the faintest idea what you are talking about, or to whom you are responding?
In typical stupid SkyDragon cultist fashion, you also wrote –
“Perhaps if you didnt make it youre business to jump on every thread you wouldnt have to keep lying to dig yourself out of embarrassing holes.”
I do as I wish, when I wish, and how I wish – and there is not a thing you can do about it. I leave it to idiots like you to make wild unsupported assertions.
Carry on.
Let’s make this clear for the mischievous liar.
You did NOT respond to my post with the error.
I corrected it within 10 minutes, and you took another 90 minutes to reply.
That means YOU DID NOT EVEN SEE MY COMMENT BEFORE IT WAS CORRECTED.
THAT means THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO BE CONFUSED BY IT.
Your lying continues.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Still trying to appeal to the authority of the fantasist Sabine Hossenfelder?
Clint R wasted 5 minutes of his life looking at Hossenfelder’s nonsense video.
You were too embarrassed to say anything in support of your link – if it is an example of Hossenfelder “content creation”, it just shows how gullible you are.
You might just as well link to a video by that other “science communicator” Michael “TreeWhisperer” Mann – faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat. Has Hossenfelder received as many accolades and awards for “science communication” as Mann, or is she even less believable than him?
Gee whiz, Wee Willy – you might as well appeal to your own authority! Try to get people to play with your Climateballs, for example. Have you managed to describe the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?
Maybe you could ask Sabine Hossenfelder – or any passing twelve year old stranger, I guess,
Donkey,
AQ,
Previously, you wrote
“So you are not interested in knowing that ice volume is currently significantly HIGHER than the average?”, and then followed up with “Clearly I meant SNOW volume. Specifically NH snow volume.”
You nitwit when you wrote “ice volume” it wasn’t at all “clear” that you meant “snow volume”.
Your nonsense about “corrections” is just silly. You responded to me talking about ice, then realised you were confused, and “corrected” it to snow – compounding your confusion.
Who cares anyway?
Here’s what you addressed to me – “So you are not interested in knowing that ice volume is currently significantly HIGHER than the average?
Please make up your mind which side of the fence you are on.”
I didn’t mention snow – you must have been “correcting” some other fantasy – or you were just confused. Others can care (or more likely not care) as they wish. Keep flogging the dead horse at your convenience.
It was clear to all non-trolls. You must really be struggling for material in order to focus on one word and debate it ad nauseam as a surrogate for science.
AQ,
So when you wrote –
“So you are not interested in knowing that ice volume is currently significantly HIGHER than the average?”, you were really being “scientific”?
I wasn’t aware mind-reading is a science – but if you say it is, I’ll have a good laugh at your expense.
In the meantime, facts are facts, whether you feel like debating them or not. It’s a fact that you can’t describe the mythical GHE. Feel free to prove me wrong by providing a useful scientific description.
I’ll start you off – “The greenhouse effect may be observed . . .”.
How hard can it be, for an SkyDragon cultist like yourself?
Still with your silly gotcha, Mike Flynn?
Ask again –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Had you followed the exchange, you would not have missed what AQ was talking about.
Hallux.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Old Man Swenson,
You seem to believe that my initial comment was addressed to you.
It was addressed to someone who is actually capable of doing his own research.
If you choose to butt in, you have the option of doing likewise or speaking out of ignorance and blaming me for said ignorance.
You chose the latter.
AQ,
Pity you haven’t the moral fibre to post the comment you made to me – “So you are not interested in knowing that ice volume is currently significantly HIGHER than the average?”
In typical SkyDragon fashion, you talk about some vague original comment – which of course is subject to change, depending on how stupid it makes you look. You will then claim you meant some other “original comment”.
Oh well, I know you can’t even describe the GHE, so all your twisting and turning wont do you much good. You might just as well sit in the corner and play with yourself – like Willard. Maybe you can join him in going “Oh! Oh! Oh!” from time to time.
Good luck with the happy ending.
Flynnson seems to be falling into dementia: his endlessly repeated nonsense, e.g. 4.5 billion years of cooling etc., is a clear indication.
Idiot.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Why California Drought Isn’t Over Yet
By Robyn White On 3/6/23 at 6:16 AM EST
“However, during this recent 3-year drought and the 4-year 2012-15 drought, water deliveries were severely curtailed.”
It would take years of increased rainfall to fully lift California’s drought status, as it has been dry for so long.”
https://www.newsweek.com/california-not-out-drought-rain-snow-1785705
Seems pig headed to me.
The water table depth is low and that does take time to refill. Reservoirs which supply most of the water are doing fairly well.
https://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain
Lake Mead and Lake Powell have a combined 50 million acre-feet (each with more capacity the all of California) will also take more time.
https://lakemead.water-data.com/
https://lakepowell.water-data.com/
Our ski slopes haven’t reached record high, yet
And inches of yearly rain isn’t close to record, yet
Snow pack seems above average:
https://cdec.water.ca.gov/snowapp/sweq.action
So, if doesn’t rain and snow any more this year and
we have drier year next year, then it could be a problem.
And they letting water by using it for power. And they could doing
this because high snow pack. And/or price electrical power is high and/also it could low because using dam water to balance the electrical grid generally all year long.
Or what they want to avoid as general overfilling dam and they have waste the water- though thing is want water levels higher so they get more electrical power due getting more energy per volume of water used.
What saying is not just about how rain you get, it’s also a management issue.
But your show dams get historically get more water in next couple month- they might be forecasting they going to get than normal.
And of course it’s possible they get less than expect they might get.
–How a Super-Earth Would Change the Solar System
by Paul Gilster on March 8, 2023
If there is a Planet Nine out there, I assume well find it soon. That would be a welcome development, in that it would imply the Solar System isnt quite as odd as it sometimes seems to be. We see super-Earths and current thinking seems to be that this is what Planet Nine must be in other stellar systems, in great numbers in fact. So it would stand to reason that early in its evolution our system produced a super-Earth, one that was presumably nudged into a distant, eccentric orbit by gravitational interactions.–
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/
What is super-earth, again? Wiki:
“A super-Earth is an exoplanet with a mass higher than Earth’s, but substantially below those of the Solar System’s ice giants, Uranus and Neptune, which are 14.5 and 17 times Earth’s, respectively. The term “super-Earth” refers only to the mass of the planet, and so does not imply anything about the surface conditions or habitability. The alternative term “gas dwarfs” may be more accurate for those at the higher end of the mass scale, although “mini-Neptunes” is a more common term.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth
Let’s say mini-Neptune instead since it’s more common.
Btw, I think Venus was once a mini-Neptune.
If Planet nine is mini-Neptune, if small enough it would be frozen rather than a mini gas giant. And you might call it a super-earth because it doesn’t look like a mini-gas giant.
gb…”If there is a Planet Nine out there, I assume well find it soon”.
***
Smack yourself up the side of your hard hat. Pluto is planet 9. Don’t let the politically-correct idiots disqualify it as a planet. It even has its own Moon.
I tend to think of Pluto as mini-twin planets.
Department of Energy and NASA join forces on innovative lunar experiment
https://tinyurl.com/nhksdjs7
Well, it’s not lunar, it’s cosmic.
“LuSEE-Night is a fascinating experiment that will allow us to observe something we’ve never been able to before – the Dark Ages signal,” said Asmeret Asefaw Berhe, Director of the Office of Science at DOE. “With this collaboration, DOE and NASA are setting conditions for successful exploration of the Dark Ages cosmology in the decades to come.”
Layering history shows how water and carbon dioxide have moved across Mars
“An irregularly shaped pit in the thin carbon dioxide ice layer overlying the topmost water ice layer in Mars’ Massive Carbon Dioxide Ice Deposit. This cold, perennial, meters-thick carbon dioxide layer traps water vapor onto the polar surface as ice and also protects the water ice from summertime sublimation. Both the trapping and protection processes are important for the incorporation of water ice into the underlying Massive Carbon Dioxide Ice Deposit. Image is about 1 kilometer across”
https://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Layering_history_shows_how_water_and_carbon_dioxide_have_moved_across_Mars_999.html
That was one of my ways to make a lake on Mars.
Mainly because frozen CO2 {which you make as transparent as glass]
is cheap to make.
CO2 concentration con job exposed
https://youtu.be/ahKajudPhzM
Thanks for link. Here’s the Murray Salby link mentioned in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1cGqL9y548&ab_channel=RathnakumarS
Markus Ott: a chemist with a PhD, has been working as a researcher and developer in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry since 1994. He has mainly worked on the development of photolithographic methods for the production of biochips and on the development of light-curing plastics.
From the pharmaceutical industry to climate science… Seems Legit!
Climate Science needs more actual physicists and chemists like Markus Ott.
Its aimed at very gullible people.
posting problems,,,moved down here…
barry…”The WHO issues facts and advisories, the national medical institutions provided more insight into current research, and governments of all stripes made their choices”.
***
The WHO is the equivalent of the IPCC, a politically-motivated load of charlatans.
The WHO accep.ted the test for covid from one scientist, Christian Drosten, without peer review. Drosten admitted that he had never isolated covid and based his test totally on the opinion of Wuhan scientists, who admitted they had not isolated covid either.
The RNA-PCR test offered by Drosten has since been deemed to be fraudulent, based on the testimony of other scientists who have been cooperating with Reiner Fuellmich, a German lawyer who has succesfully beaten Volkswagen and the Deutchbank in court.
Drosten issued the test at lightning speed in January 202o, immediately after digesting the report from Wuhan scientists in the same month. He also issued a statement, based on one Chinese woman in Germany that people showing no symp.toms of covid could pass it on. The WHO immediately accep.ted his test and his opinion without bothering to validate either.
The WHO is as corrup.t as the IPCC and so is the US CD.C who simply rubber stamp what the WHO tells them, as does the CD.C in any country. That’s the basis of covid, rubber-stamping of consensus by people who cannot think for themselves.
The WHO predicted that HIV would rapidly spread to the heterosexual community globally. That did not happen, and when it became apparent it was not the case, they focused on Africa, re-inventing wasting syndrome as an HIV-induced AIDS opportunistic infection. They were so desperate to make HIV applicable to heterosexuals, they branded poor, starving Africans as being evidence that HIV can infect heterosexuals equally.
It had already been proved, long before AIDS in the early 1980s, that wasting syndrome is caused by malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections like malaria. It is seriously disgusting that the WHO re-defined it as an AIDS opportunistic infection caused by a sexually transmitted virus.
Barry, you need to give your conscience a kick in the butt.
“The WHO is the equivalent of the IPCC, a politically-motivated load of charlatans.”
A rather useless assertion. What’s the motivation to issue fraudulent health advisories?
The rest of your post is such a sliver of a window into the entire field of research on COVID that one wonders how you managed to miss the rest.
The disease was isolated and was cultured and sold to labs to work on from early 2020. This process has been replicated hundreds if not thousands of times since. Your talking point ignores the tens of thousands of papers and millions of hours of combined research on SARS COV2 done all over the world in the last 3 years. You seriously propose all these researchers are deluded?
Gordon, your post there is plain nutty. Weapons-grade, conspiracy theory nutty. You can only have this opinion if you read what you’ve just posted in early 2020 and disregarded or automatically dismissed everything else in the medical world thereafter, except whatever online fragments satisfied your extreme confirmation bias. No one is going to take that ridiculously ill-informed BS seriously, and you need to drop it to engage in a properly informed discussion about COVID.
“Whats the motivation to issue fraudulent health advisories?”
***
I gave you several reason and all can be corroborated.
1)They [WHO] accepted a covid test from one scientist that was rushed out without peer review. Why did they have such faith in this one scientist who was using a method, the PCR method, that the inventor, Dr. Kary Mullis, who received a Nobel for his invention, claimed cannot be used as the basis of a diagnostic test to identify virus?
2)They accepted an opinion from the same scientist, based on his assessment of one person, that someone showing no sign of an infection could pass covid onto another person.
3)They claimed wasting syndrome a disease known mainly in Africa, as an AIDS opportunistic infection. The evidence long before covid appeared was that wasting syndrome is caused by malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections like malaria.
The WHO are not only diabolical liars they are extremely dangerous to the well-being of humans.
Let me ask you this. Why do you have so much faith in agencies like the IPCC and the WHO? They are proved liars yet you staunchly defend them.
“Whats the motivation to issue fraudulent health advisories?
***
“I gave you several reason and all can be corroborated.”
You proceeded to give no reasons at all for motivation, just a repeat of the potted history from about 0.0001% of all the research done on COVID, and ignored the rest, including the many times the virus has been isolated, cultivated, and sold/passed on to medical researchers.
It was isolated in Japan:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2002589117
https://bmjopenrespres.bmj.com/content/8/1/e000830.abstract
It was isolated in Australia:
http://tiny.cc/COVisoAUSTR
it was isolated in Germany:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x
It was isolated in Taiwan:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7151379/
etc…
The limits of this website prevent many more research papers I could link from all over the world. But need I go on? All these researchers have isolated SARS COV2. Are they liars, Gordon? Do believe they know less about the virus than than you?
Why do you ignore all this research? What makes you think your ‘opinions’ overrule research from the medical communities of every country?
You’ve not replied to any of my points. You’ve not explained why you ignore the great body of research on COVID and just repeat these few talking points as if it was the sum of the matter.
The WHO did NOT base its assessments on just one person’s claims, they were informed by research that continued worldwide. The virus has most definitely been isolated, cultivated, disseminated, and used in further research around the world.
You are hopelessly ill-informed about this subject. This much ignorance – wilful it seems – can’t be taken seriously.
Barry loves spreading the WHO bullcrap. They are the masters of his recent propaganda. Just Damn, Barry.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full
mRNA spike sequences stay in the blood for up to 28 days after the vaccine. Lie after lie after lie.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apm.13294
You obviously met Tom Jefferson somewhere else, Troglodyte:
> Since 2020, TJ receives fees for articles published by The Spectator and other media outlets.
https://restoringtrials.org/competing-interests-tom-jefferson/
You might also like:
> I think Jefferson – an Oxford University epidemiologist who has a number of eccentric and flatly nonsensical opinions about Covid-19, including that it didnt originate in China and may have been circulating in Europe for years before its global emergence – is overstating his case. There is something we can learn from the Cochrane paper, but its as much about the process of science as it is about the effectiveness of masks.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/2/22/23609499/masks-covid-coronavirus-cochrane-review-pandemic-science-studies-infection
“In 10 of 108 HCV patient samples, full-length or traces of SARS-CoV-2 spike mRNA vaccine sequences were found in blood up to 28 days”
Many of the authors you just cited declared working for WHO, Kennui.
One of them is Tom Jefferson, however, so mileage obviously varies.
Given 10,000 scientists saying one thing, and one outlier saying a different thing, and that thing fits Stephen’s conspiratorial thinking, then the outlier MUST be right.
> The Cochrane Review has apologized for an evidence review that led many to conclude, inaccurately, that masks dont work.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2023/03/10/how-the-cochrane-review-went-wrong-report-questioning-covid-masks-blows-up-prompts-apology.html
Snowfall in Ireland and England.
https://i.ibb.co/dMs2rmW/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-09-081901.png
The GCW/FMI SWE Tracker illustrates the current winter records for 2022/2023, relative to the long-term mean and variability of the snow water equivalent for the Northern Hemisphere (1 standard deviation calculated for 1982-2012), excluding mountains. The historical SWE record is based on the time series of measurements by two different space-borne passive microwave sensors. The current data combines these satellite measurements with groundbased weather station records in a data assimilation scheme. Updated daily by GlobSnow, a Global Cryosphere Watch initiative, funded by the European Space Agency and coordinated by the Finnish Meteorological Institute
http://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg
Heavy snowfall tomorrow in California above 1,500m. I advise you not to go on the road.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/03/10/0000Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=precip_3hr/orthographic=-122.48,40.09,2250
ren…you get used to driving in such conditions over here. Most roads, at least in Canada, have avalanche sheds to divert snow over the roads. If you have proper winter tires and carry chains for emergencies, you can usually get through.
A few winters ago, I drove a van loaded with gear through two mountain ranges here in Canada. The snow was several feet deep in places but the roads were plowed and I managed to get through the second mountain range without using chains.
The elevation of that mountain range pass is 1775 metres and the pass before was 1535 metres. There is a smaller pass near the beginning of the journey of 1244 metres. The highest pass in the Sierra Nevadas in California is about 2000 metres.
Antonin Qwerty on 2023 at 7:37 PM
” I think youll find that your areal cover differs significantly from the volume data. ”
Yes it does. And even more: its anomalies wrt a long-living mean are higher than the surface-based ones.
The latter is due to the fact that snow becomes over the years wetter and wetter, what leads to an increase of the snow’s water equivalent:
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
*
By the way, Flynnson’s constant urge to reply to all comments without saying anything relevant is really unbelievable. He is about to surpass Clint R’s or Robertson’s mental deficiencies.
Bin, youre not doing a very good job of ignoring me. It appears youre as incompetent at doing what you say as you are at science.
Hope Im not keeping you awake nights….
Sunny boy’s SC25 vs SC24 daily data report
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1inP5t0ohVZCQ1T1xOkAuQbgpAdnNowh0/view
Isn’t it sad that we have to analyse this, given we know that it makes almost no difference to the climate.
Tell that to the people who suffered through the Little Ice Age.
Binny,
You wrote –
“By the way, Flynnsons constant urge to reply to all comments without saying anything relevant is really unbelievable.”
Odd that you seem to believe what you claim to find unbelievable. You don’t even believe that a person whose name is “Flynnson” even exists, but obviously you cannot help blaming your inability to accept the reality of a planet which has cooled for four and a half billion years, on a fantasy figure.
You are so mired in fantasy that you cannot even describe the GHE – let alone explain its role in the aforementioned cooling!
So carry on avoiding reality – feel free to blame anyone you desire, for your delusional belief in a “greenhouse effect” which you cannot even describe, without portraying yourself a deranged SkyDragon cultist!
Give it a try – you might enjoy being laughed at.
Blather blather blather.
Flynnson, please troll stopping.
Bin used to attempt to fake a knowledge of science. But, like Norman, hes been busted so many times that now hes just another worthless troll.
Thats the end-state of all braindead cult idiots. So no recovery is expected.
Clint R
You are just being dishonest now. You have not busted me at all. I on the other hand have demonstrated many times your false misleading physics in many ways. Mostly with solid evidence you can’t understand and textbook physics you are not able to read.
Sorry troll Norman, but you can’t support your cult nonsense that you’ve swallowed.
You cant provide a valid technical reference to verify the fraud that fraudkerts provided. That fraud being two fluxes arriving a surface would result in the surface emitting the arithmetic sum of the two fluxes.
In addition, you cant provide Earth’s real 255K surface, that you belief in.
You’re an ignorant troll Norman. Support your claims to prove me wrong.
Troll Nate has been unable to answer the simple physics question, now for the 6th day:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1454225
I wont forget….
Riddle me this, Pup –
You got two stars shining on a planet. The first sends flux F. The second sends flux F.
How much flux does the planet receive?
Ta.
Worthless willard, you are usually worthless except when you attempt physics. Then, you display your ignorance of even the simplest concepts. That proves my point that NONE of you cult idiots know anything about the issues.
Ill gladly correct your poorly worded question, and then answer it, if you will take 2 weeks off from commenting here.
Are you willing to learn, or do you just want to be a troll?
grammie clone still can’t handle the fact that fluxes really do add.
Same offer to you Swanson. Take 2 weeks off from commenting (trolling) here, and Ill show you why your demonstration is nonsense.
You still have not answered my riddle, Pup –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1456965
When will you?
grammie clone the know-it-all can’t explain why the aluminum plate’s temperature increases as the radiant energy flux increases. Hint: the added flux is absorbed and thus the temperature must also increase to cause more energy loss via convection and radiation.
ES,
Now you are just being silly. If an object is in full sun, it will get hotter than if mostly shaded from the Suns rays.
However, even if you expose the shaded portion to the radiation from ice emitting 300 W/m2, the objects temperature will not increase.
You are trying to support a GHE which you cannot even describe, by demonstrating something that most people already know. You could just as easily (and with less expense) have moved just one heat source closer to the object until it reached the required temperature, and cried “Hallelujah! A miracle! After four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight and cooling, the Earth has at last begun to heat up!”
You obviously weren’t hiding behind the door when the stupid was handed out. You made sure you got your share.
Try describing the GHE. I will bet you can’t devise an explanation that stands up to scrutiny, and can be supported by experiment. Should be easy – all you need is a heat source, a thermometer, and some CO2. I guess you have already tried it, and found out that Tyndall was right. Blocking heat lowers temperatures. Show me that I am wrong, and I’ll change my view.
Flynnson wrote:
Flynnson apparently forgot that his usual straw man of using an ice block to boil boil water does not apply in this case, since there’s no liquid water involved.
His claim depends on the temperature of the exposed surface. If that temperature is below freezing, the IR radiation from ice block at 0C would warm the surface until the energy emitted from the ice falls as it’s temperature declines to that of the surface, mol.
Take your time, Pup.
I know solving my riddle requires mastering an algebraic operation that is still out of your reach.
Yet I have faith in you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It depends on how hot the planet is wrt the stars. You did say ‘receive’, which is ambiguous. That could be taken to mean ‘absorb’ but the amount absorbed has nothing to do with fluxes adding.
C’mon, Bordon.
You have one F.
You have another F.
How many F’s does that make?
C’mon Wee Willy,
You have one stupid.
You have another stupid.
How much stupid does that make?
The answer lies deep within yourself!
Quite right, Mike Flynn –
You are close to my heart.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
What are the effective radiating temperatures of the stars?
You are trying to get people to believe that an object receiving 300 W/m2 from sunlight, and 300 W/m2 from ice, will respond as though it is subject to 600 W/m2 of sunlight! That’s because you are an ignorant SkyDragon cultist.
You are probably stupid enough to believe that solid objects absorb all photons which impinge on them, regardless of energy levels. This will come as a vast surprise to other SkyDragons who believe, for example, that visible light can pass through solid glass! Are you really trying to convince people not to believe the evidence of their own lying eyes?
All this is just a SkyDragon cultist diversion, isn’t it, to disguise the fact that you can’t even describe the GHE!
Too much flux has addled your brain.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Have another spoon –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Winklepicker.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Putting your faith in an “author and content creator”, who apparently makes funny videos where she pulls faces, may be a mistake. You do realise that even Sabine Hossenfelder touts herself as a freelance science writer, because the world of physics doesn’t seem to accept that Sabine is right (and every other physicist wrong), without Sabine producing something other than descriptions of her own cleverness to back up her ideas.
Do you think she might be able to provide a description of the GHE which explains how it cooled the Earth for four and a half billion years?
I’m sure you can get a transcript of one of her funny home videos, and post the relevant section on this forum for all to see! Only joking – there is no GHE, regardless of SkyDragon claims to the contrary.
Keep posting funny home videos made by face-pulling “content creators”. I’ll keep ignoring them.
Keep playing dumb, Mike –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Ratoon.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The maximum temperature over Goa is likely to remain 4-6 C higher than its normal value because of the strengthening of easterly winds, clear sky conditions and delay in setting time of sea breeze.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/others/met-dept-warns-of-heatwave-in-goa-for-two-days-101678273627734.html
Portent in the sky or just another day in Goa.
Just another day in Goa.
Boring Troll.
Oh, Kennui.
You are too kind.
<3
Must be the first time I’ve seen a boring troll call himself out for being so.
Indeed. It is just like any another day. Hence the 4-6C higher than normal.
Meanwhile:
https://twitter.com/AveryGWilks/status/1633494362255499265
wee willy is fixated on warming in the Tropics. Global cooling has him hankering for some heat. Or maybe it’s his on-going hankering for attention.
[BORDON] It’s funny how the climate alarmists have suddenly become silent due to the colder than normal weather.
[ALSO BORDON] wee willy is fixated on warming in the Tropics.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The invention of the differential is as crucial an advancement in automotive technology as the invention of the stirrup was to horse riding. They revolutionized the way we drive cars and ride horses, respectively. Though they serve different functions and cannot be directly compared, they are crucial advancements that greatly improved the functionality and performance of their respective domains.
Around The Corner – How Differential Steering Works (1937) https://youtu.be/yYAw79386WI
Are you lost ??? do you know what board you are on
Proof of spin, put one on the Moon and debate is settled
Nobody on my planet youses math
I would discourage trying to use this board for a psychotherapy
NO?
TM,
I believe the Moon Rover has at least two differentials. What is their relevance to the rotation of the Moon around an internal axis (not as viewed from the perspective of fixed stars, which is apparent rotation only)?
And you, aggressive dachshund?
Do you think even a millisecond about that when you post your disgusting circular reasoning picture links on this blog?
Binny,
Who are you responding to? Tyson McGuffin?
What “disgusting circular reasoning picture links” are you talking about?
All a bit cryptic. Typical SkDragon cultist vagueness.
Binny is responding to Eboy, Mike.
Eboy knows to what image Binny is referring.
You do not, but then who cares?
Gadzooks.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Are you really delusional enough to think you can read minds?
Only joking – of course you are!
Mike Flynn,
Basic proficiency in reading comprehension, social pragmatic, and WordPress threads could save from having to speak of mind reading and delusion in the same comment.
Doodlesack.
The differential is in the rear. Differential steering is not a differential per se. The differential splits power from the driveshaft to the rear wheels in cars of that era (prior to front-wheel drive). Initially, only one wheel was driven but the advent of Positrak allowed both wheels to be driven as required.
Anything else you’d like to now about differentials? I have taken one apart and re-aligned the gears, even worked on the Positrak unit. Not something you want to do too often.
The March long-range Nino 3.4 predictions were just released by NOAA.
The probability for El Nino to develop late Summer / early Fall continues to incrementally increase.
Official NOAA CPC ENSO Probabilities: https://ibb.co/7RH11vf
Cue Ireneusz Palmowski.
Looks not too far away from those pred’s made (for Nino3, however) by Tokyo Climate Center:
https://i.postimg.cc/FH4hjpMZ/Screenshot-2023-03-09-at-13-57-06-El-Nino-Monitoring-and-Outlook-TCC.png
But… 2 years ago I trusted their forecasting, and that was a big surprise.
We’ll see what happens this year.
big surprise ? , what big surprise
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747571
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747571
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747886
Aaah, the little ankle-biting dachshund is here again.
For me, dachshund, that WAS A BIG SURPRISE.
What people like you think about what I write… pfff.
You are the Numba 1 Climate Clown on this board – no contest
Why was summer of 2021 the glory days for you, Eben? Is there some reason we need to keep reliving it?
You don’t want to be reminded of your own predictions do you
Are you afraid you will be tarred and feathered ???
Antonin Qwerty says:
March 8, 2023 at 7:48 PM
“I shine a light on a wall (from a fair way back).
I place a tennis ball in front of the wall, thus reducing the amount of light striking the wall.
Next to the ball I fix a disc of opaque material to the wall, with radius equal to the radius of the ball.
Ignoring minor effects due to non-parallel rays, which object blocks the most light from hitting the wall?”
–
–
Thank you Antonin for the interesting insight!
You mean the tennis ball’s shadow on the wall is the same size as the disk’s shadow on the wall…
–
They block the same exactly amount of light from hitting the wall!
–
–
Please consider now, which one of the above described objects, reflects the most light, and which one absorbs the most light?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If the surfaces are made of the same material, and provided that reflection is isotropic, they each reflect the same total amount of light. Near the “edge” of the earth (as seen from the sun) the surface flux of an incoming “sunbeam” reduced by exactly the same percentage as the area of that surface increases.
“If the surfaces are made of the same material, and provided that reflection is isotropic, they each reflect the same total amount of light.”
What same material.
Earth has been made of “same material” yet Earth has had Icehouse and greenhouse global climates- and some say, snowball global climates.
This related to changes of Earth surface material, in sense of geological changes of surface- “same material” but arranged differently, over time.
The sun in theory is increasing it’s energy output as is gets older, yet we are in the coldest times of an ice house global climate.
Earth also has glint:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/a-glint-from-earth
I was comparing a disk to a sphere assuming all other parameters were constant.
“The sun in theory is increasing its energy output as is gets older, yet we are in the coldest times of an ice house global climate.”
Yes, because CO2 levels are not as high as they are for a hothouse earth, and because ocean circulation has changed due to the moving continents. But they are not “the coldest times” … have you forgotten the last glacial period.
” have you forgotten the last glacial period.”
No, I am counting it, coldest known time and least amount of known CO2 levels.
But, I am also counting now. An average global temperature of 15 C is
cold. And hundred years ago, it said to be about 14 C.
And 14 C is colder, and may have been as cold as 13 C, recently.
And it appears, some religious people want it to be 13 C.
Past interglacial periods could have been warmer than 18 C- they were less dry and the Sahara Desert was not as it is today- it mostly grasslands, all of it, was habitable.
have you forgotten the last glacial period.
Also.
Some say we been in an Ice Age for about last 3 million years.
But most people say we have in an ice house global climate for
about 33.9 million years.
In terms of last 33 million years, we are currently, very cold.
If you compared it to last 3 million years, how much colder are now vs the last 3 million years. Then it seems “pretty cold”- or in last
3 million there were periods of 100,000 years, much warmer and always warmer, than now.
“Sahara Desert was not as it is today- it mostly grasslands, all of it, was habitable.”
And very small number of people [and it doesn’t include me] think
the Sahara Desert was general location of the garden of Eden.
But there is a lot actual evidence that a lot people lived in this vast region.
And one might think it fits the timeline {though I don’t you can say there is a timeline] of Garden of Eden.
Or I think odds of Garden Eden somewhere around a million of years ago, and there were probably many of these Garden Edens. As there were countless great floods. And floods kill most people in modern times, and floods can much much bigger than anything we “know about”.
Or there dozens floods which speculative in nature. And most impactors would mostly cause insanely mind boggling end of world floods. And people tended to be frighten to live near the beach.
And another good reason to make ocean settlements.
AQ,
The Earth has never been a “snowball”, or even a “slush ball”. This is a SkyDragon fantasy, supported by intelligent, but quite delusional “experts” like Carl Sagan.
The Earth still has a glowing interior, no more than 20 km beneath your feet.
Ice covered? In your deranged SkyDragon dreams, perhaps.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. Accept reality – or at least describe the GHE which prevents a hot glowing ball of minerals from cooling!
How hard can it be?
Swenson,
Maybe you should learn some Geology from a Geologist, instead of making it up yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXzDfQyUlLg
bob,
You cant actually quote me, and tell me what is wrong – and why – can you?
You are as silly as all the other delusional SkyDragon cultists. All you idiots can do is appeal to the authority of idiots. How do I know you are appealing to idiots?
Because it is physically impossible for the Earth to have been totally ice covered in the past. It’s a big glowing ball – with a thin congealed crust, topped by a surface which even the most devout SkyDragon claims is at least 288 K these days.
Put a block of ice in direct noon sunlight in the tropics (or most temperate regions), and see how long it stays frozen.
Comic books and stupid videos which you are too embarrassed to even describe, don’t change the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. No freezing and heating – unless you have a magic wand!
You need to wave your hands more.
Swenson,
Look at the rocks they tell the story.
The earth has warmed and cooled on various cycles over the years.
https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/i/Ice_age.htm
bob,
You have rocks in your head.
The planet has not “warmed and cooled”. About as stupid as claiming a red-hot slab of iron in sunlight will “warm and cool”.
You don’t seem to realise that an “ice age” does not mean that the whole Earth was frozen, any more than the Antarctic continent having kilometers of ice sitting on it means anything in relation to the temperature in Death Valley.
You are obviously a simple soul, who wants to believe SkyDragon cultist nonsense – whether it accords with fact or not.
Wake up, bob. Try and get a SkyDragon cultist to explain how the planet cooled, if the GHE is supposed to make it hotter. Do they think the GHE alternately “warms and cools” the planet?
No wonder nobody at all can describe this wondrous all-purpose “effect”. Hot one day, cold the next, flooding if there’s no drought – and so on. All due to the GHE? Really?
Swenson,
This is your level of understanding
“Hot one day, cold the next,”
How can that happen if the Earth has only cooled from its early molten state.
Do you have two brain cells to rub together?
bobdroege says:
”Maybe you should learn some Geology from a Geologist, instead of making it up yourself.”
Bob is one of those skip readers that didn’t do well in school.
Your geologists says we don’t know if the earth was a snowball as he provided two known reasons why rock can take such formations. One is erosion from water flow and the other from ice flow.
Far less that that we don’t know what would cause a snowball earth. It seems very unlikely it would occur under a constant sun at or near current intensity.
Solar variability isn’t at all known. We have teams of scientists trying to predict solar changes and mostly can just take advantage of the fact that change appears to occur slowly and maximum and minimum sunspot activity varying over years and cycles from no sunspots for relatively short periods of time in the last thousand years to maximums far less than the entire surface of the sun being covered by sunspots for even short periods of time.
What you idiots do is like Al Gore. Taking what was an unconfirmed theory and running with it politically from a professor that told him that the science wasn’t there yet. . . .making him the idiot-in-chief.
The tennis ball has a lot fuss, with Earth’s atmosphere it more like
a giant peach. And shadow of Earth because the atmosphere is reddish glow donut, though donut hole of most of Earth is much bigger than normal donut’s hole.
“They block the same exactly amount of light from hitting the wall!
Please consider now, which one of the above described objects, reflects the most light, and which one absorbs the most light?”
Hmm. When I consider, I wonder how much you have consider the bending of space-time? Is it significant or insignificant?
And if it’s insignificant, what gravity, density/mass starts to become significant?
Or what difference of say the Peach being a Jupiter’s mass. And difference of Jupiter mass which which 3 times denser compared
to a Jupiter mass.
The Earth is actually a smooth planet:
https://youtu.be/C69xx2bM8IA
I haven’t watched the video, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he mentioned that if the earth were shrunk to the size of a basketball then Everest would be only one-sixth of a millimetre high.
Yeah. He says something along these lines:
> The actual representation of these mountains, if Earth were this size [the size of the desk globe he is holding in his hands] it would be [mumbling] the depth of your fingerprint.
smooth is a relative term.
In relationship to sealevel Mt Everest is the height of 80 grit sandpaper.
That would not be considered smooth to your finger by any stretch of the imagination. If you were a crook sanding off your fingerprint ridges you would want to use a much finer grit as 80 grit would just cut fingerprint deep ridges into your skin. It would work for the purpose of hiding your fingerprints but it would make you bleed.
Thank you Antonin for your respond.
“If the surfaces are made of the same material, and provided that reflection is isotropic, they each reflect the same total amount of light. Near the edge of the earth (as seen from the sun) the surface flux of an incoming sunbeam reduced by exactly the same percentage as the area of that surface increases.
–
Yes, they are made from the same material. The reflection is not isotropic.
Actually reflection is not isotropic, reflection is resulting from the radiative flux’s interaction with matter.
Flux is a directional radiative energy. Reflection cannot be characterized as a 100% isotropic phenomenon.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Today it’s going to be a warm day, highs of 65 F and lows of 50 F
and tomorrow will warm, also with 50% chance of rain.
I am guessing this might be related to some worries of the snow melting. We have some snow on our hills.
It didn’t get any snow on ground where I live [all year] but there was some snow on ground and roughly at same elevation within say 10 miles of me- several inches.
I don’t think I am going to get any snow on the ground this year- though a bit of snowing but it didn’t stick to ground, here.
Snow records in the Sierra Nevada will be broken in two days.
https://i.ibb.co/DKY3HdV/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-09-234708.png
I am south of there.
And as Tim S said, need a lot more water slightly south of me.
Lots rain a bit south and north of me, would be great.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Millions of Californians already hammered by ferocious snowfall are about to get hit with a new storm starting Thursday, with torrential rain threatening to cause dangerous flooding.
“If you have feet of snow on your roof, all of a sudden that’s going to get very, very heavy. That snow is going to absorb the rainfall,” CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers warned Thursday.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/09/weather/california-atmospheric-river-flood-thursday/index.html
Wonky Wee Willy,
That’s informative – water has weight? Does frozen water weigh more when it “absorbs” unfrozen torrential rain? Maybe the torrential rain melts the frozen water, which then amazingly runs off the roof?
What do you think?
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Tittynope.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Water has weight 1kg per liter.
Typically 1 foot of snow will result in 1 inch of water.
So yeah, snow can absorb a lot of rain.
Roof collapse is a real issue, particularly for California where homes likely aren’t built with much consideration for snow load.
The problem of course is people falling of the roof whilst trying to shove snow off of it.
Rain??? That weather we willy.
[BORDON] Its funny how the climate alarmists have suddenly become silent due to the colder than normal weather.
[ALSO BORDON] Rain??? That weather
My climate model looks good in high heels and a dress in a picture, and even better when she moves, not to mention 50 degrees and sunny for Friday
https://i.postimg.cc/fbFgWcmp/mblack.jpg
That model must have distracted you, Eboy, for she’s presenting the East Coast.
This one might be more to Bordon’s taste:
https://www.accuweather.com/en/winter-weather/california-weather-atmospheric-river-flooding-forecast/1494270
Wistful Wee Willy,
Any fool can “predict” the future. Many do.
Even the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change knows that it is not possible to predict future climate states. If you believe otherwise, you are a complete fool.
Only joking – you haven’t got the ability to be a complete anything. Keep trying, anyway.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/11/canadian-summer-urban-heat-island-effects-some-results-in-alberta/#comment-1403970
Whacky Wee Willy,
You can’t even describe the GHE. Any description you try to come up with will no doubt require magic somewhere.
It must be a magic “effect”, heating the planet while it makes that same planet cool over the past four and a half billion years!
Four and a half billion years of sunlight seems to have resulted in cooling, you SkyDrsgon cultist fool! Seems that you are thoroughly fluxed.
Carry on dreaming – pose a few more “riddles”, “challenges”, or “offers”.
Fool.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Of course I can –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
I predict you will keep asking the same silly sammich.
Xertz.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You cant even describe the GHE. Any description you try to come up with will no doubt require magic somewhere.
It must be a magic effect, heating the planet while it makes that same planet cool over the past four and a half billion years!
Four and a half billion years of sunlight seems to have resulted in cooling, you SkyDrsgon cultist fool! Seems that you are thoroughly fluxed.
Carry on dreaming pose a few more riddles, challenges, or offers.
Fool.
Mike Flynn,
Why are you giving me free wins?
Nevermind –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Keep braying.
Yarborough.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You cant even describe the GHE. Any description you try to come up with will no doubt require magic somewhere.
It must be a magic effect, heating the planet while it makes that same planet cool over the past four and a half billion years!
Four and a half billion years of sunlight seems to have resulted in cooling, you SkyDrsgon cultist fool! Seems that you are thoroughly fluxed.
Carry on dreaming pose a few more riddles, challenges, or offers.
Fool.
Thank you for corroborating my prediction, Mike!
Repeat your comment again.
Dragoman.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You can,t even describe the GHE. Any description you try to come up with will no doubt require magic somewhere.
It must be a magic effect, heating the planet while it makes that same planet cool over the past four and a half billion years!
Four and a half billion years of sunlight seems to have resulted in cooling, you SkyDrsgon cultist fool! Seems that you are thoroughly fluxed.
Carry on dreaming pose a few more “riddles”, “challenges”, or “offers”.
Fool.
Another successful prediction!
Say it again, Mike!
Halfpace.
I don’t care if the forecast is years old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNgAGKhWC_E&ab_channel=GoaFilmsTV
Which part of 2023/03/09 you do not get, Kennui?
If you want more recent:
https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/discussions/hpcdiscussions.php?disc=pmdspd
Must have escaped the attention of our stormchaser.
Alright, Kennui. I should have clocked on the link.
You got me there!
I should have mentioned the main feature is the climate model.
I’m trying to improve my Spanish comprehension. The Chilean climate model speaks much more slowly than most of the Spanish climate models.
Look out, Starship! China is Building a Massive Reusable Rocket!
–For years, China has been dropping hints about its Long March 9 (CZ-9) rocket, a three-stage super-heavy variant of the Long March family. This launch vehicle will reportedly be capable of transporting up to 150,000 kg (16.5 tons) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and 54,000 kg (59.5 tons) to a trans-lunar injection. —
https://www.universetoday.com/160448/look-out-starship-china-is-building-a-massive-reusable-rocket/
150,000 kg = 165 US tons or 150 metric tonnes. Or 165.3465 US tons.
“The propellant tank measures 10 meters (~33 feet) in diameter, making it the largest developed by China so far. This is slightly wider than the main propellant tanks used by SpaceXs Starship (9 m; 30 ft) and NASAs Space Launch System (8.4 m; 27.5 ft).”
Also Saturn V had 10 meter diameter
“While the Long March 9 was initially designed to be expendable, China has since stated that it plans to switch to a reusable design, similar to the Starship. Once it is ready to make its first flight (around 2030), …”
Assuming the test launch of Starship works remotely as planned, SpaceX should be launching Starship, once a month by 2025 AD.
And by 2030…? At least once per week. Or once per day, though Musk wants 3 times of day per launch pad {but he is kind of crazy].
The question how many equatorial oceanic “launch pad” or launch sites
will Space X have by 2030. And other question is will a Starship with crew land on Mars by 2030 AD.
The plan to launch by 2030, is a bit slower and more comparable to the Saturn V.
Wiki:
” It was flown from 1967 to 1973. It was used for nine crewed flights to the Moon, and to launch Skylab, the first American space station.”
Saturn development
“Named for the next planet after Jupiter, the Saturn design evolved from the Jupiter series rockets. Between 1960 and 1962, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) designed a series of Saturn rockets that could be deployed for various Earth orbit or lunar missions” …The C-5 was confirmed as NASA’s choice for the Apollo program in early 1962″
”
Of course in those days, we were in a hurry.
tim s…”The vaccine issue and climate have one thing in common. Many of the people who are commenting in the media have very little understanding of the actual science. The climate is a huge question mark. Anybody who says they can predict the future on either side of the issue is simply wrong”.
***
Not many medical professionals understand the science, even those working in the field of virology. Anthony Fauci, allegedly at the top of the heap in the US, failed to understand the science. He and David Ho worked on an RNA-PCR test for HIV and Fauci failed to understand the flaw in the test.
Kary Mullis invented the PCR method for DNA amplification and was rewarded with a Nobel. Mullis was adamant that PCR could not be used diagnostically as Fauci was using it to identify a viral load. Mullis told Fauci that and Fauci claimed he was wrong. When Fauci persisted, Mullis began calling him a liar openly in public and Fauci took no legal action.
I think the reason Fauci took no action was related to him not wanting his claimed test to come under public scrutiny. It is built on a house of cards. The reason Fauci and Ho needed the test was simple, no one could see HIV on an electron microcope. It was inferred to be there but they reasoned the quantity was too low and it needed to be amplified.
How do you amplify something that cannot be detected by normal means? That was essentially the question Mullis was asking. He argued that PCR cannot make a virus magically appear if it cannot be detected using an electron microscope. In other words, if it cannot be readily detected in an unamplified sample, amplifying it wont help because PCR amplifies everything equally. If it’s not there, it’s not there.
Please don’t rush off too Google searching for EM images of HIV unless you know how to identify a virus by its image. Stefan Lanka, an expert on viruses who discovered the first virus in the ocean has already done that for us. Every image you see of HIV on Google is either a fake or a false claim. Many scientists have presented an image of cells and inferred the virus is within.
Luc Montagnier is credited with discovering HIV and he too was awarded a Nobel. I have nothing bad to say about Montagnier, I think he was straight-forward and offered his opinions in good faith. He acknowledged that he did not identify HIV as a virus, that he inferred it based on retroviral science, which was in its infancy at the time. Some scientists did not think retroviruses existed and that opinion holds to this day with some of them.
Anyway, Montagnier admitted he had never seen HIV on an electron microscope and his lab technician verified that in an independent comment. Why he persisted is unknown but he applied retroviral theory and claimed that certain strands of RNA were evidence of HIV. That same methodology has been used since, including covid, to infer a virus that cannot be seen on an electron microscope.
About 20 years after he inferred HIV, Montagnier changed his mind. He announced that HIV does not cause AIDS, that AIDS is oxidative stress related to lifestyle. He claimed further that a healthy immune system will handle HIV. Lanka, on the other hand, claims there is no proof that HIV even exists.
The notion of an RNA-PCR test for HIV or covid has been deemed fraudulent by many scientists but the paradigm has been deeply entrenched and there is too much money directed into such research to back off. A lot of scientists will have egg all over their faces if that is admitted. So, we are stuck with fraudulent science being used as a justification by politicians to impose their will on the public.
The same is true of climate change theory. The science doesn’t matter anymore, it’s the loss of face and money that those pushing it will incur if the truth comes out.
Kary Mullis – the man who believed that one night he encountered a glowing green raccoon that addressed him as “doctor”.
AQ, please stop trolling.
Obviously you have never taken good acid. What does that have to do with Mullis inventing the PCR method and receiving a Nobel for it.
Mullis did a lot of good research in his life, how much have you done?
I dont quite understand what Substack is, mutters Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX) at one point, which underscores the idiocy you are about to watch. ”
I don’t read Substack much, but I have some clue about it.
How many think Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX) is like you or
imagine she is competent?
https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/03/09/the-dumbest-five-minutes-of-congress-ever-dems-demand-sources-from-journalists-who-exposed-government-media-censorship-complex-n535909
Now I am not a news junkie and most people aren’t, but most people
don’t a staff of hundred people which are news junkies.
I would think Substack is more significant than CBS- which a corporate clown show
After having talked with a butterfly, Joe tells us that we need to bring back our old paegan ways. Our real paegan ways. The European ones, which are mentally healthy:
https://www.youtube.com/live/vKsS853KSqw?feature=share&t=1914
Not the disgusting Middle East ones, which are all about child sacrifices.
If we need to prepare for the Phosters and the Archons that will invade us from above, we need to let go of Abrahamanism.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I decided it was too boring to infiltrate it.
I was wondering if I could write them a simple book.
I don’t see much worth returning in terms of primitive european,
though I guess an idea could be to return way back to the
Neanderthals.
Abrahamism:
“In the three main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), the individual, God, and the universe are highly separate from each other. The Abrahamic religions believe in a judging, paternal, fully external god to which the individual and nature are subordinate.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
“the individual, God, and the universe are highly separate from each other.”
I thought it was that there was very close relationship between Man and God. But the general idea was Man was not to be overly concerned
with understanding God or what happens after man dies.
Instead humans should focus in living in this great world [or universe] God created for humans. And humans had likeness to God.
And God was a he, because human males needed to think of God as a he, and women were different- women were less dependent on needing a “role model” when they are children. And Men needed women to make them complete. Or boys tended to be evil if they lacked a male role model. Also girl needed a male role model- that wasn’t as much of problem- or men are more violent and murder and rape far more than woman do.
But in Torah there were quite a few women who were “hero/leaders or did goodness in accordance to God’s ten commandants.
Anyhow, just follow 10 commandant and that is just about it.
Also, if reject having fun, you will have explain or account for
not taking that opportunity.
“I dont see much worth returning in terms of primitive european, ”
The Beltane fires sound like fun.
gb…”In the three main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam)…”
***
I object to them lumping Christianity under the umbrella of Abrahamic religions. Christians were rebels in their times, they broke away from the conventional Judaism and that’s partly why Jesus was killed, as well as many Christians following his death.
The idea about God and the relationship between God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, was arbitrarily decided by a tribunal at Nicea, circa 325 AD, led by a Roman of all things. The Roman Emperor Constantine initiated the tribunal, and head the nerve, considering it was the Romans who murdered Jesus. Of course, it was the Jews who turned him over to the Romans.
I see no relationship whatsoever between Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and where Abraham comes into it is a mystery.
Abraham is in the Bible, Bordon.
Come on.
swenson…”You are trying to get people to believe that an object receiving 300 W/m2 from sunlight, and 300 W/m2 from ice, will respond as though it is subject to 600 W/m2 of sunlight! Thats because you are an ignorant SkyDragon cultist”.
***
This actually goes a lot deeper than it appears. Those thinking ice emits 300 w/m^2 and comparing it to solar radiation are woefully ignorant of the fact that the power intensity at the solar surface is 3.8 x 10^26 watts. When the solar energy is diluted over 150 x 10^6 km, then it is about 1370 w/m^2.
That’s a convenient calculation based on the presumption that the Sun is a point source. It’s not, that is the radiation claimed to be radiated at the surface, where the surface temperature is estimated to be 5778K. At its core, the Sun is estimated to be around 15 million C.
I seriously doubt that the claimed surface radiation is a constant as implied by the 1370w/m^2 so-called solar constant. I’ll bet, in reality, it varies quite a lot. It has to, the 3.8 x 10^26 watts emitted at the surface has to be an average and no error margin is stated, basically because no one could figure such an average over the entire surface.
Furthermore, the intensity is not rated at a specific frequency/wavelength. The solar spectrum is extremely broad and I am sure it does not radiate with the same intensity at each frequency.
There is no meter on Earth could measure an exact surface temperature because meters are rated over a certain frequency range and all they could do is average the intensity received on Earth. Asking a meter to measure over a frequency range as broad as the Sun’s is asking a bit much.
I’d like to see exactly how the 3.8 x 10^26 watts is measured.
“Id like to see exactly how the 3.8 x 10^26 watts is measured.”
You actually presented two methods right in your post!
1) Stefan-Boltzmann
P = (sigma)T^4 A = (5.67e-8)(5778^4)(6.08e18)
= 3.8 x 10^26 W
2) Inverse-Square Law
radius of sun = 696,000 km
radius of earth’s orbit – 149,000,000
149,000,000^2 / 696,000^2 = 45,900
flux at sun’s surface = 1370 * 45,900
= 62,800,000 W/m^2
Total = 62,800,000 W/m^2 * 6.08e18
= 3.8 x 10^26 W
All of these numbers are well known and easily measured. All of this is something any freshman physics or engineering student could do.
“2) Inverse-Square Law
radius of sun = 696,000 km
radius of earths orbit 149,000,000
149,000,000^2 / 696,000^2 = 45,900
flux at suns surface = 1370 * 45,900
= 62,800,000 W/m^2”
–
***
Flux at sun’s surface… What surface?
tim…”All of these numbers are well known and easily measured”.
***
That was the point of my post, they are not easily measured. In fact, you have calculated them using assumptions based on S-B, which is a theoretical relationship extrapolated from a measured relationship between the EM emitted from an electrically-heated filament and the colours it gave off, in an approximate range from 500C to 1500C.
As Christos asks, what surface, a reference to the solar outer area? It’s a flaming cauldron of boiling gases.
Here’s the problem with your analysis…
1)S-B has no frequency component. It cannot differentiate between the EM given off from the ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum and the infrared region, or any frequency in-between. Planck’s curve shows a bell curve relationship but he fudged it based on the presumption there would be less output in UV and far IR regions than in the mid-frequency regions.
Therefore, the value theoretically calculated as 1379 w/m^2 at TOA makes no distinction between the far more powerful UV rays and the much less powerful IR rays. What you get is a mathematical average of the power being generated at each frequency. If there is a variation in solar output in certain EM frequency ranges, we would never detect it becauue we are not looking for it.
2)with the core temperatures of the Sun estimated to be 15 million degrees C, what are the chances that the surface temperature will be even, and emit an even 3.8 x 10^26 watts over the entire solar sphere.
3)How flat is the solar surface? The photosphere, the outer layer is 500 km thick. The temperature there is supposed to be around 6000K, yet the corona above it is rated at 1 million K.
Something is seriously wrong here wrt the average temperature of the surface. We go from 15 million K at the core to 6000k in the photosphere, to a million K in the corona.
And you are reducing this complexity to an S-B calculation based on an equation derived from an electrically-heated platinum filament wire between about 500C and 1500C.
You keep whining about a first year student knowing all this stuff but a 1st year student is not taught to think, only to accept and regurgitate. It took me years after university to start thinking about the reality of what we were taught and it appears you have not even started thinking for yourself yet.
Another cold fronts from the north will bring record snowfall to the mountains of northern California. Another snowstorm over the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/34RBndx/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-10-070938.png
With a cooling La Nia gone, media will go into Global Warming Overdrive as El Nio hits.
Anthony Watts
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/09/with-a-cooling-la-nina-gone-media-will-go-into-global-warming-overdrive-as-el-nino-hits/
“BY EMILY BECKER originally published on NOAAs Climate.gov
La Niathe cool phase of the El Nio-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climate patternhas left the building! After a year and half of non-stop La Nia, the tropical Pacific ocean-atmosphere system has transitioned to neutral, allowing NOAA to issue its Final La Nia Advisory. What can we expect for ENSO through the summer and into next fall and winter? Ill get to that!”
Elon Musk Is Planning a Texas UtopiaHis Own Town
The entrepreneur is laying plans for a new community outside Austin next to Boring and SpaceX facilities, dubbed Snailbrook
https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-texas-town-52386513
A fairly long article
Oh:
“Mr. Musk, his former girlfriend, who is the singer Grimes, Kanye West and Mr. Wests architectural designer discussed several times last year what a Musk town might look like, according to people familiar with the discussions. Those talks included broad ideas and some visual mock-ups, according to one of the people, but havent resulted in concrete plans.”
And linked from:
https://www.drudgereport.com/
Global data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/uah-global.jpeg
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/uah-tropics.jpeg
Once again, with the fantasy end projections?
Nate
These are not quite ‘fantasy end projections’.
They are simply not projections at all, but the right end of a Savitzky-Golay smoothing.
To make this stuff look like a projection, Blindsley Hood ‘forgets’ to show us the left end.
Savitzky-Golay 60 month/5 year smoothing changes depending on new data at ends. Not that Blinny understands that.
What? You lie again and again because it’s your only way to reply.
I perfectly know how Savitzky-Golay works.
And therefore, when I see a guy like you
– posting a chart with a S-G line at the end of the plot but not at its beginning
and
– boasting about an alleged ‘prediction’
then I know he manipulates us, Blindsley Hood.
Here is how S-G looks like when correctly represented:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sA-R00AZSucWYKd9M_MMT2uo473MH9as/view
If there is something boasters like you don’t need to teach, then certainly all about filters: your 5-year low pass representation is, I repeat, a pure manipulation.
Blinny just bluffs and lies. Continuously.
Try to compare your S-G and CTRM of the same window.
Blinny just bluffs and lies. Continuously……
Not Goebbels; he wouldn’t do that.
Oh… again Anderson, bringing me near to the dirty Nazi pack, and hence is called an asshole.
No, not Stephen KKK Anderson…
SStephen Troglodyte AnderSSon.
Interesting is also that Blindsley Hood manifestly is unable to show graphs with lines instead of these bloody points no one knows how they relate each to another, and instead invents some brazen nonsense ‘explaining’ why lines are wrong.
And his 5 year low passes suspiciously look like 10 year ones.
See the data at the top of the page.
Blinny fails to point out that the lines do not represent ‘real’ data, just joins the dots.
… and instead invents some brazen nonsense explaining why lines are wrong.
Exactly what I wrote above, Blindsley Hood.
*
My guess: you’re using a tool to plot data that you simply don’t know how to make it draw lines instead of points. Right?
Prove me wrong by posting a link to the same charts as above, but now using… lines instead of points.
As I previously explained, my statistics professor did not like lines on the graph that are not supported by the data.
“Prove me wrong by posting a link to the same charts as above”
Why would I reproduce what Roy already has at the top of the page, which has both lines and dots.
So Blinny will come up with data that is on the lines at the middle of each segment – not.
Finally, to make clear what I mean with ‘suspiciously’, here is a chart
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sA-R00AZSucWYKd9M_MMT2uo473MH9as/view
in which I compared UAH6.0 to RSS4.0 in the LT, with, in addition to the data, two different filter outputs
– 60 month aka 5 year Savitzky-Golay smoothing;
– CTRMs (cascaded triple running means, 60/50/39 months) according to Vaughan Pratt’s specification.
Thus, Blindsley Hood’s flat ‘5 year low pass’ is a pure manipulation.
*
Interestingly, the linear estimates generated by the spreadsheet calculator for the data, for S-G and CTRM respectively, show that the CTRM output has a higher trend than both the data and S-G’s.
Blinny suggest that using S-G or CTRM code is a ‘manipulation’.
Blinsley Hood
A proverb says: ” Only those who lie well are good liars. ”
You’re not even good at lying, let alone when trying to tell the truth. What womanish behavior!
Blinny does not understand how CTRM or S-G works.
I understand all that very well, Blindsley Hood.
Don’t try to kid us, its useless.
What I by the way also understand is that you are a heavily opinionated person who NEVER admits being wrong.
So tell me then, all knowing one, how the next few data points will effect the S-G as currently displayed?
In technical analysis parlance, such filter can be interpreted as a “leading indicator”, e.g.:
https://tcoil.info/savitzky-golay-filter-for-stocks-and-time-series-savgol-fit/
Better than ZigZag, if you ask me.
Care to predict what that code will produce for 60 months, 2nd order?
Why don’t you go first, Richard?
It’s right there.
I predict that it will show the same as I already have shown.
I would buy, Richard, either on the pullback or waiting for the breakout.
I wait to see what future data shows.
That would be the breakout move.
Willard is just as idiotic as usual.
As above, Saul Bellow.
Very deep.
Just maths and statistics.
Blindsley Hood
” Blinny suggest that using S-G or CTRM code is a ‘manipulation’.
Even when replying you can’t avoid to manipulate and lie.
Not using S-G or CTRM code is ‘manipulation’, Blindsley Hood!
Misusing and therefore abusing these two, as you do all the time, really is one.
Don’t try to kid us, it’s useless.
I do not misuse or manipulate, you just do not understand how the maths works.
I understand all that very well, Blindsley Hood.
Dont try to kid us, its useless.
What I by the way also understand is that you are a heavily opinionated person who NEVER admits being wrong – like Robertson, Clint R (with the tiny difference that, unlike them, you agree with the lunar spin results obtained in the last centuries).
You just appear not to do maths that well.
Bindidon, I don’t think RLH’s model is necessarily useless since it 1) both explains past behavior and makes predictions of future behavior and 2) is testable (I think) via simple statistical tests like the root mean square difference.
It is not a model.
Then I’m confused. The S-G projection line looks like an estimation model for UAH TLT anomalies.
Bindidon, youre not able to ignore me, are you?
Maybe theres a reason I havent admitted Im wrong — I havent been wrong!
bdgwx
Sorry, it seems you don’t get what matters here.
Was such a useless post really necessary?
An S-G projection line is the central line that depends on the actual future data for its actual value. It should have some variance around it (which I have shown elsewhere) which shows the actual curve that will be adopted depending on if the future data is high or low. The first month is almost certain, the rest are more and more likely to be different with different future data.
Please note that the S-G I use is one that compares well to CTRM (an unchanging low pass filter which finishes before the end of the data) over their respective periods, that is a 5 pass, multi-pass one. It will change in its curve at the end depending of if new data is high or low when added.
Blinny never wants to admit that is the case or that CTRM is much,
much better that SRM.
And the most ridiculous is that people like Blindsley Hood are so brazen that they show us an alleged ‘projection’ which however is nothing else than a smoothing of existing data:
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/uah-global.jpeg
That is really incredible.
*
What is a projection really?
/prəˈdʒɛkʃn/
an estimate or forecast of a future situation based on a study of present trends.
Here is a simple example of what is meant by such a projection:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jq4WtwwH8vcY3Fdx7vEFGge8niRmqHRn/view
While the blue polynomial mean runs over the existing blue data only, the red one does more than running over its red data, by showing a projection of that data into the future.
Everything else is pure unscientific nonsense.
The projection is the center line of the possible ranges that new data will allow.
In other treatments I have shown a shading to indicate the likely values and how this will effect the outcome.
P.S. Your red curve will alter/change depending on the actual future data appended.
The only ‘future’ that S-G is uncertain about is the actual curve WITHIN the data window. It says NOTHING about what the values will be in the future, like any other low pass filter.
“They are simply not projections at all, but the right end of a Savitzky-Golay smoothing.”
Its not a real smoothing since near the end it has run out of data to smooth.
I will bet you $50 that the downward headed portion at the end of the light blue curve (the SG projection) will NOT end up matching the dark blue 5 y LP filtered data when it gets there.
RLH,
What is the root mean square difference for the projection in your model?
What is the projection for 2023/03?
Are you asking what the range of the 60 month S-G projection is?
Take the difference between the estimator (which I believe is the S-G projection?) and the actual UAH TLT anomaly for each month and then compute the root means square value of all the differences.
BTW…it looks like the projection for 2023/03 is about +0.14 C. Correct? That would be consistent with my model saying +0.16 +/- 0.12 C (1-sigma). Note that my model has a root mean square difference (RMSD) of 0.12 C.
Here is the model I developed.
https://i.imgur.com/vCMjH0Q.png
As this is based only on past data only there is no prediction as such, only a projection with the data to date.
The S-G projection line cannot be extended to 2023/03?
Regardless what is the RMSD of the S-G projection line and UAH TLT anomalies?
An S-G central line cannot be extended beyond the current data.
“The S-G projection line cannot be extended to 2023/03?”
No low pass filter (or OLS straight line) can predict the future.
Ah…S-G is Savitzky-Golay. I’ve not used that technique before, but a cursory glance seems to suggest it is a type auto-correlation model with multiple lagged terms. And if I’m understanding correctly you should be able to define an SG function where you can predict the next data point based on the previous data points using the convolution terms. This would not be unlike auto-regressive AR(p) models. I’ll have to dig deeper into this. The problem is I learn something new everyday and my queue of stuff to study just keeps getting longer and longer.
“S-G is Savitzky-Golay”
S-G is indeed Savitzky-Golay and is well known in other disciplines. It is much preferable to Simple Running Means (SRM) which are well known to have distinct limitations and errors.
Indeed, Richard, and bd is right to underline the regression aspect of that filter.
One can use it to extrapolate a trend.
I just noticed that canonical SG makes estimates based on future values not unlike a centered average. That makes it more of a filter than a model. I see now why you’re saying it cannot predict the 2023/03 anomaly.
Have you heard of LOWESS in statistics and its relationship to S-G?
The real question is, I suppose, which is more accurate, an OLS line or an S-G projection?
You could actually backtest it, Richard.
Willard: What is your ‘backtest’ of an OLS line and an S-G projection in this case?
“Backtesting is the general method for seeing how well a strategy or model would have done ex-post”
As an OLS line and an S-G projection is neither of the above your question is moot really.
I have no real interest in the question, Richard.
Once I know I would buy, I try to not waste too much time on astrology for men.
‘backtest it’
Maybe go back and look at the SG projection (light blue) when the data ended in various years, the portion after the end of the 5 y LP (dark blue), and compare it to where the 5 y LP (dark blue line) actually went 2.5 years later.
More data from The Great Geophysical Experiment.
Nice warm day in China. More than 200 stations broke the record for early March.
https://ibb.co/zSWsbFS
Thank you, interesting.
Ignoramus Robertson of course will tell you:
” It’s only weather… “.
It’s weather.
Based on analysis through the first 9 days of March including the GFS 7-day forecast I’m expecting the 2023/03 anomaly to be +0.22 +/- 0.24 C (2-sigma). This is up from +0.16 +/- 0.24 C without the GFS analysis+forecast. Note that the expectation using the GFS will change throughout the month as new information rolls in. The odds of achieving a new low (-0.06 C or lower) for this La Nina cycle is continues to be very unlikely (though not impossible). There is a 60% chance the Monckton pause will extend to 105 months with only a 5% chance that it will shrink to 103 months.
Heavy snowstorm over Lake Erie.
https://i.ibb.co/G91BsVy/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-10-185047.png
Hey GB,
Here’s Kamala Harris briefing Americans on space:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqK-XkaCt5o
<b<Fun with Fluxes, Part 1
There’s still a lot of confusion about fluxes in the comments here.
A flux leaving a surface will not always have the same value when arriving another surface. This is due to both distance of travel and angle of impact. If the flux is not traveling through a vacuum, there will also be losses. So, it’s very important to undersand the basics.
When a problem involves arriving” fluxes, that greatly simplifies the issue. There is no need to consider things like albedo, inverse square law, or view factor. All of those considerations were already handled. What is left over is the arriving” flux.
This seems so basic and simple, but the cult can’t understand it. It seems they can’t understand any physics.
When I was explaining why Folkerts’ Fraud would mean ice cubes could boil water, several objected. They based their objection on “view factor”. But, as mentioned, view factor has NOTHING to do with ARRIVING flux.
Their futile effort to protect their nonsense is just another example of what braindead” looks like. You will see more examples in the responses to this comment.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
You owe me your proof that the Moon does not rotate.
The peanut gallery is writhing in anticipation.
Much fun and laughter is to be had.
Good luck with proving something that isn’t true.
Well, this is perfect!
I predicted we will see more examples of “braindead”, and braindead bob shows up! He’s not even on the subject of my comment — pure braindead.
Braindead bob won’t understand, he’s braindead. So this is just for others.
A ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without spin”. The ball always keeps the same side facing the inside of its orbit. That’s how we know Moon is NOT spinning. It doesn’t matter if Moon’s orbit is slightly elliptical. One side always faces the inside of its orbit. If we could place a large dot on the leading point of Moon, the dot would always be following Moon’s orbital path. If Moon were spinning, the dot would be spinning.
(Now watch for more examples of “braindead”.
Here is a climate model Xoana Gonzalez from Peru claiming warming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX9HbKtZA0c&list=LL&index=8
Wow!
Xoana Gonzalez La Chica del Tiempo clearly bangs the dachshund’s frightened virgin model
https://i.postimg.cc/fbFgWcmp/mblack.jpg
… doesn’t she?
I can’t remember ever seeing so much silicone on a woman’s body.
“Estragon: People are bloody ignorant apes.”
– Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot
Clint R,
That’s not a proof.
On the alcohol scale of proof that’s NABLAB!
You still owe me.
Hint: facing the inside of an orbit is not the same direction, it actually rotates with time.
I know you can’t do better.
bob,
There are no “proofs” in science. Scientific “proofs” are for delusional SkyDragon cultists, and similar gullible and ignorant types – journalists, politicians, and so on.
Keep waving your hands and shouting “The science is settled, I tell you!”
The feeble minded will applaud.
Swenson,
I know that, but apparently Clint R does not.
He promised me a proof that the Moon does not rotate, if I didn’t comment for 90 stays.
You can’t do better either.
bobdroege
100 % success! Clint R is predictably unbeatable.
*
It’s a pity that he never would be able to download, let alone to modify the SPICE evaluation and validation software CosmoScout VR, developed at the German Aerospace Center DLR:
https://github.com/cosmoscout/cosmoscout-vr
SPICE is the global ephemerides database containing all orbit and spin data for most of the Solar System’s celestial bodies.
*
Clint R could modify some parameters (for example: overriding Moon’s spin period with 0.0, he he).
He could then look at what happens when he lets the software redraw the two pictures shown here, and compare them to the originals:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N6csahJUIyk6b-ITXV-28WDr4JXgS058/view
That would be soooo amazing.
He would cry, cry, cry
” DLR is a pack of braindead cult idiots, even worse than those posting on Roy’s blog! ”
Would that not be fun?
Bin, if only you would start ignoring me, like you claimed, you would have even more time to find sources you can’t understand.
I never said I would ignore you.
I recently ignored one of your stupid posts. No less, no more.
*
Clint R, vous devriez apprendre l’anglais: cela ne vous ferait certainement pas de tort.
Bin, here’s where you claimed you were going to ignore me:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1456061
Boy, I’m glad you’re not going to ignore me anymore. I don’t know what I’d do if you ignored me….
Clint R,
It’s possible that the sour kraut would have to focus his pea-sized intellect on ignoring me.
Oh, the hurt! Oh, the horror!
[oh, the derisive laughter]
” And the more you repeat this blah blah, the more it will be ignored… ”
Don’t you understand English?
I don’t ignore you: I ignore your permanent nonsense. This is something quite different.
But… maybe it’s too high for the ball-on-a-string man?
” [oh, the derisive laughter] ”
The arrogant Flynnson nitwit with his posh, smugly 5 o’clock teatime English is stalking again.
As usual, he has nothing to say and therefore urges to say something.
How boring, how boring.
You remind me all the time the one or the other German elementary school teacher: different native tongue, but same behavior.
Binny,
You value yourself too highly. Why would I bother “stalking” an anonymous deranged SkyDragon like you?
Be as bored as you like, if you cannot control yourself. Have you nothing better to do?
Finding a description of the GHE, and an explanation of its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling might allay your boredom!
Or you could just whine and exhibit your petulance when anybody laughs at your conviction that experts can predict the future by studiously dissecting the past.
Oh dear, I fear I have made you lapse into a perfect funk of boredom! Tough – you need to stop whinging, and grow a backbone.
bob…do you have a note from your mom, giving you permission to comment here?
Gordon,
If she was still alive, I’d send her over to your house, she would kick your ass.
b,
And if your auntie had balls, she would be your uncle.
All very interesting, but I assume that you still cannot actually describe the GHE, nor explain its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?
Time for some puerile obscenities, bob?
Swenson,
I have already described the Greenhouse effect to you, now you are just lying.
And there is not such thing as four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
There is no geologic evidence for that.
Unless you count evidence from models and computer simulations.
You don’t want to do that do you?
You can’t even provide evidence that the Earth was all molten at any time.
You’re not worth the time.
bob, I recall you struggling to describe your GHE nonsense. Each time, you had to revise it. Do you have a version you will stick with?
If so, wed like to see it.
Not until you give me your proof that the Moon doesn’t rotate, Clint R.
Or do you welsh on your deals?
bobdroege says:
”You owe me your proof that the Moon does not rotate.”
Bob the moon rotates around the earth. Apparently you are too stupid to understand that the choice of viewing the moon rotating on its internal axis is fine, but to do that one must ignore the rotation of the moon around the earth.
The spinners in here have made a beautiful example of their inculcation. . . .arguing ad nauseum about something that isn’t a mutually exclusive fact. It is perfectly fine to choose to view the moon as rotating around the earth or rotating on its internal axis. But it is wrong to suggest this choice is mutually exclusive of the moon’s motion around the earth.
All you do is take words of somebody choosing to view the moon’s motion as such as a scientifically established mutually exclusive fact showing nothing other than just how bad your education was or how badly you absorbed a good education.
Spinners need to reconcile rotations on external axes. One can choose any group of particles, like those inside a chalked circle rotating on an merry-go-round, ignore the rotation of the merry-go-round. Assume the particles are translating around the center of the merry-go-round and focus exclusively on the relative motion of the particles inside the chalked circle.
Where you go completely off the rails and prove how bad your education was is when you insist on one point of view and then go about making up all sorts of excuses for why you think that way without a any scientific support whatsoever.
Hunter troll jumps on to the Moon’s motion MGR again, writing:
Been There, Done That. The Moon’s motions could be considered to rotate around an external axis if:
1 – It’s rotation is once per orbit,
2 – It’s orbit is circular,
3 – it’s axis of rotation is perpendicular to the orbital plane.
Sorry, we know for a fact from centuries of careful measurements that #2 and #3 are false, therefore the Moon’s motion can not be considered as a rotation around an external axis. You and the rest of the lunar-tics have yet to provide any mathematical description of your motions, other than that of a body orbiting in an elliptical trajectory which also rotates around an internal axis.
E. Swanson claims that one should only recognize rotations on an external object if the orbit a perfect circle.
Yet that excludes all rotations on an external axis as gravity is going to have an effect on all such rotations. Gravity is ubiquitous and your argument is if gravity distorts a once per orbit rotation it shouldn’t be considered a rotation.
Oh yes we have you saying you ”allow a little play”. So your classification of elliptical orbits is 100% subjective. What other science principle can you name Swanson that is subjective?
Hunter troll wrote:
Hunter confuses things as he writes “object” instead of “axis”. His garbled post fails to mention such motions described as General Plane Motion, for which said axis must be fixed at one point in 2D space. This situation could only occur with the unique situation in which the orbit is circular. All other orbits in 3D follow paths which tend to be elliptical due to the effects of gravity.
Hunter has drifted back to the semantics of the definition of “rotation”, leaving behind the notion of a body rotating around an external axis. Same old pile of troll poop…
the only thing noticeable in your post Swanson is you didn’t defend your idea that a rotation can be real according to your definition and instead focused on a object not being an axis when it is the point that controls the object rotating around it.
Your argument becomes weaker and more jumbled they more you try to avoid the real argument.
Hunter troll tosses out another confusing comment:
Hunter forgets that the Moon is a free body with no solid connection to anything else. An object isn’t an axis, since the axis is often imaginary. The point around which an object rotates in 2D may also be imaginary, though there might be some real constraint of some sort.
BTW, my argument was regarding claims about the Moon rotating around an external axis. I don’t think that this is meaningful if the axis is continually moving, as you appear to think.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter forgets that the Moon is a free body with no solid connection to anything else. An object isnt an axis, since the axis is often imaginary. The point around which an object rotates in 2D may also be imaginary, though there might be some real constraint of some sort.
—————————
So you claim that gravity doesn’t qualify as a connection and is sometimes imaginary?
Do you have a reference for this nonsense or are you just making it up on the fly?
“A flux leaving a surface will not always have the same value when arriving another surface.”
Yes! Excellent. Keep that in mind.
“There is no need to consider things like albedo, inverse square law, or view factor. All of those considerations were already handled. ”
Yep! The flux leaving from some sheet of ice might be 315 W/m^2, but only 1 or 10 or 100 W/m^2 when arriving at some other surface.
Here is the simple fact that always seems to elude Clint. Those factors like inverse-square law, orientation, and view factor require that the ARRIVING flux will NEVER be greater than the original flux leaving from the ice surface. No matter the distance or size or orientation of the ice surfaces emitting 315 W/m^2, the arriving fluxes from all the ice will never add to more than 315 W/m^2.
The ice will never boil water. That is only in Clint’s misguided imagination.
Folkerts, for some reason you avoided addressing your fraud. For example, your fraudulent claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING a surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2.
Tim has explained how this is possible, and you have both agreed that it’s not possible with ice.
“A flux leaving a surface will not always have the same value when arriving another surface”
For one object radiating to another it is almost never that the arriving flux will have the same value as the flux emitted.
Because of this fact, the sum of all ice cubes irradiating a surface can never be greater than 315 W/m2.
And if you understand the why of this fact properly, the rest falls into place.
You don’t understand why this fact is so, and that’s why you bang on about ice cubes.
So youre denying Folkerts Fraud?
There goes your GHE fraud….
barry,
You can’t describe the wondrous GHE, and that’s why you bang on about everything else.
Oh dear, the Earth seems to have cooled over the last four and a half billion years – notwithstanding four and a half billion years of sunlight, and four and a half billion years of GHE!
It rather makes SkyDragon cultists look like a pack of shambling idiots, doesn’t it?
Maybe your invisible God is just a self proclaimed delusional “climate scientist” behind a curtain, shouting through a megaphone.
What do you prefer – fantasy or reality? I accept reality, but to each, his own.
Carry on banging.
no Barry…Clint is banging on about ice cubes because it is basic science that radiation from ice cubes cannot warm anything hotter than the ice cube. You guys are playing philosophical games to make ice cubes appear to warm water at room temperature and Moon’s spinning when they have only linear momentum and keep the same side always pointed to the planet they are orbiting.
Some of you have argued that radiation can add in the atmosphere but it cannot, simply because it’s so out of phase with other radiation that addition is not possible. It can, once converted to heat in a surface, add, but that’s not the EM adding because it’s gone after the conversion.
So, you guys are dodging the questions.
I have worked extensively with EM waves in the atmosphere as part of communications systems. EM does not add in the atmosphere, it only dissipates. If you send out a radio wave at 10,000 watts, it quickly dissipates to microwatts. Inverse square law, you know?
Gordo spews out another example of his ignorance of physics.
His Inverse Square Law example applies to a point source. However, at the great distance between the Sun and the Earth, the arriving photons are nearly parallel, thus there’s no appreciable reduction in intensity over small distances due to the Inverse Square Law. For the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, the curvature is greater, but, the two may still be modeled as parallel surfaces with little difference from reality.
His electrical engineering reference to fluxes adding is wrong, as there isn’t a phase relationship between the fluxes of photons at infrared wavelengths. In the atmosphere, the GHG gas absorp_tion and emissions occur at the individual molecules, for which the resulting energy transfers can be averaged.
Swanson, since you’re pretending to be an expert on radiative flux, maybe you can help troll Nate with this question hes been unable to answer for over a week now:
Troll Nate, two infinitely large plates face each other. One plate is emitting 400 W/m^2 to the other plate. The other plate is emitting 800 W/m^2 to the 400″ plate. The plates are so close together that there are no losses.
What is the net” flux arriving the 400″ plate from the 800″ plate?
“So youre denying Folkerts”
Nope. You just don’t understand the issue. I give you a fuller reply below.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1458226
Gordon,
“Clint is banging on about ice cubes because it is basic science that radiation from ice cubes cannot warm anything hotter than the ice cube.”
But only Clint is talking about radiation from ice cubes boiling water. He keeps attributing that position to his opponents, when NONE OF THEM THINK THINK IT IS SO. And in fact have expressly refuted Clint’s notion.
So, if you want to know who suggested radiation from ice cubes can boil water – that is all Clint’s idea and no one else’s.
That’s why I called him a lying dog a while ago, because he kept attributing this insane notion to me.
We’ve told him why this won’t work, but he just doesn’t get it. Can you please help him out?
“your fraudulent claim that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING a surface would result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2.”
I can’t believe we have to go over this for you yet again.
Two two 315 W/m^2 fluxes ARRIVING a surface CANNOT both come from ice. They could come from two surfaces twice as hot as ice or 10 times as hot as ice. They could come from one surface slightly hotter than ice and one surface much hotter than ice.
And if those two fluxes of 315 W/m^2 (say from two sun beams) both arrive at the a surface, that surface is receiving 2 x 315 W/m^2.
What makes you think that I or anyone else claims that two fluxes from ice could add to more than 315 W/m^2. Especially since I have repeated claimed (and explained why) that is impossible.
I’m enjoying your squirming, Folkerts.
The 315 W/m^2 flux doesn’t have to come from ice. It could come from many different sources. That’s just the flux emitted by ice.
If the surface absorbs 315 W/m^2, it would be emitting 315 W/m^2, in time. It would reach about 273K.
Now if another source was also providing 315 W/m^2 to the surface, your previous fraud claimed that the surface would reach 325K.
Are you now denying your own fraud? Or do you want to keep squirming?
“The 315 W/m^2 flux doesnt have to come from ice. ”
And Clint he keeps bringing ice, trying his best to mislead people.
Bill jumps in to obfuscate after having conceded this argument a long time ago and chosen an insulation model instead. but like the moon spinning argument he attempts to keep his two feet in two separate boats. Thats why this is so much fun!
tim…”The ice will never boil water. That is only in Clints misguided imagination”.
***
No Tim, time to move out of your delusion. Ice cannot boil water, but that’s not what Clint has claimed. He claimed the radiation from ice cannot boil water, no matter the size of the ice. The radiation from a block of ice freshly calved from the Larsen ice shelf, even if it’s the size of Manhattan, could never boil water. As for the ice itself, if you put it in hot coffee, it will cool it.
The inverse square law does matter. The acceleration produced on a body near Earth’s surface is 9.8 m/s^2 but at the surface of the Moon, the acceleration produced is about 0.003 m/s^2.
According to R. W. Wood, the inverse square law will dilute surface radiation to the point it will be ineffective after a few feet. When a radar sail on a battleship emits over 10,000 watts of power, by the time it reaches the target and returns it has dissipated to a few millionths of a watt.
“…what Clint has claimed. He claimed the radiation from ice cannot boil water, no matter the size of the ice…”
Amazingly, that is exactly what Tim has been saying.
So where do you think the idea comes from that radiation from ice can boil water, Gordon?
I’ll give you one guess.
barry, you idiots know that ice cubes cannot boil water, yet you still try to promote the fraud that would result in ice cubes boiling water.
Tell us again why “view factor” is relevant to ARRIVING flux. Thats the kind of fraud that is so amusing.
“Tell us again why ‘view factor’ is relevant”
Because it explains why radiation flux arriving to a surface from any number of ice cubes can’t be summed to be more than 315 W/m2, and why flux arriving from two hotter objects can be.
Do you want to tell Gordon who came up with the ice cube idea, or shall I?
barry, are you now denying Folkerts’ Fraud?
He has claimed 315 W/m^2 will add to 315 W/m^2 so that a surface will then emit 630 W/m^2.
Try to deny that….
What’s to deny? I agree with him.
The casae in which he says that would happen is if both sources of the 315 W/m2 ARRIVING completely filled the ‘view’ of the receiving surface.
View factors, Clint. You need to learn about it or you’ll keep rabbiting on about ice cubes forever.
“He [Clint] claimed the radiation from ice cannot boil water, no matter the size of the ice. ”
Actually, that is what I have repeatedly claimed.
“The inverse square law does matter. The acceleration …”
Stick with the program. We are discussing radiation here, and radiation that has ALREADY been subject to the inverse square law to find the flux ARRIVING AT some distant surface.
No Folkerts, we are discussing your fraud.
Stick with the program.
Tim,
I suppose you are going to make some stupid claim that the Earth has actually heated up since it’s creation, apparently as a big molten blob.
That’s what the GHE is supposed to do isn’t it?
Fool.
Only a fool believes that anyone would think that thats what the GHE is supposed to do.
Tim,
Presumably, your attempted diversion has something to do with promoting a mythical, non-existent “greenhouse effect”. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but you can’t describe this “greenhouse effect” – which apparently has nothing at all to do with greenhouses, and whose only “effect” seems to be cooling the planet over the past four and a half billion years, which would have happened anyway, so no “effect” at all.
If you can’t even describe the GHE, who is going to believe all your other mystical nonsense?
At least you seem to have accepted that millions of watts radiated from ice cannot boil water, but a handful of watts from sunlight can do so. Has this something to do with your non-existent GHE, or can’t you say?
You sound like a delusional SkyDragon cultist to me, but feel free to convince me otherwise.
Or not.
Mike Flynn,
Easy peasy –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Keep asking for your sammich!
Griffonage.
Whiffling Wee Willy,
Your face pulling content creator, like you, can’t describe the “greenhouse effect”, can she?
Nor can anybody else, because it doesn’t exist! The Earth has cooled, you fool. Thermometers showing increased temperatures have been exposed to increased heat – caused by humans.
Keep banging on about “sammiches”, and linking to irrelevant and pointless YouTube videos. Thats about all you can do, I suppose.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
She actually can –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Keep opining on something you pretend not to have looked at!
Omnishambles.
Wistful Wee Willy,
I don’t have to look at your silly links, no matter how many times you repeat them. Why shoukd I?
Clint R told me all I needed to know, and you haven’t denied it’s a piece of nonsense posted by a “content creator” looking for “clicks”. Unfortunately for dimwitted SkyDragons like you, she actually wrote elsewhere “I had an infographic made to explain how the greenhouse effect really works.”, and the brightly coloured graphic repeats the NASA nonsense – totally ignoring physics. I suppose the fact that your “content creator” can’t actually find a job as a physicist, means nothing to you.
If you want to appeal to authority, find a better one than a freelance “content creator” who makes silly YouTube videos.
Obviously, you can’t find any description of the GHE in anything you link to, nor any explanation of its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling. What a fool you are, thinking that anybody values your bizarre obsessive behaviour.
Bang on.
Mike Flynn,
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Gabelle.
Pipiddy Pup,
You still have not solved my very enigmatic enigma –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1456965
Willard, please stop trolling.
test
Come on, Bordon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“A flux leaving a surface will not always have the same value when arriving another surface.”
Indeed so, because View Factors matter.
“When I was explaining why Folkerts Fraud would mean ice cubes could boil water, several objected. They based their objection on ‘view factor’.”
Exactly so. See above.
“But, as mentioned, view factor has NOTHING to do with ARRIVING flux.”
Wrong! Oh well two out of three aint bad for Clint.
He’s only half wrong – if we agree on whatever flux is arriving, that is, irradiating the surface (ignoring reflection) we’ve already taken view factor into account.
But Clint doesn’t seem to realize that view factor matters when you start adding ice cubes, or he would already understand why you can’t get more than 315 W/m2 irradiating a surface no matter how many ice cubes there are. The geometry of radiative flux is fundamental to understanding radiative transfer.
Clint,
If you have a meter square blackbody surface area (so it absorbs all radiation) and a 2cm square ice cube, that surface is not going to get an average of 315 W/m2. It’s going to be a tiny fraction of that spread across the surface. So now you keep adding ice cubes, each one radiating at 315 W/m2, but only irradiating a tiny fraction of that to the surface as a whole.
An ice cube with the facial surface area of 1 meter would be outputting 315 W from the face facing the surface. Because area is a factor in this equation, the absolute power output by a 2cm square ice cube is 50 times less in terms of actual wattage.
You can add more ice cubes and sum the fractions. Eventually, when you get a meter square’s worth of ice cubes, you’re going to get closer to the meter square surface receiving 315 Watts.
If you want the surface to get exactly 315 W/m2 from ice, then the ice must completely cover the view area, as in a dome.
You could do that by building an igloo out of ice cubes, each ice cube adding its portion of irradiation – each at much less than 315 W/m2 irradiated to the meter square surface – until you achieve view factor unity.
Now, if you have two sources of radiative energy, each much hotter than 0 C, such that the radiative flux arriving, or irradiating the meter square blackbody surface, then you sum the fluxes.
But if these two sources do not cover the surface’s field of view, then the surface will also be equilibrating with the rest of the environment. If the rest of the environment is deep space, then the surface won’t be emitting 630 W/m2, because it won’t get that hot.
To get the surface radiating at the sum of the two fluxes, then you need, again, to make a dome or enclosure comprised of these two emitting sources. With a unity view factor the surface will equilibrate with the incoming energy from only those 2 sources.
C’mon, Clint. Bar heaters work on the principle that radiative fluxes are additive, otherwise there is no use adding more than one bar to the heater. And you can feel this happen instantly. You turn on one bar and your arm feels warm. Don’t move your arm and turn on a second bar, emitting at the same temperature and frequencies. Instantly your arm gets warmer, prickling as the extra radiation heats it if you arm is close to the heater.
It’s something I believe we are all old enough to have experienced IRL, and there is no denying it, which is why you have never commented on why bar heaters have 2 and 3 bars, and why their very existence proves you wrong (unless the whole world has been deluded about them for 70 years).
Even a single bar heater works on the principle that you add radiative flux:
https://www.electricradiatorsdirect.co.uk/media/wysiwyg/Belling_heater_1.jpg
If radiative flux arriving at a surface can’t be summed, why bother to put reflectors in bar heaters? The reflected radiation is just a hair cooler than that emanating from the element. So it not only shouldn’t add to the directly radiated heat, according to you, Clint, it also should not be felt on the skin because it’s a shade cooler than the direct stuff. I believe you hold that objects can’t absorb radiation from objects cooler than them? In which case reflectors in bar heaters are a waste of time, right?
Everyday experience should let you know you’re wrong, Clint.
Tell me how bar heaters with 2 or 3 bars work to make you warmer as each bar is turned on, if radiation can’t be summed.
I would love to see how you work that out.
barry, please stop trolling.
gbaikie says:
March 9, 2023 at 5:00 PM
I am south of there.
And as Tim S said, need a lot more water slightly south of me.
Lots rain a bit south and north of me, would be great.
You will get rain on demand.
https://i.ibb.co/K9WqsZW/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
Today La Nina officially ended , wait for Bindiclown zshit his adult diaper when he hearz that
https://youtu.be/nLYLSH8iq6o
Hi dachshund…
Your very mature school boy contribution went immediately in the garbage can.
It’s time for the Bindiclown’s 100% failure ENSO forecasts recap
https://i.postimg.cc/V6dB8YSY/bwf.png
Oh
The little ankle-biting dachshund still has nothing better to do…
Keep stalking strong, dumb baby.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Do you mean Blinny Goebbels? Propagandist extraordinaire and confirmed Nazi.
some points from video…
a)the weather person sounds like a talking head Barbi Doll.
b)she applauds the demise of La Nina claiming that’s what they like to see. Translated…the cooling from LN takes away from our climate alarm meme. Also, it’s better to have severe weather elsewhere, just not in their back yard.
c)NOAA announced the so-called demise of LN…to be taken with a grain of salt.
d)it’s still very uncertain. They won’t know for a couple of months.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
This March heat wave in Argentina has been extreme (see SMN 1-7 March anomalies of Max. temp. up to +10C vs 91-20) and it’s getting worse.
Today more records for March fell
39.4 Ezeiza
39.1 Gualeguaychu
38.6 Rosario
38.6 Sauce Viejo tie
37.9 Durazno (Uruguay)
Tomorrow ? Worse!
https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1634351336488673282?cxt=HHwWhIC9mbT4sK4tAAAA
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The flat earth energy model defenders keep trying to twist the debate by claiming that the debunkers don’t understand the geometry of a projected circle area is a 1/4 of a sphere area, something that nobody ever disputed or argued about.
The real subject matter is that the flat earth energy budget model where the sun shines evenly 24 hours a day evenly over the whole planet with 240 W/m^2. and all of the surface having the same temperature depicts a false static and nonexistent condition scenario, which is limited to 255 K / -18C .
This model however has no relation to the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1,370 W/m2 from one direction, That’s why the model is 33 degrees off from the reality.
The real earth is easily heated to 30C on wast area and well over the average +15C on the lit hemisphere, The final average of +15C is determined and arrived at by the cooling rate and time as it passes through the night side, there is no such -18C limit and there is no missing 33 degrees,
There is only a screwed up flat earth model.
Now wait for the next idiot to come and tell me I don’t understand the ball surface is 4 times the projected area
Oh, gb. You silly Sky Dragon crank.
Reality has it that the Sun directs 1,370 W/m2 at the Earth, which means that you end up with -18C to account for. Of if you prefer:
[THE WEIRDEST WAY TO ARGUE THAT FLUXES DO NOT BALANCE] 480 W/m^2 received over half the Earths surface area, whilst 240 W/m^2 is emitted from the entire Earths surface area at the same time.
That means 240 W/m^2 in, and 240 W/m^2 out.
Nothing more, nothing less. One way to get more is to consider the greenhouse effect.
You seem to suggest that the Earth spin is the whodunnit. Tell us how that works exactly. Does the Earth spin act like a Tesla dynamo?
> Oh, gb.
Eboy, that is.
Sorry gb. Your name is too easy to type.
Oh, I was going to say something, but I will anyhow:
“Reality has it that the Sun directs 1,370 W/m2 at the Earth, which means that you end up with -18C to account for.”
The reality is if you don’t have atmosphere and it’s blackbody [but not ideal thermal conductive blackbody] the average temperature is below -30 C {unless the body is spinning – because if body is spinning it is more “thermally conductive”.
Or Moon is very close to blackbody and it’s not very thermal conductive and it’s average surface temp is around -60 to -70 C
Or as I say [and everyone does] global warming is about having a more uniform global surface temperature.
And if the average temperature of ocean is warmer than 3.5 C, it creates a more uniform global average temperature- or causes global warming.
Or if average ocean temperature is lower than 3.5 C, you get a drier
less uniform global temperature- or global cooling.
Indeed, gb.
Without an atmosphere, the Earth is -18C.
Go on. You might be onto something.
Whacky Wee Willard,
You wrote –
“Indeed, gb.
Without an atmosphere, the Earth is -18C.
Go on. You might be onto something.”
Some idiot SkyDragon cultists don’t like accepting the reality that the surface of the Earth is demonstrably not -18 C, as they would like. Neither is it molten, nor are the seas boiling. It is what it is, whether fools like you choose to believe it or not.
Go on, try to convince anybody that the Earth has not cooled to its present temperature.
If you can find somebody that gullible, try and convince them that Michael Mann is not a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat!
Good luck.
–Willard says:
March 11, 2023 at 8:17 AM
Indeed, gb.
Without an atmosphere, the Earth is -18C.
Go on. You might be onto something.–
Well, I think mentioned that Venus at 1 AU distance, would be colder
than Earth.
But I don’t think it would as cold as average temperature of -18 C.
Earth spins every 24 hours and 70% of it is covered by an Ocean.
Venus is slowest known object spins relative to the sun/or star
and it doesn’t have an ocean.
Venus absorbs far less sunlight than Earth, despite getting twice as
much sunlight due to being closer to the Sun.
And if at Earth distance from the sun, it would absorb less sunlight per square meter, than our Moon.
But due to having massive atmosphere unlike the Moon which does have significant atmosphere, the Venus atmosphere would be thermally conductive {or could call that as greenhouse effect} and the Venus atmosphere has some greenhouse gases {and it would have a more uniform temperature.
The most significant greenhouse gas is it’s acid clouds- and it’s got CO2. It also might have small ozone layer.
Also due to intensity of sunlight the atmosphere rotates every 4 to 5
Earth days- or the atmosphere day is not very long [it’s not vaguely like the very slow rotation of it’s rocky surface].
So, if Venus got as much sunlight as Earth, it would absorb less 1/2
of than it doesn’t being at Venus distance, it’s acid cloud greenhouse gas effect is less, it’s atmosphere would rotate slower.
The Venus rocky surface is dimly lit by sunlight, and Earth distance
would be far less lit by sunlight. Wherever the sun at zenith and it’s not at highest land elevation, it would be daylight of earth like you get with large forest fire or volcanic eruption- or very dim
and whenever sun was not at zenith [95% of the rest of surface, it would be pitch black.
We call greenhouse effect where sunlight passes thru a transparent atmosphere. Venus at Venus distance, doesn’t have this, but when at Earth distance from Sun, it is more extreme in not having this.
So, at mountain peaks and when sun is close to zenith, there is light from sun- otherwise most of rocky surface is forever in darkness.
But if it’s atmosphere is warm, it currently has fairly uniform temperature and as it gets colder, it’s less uniform, but has more uniform temperature than our Moon or Mars.
As Venus gets colder, the acid rain actually rains on the surface [losing is it’s greenhouse gas] and regions will get cooler, and then Co2 can liquify. It could be about 50% CO2 and 50% nitrogen gas, Venus has more than 3 atm of nitrogen.
And so, Venus will get more light to it’s rocky surface.
And here have something vague like Earth, but it’s Earth without an Ocean probably has average temperature well above -18 C.
It has warm spot, which is like Earth’s 6 hours of peak solar which is much warmer than -18 C. But 80% of planet is colder and more than 10% never has sunlight, and it quite cold- much colder than -18 C.
Now, if had billion people living in Venus orbit, they used more
solar energy than which reaches Earth surface, and planet Venus got
1/2 as much sunlight.
And Venus has 5 to 6 atm, and is colder than Earth, would anyone live on Planet Venus?
One could sky cities, because has more atmosphere then Earth has. And Sky cities can move with the very long days. Solar energy than work much better than it does on Earth.
> Earth without an Ocean probably has average temperature well above -18 C.
Intriguing,
Pray tell more.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
In stupid SkyDragon cultist fashion, you wrote –
“That means 240 W/m^2 in, and 240 W/m^2 out.
Nothing more, nothing less. One way to get more is to consider the greenhouse effect.”
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. Energy out manifestly exceeded energy in, you deluded nitwit. As you point out, no warming means no “greenhouse effect”!
That’s why you can’t describe the “greenhouse effect”. It doesnt exist.
Carry on being stupid.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about, and where’s your sammich request?
Floccinaucinihilipilification.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
In stupid SkyDragon cultist fashion, you wrote
That means 240 W/m^2 in, and 240 W/m^2 out.
Nothing more, nothing less. One way to get more is to consider the greenhouse effect.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. Energy out manifestly exceeded energy in, you deluded nitwit. As you point out, no warming means no greenhouse effect!
Thats why you cant describe the greenhouse effect. It doesnt exist.
Carry on being stupid.
Mike Flynn,
kakorrhaphiophobia
Woebegone Wee Willy,
In stupid SkyDragon cultist fashion, you wrote
“That means 240 W/m^2 in, and 240 W/m^2 out.
Nothing more, nothing less. One way to get more is to consider the greenhouse effect.”
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. Energy out manifestly exceeded energy in, you deluded nitwit. As you point out, no warming means no greenhouse effect!
Thats why you can’t describe the greenhouse effect. It doesn’t exist.
Carry on being stupid.
Mike Flynn,
Pogonotrophy.
“480 W/m^2 received over half the Earths surface area, whilst 240 W/m^2 is emitted from the entire Earths surface area at the same time.
That means 240 W/m^2 in, and 240 W/m^2 out.”
No, that means 480 W/m^2 in, and 240 W/m^2 out.
“No, that means 480 W/m^2”
False. Most locations, even in daylight, are not receiving that amount.
The concept of averaging is lost on some people.
If you want to get away from the arguments about fluxes,try total energy.
1.12*10^24 Joules/ year is taken up by the Earth and slightly less than 1.12*10^24 Joules/year is radiated in the OLR to space.
The energy imbalance is currently around 7*10^21 Joules/year, which is how fast the Earth is gaining energy.
Your figures are bogus, Ent. They’re based on beliefs, estimates, assumptions, and fraud.
The errors are so large it makes for great humor, but it ain’t science.
If you want to get away from the arguments about fluxes,try using total energy.
1.12*10^24 Joules/ year is taken up by the Earth and slightly less than 1.12*10^24 Joules/year is radiated in the OLR to space.
The energy imbalance is currently around 7*10^21 Joules/year, which is how fast the Earth is gaining energy.
What do we expect from someone that claims passenger jets fly backward?
Just more fraud….
EM,
Maybe you could explain how the Earth managed to cool for four and a half billion years by “accumulating energy”, but I doubt it.
Reality doesn’t seem to affect your delusional thinking.
Sure, Entropic Man, energy is what is important. With 480 W/m^2 input averaged over the lit hemisphere, and 240 W/m^2 output averaged over the entire sphere, the total energy in and out balances, even though the flux values do not. That’s because the surface area receiving the irradiance is only half that of the surface area the radiant exitance leaves from.
Note that the 480 W/m^2 input and 240 W/m^2 output values are only spatial averages. Obviously parts of the Earth, at any one moment, are receiving much more than 480 W/m^2. The 480 W/m^2 is an average over the entire lit hemisphere, at any one moment.
To have an average input of 240 W/m^2, you have to be averaging temporally as well as spatially. That’s when you start to move away from reality.
“To have an average input of 240 W/m^2, you have to be averaging temporally as well as spatially. ”
Indeed.
The 240 W/m^2 averages the incoming and outgoing flux over the whole surface of the planet over a year. This includes temporal variation between clear and cloudy skies, time of day, day and night, variations over the seasons and orbital eccentricity.
Yes, averaging that all out into a steady 240 W/m^2 is indeed when you start to move away from reality.
Irony see the problem. The software used to integrate OLR at longwave wavelengths would be similar to the software used by Dr. Spencer to integrate microwave output.
You don’t object to one, why should you object to this other?
Who is this question directed to?
Worse than that, EM – Gaslighting Graham agrees with *your* averaging.
???
“Yes, averaging that all out into a steady 240 W/m^2 is indeed when you start to move away from reality.”
Why do some people have a problem with this simplest statistic?
So when Roy presents the monthly average global temperature, or the 13 mo. running mean, that is ‘moving away from reality’?
Of course not. But that is how denialism works.
Gaslighting Graham still does not understand the con Joe is pulling.
By his own interpretation of the energy balance equation, the Earth emits energy from places it does not receive any.
Perhaps one day he will realize how silly this all is.
Fine with me.
"…the Earth emits energy from places it does not receive any…"
That’s correct. Now you’re getting it! On a moment by moment basis, the Earth is receiving energy on one hemisphere only. In that same moment, however, it emits from the entire sphere. Or, as Eben put it, that’s…
"…the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1,370 W/m^2 from one direction…"
Gaslighting Graham still does not get any of this.
Let us recall the quasi-equation:
[THE WEIRDEST WAY TO ARGUE THAT FLUXES DO NOT BALANCE] 480 W/m^2 received over half the Earths surface area, whilst 240 W/m^2 is emitted from the entire Earths surface area at the same time.
“At the same time” – what time is that?
It would be nice to know how fast energy transfers from the lit side to the unlit side in the Sky Dragon cranks’ models. If they ever come up with one.
To be sure, I’m referring to the transfer of the energy that isn’t emitted back to space, it should go without saying.
Gaslighting Graham might never get why I’m saying he might never get this, but that’s fine.
"It would be nice to know how fast energy transfers from the lit side to the unlit side"…
…yes, that’s one thing climate science needs to think more about. Energy can of course be transferred from the lit side to the unlit side by various mechanisms, since the Earth has an atmosphere, and oceans. Then you’ve got the fact that locations on the lit side end up on the unlit side quite regularly, as the Earth rotates. How quickly do these locations cool down? That’s what it’s all about, really. How fast locations warm up in the day vs. how fast they cool at night. Depends on a lot of things…like the heating and cooling mechanisms available, the heat capacity of the materials involved, the emissivity of the materials etc.
Just averaging out the input, over time, and claiming that the Earth can’t possibly be warmer than 255 K without the GHE is a bit silly, really.
Gaslighting Graham still does not get that climate models do that all the time.
But he holds that they’re just like the zero-dimensional energy balance model he *still* can’t understand properly.
All fine.
I don’t believe anyone has demonstrated here that climate models "do that all the time".
Gaslighting Graham has the right to believe whatever he pleases.
Fine.
Provide the evidence, and my opinion might change. However, you can’t. So, that’s that.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
"Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again…"
…is an ad hom.
The Earth’s rotation coupled with the large 70% ocean is what I believe he is saying, Wigwam.
I rather believe that Eboy is suggesting that the Earth warms because Sky Dragon cranks like you keep waving your arms, Troglodyte.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Correct Eben. Earths temperature is what its supposed to be. Comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere aint science. The 33K nonsense is crap.
The cult tries to reduce solar down to a measly 170 W/m^2 in their bogus energy budget”, which is absolute fraud.
Their fraud even claims ice cubes can boil water.
But, the hoax has been uncovered. Thats why the cult idiots are in full meltdown. A cult collapse is never a pretty sight.
Eben,
The model you are talking about, assuming all is constant and uniform is not really what climate science is using. Obviously the GCM models include the day night cycle, and all the spatial variation, circulation patterns, etc.
However if one wants to make a rough estimate of the change to be expected, the simple model does pretty well. And it was done in the 1960s, and it turns out the estimates not very different from the GCM models.
Its like when a company gives you an estimate of what insulating your house will save you on your heating bill. They look at the temperature difference, inside to outside, averaged over day and night, averaged over every day of the winter. This is called the Heating Degree Days. It gives a decent estimate.
You could object that nights are colder than days, and the second floor is warmer than the first, etc, but, in the end that will make little difference to the total CHANGE in heat loss over the season.
One such model among many:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/PSJ/ac3f3
If only Sky Dragon cranks had any interest in science.
No, they need to cloak their political prejudices behind probably the silliest proxy war ever created by mankind, courtesy of Newscorp.
"One such model among many…"
One of what sort of model? Sorry, I no longer even read Nate’s comments, let alone respond to him…what was he trying to say this time?
Gaslighting Graham is still confused when facing models that do exactly what pretends wanting to see.
But when Sky Dragon cranks only get their information from raging farms such as Joes, who can blame them?
He might never get any of this. Fine with me.
Ah, so you’re saying this model takes the real-time solar input at each and every single location on the lit hemisphere at one moment in time, calculates exactly how much and how fast every single material at that location will cool as the Earth rotates, and thus builds up a picture of what the overall temperature of the Earth will be, second by second, all whilst ignoring the non-existent GHE from its calculations? Then you can just speed this all up so that you’re able to make projections of what the future climate will be?
Remarkable. Where does it say it can do any of that?
Gaslighting Graham still does not get any of this.
He could read Nate’s comment, and then the abstract I posted.
He might never.
Fine with me.
Remarkable. Where does it say it can do any of that?
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb once again.
It’s all fine.
Little Willy lies through his teeth, implying the model he found can do things that it actually can’t.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again.
Fine.
"Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again…"
…is an ad hom.
Willard, please stop trolling,
Mike Flynn,
Meldrop.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Notwithstanding the usual Willtard’s trolling this time I’m clearly winning,
The only thing still missing is Bindiclown with his another idiotic geometry lesson
Oh, Eboy.
You are gold –
https://youtu.be/AR8D2yqgQ1U
One day you will be old enough to see one climate model.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Eben made an extraordinary claim:
Eben declared:
“This model however has no relation to the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1,370 W/m2 from one direction, Thats why the model is 33 degrees off from the reality.”
But I don’t see anywhere that he backed that up with any evidence.
The evidence we have, on the contrary, is that models that include the diurnal cycle don’t give a very different net warming.
The National Research Council sponsored Charney Report of 1979, based on the crude climate models up to that point, estimated the global warming for a doubling of CO2 would be between 2 and 3.5 degrees C, not all that different from what recent GCM models give, nor very different from the observed warming trend thus far.
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/charney.1979.report.pdf
So he’s declared things that turn out not to be true at all. Is that WINNING?
I don’t believe DREMT could be responding to me…as we all know that never happens..
"The only thing still missing is Bindiclown with his another idiotic geometry lesson"
We got that a little further down-thread.
Is there not enough snow in North Dakota?
https://i.ibb.co/Zc0ZC3S/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-11-085923.png
What is the temperature in the South Pacific? Is this a harbinger of El Nino?
https://i.ibb.co/b5SfxCN/gfs-spole-sat-t2anom-d1.png
“What is the temperature in the South Pacific? Is this a harbinger of El Nino?”
That’s an interesting, rule.
I will add a bit to it, south hemisphere ocean warms Northern Hemisphere [unless southern ocean isn’t warm enough].
Satellite Temps Hit Bottom: February 2023
“The post below updates the UAH record of air temperatures over land and ocean. But as an overview consider how recent rapid cooling completely overcame the warming from the last 3 El Ninos (1998, 2010 and 2016). The UAH record shows that the effects of the last one were gone as of April 2021, again in November 2021, and in February and June 2022 Now at year end 2022 and continuing into January 2023 we have again global temp anomaly lower than average since 1995. (UAH baseline is now 1991-2020).”
https://rclutz.com/2023/03/10/satellite-temps-hit-bottom-february-2023/
Linked from: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
“Importantly, the theory of human-caused global warming asserts that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere changes the baseline and causes systemic warming in our climate. On the contrary, all of the warming since 1947 was episodic, coming from three brief events associated with oceanic cycles.”
And I would wonder, what warmed ocean before “1947”.
But as they say {NASA and NOAA} more than 90% of global warming warms
the ocean.
Our cold 3.5 C average temperature, ocean. Which is guess warmed by more than .05 C. And maybe as much as .01 or .02 C warmer than the coldest which the ocean got during Little Ice Age.
And other say, during Little Ice Age, sea levels dropped by few inches and ocean temperature lowered by .01 or as much as .02 C.
So, I think we have recovered from the LIA, and we can go up or down
a bit, I doubt ocean going to warm or cool by .01 C within next 3 decades. And tend to think it might warm by .01 C within 60 years, and would be surprised if cooled by .1 C within 3 decades- but stuff can happen.
“And maybe as much as .01 or .02 C” I meant .1 or .2.
Though somehow got back to being “right” when I said, “be surprised if cooled by .1 C within 3 decades”
Or over next 60 year I think it most likely or possibly to warm by .1 C, but might for some reason go the other way- or I don’t why it cooled in LIA, but seemed to be something took a lot of time {more than a century].
I didn’t actually think about it before, but it seems the general rule is it takes a long time to cool ocean, but it seems, Ocean can warm faster than it can cool.
And I should have realized this before, as this is the case with global climate in general- long periods of gradual cooling and generally what appears to comparatively “rapid” warming periods. Of course our Holocene had both rapid warming and “crashing” cooling, which turned back into rapid warming or “recovery” back to warming.
But other than freakish earlier rapid cooling event, the general rule is gradual cooling over long period. Or we have had gradual cooling over last 5000 years- and that is the “normal” state or pattern.
GB,
Everything you write about the planet’s temperature regulation and stability makes perfect sense. Science should make perfect sense, something these GHE zealots don’t get.
“Science should make perfect sense”
Much of it doesnt until you bother to learn enough to understand it.
Luckily for society, some people do bother to learn it.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS800katoFutureTemps01.jpg
As you see we passed the Holocene temperature peak and were on our way gradually downwards. Then the rapid modern warming started. We are now around 1.2C on the anomaly scale on the right.
This is level with the MIS 5e peak. We’ll soon be warmer than at any time in the last 800,000 years.
This recent warming links very closely to Daylight Savings Time. The more Daylight we save, the warmer Earth gets.
If you think that is ridiculous, you should look into the GHE nonsense….
Antman and his lying propaganda.
Antman, why didn’t you use Marvel Comic book as your source? Just as reliable.
Typical ‘Ron Clutz’ pseudoscience bullshit:
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2023/02/uah-global-1995to202301-w-overlay.png
compared to
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/scale:0.005/offset:-1.9
Clutz is such a dumb & dishonest boy… he simply has drawn a flat line over the UAH time series, by the way suggesting that the mean anomaly is the same as a flat trend.
He thinks we are all as dumb as he is himself.
In my native tongue we say: ” Plus bête tu meurs. “
gb…”it seems the general rule is it takes a long time to cool ocean…”
***
That’s especially true when they are heated from underneath by volcanic activity.
Gordon,
Yes, the oceans have certainly cooled since they were boiling.
Interestingly, the waters are still exposed to direct contact with the Earth’s molten interior along the mid-ocean ridges, and an unknown number of hydrothermal vents have water temperatures in excess of 400 C in their immediate vicinity.
Obviously a far bit of cooling ahead.
Swenson,
That’s not primordial heat from the formation of Earth, that heat is being constantly produced in the Earth’s interior from radioactive decay.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Argentina is enduring this year’s hottest summer on record, with record temperatures and lack of rainfall damaging agriculture and keeping the country under a weather alert.
https://batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/with-extreme-heat-and-drought-argentina-suffers-its-most-scorching-summer-ever.phtml
Climate Model Lorena Galvez. Hot Hot Hot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sb6vADTZw8&list=PLJla4IrseUeHYSZh2MA0eiaEhKVckAFJ3&index=1&ab_channel=GoaFilmsTV
Fair.
Ken
Xoana Gonzalez La Chica del Tiempo keeps way atop.
willard, you klutz…it’s based on the 1960 as the baseline.
“According to the SMN, which has been collecting data since 1961, this is the hottest summer since the beginning of recorded data…”
This is the new alarmist bs technique, move the goalposts till warming appears.
Bordon,
A baseline is not a starting date.
Come on.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
More data from The Great Geophysical Experiment.
In Japan dozens of stations reporting their hottest March days on record.
https://ibb.co/wW9rwrM
Some think this Hunga-Tonga effect will last more than 2 years. Well see.
” Some think this Hunga-Tonga effect will last more than 2 years. ”
Where is the source for that claim, troll Clint R?
Why Bin, you’re the Internet wizard. Surely you can find the source yourself.
If you want my help, stop commenting here for 60 days. You need the time off anyway.
Thus, as usual, Clint R has no source to show.
You have some strange beliefs, Bin.
Mighty strange….
Allow me to help, Pup –
https://youtu.be/p7YXXieghto
Wee Willy Wanker,
Still trying to get people to waste their time?
Good luck with that.
Mike Flynn,
You should clock on the link.
Acnestis.
Wimpy Wee Willy,
You wrote (in hopeless desperation) –
“Mike Flynn,
You should clock on the link.
Acnestis.”
Well, quite apart from the fact that I am not your imaginary bete-noir, Mike Flynn, why should I?
Would you value the opinions of a delusional SkyDragon cultist, who can’t even get my name right, writes bizarre nonsense – “Acnestis” for example (no doubt trying to appear intelligent, but failing.
Your obsession with “links”, and the compulsion that causes you to plead with strangers to follow them, just makes you look like a grovelling, impotent SkyDragon cultist – bereft of anything pertinent to say.
Good for a quiet snigger, at any rate.
Keep being an object of derision – it suits you.
Mike Flynn,
You are indeed Mike Flynn, and you should clock on the link for the answer to the question you asked and asked and asked again for more than ten years now.
Unless you are not really asking?
Paresthesia.
TM,
Unless the surface is molten, it’s been hotter in the past.
Reduced to passing on weather reports now?
Whatever happened to just being delusional about climate and CO2? Reality too much for you?
Swenson you ignorant buffoon.
March climate in Osaka exhibits a normal temperature range of 7 C to 13 C based on data since 1883.
Unless you have something elucidating to add I’m not interested in your opinion.
Now go troll someone else.
TM,
Climate is the statistics of past weather observations over an arbitrary period. An average is derived from a series generally containing both higher and lower values – otherwise, you don’t need an average. Averages mean nothing – a mathematical artefact.
When you write “March climate in Osaka exhibits a normal temperature range of 7 C to 13 C based on data since 1883.”, are you just saying that temperatures are higher than 13 C, or something else?
I suppose it might have escaped your notice that official thermometers are often placed in areas where anthropogenic heat affects them.
In any case, are you trying to conflate record high thermometer readings with CO2 in the atmosphere? Or just hoping people will think so, without challenging you.
I don’t care whether you are interested in my “opinions” or not. I’m certainly not interested in yours, unless you can express them clearly, and support them with fact – which you haven’t done in this case. As to demand as to what I should do – pardon me while I have a good laugh at your expense.
I do as I wish, when I wish, how I wish, and there’s precisely nothing you can do about. If you don’t like my responses to your silly misleading comments, feel free to stop commenting.
Dimwit.
TM,
Unless the surface is molten, its been hotter in the past.
Reduced to passing on weather reports now?
Whatever happened to just being delusional about climate and CO2? Reality too much for you?
Why all the sock puppets? https://ibb.co/WVTH2F8
There is no chance of spring in March in Central Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/D9DphgM/hgt300.webp
More of the ‘mere propaganda’:
https://www.wetteronline.de/wetter/europa
Deception.
https://i.ibb.co/mD8GYw9/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-11-221830.png
Double Deception.
https://i.ibb.co/NCtK2fh/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-11-222449.png
What’s the matter with you, Palmowski?
What do you Coolista want to invent with your ‘deceptions’?
Is March now suddenly the same for you as June, or what?
It’s much warmer in March in Central Europe, compared to a few decades ago.
Best example: Poland.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/53%C2%B006'00.0%22N+23%C2%B010'01.2%22E/@53.5233677,21.7717364,294858m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d53.1!4d23.167?hl=en
https://tinyurl.com/y5f623vw
PLM00012295 53.1000 23.1670 151.0 BIALYSTOK
PLM00012295 57-81 1955 3 13 -22.2 (C)
PL000012385 56-80 1987 3 12 -19.6
PLM00012295 57-81 1987 3 12 -18.6
PLM00012160 57-79 1987 3 13 -18.3
PLM00012295 57-81 1955 3 12 -17.2
PL000012120 57-79 1987 3 12 -17.0
PLM00012295 57-81 1987 3 11 -16.6
PL000012385 56-80 1987 3 11 -16.4
PL000012385 56-80 2005 3 10 -16.4
PLM00012160 57-79 1942 3 13 -16.1
What do you try to tell us?
ren…it’s beginning to look the same in western Canada. Not a sign of spring.
old A” A’
new A A’
old A” ”A’
More snow in the Sierra Nevada.
https://i.ibb.co/c32K7G3/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-11-235957.png
Eben wrote above:
” Now wait for the next idiot to come and tell me I dont understand the ball surface is 4 times the projected area ”
*
What he doesn’t understand is that this is not the point at all.
The ‘disc versus sphere’ has only to do with a little bit of the whole story.
It explains that when computing the total sunlit over a hemisphere, one has to take the incidence angle into account: while in the Tropics a 2.5 degree grid cell centered around 1.25N, 1.25W has a surface of 77,252.43 km^2, the same cell at the North Pole, centered around 88.75N, 1.25W has a surface of 1,685.65 km^2.
*
” The real subject matter is that the flat earth energy budget model where the sun shines evenly 24 hours a day evenly over the whole planet with 240 W/m^2. ”
*
No. This is wrong.
To better understand why it’s wrong, one has to leave the Youtube video storytelling and to enter what is told by people who really know what they are telling about, regardless whether they agree to GHE, like
(1) A.P. Smith:
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf
or disagree to GHE, like
(2) Kramm, Dlugi & Zelger:
Comments on the ‘Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect’ by
Arthur P. Smith
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.2767v3.pdf
*
Starting in paper (1) in section
II. DEFINITIONS AND BASIC EQUATIONS
with equation (1) and moving step by step till equation (12) should convince anybody that Smith explains things far less trivial than Eben thinks.
Everywhere you see that he does not use simple numbers but integrates over the sphere, and at a specific time.
When going further into
III. SOME EXAMPLES
A. Model 1: Nonrotating planet
B. Model 2: Simple rotating planet
C. Model 3: Rotating planet with varying albedo
and finally into
IV. INFRARED ABSORP~TION IN THE ATMOSPHERE
definitely shows that though Smith’s paper is a rough simplification of what is done in nowadays’ models, it is nevertheless an accurate representation of today’s science in the corner discussed.
*
Whether or not his contradictors proved him wrong in paper(2) is another discussion. I myself can’t contribute to this point.
*
Finally, anyone can have a look at a head post written in 2021 by Robert Wentworth, Ph.D. on his blog:
Did Gerlich and Tscheuschner prove there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect?
https://climatepuzzles.org/2021/03/gerlich-tscheuschner/
Bin, rather than all that blah-blah, just use your own short and sweet version — I myself can’t contribute to this point.
binny cherry picks Eben’s post to focus on the geometry as Eben predicted.
Eben said…”This model however has no relation to the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1,370 W/m2 from one direction, Thats why the model is 33 degrees off from the reality.
The real earth is easily heated to 30C on wast [vast???] area and well over the average +15C on the lit hemisphere, The final average of +15C is determined and arrived at by the cooling rate and time as it passes through the night side, there is no such -18C limit and there is no missing 33 degrees, There is only a screwed up flat earth model”.
*****
Furthermore, you reference Arthur Smith’s version of the GHE which was debunked. Smith was part of Eli Rabbett’s team (Halpern et al) that tried to debunk G&T. When G&T pointed out that radiation had to obey the 2nd law re heat transfer, Eli and team replied that would mean, with two bodies of different temperature radiating at each other, one body would not be radiating.
This is the kind of pseudo-scientific hogwash I have come to expect from alarmists like Eli and Arthur Smith. It’s ironic that both have degrees in physics yet Eli teaches chemistry while Smith is a librarian.
trouble posting…
The problem at your link is the author mistaking radiation for heat. The same error was made by Eli and his team, featuring Arthur Smith. They confuse infrared radiation with heat. Is it any wonder, when the author thinks heat is a net energy transfer?
The biggest mistake made by climate alarmists is lumping infrared (electromagnetic) energy and heat under the generalized umbrella of ‘energy’. That leads to confusion, which is perhaps intentional, to allow the transfer of heat from cold to hot via radiation in the GHE and AGW theories.
If the 2nd law forbids such a transfer then redefine the 2nd law to allow it.
If you search in Google for ‘types of energy’, they list many forms of energy, and heat/thermal energy is always listed as one of them. Many simply define thermal energy as the energy of atoms/molecules. That is the traditional definition of heat and it is the only one that makes sense…the energy associated with the motion of atoms.
Therefore, when heat involves radiation, one cannot begin to arbitrarily redefine heat as electromagnetic energy. That is an essential message from G&T, both of whom have expertise in thermodynamics.
One cannot even claim that radiation transfers heat because it clearly does not. When radiation is created at the atomic level, the kinetic energy of atoms representing heat is lost as electromagnetic energy is created.
When the chemical energy in gasoline is converted by an explosion in the engine cylinders to mechanical energy, we do not claim that the chemical energy is mechanical energy. They are clearly different forms of energy, as is thermal energy and electromagnetic energy. The difference is that thermal energy and electromagnetic energy can be readily converted between those forms.
We need to examine the notion that with two bodies of different temperature radiating in proximity to each other, that heat is transferred between the two. It appears that way but the appearance is an illusion. What takes place is that heat, as kinetic energy in the hotter body is converted to electromagnetic energy, and in the conversion, the heat is lost.
If that EM radiates off into space and never encounters a mass, it will always remain as EM with no heat associated with it. If it encounters a cooler body, however, the EM can be converted back to heat and the EM will no longer exist.
It’s not that EM and heat have something in common, they don’t, just as chemical energy in gasoline has nothing to do with the mechanical energy created by the explosion of gasoline in an engine cylinder. EM is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. Neither have heat as a property. Heat is the energy associated with atomic motion and has nothing in common with an electric field or a magnetic field.
So, the author of your article is full of horsebleep.
Gordon,
You wrote –
“If that EM radiates off into space and never encounters a mass, it will always remain as EM with no heat associated with it. If it encounters a cooler body, however, the EM can be converted back to heat and the EM will no longer exist.”
EM can travel straight through matter without being altered. SkyDragons don’t want to admit it, but examples are all around. Ordinary glass allows visible light to pass through. Germanium absorbs visible light, but allows IR through. Exposing warm water to the radiation from ice warms the water not at all. The water simply remains totally unaffected by the photons radiated by the ice! Strange, but true.
The only medium totally transparent to all forms of light (EM radiation), is nothing at all – a vacuum!
Richard Feynman observed “I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,” and the interaction between matter and energy is the basis for quantum mechanics. Delusional SkyDragon cultists disregard the reality of quantum electrodynamics and substitute deranged handwaving instead.
Oh well, it doesn’t really matter. Nature wins, anyway.
binny…”Its a pity that he never would be able to download, let alone to modify the SPICE evaluation and validation software CosmoScout VR, developed at the German Aerospace Center DLR:
***
As software, it is subject to GIGO…Garbage In, Garbage Out. That means, if the Moon is given a rotation it doesn’t have in the software, the software is in error.
It is too bad that you and others keep misdirecting the conversation into red-herring arguments based on authority figures, and now, software.
Maybe you could try thinking this problem through for yourself and get back to us. You need to focus on proving that the Moon, always moving with a linear velocity, while keeping the same side pointed at Earth, can possibly rotate on a local axis at the same time.
I am wasting my breath, I have been asking for such an analysis repeatedly and I might as well be talking to a wall. In fact, if I talked to a wall I’d like get a more intelligent response.
Spinners have dragged us off on an irrelevant philosophical goose chase just as climate alarmists continue to do the same.
dremt to wee willy…”Provide the evidence, and my opinion might change”.
***
Sorry, Dremt, wee willy only does alarmist propaganda.
The longer Robertson’s posts, the dumber they are.
Comme toujours…
Binny, please stop trolling.
translation…Binny’s comprehension becomes exhausted after a few words. If you don’t post a lot of pictures, Binny is lost.
Binny claims he has university training but that requires intensive reading and comprehension. Makes me wonder. I intentionally dumb down my posts for people like Binny while breaking them up to make them readable, yet Binny whines.
The irony is that Binny claims to read Meyer and Newton, and he claims to understand what is said. That might explain why he interprets Meyer talking about lunar rotation when he was actually talking about libration.
Bindidon speaks like a steely eyed rocket man.
Robertson, you have to be one of the worst blatherskites. You’re constantly posting maunderings of unreadable tripe. I find it hard to believe you were ever employed in any technical capacity.
I’ve complained before but it makes no difference. Pretty much anything more than a paragraph by you is skipped over much as I skip over posts by trolls.
Ken,
You wrote –
“I’ve complained before but it makes no difference.”
Now you have been forced to accept that reality, have you wondered why your complaints fell on deaf ears?
At least you have realised you can just ignore anything you find not to your liking. It’s called freedom of choice.
Ken
Thank you for these words.
*
There have long been indications that Robertson was never an engineer.
Of all my former engineering colleagues, not one – not even the most outrageous of them – ever behaved like Robertson.
He was probably a very bad, opinionated teacher and constructed an engineer vita from scratch.
But… the same might be true for some other ‘specialists’ who also endlessly post their egomaniacal garbage on this blog.
And… Robertson, as usual, not only posts dumb things:
” That might explain why he interprets Meyer talking about lunar rotation when he was actually talking about libration. ”
He continues lying, lying and lying. No one knows why.
*
Tobias Mayer never ‘talked about libration’.
It was Mayer who as the very first person was able to compute selenocentric coordinates for Moon craters (completely independent of any optical libration effect perturbing their view from Earth), what made possible the development of trustworthy lunar tables.
And to achieve this, the conditio sine qua non was to compute the inclination of the lunar spin axis wrt the Ecliptic.
*
I have referred often enough to Mayer’s 1750 treatise
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
in which he described how he calculates
the inclination of the lunar polar spin axis (section 13)
the lunar spin period (section 14)
the selenocentric coordinates of the observed craters (section 16).
*
But to understand the relevance of such things, one needs a sane, working brain: exactly what Robertson doesnt have.
*
I’ll now stop to reply to his lies: it makes no sense.
Robertson is either dense or demented or both.
Bin, how many times have you linked to that nonsense?
How many times has it been explained to you?
Yet, you STILL can’t understand — you are braindead.
I’ll link to it as long as idiots post nonsense like
” That might explain why he interprets Meyer talking about lunar rotation when he was actually talking about libration. ”
I understand above all that you don’t understand anything else than the ‘ball on a string’.
Just watching a program spreading climate propaganda about Chacaltaya, a former ski resort at altitude around 18,000 feet in Bolivia. They are zeroing in on that mountain which is located in a seriously arid part of the world as evidence of climate change.
It’s a former ski resort because the glacier on which it was located melted away. Of course, the Greenies, eco-freaks, and every other nut job think it is evidence of climate change.
Of course it’s climate change, but it is real ndlocal, and not the fantasy portrayed as the pantomime ‘climate change’. It is was a globally related climate change, then Everest, which is some 10,000 feet higher would have no snow. Neither would K2 at about the same height and Kanchenjunga, slightly lower.
All those mountains have plenty of snow, ice and glaciers. Even Kilimanjaro, located near the Equator, and a bit under 20,000 feet has snow at the top.
In fact, if you stop at the Everest base camp, about the same altitude as Chacaltaya, you are sleeping on the ice of a glacier.
It’s obvious that Chacaltaya lost its glacier due to local conditions. It’s equally obvious that it is a change in rain patterns that has caused the demise of the glacier.
Ironically, NOAA and NASA have no surface stations in Bolivia that they use, at any rate. They use a climate model to interpolate temperatures from neighbouring regions.
“It is was a globally related climate change, then Everest, which is some 10,000 feet higher would have no snow.”
That makes no sense. It’s colder higher, and if global warming is responsible for no ski-season 10,000 feet lower, it doesn’t follow that a higher altitude should be at the same stage of melt.
For the rest, you are right, of course, that local weather influences snow pack, and climate change can also be a local phenomenon not necessarily linked to global.
But as 85% of glaciers worldwide have been in retreat since the early 20th century at least, and since the world has gotten warmer on the whole, and significantly so, then there may be cause to attribute the lack of snow in this area to global warming.
But I’d need to see the reasoning behind it that ties it to more than local effects.
More information needed.
barry,
You wrote –
“But Id need to see the reasoning behind it that ties it to more than local effects.
More information needed.”
I’m sure you would, because you don’t know, do you? What efforts have you made to satisfy your curiosity, or are you just attempting to annoy someone, for no particular reason?
Are all you delusional SkyDragons equally incompetent at finding things out for yourself? It looks like none of you can actually describe the GHE. Can’t you look it up on the Internet? How about asking a “climate scientist”?
Definitely “more information needed”, I’d say.
Mike Flynn,
All the information you need is right here –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Augend.
barry…”Its colder higher….”
***
I stated that the Everest base camp at a similar height to the Bolvian ski resort is built on an existing glacier. Why had the Bolivian glacier melted and not the ice at 18,000 feet on Everest? Or the snow at 17,000 feet on Kilimanjaro, located near the Equator.
And I said that, as you also pointed out, local weather and climate have their influences.
Forget AGW or any cause, the average temperature of the globe has increased since 1950 – that’s agreed by everyone.
At the same time the warming has not been uniform, as has been pointed out many times.
So why would you contrarily expect equal behaviour with snow packs in a warming world?
The inferred straw man is that AGW = uniform warming everywhere.
This straw man is not tactical for you, is it? It’s actually how you think, isn’t it?
” Ironically, NOAA and NASA have no surface stations in Bolivia that they use, at any rate. They use a climate model to interpolate temperatures from neighbouring regions. ”
As usual: Robertson’s endlessly repeated lie.
I proved the contrary years ago by using NOAA’s GHCN V3 station data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/125hoAWPb-C9t1X4WCUuBrQxBBvaxowap/view
You see that a big gap exists, due to political reasons: no data was transmitted at that time, probably due to dictatorship.
It is evident that for a little corner like Bolivia, the difference between the national avetrage and its 500 km surroundings will be small; but it exists.
Anybody could easily retrieve the original data in Bolivia which was transmitted to NOAA. It’s a lot of work, but the data very certainly still exists.
Robertson never replied, of course.
Robertson is this blog’s most brazen and incompetent liar.
Yeh… now, with the help of my Firefox good guy, I 100% recall where Robertson got his Bolivia junk from and whose ‘authority’ he appealed to (not for the first time of course):
*
Musings from the Chiefio
GHCN GIStemp Interactions The Bolivia Effect
Posted on 8 January 2010 by E.M.Smith
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
*
There you read:
” One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990.
None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.
So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?
Easy. GIStemp makes it up from nearby thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle.
Not exactly the same as snow capped peaks and high cold desert, but hey, you gotta make do with what you have, you know? ”
*
Yeah.
That’s what the never-has-been-an-engineer Robertson gullibly sucks.
And now I also perfectly recall why I searched for all GHCN V3 stations available at the time the ‘Zilch’ guy posted his incompetent nonsense:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/125hoAWPb-C9t1X4WCUuBrQxBBvaxowap/view
The aim was to show how wrong Smith’s claims were that
– there wouldn’t be any stations in the near of Bolivia
– therefore a – necessarily wrong – interpretation out of stations very far away and located in completely different contexts would lead to fantasy temperature guessings for Bolivia.
Sheer nonsense, as usual, exactly like Smith’s permanent diatribes about Arctic temperature measurements due to an alleged absence of stations in the Arctic – what ignoramus Robertson gullibly sucked (and still sucks) as well.
*
Yeah. That’s Robertson, who sucks Contrarian Zilch bloggers and discredits real scientists.
What you fail to grasp is that NOAA simply does not use the GHCN database. They use a tiny subset of the GHCN database and they told us how much. They had reduced the number of stations to 6000 for the entire solid surface area. Then they slashed that number to less than 1500 stations.
That is exactly why I started calling you an idiot. The guy at chiefio has the background for such research, he has gone into this deeply, and you have not even begun. You are so hung up on authority figures that when someone actually researches NOAA, GISS, and the likes, like E. M. Smith or Tony Heller, you go after them rather than objectively read what they have to say,or to check their sources.
One might ask how NOAA can get an accurate global temperature using leas than 1500 stations. They can’t!!! Instead, they use climate models to interpolate between sparse stations then homogenize the data to make it seem smooth. Not only that, they go back in the temperature record and amend it to suit the global warming meme.
The other day, record temperatures were recorded in Argentina. The database used began in 1960!!!
And so to the end of March, alternating between snow and frost.
https://i.ibb.co/SrVV32n/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-12-061959.png
Frost and snow in North America.
https://i.ibb.co/nMcnnvd/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-12-062834.png
Earlier Willard wrote –
“It would be nice to know how fast energy transfers from the lit side to the unlit side in the Sky Dragon cranks models. If they ever come up with one.”
Wee Willy obviously doesn’t know, can’t find out, and doesn’t really care anyway.
He seems confused about the nature of SkyDragons, those delusional “climate scientists”, who steadfastly refuse to believe that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature, and who believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes it to increase in temperature – in complete contradiction to known physics!
SkyDragons believe their arcane “calculations” and “models” are to be preferred to reality. One previously important SkyDragon, Gavin Schmidt, moaned piteously that the models were correct, but “people” refused to perform as the models required!
Climate models are completely pointless. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states (as opposed to previous ones, perhaps?), but of course calls for more funding for more climate models, hoping for a miraculous overturning of physical laws, accompanied by a breakout of world peace accompanied by a chicken in every pot.
People like Willard can believe as they wish, and say what they like. So can anyone else, whether Woeful Wee Willy likes it or not.
[and the laughter at Willard’s nitwittery continued apace]
It would be nice to know how fast energy transfers from the lit side to the unlit side”
Willtard doesn’t grasp the earth spins around every 24 hours
The energy absorbed on the lit side at noon is on the unlit side in about 6 hours. Its funny the stupid things he comes up with but I wouldn’t waste time to debate it
Eboy obviously has not paid attention to the usual SkymDragon crank argument.
The very one he is using, to boot.
Silly Eboy.
Mike Flynn,
https://climateball.net/but-modulz/
Snollygoster
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Here is the original energy budget before the climate shysters took over and bastardized it with the laws of fizzix breaking back radiation
https://i.postimg.cc/6pw57Lng/Scheme-of-the-Earths-energy-budget.jpg
Are you lying right now or just showing your ignorance?
Regardless, this is the original energy budget diagram: https://ibb.co/9h5tgnz presented by Dines February 21, 1917; yes, over a century ago!
The original paper may be found here: https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49704318203
Educate yourself.
I think he’s talking about a more modern version of it like the IPCC’s first you lying dipwit.
What part of “Here is the original energy budget” do you not understand, you f***tard.
So is that when modern climate science started fleabag?
You f***tards cannot ever stay on topic, no?
Many years ago, the average population of f***tards was thought to diminish over time due to the retarded f***ing activities you f***tards often engage in.
Through the invention of the internet however, the f***tard population has skyrocketed dramatically.
This has led to a s***storm of f***tardation, the likes of which we have never before witnessed in history.
TM, your reference is behind a paywall. I would have liked to see what values they used in those days.
Eben’s link is NOT behind a paywall. So, what is the major flaw in that presentation?
https://i.postimg.cc/6pw57Lng/Scheme-of-the-Earths-energy-budget.jpg
Maybe you can answer the simple question, or maybe you prefer to just continue with your meltdown.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1458362
See also:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1457606
Are you sure you clocked on the link, Pup?
https://climateball.net/but-modulz/
Snollygoster.
So nothing changed except some numbers are now added in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Actually something DID change from Eben’s link, making it even worse Ken.
Do you know what is wrong?
No, McGoofin likes to go back to when Science was pen and ink. McGoof you and Wiltard are the only f***tards I know. Maybe a couple others.
McGoof, you like to reference Tyndall, right?
Guys, Guys,
You never researched any of this and it shows.
You are just a bunch of cranks raging over stuff.
t is measured by satellites and shown in W/m2.
Christos, “t” is measured by one set of instruments (MSU/AMSU, etc) and “watts/m2” is measured by another group of instruments (ERBS, ERBE, CERES, etc). The graphic presents data from the latter group of instruments.
Correction:
“t is measured…”
should be read:
It is measured by satellites and shown in W/m2.
–
Thank you for noticing.
seriously confused amalgam of radiation and heat. Dines can be excused since Bohr had just released his quantum theory that explained the relationship between radiated energy and heat.
Note the irony of Dines measuring radiation in gram-calories. At lease he equated heat to the calorie as opposed to the modern bs of using watts, a measure of mechanical energy.
Gordon,
The unit is a dyne.
10,000 dynes = 1 Newton
It’s still a bs. graphic. It claims 64% of heat dissipation comes from trace gases in the atmosphere and clouds. Also, it relegates heat dissipation from the surface via direct conduction to 7%.
It’s actually backwards, the radiation from the surface captured by CO2 is about 7% whereas the heat carried from the surface by conduction/convection is more like 64%.
I guess whoever made the graphic had never heard of Newton’s Law of Cooling.
If I remember correctly, this graphic is a modified version of the original Kiehle-Trenberth because it was so atrocious as to be discardable, like the hockey stick scam. It showed as much heat being transferred back to the surface by cooler GHGs as what was radiated.
Eben your energy budget is basically the same as all the others shown by IPCC…still has a GHE.
Somehow Eboy forgot to put a cite for his graph, Pup.
Do you happen to know where it is from?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Eben says:
“The real subject matter is that the flat earth energy budget model where the sun shines evenly 24 hours a day evenly over the whole planet with 240 W/m^2. and all of the surface having the same temperature depicts a false static and nonexistent condition scenario, which is limited to 255 K / -18C .
This model however has no relation to the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1,370 W/m2 from one direction, Thats why the model is 33 degrees off from the reality.”
–
“the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1,370 W/m2 from one direction”
–
Thank you!
–
**
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Just imagine if both you and Eboy were right.
Not only you would have an Albedo correction correcting factor, but you need to add a spinning correction correcting factor.
If you think that our current Modulz are running hot, wait till you produce a Sky Dragon Crank model with both correcting factors.
“Not only you would have an Albedo correction correcting factor, but you need to add a spinning correction correcting factor.”
–
–
NASA has measured Earth’s Albedo = 0,306
and Earth’s spin as 24h/day.
–
It is Arthur Smith in his “Proof” asserts Moon’s average surface temperature is 253K…
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
We both know that your fudge factor is not albedo.
If your fudge factor was right, you would not need to appeal to the Earth spin.
In fact if what you say about the Earth spin is right, then you have proved that not all energy on Earth does not come from the Sun.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Some people seem to have a problem with the origin of
https://i.postimg.cc/6pw57Lng/Scheme-of-the-Earths-energy-budget.jpg
*
Initial operation of the CM-SAF TOA flux products
D. Caprion1, C. Bertrand, N. Clerbaux, B. De Paepe, S. Dewitte, L. Gonzalez, A. Ipe
(January 2005, uploaded on ResearchGate in 2014)
Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium, Department of Observations
Section Remote Sensing from Space, Avenue Circulaire 3, B-1180 Brussels, Belgium
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven-Dewitte/publication/242299710_Initial_operation_of_the_CM-SAF_TOA_flux_products/links/00b7d52985106bb8ee000000/Initial-operation-of-the-CM-SAF-TOA-flux-products.pdf
In the ongoing theme of the cult not knowing any of the relevant science.
Questions the cult can’t answer:
1) Why does flux-in NOT equal flux-out?
2) Why does Earth’s energy-in NOT equal energy-out?
Bindidon, barry, Brandon, Ball4, bdgwx, Norman, Folkerts, Swanson, Ken, TYSON, Willard, Nate, Entropic man, and bob, even though the answers have appeared here in the past, you can’t answer correctly.
Prove me wrong.
I’ll answer your questions as soon as your prove that the Moon is not rotating.
Which means I’ll never have to answer your questions.
Lying welsher.
Thanks bob. You proved my point — you don’t know anything about the science.
Yeah, but I have a science degree, you don’t.
Well bob, youve had plenty of chances to show you understand the science. But, you’ve avoided my questions, except the one about vectors, and you had to get help on that one. Your performance here has been one of an immature troll, very similar to worthless willard.
Want another chance to prove yourself? Answer the simple question troll Nate could not:
Troll Nate, two infinitely large plates face each other. One plate is emitting 400 W/m^2 to the other plate. The other plate is emitting 800 W/m^2 to the 400″ plate. The plates are so close together that there are no losses.
What is the net” flux arriving the 400″ plate from the 800″ plate?
Or, answer the two easy questions above.
Or, if you prefer orbital motion, is the ball-on-a-string model–
a) Orbiting only
b) Spinning only
c) Both orbiting and spinning
d) Neither orbiting nor spinning.
You usually resort to insults and false accusations, often with your juvenile profanity. I don’t think you can answer these simple questions because you don’t understand the science.
Prove me wrong.
Clint R,
I take science problems from guys with science degrees, that rules you out.
You promised a proof that the Moon rotates, you still haven’t provided the goods.
By the way, the ball on a string is both rotating and orbiting, just like the Moon is both orbiting and rotating.
And you blew the one on the vectors.
“What is the net flux arriving the 400″ plate from the 800″ plate?”
Good golly miss molly, better go take care of that hard on or slow down and review your posts so they don’t look like rubbish.
Your problem requires an infinite power source, those don’t exist.
All wrong braindead bob.
You did not even attempt the two questions above, or the plates question.
We know the ball is ONLY orbiting, because if it were also spinning the string would wrap around it.
Clint R,
No dear boy, the ball and the string are rotating at the same rate, so there is no wrapping of the string around the ball.
That astronaut video is proof the ball is rotating.
And many other experiments you could find on the web, that show the ball continuing to spin after the string is cut.
Where is that proof the Moon doesn’t rotate.
Welsher.
Wrong again, bob.
The string is orbiting. The ball is orbitng. We know the ball is NOT spinning because the string is not wrapping around it.
The astronaut video is not relevant. It’s just another one of your attempts to throw crap against the wall.
What will you try next?
Clint R,
The string is not orbiting, you are holding one end of it in your hand.
The astronaut video is relevant, it proves the ball is spinning before he lets it go.
What part of that do you not understand?
Incorrect bob. The string IS orbiting (revolving, or rotating about one end), it is NOT spinning (rotating about its CoM).
You still dont understand the difference between orbiting and spinning.
The only relevance of the astronaut video is that it proves you dont understand orbital motion vs. kinematics.
What will you try next?
Clint R,
All you do is reject reality.
It’s a simple mathematical translation to move the point of reference from the end of the string where you are holding it to the center of mass of the string.
From that vantage point the string is clearly rotating on its axis.
It does not point in the same direction all the time, hence it must be rotating. It’s as simple as that.
What part of that reality do you fail to comprehend?
Ignoring the CoM is rejecting reality, bob.
When you reject reality, my job here is finished.
Clint R,
Why do you reject the center of mass of the string?
Remember, I have a degree in Science, you don’t.
I am qualified to analyze such things as a ball on a string, you are not.
‘Ill answer your questions as soon as your prove that the Moon is not rotating’.
***
What’s the point, Bob, you lack the ability to understand the proof? The proof has been presented many times and you can’t even supply a scientific rebuttal.
Gordon,
Yeah I did,
your tangent lines are rotating, that alone destroys your proof.
And then there was something about the Moon moving with constant linear velocity.
That’s wrong.
Anyway, Clint R didn’t supply a proof.
He didn’t even try.
Welshing Bastard.
The tangent lines are rotating wrt the stars but not about the Moon’s local axis, wherever that is.
I supplied the proof for that Bob. The lunar orbit is located at the COG by convention because the Moon is regarded as a uniform sphere. However, there is nothing wrong with creating three sub-orbits: one representing the near side, one for the far side, and another for the COG.
Each sub-orbit has a tangent line at the point where each one of those points instantaneously meets the sub-orbit. Therefore each tangent line representing those 3 points is always in parallel. That rules out any kind of local rotation. However, it confirms a curvilinear motion with no rotation.
WRT the constant velocity, where is the force to change the linear momentum? The gravitational field does vary slightly over the orbit but the acceleration it provides near the Earth’s surface of 9.8 m/s^2 is reduced to about 0.003 m/s^2 at the altitude of the Moon.
If you break the 0.003 m/s^2 acceleration into components, based on the 5 degree angle when libration is maximum, the component that could cause acceleration, hence a change in velocity, is a tiny fraction of the 0.003 figure. That quantity gets progressively lower as the Moon moves between the semi-major axis and the end of the major axis (apogee), where it becomes zero. It then begins to increase again but we are talking a tiny fraction of the gravitational effect at the Earth’s surface.
I think you are confusing angular speed with tangential velocity. As I tried to explain, The orbit is not a fixed path, it is created on the fly by the relationship of tangential linear momentum to gravitational force. If gravity changes slightly, as explained above, it allows the lunar momentum to have more of an effect on the orbit and it gets elongated.
With a lowered gravitational force on it, albeit slight, the Moon can go farther in a straight line direction in the same time. That means more distance gets covered in the same time, elongating the orbit.
I know you don’t get this because you are likely regarding the Moon as following an orbital path when it is, in fact, creating the orbit on the fly. If gravity is reduced slightly, the Moon goes farther in a straight line direction, extending the curve into an elliptical shape. With reduced gravity, it actually flies farther in a straight line direction in the same time.
That does not require a change in tangential velocity but it does translate to a rise in angular speed. As Kepler pointed out, equal areas are covered by a radial line in equal times. Since angular speed is the rate of change of that radial line per unit time, its speed varies over the course of the ellipse. That’s not the same as a change in tangential speed of the Moon.
“The tangent lines are rotating wrt the stars but not about the Moons local axis, wherever that is.”
Gordon uses a rotating reference frame to determine whether an object is rotating, and thus proves DREMT wrong when he says its not about reference frames.
Don’t be dumb, Nate, I used no reference frame, just the stars. Dremt already knows the tangent lines are rotating around the Earth, it was his idea.
Gordon, Gordon, Gordon
“Therefore each tangent line representing those 3 points is always in parallel. That rules out any kind of local rotation.”
How so? You can draw similar lines from the Sun to the Earth, and the same tangent lines will be parallel, doesn’t prove anything.
“WRT the constant velocity, where is the force to change the linear momentum?”
The force of gravity from the Earth.
The rest of your screed is off topic, the question was if the Moon rotates on its axis or not, not what it’s doing as it orbits the Earth.
Here’s my proof
Take a point on the near face of the Moon, and a point on the far face of the Moon. The point on the near face is moving slower than the point on the far side. Since the point on the far side is moving faster, it must get farther away from the point on the near side. But it doesn’t because the rotation of the Moon exactly makes up for the difference is distance covered by the two points.
Wrong again, braindead bob.
All parts of Moon are moving with the same velocity. Otherwise, it would come apart.
Once again, this has all been explained before. But, you cant understand it.
bob,
You are quite deranged. The Moon is in free fall – falling towards the Earth.
As Clint R pointed out, if parts of the Moon were moving faster than others while it falls, then the body would fly apart!
Maybe you believe that celestial beings are pushing the Moon around the Earth? That thinking was current a few hundred years ago. You might need to catch up with present reality.
By the way, you haven’t managed to find a description of the GHE, have you?
No?
I didn’t think so.
Clint R,
Draw 2 concentric circles, one with a radius of 1 and one with a radius of 2.
You are telling me that the circumference of those two circles are the same.
Not so.
The far side of the Moon is moving faster than the near side, because it is farther away, and is always outside of the near side.
Since the Moon doesn’t fly apart, it proves that the Moon is rotating.
Seems that your explanations are always wrong, you could have gone to college you know.
Sorry you wasted your life.
Swenson seems to want me to correct him again.
Yes the Moon is in free fall, the only force acting on it is gravity.
But this statement of yours is wrong
“falling towards the Earth.”
The Moon moves closer to the Earth until it is at perigee, the closest approach, but then it moves away until it’s at apogee.
And you end with anther request for a description of the Green House Effect.
We have already provide same, I don’t chew my cabbage twice.
And then
“As Clint R pointed out, if parts of the Moon were moving faster than others while it falls, then the body would fly apart!”
Parts of the Moon are moving faster, because they are always farther away, like the outside lane on a race track.
To win a race, you want the inside lane.
The Moon rotates to accommodate that fact, preventing the Moon from tearing itself apart.
Braindead Bob,
You wrote – “Yes the Moon is in free fall, the only force acting on it is gravity.
But this statement of yours is wrong
“falling towards the Earth.” ”
Well, yes it does bob. Sir Isaac Newton even calculated how much it falls towards the Earth every second. You can choose not to accept reality, but it makes no difference.
You also wrote –
“And you end with anther request for a description of the Green House Effect.
We have already provide same, I dont chew my cabbage twice.”
Are you a SkyDragon of the cabbage chewing rabbit variety, perhaps? There is no description of the “greenhouse effect”, nor any explanation of its supposed role in the four and a half billion years of the Earth cooling.
Your fantasies are not fact, you bumbling fumbler. How hard can it be to paste a copy of the GHE description which you so adamantly claim exists? Too hard for you, obviously!
Swenson,
I already posted a description of the GHE for you, not doing it again.
And the Earth hasn’t cooled for 4 1/2 billion years, stop making up fairy tales.
bob, a circular railroad track would have concentric rails. But, that does NOT mean the train is spinning.
You’re so confused about science you’re drooling.
What will you try next?
Clint R,
A train on a circular track is rotating on its axis.
What part of that do you not understand?
The train is constantly turning, hence it is rotating.
Does the front face the same direction all the time?
No is the answer, therefore it is rotating.
Thanks bob, for clearly indicating you reject reality.
You believe a train is spinning. Ent believes passenger jets fly backwards, as you do also.
Once you admit you reject reality, my job is finished.
Clint R,
You continue to get things wrong.
I don’t “believe” a train on a circular track is rotating, I provided evidence for that fact.
Clint R
1) You ask “Why does flux-in NOT equal flux-out?” It does if the condition is in a steady state, the only energy transfer is radiant, and the area of the incoming and outgoing is the same. If these conditions are met the flux in will certainly equal the flux out.
That correctly answers your first one.
2) It mostly does except with increase in GHG then the energy out is slightly less until a new steady state is achieved.
I have proven you wrong.
1) Sorry Norman, that’s wrong. A whole bunch of ifs and conditions don’t help you. Your conditions don’t even work for planet Earth.
2) This is NOT about the GHE. It’s about Earth’s energy budget is a hoax. (I’ll explain later, but you won’t get it.)
Clint R
Saying I am wrong does not make me wrong. It just expresses your opinion. There are not a whole bunch of “If’s” or conditions.
What I stated is quite factual and logical. It is correct physics.
Get over yourself just once and think in a logical rational fashion.
Sorry troll Norman, that’s wrong again.
Your answer contained two sentences. Both sentences contained the words *if* and *condition[s]*. 100% of your sentences contained both words. If 100% ain’t a *whole bunch* to you, then you’re just making up crap again.
norman…”Why does flux-in NOT equal flux-out?”…
***
Hint…the source of the incoming has a surface temperature around 6000C and the source of the outgoing is about 15C. Plot the bandwidth vs intensity for each and compare. One is Mt. Everest and the other is a molehill.
Here is another hint, Bordon –
Fluxes do not add up when Sky Dragon cranks like mishandle your units.
Woeful Wee Willy,
What units do you propose to use to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?
You fool, the Earth has cooled.
Trying to avoid facing facts by crying “but . . . units”, is all SkyDragons like you have left!
Pointless weather reports, trolling, weird diversions – none of these will change the indisputable fact that you cannot even describe the “greenhouse effect “!
You could always try linking to a meaningless YouTube video – make sure not to describe it, in line with your previously stated aim was to make people waste their time at your behest.
Give it your best shot, and gird your loins in anticipation of the howls of derisive laughter!
What are you braying about, Mike?
4 is not equal to 2, therefore 2+2 cannot equal 4.
Prove me wrong.
Woeful Wee Willy,
What units do you propose to use to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?
You fool, the Earth has cooled.
Trying to avoid facing facts by crying but . . . units, is all SkyDragons like you have left!
Pointless weather reports, trolling, weird diversions none of these will change the indisputable fact that you cannot even describe the greenhouse effect !
You could always try linking to a meaningless YouTube video make sure not to describe it, in line with your previously stated aim was to make people waste their time at your behest.
Give it your best shot, and gird your loins in anticipation of the howls of derisive laughter!
Mike Flynn,
Keep spamming.
Wassail.
Woeful Wee Willy,
What units do you propose to use to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?
You fool, the Earth has cooled.
Trying to avoid facing facts by crying but . . . units, is all SkyDragons like you have left!
Pointless weather reports, trolling, weird diversions none of these will change the indisputable fact that you cannot even describe the greenhouse effect !
You could always try linking to a meaningless YouTube video make sure not to describe it, in line with your previously stated aim was to make people waste their time at your behest.
Give it your best shot, and gird your loins in anticipation of the howls of derisive laughter!
Mike Flynn,
Trichotillomania.
” Why does flux-in NOT equal flux-out? ”
*
In the Belgian paper I found above that contains the picture that troll Clint R fully agrees with:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1457837
we can read this:
” The evolution of the climate on the Earth is driven by the Earths energy budget (EEB).
The EEB results from the balance between a heating process due to the incoming solar radiation and a cooling process due to outgoing radiations divided in two parts:
the reflection of the solar radiation and the emission of thermal radiation. “
All wrong Bin. Your “link” isn’t even relevant.
binny…”The EEB results from the balance between a heating process due to the incoming solar radiation and a cooling process due to outgoing radiations divided in two parts:
the reflection of the solar radiation and the emission of thermal radiation”.
***
This is the kind of propaganda you would try to unload on a child with an incomplete ability to understand the reality.
Robertson
Again this server error, look at my reply:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a1zU6jgeHJPYXvcqf8zvZMh29K5V0PiW/view
Binny,
And yet the Earth has managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years, hasn’t it?
That would convince anybody except a delusional SkyDragon that the Earth has lost more energy than it has gained.
You don’t have to accept reality, if you prefer to live in a fantasy.
Here is one Sky Sragon crank:
[SKY DRAGON CRANK 1] Why does flux-in NOT equal flux-out?
Here is another Sky Dragon crank:
[SKY DRAGON CRANK TWO] 480 W/m^2 received over half the Earths surface area, whilst 240 W/m^2 is emitted from the entire Earths surface area at the same time.
Who is right?
Stay tuned!
Well, both are in agreement, aren’t they. I mean 480 does not equal 240.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once more.
If only he could understand how he could mind his units properly,
He might never.
Fine with me.
Obviously you just made a stupid mistake. Again.
DREMT
It would probably make sense to just use energy in and out because the energy of a flux depends upon the area receiving and emitting.
In the case of the Earth only 1/2 of the Surface receives energy at any given time but all of it emits energy.
The amount of energy the Earh receives and loses is usually even, when it is not the Earth is either warming or cooling. At this time the imbalance seems to be in the direction of warming so the Earth would be receiving more energy than it is losing.
When considering flux one needs to take geometry in consideration. The Global Energy Budgets do this by taking the flux of just one square meter.
Norman, you’re starting to get it but you’ve got a long way to go.
Norman,
Unfortunately, the Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago. Where was the GHE hiding during this time, do you think?
There is no GHE, of course.
Mike Flynn,
2 is not 4, therefore 2+2 cannot equal 4.
Hugger-mugger.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Unfortunately, the Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago. Where was the GHE hiding during this time, do you think?
There is no GHE, of course.
Say something silly about something irrelevant, if you think it appropriate.
Copy-paste your comment again, Mike.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Unfortunately, the Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago. Where was the GHE hiding during this time, do you think?
There is no GHE, of course.
Say something silly about something irrelevant, if you think it appropriate.
Good boy.
Fardel.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Unfortunately, the Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago. Where was the GHE hiding during this time, do you think?
There is no GHE, of course.
Say something silly about something irrelevant, if you think it appropriate.
Mike Flynn,
Accismus.
Obviously Gaslighting Graham claims the two quantities from his own energy balance model are equal for his Motte, and he claims they are not for his Bailey.
Perhaps one day he will realize his contradictory Motte-and-Bailey fools no one.
Fine with me.
The energy values balance, the flux values do not. You made a stupid mistake and can’t admit it, as always.
Compare and contrast:
[GG] 480 W/m^2 received over half the Earths surface area, whilst 240 W/m^2 is emitted from the entire Earths surface area at the same time.
[ALSO GG] 480 does not equal 240.
Fine with me if Gaslighting Graham never minds his units.
There’s absolutely no problem with what I said.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once more.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard
Calm down. On the matter of energy flow DREMT agrees with you.
Incoming shortwave energy flux is 480W/m^2 averaged over the dayside half of the Earth’s surface. It delivers 1.12*10^24Joules/year.
Outgoing longwave energy flux is 240W/m^2 averaged over the whole surface of the Earth. This radiates 1.11*10^24Joules/year.
EM,
Yes, all the heat of the day is lost during the night.
Plus, as Baron Joseph Fourier pointed out, a little of the Earth’s internal heat is also lost. Fourier wrote “The analytical theory of Heat”, and had performed calculations supporting his observations and theories.
Hence, four and a half billion years of planetary cooling – unless you have another explanation of course.
Delusional SkyDragons just say the first thing that occurs to them, and then defend their ideas to the death, it seems.
Such is life.
EM,
To be able to convert flux into joules, one needs to consider the proper amount of surface. If a hemisphere was not half a sphere, that conversion would not work. To deny that fluxes add is to forget that equivalence.
Also, the light that the Earth receives is equal to what it receives on a disc, not a hemisphere. You might forget about the angle of incidence. None of this matters much as long as long as one minds ones units and does not try to troll by suggesting that 480 does not equal to 240.
“To be able to convert flux into joules, one needs to consider the proper amount of surface…”
…as we have been.
“Also, the light that the Earth receives is equal to what it receives on a disc, not a hemisphere…”
…yes, in terms of the total power (Watts, W) received. To convert to irradiance (W/m^2) you need to divide the total power by the surface area receiving said power. You’re not minding your units, yet again…
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
[ALSO GG] 480 does not equal 240
Where are the units?
The units were a given, from context – W/m^2.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again.
Here was the context:
[GG] 480 W/m^2 received over half the Earths surface area, whilst 240 W/m^2 is emitted from the entire Earths surface area at the same time.
And here is the context for that context:
[BASIC ENERGY BALANCE MODEL] Energy to the Earth = Energy out of the Earth
If Gaslighting Graham never minds his units properly, fine with me.
Yes, the energy values balance, the flux values do not. What exactly is confusing you, still?
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once more.
Energy translates into flux.
If energy balances, flux must balance properly.
When taken into proper context.
And the proper context is the Earth.
The energy balance model we are talking about is the energy balance model of the Earth.
So when Gaslighting Graham speaks of his 480 figure, he forgets about the other side of the Earth that receives 0.
So in the end 480 + 0 = 240 x 2
This is how we mind our units properly.
Averaging the irradiance over the entire lit hemisphere to get 480 W/m^2 is already taking some liberties with the reality. That spatial average already loses sight of the fact that the area of the lit hemisphere perpendicular to the Sun’s rays receives in excess of 960 W/m^2. If you average it out temporally, as well as spatially, to get an input of 240 W/m^2 across the entire globe, then you are losing sight of night and day itself!
Averaging the amount of gaslighting in the comments from Gaslighting Graham should get us to a constant akin to the speed of light.
The speed of gaslight, so to speak.
The magic behind of units is that we can abstract them.
If we have half of the Earth on one side of the equation and a whole Earth on the other side, we cannot abstract our units away.
Unless we are shooting for the speed of gaslight.
Gibberish is not a valid response, Little Willy. You lost, again.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights gruesomly.
Fine with me.
“Gaslighting Graham gaslights gruesomly…”
…is an ad hom.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more.
"Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more…"
…is an ad hom.
480/2 = 240
…but day and night exist.
AVERAGE(480; 0) = AVERAGE(240; 240)
…yeah, but day and night exist.
Earth’s T is measured in both the day and night and averaged. Anybody think that averaging makes the GHE go away?
The solar flux is strong in the day and the T is higher, while the solar flux is 0 at night and the T is lower.
If we’re averaging the temperature over day and night why can’t we average the solar flux over day and night?
Anybody think this changes everything and makes the GHE go away? Why?
Worse than that, Nate – Gaslighting Graham gently forgets that days and nights are quite fuzzy concepts.
Everything has been explained to you a dozen times, Little Willy. I personally don’t believe that you don’t get it. You’re just trolling me.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] …is an ad hom
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] you’re just trolling me
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
is an ad hom
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Everything has been explained to the people continuing to perpetuate this faux controversy over day and night averaging.
Turns out there is literally no problem averaging over day and night for determining the GHE or GW.
But some people do get attached to their erroneous beliefs.
Don’t tell me that the stoopid discussion about half the SW sunlit hemisphere versus the full sphere emitting LW still has not ended…
OMG.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Blinny and Wiltard are knuckle draggers.
Christian television network founder and preacher Marcus Lamb, who discouraged vaccinations, dies after being hospitalized for Covid-19
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/media/marcus-lamb-covid-death/index.html
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
More fronts with heavy rain and snowfall in the mountains are heading to the US west coast.
https://i.ibb.co/4RdnhG0/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-12-185612.png
Each week in the Sierra seems to bring snow dozens upon hundreds of inches of snow.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/tahoe/article/sierra-snow-homes-17833006.php
I am forecasted to have 50% rain Tuesday and Wednesday. otherwise just cloudy and it’s getting warmer.
Still some snow on hills- probably gone by Wednesday.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
JOHANNESBURG, March 12 (Reuters) – Cyclone Freddy displaced hundreds of people as it battered central Mozambique on Sunday after making landfall for a second time in a month, breaking records for the duration and strength of tropical storms in the southern hemisphere.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/record-strength-cyclone-freddy-pounds-mozambique-after-making-second-landfall-2023-03-12/
wee willy…it’s weather, get over it.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A heat wave with high humidity is hitting South Korea for the fourth straight day, the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) said Monday.
Temperatures in Korea have soared above 33 degrees Celsius, and it didn’t get much cooler overnight.
Morning lows stayed above 29 degrees in the northern maritime province of Gangwon Monday morning, with the heat stream expanding to inland regions, according to the KMA.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=27136&utm_source=KK
It’s weather, wee willy, get used to it.
BTW…is that another one of those propaganda bits where they measure temps from 1960 onward?
Come on, Bordon.
Not weather. Extreme weather event.
Unless you believe in magic, which in your case is not out of the question yet, you must accept that weather and climate are connected.
Think.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Unless you believe in magic, which in your case is not out of the question yet, you must accept that weather and climate are connected.
Think.”
Are you quite mad, fool?
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations – you must believe in magic, if you think there is any other connection!
Surely you are not so stupid as to believe there is any predictable connection between CO2 and weather? If you are mad enough to think so, maybe you could explain why.
Dingaling, you can’t explain any such thing – can you?
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
4 is not equal to 2, therefore 2+2 cannot equal 4.
Abat-jour.
Weepy Wee Willy, please stop trolling.
New cost estimate for California high-speed project puts it deeper in the red
“When Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his scaled-down blueprint for the California bullet train four years ago, he proposed building a 171-mile starter segment in the Central Valley that would begin operating in 2030 and cost $22.8 billion.
Today, the blueprint is fraying as costs now exceed future funding, an official estimate of future ridership has dropped by 25% and the schedule to start to carry people is slipping. It is raising fresh concerns about the future of the nations largest infrastructure project.”
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-11/new-cost-estimate-for-high-speed-rail-puts-california-bullet-train-100-billion-in-the-red
Linked from: Its Dead, Jim
http://www.transterrestrial.com/2023/03/12/its-dead-jim-5/
They also don’t mention California losing people, dying or they just going to another state.
Lowering population in general, will affect such “plans”.
ken…”Robertson, you have to be one of the worst blatherskites. Youre constantly posting maunderings of unreadable tripe. I find it hard to believe you were ever employed in any technical capacity”.
***
From someone who thinks the Moon orbits the Sun, is it any wonder you’d be unable to understand what I write? It’s not only that you hold such a dumb opinion it’s that you completely misunderstood the article from which your opinion is derived, which clearly states the Moon orbits the Earth.
When I support your views on global warming and covid, is that also blatherskite? Is this a case of being one to know one?
Of course you’d find it hard to believe I was employed in any kind of technical capacity, you would not understand technology if someone explained it to you. You reference Happer without being able to explain what he is talking about.
Make up your mind, man. I am commenting here to counter alarmist views both on climate issues and covid. What’s your purpose other than to slam people who are on your side?
The Moon orbits the barycenter of the Moon/Earth combo which in turn orbits the Moon/Earth/Sun barycenter as everybody knows.
My purpose in ‘slamming’ your writings is in the vain hope that you might start working on making your written diarrhea legible and thereby more likely to influence some readers.
There is a difference between ‘dazzling with brilliance’ and ‘baffling with bullshit’. Your writings are most definately of the latter sort.
Earlier, the delusional SkyDragon, Norman, wrote –
“You ask “Why does flux-in NOT equal flux-out?” It does if the condition is in a steady state, the only energy transfer is radiant, and the area of the incoming and outgoing is the same. If these conditions are met the flux in will certainly equal the flux out.”
Unfortunately, the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight – plus a vast amount of radiogenic heat, far greater in the past, as shorter half life isotopes were in greater abundance. Demonstrably more energy left the Earth than it received.
So Norman is talking about defining the Earth as being in a steady state – which of course it isn’t, and has never been. Typical SkyDragon rubbish – discarding fact and substituting fantasy, hoping nobody will know the difference.
Facts are facts – unfortunately for fanatical SkyDragons, who still can’t even describe the GHE!
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
4 is not equal to 2, therefore 2+2 cannot equal 4.
Kelebe.
Weepy Wee Willy, please stop trolling.
Swenson:
“Demonstrably more energy left the Earth than it received.”
–
That’s right – demonstrably!
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Unless and until you produce that demonstration, you are trolling again.
” Demonstrably more energy left the Earth than it received. ”
Demonstrably, Flynnson?
What about telling us how much that ‘demonstrably’ exactly is?
*
If you were right, then we wouldn’t be here and couldn’t admire you utter nonsense because Earth would have reached space temperature: a few Kelvin.
You are such an incompetent and boasting troll, beaten only by Clint R and Robertson.
Bin says: …Earth would have reached space temperature: a few Kelvin.
Wrong Bin, you forgot: It’s the Sun, stupid.
Its Sun that keeps the planet warm.
The Sun alone gives us -18C, Pup.
Please advise.
Wrong, worthless troll.
The -18C is for an imaginary sphere. If Earth had no way to cool itself, it would be at a temperature above the boiling point of water. So, you could say Earth can cool itself over 90C.
Pretty amazing, huh?
Pigly Pup,
Were “the energy out […] ALWAYS […] less than the energy in,” the Earth would be a little more than 90C by now.
It is really hard to believe you can bathe yourself in so much weak sauce.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Please do not average solar flux!
–
Yes, a planet IR emits the not reflected portion of the entire incident on it solar energy…
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
You are trolling again.
Unless you want to count every single location separately at each second, some averaging will need to take place in all the units you got.
It is an axiom:
E in = E out
E in = E reflected + E IR = E out
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
An axiom is un demonstrable, Christos.
Hence why it is an axiom.
E in – E reflect = E IF
Jemit = E IF = 4πrσΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
The non-linearity of the S-B radiation law, when coupled with a strong latitudinal variation of the INTERACTED solar flux across the surface of a sphere, and with the planet rotational spin, and with the average surface specific heat, creates a mathematical condition for a correct calculation of the true global surface temperature from a spatially integrated infrared emission.
–
Jemit = 4πrσΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
–
Where:
Jemit (W) -is the INFRARED emission flux from the entire planet (the TOTAL)
r – is the planet radius
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Solar Irradiated Planet INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N – rotation /per day, is planets rotational spin with reference to the sun in earthen days. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp – cal/gr*oC- is the planet average surface specific heat
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“E IF” should be read as “E IR”
and
Jemit = E IF = 4πrσΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ (W)
should be read as
Jemit = E IR = 4πr^2σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)^1/4 (W)
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
You are just using a simple question to peddle your irrelevant crap.
Fluxes add when you mind your units properly.
If you add another light in your room, there will be more light.
Besides, the whole meme falls apart when Sky Dragon cranks recognize that they need to average anyway.
The sum of all the parts is equal to the whole. Is that demonstrable, Wiltard?
It actually is, Troglodyte:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_group
To get that you need to reach the formal stage, which may always elude you.
Vournas
” Please do not average solar flux! ”
Are you coming back to nonsense too, just because a few trolls do?
Willard:
“Fluxes add when you mind your units properly.
If you add another light in your room, there will be more light.”
–
–
Of course there will be more light in my room!
–
It is the distance from sun the inverse square law.
Solar energy is averaged over an imaginary sphere with
radius of 1 AU, that gives 1.370 W/m^2 flux.-
–
586 W/m^2 flux on Mars’ orbit.
–
50 W/m^2 flux on Jupiter’s orbit.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
If you cannot add fluxes, adding light to your room will not work.
Adding light to your room works.
Therefore you can add fluxes together.
All you need is to mind your units properly.
Willard:
“Adding light to your room works.
Therefore you can add fluxes together.”
–
–
What other fluxes would you like me to add?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You’re the one who claims fluxes don’t add up, Christos.
Pick the flux of two lamps. Try to add them up.
Should work.
I never said fluxes do not add up. What I said is that fluxes INTERACT with matter.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cristos,
You are now the proud victim of one of Wiltard’s straw arguments. Do you feel special?
> I never said fluxes do not add up.
Perhaps I misunderstood, Christos:
I believe that (480 + 0) / 2 = 240.
What about you?
Stefen, but I need to know the way the opponents think.
–
–
Willard, what you do as:
(480 + 0) / 2 = 240
is a simplified approach to the incident solar flux’s INTERACTION with earth’s surface.
–
I call it simplified, because the incident on Earth solar flux cannot be averaged.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Call it however you please, Christos.
I call “You can’t average because you can’t average” a petitio principii.
Good night.
Eastern winds persist in the central equatorial Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/9VbZvNw/mimictpw-spac-latest.gif
Testing —
Don’t (new) m it’s
Don’t (old) m its
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The avg temp in February in the Czech rep. was 1.2 C, which is 1.6 C above the 1991-2020 normal
Precipitation was spatially very unevenly distributed.
From no more than 20 mm to 200 mm, but in average 37 mm, 100% of the 19912020 normal
https://chmi.cz
https://twitter.com/ZdenekNejedly/status/1635223910294892544
wee willy is losing the climate debate and has turned to weather reports.
C’mon, Bordon.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A look at what in Australia, California etc certainly is viewed as a much too long lasting La Nina: 33 months in sequence according to the MEI index, and still not really at end.
Here in Germoney, we didn’t see much of it.
How the heaviest La Nina years look like in the MEI data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
A sorted list of the MEI index sums of the 3-dip La Nina episodes
1892: -54.67
1908: -52.22
1973: -48.71
2020: -45.02
1954: -40.45
1915: -38.97
1998: -37.66
1873: -36.82
*
An update of the OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) data today
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/olr
shows once more the amazing correlation between OLR and (inverted) MEI:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bj5jp6xb8BqPByqwAxzo9foMeJtB486a/view
I’d expect climate in Germany depends a lot more on AMO than on ENSO.
… and you would have been right – say 20 years ago.
Nowadays, the climate is much more influenced by westerly winds due to a strong increase of low pressure areas rolling all the time from North West Atlantic and reaching until east of Poland.
Continental weather and climate patterns with cold winters dominated by easterly winds coming from Russia have disappeared.
” and you would have been right say 20 years ago. ”
Probably earlier.
I remember. Living in East Anglia (eastern England) in my youth we had continental Winter weather for weeks at a time. Flooded fields and drainage canals froze and we could skate several times each Winter. Each year the Fen Skating Club held an annual racing championship with skaters entering from across Europe.
The extended cold spells became rarer and the skating opportunities no longer occured every year. Eventually they became rare. There hasn’t been a Fen Skating Championship since 1999.
Thanks for confirming.
Here is the ascending sort’s top10 of the output of my software for the GHCN daily station nearest to us (anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010):
1956 2 -12.04 (C)
1986 2 -8.63
1963 1 -8.58
1987 1 -7.84
1969 12 -7.10
1963 2 -6.82
2010 12 -6.06
1985 1 -6.03
1970 1 -5.58
2010 1 -5.26
2010 was our last winter deserving that name.
Since then, our snow shovel became unemployed (not that I would be sad about it :–).
More data from The Great Geophysical Experiment.
https://ibb.co/nrgVP29
The system’s response is proceeding as anticipated.
The correlation is fairly clear — as the oceans warm, more CO2 and H2O enter the atmosphere.
Kinda what we would expect from physics, huh?
Maybe from Physics done by morons, but not from Chemistry.
The temperature increase is too small to cause the observed increase in CO2.
That’s some excellent propaganda, Goof. You must have spent a lot of time on it.
During the LIA, when the global average had dropped 1C to 2C, CO2 would have been absorbed in the oceans. How much? Was it enough over 400+ years to drop the atmospheric concentration by 100 to 150 ppmv?
The 270 ppmv figure relied upon by the IPCC was cherry picked from Antarctic ice cores by the IPCC. According to Jaworowski, some samples showed up to 2000 ppmv, but the IPCC rejected intermediate values and settled for the lowest concentration.
No, it takes a glaciation to reduce atmospheric concentration by more than 100.
Glaciations typically had 180 to 200 ppm in the atmosphere.
You can go to RealClimate, they have nice graphs.
Or here, for the last 1000 years
https://www.co2levels.org/
Noice.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
–Willard says:
March 12, 2023 at 10:39 AM
> Earth without an Ocean probably has average temperature well above -18 C.
Intriguing,
Pray tell more.–
I said”…but its Earth without an Ocean probably has average temperature well above -18 C.”
So I was talking about Venus and Willard asks what about earth without an ocean.
So, I have been saying Earth average surface temperature is controlled by the entire Ocean’s temperature. Which is about 3.5 C.
Or this average ocean temperature controls Earth’s global climate.
Earth global climate is ice house global climate.
If Earth average ocean wasn’t 3.5 but instead was about 10 C, Earth would have greenhouse global climate.
Or given enough time [1000 years] Earth’s ice sheets would disappear.
If course an immediate result of ocean warming from 3.5 to 10 is a lot ocean thermal expansive- sea level rising by several meters.
And amount heat required is a very huge amount. But I am not saying the ocean has to be 10 C to get rid of all ice sheets, rather I say there is no doubt it would evenually result in an greenhouse global climate, which means having no permanent ice sheets on Earth.
But if in greenhouse global climate, you do still have snow and glaciers.
The biggest effect of 10 C ocean is upon the polar regions and ice sheets are in polar regions.
And Earth doesn’t get hotter, it get a more uniform temperature.
It not going to snow on the ocean nor low elevation on land- you won’t have snow in Europe at low elevations. We have winter storms, you will get storms in winter, they aren’t like “winter storms”- very cold fronts coming from polar regions.
There clouds with ice in tropics, you will still have clouds with ice
in the world. Let state that again there are a lot clouds with ice the tropics, and you will still have a lot clouds with ice in the world.
But let’s get to Willard’s question, what is global temperature if Earth doesn’t have a ocean?
If just magically remove the ocean, you instantly have huge mountains
in the world- all land area human are living on, become mountains.
You sort of making Earth into a Venus and a Mars.
So, global warming is having a more uniform global temperature, and without ocean, Earth absorbs less energy and has less uniform global
average. So simple answer is you get more extreme air temperatures.
You could roughly say, you get rid of global climate, and you get global weather. And Earth is drier. And one could ask how violent is the wind. Might be quite still air in regions though what we could imagine would have still air, could be the opposite.
We can’t predict weather now, and it seems having ocean, could make it easier.
Now, could ignore removing oceans and causing huge basins and huge mountains, and it seems that similar to asking what would Venus temperature be if at 1 AU distance from the Sun, as Venus doesn’t have such extreme topography.
One could also ask what Earth average temperature would be a Venus distance from the the Sun. And roughly, Earth would have a lot more clouds. And clouds would lessen the amount the ocean could absorb- it’s possible Earth absorb less than 240 watt per square meter.
Venus absorbs 170 watts, and one could assume water clouds reflect more sunlight.
But if Venus was at 1 AU, it shouldn’t cause Venus to absorb more than 170 watts, but instead absorb less than 100 watts.
But getting back Willard’s question Earth without ocean doesn’t seem that the average temperature would be as low as -18 C.
Now the mountain continent [our current “land temperature] at it’s very high elevation, should average less than -18 C, but it’s
the 70% of earth ocean basins which would determine, Earth average temperature. Now arctic ocean basin, wouldn’t get hardly any sunlight. And southern ocean basin wouldn’t much sunlight either.
Our tropical zone gets more than 1/2 of sunlight reaching the
Earth surface. But ocean basins would receive less sunlight reaching it’s surface. The mountain continent of Africa would still be the hottest continent and it’s surface would receive far more sunlight than it does now, but would also be far colder than it is now.
It might as wild guess average around 0 C?? And bring up the land continent average temperature {just as it does at the moment- but probably add more to average continental land average temperature, than does presently.
“and it seems that similar to asking what would Venus temperature be if at 1 AU distance from the Sun, as Venus doesnt have such extreme topography.”
And giving Venus a 24 hour day.
Venus at Earth distance and having 24 hour day, is lot different
than a Venus day.
The 24 hour day is global warming, or causing a more uniform global temperature. And if give Venus a earth tilt of a constant 24 degrees,
it causes more of uniform temperature.
Though if add on giving Venus it’s shorter year, it’s also adding to global warming.
> So I was talking about Venus
Well, gb, you actually wrote:
“And here have something vague like Earth, but it’s Earth without an Ocean probably has average temperature well above -18 C.”
so it’s not even clear you were talking about Venus.
“have something vague like Earth” a Venus similar to Earth
It’s = a Venus similar to Earth
Without Earth having an ocean.
So I am talking about Venus.
And with this post I talked about Earth without ocean.
But I said hard to get, because hard to predict weather
and weather would effect surface temperatures to much higher
degree than weather effect Earth with an Ocean.
So for example El Nino adds say .5 to 1 C, and weather on Earth without ocean could be plus or minus 5 to 10 C.
Africa [being a huge Mountain] would have small affect from
weather, it’s similar to Mars [or the Moon}.
Also arctic basin because it more isolated, would likewise seem to have less weather effects. As wild guess.
Alright, gb.
So you were talking about Venus, but not exactly Venus.
A Venus that would be like Earth.
An Earth without oceans.
No, not an Earth.
A Venus that would be like an Earth.
But not the Earth.
Venus.
Is that it?
GB,
Don’t ask Wiltard to think in the abstract, although he usually writes in the abstract. Or, in the obtuse?
Poor Troglodyte.
Forced to tell gb that I’m the one who’s obtuse.
The problem has nothing to do science related to
global climate, it’s related to cargo cult of global
warming, which brainwashes that global warming means
more extreme climatic conditions and global warming
causes a hot daytime, to become hotter.
As compared to Earth has low average temperature of 15 C
because it’s nights and winters are cold.
And really crazy really off the wall idea, global warming
cause the world to be drier- causes more deserts and droughts.
Global warming is a wetter world and world with a more uniform
global surface air temperature. Which is a higher global average temperature and less cold and hot temperatures.
There is no real problem behind “But Religion,” gb –
https://climateball.net/but-religion
There is no real problem behind your verbosity. It is both symptom and self-medication.
–The idea of colonizing another habitable planet has been a topic of discussion for decades. Many people find the idea of finding a new world to call home as exciting and hopeful. However, while the search for another habitable planet is an important scientific pursuit, it is also important to consider the benefits of focusing on our own planet rather than spending billions of dollars in the hopes of finding and colonizing another world.
Climate change is one of the most pressing issues that our planet faces today. The world is already experiencing the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels, more frequent and severe weather events, and the loss of biodiversity. Rather than investing billions of dollars in searching for another habitable planet, it is important to invest in solutions that can help mitigate the impacts of climate change and protect the health and wellbeing of our planet and its inhabitants.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/12/modern-diplomacy-we-should-focus-on-climate-action-rather-than-interplanetary-colonialism/
I think this is really stupid.
GB,
Don’t you think before we go off colonizing another planet, maybe we should try out the cheaper option of going to the less populated places on Earth, like Antarctica, Greenland, the Sahara desert, the Australian outback, underground, etc.
At least they have air to breathe.
“Dont you think before we go off colonizing another planet, maybe we should try out the cheaper option of going to the less populated places on Earth, like Antarctica, Greenland, the Sahara desert, the Australian outback, underground, etc.
At least they have air to breathe.”
We don’t know if we can live on any other planet.
I think he stupid because he against exploration of space.
And he probably imagines solar panels work on Earth, and doesn’t
know solar panels were created for space exploration.
No one would go to the trouble of making solar panels for their
use on Earth.
Space exploration gave you solar panels and computers.
Lunar exploration increased our understanding of Earth- and really
didn’t explore Moon- we had a race to the Moon.
Colonizing planet suggest a government going to do it- I am against that- as is US Congress. China might want to colonize a planet.
If the Moon has mineable water and private sector mines and makes
rocket fuel, I favor governmental lunar bases for research type purposes- as governments are doing with International Space Station,
but I never was much of fan of ISS, and would be more of fan of lunar bases, if lunar rocket fuel can be bought at around $2000 per kg or
less. Also with bases one have telescopes in the Moon- government or non profit institutions {or for profit, also}.
But plan is to explore the lunar polar region and then do crew exploration of Mars.
If both can be used, it’s better for both. If there isn’t mineable lunar water, but Mars can support towns/cities, then that could lower access cost to Moon [there other ways to make rocket fuel other than mining lunar water].
In terms of being spacefaring civilization, it seems you towns on Mars. And towns on Mars, will want to Venus orbit. And Venus orbit
could support unlimited human populations.
And Mars towns, will also start ocean settlements on Earth.
So, I want NASA to do a pretty good job of exploring lunar polar region, but get done quickly, and get to exploring Mars soon as possible.
Besides, if NASA delays Mars exploration, Musk will try to do it- NASA shouldn’t just allow Musk to do it.
Someone needs to test artificial gravity, I think Musk should do it.
“At least they have air to breathe.
Air is not a problem, human don’t use much, they make
about 1/3 kg per day of CO2.
Cheap water is a problem- to make food and make energy
and to wash things. And in terms of Mars, to make air pressure.
So rather than expensive domes, on Mars one can live underwater.
You even design something to allow humans to breath like fish
do. But to start with humans can simply hold their breath and swim from pocket of air to another.
Underwater also helpful structurally, for buildings.
Dome holding 10 psi of pressure are problematic, but under water, less problematic.
So mine mars water, and make a lake. Land just near a lake, is more valuable land than land no where near a lake.
What could be exciting about Mars [and Moon] are natural caves- there could be more caves on Mars or Moon than on Earth. But Earth has fair amount of caves, so if same amount, still something to look for.
And interesting aspect of caves on Mars [or the Moon] is how deep to
go, they could go, say 5 or 10 times deeper than caves go on Earth.
It’s unlikely NASA could find most of caves, and of ones found, explore all of them.
Caves are kind of wonderful things on Earth- are Mars caves the same, or perhaps more wonderful?
Anyways, Earth is hard to leave, Mars is pretty easy to leave.
Our future in next hundred years, is not going to star traveling, but best way to explore the stars is with telescopes. Martians can have better ground telescopes and get large telescope into orbit {same with the Moon].
Moon needs lunar water to be $500 per kg, and Mars needs Mars water at $1 per kg. And with both one has water get a lot cheaper over time.
If lunar water was $1 per kg, then, like Mars, you have towns on the Moon, but with water at more $10 per kg, you can’t have settlements.
Big telescopes.
“One Of The Worlds Largest Telescopes Is Underway. Get To Know The Giant Magellan Telescope
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2019/10/30/the-worlds-largest-telescope-is-underway-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-giant-magellan-telescope/?sh=9a6d7e85d6a5
“UPDATE: Delays means that the GMT will not be the world’s largest optical telescope when it enters operation, but only the third largest after the 30m TMT in 2027 and the 39m ELT in 2025. The headline has been changed to reflect this.”
“One of the worlds largest optical, land-based telescopes is now entering its design and construction phase. Slated for Las Campanas Observatory in Chiles Atacama Desert at 8,500 ft./2,550m, the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) will have an 80ft./24.5m diameter mirror (actually seven giant mirrors) that will help astronomers to investigate black holes, dark matter and dark energy. The GMT will also be able to study the atmospheres of planets orbiting stars far from our solar system to search for signs of biochemistryalien life.
This is going to be big.”
But I wanted number how much it weighs:
“The developer, GMTO Corporation, announced today that it has signed a $135 million contract with Germany-based MT Mechatronics and Rockford, Illinois-based Ingersoll Machine Tools for a nine year project for the final design and construction of its massive telescopes 1,800-ton precision mechanism and steel structure.”
So 1800 tons is pretty heavy.
On lower gravity world it weighs less. But because weighs less
you use less structural material, making even weigh less.
With moon is a lot less gravity 1/6th, but Mars is about 1/3rd.
Of course if orbit, it’s microgravity.
But launch from Earth it would get +3 gees in the launch- and has able handle 3 times Earth gravity getting to orbit
But launching from Mars, the gees could around 1 or less gees from
the launch to orbit.
So, Mars will allow larger ground telescopes, and cheaper to launch really big telescopes. Though Moon is better on both of these aspects.
Adaptation action.
By JOHN CARROLL, Livingston Enterprise. March 13, 2023.
Rancher Matt Jesson had a plan to get his cattle home on a recent winter day.
For the last six months, Jesson’s cows had been grazing on the west side of Livingston, Montana.
Now it was time to get the cattle home to his property on U.S. Highway 10 for calving season and vaccinations.
Typically, Jesson loads his 150 cows on multiple trailers and drives them to their destination.
This year, Jesson decided to do something different. The 62-year-old rancher decided to drive his cattle about 10 miles down local roads and highways, a route that took them right down Park Street and through the heart of Livingston.
“I was going to sneak them through town early Sunday morning, but a lot of people showed up, and a lot of cars, too.”
Some of the cattle got spooked by the cars and tried to escape the herd down alleyways and side streets. But the handlers on horseback and herding dogs were able to keep the cows on course with a little help from their friends.
“There’s no laws against it,” said Jesson. “We had the right of way.”
“It worked good,” said Jesson, whose ancestors have been ranching in Park County since the 1880s. “We saved money and made good time. I’m tired of hauling them. It’s a much longer process. Plus, we didn’t have to clean trailers.”
Adaptation is an important course of action to deal with the expected impacts of climate change, given that there is already significant warming in the pipeline. It is important to note that while mitigation efforts can help reduce the severity of climate change impacts, they cannot completely eliminate them, and some level of adaptation will always be necessary.
Using horses to move cattle for short distances rather than hauling is a good adaptation action.
Its been over 24 hours, so all of the invitees had a chance to answer. Again, the purpose was to show the cult doesnt understand the science. These were very simple questions, yet not one of the cult idiots could answer correctly.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1458432
So, here are the answers:
1) Why does flux-in NOT equal flux-out?
Answer — Flux is not a conserved quantity. Flux is NOT energy. Energy is conserved, but flux is not. E amount of energy added to another E amount of energy, results in 2E units energy. Energy simply adds, because it is a conserved quantity.
Months ago, I used the cone-in-space, emissivity 1, with its total area 5 times its base area of 1 square meter. If 900 W/m^2 impacts the base of the cone, once the cone is at equilibrium, it will be emitting 180 W/m^2. The 900 W/m^2 in does NOT equal the 180 W/m^2 out. Flux is not conserved. Flux-in does NOT equal flux-out.
But the energy-in is 900 Joules each second, and the energy-out is also 900 Joules each second. Energy-in = energy-out.
This is one of the mistakes in the GHE nonsense, trying to treat flux as energy.
2) Why does Earth’s energy-in NOT equal energy-out?
Answer — In the perfect scenario of the cone-in-space, energy would perfectly balance. But in the real world, there are problems. Problems occur, such as losses, energy conversion and dissipation. With Earth, if energy is being absorbed by the ocean, it affects the balance. If energy is being absorbed by trees, grass, and seaweed, it affects the balance. Generally speaking, with Earth, the energy out will ALWAYS be less than the energy in.
This is another mistake in the GHE nonsense, claiming that energy-out must equal energy-in.
It’s been four days, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1456965
If you prefer, riddle me this:
What’s 480 divided by 2?
…and what’s 480 multiplied by 2? Such fluxes (and more) exist in the real world. D-d-d-deal with it.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
I’m really not gaslighting at all, but whatever.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
Willard, please stop trolling.
"Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again…"
…is an ad hom.
> please stop trolling.
… is an ad hom.
Not when you’re trolling…which is most (if not all) of the time.
So…
When will Gaslighting Graham tell us how long is a day and how long is a night?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Interested readers may want to look things up.
W/M^2 = Joules/(second*M^2)
So W/M^2 is exactly energy per second per unit area.
And Earth’s energy in from the Sun (it’s only source of energy) must equal the Earth’s radiant energy out (it’s the only way the Earth can cool)
Or the Earth will heat up or cool down.
bob,
The Earth’s surface used to be molten.
It is not molten now. The Earth has cooled.
What equation do you have to explain this obvious fact?
It doesn’t matter – I’m just having a laugh at your foolish reality avoidance!
No Swenson, we do not measure temperature at one point, guess it at a second point and declare that the Earth has cooled.
See the graph at the top of the page, it’s warming, that’s an obvious fact.
bob d …”So W/M^2 is exactly energy per second per unit area”.
***
The watt is not a measure of heat, it is an equivalent measure based on the relationship between work and heat. The watt is a measure of work, aka mechanical energy.
More accurately, w/m^2 is a reference to mechanical energy and any other reference to other energies is an equivalence not an equality.
There are 746 watts in 1 HP and the basic unit of heat is the calorie, the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1cc of water by 1C. I have never seen a reference to the number of calories/second in one horse power.
****
“And Earths energy in from the Sun (its only source of energy) must equal the Earths radiant energy out (its the only way the Earth can cool)”
***
So all the cooling is supposedly dependent on a trace gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Has it never occurred to you there ‘might’ be something wrong with that theory?
The truth is, the process of both heating and cooling are far more complex than the overly-simplified theories offered by GHE and AGW.
Furthermore, since heat is the energy associated with atomic motion, it can be dissipated simply by reducing the number of atoms/molecules in the atmosphere. That is accomplished naturally by gravity. As air heated by the surface rises, it thins out due to gravity and as it thins, it cools naturally.
I am not implying that alone can account for ‘heat in’ via solar input, however, it accounts for cooling that is explained solely ad incorrectly by radiative cooling.
Ergo, we are dealing with a complex problem that has been overly-simplified by minds that don’t understand the complexity. More likely, they don’t want to understand the complexity since it gets in the way of their overly-simplified theories.
Gordo wrote another example of his ignorance of engineering:
Even grammie clone understands that Watts represent energy per unit time, usually called power. Gordo confuses “work” with power, ignoring the definition of mechanical work in the English system as measured in foot-pounds where 1 HP is defined as 550 Ft-lbf per second.
Gordo keeps exhibiting his ignorance, writing:
Well, engineers also know that 1 horsepower = 0.7068 Btu/sec. Maybe he can figure out how to do the conversion.
“Generally speaking, with Earth, the energy out will ALWAYS be less than the energy in.”
See the graph at the top of the page.
Generally speaking you are wrong.
Yes bob, you understand NONE of this.
> you understand NONE of this.
… is an ad hom
Clint R,
You have been pwned!
All your base belong to us.
You lost this round, see you next week.
bobby…”See the graph at the top of the page”.
***
Yes…Bob, it is based on a measurement of oxygen radiation which alarmist claim cannot radiate.
Yes,
We claim Oxygen does not radiate very well in the infrared.
In the microwave band it’s a different story.
I thought you were a fan of Roy’s work?
For me he shows that there is indeed a greenhouse effect.
Run everybody.
So, you’re saying that O2, with a 23% share of the atmosphere, cannot cool because it radiates in the microwave region instead of the infrared region?
Gordon,
No I did not say that.
A climate model for Algernon
El Tiempo con Flavia Martes 15 10 13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFYxizBsyFo&ab_channel=GoaFilmsTV
” This is another mistake in the GHE nonsense, claiming that energy-out must equal energy-in. ”
*
This is one of the dumbest comments I have ever read about energy balance, but Clint R gets only the 2nd place on the dumbass podium.
Superwinner is definitely Robertson who claimed once more a few months ago that heat is dissipated in the atmosphere and hence a radiation based energy balance between Earth ans space is not necessary.
*
For Clint R and other geniuses: if there was no balance over time, Earth would inevitably become hotter and hotter or colder and colder.
No scientific person of course has ever claimed that energy in must be equal to energy out every second! But on yearly averages, this has to hold.
That has been invented by pseudoskeptic idiots trying to discredit scientific results: it is the transposition of the ‘ball on a string’ nonsense explaining Moon’s motion, into the climate discussion.
Bindidon is such a braindead cult idiot that he doesnt believe biomass stores energy.
But at least he trolls here regularly, allowing all to see what braindead looks like.
Clint R, there is no way around this basic fact:
For Clint R and other geniuses: if there was no balance over time, Earth would inevitably become hotter and hotter or colder and colder.
The rest is irrelevant, as it has to do with LOCAL ins and outs, which of course must not be balanced wrt anything.
What is discussed is the GLOBAL energy balance between Earth and space.
Wrong Bin. You don’t have any facts! Like Norman, you only have your beliefs and links that you can’t understand.
Here’s the reality: Earth receives WAY more energy from Sun than it needs. If Earth did not have its cooling systems, its average surface temperature would be over the boiling point of water!
Sun provides too much energy, but Earth has more than enough cooling capability to handle it. It’s kind of a neat design, huh?
And radiative gases are just some of the cooling systems.
AGW is a false religion that you completely worship. You’re a good cult idiot and a good troll. Everyone has a purpose I suppose….
Clint R
Can’t finally stop trolling, an concentrate on what really matters?
For Clint R and other geniuses: if there was no balance over time, Earth would inevitably become hotter and hotter or colder and colder.
The rest is irrelevant, as it has to do with LOCAL ins and outs, which of course must not be balanced wrt anything.
What is discussed is the >b>GLOBAL energy balance between Earth and space.
*
Is that sooo difficult to grasp, Clint R?
Did I mention AGW? No.
You are so opinionated that you can’t even read a few lines properly.
Bin, do you realize youre repeating yourself as you babble?
binny….”Did I mention AGW? No”.
***
You’re an alarmist troll, we know what you mean.
Binny,
You are exactly correct.
The Earth as a whole has become colder and colder.
As you say, local inputs such as producing and using energy, inevitably result in the production of low grade heat, which is, of course, shown by increased surface and above surface thermometer temperatures.
Mike Flynn,
Here’s you –
“The Earth as a whole has become colder and colder.”
Here’s Pup –
“the energy out will ALWAYS be less than the energy in.”
Not sure how to reconcile that.
Perhaps you could?
Salopettes.
Flynnson
Stop trolling.
Clint R already does, and one troll is enough.
Binny,
You are exactly correct.
The Earth as a whole has become colder and colder.
As you say, local inputs such as producing and using energy, inevitably result in the production of low grade heat, which is, of course, shown by increased surface and above surface thermometer temperatures.
You said it, but now you don’t believe yourself?
Pity.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Heres you
“The Earth as a whole has become colder and colder.
Heres Pup
the energy out will ALWAYS be less than the energy in.”
Not sure how to reconcile that.
Perhaps you could?
Salopettes.”
Can’t you figure things out for yourself? You can’t even figure out to which authority you are appealing – Mike Flynn, me, or some other figment of your imagination! Who do you think is correct, and why? You don’t know, do you?
Not terribly bright, Wee Willy, not terribly bright.
Keep trying to to turn fiction into fact,
Mike Flynn,
It’s easy for me to figure out that you and Pup are contradicting your very sorry Sky Dragon crank selves.
Should I care to see if you or him will win that Sky Dragon cranks handbag fight?
Shalloon.
All your statement reveals is that you have no understanding of the science underlying heating. When exposed to a certain level of solar energy, if unable to dissipate the heat, the object will not continue to accumulate heat indefinitely. The heat is mitigated by the atomic reaction to the incoming solar, which has a limiting factor.
I have never claimed the planet does not radiate energy to space, in fact I have written about it many times. I have simply claimed it is not the sole means of heat dissipation for the planet and that it is a poor means of cooling at terrestrial temperatures. Also, that other means of heat dissipation are available.
You are thinking of a disk sitting in space being heated uniformly by solar energy. That is far from the case. We have talked about view factor here and that consideration on our planet produce the majority of heating in the equatorial region and that heating reduces a great deal as we move poleward. In winter, there is no heating at the Poles.
Therefore, the Sun has a brief amount of time each day to raise the temperature of the oceans and land mass. Those quantities are so enormous compared to the ‘heat in’ effect that it would take bazillions of years to raise the temperature of the entire planet significantly.
At night, our surface can only dissipate heat slowly due to our atmosphere. Nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere, cannot radiate away the heat easily and retains much of it through the night.
My point is that the current heat budget meme is far too simplistic and often wrong. The notion that heat dissipation on our planet is solely dependent on trace gases is not only absurd, it is just plain weird.
Robertson
S” The notion that heat dissipation on our planet is solely dependent on trace gases is not only absurd, it is just plain weird. ”
*
You really don’t understand anything – regardless what is discussed.
No one has ever claimed the utter nonsense you write.
We are discussing about the necessity for the planet to have and to keep an energy balance.
And luckily, due to the atmospheric window (7.5 – 12.5 microns wavelenght) we still have that balance.
It is the atmospheric window that ensures heat dissipation on our planet, you poor ignoramus.
*
You are so incredibly ignorant, Robertson.
binny…”We are discussing about the necessity for the planet to have and to keep an energy balance”.
***
1)what energy is being balanced? We have two distinct forms of energy in question: electromagnetic energy and thermal energy. You are claiming the solar energy input must balance the terrestrial radiation output. However, neither form of radiation has anything in common with the other.
Incoming solar is converted to heat by atoms in the surface and that should apply to atoms/molecules in the atmosphere. The air molecules heated by solar should cool immediately if an in-out blamce is to be maintained, but they don’t.
Why? R. W. Wood, an expert with gases, told us why. N2/O2 cannot radiate the heat away easily therefore it retains it for a period of time. Lindzen also told us that heated air in the Tropics is convected poleward. Obviously it transfers heat to the cooler air en route.
It’s obvious that incoming solar is retained and likely dissipated within the system to maintain the higher than normal planetary temperature. I am guessing that only a fraction of incoming solar is sent back to space. So heat-in has to be greater than heat out.
When the incoming solar is converted to heat in the surface, that heat is obviously conducted deeper into the surface. Therefore, the surface heat is dissipated partly inwardly. If you try to heat a larger piece of metal with a 25 watt soldering iron, the heat is dissipated so fast that it cannot build up enough to melt the solder.
Same in the ocean. That will reduce surface temperature below what it would normally be if the heat was immediately converted back to EM (IR) and radiated away, Plus, some of it will be conducted directly to air touching h surface. The bottom line is that surface temperature will radiate less IR than the equivalent amount of SW solar coming in.
This is a seriously complex problem that has been reduced by your alarmists to an idiotic level of simplicity.
Binny,
You wrote –
“We are discussing about the necessity for the planet to have and to keep an energy balance.”
You are discussing your fantasy.
The reality is that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, whether you agree or not. Your brains are addled. Being a sour Kraut has not helped you to accept reality.
Carry on.
That’s wrong Swenson,
The Earth formed from cold interstellar dust at about 3K and has warmed since then.
bob, please stop trolling.
Elon Musk hints Starship rocket may explode on first orbital launch, predicting 50% chance of success and ‘guaranteeing excitement’
SpaceX is prepping for the first orbital launch of Starship, the cornerstone rocket for Elon Musk’s Mars ambitions.
Musk estimated 50% odds of success and hinted the rocket could blow up on the first orbital attempt.
Other Starships are waiting in the wings and one of them will likely reach orbit this year, he said.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-estimates-spacex-starship-first-launch-odds-success-explosion-2023-3
The recent Japanese rocket was exploded because it’s second stage engine didn’t start.
Do we know, starship second will light when in vacuum condition and going faster than any jet.
Well, it hasn’t been tested, yet. And there is not really anyway to test it.
Do we know how Starship will handle going thru Max Q?
Can’t test that either.
Does SpaceX know how to build a rocket?
Does NASA know how to build a rocket? Because SpaceX has ex-NASA, and
flown more rockets than any other company. But no one has launched a large rocket, recently. And no one has yet flown a methane rocket.
No one built the kind rocket engine starship is using [even if used any other kind of rocket fuel.
And apparently Starship’s test launch may not use the typical deluge system.
When US and Soviets started making rockets, all of them blew up on the pad, and US showed them doing on TV- and Soviets didn’t.
One could say we learned how not to do that, but it’s possible this could happen, with highest chance on first type rocket being tested.
One could have argued 20 years ago, that using 9 rocket engine has greater chance- that was proven to be wrong.
One might make same argument for 33 engines- but Musk say he lose 2 engines and still make to orbit {and get off the pad}. And I guess falcon-9 carrying less payload could do same if lost 1 engine. The fact of making reusable gives you a fuel margin. Engine outs can be made up by not reusing the first stage.
No one has had problem clearing the tower, lately, but there is some chance with Starship, and maybe %5 to %10 as wild guess, but 50% is
all the other things which might go wrong.
Today, airlines greatest risk is take off and landing, with rockets launch and recovery it isn’t the greatest risk- everything else is.
“If successful, the launch will prove the world’s first fully reusable orbital rocket, setting the stage for SpaceX to revolutionize the orbital economy.”
It would not prove it, the test launch [successful or not] is the beginning of proving it. And second launch will not prove it- though gives more confidence and might change things to improve it.
Or a common number before using passenger, is commonly given to be 100 flights, but if everything goes with no problem, someone fly it
and take say %1 chance of problems [about the same as Space Shuttle]
after a dozen launches.
But no one will do this, on the second launch of Starship.
Was it George Gamov who said that the purpose of a prototype rocket was to fail so that we could learn how to make the next one better?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gamow
I didn’t know anything about him.
But he doesn’t seem to be engineer, and it’s an engineer thing,
or it’s related to mass production, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Henry Ford said something about it.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1458909
I am glad you reintroduced your geometry flux problem. Now we can show you that fluxes DO directly add. In your example you are comparing emitted flux to absorbed flux. Two different things.
However if one more side of your cone (a square meter more of your cone surface) received 900 W/m^2 how do equate the energy output now? Did the two fluxes add or not?
Norman, I try to keep my comments easy-to-understand. But too often your cult cant even grasp the basics.
My cone-in-space example demonstrated that flux-in does not have to equal flux-out. Your cult believes flux-in MUST balance with flux-out. The example was about fluxes NOT balancing. The example was NOT about fluxes adding — two different things.
Also you need to search on ‘solid geometry — cones. Apparently you don’t understand that cones don’t have more than one *side*.
You don’t need a cone in space to misconstrue an argument, Pup.
Here’s a simpler one –
4 is not 2, therefore 2 + 2 can’t equal 4.
Fluxes add up properly if you account for them properly.
wee willy…”Heres a simpler one
4 is not 2, therefore 2 + 2 cant equal 4.
Fluxes add up properly if you account for them properly”.
***
All this shows wee willy is that you have no idea what a flux is or anything about math.
C’mon, Bordon.
All this shows is that from absurdity one can derive any conclusion one pleases.
In other words, so much the worse from most of Dragon cranks’ arguments.
wee willy offers a word salad to hide his ignorance of science.
C’mon, Bordon.
That Sky Dragon cranks like you can’t average flux properly doesn’t mean nobody else can.
It just means you’re raging for no good reason.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint R
You would be good at dodge ball. Boy do you like to deflect when you are corned and proven wrong.
I asked you a simple question and you dodged around it like a fool dancing on hot pavement with bare feet.
If you have another 900 W/m^2 flux received by another square meter of your cone will the flux add to the first? It is an easy question dodger. Why won’t you man up and answer it?
I don’t care at all what your example was about initially. That is not my point. I am asking you what happens if you add a 2nd or 3rd 900 W/m^2 flux to your cone example. Will the fluxes add or not?
To point out, you claim I can’t prove you wrong on your physics. Your claim is fluxes do not add. Then explain what happens when you add more fluxes to your cone. Won’t you attempt to answer?
Clint R
I missed this stupid comment of yours. A cone does not need another side to answer my question. The surface has area. In your example the side receives the energy but it has an area equal to 5 square meters so you can have a flux hitting another one square meter area on your cone configuration don’t you think?
You really are not as smart as you think (maybe I can misspell a word that you find and you can get an ego boost). You are actually much dumber than you think. People with Dunning-Kruger always think they are smarter than they really are. You are one who suffers from this. You can’t understand logic or reason.
When you are given a link it is most obvious it is above your limited intellect. Rather than admitting your are stupid and incapable of rational thinking, you use the same stupid point over and over “A link you don’t understand”. It protects your ego and makes you think you are smarter than what you are.
A Proverb for you.
“Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.”
Only in your own limited thinking are you wise. The majority of posters think you are an idiot. A few, that also suffer Dunning-Kruger think your thoughts are good.
norman…there is no such thing as a flux in reality, it is an attempt to quantify an invisible entity, electromagnetic energy. We can place a magnet under a sheet of paper and apply iron filings onto the paper and the filings will align themselves into a pattern.
No one knows what is causing that pattern to form. There is no way to see it, or measure it, for that fact. Measurements are done based on the effect the EM field has on other entities, like electrons in a conductor.
The word flux comes from Newton’s fluxions, which represent theoretical changes in a field per second. His fluxions are related to the instantaneous rate of change in a field at a point in the field. It was the basis of his calculus, where the fluxions represented the 1st derivative of an equation representing a changing field.
After all, if you took a square metre of empty space which had an EM flux in it, how would you measure it?
How can you propose to add such fluxes when you can’t see them or interact with them? The only way to measure the effect of increasing a flux field intensity is to measure the effect it has on something like a conductor placed in the field.
We could measure the force created in the conductor, which is the basis of an electric motor, or we could measure the current through the conductor. However, we are not measuring the flux itself but the effect it has on external objects.
That’s why I have so much trouble with EM fluxes being measured in w/m^2. EM field don’t do work, any work done is done by something after it absorbs the EM and the EM is converted to another form of energy.
Oersted, sometime in the 1800s, showed that an electric current running trough conductor could cause a compass to deflect. It was either him or another scientist who ran a conductor through a sheet of paper, applied iron filings, and got the filing to form a flux field like with a magnet.
In any such case, we are not showing the flux itself, but the effect it has on another object.
> there is no such thing as a flux in reality
C’mon, Bordon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance
Do you think that’s a conspiracy by Big Lightbulbs?
wee willy…”In radiometry, irradiance is the radiant flux received by a surface per unit area”.
***
How is it measured ww?
By converting it to a different form of energy.
You can measure the frequency of light an object gives off by comparing the colour of light to a chart that lists the frequency to colour. In television theory, you can measure the saturation (intensity) of the colour, however, much of it is subjective based on the response of a particular eye to the colour frequency (hue) and the intensity (saturation).
It’s all relative, even with bolometers or infrared detectors. The frequency detected is based on the parameters introduced by the lab.
C’mon, Bordon.
It’s just a Fluke –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OwjYP61LaM
Get it? Fluke!
Willard, please stop trying to be a fool.
Mike Flynn,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459090
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
Yeah…wee willy…I have used Fluke DVMs and I have my own Fluke circuit tester.
I feel let down, however. I was hoping you’d explain how the meter at your link works.
Come on, Bordon.
Pictures or it does not exist.
Its obvious the cult does not understand flux. Thats why they make such blatant mistakes as trying to balance fluxes and simply adding fluxes.
A Watt is power. A Watt is not even energy. The cult is confused because a Watt is energy per time, i.e. Joules/sec. Power is a rate –energy/time. And rates seldom simply add. For example, speed is a rate — distance/time. But two people that can run at 10 mph can NOT run 20 mph simply by holding hands. Rates do NOT simply add.
It gets worse.
A flux is power/area. A flux is even more removed from the conservation of energy.
Clint R
Your flawed an illogical thinking is shown for all to see. You make an example (which you don’t understand) of distance equivalent to energy (in your case miles for distance and energy in joules).
The speed does not increase but the distance covered is doubled when two people run at 10 miles per hour. They cover a distance of 20 miles in one hour while a single runner will cover just 10 miles. Same with energy. If you have one flux of 900 watts/m^2 and a receiving area of one square meter it absorbs 900 joules per second if you add a second flux of 900 W/m^2 and it also is received by the one square meter area the area now receives twice as much energy per second.
Your logic is so incredibly bad. Do you even think at all before posting?
You are so stupid you can’t analyze your own illogical posts. Dumb is what dumb says.
Please try to grow up and develop a mind.
Yeah Clint R,
But if I am running 10 mph and I jump onto a moving sidewalk also moving at 10 mph, then I am going 30 kilometers per second around the Sun.
I mixed up the units to make both mericans and limeys happy.
Not.
> A Watt is power. A Watt is not even energy.
Allow Bob to help, Fidgety Pup –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1458942
Please mind your units.
Willard,
Please explain how the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years, and why it should not continue to do so.
Or just say something silly, and reject reality.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop asking that stupid gotcha.
Willard,
Please explain how the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years, and why it should not continue to do so.
Or just say something silly, and reject reality.
For example –
“Mike Flynn,
Please stop asking that stupid gotcha”, or something equally irrelevant.
Mike Flynn,
Do continue your copypastas.
spectrohelioscope
Gordon Robertson
You pretend you actually took College level physics and engineering and like to post about it on this blog. I know you are phony but I will let you believe your own false narrative, at least try to pretend you actually took a course in physics. EMR alone does work even when not absorbed. It has momentum.
Read this, try to understand it, then you may be better at pretending that you took college physics (I actually have unlike you , Swenson and idiot Clint R).
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_II_-_Thermodynamics_Electricity_and_Magnetism_(OpenStax)/16%3A_Electromagnetic_Waves/16.05%3A_Momentum_and_Radiation_Pressure
Norman,
No doubt you imagine that it should be easy to describe the GHE, and to explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
As easy as describing the bone structure of a unicorn, and the role of the unicorn’s temperament in achieving world peace.
Maybe you should start with the mythical unicorn – and move to the mythical GHE later.
Or you could just keep telling everybody what they already know, and nothing that they don’t!
You do accept the fact that the Earth is colder than when it had a molten surface, don’t you?
If you don’t, you could link to a textbook which supports you, could you?
norman…”EMR alone does work even when not absorbed. It has momentum”.
***
Momentum = mass x velocity
EM has no mass therefore its momentum is…
p = mv = m x 0 = 0
Any scientist who can define a photon as having momentum with zero mass is either desperately in need of funding or just plain silly.
Back around 1900, before Bohr developed the relationships between electrons and EM, eggheads like Einstein began the propaganda that EM and mass are interchangeable. That’s the same Einstein who, in a thought experiment, reasoned that time can dilate, even though time has no physical existence.
You believe what you want to believe, Normie, I’ll stick to observable science.
Gordon,
“You believe what you want to believe, Normie, Ill stick to observable science.”
Then you will have no problem getting out your binoculars or a telescope the next time a comet comes around.
Comets provide the evidence that photons carry momentum.
https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/phy2053bc/chapter/photon-momentum/
bob…”photon momentum is suggested by the photoelectric effect, where photons knock electrons out of a substance. Figure 1 shows macroscopic evidence of photon momentum”.
***
This statement is based on a gross misunderstanding of the interaction of electrons and so-called photons (I prefer quantum since a massless particle could not have a frequency). The photon does not knock the electron anywhere it simply gives it more of the energy the electron can use.
Bohr’s basic theory is that an electron receives energy in the form of EM form a quantum of EM energy, and the gain in energy increases its kinetic energy, forcing it to jump to a higher orbital energy level.
Conversely, when an electron jumps down a level, it releases that KE in the form of EM. You need to understand that an electron is a mass that carries an electric charge. It’s not simply a mass, like a small particle. As a charged particle, the electron carries an electric field and when it moves, the electric field produces a magnetic field.
An electron has an electrical field producing a magnetic field as its basic property. No one knows why electrons move or how they convert the received energy from a photon into an increased momentum ***in an atomic orbit***. We know why they move through a conductor, it is in response to an applied electric force from a power supply. Essentially a power supply supplies the required negative force to repel other electrons and force them through a conductor.
There is a strange phenomenon going on however. Apparently the charges on individual electrons can leave an electron and transfer on down the line, electron to electron at the speed of light. It’s like those thinga-ma-jigs with steel ball hanging by strings and touching each other, If you pull one ball back at the end of the pile and let it go, when it hits the next ball, it momentum is transferred on down through the other ball and the end ball flies off.
We know nothing with regard to how electrons work in atomic orbitals. Why are they moving in the first place in orbits? And if there are multiple orbitals, why do the electrons remain in their own orbit?
So, when an electron in one of those orbitals receives a photon with the right frequency, why does its angular speed increase, causing it to jump to a higher energy level?
No one knows!!! So why is the author of your paper claiming a transfer of mo0mentum between a massless photon and an electron with a charge? It’s a seriously stupid inference.
***
“The dust particles [on comets] recoil away from the Sun when photons scatter from them. Evidently, photons carry momentum in the direction of their motion (away from the Sun), and some of this momentum is transferred to dust particles in collisions. Gas atoms and molecules in the blue tail are most affected by other particles of radiation, such as protons and electrons emanating from the Sun, rather than by the momentum of photons”.
More nonsense, it is the solar wind, made of electrons and protons, that blows ice particles radially away from the comet.
Gordon,
Photons have no rest mass, but certainly have momentum. They also require precisely no energy to achieve the speed of light (which is their only speed, no acceleration or time involved).
Classical mechanics does not apply when photons are involved. Quantum mechanics is weird, just weird.
We may have to agree to disagree – but still no GHE, either classical or quantum.
Just delusional SkyDrsgon cult handwaving.
Gordon Robertson
Again you display a complete lack of any knowledge of physics!
Einstein DID not begin propaganda, his ideas were accepted because of real observations! I have already gone over this with you. I have given you valid evidence Gamma Rays become electron/positron pairs and I have shown you the same happens when positron meets electron, it becomes EMR. You really don’t know what you are talking about but that never stops you does it?
You ignore evidence that contradicts your bad science. Then in time just repeat your idiot notions probably coming from Crackpot Claes Johnson (Yes I read some of his stupid ideas on his blog, he is not a smart person, just a deluded crackpot with delusions of grandeur).
Time encompasses a sequence of events that occur. Time demonstrates real existence because your parents came before you. It does not seem to be interchangeable. Can you support the notion that you came before your parents and that their is not a flow of time (sequence of events)?
Gordon,
Sorry Charlie,
This statement of yours is grossly incorrect.
“Bohrs basic theory is that an electron receives energy in the form of EM form a quantum of EM energy, and the gain in energy increases its kinetic energy, forcing it to jump to a higher orbital energy level.”
That has nothing to do with Bohr’s theory.
In fact, the photoelectric effect proves it wrong.
When a photon of the minimum energy hits a metal giving the electron just enough energy to become free, it has no kinetic energy.
An electron in an atom does not have kinetic energy, an absorbing a photon does not increase its kinetic energy because it has none. Actually less than none.
Gordon,
“More nonsense, it is the solar wind, made of electrons and protons, that blows ice particles radially away from the comet.”
Get out your telescope or binoculars.
Comets have two tails.
Look at the pretty picture in the link and don’t be such a dumb ass.
swenson…”Classical mechanics does not apply when photons are involved. Quantum mechanics is weird, just weird”.
***
There are two distinct phases in quantum mechanics, the first part on which Bohr based his theory, which is actually based on Newtonian wave mechanics theory, and the other part where Bohr went crazy with his theory and began fantasizing all sorts of weird phenomena.
Schrodinger, who put the math to Bohr’s theory, used the Newtonian wave equation with a probability function to explain Bohr’s electron orbitals. It’s so close to Newtonian physics that when I studied it as part of my electronics theory and basic chemistry theory, I did not realize at the time that I was studying quantum theory. I simply did not find anything weird about electrons residing in discrete energy levels around an atom, although I do now.
Later, Bohr went mad and began espousing theories like action at a distance…entanglement theory…and other madness. Einstein and Schrodinger divorced themselves from Bohr’s madness, claiming there was no physical basis ffor Bohr’s new theories.
Sorry, but I can’t buy into the madness that a photon with no mass can have momentum. I tried to explain what happens when a photon is absorbed by an electron. No one has the slightest idea what happens. Claiming that energy absorbed from a photon by an electron is proof of momentum is too weird for me.
bob d…”Comets have two tails.
Look at the pretty picture in the link and dont be such a dumb ass”.
***
Bobby, I wonder if you’ve had brain surgery, or do you prefer the pretty pictures to reading the article? If you read the words, they try to explain that the tails pointing away from the Sun are due to photon momentum. I called that bs and offered the explanation that the tails point away due to bombardment by solar particles.
Don’t get down Bobby. Stick with me and I’ll gt you through the science.
bob d…”In fact, the photoelectric effect proves it wrong.
When a photon of the minimum energy hits a metal giving the electron just enough energy to become free, it has no kinetic energy.
An electron in an atom does not have kinetic energy, an absorbing a photon does not increase its kinetic energy because it has none. Actually less than none”.
***
This is proof you’ve had debilitating brain surgery, more likely a lobotomy.
Electrons have no KE???? Then how do they move in their orbits at very high speeds. KE = 1/2mv^2. With an electron the ‘v’ is its angular speed in its orbit.
Bob does not seem to grasp that an electron orbiting a nucleus has a velocity. Since it also has a mass, it must have kinetic energy. When light of a certain frequency contacts an electron on the surface of a metal, if the frequency is enough to transfer energy to the electron, the electron will jump out of its valence band orbit rather than to a higher energy level.
With regard to the photoelectric effect, you are talking about a surface phenomenon which is limited to electrons in valence bands, the outermost orbitals in atoms. Had Einstein been the genius he is acclaimed to be, one would think he would have gotten the entire concept that was left to Bohr in 1913. The concepts are very similar.
The interesting part is that even Einstein, who unearthed the concept of EM acting like individual frequencies or oscillators wrt to the photoelectric effect (Planck created the theory of light being a set of individual frequencies) he never did accept the photon theory, a name he did not invent. Toward the end of his life he claimed that many scientists thought they knew whether light was a wave or photons but they were wrong.
In other words, no one knows to this day if light is a wave or a set of photons. After all, the photon is nothing more than a definition geared at giving EM a particle characteristic. It get it that EM radiated by an electron has to be very small, but it has a frequency, which suggests it is not a particle. That’s why I prefer calling them quanta rather than a photon.
Thompson, who discovered the electron in the 1990s, was the first to suggest photons ‘pushed’ electrons from a surface. The theory had been proposed (by Hertz???)) several decades before Einstein came up with the photoelectric effect. That is likely where this nonsense about photons having momentum originated.
To this day, no one knows why energy absorbed by an electron from a photon causes it to increase its KE enough to jump to a higher energy level. It has a higher frequency in the higher orbital and that reflects its higher KE, from the higher angular velocity. When it jumps back down, it releases that KE as a blob of EM. It does no surprise me that it releases a blob of electromagnetic radiation since the electron has an electric field accompanied by a magnetic field when it moves. It makes sense that the energy released as an electric and a magnetic component.
Gordon,
“Electrons have no KE???? Then how do they move in their orbits at very high speeds. KE = 1/2mv^2. With an electron the v is its angular speed in its orbit.”
They don’t orbit the nucleus, I have been trying to tell you this for at least a year.
You don’t listen and you don’t understand that Bohr’s model was just that, a model, more sophisticated models came later, from Bohr himself.
The electron in an orbital is more like a standing wave, but not exactly either, this is why Feynman said no one understand Quantum Mechanics.
And then all the orbitals except the 1s orbital have nodes, where the probability of finding the electron is zero, so how does the electron get from one part of the orbital to the other.
You might want to go back and relook at your chemistry textbooks, although I highly doubt you took any college level chemistry.
“Thompson, who discovered the electron in the 1990s,”
You got the date wrong you senile ole bastard.
bob, please stop trolling.
christos…”Willard, what you do as:
(480 + 0) / 2 = 240
is a simplified approach to the incident solar fluxs INTERACTION with earths surface.
I call it simplified, because the incident on Earth solar flux cannot be averaged”.
***
Willard (aka wee willy) is a simplified version of a human being. Wee willy cannot think beyond simple. He even has trouble reaching that level most of the time.
C’mon, Bordon.
Do you have a point?
Willard, please stop just asking gotchas.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459090
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
Willard suffers from the “Algernon-Gordon Effect”.
Oh, Kennui.
I love you too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqt4Ycpp3Ow
Willard, please stop being sillier than you have to be.
Mike Flynn,
These are not the magic words.
Flibbertigibbet.
Willard, please stop trying to troll.
What is light ?
https://youtu.be/bAedYtUredI
Some knock Kary Mullis for talking about electric racoons, or whatever, but he managed to get a Nobel for inventing the PCR method for DNA amplification and disproving the use of PCR for covid tests.
The guy commenting in your video not only sounds strung out on something serious he is an idiot to boot. Anyone who can talk about the origins of the universe like he does is one brick shy of a load.
Come on, Bordon.
Kary is a great addition to the Dragon crank discourse.
You know how Pup loves those who believe in astrology!
How many Nobels do you have ww? Do you think they hand them out to any old astrologer?
Come on, Bordon.
You keep whining about appeals to authority.
Look at you now.
Brown nosing another guy with the Nobel curse.
Willard, please stop trolling.
” … and disproving the use of PCR for covid tests. ”
Never and never did Mullis disprove them.
He only told things like
– ” With PCR, if you do it well, you can find pretty much anything in anyone. ”
or
” PCR is a process that makes a lot out of something. It doesn’t tell you you’re sick. And it doesn’t say the thing you find did you any harm. ”
what of course is completely different.
What Mullis said is that it is the job of the tester to correctly interpret what PCR told him/her; but that of course is valid for all testing methods.
*
Once more, Robertson fills Roy Spencer’s science blog with bullshit he gullibly sucks out of contrarian blogs.
“he managed to get a Nobel for inventing the PCR method for DNA amplification and disproving the use of PCR for covid tests.”
Obviously he didnt get the Nobel for the latter. He did get Nobel disease which led him to go off the rails.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
The point is science discoveries are like children. People can birth them, nurture them, but then they mature and go off have a mind of their own.
PCR certainly did that.
Noice.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
swannie….[GR]”The watt is not a measure of heat, it is an equivalent measure based on the relationship between work and heat. The watt is a measure of work, aka mechanical energy”.
[Swannie]Even grammie clone understands that Watts represent energy per unit time, usually called power. Gordo confuses work with power
***
Swannie…the fact that you believe heat can be transferred cold to hot by its own means, transfers into this recent analysis. I said the watt is a ‘measure’ of work, not a unit of work. If a machine is doing work, does it stop doing work when you want to measure the work done over a unit of time? Power is work per unit time. Is it not work because it’s called power?
***
[GR]I have never seen a reference to the number of calories/second in one horse power.
[Swannie]Well, engineers also know that 1 horsepower = 0.7068 Btu/sec. Maybe he can figure out how to do the conversion.
***
It is not a conversion, it is an equivalence. Even though I have explained the difference about a dozen times, Swannie cannot comprehend the meaning.
Circa 1940, the scientist Joule, discovered an ***equivalence— between heat and work. Clausius went on to write an entire book on the ***equivalence*** of work and heat. In one chapter he explains that heat and work are not equalities, they are equivalences because their units are different.
Units of heat do not equal unit of work. They have nothing in common, they use different units. The unit of heat is the calorie (or BTU) and is a measure of the amount of heat required to raise 1CC of water by 1C at a certain temperature. The unit of work is the joule, he amount of force required to move a mass through a distance, d.
work = force x distance.
heat = the kinetic energy of atom
Joule discovered that if he ran a small paddle in water and checked the water temperature that the water got hotter. From that he calculated that doing 1 joule of work with the paddle in the water caused the equivalent of adding 0.239 calories of heat.
JOULES AND CALORIES ARE ***EQUIVALENT*** VALUES NOT EQUALITIES.
That is not the same as adding heat to the water, in calories, it is an equivalent to doing that. The heat is generated within the water by breaking weak hydrogen bonds by the paddle’s action. In essence, you are releasing heat in internal energy of the water molecule bonds. A calorie is a measure of external heat added to the water.
Good grief, Bordon.
You just wrote your equations using the equality sign.
And now you are basically suggesting you should not.
What you wrote works because you are evaluating quantities.
One can be converted into the other.
Think of an equivalence as an if-and-only-if.
It could work too, but it would sound odd.
An equation is thus an instance of an equivalence.
So your rant is once again ludicrous.
Keep up the Dragon crank work!
Willard, please keep being an irrelevant dimwit.
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
Why don’t you provide a link to a face-pulling “content creator” who can’t provide a description either? Oh dear, deranged SkyDragon cultists have problems facing reality, don’t they?
Good for a laugh, at least.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Imbibition.
Willard, please keep being an irrelevant dimwit.
You cant even describe the GHE, can you?
Why dont you provide a link to a face-pulling content creator who cant provide a description either? Oh dear, deranged SkyDragon cultists have problems facing reality, dont they?
Good for a laugh, at least.
Carry on.
wee willy…”You just wrote your equations using the equality sign”.
***
It’s not me who has the problem, that’s how Joule wrote it. Clausius at least explained that the equal sign is not an equality but means an equivalence.
You’ll find many contradictions of that sort in science and no effort is made to remedy them. I told you about our electrical engineering classes where we are taught that electrical current flows positive to negative. They don’t even try to explain they are using a conventional, fictional current flow which is based on an incorrect assumption circa 1925 that current is a flow of a mysterious positive charge.
In those days, the electron was only about 25 years old (it’s discovery). Scientist were still debating the direction of current flow and they got it wrong. Nearly a 100 years later they have made no attempt to fix the error. Rather they say, ‘don’t worry about it, it doesn’t matter which way it flows, as long as you judiciously keep tract of the voltage drops’.
How many other things have they gotten wrong and found it inconvenient to amend? Lanka has found, by digging back in viral theory, that they got the theory wrong as well. No one can fix it because they are not even aware that it is wrong. Anyone trying to raise the issue gets ex-communicated.
That is horse bleep. If they know it is incorrect, fix it. If an engineer is taught for 4 years that current flows positive to negative and the engineer has to communicate with electricians and technicians who were taught the opposite, which is true, it creates a ridiculous situation. Also, it means producing two sets of textbooks, one for EE students and one for electricians and technicians.
I fixed the problem for myself because I had learned as a technician before returning to university. I regarded current flow as -ve to +ve but every schematic diagram I saw was made for conventional flow. The diode symbols and transistor symbols were drawn with arrows pointing +ve to -ve. I developed the habit of visualizing electrons flowing into the arrows rather than with them.
It is also horse bleep that radiation transfers heat in both directions between objects of different temperatures. For one, radiation lacks the ability to transfer heat physically as heat. Radiation contains no heat. For another, quantum theory tells us why heat cannot be transferred in both directions and that it cannot be transferred at all.
Generic energy can be transferred both ways but it is only absorbed in one direction.
Gordo, One thing which engineers (especially those of the Mechanical variety) learn is that humans don’t “make” energy, we convert it from one source form to other forms with more useful characteristics. We study “Heat Transfer” as a result.
These concepts are built on what we all learned from high school level physics. Of course, by the time one makes it to the PhD level, the details of those processes become more apparent, but the basic facts still pertain. Radiant energy absorbed by a surface will cause the mass of the object to exhibit an increase in temperature as it’s thermal energy content increases. All your months of semantic quibbles don’t change those facts.
swannie…”Radiant energy absorbed by a surface will cause the mass of the object to exhibit an increase in temperature as its thermal energy content increases”.
***
Not as simple as that Swannie. You are pushing your old propaganda that any surface of any temperature will absorb radiation from any surface at any temperature. That is not true, Only radiation from a hotter body can be absorbed by a colder body. Radiation from a colder surface cannot be absorbed by a hotter surface.
The mechanical engineering textbooks which suggest the opposite are completely wrong. I have yet to see a practical example of such a two-way radiative heat transfer in any textbook. Radiative transfers are always included as part of a conduction and/or convection heat transfer which must be hot to cold.
This should be intuitive and not require the rigor of scientific investigation. We know, with our body temperatures of 37C, that radiation from ice at 0C has no effect on our skin. Even when immersed in water at 37C, the water will feel cool to our skin via direct conduction. It’s not till the water is heated to about 110F (43.3C) that we feel a warming effect.
The fact that heat can only be transferred from hot to cold, even through radiation, is so intuitive that even someone like yourself, a complete layman, science novice, should be able to understand it. The fact that you can’t suggests strongly that you have a vitamin deficiency that affects your ability to reason.
Gordo pontificates again, repeating his usual mantra:
It’s well proven fact, included in text books on radiation heat transfer, that a body which can emit thermal IR radiation at a particular wavelength will also absorb incident radiation at the same wavelength. The photons do not carry any information regarding the temperature of their source. To be sure, the intensity of radiation from a colder source is less than emissions from a warmer source, but the radiation from each at the appropriate wavelength will still be absorbed.
Hey, Mr. lunar-tic, I’ll match my 2 engineering degrees against yours any time. Just give us proof that you do in fact hold an engineering degree and I’ll provide a reference.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Troll Norman, I see you made 3 comments after I left last night, all directed at me. All contained garbled nonsense, including your usual troll tactcs. You may not have noticed, but I often ignore worthless trolls.
If you have a responsible question, that you can phrase in a coherent, lucid, succinct manner, without your usual insults, misrepresentations, false accusations, and diversions, I will try to help.
Otherwise, I will enjoy ignoring you as you wear out your keyboard.
Does crybaby need his blankie?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Clint R
That is wonderful news. Hope you hold to it!
Yes Norman, this policy should work much better. It makes no sense to waste time teaching physics to braindead cult idiots and trolls. It’s like that old saying, *Never argue with an idiot, after a while no one can tell the difference.*
I should add one more qualifier — When someone rejects reality, there is no need to waste any more time.
So wonderful news indeed. Behave like a responsible adult and I will respond, otherwise….
Clint R,
“Behave like a responsible adult”
When did you ever do that?
When the Clint slings insults fal, misrepresentations, and false accuations, it is perfectly ok:
“Being a braindead cult idiot”
“Bindidon is such a braindead cult idiot that he doesnt believe biomass stores energy.
But at least he trolls here regularly, allowing all to see what braindead looks like.”
“You believe whatever your cult wants you to believe. Youll even make up crap to support your cult beliefs.”
But others return the favor, the crybaby hypocrite thinks he deserves an award!:
“your usual insults, misrepresentations, false accusations”
“If I had a medal for every insult your ilk has hurled at me”
Nate, please stop trolling.
More data from The Great Geophysical Experiment.
How it started:
How it is going:
https://ibb.co/sb6yBbT
Revelle stated circa 1990 that people should not read too much into the anthropogenic theory. He stated that in a paper co-authored by Fred Singer. Al Gore, who had Revelle as a professor at Harvard, and who obviously misunderstood his message, became apoplectic, claiming that Revelle was senile and that Fred Singer had taken advantage of him in the paper.
Arrhenius claimed he had no experimental evidence to back his theory.
In reply to my comment
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1458988
Robertson wrote the following stuff, demonstrating as always his own ignorance.
*
” This is a seriously complex problem that has been reduced by your alarmists to an idiotic level of simplicity. ”
*
Firstly, Robertson himself is the one who reduces complex problems to nothing more than a ‘ball on a string’.
The best proof for that is his trivial ‘opinion’ concerning Moon’s spin about its polar axis, a spin which he denies – of course without being able to scientifically contradict those who compute this spin since centuries.
*
He writes the usual, trivial blah blah:
” You are thinking of a disk sitting in space being heated uniformly by solar energy.
That is far from the case. We have talked about view factor here and that consideration on our planet produce the majority of heating in the equatorial region and that heating reduces a great deal as we move poleward. In winter, there is no heating at the Poles. ”
*
He manifestly wasn’t all the time willing let alone able to look at was written about this ‘disk’ everywhere – even on this thread!
*
Again, for the poor Robertson (and his so pretty knowledgeable ‘colleagues’, who all the time ‘forget’ what they read: there is NO such disk!
This disk idea is a wrong assumption based on the (very simplified) left side of the energy balance equation:
E-in = pi*r^2*(1 – a)*S
which in reality should always have been written
E-in = 2*pi*r^2*(1 – a)*(S/2)
what would have avoid numerous misunderstandings.
{ More correct would be
E-in(t) = 2*pi*r^2 * (1 – a(t)) * (S(t)/2)
because one in fact integrates all that over Earth’s orbit around the Sun (or even over a far longer period) to obtain a meaningful average. }
a is the albedo, S the solar irradiance and ‘S/2’ is the result of
∫[0:pi/2] S * cos^2(α)dα
The squared cosine itself comes from the fact that if you subdivide the sunlit hemisphere into n latitude and n longitude bands, the surface area of each “square” spherical cell decreases from the equator to the poles, in both latitude and longitude with the cosine of the angle of incidence of the center of the cell.
When considering e.g. UAH’s 2.5 degree grid, the surface of the cell centered at 1.25 degrees is weighted by ~ 0.99952, and that centered at 88.75 degrees is weighted by ~ 0.00048; the sum of the 36 weightings is ~ 18.00000, i.e. already very near to 50 %.
*
But… my experience since years with genius Robertson is that in one day, one week, one month or one year, we will see this again:
” You are thinking of a disk sitting in space being heated uniformly by solar energy. ”
*
That’s the way how the Robertsons work: they always ‘forget’…
Solar energy is averaged over an imaginary sphere with
radius of 1 AU, that gives 1.370 W/m^2 flux.-
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Were in the transition of Polar Vortex to South Pole. During this transition, Earth effectively has NO Polar Vortex. That means less energy is being emitted to space, than when a proper PV is established.
The Polar Vortex is another way Earth can cool itself.
Northern Hemisphere PV was never well organized last winter. That’s why the La Niña did not have as its usual effect. The Hunga-Tonga volcano was the joker in the deck.
“The Polar Vortex is another way Earth can cool itself.”
–
Yes it is!
It is absolutely not.
Earth can’t cool itself with its local Polar vortex.
The only way for Earth to cool is to generate more energy to outer space than it absorbs from outer space, i.e. from the Sun.
Thus, your job should be to compare, at TOA
– downwelling SW radiation (1)
with
– upwelling SW radiation (2a)
– upwelling LW radiation (2b)
and to subsequently build, e.g. over one year, a time series of
(1) – (2a + 2b)
and to display it right here.
Bin, you need to study up on PVs. For example, in the center of a well organized PV, does the air flow up or down?
Also, since you have problems with English, try composing your comments, as clearly as possible, in your own native language. Then use a suitable translator to convert to English.
If you can learn and communicate clearly, maybe you wont be so frustrated and angry all the time.
Christos would make a good role model for you.
Clint R
” Bin, you need to study up on PVs. For example, in the center of a well organized PV, does the air flow up or down? ”
Sounds like your ball-on-a-string.
For you major ignoramus, I repeat:
Earth cant cool itself with its local Polar vortex.
The only way for Earth to cool is to generate more energy to outer space than it absorbs from outer space, i.e. from the Sun.
Like your ball-on-a-string nonsense does not explain Moon’s motion, your ‘idea’ of the PV contributing to the Earth-space energy balance is a nonsense too.
*
” Then use a suitable translator to convert to English. ”
Instead of trying to teach Google’s Translator how it has to translate Frog or Kraut into Tommy, it would be better for you to learn (1) how celestial bodies really move, and (2) how our planet really exchanges energy with space.
*
But… I’m afraid that like all Pseudoskeptics, you won’t want to learn anything, and will prefer to call me a braindead idiot.
Fee free to do.
Clint suffers from the Algernon-Gordon Effect.
FYEO, Kennui –
https://www.tvguide.com/galleries/10-sexiest-weathermen-1091490/
Nr 3 in Cathy’s list is imho the best choice.
” Not a misprint. “
binny…”The only way for Earth to cool is to generate more energy to outer space than it absorbs from outer space, i.e. from the Sun”.
***
Far too simplistic. If Earth was at a equal energy in – energy out ratio, that might be true. However, Earth’s temperature is obviously inflated well beyond that ratio to the point where it requires a minimal amount of solar energy to maintain its inflated temperature.
Another point is that heat can be dissipated internally due to the inflated temperature and the fact that the Earth has an optimal rotation rate. Also, due to Earth’s tilted axis and its orbital eccentricity.
When solar energy heats the Earth during the day, mostly in the equatorial regions, that accumulated heat is immediately spread out to cooler areas via ocean currents and atmospheric circulation. We have plenty of built in heat sinks to absorb the heat during the time the Sun is shining. From that perspective alone, there is no need to radiate it immediately back to space.
Also, the surface that is heated transfers heat directly via conduction to every molecule of air that contacts the surface. As a thermal equilibrium is established the heated air rises and is replaced with cooler air from aloft. The repeated cycle automatically dissipates surface heat into the atmosphere.
As the heated air rises, it moves vertically into an ever decreasing pressure gradient, and as the heated air pressure decreases, the air automatically loses heat. It doesn’t have to be lost to space, it is lost to colder air aloft and to simple expansion. Expanding air loses heat simply by expanding.
If the Sun was shining 24/7 on a very slowly rotating Earth, what you say may be true. But the Earth is not slowly rotating, it is rotating fast enough that the Sun has only a limited time to heat the surface it reaches. For the rest of the sunless day, the Sun can only maintain the equilibrium temperature between hotter parts of the Earth and cooler parts.
It is simply not necessary to get rid of incoming solar at the instant it is absorbed. There is a time factor involved and we have no idea what it might be.
> However, Earths temperature is obviously inflated well beyond that ratio to the point where it requires a minimal amount of solar energy to maintain its inflated temperature.
C’mon, Bordon.
Willard, please stop trolling.
” It is simply not necessary to get rid of incoming solar at the instant it is absorbed. There is a time factor involved and we have no idea what it might be. ”
Here again you see that Robertson never properly reads texts and hence never learns.
I repeat for the ignoramus de service:
{ More correct would be
E-in(t) = 2*pi*r^2 * (1 a(t)) * (S(t)/2)
because one in fact integrates all that over Earths orbit around the Sun (or even over a far longer period) to obtain a meaningful average. }
Note the ‘we’ in the ignoramus’ boasting sentence.
Gordo is at it again, spewing his usual BS:
So, Gordo, isn’t it also true that the colder air which is sinking exhibits an increase in temperature? Does that mean that that air gains “heat”? If so, where does the energy required to heat the cold air come from? Without any “dissipation” from the higher atmosphere to space, wouldn’t the sinking air arrive at the surface at the same temperature as that leaving the surface?
Goro concludes:
Yeah, WE can all clearly see that YOU have no idea about thermodynamics or climate models.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Bindidon:
“This disk idea is a wrong assumption based on the (very simplified) left side of the energy balance equation:
E-in = pi*r^2*(1 a)*S
which in reality should always have been written
E-in = 2*pi*r^2*(1 a)*(S/2)
what would have avoid numerous misunderstandings.
{ More correct would be
E-in(t) = 2*pi*r^2 * (1 a(t)) * (S(t)/2)
because one in fact integrates all that over Earths orbit around the Sun (or even over a far longer period) to obtain a meaningful average. }
a is the albedo, S the solar irradiance and S/2 is the result of
∫[0:pi/2] S * cos^2(α)dα
The squared cosine itself comes from the fact that if you subdivide the sunlit hemisphere into n latitude and n longitude bands, the surface area of each square spherical cell decreases from the equator to the poles, in both latitude and longitude with the cosine of the angle of incidence of the center of the cell.”
–
–
Very good, what we have left to discuss is the:
E-in = pi*r^2*(1 a)*S
or
E-in = 2*pi*r^2*(1 a)*(S/2)
in order to avoid numerous misunderstandings.
–
–
Let me help with the symbol pi = π
Thus
E-in = π*r^2*(1 a)*S (W)
– and you consider it as a Total not-reflected-portion of the entire solar energy hitting the solar lit hemisphere’s surface area of
2πr^2 (m^2)
– also you consider the above “E-in = π*r^2*(1 a)*S (W)” as the Total amount of solar energy/second, the Total solar power Earth’s surface absorbs and emits.
Right?
Correction:
E-in = π*r^2*(1-a)*S (W)
Vournas
You don’t “help” with π. I have no problem with any UTF8 character like α or even ∫.
You help much more in
– (1) putting what you copy from other comments into
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
and then pasting the result back into your reply (I admit to forget this as well sometimes);
– (2) explaining what you mean with the unknown ‘W’ and ‘m^2’.
*
Since nobody but you (and possibly some Pseudo-skeptics) takes your reflection factor into account, I prefer to ignore it until you prove its scientific relevance – which you have 100 % failed to do so far.
Thus please keep it away from all your equations when discussing.
binny…”You dont help with π. I have no problem with any UTF8 character like α or even ∫”.
***
Has it occurred to you that Christos is Greek and may be using a Greek keyboard?
binny…”Since nobody but you (and possibly some Pseudo-skeptics) takes your reflection factor into account…”
***
Christos is into cutting edge science. Christos and I are changing the science to how it should be. You can’t be afraid and do good science.
And I remind you about this:
” Thus, your job should be to compare, at TOA
downwelling SW radiation (1)
with
upwelling SW radiation (2a)
upwelling LW radiation (2b)
and to subsequently build, e.g. over one year, a time series of
(1) (2a + 2b)
and to display it right here. ”
Will you be able to find the data sources and do the job?
He he… I my self did the mistake once again.
Thus, your job should be to compare, at TOA
– downwelling SW radiation (1)
with
– upwelling SW radiation (2a)
– upwelling LW radiation (2b)
and to subsequently build, e.g. over one year, a time series of
(1) – (2a + 2b)
The blog of course should never change minus signs into dashes.
“Since nobody but you (and possibly some Pseudo-skeptics) takes your reflection factor into account, I prefer to ignore it until you prove its scientific relevance which you have 100 % failed to do so far.”
–
–
Let’s discuss about Moon’s albedo a =0,11 then.
–
You say the figure a =0,11 accounts for both, for the diffuse and for specular reflection.
–
The planet specular reflection occurs because of the planet’s sphericity, because of the variances in the solar beam’s the angular incidence.
–
Now, what is – in your opinion, – the portion of the specularly reflected solar flux in the “total” moon’s albedo of 0,11*S (the allegedly diffuse plus specular reflection a*S) and what is the diffuse reflection?
Is it a 50% approximately? Is the actual diffuse reflection from the Moon’s surface 0,055*S ?
–
Notice, is well known that smooth spheres have a very strong specular reflection from their surfaces…
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bindidon, we also both agree that:
a is the albedo, S the solar irradiance.
–
–
a – is a Bond albedo, for Earth a =0,306 and for Moon a =0,11
–
also we agree that a =0,306 for Earth is higher due to the Earth’s clouds cover, if not for clouds the albedo for Earth would have been
a =0,08
–
also we both agree that the albedo is very precisely measured, and not only in the case of our Earth, but albedo is very precisely measured for every planet and moon in solar system.
–
*****
We disagree on a very important issue though.
You say Bond albedo accounts not only for the planet surface diffuse reflection but also for the planet surface the specular reflection.
–
I disagree with that, what I say is the Bond albedo accounts only for the planet surface diffuse reflection.
–
*****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
To disagree isn’t enough. You have to prove.
Wrong place…
–
“Since nobody but you (and possibly some Pseudo-skeptics) takes your reflection factor into account, I prefer to ignore it until you prove its scientific relevance which you have 100 % failed to do so far.”
–
–
Let’s discuss about Moon’s albedo a =0,11 then.
–
You say the figure a =0,11 accounts for both, for the diffuse and for specular reflection.
–
The planet specular reflection occurs because of the planet’s sphericity, because of the variances in the solar beam’s the angular incidence.
–
Now, what is – in your opinion, – the portion of the specularly reflected solar flux in the “total” moon’s albedo of 0,11*S (the allegedly diffuse plus specular reflection a*S) and what is the diffuse reflection?
Is it a 50% approximately? Is the actual diffuse reflection from the Moon’s surface 0,055*S ?
–
Notice, is well known that smooth spheres have a very strong specular reflection from their surfaces…
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not my opinion matters but that of persons really experienced in the domain you are no more than guessing.
Binny,
You are right, your opinion does not matter at all.
The rest of your appears quite meaningless.
Flynnson
#2
Stop trolling. We have enough trolls on the blog.
Binny,
You are right, your opinion does not matter at all.
The rest of your comment appears quite meaningless.
Sorry about the previous missing word.
>Not my opinion matters but that of persons really experienced in the domain you are no more than guessing.
Boy does that sound familiar.
Binny,
He doesn’t have to “prove” anything.
You cannot even “prove” you are sane, can you?
Science is not based on “proofs”.
Flynnson
Stop trolling. We have enough trolls on the blog.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
There has to be a tested hypothesis. Otherwise its codswallop.
No quality assurance? No replication? No checking? No testing?
Not even peer review?
Codswallop.
Ken,
You wrote –
“There has to be a tested hypothesis. Otherwise its codswallop.”
Or , 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.”
Delusional SkyDragons doing reproducible experiments? Perish the thought!
Ren on Mar 4:
“Currently, there is no chance of an increase in surface temperatures in the tropical Central Pacific.”
How has that turned out for you 11 day later ren?
AQ, please stop the meaningless trolling.
So he was wrong – got it.
His 50% toss-a-coin record is preserved.
AQ, please stop the meaningless trolling.
If there is one troll here, Flynnson, then that’s you and no one else.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
If we replace the second ‘s’ in his name with a space, then read it backwards, we would get a good description of his contribution to this site.
AQ, please stop trolling.
Thanks for the positive reinforcement of my comment.
But dear Mike “Lock Him Up” Flynn, I’ll give you a chance to not also be known as “No-news Swen-on”:
How do you think ENSO will play out in the next year?
If you say “who cares” or equivalent, or distract with something unrelated, you will confirm my epithet for you. Are you capable of having a rational discussion about anything related to the content of this site? Or are you limited to projecting your own shortcomings onto others?
AQ,
Why do you want to know what I think about ENSO? ENSO is a name given to observations of sea temperatures. It’s a definition – what is there to think about?
You don’t really care, so why ask such a stupid gotcha?
You are right in one respect, I don’t care what you “think”. Why should I?
Carry on trolling – you can’t even describe the wondrous GHE, can you, much less explain how the Earth managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years – in spite or because of the GHE?
As to your “epithet”, once again, why should I care what a delusional SkyDrsgon like you “confirms”? Are you possessed of awesome superpowers perhaps? Will you strike me dead if I snigger at your impotent cavorting?
Carry on being delusional and impotent. Maybe you can find someone, somewhere, who values your opinions. I don’t.
OK, incapable it is, No-news Swen-on.
Oh – and thanks for valuing my opinions enough to keep replying.
AQ, please stop trolling.
Back to the old faithful Claytons reply, eh Mikey.
After all, it’s entire purpose is to shut down all thinking and debate when you have nothing useful to say.
Anyway, I’ll let you get back to your Claytons life.
Until you troll again,
Anton
AQ, please stop trolling.
I can’t imagine what it would be like to be completely devoid of all original thought. You have my deepest sympathy.
Anyway Droll Troll, when you make your next reply, just a quick reminder to set your alarm to remind you to check for replies. I know your boss likes to dock your pay when you don’t reply within the hour.
Don’t say I don’t look out for you.
1. 040323
https://i.ibb.co/1dGrdgS/cdas-sflux-ssta-global-1.png
2. 140323
https://i.postimg.cc/tg3V0K4c/cdas-sflux-ssta-global-1-140323.png
Yeah.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
ren comes on here, gives us good information, behaves like a nice guy, and he gets trolled by alarmists like AQ.
C’mon, Bordon.
Where’s your “natural variability, Ren, it’s weather”?
A climate model for Algernon
El Tiempo con Glenny Rosado – Sbado 31.08.13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtohqfNmbfw&ab_channel=GoaFilmsTV
Willard, please stop being a useless nitwit.
Flynnson
Stop being a bad, crazy copy of the one, the only, the true Pseudomoderator.
Swenson, please continue.
Earlier Bindidon wrote –
“The only way for Earth to cool is to generate more energy to outer space than it absorbs from outer space, i.e. from the Sun.”
Bindidon, like other delusional SkyDragons, is either confused, or just simply ignorant.
Any body which is hotter than its environment loses energy to that environment, and cools, whether SkyDragons like it or not. The Earth, for example, has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of being exposed to sunlight for those billions of years.
A bowl of boiling water placed in sunlight will also cool, as a result of the same physical laws.
The interior of the Earth is considerably hotter than a bowl of water, and the overlying crust is much cooler, and heat flows from hotter to colder. The crust, in turn, is much hotter than “outer space”, and, once again, heat flows from hotter to colder.
If Bindidon disagrees, and also disagrees with the fact that the Earth has cooled since its surface was created, I wouldn’t be surprised if others would also be interested in facts which Bindidon might present to support his disagreement.
Or he could resort to nonsenses about being stalked, yapping dogs, arrogance, and anything else he might come up with to avoid addressing reality.
Mike Flynn,
I dare you suggest that I am losing energy.
Algedonics.
Willard, please stop trolling.
swenson…”Earlier Bindidon wrote
The only way for Earth to cool is to generate more energy…”
***
With the amount of hot air Binny expends, it’s amazing he is not hypothermic.
Flynnson
You are a trolling boaster with the same level of pseudoknowledge as Robertson, Clint R, and the Hunter boy.
You are so dumb that you still didn’t grasp how irrelevant your 4.5 billion year cooling is in comparison with the solar energy and its necessary reply by Earth at its surface.
Howe is it possible to be and to keep so DUMB, Flynnson?
Suborbital spaceflight and the Overview Effect
by Jeff Foust
Monday, March 13, 2023
“One of the selling points for commercial human suborbital spaceflight over the last two decades has been the opportunity to experience whats known as the Overview Effect: the change in perspective that comes from seeing the Earth in space that many professional astronauts have reported after going into orbit or to the Moon. The question, though, has been whether the brief flight, going no more than about 100 kilometers high, would be enough to trigger it. ”
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4545/1
“Among his interviewees was Dylan Taylor, with whom he talked just hours after Taylors flight in December 2021. I know now why it is so transformational because it is so unique, he said. This whole notion of, can you experience the Overview Effect on suborbital? Im here to tell you, yes, 100% yes.
Just having a go at bob droege above over electrons and the phantom photon. Something occurred to me as I was writing a reply. I had stated in a previous post that no one knows why an electron receiving energy from an absorbed photon speeds up and jumps to a higher energy level.
Whereas I still have no answer, something occurred to me. The only way the electron could speed up is if it increased its charge momentarily and that increased charge interacted with something we currently know nothing about to accelerate it.
An electron’s charge has an electrical basis. It generates an electric field which generates a magnetic field when the electron moves. So,if it absorbs the electric field of a photon, and that momentarily increases its electric field, and that electrical field can interact with ‘something’, it will accelerate the electron momentarily. That makes the electron jump to a higher orbital.
A long time ago, Dayton Miller hypothesized that space has an aether through which the planets move. No evidence has been presented to support his theory but Einstein stated that if Miller is right, then his theory of relativity is wrong.
An aether would explain many things, like why light allegedly has an upper speed. It would also explain how EM, which is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field, can propagate through a vacuum. Although the vacuum is devoid of mass, there may be sub-atomic particles in it that limit the speed of light and give EM a substance to move through.
More recently, it has been suggested that space is teaming with neutrinos, a sub-atomic particle we know almost nothing about. A vacuum is a space devoid of mass, but what other weird and wonderful phenomena could there be in that space?
I like Bohr’s theory of electron orbitals but I have never really accepted it. Far too cute. So, I remain agnostic. However, if he is right, and an electron can somehow orbit a nucleus, and it does jump between orbital levels, somehow energy it absorbs impels it to move faster in its orbit. But how does that work?
Some people are under the impression that quantum theory is an esoteric discipline that is not explainable. I beg to differ, basic quantum theory is not that far removed from Newtonian physics. Unfortunately, Newton physics lacks the instruments with a good enough sensitivity to measure at the atomic level.
When you leave scientists in a field like that, where no one can prove anything because they can’t measure anything, they will tend to invent really dumb theories to complicate everything. That’s how they protect their territory, like in alarmist climate science.
Gordon,
How can you talk like you understand Quantum Mechanics when you never have taken a course in the subject.
I have done the following experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
There is no aether.
Stop smoking crack and talking smack.
And don’t call me Bobby.
bobdroege,
You haven’t done the Michelson Morley experiment, nor have you taken any Quantum Mechanics courses. You are confusing fact with fantasy.
Do you remember apologising to me in the past, on the subject of quantum physics?
But no matter – have you figured out the role of the “greenhouse effect” in four and a half billio; years of planetary cooling? You claim you have described the “greenhouse effect”, so for a smart fellow like yourself [snigger], you should be able to explain how the “greenhouse effect” cools a planet. Or does it warm in the short term, cool over the long term, and only work when the Sun shines, unless it doesn’t?
You are a dimwit. Just another delusional,SkyDragon cultist, resorting to foul language and obscenity whenever you are asked to provide evidence of your fantasy beliefs.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. It controls and determines nothing – it is numerical quantities, derived from other numbers.
You sound like a bumbling buffoon, bob. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Stop it with the delusional vomit Swenson, you know nothing of what you speak.
How do you know I did not do the Michelson-Morley.
I went to a well funded college with lots of opportunities to do experiments.
And I graduated, I have a chemistry degree, you don’t.
Swenson,
You unscientific lout.
The Earth warms and cools over various time periods, see the graph at the top of the page, and stop being stupid.
When the Earth is cooling, the GHE slows the rate of cooling.
When the Earth is warming, the GHE effect adds to the rate of warming.
It’s working all the time there is greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
bob …”How can you talk like you understand Quantum Mechanics when you never have taken a course in the subject”.
***
How many times have I told you that electronics is based on quantum theory. So, is the theory of chemical bonding, included in chem courses I have taken. What else is there to say about it?
If you open a books on quantum theory today, and I have read through Bohr’s initial papers on quantum theory, it’ all presented in differential equation theory. I have studied DE theory about as far as it goes in undergrad classes and I get the drift of what they are talking about.
Applying it is quite another matter. What good is the theory if it can’t be applied? Linus Pauling actually went to Europe to study quantum theory, brought it home to the US, and modified it to fit the chemical bond. His work is still taught in modern universities on the chemical bond.
In electronics, you learn atomic theory early on and you get back into it later in semiconductor theory. Electronics is about electrons, right? What do you think quantum theory is about, ducks??? It’s based on the interaction of electrons in orbit around an atomic nucleus. The quantum in quantum theory refers to the quantum orbitals imposed on electrons in their orbits.
In chemistry, it’s the same thing. I took a course in organic chemistry and it’s all about those electron orbitals. The main difference between organic chemistry and normal chemistry is that organic chemistry focuses on carbon and hydrogen bonds and the chains they form naturally with other elements like nitrogen and oxygen.
When Bohr conceived the theory it applied only to hydrogen with one electron and one proton in the nucleus. Later, the theory was extended to include multi-electron orbitals. That is what quantum theory is all about….electrons and their behavior wrt the nucleus.
I mean, what else could it be about?
Yeah, but it’s not based on electrons orbiting the nucleus.
Are you going to admit you are wrong about that?
I don’t put much stock in the Mickelson-Morley experiment. Although excellent work was done by scientists like Clausius and Tyndall in the 19th century, at the time M&M did their experiment, the instrumentation was too poor to give credible results. Also, the distance over which they measured light was too short for my liking.
That was not the problem I saw with the aether. They measured the speed of light in the direction of Earth orbital motion then perpendicular to it. I fail to see what that had to do with the presence of an aether. It could simply be that other sub-atomic particles are involved in such a manner as to be undetectable with our current instrumentation.
A related experiment measured the deflection of light from the stars by our Sun. They used that as proof of Einstein’s theory of relativity. Hogwash!!! Light is comprised of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field, and the Sun is awash with electromagnetic energy. Any deflection was obviously due to an interaction between EM field.
Thank christ the relativity corrections necessary for a functioning GPS system work independently of what YOU choose to put stock in.
AQ,
And the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, independently of what you choose to put stock in.
Were you really thanking Christ, or just trying to be gratuitously offensive?
You need to put more work in, if you want to be an effective troll. At present, you might be generating more amusement than outrage.
Keep trying.
Swenson, you are wrong again, the Earth formed from cold interstellar dust and has warmed up since then.
Gordon,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment
Either the stars moved or the light was bent by gravity.
Which one is simpler?
And then there is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross
All about thought experiments?
Heavy rainfall in Southern California.
https://i.ibb.co/f1mvnmd/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-15-062623.png
Greta the climate model:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K18yV5NlKKE&ab_channel=SpittingImage
Actually, it makes Greta appear more intelligent that she is. In the video, while at the West Ham match, she asks why they keep passing the ball backwards. Great insight, that negative style has killed modern soccer. The modern style is so negative and defense-oriented, they now have defencemen playing as forwards.
I hope you are not a Whitecaps fan. They are beyond bad, a complete load of wankers.
The Scottish comedian, Billy Connolly, berates the loser Scottish national team, asking someone to tell them the goal is down the other end of the field and the object is to a shoot the ball into it. He claimed that if Scotland ever hosted the World Cup, they’d send everyone home after the first round since Scotland never gets beyond it anyway.
Maybe we should ask Ren what he thinks of the Polish national team, then again, if they are as bad as Scotland, I don’t want to depress him.
nate the nut claims…”Obviously he [Kary Mullis] didnt get the Nobel for the latter. He did get Nobel disease which led him to go off the rails”.
***
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/facts/
” Kary B. Mullis
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1993
Born: 28 December 1944, Lenoir, NC, USA
Died: 7 August 2019, Newport Beach, CA, USA
Prize motivation: for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method ”
***
As for your Nobel disease bs., both Mullis and Luc Montagnier (HIV) laughed about the fact that receiving the Nobel enabled them to pursue the science they wanted to do rather than fearing the science police who harass scientists for speaking their minds.
Far too much is made of Mullis’s book in which he indulges his thoughts. He was totally lucent right to the end, at which time he was working successfully on an antidote to anthrax for the US Army.
Of course, you being an idiot, Nate, prevents you from appreciating a true genius. If you follow the reasoning of Mullis on HIV, it is based on the highest reasoning. He was working on a project in a lab on HIV. He called out to a co-scientist asking if he had a citation proving HIV causes AIDS. The co-scientists yelled back, why bother, everyone knows it does.
Not good enough for Mullis. He went on a 10 years search for one scientific paper that showed how HIV caused AIDS and did not find one paper. He even tracked down Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, and he could not point him to a paper.
That alone reveals the fraud in modern science. There are scientists out there making scads of money perpetuating consensus-based theories that cannot be proved. When the scientist credited with discovering AIDS cannot help Mullis find a paper showing how HIV causes AIDS, there is fraud afoot.
At least Montagnier made amends later. He confided that HIV does not cause AIDS, that AIDS is oxidative stress related to lifestyle, and that HIV is handled by a healthy immune system. There are still deluded idiots out there like you, Nate, who think Mullis is the oddball and not the idiots who believe the status quo and cannot supply proof of their beliefs.
Shortly after the incident in his lab, Mullis was driving up the coast highway in California when he tuned into an interview with Peter Duesberg on the radio, one of the first top scientist to call bs on the HIV/AIDS theory. Mullis was so astounded, he had to pull over and listen to Duesberg. This is a top scientist impressed with what another top scientist had to say.
What is wrong with the rest of them who follow the status quo blindly because they are too stupid or too afraid to investigate the obvious? That’s what you should be looking into Nate, not slamming a good scientist who had the guts to stand up against it.
Solar wind
speed: 551.0 km/sec
density: 20.00 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 97
“Almost every sunspot on the Earthside of the sun is quiet and decaying. The farside of the sun is a different story. ”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 143 sfu
Updated 14 Mar 2023
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.30×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.5% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.4%
“CME IMPACT: A CME just hit Earth’s magnetic field (March 15 @ 0415 UT), sparking a G1-class geomagnetic storm. Currently, conditions favor the development of even stronger G2-class storms in the hours ahead.”
–EXTREMELY RARE’ FARSIDE CME: Something big just happened on the farside of the sun. During the early hours of March 13th, SOHO coronagraphs recorded a farside halo CME leaving the sun faster than 3000 km/s:
Because of its extreme speed, this CME is classified as “extremely rare,” a fast-mover that occurs only once every decade or so. A NASA model of the event shows the CME heading almost directly away from Earth. Good thing!
Although the CME was not Earth-directed, it has nevertheless touched our planet. See all the snowy dots and streaks in the coronagraph movie above? Those are energetic particles accelerated by shock waves in the CME. They create short-lived luminous speckles when they hit SOHO’s digital camera.–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjrvLY-RU5Q
Mystery Farside Blast & Earth-Directed Storms Launch | Solar Storm Forecast: 14 March 2023
Hmm, I wonder about the Parker solar probe and the “CME leaving the sun faster than 3000 km/s”
http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
“Perihelion: March 17, 2023, 20:30 UTC
2 days 13 hr 52 min
When it’s at perihelion it will be on our nearside, but right now still at farside.
Solar wind
speed: 441.7 km/sec
density: 4.25 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 84
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 135 sfu
Updated 17 Mar 2023
large spot in southern hemisphere
coming from farside
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 23.14×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -1.9% Below Average
Got medium coronal hole near equator and middle
and one near south pole
bobdroege’s stunning intellectual achievements writ large earlier –
“You got the date wrong you senile ole bastard.”
So you both use an archaic word yet only he has a problem?
Interesting.
AQ, please stop trolling.
Bob also doesn’t like being called Bobby. How about Booby?
Come on, Gorgon,
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
As an aside, Gavin Schmidt (self proclaimed “climate scientist”, and incompetent mathematician), authored an article which he titled “How not to science”.
Not being a scientist at all, just another delusional SkyDragon with delusions of grandeur, at least he knows how to mutilate the English language.
He can’t describe the “greenhouse effect” either, much less accept the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
Ah well, what can you expect from an author of a “paper” titled “Atmospheric CO2: Principal control knob governing Earth’s temperature.”, which is riddled with nonsense, assumptions contrary to fact, and doesn’t manage to provide a description of the “greenhouse effect” either.
No doubt worshipped by other deluded SkDragon cultists, being regarded as something of a world class “climate scientist” by the ignorant and gullible. Strange.
Mike Flynn,
So you read papers?
Show us –
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1190653
Tumid.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
It is the distance from sun the inverse square law.
Solar energy is averaged over an imaginary sphere with
radius of 1 AU, that gives 1.370 W/m^2 flux.-
586 W/m^2 flux on Mars orbit.
–
If Earth’s without-atmosphere the alleged IR emission flux is correct
J earth = 240 W/m^2
Moon and Mars also should obey the alleged 1/4 uniform surface the IR emission flux.
Moon’s Albedo a =0,11
Mar’s Albedo a =0,250
The alleged IR emission for Moon:
J moon = (1 – 0,11)*1.370 /4 = 0,89*1.370 /4 = 304,8 W/m^2
The alleged IR emission for Mars:
J mars = (1 – 0,25)*586 /4 = 0,75*586 /4 = 109,9 W/m^2
It has been demonstrated, for the same Albedo, Moon and Mars have the same average surface temperature Tmean =210K.
Thus for the same average surface temperature Moon emits three times (3 times) more IR than Mars.
Conclusion:
If Mars emitted the same IR as Moon, Mars would have been on average surface temperature a much warmer than Moon planet!
–
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets’ (without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere) the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
( N*cp ) ^∕₁₆
or
[ (N*cp)∕ ⁴ ] ∕ ⁴
Where:
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
This discovery has explained the origin of the formerly observed the planets’ average surface temperatures comparison discrepancies.
The difference of rotation speed between Earth and its Moon is the most important factor in our computation of their respective warming!
Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earths surface is covered with water.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
For those supporting Clint in his ‘fluxes don’t add’ nonsense, consider the consequence of what you are supporting.
A second sun appearing in our sky would not make the planet any warmer.
Once you’ve switched on a single bar in a 3-bar radiant heater, switching on the other 2 bars will have no extra heating effect.
Having ten headlights shining into your eye is no more intense than one.
Do you really want to go there?
I predict you will change the subject.
In 3, 2…
“A second sun appearing in our sky would not make the planet any warmer.”
–
–
A second sun will make our planet warmer. A second sun will not make our planet twice as much warmer.
–
A bigger sun, a twice as strong sun, will not make our planet two times warmer.
–
Solar flux interact with matter. What we add is the resulting of the two suns’ interaction and not the fluxes.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> A second sun will not make our planet twice as much warmer.
Depends where, Christos.
Try not to be such a flat earther!
“A second sun will make our planet warmer. A second sun will not make our planet twice as much warmer.”
Hmm. It could but… we don’t need a second sun to get twice 15 C or 30 C average. But the ground surface can heat to 70 C or 343.15 K
2 x 70 = 140 C and 343.15 K x 2 = 686.3 K [413.15 C] and wouldn’t
do either, 140 C or 413 C
“A bigger sun, a twice as strong sun, will not make our planet two times warmer.”
Venus distance is almost twice as strong vs Earth distance from Sun.
Venus at Earth distance is at least 1/2 as cold- but I would say
a lot colder than this.
The Moon surface can reach 120 C, twice doesn’t make 240 C.
Two suns, one at noon, and one at midnight will easily double it’s average temperature.
Global warming is about increasing the uniformity of global temperature.
The coldest “known” or thought might be known global temperature was the last glacial period.
It was cold because ocean waters could not warm the polar regions.
Or thick enough polar sea ice “acts” like a land surface [though snow makes it slightly warmer than sand or rock].
And preventing ocean from warm the polar regions, causes the average ocean temperature to increase. So the coldest, caused the warmest, because average ocean temperature controls global average temperatures. All needed Earth’s orbital periods to align, greater areas of sea ice to melt- turning “land” into “ocean”.
Though with Earth topography, there other way to increase the average temperature of the ocean, not have ocean at the poles or just have more ocean area compared to land area.
barry,
You misunderstand. Delusional SkyDragon cultists seem to think that “fluxes” from colder objects can be “added” to “fluxes” from hotter ones.
For example, some cultists believe that radiation from a colder object must be absorbed by any object upon which it impinges, which of course is completely nonsensical. Somehow, these people believe that a colder atmosphere can make a hotter surface even hotter!
Your examples are somewhat misleading, if you are trying to imply that CO2 in the atmosphere makes the planet heat up, when four and a half billion years of history shows the complete opposite.
In your first example, simply moving the 5600 K sun closer, would obviate the need for as many Suns as you choose. No matter how many there are, they cannot make anything hotter than the temperature of the hottest of them – at 5600 K each, 10000 suns cannot make anything hotter than 5600 K. And so on.
You really don’t understand any of this, do you? Posing silly gotchas, or coming up with pointless and irrelevant analogies just makes you look ignorant. There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so.
“four and a half billion years” has been mentioned 60 times so far.
Obsessive off-topic mutterings…Is it Tourettes Syndrome? Insanity?..Mental deficiency?..All of the above?
nate…”four and a half billion years has been mentioned 60 times so far”.
***
Here’s 61. Swenson has even got you saying it. A convert!!!
“Obsessive off-topic mutterings…Is it Tourettes Syndrome? Insanity?..Mental deficiency?..All of the above?”
1. A change of subject.
swenson…”You misunderstand. Delusional SkyDragon cultists seem to think that fluxes from colder objects can be added to fluxes from hotter ones”.
***
The best example of that is the pseudo-science that back-radiation can be added to incoming solar to increase the strength of the incoming solar. Seems to be dying off as the alarmists become aware of how stupid that is. They keep moving the goalposts.
Swenson changed the subject, predictably.
Swenson said:
“You misunderstand. Delusional SkyDragon cultists seem to think that ‘fluxes’ from colder objects can be ‘added’ to ‘fluxes’ from hotter ones.”
No, Swenson. Clint has emphatically proposed that fluxes do not add, period. Did you somehow miss his multi-million-mentioned example of 2 ice cubes the last few years? No, I don’t think you did. Cut the crap.
But of course, you’ll be changing the subject again in 3, 2…
barry,
Don’t be silly. Fluxes do not “add” if they are emitted by objects of different temperatures. This makes the “energy budget” diagrams produced by dimwits like Trenberth nonsensical.
You seem reluctant to acknowledge that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years – in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunshine, an atmosphere, and plenty of CO2 and H2O to boot!
No wonder nobody can describe the GHE! You are delusional, and keep trying to convince that all this “flux adding”, “heat accumulation”, and “energy imbalance” is more worthy of consideration than “Mars trine Venus”, or “The Hanged Man”.
Just because something sounds “sciency” doesn’t automatically mean it is based on experimentally verified science.
“Fluxes do not ‘add’ if they are emitted by objects of different temperatures.”
Again, you are changing the subject. Can’t focus?
Clint says that 2 fluxes of equal power striking a surface cannot both act to warm that surface. Only one can. Here are his own words:
“So one incoming flux F, and one corresponding maximum temperature T.
With no other changes, a second source is added that also contributes an identical flux to the surface. The surface is now impacted by F from one source, and also F from a second source. Will the surface temperature increase?
NO!
Remember that an absorbed flux corresponds to a temperature. And, temperatures dont add.”
In other words, F + F = F.
This is Clint’s equation for 2 individual fluxes of equal power incident on the same surface.
I know why people are not willing to deal with Clint’s claim. Perhaps one of his chums will be honest enough to respond to it instead of distorted versions of their own making.
barry…”A second sun appearing in our sky would not make the planet any warmer”.
***
That’s not what Clint is saying. I pick him up as saying the fluxes from both Sun’s don’t add before reaching a surface. Once they reach a surface, they are converted to heat by the surface and they are no longer fluxes, but a different kind of energy.
Also, from my POV, the heating effect of the fluxes don’t have to be summed. It depends on the material in the surface how the heat will be summed. If the material reaches a saturation point, the surfaces won’t warm any more.
I think what Clint was getting at is that fluxes from ice cannot added to boil water.
Gordon changed the subject:
“Thats not what Clint is saying. I pick him up as saying the fluxes from both Suns don’t add before reaching a surface.”
Maybe you missed Clint saying that fluxes arriving</b at a surface (his emphasis) don't add.
He says fluxes from ice cubes arriving at a surface cannot be added. Did you miss it the first million times he said it?
It's hilarious to watch the twisting. Straw-manning an ally – "I believe he's saying fluxes don't ass before arriving at a surface.”
No one ever talked about that. What a flight of fancy.
Heh, that formatted beautifully. I need to turn the lights on when I post.
“I think what Clint was getting at is that fluxes from ice cannot added to boil water.”
We’ve been telling him that for years.
At what pressure?
I think we’ve been pretty easy on him about that.
barry,
You idiot. Next you’ll revert to your stupidity about cooling water with liquid nitrogen, and warming it with warmer water ice.
As I said a long time ago, good luck keeping water liquid after you freeze it with liquid nitrogen.
All complete diversion – you are avoiding describing the GHE, aren’t you? I don’t blame you – your planet heating effect has apparently resulted in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, which seems to have escaped your notice.
I suppose you are going to claim that “man-made” CO2 has different properties to “natural” CO2, are you? Pardon me while I laugh in your face.
Only joking, I’m not really asking you to pardon me – I will laugh at you whether you like it or not. What’s to stop me?
barry
You see that not only Clint R’s nonsense ‘fluxes don’t add’ is a problem.
The arrogant and ignorant Flynnson is by no means better when writing:
1. ” You misunderstand. Delusional SkyDragon cultists seem to think that “fluxes” from colder objects can be “added” to “fluxes” from hotter ones.
For example, some cultists believe that radiation from a colder object must be absorbed by any object upon which it impinges, which of course is completely nonsensical. ”
*
This is completely stupid, typical for Flynnson’s arrogant blah blah.
Clausius wrote in 1887 that a warmer and a colder object very well exchange radiation, though at the end heat flows only from the warmer to the colder one.
*
2. ” Somehow, these people believe that a colder atmosphere can make a hotter surface even hotter!
This is even far dumber; no one claims such nonsense. It is rather stuff what primitive GHE deniers themselves have made up to discredit any work done in the domain.
What is true is that there is downwelling IR from the atmosphere to the surface, e.g. at Fort Peck, MT, US for 2023, March 13:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cOB3lNE7h9LP0RNtyKQdWgHVJ__2WHeu/view
and that this can be averaged over a complete year using the data stored, thus giving info for the place in question.
Anything else is bullshit.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Anything else is bullshit.”
Well done.
You also wrote “Clausius wrote in 1887 that a warmer and a colder object very well exchange radiation, ” and no doubt he did. Lots of eminent scientists wrote all sorts of things, and just like Clausius, failed to mention that precisely no experimental support existed for their speculation.
Svante Arrhenius’ speculations about the role of CO2 in removing glaciation were likewise unsupported by experiment.
I suppose this is why delusional SkyDragon cultists are reduced to comments like “Anything else is bullshit”, or “shut up”, if asked to provide experimental support for their bizarre CO2 planetary heating speculation.
What else have you got? Somebody “said” something, and you believe it with every fibre of your being?
Good for you!
> I suppose this is why delusional SkyDragon cultists are reduced to comments like Anything else is bullshit, or shut up,
You should not be so hard on Graham, Mike.
I think that talking about adding extra Suns, or extra "heat" sources generally, is rather telling.
It tells us that these people seem to think of a passive object (an object which has no way of generating its own energy) is somehow the same thing as a heat source, which generates its own "heat" energy (converts it from e.g. an electrical power supply to "heat" energy, in the case of the bar heater). It’s like they think x W/m^2 from a passive object is exactly the same thing as x W/m^2 from a heat source.
A passive object is dependent on a heat source for its temperature. The heat source sets its temperature. Thus the radiation from a passive object, which it emits as a result of this temperature, cannot then go back and raise the temperature of the original heat source. This should go without saying. Yet GHE believers have genuinely said that the radiation from the Earth goes back to the Sun and increases the temperature of the Sun, albeit by a tiny amount, but still!
Or, look at the "steel greenhouse" example. There, the heat source is the sphere itself, the shell is just a passive object. Yet the GHE believers think the radiation from the shell can somehow raise the temperature of the heat source sphere! Or "result in it having a higher temperature" or whatever semantics they want to use. This is where it all goes wrong, IMO.
P.S: and before anyone starts the "misrepresentation" game, I’m not saying that back-radiation does not exist. I’m not saying that radiation from the passive object doesn’t radiate back to the heat source. It does. I’m saying, radiation from the passive object cannot possibly raise the temperature of the heat source.
DREMT, the cult will STILL try to misrepresent you. Troll tricks are all they’ve got. We’ve seen that continually with the Moon issue.
Theyve got NOTHING.
Five days, Pup –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1457606
"DREMT, the cult will STILL try to misrepresent you…"
…oh, I have no doubt about that! You can be as clear as you like, keep it as simple as you like, someone will always jump in and misrepresent.
Good.
“Im saying, radiation from the passive object cannot possibly raise the temperature of the heat source.”
You are saying the DWIR can not raise the temperature of the Earth above the temperature of the surface of the Sun.
We agree.
The addition of the passive shell cannot increase the temperature of the heat source sphere, in the "steel greenhouse" scenario.
Willis Eschenbach got rather annoyed with me when I pointed out that spheres of different radii have different areas, and that he had inadvertently overlooked this fact while carrying on about W/m2, rather than calculating total energy absorbed and emitted.
An easily overlooked mistake, which magically creates energy.
As Richard Feynman said “You are the easiest person to fool”.
If you are convinced a GHE exists, minor details like not being able to describe it, do not matter. If you can’t describe it, who can point to experiments which disprove it? This is the Cargo Cult Science mentality of the SkyDragon cult.
To them, pointing out that the earth has actually cooled for four and a half billion years (GHE notwithstanding), can be rejected by saying “Bullshit”, “shut up”, or any number of similar expressions.
Oh well, if they can’t pound the science, or the theory, or the practice, they might as well pound the table!
Drempty,
“The addition of the passive shell cannot increase the temperature of the heat source sphere, in the “steel greenhouse” scenario.
In that scenario, the inner sphere is not the heat source.
The inner sphere is heated by a heat source within, that is hotter than the inner sphere.
No bob, for all intents and purposes, the sphere is the heat source…and don’t pretend that you don’t think that e.g. surrounding the Sun with a passive shell would lead to a temperature increase of the Sun, because you have argued that it would before.
Drempty,
The heat source for the Sun is deep within the Sun, not the surface, same as for Willis’s steel sphere thought experiment.
Willis’s heat source is hotter than the surface of the inner sphere, it has to be to conform with the laws of thermodynamics.
Pathetic sophistry, bob, since the radiating surface is all that’s relevant in either example. It doesn’t matter what is going on beneath the surface of either the sphere or the Sun, as it does not factor into Willis’ math or logic one iota. He simply states that the sphere, which is the source of the energy radiated to the shell, gets warmer because the passive shell radiates back to it. The only thing he is considering is radiation, he is not factoring into it that the interior of the sphere might be warmer than its surface or not. It just doesn’t enter into the thought experiment at all.
So it’s a total red herring.
DREMPTY,
It’s no red herring, I am just pointing out that you don’t understand the thermodynamics involved in the problem, by claiming the inner sphere is the heat source.
The outer shell can heat the inner shell, but not higher than the heat source which lies below.
Neither is the surface of the Sun a heat source.
bob just repeats his red herring. Last person to respond wins, I guess?
DREMPTY,
It’s your red herring.
And it’s a commonly observed phenomenon.
The passive shell would cause the temperature of the inner sphere to increase, contrary to you objections.
Experimental evidence trumps you.
DREMPTY,
By the way, the source: Willis
” heated from the interior at 235 watts per square metre of surface area. How is it heated from the interior? Doesnt matter, well say radioactive elements, that sounds scientific.”
Yes, exactly, bob. "Doesn’t matter".
As in, "red herring".
“The addition of the passive shell cannot increase the temperature of the heat source sphere, in the “steel greenhouse” scenario.”
Declaration without evidence. Where is the demonstration of this?
Where is the solution to this heat transfer problem, that shows your declaration to be true?
As I recall DREMT never solves any heat transfer problems, he just applies ‘argument from incredulity’ to arrive at his answer, which is worse than no argument at all.
…as in, "red herring".
An issue is the steel greenhouse is heated by nuclear energy source which will raise in temperature if it can’t dissipate the heat it generates [and will generate more heat if neutrons increase causing more nuclear reactions- but we can ignore that or assume that doesn’t change]. But no steel greenhouse shell will increase the amount of heat generate by the nuclear energy source.
A problem nuclear power plant is getting rid of it’s waste heat in vacuum- you could have use large radiators. And/or make it [design it] be able operate at high temperature so it radiate enough heat so it doesn’t need more surface area [radiating at lower temperature}.
Anyhow on Earth we use water to keep power plants from getting too hot and design have it withstand more pressure to make them more efficient- but heat vs mechanical then to electrical power is around 50%. Or waste heat about 50%.
A problem is steel doesn’t conduct heat as well as some metals- copper or silver do much better, but copper or silver are closer but close to an ideal thermal conductive material.
Water is very poor conductor of heat, but it convects heat and can at fairly low temperature become a gas {which require a lot heat {latent heat/evaporative heat loss].
One thing about steel greenhouse is sold/billed as something that would give a planet very uniform temperature, but I have engineering questions.
Also it’s seems purpose of steel Greenhouse is to give analogy
regarding greenhouse effect of Earth atmosphere.
And I don’t need this analogy.
What is important about Earth’s global climate, is that Earth is planet which has 70% of surface being an ocean.
And 15 C is a cold temperature.
And Europe’s average temp is 9 C and Canada is -3 C and China is about 8 C.
If you live in country with average temperature of 8 C, you should want a higher average temperature. And China emits the most amount of CO2, and imagine it’s going to make them have a higher average temperature.
Meanwhile, Europe has low average temp, as does Canada, and both for some weird reason want a lower average temperature.
And people want to move to Florida, which is about 22 C.
I live in desert, which holds the world’s record for hotter day ever recorded, which was 100 hundred years ago. But you should not live in desert if you don’t want summer high daytime temperatures. Right now, it’s too cold. And too wet.
“A problem is steel doesnt conduct heat as well as some metals- copper or s”
FYI, there is a vacuum between the shells. which is a very poor conductor of heat.
That is all we need to know. The heat must be transferred via radiation.
” is somehow the same thing as a heat source, which generates its own “heat” energy (converts it from e.g. an electrical power supply to “heat” energy, in the case of the bar heater). Its like they think x W/m^2 from a passive object is exactly the same thing as x W/m^2 from a heat source.”
Nah, no one is saying that.
The GHE has always been about passive insulation of a body heated from an external source.
Anyone suggesting that the GHE theory is claiming it is anything like a heat source is simply ignorantly perpetuating a strawman.
“Yet the GHE believers think the radiation from the shell can somehow raise the temperature of the heat source sphere! ”
And then they show that they STILL, after all this time, do not understand how radiative insulation works, and thus continue to deny the reality that insulating a heated body, DOES often result in the body getting hotter.
” GHE believers think”
Yep that was definitely a change of topic. Nice try though.
Meanwhile you still get radiative insulation wrong.
“And then they show that they STILL, after all this time, do not understand how radiative insulation works, and thus continue to deny the reality that insulating a heated body, DOES often result in the body getting hotter.”
A completely stupid statement, plucked from your fantasy. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, even when internally heated and exposed to four and a half billion years of sunlight.
Maybe you are referring to a SkyDragon alternate reality, or some other quite irrelevant topic?
“Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years”
Relevance to this discussion? None.
You have trouble with relevance.
Gaslihting Graham gently changes the subject again.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I don’t think I’m changing the subject, Little Willy, I was responding to this comment from barry:
"A second sun appearing in our sky would not make the planet any warmer.
Once you’ve switched on a single bar in a 3-bar radiant heater, switching on the other 2 bars will have no extra heating effect.
Having ten headlights shining into your eye is no more intense than one.
Do you really want to go there?
I predict you will change the subject."
It seems to me that barry is mistaking heat sources for passive objects. As far as I’m aware, an ice cube is a passive object, not a heat source. So why would barry mention adding an additional Sun, or switching on an additional bar on the heater? It’s really not the same thing at all.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again –
[GG] I think that talking about adding extra Suns, or extra “heat” sources generally, is rather telling.
Not the topic. Mere meta commentary.
What’s the topic, then, in your opinion, Little Willy?
(Estragon) What time is it?
(Vladimir) I think that asking for the time is rather telling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
OK:
"A second sun appearing in our sky would not make the planet any warmer".
Yes, it would.
"Once you’ve switched on a single bar in a 3-bar radiant heater, switching on the other 2 bars will have no extra heating effect."
Yes, it would.
"Having ten headlights shining into your eye is no more intense than one."
Yes, it is.
Now, with that out of the way, it seems to me that barry is mistaking heat sources for passive objects. As far as I’m aware, an ice cube is a passive object, not a heat source. So why would barry mention adding an additional Sun, or switching on an additional bar on the heater? It’s really not the same thing at all.
(Estragon) What time is it?
(Vladimir) I think that asking for the time is rather telling.
(Estragon) That does not tell me what time it is.
(Vladimir) OK. Two hours ago it was 10, so now it is noon. Now, I think that asking for the time is rather telling-
(Estragon) It tells you that Pozzo is trolling when he says that hours do not add?
Fluxes from heat sources add, but do they simply add? Would having one Sun emitting 1,370 W/m^2 and another Sun emitting 1,370 W/m^2 mean that a location on Earth receives 2,740 W/m^2 and warms until it’s emitting 2,740 W/m^2 at a temperature of 469 K or 196 C?
Would a flux from a heat source add to a flux from a passive object?
Would fluxes from two passive objects add?
Are these not on-topic questions?
(Estragon) What time is it?
(Vladimir) I think that asking for the time is rather telling.
(Estragon) That does not tell me what time it is.
(Vladimir) OK. Two hours ago it was 10, so now it is noon. Now, I think that asking for the time is rather telling-
(Estragon) It tells you that Pozzo is trolling when he says that hours do not add?
(Vladimir) Hours can be added, but does time simply add?
Your analogy no longer applies. The questions I asked at 9:35 AM are valid and on-topic (and show how my original comment was also on-topic). You’re now just trolling.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
Pup says that fluxes do not add.
No ifs, no buts.
A minute of reflection should indicate that he is trolling.
Trying to reinterpret what Pup says to deflect from the conclusion that he is trolling is another form of trolling.
Usually, Gaslighting Graham sets up his Motte-and-Bailey the following way:
First, he tries to claim that he is misinterpreted.
Second, he will offer his own interpretation as a decoy.
Third, he will complain that he is (as always) misinterpreted.
Meanwhile, Pup will start another thread saying the Bailey out loud.
The tears of the world are a constant quantity. The same is true of the laugh.
Or, alternatively, there could be more to Clint R’s argument than meets the eye. Yes, on occasion he’s said that "fluxes don’t add", full stop. I’ve also known him to say that "fluxes don’t simply add". I also know that he likes to keep things as simple as possible, so "fluxes don’t add" might just be the simplified version of "fluxes don’t simply add".
Also, I’m entirely within my rights to make a point that goes beyond whether or not Clint R’s "fluxes don’t [simply] add" statement is correct. It’s not all about that. barry makes his own arguments, and I’m free to challenge them as I see fit.
(Estragon) Second, Vlad will say that Pozzo is misinterpreted.
(Vladimir) Alternatively, there may be more to *hours do no add* than it meets the eye.
So you really think Clint R is denying that once you’ve switched on a single bar in a 3-bar radiant heater, switching on the other 2 bars will have an extra heating effect!?
Seems unlikely, Little Willy…
(Estragon) The point is that Pozzo is so ridiculously wrong he can only be trolling.
(Vladimir) I am fully within my right to deflect and distract from that point.
I’m not deflecting or distracting from anything, Little Willy, I’m dealing with your criticisms head on. The fact is, there’s lots of different possibilities here. If Clint R is genuinely saying that fluxes, from any source (heat source or otherwise) do not add or combine in any sort of way, shape, or form, under any circumstances, to any extent, then I’d agree that’s ridiculously wrong and yes, he’s perhaps just trolling.
However, it’s more likely than not, IMO, that this isn’t the case. Which is why I’m commenting, to point out that there’s other possibilities…and also to say that barry’s arguments suggest that barry is mistaking heat sources for passive objects. As far as I’m aware, an ice cube is a passive object, not a heat source. So why would barry mention adding an additional Sun, or switching on an additional bar on the heater? It’s really not the same thing at all.
Your 10:32AM comment is spot on, DREMT.
The cult is in full-tilt meltdown, as Folkerts fraud is being exposed.
I’m waiting for a response from barry to my comment below. He was voraciously trolling here, just before I addressed his folly. Probably no connection to his subsequent departure…
(Vladimir) Perhaps Pozzo means exactly what I mean, in which case why not discuss the interpretation I am peddling in this exchange?
(Estragon) Because you pulled enough legs already, and because we know that this has very little to do with what Pozzo and Lucky kept discussing. Where were you the last few years?
"Your 10:32AM comment is spot on, DREMT."
There you go, Little Willy. Pays to be a bit more skeptical…don’t just assume that your interpretation is the correct one.
Sounds like "fluxes don’t simply add" is the right statement here.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again.
After being groomed by Pup, who can blame him?
So then, we can agree that the DWIR flux and the Solar flux add in some fashion.
Since we now have a Pup scholar, perhaps he should tell us what Pup means when he says that “fluxes don’t add, just as temperatures don’t add”…
“Now, with that out of the way, it seems to me that barry is mistaking heat sources for passive objects.”
Sun has a temperature. Ice has a temperature. Both emit according to their temperature.
Both are passive emitters of thermal radiation.
DREMT,
“Sounds like “fluxes don’t simply add” is the right statement..”
I have quoted Clint saying very clearly that 2 incident fluxes do not add, and the reason he gives is that temperature doesn’t add.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459902
As much as you would like Clint to have said something else, he is essentially saying F + F = F.
F is a radiative flux arriving at a surface. Click the link to see what Clint says in his own words.
barry, he’s also said "fluxes don’t simply add". Well, I could repeat my whole 10:32 AM comment, which Clint R has said is correct, but why should I? I think I’ve made my point.
Clint has lately added an adverb into his statement that he hasn’t explained. If he now believes that fluxes add, but that there’s more to it, then I am all ears for this turnaround. I’ve already said the same to him, so perhaps he’s learned something?
As his qualification infers that he would have to accept that fluxes so indeed add at a surface, with caveats, it is doubtful he will open up about it. He’s been pushing the absolute version for so long it would be a reversal I don’t think he could countenance.
How about it, Clint? Care to explain what you mean by,
“Fluxes arriving at a surface don’t simply add.”
“Clint has lately added an adverb…”
…no, not “lately”. I’ve known him to occasionally say the “simply” throughout. From the beginning.
You won’t get a response all the way up here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/500-years-of-global-sst-variations-from-a-1d-forcing-feedback-model/#comment-578570
The only clear argument we’ve had from Clint is that two independent and equal fluxes striking a surface can’t be summed, and that the second equivalent flux cannot cause the surface to get warmer. I’ve quoted him being emphatic about that.
He has never said or inferred that fluxes ‘somehow combine’ as you put it, and has been resolutely opposed to any such idea. You are trying to give him a caveat he himself has never referred to in over 2 years.
While Clint studiously avoids anything that could compromise his position, you are trying to amend his view to make it seem more respectable.
Seeing as you’re interested enough in this to keep talking on his behalf, why haven’t YOU asked him to clarify?
barry, as usual, I just want people to stop responding to me, but they can’t help themselves. I don’t really care that much about this issue…Clint R can argue for himself. But, I’ll respond when people keep responding to me…so, here we are.
I linked to a comment which proves that over two years ago he was arguing "fluxes don’t simply add". The "simply" has always been there, for those that have paid sufficient attention. It is not something new, as you tried to pretend.
I don’t feel the need to ask Clint R to clarify because I’m fairly confident that he’s not saying something stupid, or trolling. I’m happy to just wait and see what he says. You’re the one that seems a little obsessed with this issue, and you’re the one that chooses to assume he’s saying something stupid. So, it’s on you to get to the bottom of it, if you want. It will probably have to involve you answering that question he asked.
Tim Folkerts says:
February 12, 2023 at 11:56 AM
Your cult fraud claims the plate would be emitting 800 W/m^2, at a temperature of 345K, because the fluxes add. Thats nonsense.
No. Science texts claim nothing of the sort. Fluxes ARRIVING at ONE surface add. So two separate fluxes of 400 W/m^2 (say from two sunbeams) arriving at a single surface add to 800 W/m^2.
No one every claimed 400 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at different surfaces add to give 800 W/m^2. No one ever claimed that two 400 W/m^2 fluxes LEAVING two different surfaces add to give a flux of 800 W/m^2 when ARRIVING at third surface.
But please, show is anyone actually making such a claim so we can refute their error.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1446282
Is “sunbeam” a scientific word, Little Willy?
You changed the subject, DREMT. Clint doesn’t distinguish between passive and active objects, he simply says that fluxes arriving at a surface can’t be summed.
Period.
The 3 examples I gave at the top are about this claim of his, not some other claim.
You’ll notice that Clint has not disputed my phrasing of his objection, and I posted what I did partly to call him on it.
It is amusing to see Clint’ chums try and help him out by pretending he is saying something else, thereby tacitly acknowledging that his actual position is untenable.
barry, you appear to be trolling all over the place. If you want to learn, Im willing to help. Start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459717
3, 2, 1. Yep, you changed the subject, just as I predicted.
All your chums are doing it, too.
No wonder!
I know you’re going to avoid being exposed in this thread with all sorts of distractions, but as your chums are joining the conversation here…
They are going to discover that you believe adding a 2nd Sun to the sky will not warm the surface of this planet one bit.
I’ve quoted you from your treatise on the matter below, so no one can be in any doubt that you hold this insane idea.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459902
barry, you have proven yourself to be a troll. You have no interest in science, or reality. Im willing to help you, but only if progress can be made. I have no interest in an endless keyboard contest.
If you want to honestly and maturely address this issue, start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459717
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459722
barry, I haven’t changed the subject. I just don’t think you’ve tried very hard to get to the bottom of what Clint R’s really saying. I think you’re quite happy with assuming he’s saying something silly, and bashing that "something silly" over and over again. Personally, I’d seek clarification on the following:
Fluxes from heat sources add, but do they simply add? Would having one Sun emitting 1,370 W/m^2 and another Sun emitting 1,370 W/m^2 mean that a location on Earth receives 2,740 W/m^2 and warms until it’s emitting 2,740 W/m^2 at a temperature of 469 K or 196 C?
Would a flux from a heat source add to a flux from a passive object?
Would fluxes from two passive objects add?
The reason I make these distinctions is pretty simple: everything is radiating towards everything else all the time, but generally speaking, only heat sources actually succeed in making other things warmer. So there has to be something in nature that distinguishes between passive objects and heat sources. Otherwise, everything would be warming up everything else, all the time.
[For the misrepresentation squad, insulation is a different subject entirely…insulation keeps things warmer, it doesn’t make things warmer].
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Willard, please stop acting the goat.
DREMT<
"I just don't think youve tried very hard to get to the bottom of what Clint Rs really saying."
Oh but I have, in many attempts over a number of years.
Which is why I saved a post Clint made a year ago, when he wrote at length on what he meant.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1254315
This was the longest post he ever made on the subject, and was to be a final explanation to banish Tim Folkerts for 90 days.
Clint wrote:
"Do fluxes add?
A source emits a flux to a colder surface. The flux arriving the surface has a value of F. The flux will warm the surface to a maximum temperature for the flux, the surface, and the ambient conditions. That temperature is T.
So one incoming flux F, and one corresponding maximum temperature T.
With no other changes, a second source is added that also contributes an identical flux to the surface. The surface is now impacted by F from one source, and also F from a second source. Will the surface temperature increase?
NO!
Remember that an absorbed flux corresponds to a temperature. And, temperatures dont add. The easy example is adding a quantity of water at temperature T to an equal quantity of water also at temperature T. The resulting water has a temperature of T. Temperatures do NOT add. Radiative fluxes do NOT add.”
Emphasis is all Clint’s.
Yes, I noticed his new hedge “simply.” But he has never explained his abridgement.
I’ve quoted him. I’ve said what the consequences of his belief is.
In reply he has not denied what he wrote, my phrasing of it, or the consequences that arise from it. Instead, he is trying to change the subject. And you are trying to bail him out with an adverb he hasn’t explained.
No, DREMT, I’ve given him ample opportunity to explain himself and he’s taken it – until I point out the consequences of his claims.
2 suns no warmer for us, 3 bar heaters can’t warm you more than a one bar heater, and 10 headlights are no more intense thaqn one shining in your eye, because….
ClintR: “Radiative fluxes do NOT add.”
at the surface they are incident on.
Clint won’t deal with what he has written.
You are trying to rewrite what he wrote.
His chums are pretending he wrote something else.
Yes, barry, I remember the comment, just as I remember comments where Clint R added the “simply”. I’m also aware that he likes to keep things as simple as possible, which means he’s unlikely to list out all exceptions to the rule in a post. I’m also aware that his go to example are ice cubes – passive objects. Your counter has always been heat sources. He offered to “correct you false beliefs about your *two suns*” if you answered his question below. Seems like you could get some clarification from him on his position if you played ball. Up to you, of course.
We all know that Pup tries to keep things stupidly simple,
When he means *fluxes do not always add*, he says they do not add.
When he means *fluxes do not add in our case*, he says they do not add.
Now, do fluxes add in our case?
Trolling requires one to keep things stupidly simple.
"Your 10:32 AM comment is spot on, DREMT."
My 10:32 AM comment:
“Or, alternatively, there could be more to Clint R’s argument than meets the eye. Yes, on occasion he’s said that "fluxes don’t add", full stop. I’ve also known him to say that "fluxes don’t simply add". I also know that he likes to keep things as simple as possible, so "fluxes don’t add" might just be the simplified version of "fluxes don’t simply add".
Also, I’m entirely within my rights to make a point that goes beyond whether or not Clint R’s "fluxes don’t [simply] add" statement is correct. It’s not all about that. barry makes his own arguments, and I’m free to challenge them as I see fit.”
Yes, the simplified version of “radiative fluxes do NOT simply add”.
[PUP] Your cult fraud claims the plate would be emitting 800 W/m^2, at a temperature of 345K, because the fluxes add. Thats nonsense.
[MIGHTY TIM] No. Science texts claim nothing of the sort. Fluxes ARRIVING at ONE surface add. So two separate fluxes of 400 W/m^2 (say from two sunbeams) arriving at a single surface add to 800 W/m^2.
[ALSO MIGHTY TIM] No one ever claimed 400 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at different surfaces add to give 800 W/m^2. No one ever claimed that two 400 W/m^2 fluxes LEAVING two different surfaces add to give a flux of 800 W/m^2 when ARRIVING at third surface.
The topic subtly changes…
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again…
False.
“Do fluxes add?
A source emits a flux to a colder surface. The flux arriving the surface has a value of F. The flux will warm the surface to a maximum temperature for the flux, the surface, and the ambient conditions. That temperature is T.”
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
“I’m also aware that his go to example are ice cubes passive objects. Your counter has always been heat sources.”
My counter has been to provide examples that anyone would intuitively understand expose the falsity of Clint’s claim. 2 Suns in our sky is an easy one, bar heaters is something we very likely all have experience of.
“He offered to ‘correct you false beliefs about your *two suns*’ if you answered his question below. Seems like you could get some clarification from him on his position if you played ball. Up to you, of course.”
He can play ball by explaining himself without making me jump through hoops to make him do it.
Yes, barry, your counter has always been heat sources, as I said.
100 W/m2 incident on a surface will warm it to the same temperature whether the source is a distant sun or a nearby plate being warmed by a sun.
Your point is a complete red herring, and you are still trying to bail Clint out with irrelevancies. He hasn’t made this distinction and he would be foolish to do so.
Indeed, barry, as I said from the beginning:
“I think that talking about adding extra Suns, or extra "heat" sources generally, is rather telling.
It tells us that these people seem to think of a passive object (an object which has no way of generating its own energy) is somehow the same thing as a heat source, which generates its own "heat" energy (converts it from e.g. an electrical power supply to "heat" energy, in the case of the bar heater). It’s like they think x W/m^2 from a passive object is exactly the same thing as x W/m^2 from a heat source.
A passive object is dependent on a heat source for its temperature. The heat source sets its temperature. Thus the radiation from a passive object, which it emits as a result of this temperature, cannot then go back and raise the temperature of the original heat source. This should go without saying. Yet GHE believers have genuinely said that the radiation from the Earth goes back to the Sun and increases the temperature of the Sun, albeit by a tiny amount, but still!
Or, look at the "steel greenhouse" example. There, the heat source is the sphere itself, the shell is just a passive object. Yet the GHE believers think the radiation from the shell can somehow raise the temperature of the heat source sphere! Or "result in it having a higher temperature" or whatever semantics they want to use. This is where it all goes wrong, IMO.“
Not just wrong but irrelevant. Again. That’s not what Clint is saying. ‘Passive’ and ‘active’ sources are absolutely irrelevant to the point. Clint is talking about equivalent fluxes, not different temperatures.
Y’all just can’t look straight at his nonsense, can you?
“Its like they think x W/m^2 from a passive object is exactly the same thing as x W/m^2 from a heat source.”
It is exactly the same.
If you disagree, please tell what is the difference in temperature of a metre square blackbody surface in deep space receiving 1000 W/m2 from a heated plate, and 1000 W/m2 from a sun?
Serious question. You think they wouldn’t heat up that plate to the same temperature?
Not wrong, and not irrelevant either, barry. The truth is, you don’t know if Clint R distinguishes between passive objects and heat sources, because you never thought to ask him to clarify. He started by talking about ice cubes, which are passive objects, and then went on to make that post where he just mentions “a source”, and then “a second source”. Are these passive objects, like the ice cubes he was originally talking about?
Or are they heat sources, as you countered with?
“If you disagree, please tell what is the difference in temperature of a metre square blackbody surface in deep space receiving 1000 W/m2 from a heated plate, and 1000 W/m2 from a sun?
Serious question. You think they wouldn’t heat up that plate to the same temperature?”
barry, the GP is indeed warmed to the same temperature as the BP. Now you’re getting it.
Back to my point, a passive plate heated by a sun, in space, until it’s emitting 1000 W/m^2, will emit that radiation back to the sun that sets its temperature. The sun will not increase in temperature as a result.
No, DREMT, you’re just trying to bail Clint out. He was very clear when he wrote:
“With no other changes, a second source is added that also contributes an identical flux to the surface. The surface is now impacted by F from one source, and also F from a second source. Will the surface temperature increase?
NO!
Remember that an absorbed flux corresponds to a temperature. And, temperatures dont add.”
The source is irrelevant. He argues that flux is like temperature, and because temperature doesn’t add, neither do fluxes.
You can check back over all his posts on it and he has never made the distinction you are trying to bail out his argument with.
Furthermore, he has just plain said that incident flux from active heat sources can’t be summed, and YOU quoted him on that.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1255937
And he confirms it elsewhere.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1255853
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1255795
When Folkerts talked about 300 W/m2 coming from sun or ice, Clint replied:
“Folkerts, 300 W/m^2 arriving at a surface is the same as another 300 W/m^2 arriving at the same surface. Fluxes of equal value are equal.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1255755
He makes no distinction between flux from active and passive emitters.
“barry, the GP is indeed warmed to the same temperature as the BP. Now youre getting it.”
And that is why your distinction is completely irrelevant to Clint’s point.
He thinks incident fluxes from any source can’t be summed.
That’s the same as saying a 2nd sun on our sky wouldn’t make us any warmer.
You disagree with this, right?
“You can check back over all his posts on it and he has never made the distinction you are trying to bail out his argument with.”
I’m well aware he has never made that distinction, barry, but I’m also well aware that Clint R likes to keep things as simple as possible. He might not want to complicate the issue by getting into it. I mean…look at the sort of response I get for bringing it up!
“Furthermore, he has just plain said that incident flux from active heat sources can’t be summed, and YOU quoted him on that.”
Summed means “simply add”. I’m not sure that Clint R would disagree fluxes from heat sources combine to a certain extent…would he say they “simply” add?
We’re back to this comment, again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459926
“Or, look at the “steel greenhouse” example. There, the heat source is the sphere itself, the shell is just a passive object. Yet the GHE believers think the radiation from the shell can somehow raise the temperature of the heat source sphere! ”
This is handwaving and argument from incredulity, it is not actually solving the heat transfer problem, nor even applying simple common sense.
Naturally, when a heated object sitting in a cold environment is surrounded by a shell which impedes the flow of heat (acts as insulation), the object will heat up! This is basic common sense, and agrees with everyday experience.
When one actually solves this quite basic radiative heat transfer problem, what is found is that the shell is acting as an insulator to impede the flow of radiation from the internal heated sphere.
Heat input gives output flux from sphere at temperature T (in Kelvin) is F with no shell. F = sigma*T^4
With a shell ~ same radius as sphere, to satisfy 1LOT the shell must emit the same flux F and must be at the original sphere temperature T.
Now the sphere must warm to a temperature K*T. Now the rad heat transfer law gives net flux from sphere to shell:
F = sigma ((K*T)^4 – T^4) = sigma T^4
Thus (K*T)^4 = 2*T^4
K = 2^.25 = 1.19. The sphere must warm by 19% with the shell present.
…we’re back to this comment, again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459926
Yeah, grammie and clone havee making the same idiotic arguments for years:
Perhaps grammie and clone have noticed by now that the temperature(s) of “heat sources” will be greater than that of the surrounding passive receivers which also are emitting radiation.
Swanson vomits up something obnoxious.
“speaking, only heat sources actually succeed in making other things warmer. So there has to be something in nature that distinguishes between passive objects and heat sources”
Feelings are not physics. Physics can be used to find answers to heat transfer problems, whereas feelings don’t and can be misleading.
For example the SB law cares only about the emissivity and temperature of bodies, it doesnt care how those bodies got to that temperature.
The sun, ice cubes, or the shell around the planet all radiate according to their temperatures. They are all passive objects in that sense.
BTW, all insulation is passively heated, yet it keeps heated things warmer.
Bears hibernate in a den. They get this.
…vomits up something obnoxious.
This what the heat transfer laws show happens in this situation.
Nature is not good or bad. It just is.
…up something obnoxious.
Someone is hyperbolically hyperventilating.
“A passive object is dependent on a heat source for its temperature. The heat source sets its temperature. Thus the radiation from a passive object, which it emits as a result of this temperature, cannot then go back and raise the temperature of the original heat source. This should go without saying. Yet GHE believers have genuinely said that the radiation from the Earth goes back to the Sun and increases the temperature of the Sun, albeit by a tiny amount, but still!”
The sun is layered. As you go in deeper the layers are hotter. The outer radiating layer is heated by the inner layers which are in turn, heated by heat from fusion in the core. Without the outer layers, the core would be cooler. They are insulating it, just like the steel greenhouse does.
So this outermost layer is passively heated, and yet it is our heat source. And it makes the inner core of the sun hotter.
…something obnoxious (my stalker probably believes I’m responding to him!)
DREMT, please stop trolling.
I’m not, barry. I stand by every word I’ve said.
“[For the misrepresentation squad, insulation is a different subject entirelyinsulation keeps things warmer, it doesnt make things warmer].”
Well, hen Im out in the cold, without a coat, my skin is cold. But with a coat on, added insulation, my skin gets warmer.
And this is highly relevant to the steel greenhouse making the planet warmer.
…not, barry. I stand by every word I’ve said.
“(my stalker probably believes Im responding to him!)”
Hmm, each time I post, he responds. If I didnt post would he be posting there? Seems unlikely.
So yes that would be logical.
…barry. I stand by every word Ive said.
So if I post here, an he’s not responding to me, then there should be no response. Let’s see.
…I stand by every word I’ve said.
Thus the experiment definitively falsifies his claim he’s not reading and responding to my posts.
…stand by every word I’ve said.
#2 DREMT, please stop trolling.
I’m not, barry. In fact, I stand by every word I’ve said.
Behaving badly while always believing it is the good and right thing to do.
Otherwise know as self-riteousness.
…not, barry. In fact, I stand by every word I’ve said.
#3 DREMT, please stop trolling.
barry, please stop trolling.
Nate says:
”The sun is layered. As you go in deeper the layers are hotter. The outer radiating layer is heated by the inner layers which are in turn, heated by heat from fusion in the core. Without the outer layers, the core would be cooler. They are insulating it, just like the steel greenhouse does.”
We don’t know how the sun works Nate. If we did we could predict it. Sure there are hypotheses about how the sun works and what powers it Here National Geographic explains how the sun was formed:
”The molecular cloud began to compress, and some regions of gas collapsed under their own gravitational pull. As one of these regions collapsed, it also began to rotate and heat up from increasing pressure. ”
Again basic heat transfer physics illustrated in this example, and more belated denial of it.
”The molecular cloud began to compress, and some regions of gas collapsed under their own gravitational pull. As one of these regions collapsed, it also began to rotate and heat up from increasing pressure.”
Nate says:
Again basic heat transfer physics illustrated in this example, and more belated denial of it.
——————————
Wow, Nate just endorsed one of the more popular Skydragon Slayer theories!!!
Nah. Go troll your sister.
National Geographic explains how the sun was formed: ”The molecular cloud began to compress, and some regions of gas collapsed under their own gravitational pull. As one of these regions collapsed, it also began to rotate and heat up from increasing pressure. ”
Nate responds:
Again basic heat transfer physics illustrated in this example, and more belated denial of it.
————————————
Its right there Nate! the gases of the sun heated up with increasing pressure!! And you termed it basic heat transfer physics.
Well its not heat transfer physics but it is one of the more popular Skydragon Slayer theories for the greenhouse effect.
“the gases of the sun heated up with increasing pressure!! ”
5 billion years ago, sure.
But no longer relevant to maintaining the steady state T-depth profile today, is it…
Red herring.
Seeing as Clint’s chums are confused about what he is saying, I will quote from his opus on the matter of fluxes of equal power arriving at a surface not being able to be summed.
ClintR: “So one incoming flux F, and one corresponding maximum temperature T.
With no other changes, a second source is added that also contributes an identical flux to the surface. The surface is now impacted by F from one source, and also F from a second source. Will the surface temperature increase?
NO!
Remember that an absorbed flux corresponds to a temperature. And, temperatures don’t add.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1254315
That is perfectly in line with what I said above: an extra Sun would not warm the Earth any further, switching on the 2nd or 3rd bar of a radiant heater won’t make your skin any warmer, and 10 headlights won’t blind you worse than one.
All because, as Clint argues, two equal radiant fluxes incident on a surface cannot be summed.
F + F = F, according to Clint.
This, because temperature can’t be summed (at least he got something right).
To learn, start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459717
Quit jumping all around!
Yes he is really that dim.
barry…”This, because temperature cant be summed ….”
***
How can you sum a human invention? Temperature is an idea based on human-defined set points, namely the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water.
Heat can be summed. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. If you apply twice the heat, the KE should increase but I don’t know if it will double. If the KE increases, the heat increases. I know that for sure since applying two soldering irons to the same spot on a piece of metal will increase the temperature enough to melt solder that will not melt with one iron.
If you apply fluxes directly to the same spot, it should raise the kinetic energy of the atoms. But if you apply the fluxes to different parts of the surface, you will et two hot spots and an over-lapping heat in areas.
You can’t have a group of atoms at one part of a metal plate and another set of atoms at another part, with temperatures you can add. Temperature is defined as the ***average***kinetic energy of the particles in an object. At least, that is true for gases, according to the kinetic theory of gases.
You could, however, given the temperature at one part of the plate apply Fourier’s formula for heat flow and determine a radius around the peak temperature area for how the heat might dissipate. If you had a separate hot point with a known temperature, you could do the same. It could get tricky where the heat flows merge together. In that way, you could add the heat flows and maybe determine an average temperature.
It would be the same with two stars on the same side of a planet. One would create a hot spot on its side and the other a hot spot on its side. If you used a thermometer, it would average the heat at that location, but that is not an addition of temperatures, its an average of the heat measured, which is the average temperature of the air molecules. Of course this would also depend on other parameters like whether the planet tilted on its axis.
If I have a large metal plate and I apply a welding torch to one part and apply another torch to another part, say a foot away, what is the temperature of the entire plate? Where would you measure the temperature?
The plate will most certainly be hotter with two torches heating the surface than with one and that’s why it is sometimes necessary to use two torches in welding. Or, in electronics, we sometimes need to use two soldering irons to heat metal enough to have the solder melt. That is sometimes the case when soldering a ground wire to a metal chassis. Holding two irons in close proximity on the metal does raise the metal temperature enough to melt the solder and allow it to flow.
Note…there is no radiation involved here.
If I remember Clint’s argument, it was that fluxes do not add in space. If you have two stars an equal distance from a planet, the fluxes cannot add in space but the effect of them on a surface will raise the temperature of the surface to a higher temperature than just one star. The surface temperature and the fluxes rely on two different mechanisms. You can only indirectly relate the surface temperature to the intensity of the fluxes.
That’s kind of a trick situation, however. It depends on where the stars are positioned. If they are both on the same side of the planet, they will heat that surface more, depending on the angle of separation. It’s like having a star with twice the intensity of one star. If the stars are on opposite sides of the planet, it will still raise the temperature because the planet wont have as much time to cool, provided it is turning more slowly like the Earth.
Of course, there is an upper limit to how hot the surface will get. If you hold a welding torch right next to the metal with the deeper blue flame right at the metal, the metal will get hot enough to melt. If you use two torches, holding them a few inches away, the metal will only get hot, maybe glow a cherry red colour.
> How can you sum a human invention?
Come on, Bordon.
If I slap you once, and then I slap you twice, you will feel the sum.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
“If you apply fluxes directly to the same spot, it should raise the kinetic energy of the atoms.”
And thus raise the temperature at that spot. Exactly. Agreed.
And that is exactly what Clint claims can’t happen with 2 equal fluxes.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry, you’ve returned!
You will be glad to know I have a new policy for handling trolls, especially ignorant trolls that misrepresent my words. But first, there’s a new question that none of your cult has been able to answer. You get to help them out.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1454225
I originally addressed the question to Nate, but his head exploded. I’ll update the question for you:
Troll barry, two infinitely large plates face each other. One plate is emitting 400 W/m^2 to the other plate. The other plate is emitting 800 W/m^2 to the *400* plate. The plates are so close together that there are no losses.
What is the ‘net’ flux arriving the *400* plate from the *800* plate?
If you can’t answer correctly, just admit it. Accepting reality will keep your head from exploding.
After you’ve dealt with this question, I’ll update you on my new troll policy, and I can correct you false beliefs about your *two suns*.
As always, I’m glad to help.
Clint R,
There is no net flux arriving at the 400 plate.
You don’t understand thermodynamics so just shut up.
This poor wretched child, Clint, has been beaten down by math and science for years and can no longer do simple arithmetic or even put together logical thoughts. For just a few sums per day, you can help save this rather unappealing child, suffering from the horrible pain of having to do his own simple arithmetic.
Won’t you please help?
Hey, Pup.
When you said –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311591
What did you mean by “radiative fluxes don’t add”?
Asking for a Pup scholar friend…
” Barry quoted you directly saying the dumbest things!
So stop whining about his “misrepresent my words”.
barry couldnt answer the simple question, so his cult jumped in to cover for him.
But, none of the cult could answer the simple question either!
Thats why this is so much fun.
I answered your question correctly, unfortunately you don’t understand thermodynamics and you got the wrong answer again.
bob, please stop trolling.
When James Hansen gave this TED talk 10 years ago, Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) was about 0.6 W/m^2. Now, it appears, EEI has approximately doubled, to more than 1 W/m^2.
James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change https://youtu.be/fWInyaMWBY8
EEI: https://ibb.co/Ks8wkp7
"It’s worse than we thought!"
Indeed.
Funny how it’s always "worse than we thought!"
How much "worse than we thought!" is there left for it to get?
TM, radiative fluxes do NOT balance.
Earth’s energy doesn’t even balance.
Your cult needs to face reality.
Clint R,
You are correct, and that’s the whole point, Earth’s energy is not in balance, hence it’s warming.
Earth’s average temperature is always oscillating within a small range, as indicated by recorded history. Earth’s systems continually change and modulate to account for any energy imbalances, and the resulting temps all reflect the thermodynamics accordingly.
Reality always wins.
Pssst, Pup –
The average of your small range should be the equilibrium that you claim does not exist.
You are welcome!
Clint R,
“Earths systems continually change and modulate to account for any energy imbalances,”
Please explain or are you wearing your Giai flowers today?
Or do you mean modulate by increasing the severity of storms and melting ice?
bob…”Please explain…”
***
Come on, Bob, why are we always explaining things to you?
We have seasons, for one. It gets so cold in the polar regions during winter that 10 feet of ice cover the Arctic Ocean alone. That ice has to be melted as the seasons change, and the heat comes mainly from the Tropics. So, the Tropics are always sending heat to the polar regions as the polar temperatures vary wildly from winter to a brief summer.
That’s just one adjustment.
The Sun cannot possibly heat the entire planet equally and the planet adjusts by finding an equilibrium.
Gordon,
You are babbling in your Maypo again.
The Earth is not in equilibrium, and it’s rarely in steady state.
I never said it was warming equally every where.
Why don’t you respond to what I post?
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“I never said it was warming equally every where.” Does that mean that when you wrote “the Earth formed from cold interstellar dust and has warmed since then.”, you weren’t really referring to the Earth, that it really warmed in some places and cooled in others, or maybe the whole Earth warmed and cooled – all by itself?
What did you actually mean to say?
Maybe you could try saying what you mean, rather than being obscure and complaining about what you didn’t say!
How are getting on describing the GHE, which you seem to be claiming heated the Earth from absolute zero (or close to it)? Or did you really mean to say something else?
Not making yourself look too clever, Bobby.
Swenson,
Constantly trying to put words in my mouth and gaslighting me.
Did I say the greenhouse effect heated the Earth from the beginning, and was the only thing heating the Earth.
No I did not.
The Sun had something to do with it, stupid.
And the early bombardment period, maybe you have heard of that.
You didn’t notice I was responding to some malarky Gordon posted.
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote
I never said it was warming equally every where. Does that mean that when you wrote the Earth formed from cold interstellar dust and has warmed since then., you werent really referring to the Earth, that it really warmed in some places and cooled in others, or maybe the whole Earth warmed and cooled all by itself?
What did you actually mean to say?
Maybe you could try saying what you mean, rather than being obscure and complaining about what you didnt say!
How are getting on describing the GHE, which you seem to be claiming heated the Earth from absolute zero (or close to it)? Or did you really mean to say something else?
Not making yourself look too clever, Bobby.
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“Clint R,
You are correct, and that’s the whole point, Earths energy is not in balance, hence it’s warming.”
After the same energy “imbalance” cooling the planet for four and a half billion years?
Go on Bobby, describe the GHE which both heats and cools the Earth. Only joking, you can’t, can you? Maybe you could just demonstrate your grip on reality by telling me to “shut up”, or something equally brilliant.
Bumble away, Bobby.
Sorry Swenson,
You are wrong because the Earth formed from cold interstellar dust and has warmed since then.
Periods of warming and cooling but not an overall cooling trend.
Bumbling Bobby,
When you wrote –
“Sorry Swenson,
You are wrong because the Earth formed from cold interstellar dust and has warmed since then.
Periods of warming and cooling but not an overall cooling trend.”, you demonstrated your affinity with the likes of Carl Sagan and James Hansen, both of whom refused to believe that the Earth was originally molten.
They seemed to believe that somehow, four and a half billion years of sunlight has “accumulated” within the interior, due to some imaginary “energy imbalance”, heating the Earth from the outside in, with the core being hotter than what overlays it.
Maybe aliens stole their brains, and substituted them with cabbages, do you think?
Oh well, you are free to believe whatever you like. Do you still believe you were commander of a nuclear submarine, fearlessly guarding truth, justice, and the American way, or is the reality slightly different?
Carry on, Bobby.
Swenson,
Got any evidence the Earth was originally completely molten?
Even when the rogue planet that crashed into the Earth and created the Moon, do you think there was a chance the solid core remained solid?
Yeah the Greenhouse effect cools the stratosphere and warms the surface of the Earth, your little pea brain can’t comprehend that, can it?
Swenson, you are an asshole.
“Do you still believe you were commander of a nuclear submarine, fearlessly guarding truth, justice, and the American way, or is the reality slightly different?”
I have posted evidence that I served on submarines, and my rank was clearly displayed, and it was neither Captain, nor Commander.
However, I was the only EWS in a blue shirt.
Is that the kind of response you are trolling for.
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“Yeah the Greenhouse effect cools the stratosphere and warms the surface of the Earth, your little pea brain cant comprehend that, can it?” No, not really.
At the same time, you claim that sunlight heated the interior to a glowing heat, only warmed the surface, and actually cooled the part closest to the Sun? What alternative reality do you occupy, Bumbling Bob?
Maybe you could describe the wondrous “greenhouse effect” which achieves this miracle. I suppose you are going to claim that the Moon gets hotter than the Earth because it is unaffected by the GHE, but I doubt that anybody smarter than you would believe you.
As to submarines, I was only joking. Im sure that anything needing a capacity for thought would be well beyond your grasp. At least you got to wear a pretty blue shirt.
You could always resort to saying things like “Swenson, you are an asshole.”, if you thought it would demonstrate your intellectual brilliance.
Keep on Bumbling, Bobby.
Swenson,
“At the same time, you claim that sunlight heated the interior to a glowing heat”
No, I didn’t claim that, your reading comprehension sucks.
Also, you don’t have any evidence for your crazy ideas.
Swenson,
“You could always resort to saying things like Swenson, you are an asshole., if you thought it would demonstrate your intellectual brilliance.”
You think I said that to demonstrate your intellectual brilliance.
That shows your lack of intelligence.
I said it because your are an asshole, and then you backpedal, saying you were only joking.
So you double down on being an asshole.
You can’t argue the facts, so you go for insults.
Then complain when I respond in kind.
Swenson,
I could explain it to you, but my cat would understand better than you.
Is that the same James Hansen who was arrested with actress Daryl Hannah for protesting the Keystone pipeline? A bit biased, ya think??? Ten years after his 1988 speech regarding catastrophic climate change, he had changed his mind. Blamed his computer for the error.
Come on, Bordon.
You are just jealous of Jim for his hat and his acquaintance with Daryl.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordo,
Wasn’t it five years ago the alarmists were claiming we’d have no ice at the North Pole in 5 years? AOC has been claiming we only have 12 years. Did she get that idea from Wiltard?
What are you braying about, Troglodyte?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
JOHANNESBURG, March 14 (Reuters) – Tropical cyclone Freddy hit the coast of southern Africa for a second time over the weekend, bringing its total death toll to more than 220 people in Malawi, Mozambique and Madagascar.
The month-long storm has broken at least one record and could break two more, meteorologists say.
As climate change causes warmer oceans, heat energy from the water’s surface is fuelling stronger storms.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/why-is-cyclone-freddy-record-breaking-storm-2023-03-14/
Summer in the Southern Hemisphere. Whoda thunk it would get hot. Weather, we willy, weather.
Derp
Here is Roy Spencer graph showing satellite observations of hurricanes and hurrican intensity:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/after-hurricane-ian-no-trend-in-florida-landfalls-global-activity-trending-down/
Where is the evidence of stronger storms?
You sure you do not want to stick to gazing at half naked women, Kennui?
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2956/how-climate-change-may-be-impacting-storms-over-earths-tropical-oceans/
Willard,
Why do you bother linking to sources which support me?
From your link –
“Climate, on the other hand, refers to the long-term (usually at least 30 years) regional or even global average of temperature, humidity, and rainfall patterns over seasons, years, or decades.”
See? Even the bumblers at NASA realise that climate is nothing more than averages, derived from historical observations.
Averages being the “cause” of anything? You have obviously rejected reality, and substituted fantasy for fact. Just like some of the dim-witted SkyDragon cultists at NASA, who don’t even take notice of what they write!
Try another appeal to “authority”, pea-brain.
Wait, Mike.
HAVE YOU CLOCKED ON THE LINK???
Keep reading, you will find the relevant bit.
Fulciform.
Willard,
Why do you bother linking to sources which support me?
From your link
“Climate, on the other hand, refers to the long-term (usually at least 30 years) regional or even global average of temperature, humidity, and rainfall patterns over seasons, years, or decades.”
See? Even the bumblers at NASA realise that climate is nothing more than averages, derived from historical observations.
Averages being the “cause” of anything? You have obviously rejected reality, and substituted fantasy for fact. Just like some of the dim-witted SkyDragon cultists at NASA, who don’t even take notice of what they write!
Try an appeal to another “authority”, pea-brain.
Mike, Mike,
Here –
“So while there arent necessarily more Atlantic hurricanes than before, those that form appear to be getting stronger, with more Category 4 and 5 events.”
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You still don’t accept reality, do you? “Climate” is the statistics of historical weather observations.
If you believe that observing the past makes hurricanes stronger, weaker, or turns them a nice shade of primrose, then you are probably a delusional SkyDragon cultist.
Maybe you believe you can predict the future, as well?
How about the past? Do you agree with bobdroege and his fellow believers that the Earth was created cold, and only has a molten interior because the heat of the Sun has magically crept beneath the surface and accumulated?
Maybe you could appeal to the “authority” of “experts” like James Hansen and Carl Sagan. Or just accept reality.
Mike Flynn, you phaometer.
Do you have access to a Time Machine to look into the future?
If not, how would you do science of not by looking at the past?
Do you stop to think from time to time before posting?
Perhaps you should,
At least once in a decade.
Phaometer.
Swenson’s gaslighting me again.
I could tell him how I think the Earth got a partially molten interior, but then how come the Earth still has a solid, not melted core.
He doesn’t understand so he gaslights.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You nonsensically scribbled –
“As climate change causes warmer oceans, . . . ”
You deranged nitwit – climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. It “causes” nothing – except the addling of SkyDragon cultists’ brains!
Have you managed to find a description of the GHE yet, or are you still babbling incomprehensible gibberish, in lame attempts to troll?
[laughing at delusional and ignorant SkyDragon]
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Copy paste your comment so I cam skip it again.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You nonsensically scribbled
As climate change causes warmer oceans, . . .
You deranged nitwit climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. It causes nothing except the addling of SkyDragon cultists brains!
Have you managed to find a description of the GHE yet, or are you still babbling incomprehensible gibberish, in lame attempts to troll?
[laughing twice as hard at delusional and ignorant SkyDragon]
Good boy.
Pectuncle.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You nonsensically scribbled
As climate change causes warmer oceans, . . .
You deranged nitwit climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. It causes nothing except the addling of SkyDragon cultists brains!
Have you managed to find a description of the GHE yet, or are you still babbling incomprehensible gibberish, in lame attempts to troll?
[laughing three times as hard at delusional and ignorant SkyDragon]
Mike Flynn,
Tubulure.
Willard, go ahead and make a fool of yourself. You have my permission.
Mike,
Have you found Graham’s passive object yet?
Willard, go ahead and keep making a fool of yourself. You have my permission.
Mike,
You look like the passive object Graham is looking for,
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
barry…”Maybe you missed Clint saying that fluxes arriving</b at a surface (his emphasis) don't add".
***
That is correct, they don't add. The addition comes after the fluxes have been converted to heat. It is the heat that adds, not the fluxes.
EM carries no heat, it is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field, and neither have the capacity to heat anything in that form. They must be absorbed by electrons to increase the KE of the electrons, forcing them to higher energy orbitals. The increased KE causes the heating.
This is a highly complex problem because the fluxes are not simple waveforms at one frequency. The equation related to fluxes like EM is E = hf. The 'f' in solar energy is a reference to millions of frequencies all of them having different intensities. When Planck applied this equation he was reference each frequency separately as if it was a tiny oscillator with a unique frequency.
This led to the ultraviolet catastrophe because as f increases in frequency toward the UV range, the intensity should take off toward infinity. It did not and Planck needed to do some fancy math based on the probability that EM in the UV range was not as predominant as at the mid-EM frequency range, where it peaks. So, Planck's curve is a probability function, not an actual intensity versus frequency curve.
Bohr applied E = hf to discrete frequencies only.
If you have solar EM arriving at a surface, but before it reaches the surface, it contains a broad range of EM frequencies at varying intensities. If you have a separate source, like an adjacent star, its EM has the same properties. It is simply not possible to add those millions of frequencies to get a meaningful average. Even as a measurement, like 1370 w/m^2 at TOA, it is only a basic average.
If you are sunbathing, it's only the frequencies in the UV range that tan you and burns your skin. That's how discriminating skin molecules are to solar radiation. All of the frequencies contact your skin but only certain frequencies cause your skin to burn. Of course, those frequencies are also the most intense.
Higher EM frequencies like x-rays and gamma rays go right through you.
Gordon,
“Higher EM frequencies like x-rays and gamma rays go right through you.”
No they don’t, that’s why we wear badges.
Bumbling Bobby,
Presumably, your badge says “Beware! I am being worn by an idiot!”.
Do you wear a tinfoil hat to stop having bizarre thoughts – like believing the interior of the Earth is due to accumulated sunlight?
Trying to appear intelligent by being cryptic doesn’t work for you. You actually have to be intelligent for that to work.
Keep Bumbling, Bobby.
Whoosh, way over your head.
Radiation detection badges.
Are you trying to look stupid?
You are doing a very good job.
No, Gordon, in the science of radiative transfer, incident radiation absorbed by a surface is summed:
“Finally, the incident flux (irradiance) on surface k can be found. It is the sum of the radiation leaving each other surface j in the enclosure that is incident on surface k.”
https://www.thermopedia.com/content/70/
You can determine the temperature of a surface by calculating the sum of the radiation incident on a surface minus the radiation emitted and reflected by the surface.
barry, every time you link to that source, it indicates you don’t understand the science. That link has NOTHING to do with absorp.tion. It’s all about view factor, which has NOTHING to do with ARRIVING fluxes. You’re so braindead you can’t understand the simplest concepts.
Ive offered you a chance to learn:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459717
Learn or remain a braindead troll — your choice.
NOTHING has ANYTHING to do with ARRIVING fluxes, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1460209
We already know you don’t understand any of this, worthless willard.
I wont waste any more time with you today, so troll away.
Pup Pup Pup Pup Pup Pup Pup,
You said NOTHING.
Please, do continue to try to troll.
Clint, just stop. You have no idea.
“It’s all about view factor, which has NOTHING to do with ARRIVING fluxes”
The word “incident” means striking or hitting, or ARRIVED at surface k.
“Finally, the incident flux (irradiance) on surface k can be found. It is the sum of the radiation leaving each other surface j in the enclosure that is incident on surface k”
View factor has already been accounted for when incident the flux is summed.
Two suns of equal intensity in our sky will make us warmer than one. Yes, the radiative flux from each sun is additive.
Do you know how silly you look trying to infer the opposite to that conclusion? Your chums here are not buying it. Who in their right minds would?
“That link has NOTHING to do with absorp.tion.”
Clint, that link is describing how temperature can be calculated from the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation.
“The radiative energy balance on surface k indicates that the net heat flux at the surface (the energy added to surface k) is the difference between the outgoing and incident radiation as
Qk = Jk = Gk
net heat flux = outgoing flux – incident flux”
Yes, incident radiation is being absorbed in the equations (Gk). Otherwise temperature would be purely a function of emitted radiation (Jk) and every calculation on that page would be unnecessary.
https://www.thermopedia.com/content/70/
Stop being dumb about this. You’re plain wrong. There’s still other ways you can downplay AGW. Legitimate ways.
barry, please stop trolling.
The continuing theme is that the cult doesn’t understand any of the relevant science. This has been demonstrated numerous times with the simple questions that they are unable to answer.
They don’t know science, and they reject reality.
Another easy question for the cult:
Since you believe that fluxes add, and fluxes are composed of photons, what do you get when two 15μ photons meet in midair?
a) One 30μ photon.
b) One 7.5μ photon.
c) One 15μ with twice the energy it should have.
d) None of the above. Photons do not add.
None of the cult will be able to answer.
Boil water with an ice cube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Frx_bPsT8&ab_channel=FluidMatters
Braindead you are.
Is very important you understand the mechanism because this is how water vapor gets into the atmosphere.
No Carbon Dioxide was consulted.
Braindead you are.
ken…”Is very important you understand the mechanism because this is how water vapor gets into the atmosphere”.
***
Water vapour gets into the atmosphere when the Sun heats the water, Nothing to do with ice. Solar energy breaks weak hydrogen bonds in the water, allowing individual molecules to break free.
Has it never occurred to you that water vapour is lower where there is ice in the water? Have you never noticed that the air is drier in climate where the temp is perpetually below 0C?
Ken,
From the Australian Government-
“Antarctica is the highest, driest, windiest and coldest continent in the world. The Antarctic continent is a land mass covered with ice up to 4 km thick. The highest point is around 4 km above sea level.”
Driest. Less H2O in the atmosphere, in spite of up to 4 km of ice on the ground.
You dont understand what you are talking about do you? Or is it just that you cannot express yourself in English?
Try and reconcile the GHE with four and a half billion years of cooling, if you feel like filling in a bit of spare time. I just, of course.
PV = nRT
Boyle’s law
Charle’s law
Gay-Lussac’s law
I thought you guys had science background. This stuff is chemistry 101.
Ken, answer the question, if you’re trying to impress us:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459949
So far, you’re so ignorant you don’t even qualify as a troll.
WRONG issue, Ken. But thanks for trolling in.
Your cult is trying to boil water with radiative flux from ice.
Braindead you are.
Ken…the ice is not causing the water to boil, it’s the reduction in internal pressure ***after the water has been heated in a microwave*** with saran wrap in place.
You can fill the bottle to the same level, without heating it, apply as much ice as you want to the lid, and the water will not boil.
Did you notice that the ice is sitting on a metal lid? Radiation cannot pass through metal.
Gordon,
“Radiation cannot pass through metal.”
Depends on what kind of radiation, doesn’t it gov?
Anyway, the ice is causing the drop in pressure by causing the water vapor to condense, causing the water to boil.
Nice demonstration of thermodynamics principles.
Boil water with the radiation from ice? Not at all. Look at wha you post.
Like Folkerts, you need just a few minor extras, which you dont mention.
All irrelevant. The Earth cooled over the past four and a half billion years – or do you just reject reality?
What was the role of the GHE in this cooling? Surely you can find a YouTube “content creator” to help you out?
You are a delusional SkyDragon cultist – unless you can prove otherwise.
Idiot.
Noice.
Willard, keep acting idiotic. You have my approval.
I was responding to Kennui, Mike.
Twas a noice video.
Willard,
Ah, I see. In that case, you have my approval to keep being a cryptic and incomprehensible idiot.
These are not the magic words, Mike.
Passive object.
Bonzo goes to college: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSX1Jfz6CtU&ab_channel=EdwardWilliams
Ken, please stop trolling.
Another question from Clint R, this time a multiple choice question, but yet again, the correct answer is no where to be found.
It might be, if you change one word in one of the answers.
But Clint R doesn’t know any physics and couldn’t correct his little problem if his life depended on it.
Bumbling Bobby,
Please stop trying to appear intelligent by being oh-so-cryptic.
If you have something to say, say it.
Otherwise, others might think you are just another delusional SkyDragon who can’t even describe the role of the mythical GHE in four and a half billion years of the Earth steadily cooling.
Carry on pretending you know what you are talking about.
Swenson,
If you don’t know what’s wrong with Clint R’s little problem, I sure haven’t the time to tell you.
You see, I know what I am talking about, but you don’t.
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“You see, I know what I am talking about, but you dont.” Neither does anybody else, because you are talking to yourself.
Maybe you could name someone who believes your nonsense, but I doubt it.
Feel free to prove me wrong,
Keep Bumbling, Bobby.
My college thermodynamics professor for one.
Keep digging.
Yes boob, another question your cult can’t answer.
And, we know why….
Yeah Cunt,
There is no correct answer in your problem.
That’s because you don’t understand the physics.
Try again.
Its spelled with an *L* — cult.
Theres nothing wrong with the question, as stated. You cant answer, so you have to make up crap.
Just your usual cult tactics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
bob, please stop trolling.
Learn some Physics DR EMPTY Troll.
#2
bob, please stop trolling.
christos…”Solar flux interact with matter. What we add is the resulting of the two suns interaction and not the fluxes”.
***
Exactly. The idea that fluxes are adding omits important internal processes in the matter.
Come on, Bordon.
Wave those arms faster!
Willard, please stop acting the fool.
Not the magic words, Mike Flynn.
Have you found a passive object yet?
Woolward.
Willard, please stop trolling.
We can always count on the little Chihuahua yapping away.
Mike Flynn already said the magic words, Troglodyte.
When was your last constructive contribution to this website?
When was your first constructive contribution?
Ever, in this thread or today, Troglodyte?
You’ve never had anything constructive. Destruction and chaos are your whole modus operandi.
So says the dude who comes here to call people Nazis.
Nate, what would you call someone who is a Nazi?
Not-a-Nazi?
Is that like delusional SkyDragons who think “slow cooling” should be called “warming”?
Mike Flynn,
How would you call a sock puppet who happens to be Mike Flynn, and do you know Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction?
Troglodyte should know that one.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Frozen weather in North America.
https://i.ibb.co/ZVmF4pL/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f120.png
Indeed.
https://ibb.co/h7jSDhX
Tyson, please stop trolling.
How much is the planet Earth’s the incident solar beams specular reflection?
–
Jdiffuse = a*So = 0,306*1.370 W/m^2 = 419,22 W/m^2
where a = 0,306 – is the average solar lit hemisphere’s Albedo (it is the diffuse reflection portion)
So = 1.370 W/m^2 – is the solar flux
–
Thus
(1 – a)*So – is the not diffusely reflected solar energy
(1-0,306)*1.370 = 0,694*1.370 = 950,78 W/m^2
–
1 – Φ = 1 -0,47 = 0,53 is the specular reflected part
where Φ – is the planet surface solar irradiation Accepting Factor
(the planet surface spherical shape and the planet surface roughness coefficient)
950,78*0,53 = 503,91 W/m^2
–
And what amount of solar energy has remained for the planet Earth to INTERACT with?
–
1.370 – 419,22 – 503,91 = 446,87 W/m^2
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
–
Notice:
It is π*r^2*446,87 W in TOTAL on the entire solar lit hemisphere
–
where:
r – is the earth’s radius
W – is Watts = Joules/sec
[Christos Vournas] “Φ – is the planet surface solar irradiation Accepting Factor
(the planet surface spherical shape and the planet surface roughness coefficient)”
Because the internet never forgets… You started out defining it as a Drag Coefficient, remember?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-680376
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/50-year-u-s-summer-temperature-trends-all-36-climate-models-are-too-warm/#comment-1389828
You can’t seem to understand that your Φ is a Greenhouse Effect Parameter. Increase Φ and surface temperature increases.
Surface Temperature vs Greenhouse Parameter: https://ibb.co/DL89dMn
TM, CVs parameter requires no CO2.
You dont appear to understand any of this.
Christos actually requires NOTHING except fudge, Pup.
Willard at 11:48 AM
Isn’t a Lyceum in Greece equivalent to High School in America?
I doubt it, Tyson.
Last years of college in many places correspond to undergraduate studies.
I reached out to a former colleague who studied in Greece before coming to America for his university studies. He says that in the Greek educational system, a lyceum is a type of upper-secondary education school that provides general education and prepares students for entry into higher education institutions or the workforce.
Lyceums are typically attended by students aged 15-18, following their completion of compulsory education at the gymnasium level.
So in a nutshell, the lyceum is a part of the Greek upper-secondary education system and corresponds to the final three years of high school education.
This explains Christos Vournas’ reluctance to supplement his assertions with data, preferring to rely on anecdotes.
TYSON:
“This explains Christos Vournas reluctance to supplement his assertions with data, preferring to rely on anecdotes.”
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Shut up.
And now Gaslighting Graham tries to bully Christos.
That’s just great.
Here’s what I can find:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyceum#Greece
So it’s not far from a Murican PhD in my book… 😛
No, I was telling Tyson to shut up. Not Christos.
Now I’m telling you to shut up.
Shut up.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“So its not far from a Murican PhD in my book.” Presumably you are referring to American, but suffer from a linguistic defect.
In any case, in the 95% of the worlds population which is not “American”, there is a fair chance that, like a colleague of mine noted, a PhD from a US university is often jokingly seen as an acronym for “Piled higher and Deeper”.
There are PhDs and PhDs. Michael Mann has a PhD. He is also a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat. Gavin Schmidt has a PhD, (and a Bachelor of Arts degree), and thinks he is a world famous “climate scientist”!
Have you figured out the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of global cooling? Have you tried asking a Murican PhD holder?
Dimwit.
Mike Flynn,
TL;DR.
Found a passive object yet?
Fabulist.
Shut up, Little Willy.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You claim to have attention deficit disorder so I’ll help you by cutting straight to the chase –
Have you figured out the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of global cooling? Have you tried asking a Murican PhD holder?
Dimwit.
You can read read the rest in small pieces, if you want.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote
“So its not far from a Murican PhD in my book.” Presumably you are referring to American, but suffer from a linguistic defect.
In any case, in the 95% of the worlds population which is not “American”, there is a fair chance that, like a colleague of mine noted, a PhD from a US university is often jokingly seen as an acronym for “Piled higher and Deeper”
There are PhDs and PhDs. Michael Mann has a PhD. He is also a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat. Gavin Schmidt has a PhD, (and a Bachelor of Arts degree), and thinks he is a world famous “climate scientist”!
Have you figured out the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of global cooling? Have you tried asking a Murican PhD holder?
Dimwit.
Mike Flynn,
Found a passive object yet?
Phronistery.
Silence, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham forcefully forgets the magic words.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
1 Φ = 1 -0,47 = 0,53 is the specular reflected part
where Φ is the planet surface solar irradiation Accepting Factor
(the planet surface spherical shape and the planet surface roughness coefficient)
950,78*0,53 = 503,91 W/m^2
–
–
Thank you TYSON for your respond. Thank you for reminding me something very important:
the specular reflected part
503,91 W/m^2
The specular reflected part is 1.000 times bigger number than your “~ +0,5 W/m^2 imbalance scenario”.
–
It is three 3 orders of magnitude higher!!!
–
Your – I mean the entire GHE alarmists scientific consensus community. The consensus is not something to blame you personally.
–
TYSON, the three orders of magnitude is not an insignificant value someone may turn a blind eye on!
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
In case you might have forgotten:
” The specular reflected part is 1.000 times bigger number than your “~ +0,5 W/m^2 imbalance scenario” … ”
… but till now exists only in your fantasy, Christos.
Bindidon:
” but till now exists only in your fantasy, Christos.”
–
Thank you, Bindidon, for your respond.
–
The planet Mercury’s Albedo a =0,068
Also we know Mercury has a surface of rock basalt.
–
Basalt is as smooth as glass.
Do you think a spherical object from basalt lit by sun absorbs
the
(1 -0,068)S = 0,932*S or 93,2% of the incident on its surface solar flux?
–
Everyone has played with a mirror in the sunshine.
When you look in the mirror, it looks dark, but when you “catch” the reflection of sun in the eye -it is definitely blinding!
–
Thus, the specular reflection is not only in my imagination, it is in your imagination too, Bindidon. The specular reflection is in everyone’s imagination, and not because I made you to imagine it, but because you have seen the sun in the mirror!
–
You have seen the sun in the mirror many-many times, Bindidon, remember?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
U.S. temperature anomalies as of March 19-prediction.
https://i.ibb.co/t3f0nsj/gfs-T2ma-us-13.png
Global warming is not about global warming, it’s about the shortage
of cheap energy- crazy politicians worried about too many people.
Politicians tendency to toward oppression, and weird ideas that wars are good for the economy. And they want other people to die.
But wars mostly about oppression, rather killing people. Badly governed pandemics kill more people. And inflation is form of torture.
Most politicians are selfish and ignorant- and pretend they aren’t.
Only small percentage people have favorable opinion regarding them,
but are favorable to ones they voted for. Voting is mostly about reaching an opinion that you like your idiot.
The idea that politicians, have done anything about global warming, is insanity. And idea they can do anything about global warming is delusional.
Politicians tend to claim credit for what other people do.
People who fight global warming, don’t say how cold the want the planet to get. And they have the freedom of not warming their homes,
but they all warm their homes.
Actually the politicians care only about one thing: getting re-elected.
Any politician that is gushing about climate hasn’t got any clue about science. All he knows is that too many people believe the popular grand delusion and won’t vote for him if he tries to bring facts to the table.
There is no level of government in Canada that has done any testing checking or replicating any of the junk science from UN-IPCC that is now driving policy. The only level of government that even tried to ask questions was a committee in the Senate and they didn’t come to any resolution.
https://fcpp.org/2012/01/03/progress-canadian-senate-listens-to-global-warming-skeptics-global-warming-orthodoxy-gets-challenged-in-a-first-of-its-kind-hearing/
Its like Thomas Jefferson said: Democracy depends on an educated and informed populace. Our populace is being fed pap by media organizations who work on the principle that disaster sells advertising.
The problem of ignorance is serious. The ESG policies of Silicon Valley Bank are thought to have contributed to its failure. Now the entire bank sector is reeling. And it isn’t just banks that are being fools about climate. If we don’t somehow figure out how to stop the ‘green’ agenda we are looking at the net-zero agenda where your bank account is $0.00 and you will be happy.
Come on, Kennui.
Buying 20y bonds when interest rates are about to spike has nothing to do with ESG.
Wrong worthless willard. It has a lot to do with ESG.
ESG, aka WOKE, is braindead business. Buying long term bonds before interest rates go up is braindead business.
Oh, Pepperonipup.
It has NOTHING to do with ESG:
https://youtu.be/CEee7dAk25c
You are not ready to understand finance, just like Mike Flynn can’t compete with Moose in terms of likeability.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard at 12:31 PM
Better than half of SVB’s assets dropped in value last year thanks to the Fed’s fasted rate hiking campaign since Volker.
Data from the company’s most recent Form 10-K: https://ibb.co/RbxHgTf
Exactly.
About 10% of the loans were kinda toxic too.
And that’s notwithstanding the weird crypto side bets!
A cool infographic here:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/largest-bank-failures-modern-history
SVB had a lot of questionable loans made on the basis of ESG.
Go woke, go broke.
Except that they don’t, Kennui, and it’s not the loans that broke down anyway.
You’re confusing with Marjorie’s crap about the board, most probably.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Scientists offer evidence that Venus is volcanically active
“Herrick compared a Magellan image from mid-February 1991 with a mid-October 1991 image and noticed a change to a vent on the north side of a domed shield volcano that is part of the Maat Mons volcano.
The vent had grown from a circular formation of just under 1 square mile to an irregular shape of about 1.5 square miles.”
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/03/16/scientists-offer-evidence-that-venus-is-volcanically-active/#more-61628
Venus remains unexplored, but .5 miles x 100 million years is
50 million square miles. Venus has 178 million square miles.
About as young as our ocean floor.
But likely other areas are not discovered yet and not definitive,
support idea of young surface in terms of 300 to 500 million years
though maybe closer to 50 million. Or similar to Earth or more volcanic than Earth seems to be the ballpark.
Unless you think Venus is close to resurfacing globally, Venus doesn’t have sudden resurfacing and then has long dormant periods.
Building on Luna and Mars with StarCrete the double stength concrete
https://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Scientists_develop_a_cosmic_concrete_that_is_twice_as_strong_as_regular_concrete_999.html
But is it water proof?
{Guy who wants lakes, would like to know- also it rains on Earth- so asking for global warming cargo cultists worried about CO2 levels.]
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A four-day heatwave will push across the country with a final surge of soaring temperatures.
Maximum temperatures are forecast to exceed 40C in some parts of the Pilbara in Western Australia, down to the SA coastline and into inland NSW over the coming days.
Already the mercury has climbed to 39C in Port Hedland in WA and will stay in the high-30s and low-40s for the best part of the next week.
The NSW town of Bourke, not far from Queensland border, is predicted to hit a record-breaking four-day streak of 40C days from Thursday to Sunday.
The temperature is due to drop to just 39C on Monday.
Four consecutive days of 40C temperatures have not been reported so far into autumn in more than 150 years of records.
https://www.skynews.com.au/breaking-news/town-to-break-150yearold-heat-record-as-temperatures-soar/news-story/21a60b095c15d322aea6b42404fa784d
A climate model for Algernon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD-WGgrClrQ&ab_channel=ZachPopadopalis
Fair.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
–Conclusions
The above is a simplified explanation of what is needed for reliable grid operation. Proponents of renewable energy do not want to discuss concerns of this sort, particularly the costs involved. When forced to address these issues, they rely on magical thinking, advocating for technologies that either do not yet exist or have not yet been proven to work reliably on a grid. The known solutions are expensive, but the renewable sector doesnt want to pay for them their mantra remains that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels so the others should pay for them hiding the expense. Add in the costs from the needed system support requirements described above, then renewables are significantly more expensive (and less reliable) than conventional generation. The extra costs of renewables support are being paid for a deteriorating quality of electricity supply. That is why there is a new industry adage
Cheap renewables are very expensive.–
https://judithcurry.com/2023/03/14/australian-renewable-energy-transition-part-3/
Lake level rises in last 24 hours: up 4.02 feet
http://www.shastalake.com/shastalake/
Imagine ocean rising this fast. Well does with tides every day,
but living on beach and the high tides get 4 feet higher every day
The cult believes they understand the science, but they dont even understand *understand*! They believe ‘understanding science’ means finding something on the Internet that matches their false beliefs. But they cant even answer basic questions.
Just two recent questions they are unable to answer:
1) Two infinitely large plates face each other. One plate is emitting 400 W/m^2 to the other plate. The other plate is emitting 800 W/m^2 to the *400* plate. The plates are so close together that there are no losses.
What is the ‘net’ flux arriving the *400* plate from the *800* plate?
2) Since you believe that fluxes add, and fluxes are composed of photons, what do you get when two 15μ photons meet in midair?
a) One 30μ photon.
b) One 7.5μ photon.
c) One 15μ with twice the energy it should have.
d) None of the above. Photons do not add.
Avoid, deny, distort, and pervert is all they can do. They’ve got NOTHING. Undoubtedly theyve been searching the Internet for answers, but the questions are so basic that only a rudimentary knowledge of physics is needed.
Watch the gathering of cult trolls, all unable to answer. Thats why this is so much fun.
Hey, Pup. You forgot to answer BG the other day:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1339242
That other day was last July.
I had forgotten about that simple analogy. Thanks. It explained why cold’ can NOT raise the temperature of ‘hot’, even though photons were moving from ‘C’ to ‘H’.
It’s another example of your cult not being able to understand the basics. My analogy was too complicated for Brandon, Norman, and Folkerts. I’ve learned to keep my questions as simple as possible. But they STILL can’t answer.
Feel free to link to more of my physics examples. I don’t have time to go back and find them all. You may have a useful purpose after all….
Pupporino,
Your silly riddles explain NOTHING.
So if you could stop pretending you’re explaining anything, that may improve your credibility.
Riddle me this –
(LOT) “Heat transfer is always from hot to cold unless work is done on the system.”
(SKY DRAGON BS) “Cold can not warm Hot.”
One of these statements is bullshit and one is the second law of thermodynamics.
Which one is the usual Sky Dragon BS?
Take a wild guess.
Pup, you can’t get anything right!
Both of those statements come from 2LoT.
Your SKY DRAGON BS claims ‘Cold can warm Hot’ which is nonsense.
Find some more of my past physics examples. That’ll keep you away from nonsense. You might even learn something.
Oh, Pididipidipup.
If only you could be half as smart as you think you are:
https://youtu.be/zeZVQOfkITU
One day, when you’ll grow up, you’ll get notation.
Willard, you have my permission to keep babbling gibberish.
Mike Flynn,
Why not post your usual Sky Dragon crank BS?
Mbaqanga.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“What is the net flux arriving the *400* plate from the *800* plate?”
Depends on material of plates, but not more the 400 watt per square meter.
[And 400 plate is insulating the 800 plate [on one side facing 400 plate], and if 400 plate increases in temperature, it’s providing more insulate, and if increase temperature = to 800 plate, it’s completely insulating it].
Sorry gb, thats incorrect.
Let’s see if anyone else answers. If not, I’ll give you the correct answer.
I look forward to being wrong.
But in meantime, does matter what the plate’s material is?
Emitted flux from a surface depends on the material (emissivity) AND its temperature. But, in this case, since the flux was given, emissivity is not a factor. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law applies to a surface:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StefanBoltzmann_law
Try this link instead, Pup –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
You can also try this quote:
Wonky Wee Willy,
SkyDragon cultists absolutely refuse to believe what their own lying eyes tell them when they read a thermometer.
There is no “otherwise would be”. The temperature is whatever it is.
The surface is no longer molten. The seas no longer boil.
The Earth is cooling, but of course building a fire, or even staying alive, produces heat. Eight billion people produce lots of heat – nothing to do with CO2, which is just a byproduct of the heat production,
Deny it all you like, Wee Willy. It won’t change a thing.
Hey, Mike.
I was just thinking of you.
Could you repeat your comment again?
Wonky Wee Willy,
SkyDragon cultists absolutely refuse to believe what their own lying eyes tell them when they read a thermometer.
There is no otherwise would be. The temperature is whatever it is.
The surface is no longer molten. The seas no longer boil.
The Earth is cooling, but of course building a fire, or even staying alive, produces heat. Eight billion people produce lots of heat nothing to do with CO2, which is just a byproduct of the heat production,
Deny it all you like, Wee Willy. It wont change a thing.
Good boy.
Please spam Pup’s thread again.
“Emitted flux from a surface depends on the material (emissivity) AND its temperature. But, in this case, since the flux was given, emissivity is not a factor.”
If both or one isn’t blackbody surface, it is factor.
Say, both are polished Aluminum, what is temperature of either
plate?
gb, the correct answer is 800 W/m2. Braindead bob got it right, but he clearly doesnt understand why. The cult believes that fluxes add/subtract in mid air. That comes from their ignorance of radiative physics.
Again, the flux here has ALREADY been the result of the material it was emitted from. The material is no longer an issue. You keep trying to make the material an issue, but it isnt in this case. Were not talking about what flux is emitted or absorbed. The question was about flux ARRIVING at the surface. I dont know how to make it any clearer than that.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> believes that fluxes add/subtract in mid air.
A quote would be nice, Pupeteerissimo.
It looks like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
Oh, and please clarify that you mean SOMETIMES, and that for Sky Dragon cranks like you vectors do not add.
Weird Wee Willy,
If you had read a little further, you would have seen “Thus, Maxwell’s quote only makes sense if “flux” is being used according to the transport definition (and furthermore is a vector field rather than single vector).”
Have you got a good supply of emojis which show you smacking yourself in the face?
James Clerk Maxwell died in 1879. He knew nothing of quantum physics, wave/particle duality, and was ignorant of anything discovered after his death.
What’s your excuse for ignoring anything that came after Maxwell? Or do you, like Maxwell, accept the necessity for a “luminiferous ether” to transmit electromagnetic waves?
You don’t need an excuse, do you? You are just a natural born ignorant SkyDragon cultist.
Try and find more appeals to authority which make you look stupid.
Mike Flynn,
I have not read your comment, and doubt anyone else did.
It should contain your usual baits about the greenhouse effect and the molten Earth.
They are irrelevant here.
This is a thread about fluxes.
You know, the vector quantity that is not supposed to be added?
Yeah, that.
Variorum.
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
I have not read your comment, and doubt anyone else did.
It should contain your usual baits about the greenhouse effect and the molten Earth.
They are irrelevant here.
This is a thread about fluxes.
You know, the vector quantity that is not supposed to be added?
Yeah, that.
Variorum.”
Well, Wee Willy, here’s some news to you – I don’t care what you think the thread is about. Why should I? I comment as I wish – get used to it, dimwit.
I don’t really care whether you read my comments or not – the worthless opinions of a deranged and ignorant SkyDragon cultists provide comic relief, and not much else.
In case you read this far, I repeat –
Weird Wee Willy,
If you had read a little further, you would have seen “Thus, Maxwells quote only makes sense if “flux” is being used according to the transport definition (and furthermore is a vector field rather than single vector).”
Have you got a good supply of emojis which show you smacking yourself in the face?
James Clerk Maxwell died in 1879. He knew nothing of quantum physics, wave/particle duality, and was ignorant of anything discovered after his death.
Whats your excuse for ignoring anything that came after Maxwell? Or do you, like Maxwell, accept the necessity for a “luminiferous ether” to transmit electromagnetic waves?
You dont need an excuse, do you? You are just a natural born ignorant SkyDragon cultist.
Try and find more appeals to authority which make you look stupid.
Mike Flynn,
You barton.
The quote was an example of a quote.
I was showing Pup what I wanted.
A quote.
You never read, do you?
Besides, vectors did not change with new physics.
It is the same mathematical object.
Barton.
Clint made an actual valid point. About what the word arrive means.
Now he still has to understand the point that others have made.
Fluxes that arrive at the same surface do SUM, but the amount arriving is limited by view factors.
So fluxes of two suns, shining on Earth, will both arrive at the Earth’s surface, and will indeed SUM. Flux from many suns in the sky would SUM. The limit would only be reached when the entire sky is filled with suns.
That situation is equivalent to bringing one sun so close to Earth that it filled the entire sky, then only its flux could be arriving at Earth. Any other sun’s would be blocked from our view. The flux arriving would be quite close to the emitted flux, of this single sun, given by the SB law
F = sigma*Tsun^4, which would be VERY high.
Noice.
” The plates are so close together that there are no losses. ”
Then we aren’t talking about radiation but about conduction.
OMG, THAT is clever, Bin.
Now if you could apply some of that cleverness to learning science, huh?
800 W/M^2 flux arriving at the 400* plate, there is no net flux arriving at either plate.
Photon add, so you second problem has no correct answer.
800 W/m^2 arrives the 400 plate. Thats the correct answer, bob! Amazing.
(Of course that wipes out the bogus radiative heat transfer equation, which needs to be wiped out.)
But youre wrong about the second question. If you believe photons add, then show us. What is the result of adding two 15μ photons?
800 W/M^2 isn’t the net flux arriving at the 400* plate, the net flux is 400, but it is the net flux between the two plates, not the flux arriving anywhere. So like I said your problem doesn’t have a correct solution.
Photons don’t interact with photons, but fluxes add, you figure it out.
Check out the double slit experiment.
The double slit experiment is not relevant here, bob. Like the rest of your cult, youve found something that you believe supports your nonsense, but there is NOTHING that supports your nonsense.
Fluxes dont add because photons dont add.
Youve proved me right, again. Your cult knows NOTHING about the relevant physics.
Blundering Bobby,
You wrote –
“Photons dont interact with photons, but fluxes add, you figure it out.”, in an attempt to appear intelligent through being obscure.
Telling people to “figure it out”, might indicate that you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about, that you are demonstrating how unhelpful you can be, or possibly that you are just trying to be gratuitously offensive.
You are an idiot – just like some idiots at NASA, who gaily add and subtract “fluxes” – which is about as stupid as adding and subtracting temperatures!
If you believe that you can tell me the temperature of an object which is being subjected to “flux” of 200 W/m2 from one source, and a “flux” of 200 W/m2 from another source, then you are are suffering from complete ignorance of physics – or maybe from a severe mental handicap.
You are like other deranged SkyDragon cultists – you can’t even describe the GHE, so all you can do is try diversions – meaningless and irrelevant diversions to boot.
Keep trying.
Clint R,
Please explain why you think the double slit experiment is irrelevant.
While you are at it, explain why the heat transfer equation is bogus.
Swenson,
“If you believe that you can tell me the temperature of an object which is being subjected to flux of 200 W/m2 from one source, and a flux of 200 W/m2 from another source, then you are are suffering from complete ignorance of physics or maybe from a severe mental handicap.”
I can, if you pay me 50 bucks and apologize for being an asshole.
And I can describe the greenhouse effect, I have already done that for you, and you haven’t paid for it.
For 50 bucks, I’ll describe it yet again.
Or you can just search this blog for my description, it’s still available.
What’s the matter you can’t find it?
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote –
“I can, if you pay me 50 bucks and apologize for being an asshole.”
I see. You are so clever that you are going to withhold your brilliance from the world unless you get paid for it.
Good luck with that. Let me know the names and addresses of anybody gullible enough to pay you for your opinions – although, if they are that mentally challenged, they might not have much spare cash.
You can’t provide any answers, but you hope people will believe that you can.
You are an idiot, Blundering Bobby – the only people who would believe you are either more stupid than you, or more mentally deficient than yourself.
Why should I apologise to you about anything? If i don’t, what can you do about it?
Precisely nothing, that’s what!
[laughing at pretentious dimwitted SkyDragon cultist]
Swenson,
No moron, I have already provided it for you, you can’t find it on this site, that’s your problem.
Maybe you really don’t want your sammich.
Maybe you just want to continue being an asshole.
Braindead bob, I’ll gladly answer your questions at 7:53PM, right after you explain how you add two 15μ photons.
I remember your attempt to describe the GHE. It didn’t ‘hold water’. If you’ve got a new attempt, I’d like to see it also.
Like Swenson, I don’t believe you can provide anything close to reality.
Prove me wrong.
Clint R,
Maybe you can critique one of my descriptions of the greenhouse effect.
“It didnt hold water”
Is not much of a critique, it’s like an insult from Swenson.
“right after you explain how you add two 15μ photons.”
You know I never said you can add two photons.
All you guys can do is gaslight, and claim you can read minds.
But the energy they transfer to solids do add.
For 59.99 you can add fluxes and cook a chicken.
https://otarius.com/products/folding-solar-cooker?currency=USD&variant=40225750908972&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=Google%20Shopping&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7N_rt_rh_QIV5xPUAR0niwnlEAYYAiABEgKWDvD_BwE
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote
“I can, if you pay me 50 bucks and apologize for being an asshole.”
I see. You are so clever that you are going to withhold your brilliance from the world unless you get paid for it.
Good luck with that. Let me know the names and addresses of anybody gullible enough to pay you for your opinions although, if they are that mentally challenged, they might not have much spare cash.
You can’t provide any answers, but you hope people will believe that you can.
You are an idiot, Blundering Bobby the only people who would believe you are either more stupid than you, or more mentally deficient than yourself.
Why should I apologise to you about anything? If I don’t, what can you do about it?
Precisely nothing, thats what!
All you can offer is inanities –
“Maybe you really dont want your sammich.
Maybe you just want to continue being an asshole.”
Oh dear, Braindead Bob, is that really the best demonstration of your intellectual capacity you can come up with? How about tossing in a bit of foul language, with a side of obscenity?
You really need to up your game – pretending you can describe the GHE, without being able to provide a description is about as convincing as claiming the Earth never had a molten surface!
Idiot Bobby,
You wrote –
“You know I never said you can add two photons.” Well, what did you say? Nothing that you can provide experimental support for?
You never say anything useful. The contents of your fantasy are not facts, just foolish SkyDragon cultist aberrations.
Braindead bob at 4:17PM — Photon add, so you second problem has no correct answer.
Braindead bob at 8:53PM — You know I never said you can add two photons.
See why hes braindead?
Clint R,
Yeah, you caught me in a mistake when I said “photon add”
Still never said you can add two photons.
Fluxes represent what happens when photons interact with matter and one form of energy light is turned into another form of energy.
Shortly after that I said “Photons dont interact with photons”
So I also meant photons don’t add.
Swenson,
Maybe your nitpicking skills can find where I claimed the Earth never had a molten surface.
Gaslighting, insults, and lying are all you got.
Maybe you do have something useful to say.
I doubt it.
Braindead Booby,
You wrote –
“Maybe your nitpicking skills can find where I claimed the Earth never had a molten surface.”
Maybe you can tell me the role of the GHE in allowing the molten surface (which you now acknowledge) to cool to its present temperature.
You dimwit, you never actually state anything, do you?
So tell me, you are still claiming the Earth was created without a molten core, or claiming it was created with a molten core? Or something else entirely?
Do you wonder why people dont value opinions which you never express?
By the way, when you wrote “Fluxes represent what happens when photons interact with matter and one form of energy light is turned into another form of energy.”, you didn’t really mean it, did you? Surf the internet a bit more, then tell me what you really meant, so that you can’t accuse me o& putting words in your mouth.
You fool, when you paraphrase things from the internet, and you don’t understand what they mean, it makes you look as stupid as you are.
Swenson,
“Maybe you can tell me the role of the GHE in allowing the molten surface (which you now acknowledge) to cool to its present temperature.”
“So tell me, you are still claiming the Earth was created without a molten core, or claiming it was created with a molten core? Or something else entirely?”
I am saying the Earth was formed, not created, from cold interstellar dust and didn’t melt until it was heated up from collisions with other aggregates of interstellar dust. It has a solid core now, not a molten core. You don’t have any evidence that it was ever a completely molten blob like you claim, now do you?
“By the way, when you wrote Fluxes represent what happens when photons interact with matter and one form of energy light is turned into another form of energy., you didnt really mean it, did you? Surf the internet a bit more, then tell me what you really meant, so that you cant accuse me o& putting words in your mouth.”
What is wrong with that statement, you can’t tell me can you. You don’t know how much flux there is until you measure it, by having it interact with matter.
“You fool, when you paraphrase things from the internet, and you dont understand what they mean, it makes you look as stupid as you are.”
I didn’t paraphrase that from the internet, I learned that from before there was an internet.
By the way, is the internet where you got the silly idea that the Earth was created in a completely molten state and has cooled since then?
And you call me stupid?????????????
bob, please stop trolling.
Another strong snowstorm is developing over the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/8jV6KRG/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-16-191858.png
Lorena Galvez climate model
https://www.google.com/search?q=lorena+galvez+el+tiempo&rlz=1C1GCEA_enCA911CA911&biw=1920&bih=969&tbm=vid&sxsrf=AJOqlzUovFZvxtlJCXNxozhLDt4spSWTYA%3A1679014928023&ei=ELwTZN2BAaOD0PEP-r2XsAU&ved=0ahUKEwjdye2C4uH9AhWjATQIHfreBVY4FBDh1QMIDQ&uact=5&oq=lorena+galvez+el+tiempo&gs_lcp=Cg1nd3Mtd2l6LXZpZGVvEAM6BAgjECc6BQgAEIAEOgYIABAWEB46BQgAEIYDUPwJWOEqYOEuaABwAHgAgAHbAYgBvQySAQUwLjkuMpgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-video#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:20ed62d3,vid:91Cn0BON8CA
The usual geniuses should carefully (!!!) read a good old head post of Willis Eschenbach at WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/24/can-a-cold-object-warm-a-hot-object/
It helps some insane people get out of their illness (but not all, as we can see if we walk along the… 1.9 K comments for a while).
I have visited WUWT, years ago. I thought Willis was one of the brighter lights there. But it soon became obvious the blog was all about keeping the hoax alive, rather than killing it. (Follow the Money.) Warmists have a free ride there, while science is restricted.
If Willis would come here, I bet we could help him to understand radiative physics. Its not really that difficult to understand, because of the many real-world examples available. For example, most responsible adults understand you cant boil water with ice cubes.
… was proven wrong years ago with real-world examples.
clint…the reason I stopped posting at WUWI was the scorn heaped on anyone who supported the 2nd law. That was an issue with skeptic Fred Singer as well. Whether or not anyone supports the 2nd law as written by Clausius, it’s unacceptable for anyone to muzzle someone for speaking on behalf of the 2nd law as it was presented by Clausius.
Having said that, I admire Roy Spencer for allowing us to express our views, right or wrong. I have learned a lot from this freedom and my thanks go out to Roy for allowing this atmosphere in which we can discuss openly and freely.
Fred Singer took a shot at those who claimed AGW contradicted the 2nd law. The part that contradicts it is the notion that heat can be transferred from a colder part of the atmosphere to a warmer surface. However, it is not just the 2nd law that is the problem, such a transfer represents a recycling of heat from surface back to surface that is clearly perpetual motion, since it creates heat to raise the temperature of the surface by means of the recycling of heat.
Apparently Anthony Watts has taken shots at people for suggesting that is a contravention of the 2nd law. That would suggest he agrees with the alternative explanation that summation of incoming and outgoing radiation energy that is positive satisfies the 2nd law, a premise that is simply not possible.
This so-called positive balance of energy is based on radiation, not heat. It is surmised that energy leaving the surface as radiation, if greater than the energy returned, if positive, satisfies the 2nd law. That is sheer nonsense for the simple fact that radiation contains no heat and by itself has no relation to heat. Furthermore, the 2nd law as stated by Clausius is about heat, not electromagnetic radiation.
Also, the 2nd law is about the direction of heat transfer, by its own means, and not about radiation, which is radiated isotropically. It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the direction of radiation flow, or worse still, radiation transfer.
In fact, radiation cannot transfer heat in a physical form. The implied transfer is just that, an apparent transfer. The truth is, the atomic process creating the radiation at the source, gives up heat and that heat is lost as a reduction in KE. At the target, if it is cooler, the heat is created anew. So, the same heat is never moved from the source to the target, as thermal energy. It is lost at the source and created anew at the target.
That’s a no-brainer. The electromagnetic radiation produced at the hotter surface is comprised of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. Such a field must be created by the electric and magnetic fields of electrons in the source atoms. As I pointed out, as the EM is created the energy producing it is lost. Since that energy is heat, the heat is lost.
Here we have another example of Gordo’s ignorance of thermodynamics. He is stuck with a definition of “heat” as the energy content of a mass with a temperature, which is a instantaneous snapshot of that amount of energy. He is missing the fact that the temperature is just the state of the energy distribution within a system of other parts, which may change as more energy is supplied.
Clausius wrote about “The Mechanical Theory of Heat”, that is to say, machines which can convert thermal energy to mechanical work. His Second Law applies to such systems and can be extended to other systems as well. Such systems always result in the net flow of energy moving from hot to cold. However, the details of what happens within a system may appear to contradict this statement.
A prime example is a boiler heating water. Using nat gas supplied to a burner at a constant rate, water flowing at a fixed rate thru some tubes placed over the burner could experience an increase in temperature, i.e., the water is heated. Add a firebox around the tubes and burner and the water temperature would increase as less energy is lost to the air. Adding insulation around the firebox would further decrease the energy losses, resulting in water at higher temperatures. Add a radiation shield around the firebox and the same insulation would result in still higher water temperature. In the end, the net energy gained by the water will always be less than the energy supplied from burning the nat gas.
Gordo apparently thinks adding that insulation would violate the Second Law. At each step outlined above, there’s a new system produced and the snapshots of temperature at the one point where the water exits are changed. No, Gordo, there’s no perpetual motion here, just an increase in efficiency. The same theory is true for the GPE and the GHE, as the systems change, the temperatures change as a result.
Eschenbach is a classic example who doesn’t understand the fizzix of light ,
just like Didlerdon and few other here
Babbling dachshund, all what you understand is how to discredit and denigrate others without proving they are wrong.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Babbling dachshund, all what you understand is how to discredit and denigrate others without proving they are wrong.”
Well, that was informative, wasn’t it?
How are your mind-reading lessons going?
Binny,
Willis answers his own question with “Short answer? Of course not, that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”, then proceeds to get thoroughly confused, and claims that violating the Second Law of thermodynamics doesn’t really mean violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Willis also mentions his Steel Greenhouse – a magical piece of apparatus, which uses SkyDragon geometrical principles to demonstrate that two spheres of different sizes actually have the same surface area!
Go on, look for yourself, if you dont believe me.
How are you going explaining the role of the GHE in the four and a half billion year cooling of the earth? Maybe you could ask Willis?
Mike Flynn,
Have you found a passive object yet?
No, not Troglodyte.
That’s a passive aggressive object.
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…here’s the fatal flaw in the argument of Willis…”Heat, on the other hand, is not those individual flows of energy. Heat is the net flow of energy…”
***
An example used by Willis is that two people standing close radiate energy to each other. He omitted to say that humans have body temperatures that are almost identical, at 37C and the 2nd law is not about bodies in thermal equilibrium. It is possible for bodies of identical temperatures to exchange radiation to a degree. That has more to do with the fact that groups of atoms in bodies very close together can have slightly higher or lower temperatures than the body’s average temperature. The amount of heat exchanged will be trivial.
I go by the definition of Clausius and others who claim heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. No matter how you regard heat it can never be a net flow of energy. The word flow is the key. If heat flows within a body, it must be in one direction, hot to cold. That is based on Fourier’s equation, the laws of Clausius, and plain common sense. There is no way you can have a bilateral flow of heat in the same body when one end of the body is hotter than the other. So, why should a bilateral flow apply to radiation?
That leaves radiation and there is definitely no way heat can flow both ways in space between two bodies of different temperatures. The first proof is that heat cannot ‘flow’ through space via radiation. It is electromagnetic energy that flows through space and it can contain no heat.
The most obvious proof, however, is that heat, as KE, is lost when the EM is radiated. There is no heat to radiate, it has already been converted to another form of energy in order to radiate it.
In an internal combustion engine, the chemical energy in gasoline, when ignited under pressure, explodes and the exploding gas/air mixture is converted to mechanical energy as the pistons are driven down the cylinders to rotate the crankshaft via the piston rods. Are we going to claim that chemical energy which created the driving force on the crank is transferred to the crank as chemical energy?
Heat can never be a net flow, unless you can find a way to transfer heat both ways in the same process. That’s the only way heat can be a net, if two quantities of heat are summed.
The Clausius statement of the 2nd law negates that notion. He stated that heat can never be transferred, by it’s own means, from a colder body to a warmer body.
Willis did not demonstrate how it is possible for heat to be transferred in both directions between twp bodies of different temperature by radiation. In fact, he corroborates the Clausius definition then redefines it.
He used another example…”If there is a block of wood between you and a block of ice, if you remove the wood, youll get colder because you will be absorbing less radiation from the ice than you were from the wood. You no longer have the wood to shield you from the ice”.
Willis…how can radiation from ice affect the human body whether or not there is a block of wood in-between? Ice cannot heat the human body.
Then he states…
“Heat cannot flow from cold to hot, but radiated energy sure can”.
***
Willis is confused about the thermodynamics. He is making the mistake of confusing electromagnetic energy with heat. Part of his confusion is based in his belief that heat is a net energy flow, which is simply not true. In fact, he believes that radiation can transfer heat both ways at the same time, hence the net flow of heat.
Willis simply does not understand the basic difference between radiation and heat. Radiation, as EM, is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. EM contains no heat. Heat, on the other hand, is the kinetic energy associated with atomic motion.
Let’s look at the meaning of kinetic energy, which is energy in motion. Any kind of energy in motion. If water is sitting in a lake, it is potential energy, if it begins to flow out of the lake as a river, it becomes kinetic energy, That kinetic energy represents mechanical energy in motion.
If charges on electrons in a battery are raised so many volts, they represent potential energy, If a circuit is connected and the electrons and charges begin to flow, that is kinetic energy as electrical energy in motion.
If atoms are in motion, the energy associated with that motion is thermal energy. The energy in motion is called kinetic energy but that is a descriptor that tells us nothing about the energy in motion. Heat is the energy in motion. If you increase the energy in the atoms, their temperature rises as they become hotter. The only energy that can be added to make the atoms hotter is heat, or thermal energy.
Heat has nothing to do with electromagnetic energy, they are entirely different forms of energy. All they have in common is that EM can be converted to produce heat and vice versa. Therefore the 2nd law has nothing to do with radiation. It does not indicated the direction of radiation flow and it applies only to the energy in atoms, which is heat.
Willis claimed that if I am sitting in front of a campfire and someone stands between me and the fire, it will block radiation from me and I’ll feel cooler. My experience with campfires that are small is that one has to sit very close to the fire to feel the heat. It is not radiation heating you, it is the heated air from the campfire. Therefore is argument falls short.
He also claims that the alleged 300+ watts back-radiated energy leaves us warmer than if we are exposed to the 4K of space. We are in fact protected from the cold of space by the atmosphere being compressed against the surface by gravity and warmed by the surface and solar energy. Back-radiation has no effect warming either humans or the surface simply because it comes from a source that is colder than the surface.
I find the arguments presented by Willis to represent a misunderstanding of the thermodynamics involved, especially the notion that radiation represents heat.
Robertson
As usual: the longer your posts, the more arrogant and ignorant they are.
If you think I would trust Willis Eschenbach’s knowledge and experience less than the dumb & brazen trash you post here all the time, then YOU ARE WRONG, Robertson.
You are such an arrogant twat…
And we all won’t forget that this dumb & brazen blah blah comes from a genius who isn’t even able to correctly compare temperature (or any other) anomalies coming from different reference periods and hence computed out of different baselines.
Incroyable mais vrai.
The reaction of the usual GHE deniers is simply wonderful: lots of absolutely incompetent trash, especially by Robertson of course.
Thanks for confirming your inability to scientifically contradict what Eschenbach wrote.
No wonder of course when I read your similar trash about the allegedly inexistent lunar spin you all are also unable to scientifically contradict.
Regardless what the discussions are about: the denier gang on the blog has no more to offer than the ‘ball on a string’ level.
This is simply poorish and afflicting.
Binny,
Which GHE are you referring to? The GHE which allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years, or some other mythical GHE?
You fool, you can’t even describe what you claim exists!
Anyone who does that could well be described as an arrogant twat, spouting absolutely incompetent trash – for example, claiming that “experts” can predict the future, by “dissecting” the past. And yes, I borrowed some of your words. You don’t mind, do you?
Come on now, Binny – describe the GHE – whichever version you favour, while I laugh at your floundering attempts to look like anything but the bumbling buffoon that you are.
Show everyone how scientific you are.
Flynnson
You have been shown what has been done in this area but you discredit and denigrate it without having yourself the tiniest bit of knowledge and experience to technically and scientifically contradict the results.
You are no more than a arrogant troll – like Robertson.
It’s gotten so bad for Binny that he can’t even find an authority figure to explain the GHE.
I would not expect someone who cannot tell the difference between radiation and heat to understand my critique of the article by Willis.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
I’m starting to believe gb was right all along:
https://youtu.be/jvSJORwb134
Go Woke Go Broke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Lfi5tTxAI&ab_channel=SkyNewsAustralia
USA is going to go broke. Listen to Yellen when she is asked if we can spend our way to prosperity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0sm2O2m5uo&ab_channel=ForbesBreakingNews
This bozo should be removed from the FED immediately.
Wanna bet, Kennui?
For the second time, treasury bonds are not exactly woke. Besides, here is what is coming your way:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/03/silicon-valley-bank-collapse
Proceed at the risk of looking like an unsophisticated sophist once again.
Let us know when you find any ESG investments actually make any profit without government subsidies and have paid regular dividends for 5 years.
BP is giving up on its solar business and is returning to focusing on being an oil company.
Oh, Kennui. You really have no idea, do you?
ESG is just a scoring system. It applies to every company.
Take Enbridge:
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnys/enb/sustainability
Not that bad. Do you think gets subsidies?
You bet it does:
https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2022/11/minister-wilkinson-announces-canada-greener-homes-initiative-delivery-across-ontario-with-enbridge-gas.html
ENB gives a solid dividend.
It is one of the Canadian aristocrats.
A natural fit for you.
wee willy…”…Obama signed Dodd-Frank into law, ushering in sweeping reforms meant to create greater oversight into the financial system…”
***
The same Obama who claimed he’d clean up Wall Street than hired the same Wall Street crooks as advisors who had screwed the US economy. They are likely still rolling on the ground laughing hysterically, with tears in their eyes, over the Dodd-Frank act based on how they got one past Obama.
Come on, Bordon.
You cannot be that dumb.
WHEN YOURE TRYING REALLY HARD FOR AN ANTI-ELON ANGLE: Musk Brought Internet to Brazils Amazon. Criminals Love It.
Posted at 8:00 pm by Glenn Reynolds
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/musk-brought-internet-to-brazil-s-amazon-criminals-love-it/ar-AA18EE8B
Jungle bunnies don’t have to go to the smelly cities.
King of jungle.
Jungles unite!
SpaceX now eyeing April for Starship’s 1st orbital launch, Elon Musk says
By Mike Wall
published 4 minutes ago
‘SpaceX will be ready to launch Starship in a few weeks, then launch timing depends on FAA license approval.’
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-orbital-launch-april-2023-elon-musk
If only, the FAA will allow an April Fools launch.
The nub of Clint’s claim in his own words:
“With no other changes, a second source is added that also contributes an identical flux to the surface. The surface is now impacted by F from one source, and also F from a second source. Will the surface temperature increase?
NO!”
That is VERY clear. F + F = F
So, according to Clint’s thesis here, would a second sun in our sky make the planet’s surface warmer?
“NO!”
Would turning on the 2nd element in a bar heater bring any more warmth to your face?
“NO!”
Would you be more dazzled by 10 headlights beaming into your eye than one?
“NO!”
This is Clint’s posit.
It’s not about “simply,” it’s not about objects of different temperature it’s about objects of the SAME temperature if anything, it’s not about 4 billion years of cooling or defining the GHE.
I wonder if any of Clint’s chums will deal with what he actually has claimed instead of trying to distort it into something more palatable. So, far, none of you have.
barry,
You can’t describe the GHE, nor explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
You say ” It’s not about “simply,” it’s not about objects of different temperature it’s about objects of the SAME temperature if anything, it’s not about 4 billion years of cooling or defining the GHE.”
What is this “it” you are talking about? You can’t say, can you?
It looks like you have given up on describing (not defining) the GHE, because you realise that you can’t then claim it heats a planet while simultaneously allowing it to cool for four and a half billion years.
All your wriggling and squirming about “fluxes” is meaningless. Radiation from a colder body cannot under any circumstances be absorbed by a hotter body, resulting in the hotter body increasing in temperature. No amount of hidden higher temperature heat sources (a la Folkerts) can obscure the fact that heat flows from hotter to colder.
No amount of puerile “semantic tricks” can transform fiction into fact.
No GHE. The Earth has cooled – accept reality.
“It” is Clint’s posit. A 3rd grader would understand that.
Clint’s ‘skeptic’ pal can’t look straight at his claim.
barry,
You dingaling. You still wriggle away – what is “Clint’s posit”?
You can’t name a 3rd grader who could understand whatever it is that you can’t exactly describe in English.
Maybe you could tell me what “Clint’s claim” is, and whether it has anything to do with the delusional SkyDragon cult belief that the planet is being heated by the same process that cooled it for four and a half billion years.
You have confused yourself to the point where you can’t even remember which diversion you are trying to promote!
G on, try and describe the wondrous GHE. How hard can it be for someone who can’t even figure out which tangent they are following?
Keep being stupid.
Mike Dlynn,
You are playing dumb again.
Did you find a passive object yet?
Velar.
Swenson,
“what is ‘Clints posit’?”
It’s described in the post you replied to.
I’m going to give you the link to save you scrolling up 5 posts.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1460460
Whatever filter makes you this dense, try to lose it. Or maybe just read the posts that you reply to.
Troll barry, youre STILL misrepresenting me.
Want to change? Want to better your life? Want to learn?
Start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459717
Silly sock puppet:
https://youtu.be/Th-mNx5Z_Nw
barry, jumping all over the thread and making false assumptions and misrepresenting me is just trolling. We already know you’re a troll.
If you want to discuss this issue as a responsible adult, start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459717
I have no time or interest for an endless keyboard contest — been there, done that — but I will increase your understanding, if you behave.
Barry, perhaps you could explain any point in discussing anything with trolls.
Since every regular commenter here on one side of the debate seems to think every single commenter here on the other side of the debate is a troll, and we all constantly call each other trolls, I guess that means there’s absolutely no point discussing anything, ever, at Dr Roy’s. Which is, of course, correct…this entire blog is just a bunch of people shouting at each other. Not one iota of progress has ever been made on convincing one side of the other’s arguments.
We might imagine we’re trying to sway some "audience" of silent readers, but I doubt there’s many that actually bother wading through all the comments here. Having experimented with posting YouTube links and seeing how many views are received at varying points in the month, I can confirm that there’s some interest from "silent readers" at the very beginning of the month, when the article first comes out, but by this stage in the proceedings, nobody’s really following it.
All online "debate" is futile.
Still, it passes the time.
Well said, DREMT.
I’ve noticed the same thing — not one of the cult has been brought out. The reason is, as we’ve seen over and over, they reject reality. They don’t want it. They’re totally invested in their cult and they ain’t leaving.
Just recently, bob has claimed that a train is spinning on its CoM axis if the tracks are curved! Now, THAT’s braindead. We’ve seen several claim that ice cubes can boil water!
I use the word troll myself. My definition: Troll — a person that insults, falsely accuses, and misrepresents others.
“My definition: Troll a person that insults, falsely accuses, and misrepresents others.”
That’s fair. But doesnt apply to Barry, who has mainly been quoting you. To claim that quotes are any of those things is disingenuous.
Troll Nate, youre misrepresenting me, as has barry. See 3 such examples right above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1460460
Clint,
I’ve been putting up the 2 suns and bar heater challenges to you for at least a year while you say fluxes don’t add.
You’ve never answered the challenge. You’ve never explained why an extra sun would/wouldn’t make the surface warfmer, or why you do/don’t get additional IR warming your skin when turning on another bar in a bar heater.
12 months is a long time to avoid the point. Have you worked out your reply yet?
barry, jumping all over the thread and making false assumptions and misrepresenting me is just trolling. We already know you’re a troll.
If you want to discuss this issue as a responsible adult, start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459717
I have no time or interest for an endless keyboard contest — been there, done that — but I will increase your understanding, if you behave. Start now!
nate…”My definition: Troll a person that insults, falsely accuses, and misrepresents others.”
***
You have to be around the Net a fair bit before you experience a real troll. They do whatever they can to disrupt a group while having little or no interest in the subjects being discussed.
I recall one troll who began posting voluminous amounts of off-topic material to the point it became almost impossible to find the pertinent material. He even resorted to sporging, another name for spamming using pornography. He likely would not get away with that here but determined trolls have ways of manipulating the system to get their dirty deeds done.
Normally, the type you define as a troll are handled by blog rules. They are more inclined to be people who are miffed and mouth off. That’s not really a troll. As long as the insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations are generally on-topic, it’s not trolling.
You can’t even call d-c a troll since his posts were generally on-topic and based on decent science. I did not pick his up as a troll, rather someone intent on pushing his particular view to the point the could become insufferable.
And, no, I don’t fit that MO. tee hee.
“I have no time or interest…”
in answering a direct challenge to your thesis that fluxes don’t add.
DREMT has posited that you do agree that fluxes can combine when striking a surface, but that they don’t “simply” add, as per your phrasing.
But I’ve quoted you saying that a second equal flux won’t combine, and will not make the surface any warmer.
Could you clarify? Can 2 equal fluxes striking a surface combine to produce more heat than one? Or are you resolute that equal fluxes cannot be additive on a surface in any way?
(As for your challenge, there isn’t one. You have 800 W/m2 striking the 400 W/m2 emitting surface – the answer is in the question and no thinking required – and photons don’t collide)
Please clarify your position on equal fluxes incident on a surface adding/not adding. Let’s make the surface a blackbody to keep it simple.
"DREMT has posited that you do agree that fluxes can combine when striking a surface, but that they don’t “simply” add, as per your phrasing…"
…in the case of heat sources, specifically.
Well, you finally answered, barry. It took you long enough, but you managed to get the right answer. The 800 W/m^2 flux will arrive the 400′ plate. Fluxes do NOT simply add or subtract. Of course, that fact destroys your *radiative heat transfer* equation, but that’s another issue.
It’s necessary to clue you in on my new troll rules.
1) No insults
2) No false accusations
3) No misrepresentations
4) Strict acceptance of reality
If you will abide by the new rules, maybe we can make some progress.
To start, what is your first issue you want explained (only one at a time)?
barry…”Ive been putting up the 2 suns and bar heater challenges to you for at least a year while you say fluxes dont add.
Youve never answered the challenge. Youve never explained why an extra sun would/wouldnt make the surface warfmer, or why you do/dont get additional IR warming your skin when turning on another bar in a bar heater”.
***
I think you are missing Clint’s point. Fluxes cannot add without having a surface on which the EM can be converted to another form of energy. If I recall Clint’s initial premise it was that fluxes cannot be added in space. That is, if a flux encounters another flux in space they will not add.
Your second point re the suns and the multi-bar heater is a more complex problem since both involve heating by direct conduction by air molecules. The Sun heats air molecules on the way in and a bar heater heats air molecules directly.
When you have a dual bar heater, where you can leave one off to reduce heat and power consumption, When you turn on the second bar you are mainly increasing the heat of air molecules, which move via convection. There is not enough heat induced in a human body via radiation to cause much heating.
There is no way the radiation from either bar can add to produce double the EM intensity prior to reaching a surface like human skin.
Clint,
I will quote you to make sure there are no misrepresentations, and then ask you to explain.
ClintR:
“Do fluxes add?
A source emits a flux to a colder surface. The flux arriving the surface has a value of F. The flux will warm the surface to a maximum temperature for the flux, the surface, and the ambient conditions. That temperature is T.
So one incoming flux F, and one corresponding maximum temperature T.
With no other changes, a second source is added that also contributes an identical flux to the surface. The surface is now impacted by F from one source, and also F from a second source. Will the surface temperature increase?
NO!
Remember that an absorbed flux corresponds to a temperature. And, temperatures dont add.”
This argument clearly infers that adding the flux from a second sun, equally as hot and as distant as ours, to the surface of the Earth, would result in no increase in temperature.
Can you either confirm you believe adding a second sun shining on the Earth would not make it warmer according to your thesis above, or explain why it would warm the surface further in apparent contradiction to your thesis.
Just to add, you’ve said that the source doesn’t matter in reply to Tim.
“Folkerts, 300 W/m^2 arriving at a surface is the same as another 300 W/m^2 arriving at the same surface. Fluxes of equal value are equal.”
So I’m curious as to what your position is WRT the flux from a second Sun striking the surface of the Earth.
barry, after sorting through all that rambling, here is what I came up with:
Can you either confirm you believe adding a second sun shining on the Earth would not make it warmer according to your thesis above, or explain why it would warm the surface further in apparent contradiction to your thesis[?]
As usual for trolls, that is a distraction from the situation provided by Folkerts. But, its also a good teaching moment.
To make it easier to understand, lets replace Earth with the imaginary sphere, used in the GHE nonsense. With one sun providing 1368 W/m^2 to the sphere, it reaches 279K, emitting 342 W/m^2. Now, with an equal sun, at an equal distance, providing the same 1368 W/m^2 to the other side of the sphere, the sphere would reach 331K, emitting 684 W/m^2.
For 4 suns, equal, and at equal spacing, we can make a table:
1 sun, 279K, 342 W/m^2
2 suns, 331K, 684 W/m^2
3 suns, 367K, 1026 W/m^2
4 suns, 394K, 1368 W/m^2
Note that the above is NOT what the issue is. All flux is being absorbed, none is being reflected.
The issue is if another equal sun is added. Now, the extra 1368 W/m^2 is trying to be absorbed by the sphere that is already at the maximum temperature for 1368 W/m^2. It can’t work.
And, in a nutshell, that’s why you can’t boil water with ice cubes.
Now if you dont understand this, responsible questions are allowed. But, no distractions are allowed. Stick with this issue, and follow the rules. NO troll tactics. We MUST make progress, or Ive got better things to do.
I understand you answer but you’ve changed the question and complicated it. I’m asking something much simpler.
I’m asking about a second sun, right next to ours.
Can you please just answer that? Does the surface get warmer or not?
To make it easier, if you like, make the Earth a flat surface, a disc. Does that surface get warmer with a second Sun appearing right next to ours?
“…but you’ve changed the question and complicated it…”
barry, that would be a false accusation. You received a thorough answer to your question as you posed it, and an answer that actually explains a lot about Clint R’s position. If you wanted to know about a second Sun that was next to our Sun then you should have specified that in your original question, not just assume that was understood. I certainly hadn’t realized you meant “next to the Sun”.
So, by all means, ask your follow up questions, but don’t falsely accuse others of complicating the issue or changing the question. You’re liable to get put on ignore, and that would be a shame when progress might finally be made if you just stick to the rules.
No barry, I did NOT complicate your question. DREMT is correct — you’re falsely accusing me. The fact is I greatly simplified your rambling, nearly incomprehensible question (which lacked a question mark).
You admit you now understand about adding more suns, but yet you are still asking about adding more suns. You can’t figure that out from my detailed answer?
You have to face the facts barry. You’re not really interested in learning. You’re only interested in endless debate where you can pervert reality to fit your beliefs. Thats why I hold you responsible for everything you say.
So if you want to continue, first admit you misspoke here: …you’ve changed the question and complicated it.
Things are different now. I no longer tolerate troll tactics.
Clint,
You’ve been saying all along that two equivalent fluxes can’t be additive on a surface.
I put it to you that an extra sun in the sky next to ours should add more heat to the surface of our planet.
In reply you have rejected your own model and now are talking about 4 suns shining on different sides of a sphere.
I’m asking you to stick with the model you have been using all this time, not change to a different one.
One surface, a sun, and then an extra sun shining on the sane surface. I don’t care if the surface is curved or flat.
Would an extra sun shining on the same surface – providing an equivalent flux to our sun – not warm the surface further?
Yes or no? And please explain why.
barry, first you falsely accused me, now you’re misrepresenting me.
You’ve quickly resorted to your troll tactics, because reality is closing in on you.
Take responsibility for your comments, and quit trolling.
I’m not misrepresenting you, Clint.
“With no other changes, a second source is added that also contributes an identical flux to the surface. The surface is now impacted by F from one source, and also F from a second source. Will the surface temperature increase?
NO!
Remember that an absorbed flux corresponds to a temperature. And, temperatures dont add.”
These are your words.
Add a second sun to ours, right next to it, shining on the surface of the Earth.
If you go by your thesis here, there should be no additional warmth from a second sun.
I’ve asked you to clarify and for some reason you won’t be simple. and just do that. You’ve changed the model to something else.
Can’t you just answer my question, and not make up a different one?
barry, you are quoting me exactly, but you are misinterpreting my words. Plus, you have falsely accused me.
Now you want to keep bickering, with NOTHING being accomplished. I won’t stand for your nonsense any longer.
Admit you’ve misrepresented me and falsely accused me, then ask a responsible question, and we can continue.
Otherwise, I’m done with it.
Let’s make it even more like your model.
A sun is shining on a flat surface in space, The flux received by the surface from the sun is F.
We now add another sun, right near the other. It also yields a flux to the same surface with a value of F, same as the first sun.
In your model, the surface gets no wearmer with an equivalent flux from a second sun striking the surface.
Have I captured your opinion correctly?
“you are misinterpreting my words”
How?
Admit you’ve misrepresented me and falsely accused me, then ask a responsible question, and we can continue.
Otherwise, I’m done with it.
How have I misrepresented you? You haven’t explained how. I can’t apologise for something I’m unaware of.
Were done, troll.
Histrionics aside, this is what I think.
You’re avoiding directly answering the question, Clint.
If you say that yes, of course a second sun next to ours would make the surfaced warmer, then you are contradicting all you’ve said about fluxes not being additive at a surface.
If you say that no, a second sun next to ours would not make the surface warmer, then you know that everyone on this board who reads that, and particularly the ‘skeptics’, will disagree. Your thesis will be exposed.
That’s why you’re talking about 4 suns and a sphere instead of 2 suns and a surface. Yes – you’ve complicated the original query. Your original assertion is about to be exposed, so you’re trying to come up with a different scenario so you don’t have to deal with the rebuttal.
“You’re done”
No, Clint. You are. I’ve bent over backwards to accommodate you and you’ve behaved like a princess. You simply daren’t deal with the question. Pathetic.
DREMT,
I took your advice, answered Clint’s silly challenge, was polite, asked my questions where he wanted me to ask them, asked him to engage my question and he didn’t.
I did my best. He wouldn’t play ball.
As for his sphere and 4 suns….
I am not misrepresenting him when I say you could add another hundred suns to the sky with equivalent distance and equivalent flux to the first four suns in Clint’s brand new model, and according to Clint, the Earth would get no warmer.
You can see the thesis in his own words.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1460885
This is how trolls like Clint operate. They evade answering your questions, particularly when they reveal a contradiction, as here.
But if you don’t immediately answer their questions, they lob insults at you, like telling us that we’re all in a braindead cult and our heads explode.
Yet he doesn’t get why people ignore his troll questions.
barry, I explained to you, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1460987
You falsely accused Clint R. So you only have yourself to blame for the discussion closing down. You had a chance to apologize for the false accusation, but you chose not to. Why should people put up with being falsely accused!?
Barry,
Mighty Tim explained the Sky Dragon crank mistake so many times already, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1446282
All they got is a little toolkit to break up communication channels.
It could be good theatre at best.
My new troll policy is working GREAT. As soon as a troll refuses to abide by the rules, he gets sent to his room.
And then the trantrums begin!
Troll barry’s keyboard has diarrhea, as troll Nate adds to the fun.
The funniest part is that if they weren’t so braindead they could answer the question, just from my comment! But, thinking for themselves is not part of their agenda.
My new policy is working great.
As soon as Pup fumbles the ball, I remind him that Mighty Tim deflated the Sky Dragon cranks balloon a long time ago:
> Your cult fraud claims the plate would be emitting 800 W/m^2, at a temperature of 345K, because the fluxes add. Thats nonsense.
No. Science texts claim nothing of the sort. Fluxes ARRIVING at ONE surface add. So two separate fluxes of 400 W/m^2 (say from two sunbeams) arriving at a single surface add to 800 W/m^2.
No one every claimed 400 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at different surfaces add to give 800 W/m^2. No one ever claimed that two 400 W/m^2 fluxes LEAVING two different surfaces add to give a flux of 800 W/m^2 when ARRIVING at third surface.
But please, show anyone actually making such a claim so we can refute their error.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1446282
Silly sock puppet.
Is “sunbeam” a scientific word, Little Willy?
DREMT,
Are you serious? My pointing out that Clint has complicated the challenge by turning a surface into a sphere and one sun into 4 is… an accusation?
This is what he means? Really? And why can’t he say so himself?
Why doesn’t he simply say how I’ve misrepresented him? Grown-ups would do just that without getting into a huff and storming off.
You don’t see that if you’re the one always having to explain what he means, then he’s not ‘playing ball’?
In further irony today, Clint has “falsely accused” me for months that I believe the radiation from ice cubes can boil water. Did I immediately demand a retraction and an apology? Nope. I explained why he was wrong. When he kept doing it, troll-like, again and again, then I gave him several needed serves.
So, good on you for trying to baby-sit our little princess, but it hasn’t made her any more honest, forthright or grown-up than before.
To go back to the point, Clint’s 4 suns and a sphere is just the one sun and a surface in 3 dimensions. His argument that a thousand suns making a sphere around the Earth would be no hotter for us than 4 suns encircling it.
I note your reply was all about tone and nothing about what Clint said. Hopefully you’ll give up being an unpaid nanny.
Typo:
‘His argument means that a thousand suns making a sphere around the Earth would be no hotter for us than 4 suns encircling it.’
It’s exactly the same argument he made with the surface and 2 fluxes, but for some reason he abandoned that model for a 3-dimensional one. Perhaps thinking it would legitimize his premise.
I stand by what I said, barry. Scroll up, read the comment I linked to. You falsely accused Clint R of changing the question and complicating it. Read back what you actually, originally asked him in your 8:52 PM comment, yesterday. Read the answer you received. He answered your question as you posed it thoroughly, giving you an insight into his position at the same time. You then decided that he should have been able to read your mind and know that you meant the additional Sun was positioned right next to the original. But, instead of thinking that perhaps he is not a mind-reader, you falsely accused him of changing the question and complicating it! I warned you not to proceed as you did. You are responsible for the discussion breaking down.
No, DREMT, in all the discussion I’ve been quoting Clint’s point about 2 fluxes on a surface. That was the model. I never deviated from that. Not only did I make that clear in two posts prior to Clint’s answer in this subthread, here and here, it has been the same challenge with 2 suns next to each other striking a surface since I first put it to Clint.
Here and here.
To now pretend that I’ve asked for an explanation about 4 suns and a sphere after citing Clint’s argument about 2 fluxes on a surface, just because this time I didn’t include the words ‘next to’, is just bad faith argument.
No, the question “as I posed it” directly referred to two fluxes striking a surface, Clint’s proposition, as I quoted him on it.
He still hasn’t answered it after more than a year, and now has gone into a huff to keep on avoiding it.
Princess also needs to learn that drawing an inference and asking a question is not ‘misrepresentation.’
I stand by what I said, barry. Here’s your question, again:
"Can you either confirm you believe adding a second sun shining on the Earth would not make it warmer according to your thesis above, or explain why it would warm the surface further in apparent contradiction to your thesis."
Nothing about the location of the second Sun in that question, is there?
"To now pretend that I’ve asked for an explanation about 4 suns and a sphere after citing Clint’s argument about 2 fluxes on a surface, just because this time I didn’t include the words ‘next to’, is just bad faith argument."
So now you’re going to falsely accuse me of bad faith argument! You got an answer about two Suns, three Suns, and four Suns. You got your answer, plus more detail than you even asked for! That’s a bonus, not a bad thing.
…besides, as Clint R said…you should be able to work out the answer to your more specific question from what he said. I would say that he’s saying no, adding a second Sun next to our own would not make the Earth’s surface warmer. There’s always a chance I’ve got that wrong, of course. However, looking at what he’s written…you’ve got the Earth increasing in temperature as you add more Suns at different points around the Earth…but once all four are added, each illuminating the Earth from one of the four compass directions with their 1,368 W/m^2, the Earth has warmed to the maximum temperature it can reach for a flux of 1,368 W/m^2. So it would seem to follow that (according to Clint R) the temperature only increases when fluxes are being added from different directions, thus if you had an additional flux coming from the same direction (second Sun added next to your own), it wouldn’t make any difference. That’s how it reads to me, anyway.
DREMT,
Even you understood the challenge.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459926
Clint has understood it for a year. He just doesn’t want to answer it.
“you should be able to work out the answer to your more specific question from what he said. I would say that he’s saying no, adding a second Sun next to our own would not make the Earths surface warmer. There’s always a chance I’ve got that wrong, of course. However, looking at what he’s written…”
Yes, if only Clint would make this clearer…
Yes, the undeniable inference is that after 4 suns you could encircle the Earth with thousand more suns and the Earth wouldn’t get any warmer. And the logical corollary, as you deduced, is that a second sun adjacent to ours would provide no additional warmth to the surface.
That is clearly a ridiculous proposition.
As you’ve already said that you think a second sun would make the surface warmer I don’t think there’s any need to labour the point any further.
Well now…two Suns next to each other. Not something I’d really considered. I’d guess that yes, during the day, at a location on the Earth’s surface they ought to make the surface warmer, or at least warm to the maximum temperature attainable more quickly. However, those Suns are still going to set. So the Earth’s average temperature overall is still going to depend on how quickly and to what extent it can warm in the day vs. how quickly and to what extent it can cool in the night, at each and every location on the planet. So, how much warmer the Earth as a whole might be is still a difficult question to answer. It’s certainly not just a case of F + F = 2F, then work out the temperature associated with 2F.
Youre correct DREMT.
It’s not that hard to figure out if someone’s brain works. barry cant think for himself. That makes a big difference.
barry is frustrated and angry. That is why he got sent to his room.
And, that is why this is so much fun.
Man, these guys are snowflakes. You quote them directly, ask them to defend their own quotes, and they still claim you are making false accusations and misrepresenting them!
You have troll Clint, who refuses to take ownership of his own quotes, and keeps trying to evade the questions that could resolve the issues.
Then you have DREMT, who defines trolling as disagreeing with him.
“barry is frustrated and angry. That is why he got sent to his room.
And, that is why this is so much fun.”
Exactly. As troll, that is the only goal.
Determining the correct facts, science, truth is of no interest.
Thus troll Clint and his silly quizzes should never be taken seriously.
Yes, Clint R, they can rarely think for themselves. You answered barry’s question as he asked it, then he turned around and said that you should have answered the question that was in his head, instead, and falsely accused you of answering a different question to what he asked, and complicating the issue. He then refused to acknowledge it was a false accusation, closing down the discussion. It then turns out, once I’d done his thinking for him, that he says “the logical corollary, as you deduced, is that a second sun adjacent to ours would provide no additional warmth to the surface”. He had the answer to his more specific question, all along! So…a lot of time wasted, over nothing.
Sky Dragon cranks need not to read what Mighty Tim says.
They can fabricate it all by themselves.
Silly sock puppets.
“https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1461701
Here’s DREMT ‘not’ responding to me, again.
To quote Clint directly so no one can legitimately claim they are being misrepresented:
“With one sun providing 1368 W/m^2 to the sphere, it reaches 279K, emitting 342 W/m^2. Now, with an equal sun, at an equal distance, providing the same 1368 W/m^2 to the other side of the sphere, the sphere would reach 331K, emitting 684 W/m^2.
For 4 suns, equal, and at equal spacing, we can make a table:
1 sun, 279K, 342 W/m^2
2 suns, 331K, 684 W/m^2
3 suns, 367K, 1026 W/m^2
4 suns, 394K, 1368 W/m^2
Note that the above is NOT what the issue is. All flux is being absorbed, none is being reflected.
The issue is if another equal sun is added. Now, the extra 1368 W/m^2 is trying to be absorbed by the sphere that is already at the maximum temperature for 1368 W/m^2. It cant work.”
We can point out that this is simply incorrect. There is no such maximum.
There is no problem exceeding 1368 W/m^2 by adding more suns here. The fluxes of additional suns continue to sum until the true maximum is reached.
The true maximum would only be reached when the sky is completely filled with suns. Then, and only then, will the average flux ARRIVING at the Earth’s surface equal the amount EMITTED by the sources.
And that would be much much higher than 1368 W/m^2.
Now I expect this will be labelled as a false accusation or a misrepresentation, with no evidence given.
Shut up, Little Willy.
Troll Nate provides another example of how cults work, they all think alike. They’re not allowed to think for them selves.
We can point out that this is simply incorrect. There is no such maximum.
There is no problem exceeding 1368 W/m^2 by adding more suns here. The fluxes of additional suns continue to sum until the true maximum is reached.
This is the same braindead thinking that leads to ice cubes boiling water.
The cult MUST believe such nonsense to support “the sky can heat the planet”.
Exactly, Nate.
Pup and Gaslighting Graham have NOTHING against this quote:
> Your cult fraud claims the plate would be emitting 800 W/m^2, at a temperature of 345K, because the fluxes add. Thats nonsense.
No. Science texts claim nothing of the sort. Fluxes ARRIVING at ONE surface add. So two separate fluxes of 400 W/m^2 (say from two sunbeams) arriving at a single surface add to 800 W/m^2.
No one every claimed 400 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at different surfaces add to give 800 W/m^2. No one ever claimed that two 400 W/m^2 fluxes LEAVING two different surfaces add to give a flux of 800 W/m^2 when ARRIVING at third surface.
But please, show anyone actually making such a claim so we can refute their error.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1446282
Silly sock puppet.
This isn’t my fight, Little Willy. I just turned up to point out that barry was falsely accusing Clint R. Naturally, you’re trying to turn this into Clint and I vs. Tim. Just part of your gaslighting.
Have you noticed his Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again, Nate?
With me, you’re just a pure troll, Little Willy. You have absolutely no intent to ever engage in any meaningful way. It’s just, "say whatever I can to attempt to irritate". In fact, you’re like that with most people.
Barry is exactly right:
Gaslighting Graham soldiers on.
barry falsely accused Clint R. Pretty clear cut, really.
And yet no rebuttal. No science. Just insults.
I was responding to Clint.
Clint has simply declared that 1368 W/m^2 is the maximum, without any explanation.
I had explained why and how there is a maximum flux that occurs when the sky is filled with suns. And why it is much much larger than 1368 W/m^2.
Bring the sun close to the Earth, so that it fills the whole sky, to estimate the maximum flux. It is the amount emitted at the sun’s surface.
…falsely accused Clint R. Pretty clear cut, really.
My post was not for the non-responding DREMT, so why is he responding? Maybe he should find someone else to stalk.
…accused Clint R. Pretty clear cut, really.
Well, at least Graham tried.
He gaslight Barry and it failed,
I succeeded in pointing out that barry falsely accused Clint R.
Histrionics and gaslighting aside, Pup and Graham have nothing to show for themselves.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“nobodys really following it.” That explains why you offer nothing substantive, just pointless space fillers.
Nate believes he is making a difference. And he is! Whether it is toward his stated objectives would depend entirely him not being a hypocrite and how much effort he puts into his objectives.
Of course there are a lot of hypocrites out there that are all talk and no do.
Here is a great example:
https://youtu.be/9318mlo8hnc
And Bill joins in with nothing substantive either.
Yes, Bill, his intense and relentless hypocrisy is just one of the many reasons I stopped responding to him. Now, I no longer even bother to read his comments. If I see he has responded to me, I simply repeat the final sentence of whatever comment I wrote previously. This is intended to get across to him that he’s never going to get anything from me, so he may as well stop responding to me altogether. If I didn’t post something, he would just take advantage of the fact I no longer respond to him by trying to sneak in last words every time I comment on an issue…I know from experience that he’s that pathetic.
How do you get rid of an online stalker? Quite a problem…
Gill, Gill,
But Hypocrisy is boring:
https://climateball.net/but-hypocrisy/
Try not to be boring.
Nah. We know DREMPT responds to me when he feels he has a good answer, such as here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1460621
Or as you did here with Bill, he responded to my elsewhere post that was obviously read.
“Thus the experiment definitively falsifies his claim hes not reading and responding to my posts.”
response:
” If I see he has responded to me, I simply repeat the final sentence of whatever comment I wrote previously”
So again this is all a charade that gives him an out when he has no answer, which is most of the time.
How do you get rid of an online stalker? Quite a problem…
> So again this is all a charade that gives him an out when he has no answer, which is most of the time.
Exactly.
I do not respond to Nate, Little Willy. Repeating the final sentence of whatever comment I wrote previously does not count as any sort of response. It’s just an automatic reflex to prevent him from taking advantage of the fact I no longer respond to, or even read, his comments.
“I do not respond to Nate”
Deniers deny.
It’s just an automatic reflex to prevent him from taking advantage of the fact I no longer respond to, or even read, his comments.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Shut up, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham forgets to be with his safe words.
Shush your mouth, little one.
Gaslighting Graham forgets to beg once more.
Hush now, chile.
The magic words.
Gaslighting Graham forgets them.
He needs to beg,
Weird.
Gaslighting Graham is not even close.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham is gently gaslighting again.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham forgot to gaslight.
I’ve never gaslighted before, so why would I start now?
Gaslighting Graham gently returns to gaslighting.
Incorrect.
Gaslihting Graham forgets the magic words.
Is “sunbeam” a scientific word, Little Willy?
Is Gaslighting Graham playing dumb again?
Apparently Willard doesn’t know if ‘sunbeam’ is a scientific word.
Gill piles on with more gaslighting.
Just great.
What flux is carried by each sunbeam, Little Willy?
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslight again, a little passively.
Not that I’m particularly bothered, either way, but Tim’s comment with the "sunbeams" that you keep quoting is a little bit silly. Nobody can answer what flux is carried by a "sunbeam" because it’s such an intentionally vague concept. Tim can say that the flux from one "sunbeam" adds to another "sunbeam" but it can’t be tested or quantified in any way. So it’s all pretty meaningless. However, Little Willy gobbles up anything that Tim ever comes out with, with absolutely no critical thought whatsoever. It’s just, "Tim said it, I’ll agree with it".
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslight again, a little more aggressively.
Another completely fair and reasonable criticism of Little Willy is falsely labelled as "gaslighting".
More gaslighting from Gaslighting Graham.
When will he produce a passive object?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard is like a cop standing around a train wreck trying to keep the passer bys from noticing. Move along folks nothing to see here. Funny how he shows up at every trainwreck to do the same thing.
“Tim can say that the flux from one “sunbeam” adds to another “sunbeam” but it cant be tested or quantified in any way. ”
Anybody who can read in context, could understand that
“So two separate fluxes of 400 W/m^2 (say from two sunbeams) arriving at a single surface add to 800 W/m^2.”
‘two sunbeams’ obviously means flux from two separate SOURCES of sunlight, ie the two suns already being discussed.
Science deniers have to work over time to not understand simple English, and trash scientists.
Yes, Bill, it’s pretty pathetic.
Gill is like a metaphor of Bordo.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
> Anybody who can read in context
Exactly, Nate.
#3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Nate says:
”Tim can say that the flux from one ”sunbeam” adds to another ”sunbeam” but it cant be tested or quantified in any way.
Anybody who can read in context, could understand that
————————————-
OK then translate it into science terminology thats in the science dictionary. Hint, you probably should ask Tim to do that as guessing what he is talking about is the Nate way of reading the context.
Gill, Gill,
Since you’re so big on science semantics, perhaps you could tell us what’s a passive object?
Anything that’s not a heat source. So, look around you. Most of what you see are passive objects. Yet, everything’s emitting radiation, all the time…but everything isn’t warming up everything else, all the time. Put a banana in front of your radiator…the banana doesn’t heat up the radiator, does it? It’s like surrounding the heat source sphere with the shell in the "Steel Greenhouse". The shell can’t heat up the sphere, or "cause the sphere to come to a higher temperature". It’s just a passive object, reliant on the sphere to determine its temperature. The shell has no insulative properties, so it can’t insulate the sphere, either. The shell isn’t "shielding the sphere from the extremely cold temperatures of space beyond", because space has no temperature, as we established before. The sphere emits radiation to space, without the shell, the shell effectively just becomes the new radiating surface for the sphere, when combined.
So many scientific words from Gaslighting Graham.
No wonder UK as so many winter deaths.
“guessing what he is talking about”
Bill also has trouble with reading comprehension.
“Put a banana in front of your radiatorthe banana doesnt heat up the radiator, does it?”
The suggestion seems to be that the banana could not be a heat source for anything else, since it was passively heated.
This is the misconception, everything that is warm, no matter how it got that way, can warm other things.
Put an apple behind the banana, it will be warmed by the BANANA, the so-called passively warmed thing turns out to be a heat source!
” The shell cant heat up the sphere, or “cause the sphere to come to a higher temperature”. Its just a passive object, reliant on the sphere to determine its temperature. The shell has no insulative properties, so it cant insulate the sphere, either. The shell isnt “shielding the sphere from the extremely cold temperatures of space beyond”, because space has no temperature, as we established before. The sphere emits radiation to space, without the shell, the shell effectively just becomes the new radiating surface for the sphere, when combined.”
Again, some people refuse to learn basic heat transfer principles, and instead substitute their erroneous feelings about how they imagine it works, rather than actually solving the problem with relevant laws of physics.
Feelings turn out to be not nearly as good as physics when solving a heat transfer problem.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1460616
The shell reaches an intermediate temperature between the sphere and space. Thus the total T difference between the sphere and space must increase to maintain the same heat flow out to space, which is indeed a heat sink.
This is exactly what an insulator, which is indeed a passive object, does.
This is exactly what bears understand, when they hibernate in a den surrounded by passive material that is warmed by their body heat, yet keeps them warmer than they would otherwise be.
Now I predict those same people will simply repeat their false assertions again, without offering any science or common sense to back it up.
I keep it as straightforward and simple as I can, Little Willy. Besides, I’m not the one whose authority is so often appealed to. That would be Tim. So, he’s the one that should be using the scientific terms.
Worse that that, Nate –
Putting an object in front of a radiator is the surest way not to heat a room in winter.
It is as if Graham never used a radiator in his life.
Also, he claims keeping things simple, and he asks what is a sunbeam!
Gaslighting is his way of life.
No, I never asked "what is a sunbeam"? So, that’s a false accusation.
"Putting an object in front of a radiator is the surest way not to heat a room in winter.
It is as if Graham never used a radiator in his life."
You think a banana in front of a radiator would prevent the radiator from heating the room!? Oh dear.
Put a blanket over the radiator, it will not heat the room very well. The blanket is, again, a passive insulator, and indeed the radiator will get warmer than without the blanket.
So this is another example of a passive object, receiving heat from a heat source, warming up, and as result the heat source got hotter.
Quite contrary to the arguments made by some people here who just don’t understand what insulation is or does.
This is what I said to you, Little Willy:
"Put a banana in front of your radiator…the banana doesn’t heat up the radiator, does it? It’s like surrounding the heat source sphere with the shell in the "Steel Greenhouse". The shell can’t heat up the sphere, or "cause the sphere to come to a higher temperature". It’s just a passive object, reliant on the sphere to determine its temperature. The shell has no insulative properties, so it can’t insulate the sphere, either. The shell isn’t "shielding the sphere from the extremely cold temperatures of space beyond", because space has no temperature, as we established before. The sphere emits radiation to space, without the shell, the shell effectively just becomes the new radiating surface for the sphere, when combined."
Nate says:
Put a blanket over the radiator, it will not heat the room very well. The blanket is, again, a passive insulator, and indeed the radiator will get warmer than without the blanket.
So this is another example of a passive object, receiving heat from a heat source, warming up, and as result the heat source got hotter.
——————-
If you put a blanket over a radiator it causes the radiator to get hotter because it restricts the air flow around the radiator. This is the RW Woods experiment.
Fact is when you have both convection and radiation available for cooling in air, objects cool twice as fast as allowed by radiation alone. Put the objects in water and the cooling multiples roughly by a factor of 10 as I recall. . . .though its been a long time since I did any calcs on that.
And if you surround a small flame in a box the walls of the box blocks convection per convection barrier calculations and the smaller the box the greater the concentration of flame radiation per the square distance law. Thus engineering heat calculations allow designers to properly design the size and material of the box with a given flame.
We can go back to the two compartment box experiment you guys were never able to explain why no greenhouse effect was ever seen.
Obviously there nor on your radiator can you apply the multiple-layer, lapse rate driven greenhouse theory.
Which make me curious why you believe the work of M&W was both convincing and necessary.
Oh thats right!!! I forgot!!! You are just a spoon fed sycophant and really don’t understand any of this.
Sure. But regardless of the heat transfer mechanism, this is an example of a passive object, receiving heat from a heat source, warming up, and as result the heat source got hotter.
It refutes the sky dragon slayer notion that passive objects cannot result in a hotter heat source. They can.
“The sphere emits radiation to space”
Yes indeed, and thus by 2LOT space must be colder than the sphere. It is 3 K in fact.
“The shell isnt “shielding the sphere from the extremely cold temperatures of space “, because space has no temperature, as we established before”
False. This has never been established and obviously is contradicted by 2LOT and the above stated fact that the sphere emits to space.
In any case, if the shell warms to the prior T of the sphere, the sphere MUST warm in order to continue to radiate to the shell at the prior rate
“Oh thats right!!! I forgot!!! You are just a spoon fed sycophant and really dont understand any of this.”
Bill makes clear that he is here to troll and not here to discuss science, and will be ignored.
"If you put a blanket over a radiator it causes the radiator to get hotter because it restricts the air flow around the radiator. This is the RW Woods experiment."
Exactly, Bill…and we’re talking here about radiation only. Or at least, that’s what I’ve been trying to talk about. Did someone bring up a blanket, then? Oh dear. I’m guessing things are getting desperate. I wouldn’t know, though, as obviously I neither read nor respond to my stalkers comments any more.
Who said this?
” Put a banana in front of your radiatorthe banana doesnt heat up the radiator, does it?”
Bananas ok, but not blankets. Ok.
A blanket made from banana peels? That ok?
…exactly, Bill…and we’re talking here about radiation only. Or at least, that’s what I’ve been trying to talk about. Did someone bring up a blanket, then? Oh dear. I’m guessing things are getting desperate. I wouldn’t know, though, as obviously I neither read nor respond to my stalkers comments any more.
Yes DREMT you put 10 mainstream global warming theory propagandists in 10 separate rooms and give them a test on what the GHE is about and how it works you will get 10 different answers.
If Nate reads it in a book and it concludes that doubling CO2 results in 3C warming he just adds a new theory to his list. Near as I can tell in here he has supported at least 4 versions of it.
The heat transfer science is clear on the steel greenhouse. It shows that the planet warms when surrounded by the shield.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1460616
So that’s what real science says. And it matches common sense.
But deniers lacking the common sense of bears are gonna keep denying, and going with their feelings about what they think should happen, rather than what the science facts show.
They can claim that radiation behaves differently, as much as they want, but without using real laws of physics, this does nothing to advance their argument.
They can repeat their unsupported claims as much as they want, even with ad-hom grenades, but none of that will change the facts.
They can express their incredulity as much as they want, but that won’t change the facts.
They can declare themselves victors as much as they want, but that won’t change the facts either.
"If Nate reads it in a book and it concludes that doubling CO2 results in 3C warming he just adds a new theory to his list. Near as I can tell in here he has supported at least 4 versions of it."
Oh, they’ll stop at nothing to defend the GHE. The false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults, are endless. I’m fairly confident that Nate will have been twisting my every word, he always did before (one of the many reasons he’s now on ignore). Yeah, they’ll support various versions of the GHE, which change as and when they need it to. Refute one, they just move on to the next. It’s a religion.
Well said, Nate!
Maybe, maybe not…he’ll never know if what he says would have made any sort of impact on me, because I no longer read it. Of course you’re bound to claim to agree with whatever it is he’s saying, without even understanding anything he’s said. You just say and do anything that you think might irritate, as that’s all you exist to do, being as how you’re the purest troll in operation at this blog right now.
Willard says:
Well said, Nate!
—————————
Note the sound an echo makes in an empty head.
Some people will cover their eyes and plug their ears so they won’t have to face reality.
But reality is still there, whether they face it or not.
“hell never know if what he says would have made any sort of impact on me”
Hee haw! Obviously DREMT is lost forever down a rabbit hole.
What I say is a response to any posts of erroneous science or misinformation, and it is for other readers who may be misled.
"Note the sound an echo makes in an empty head."
Little Willy’s been turning up a lot lately, to cheerlead anyone who says anything to contradict the people he’s here to attack.
Some people forget that there is no good or evil or politics involved in heat flow.
Nature doesnt pick sides, it just does what it does.
…Little Willy’s been turning up a lot lately, to cheerlead anyone who says anything to contradict the people he’s here to attack.
Nate says:
Some people will cover their eyes and plug their ears so they wont have to face reality.
But reality is still there, whether they face it or not.
——————-
Well said Nate. But it raises the question as to when you are going to start recognizing the roles of convection and conduction in the steel greenhouse theory and the blanket over the radiator theory.
The only different model is the M&W model which requires a lapse rate and thus convection.
But the model didn’t convince the Grandfather of Global Warming, Roger Revelle, who said well after the M&W paper that AGW theory wasn’t scientifically there yet. and here you are like a soup sandwich all over the place and insulting the greatest greenhouse theory scientist of them all.
“start recognizing the roles of convection and conduction in the steel greenhouse theory ”
There is no convection in this model. End of story.
If true Nate then you are not talking about atmospheric physics.
So what is the relevancy?
Ask DREMT. He brought it up, but denies that the sphere warms with the shell in place. It does.
Read about it here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
I note you are simply pointing to somebody’s idea of how the GHE works Nate.
It all seems logical to you but that doesn’t make it true. My years of experience suggest that it isn’t true.
Obviously the answer to that would be a well-designed experiment for the space station or the surface of the moon.
It is simply a clear demonstration of how back radiation results in warming of a heated surface, thus debunking a central claim of sky-dragon-slayers such as DREMT and Joe Postma.
No one claimed the steel greenhouse was a real model for the GHE.
So take your strawman complaints elsewhere!
“It all seems logical to you but that doesn’t make it true. My years of experience suggest that it isn’t true…”
…and you would be right!
“It all seems logical to you but that doesnt make it true. My years of experience suggest that it isnt true.”
Yes it is logical to me, and my years of experience in this field agree with it.
But I understand that citing ‘my years of experience’ alone is not be convincing to people. Then you should understand why you citing your ‘years of experience’ would be equally unconvincing to people.
The point is you need to show evidence, scientific support for your claims. As I have done here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1460616
…and you would be right, Bill.
Note the sound an echo makes in an empty head.
…you would be right, Bill.
Nate says:
”The point is you need to show evidence, scientific support for your claims. As I have done here:”
Thats not science Nate thats just a mathematical extrapolation of what you think insulation does. But its wrong. You have never even experienced it. Experience is like an experiment and if you were correct Nate, Manabe’s work would not even be necessary as an explanation for the GHE. Manabe’s work might be accurate representation of how equilibrium is reached but no mechanism is detailed as to how it exceeds equilibrium.
Since Manabe’s work is endorsed your mathematics isn’t even used or accepted by mainstream science. thats just stuff arising from Trenberth’s propaganda department to sell to primary school children and anybody else willing to buy it. . . .demonstrating how the Peter Principle works.
Where we are at on this is greenhouse gases are a necessary element for light being absorbed in the upper atmosphere to warm the surface. That fact gets extrapolated but there are some missing elements as detailed by G&T, a claim by scientists that never got answered and instead simply got attacked peripherally for mentioning a physical law. The problem is there is too much money at stake.
“Thats not science Nate thats just a mathematical extrapolation of what you think insulation does. But its wrong. You have never even experienced it.”
Sorry physics uses math. You havent pointed out the flaws in it, as in what laws of physics are missing or wrong, presumably because you have no idea.
Vague, generic claims that your ‘experience’ proves it is wrong are, as I noted above, not convincing.
Its your job Nate to show where your numbers come from. 2+2=4 but 2 hedgehogs and 2 hedges doesn’t equal 4 hedgehogs.
What am I supposed to do guess where your numbers come from?
Additionally you try to pretend all this is easy. If it were then why did Roger Revelle consider it not yet established in science?
“Thats not science Nate thats just a mathematical extrapolation of what you think insulation does. But its wrong.”
So previously you were certain it was wrong.
“Its your job Nate to show where your numbers come from. 2+2=4 but 2 hedgehogs and 2 hedges doesnt equal 4 hedgehogs.
What am I supposed to do guess where your numbers come from?”
Now you admit that you didnt understand any of it!
It was a straight-forward application of the First Law of Thermodynamics and the SB Law for radiation.
Are you not familiar with these?
In addition I gave you the original article on it, by Willis Eschenback. Did you not bother to read and understand it?
Strawman Alert!
Nate I specifically said I didn’t know if in outer space in the absence of convection whether the plates would insulate. So there is no change there.
What I said cannot happen is for insulation to ”warm” anything. It is passive and adopts a mean temperature ”as a unit” between a cold source and a heated source. It slows heat loss but an R value of 100 is not going to cause anything to warm more than the flux it is exposed to. The mean temperature of the insulation does not change from the mean temperature of the incoming flux and the mean temperature of the sink.
According to thermodynamic laws and a view factor of 1.0 a surface will warm to equilibrium temperature of the source. It cannot warm to the temperature of the sun because the viewfactor is not 1.0. The square distance law makes a ‘flat’ surface have a view factor of 1.0. If the earth did not rotate one side would be ungodly hot and the other side ungodly cold and the earth is so thick its near perfect as an insulator. The mean temperature would be 278.5K. That makes the electro-magnetic GHE 23.5 degrees topped out per the odd way that mainstream science wants to measure the effect. It actually just represents an equilibrium with its source.
So we have about 10k unaccounted for. I don’t favor the idea that could be electro-magnetic in nature as it seems contrary to all we know about electro-magnetism. And it if it is not electromagnetic there is a different formula for how it would work and different limits.
Where I take issue with mainstream is the mode by which it supposedly obtains the additional 10k is an extrapolation from the the process of equilibrating being extended beyond equilibrium. The goof around with unclear language regarding emissivity, blackbodies, and generally is inconsistent in the treatment of convection. If there is something I am missing, I can grant that but it is up to the proposer of an effect to describe in detail how the effect supposedly works and exceeds its thermodynamic equilibriums.
The answer to that seems to require some mechanical or chemical enhancement and I am not deceived by the farting around with the emissivity of various surfaces. The basic theory is fukked up. It says that if the world did not have an atmosphere and the albedo did not change the greenhouse effect would be 33K. Thats apples to oranges comparison. They can’t state it in an apples to apples comparison as the science doesn’t support that. The albedo of the planets surface according to Kevin Trenberth 12.5%, not 30%. Remove greenhouse gases (which obviously goes hand in hand with removing an atmosphere) would with snow and ice give an albedo to the earth’s surface of about 12.5% that puts us pretty close to my greenhouse number only needing about 2 to 3% being snow and land based ice albedo.
So if they didn’t start out with so much BS to begin with they might actually be more believable. Playing fast and loose with the truth usually means there is no ends to that and I cut my teeth on big valuation models and have first hand knowledge of how easy it is to tweak them to get the results you desire. . . .I have zero faith.
So still, you havent pointed out the flaws in the calculation, as in what laws of physics are missing or wrong, presumably because you have no idea.
Nate there is nothing wrong with the math. Its your job to show if the math relates to anything in the real world.
“Nate there is nothing wrong with the math. Its your job to show if the math relates to anything in the real world.”
Not just math. You forgot the physics. Anything wrong with it? Any laws of physics violated? How bout in Willis Eschenbach’s analysis? You don’t seem have any idea.
You seem to forget that laws of physics have to be tested against numerous experiments over decades by many people in many situations to be designated laws. Experiments in the real world.
The developed equations can then be applied to problems in the real world.
Such as here: https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/radiation_configuration_factor.htm
Nate you are just blabbering. The link you provided does NOT support your extrapolations of science.
Nah. More empty rhetoric.
Indeed it is Nate. Nobody at all has established that a purely electromatic process is capable of warming the surface of the earth above its thermal equilibrium. Nothing but blabber has been offered in proof.
Thought you didnt consider yourself a sky-dragon-slayer, who denies basic radiative physics.
You are acting like you joined the club!
Nope not denying radiative physics Nate. Radiative physics uses SB equations to calculate limits on what radiation can do. You ignore those physics. 342watts/m2 of flux is limited to warming something to at most 278.7K.
“Nope not denying radiative physics Nate. Radiative physics uses SB equations to calculate limits on what radiation can do. You ignore those physics. ”
Lie.
I showed you the explicit calculation using the SB law, as well as 1LOT. You don’t understand it. You cannot tell me whats wrong with it, nor provide any alternative calculation!
“342watts/m2 of flux is limited to warming something to at most 278.7K.”
Assertion without context or evidence.
Show us equations you used and how you applied them to the specific problem.
If you can’t do that this is just hand-waving.
Nate says:
”Nope not denying radiative physics Nate. Radiative physics uses SB equations to calculate limits on what radiation can do. You ignore those physics.”
Lie.
————————–
No lie. The SB equation is able to be modified by an emissivity factor ranging from zero to 1. If it is set to 1.0 that results in a maximum temperature a surface can reach with a given flux.
An emissivity of 1.0 actually doesn’t exist but represents the theoretical limit as defined by Stefan and Boltzmann.
You want to play fast and loose with connecting the output to the input in hope of amplifying that signal. OK fine, its up to you to do a demonstration of how that works. I offered the room with 289k walls and testing to see if bricks in the middle of the room warmed beyond that if you fill the room with CO2. You declined the experiment. You lose.
“If it is set to 1.0 that results in a maximum temperature a surface can reach with a given flux.”
I applied the SB law the steel greenhouse. You talk about the SB law but never apply it to anything, certainly not the steel greenhouse.
If you are unable to apply laws of physics to the specific problem, then you cannot know the solution to the problem!
As I pointed out to Swanson below with his little steel greenhouse experiment for DREMT he showed dang, the steel greenhouse cooled the clear plate.
Swanson calls foul!
Democrats always seem to ignorantly think the rule of law only applies to others and they will continually run around only showing one side of an insulation effect. The steel greenhouse if allowed to will heat both the ground and the clear plate to the same temperature. Slowing downwelling heat is easy with radiant barriers. They slow it but they don’t stop it.
For upwelling heat they don’t even slow it.
The reason? Convection only moves heat in one direction.
You just can’t keep track of what discussions are about, and mix them all up with politics in a denialist stew.
Good luck, Bill.
Nope I am pushing the science narrative. You are pushing a political narrative. You can’t even explain how the greenhouse works. All you know is what your political daddy told you.
“Nope I am pushing the science narrative.”
Where is any science that you have ‘pushed’? I gave you a basic physics solution to the Steel greenhouse problem. I showed you Willis’s explanation.
You find no science problems with these analyses, because you have no clue about the physics.
But you claim it must be wrong anyway. Apparently you need no science to know this.
Come back when you can offer a real science argument, sans political bias.
Blabber does not an experiment make.
So you are quoting Willis. Willis isn’t a scientist. He didn’t do an experiment. He is just like you.
If I tell you the wicked witch of the east is going to fly down and pop your head like a pimple. . . .do you actually think you should prove I am wrong and in the meantime you are going to believe it?
LMAO!!
So science is ONLY about experiments? Theory is not useful, can’t be applied to the real world?
Ridiculous.
You don’t understand how to apply known, basic physics to radiative heat transfer problem. So what?
Other people do know how.
But you can’t deal with other people having expertise that you don’t have.
So you have to dismiss it as worthless.
Sad.
Nate says:
”So science is ONLY about experiments? Theory is not useful, cant be applied to the real world?
Ridiculous.
You dont understand how to apply known, basic physics to radiative heat transfer problem. So what?
Other people do know how.
But you cant deal with other people having expertise that you dont have.
So you have to dismiss it as worthless.
Sad.”
Nobody said that Nate. Theory is testable. Fact is every model using the same core assumptions for CO2. The variation seen arises out of assumptions about other variables.
I have audited this kind of stuff. Models are black boxes and held close to the vest ostensibly for proprietary reasons.
to confirm the theory this must be made transparent and available to the public to ascertain why the closer models got closer. My first job as an accountant was to math check and logic check a model and document the results. When you do that you can determine if volcanism, precipitation, humidity, aerosols, cloudiness, etc. all match observations. Only in that way can you determine how close the models were to the basic theory.
So yes theory can be valuable but its only valuable via a close examination and matching every element of the output to actual.
Instead we are regaled by morons like yourself waving your arm in the sky claiming the models were close enough to validate.
“So yes theory can be valuable but its only valuable via a close examination and matching every element of the output to actual.”
Ok so exam this theory closely. Tell me, specifically, the flaws in it. No hand waving or vague generalities accepted.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1460616
Nate the formula you want me tell what is wrong with it is the formula being tested by observation via climate models.
Since climate models have been overstating warming as a group presumably the problem is the formula. But that needs some validation.
The problem is the model source code isn’t in the public sphere. the models have been doing a poor job and the latest charge by Dr. Curry is they are now using unrealistic emission scenarios. Why that is isn’t clear.
So when you don’t have the source code the model is a blackbox model.
Blackbox science is dark ages material, conjuring up witch doctors and proclamations by fiat.
If we were serious about this, this would already be done. Transparency in science is absolutely critical to win the buy in of those most affected by the science.
Nice try, but way off topic.
The topic was the theory of the Steel Greenhouse model.
Well of course Willis’ steel greenhouse theory is ridiculous.
You have a sun inside of a steel shell. The sun has enough reactions going on internally such that it radiates 200w/m2 from its surface. We will ignore the fact that a shell would have more area on its internal surface than the sun has on its surface.
So 200 watts/m2 strikes the inside of the shell. So since the shell is too thin to represent any kind of insulation you claim it will only heat up enough to emit 100w/m2 off of each of its surfaces.
We are good so far. No problems so far.
Now your claim is that the 100w from the inside surface of the shell heats the surface of this internal sun causing the shell to receive more radiation from the sun. You and Willis maintain this sun surface heating continues until the surface of this internal sun is now 400w/m2 and then finally, at last, the shell then emits 200w/m2 forward to space and the internal energy of this device is now in balance.
This is plenty easy to test. RW Woods tested it. He puts a couple of greenhouses out on a sunny day one with an IR blocking but otherwise transparent cover and the other with a cover that doesn’t block any significant light.
He gets no warming.
Hmmmm, it seems unlikely that RW Woods performed his experiment on a day where the local insolation was less than 600w/m2. According to your theory you should be able to heat the greenhouse to 1200w/m2. That means he should have been able to generate a 60K increase in temperature in the greenhouse and boil water in it.
If we could actually do that Nate carbon free energy would be a lot cheaper. Imagine that! Getting twice as much energy from the sun!! LMAO!!! Seriously you don’t really believe that do you? The main way we have harvested solar energy in solar plants is using mirrors all focused on one spot to drive steam energy. Are all the scientists designing that stuff really as stupid as you think they are?
“Now your claim is that the 100w from the inside surface of the shell heats the surface of this internal sun causing the shell to receive more radiation from the sun. You and Willis maintain this sun surface heating continues until the surface of this internal sun is now 400w/m2 and then finally, at last, the shell then emits 200w/m2 forward to space and the internal energy of this device is now in balance.”
Yep, this is a thought experiment, so obviously Woods didnt test it.
The question is whether these end result fluxes obey the laws of physics. That’s all you have to audit.
So SB law, and 1LOT. 1LOT is just energy balance.
You should set up an experiment tomorrow and see if you can boil some water Nate. Or maybe you can talk Swanson into it.
So it appears, as expected, that you cannot find any flaws in the physics. No laws are broken.
So a passive shell CAN act as radiative insulation. When it surrounds a heated sphere, the sphere will get warmer, as common sense tells us.
Nate history has more than adequately shown that when the science method of experimentation is done a lot of common sense turns into nonsense.
The common sense is meant for you to get, if you don’t, thats cuz you are sucking up to sky dragon slayers.
The rest of science and engineering is satisfied with the physics solution.
Indeed Nate when you rely on common sense you are often relying on nonsense. You are now calling it out as political. I actually have experience in this field, practical experience in building energy efficient housing. I have hired a learned from the one who was the leading building engineer of radiant heating systems in the latter part of the 20th century and have studied the issue and successfully built a variety of custom alternative energy systems.
The basic law of electromagnetic energy of equal in/equal out disallows for a purely electromagnetic energy system to exist. So your idea of how it works is proven nonsense. Neither Vaughn Pratt nor RW Woods were able to obtain the significant greenhouse effect you ascribe to.
And when it comes to politics its a game of what people are willing to spend. There is a huge ”I have mine, you can’t have yours” crowd out there spreading misinformation. It is generally an elite class that doesn’t worry about paying their monthly bills who have more money than they know what to do with. They have theirs and they are worried about too many also having what they have so they start regulating, inducing politicians to shut down avenues of opportunity, building cost barriers to success. All the while they play lip service to alleave their guilt. Bill Gates excuses the huge energy burden he places on the planet (according to his way of thinking) by simply saying he ”buys” carbon offsets. Bill Gates believes in the idea of equal opportunity while he moves the carrot further away and says its OK because he has plenty of money to ”offset” his impact. . . .using doing something like buying a farm that sucks up CO2 as his plants grow that he then turns and makes more profits off of. Cap and Trade is another avenue widely supported by the wealthy elite and is a reality in the richest state in the nation.
The science needs to be more than common sense when so often common sense is later proven to be nonsense because it is being used system wide to promote inequality in government action.
I am an environmentalist that understands the role of science in being the primary hurdle to government action that promotes inequality and I see it so often being abused.
“The basic law of electromagnetic energy of equal in/equal out disallows for a purely electromagnetic energy system to exist.”
Thats a new one. And quite bizzare.
“So your idea of how it works is proven nonsense. Neither Vaughn Pratt nor RW Woods were able to obtain the significant greenhouse effect you ascribe to.”
I dont think they did experiments in space or one like the steel greenhouse.
Standard vacuum radiative heat transfer physics is all you need, which is well understood. But obviously not by you.
Hence you need to come up with new flimsy excuses to dismiss it.
Is this an inferiority complex at work?
Nate is apparently unfamiliar with Kirchoff’s law regarding electromagnetism.
Nate says:
” ”So your idea of how it works is proven nonsense. Neither Vaughn Pratt nor RW Woods were able to obtain the significant greenhouse effect you ascribe to.”
I dont think they did experiments in space or one like the steel greenhouse.”
thats always your excuse for experimental failure. Nothing is like our greenhouse effect right?
Alternative theories have been drawn from science such as atmospheric pressure causing the surface to be warmer. Then when they are offered as an alternative theory they get handwaved away. Here is a description of how the sun was formed by National Geographic.
”The molecular cloud began to compress, and some regions of gas collapsed under their own gravitational pull. As one of these regions collapsed, it also began to rotate and heat up from increasing pressure. ”
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/sun/
Standard vacuum radiative heat transfer physics is all you need, which is well understood. But obviously not by you.
Hence you need to come up with new flimsy excuses to dismiss it.
Is this an inferiority complex at work?
Nate says:
”Standard vacuum radiative heat transfer physics is all you need, which is well understood. But obviously not by you.”
Why should it be understood by me. You claim to not understand the works of Vaughn Pratt and RW Wood because apparently as you say and I quote:
”I dont think they did experiments in space or one like the steel greenhouse.”
What experiment do you think needs to be done to establish what you religiously believe in?
Bill, the discussion was about the simple radiative heat transfer physics at work in the steel greenhouse example.
Mixing that up with all other models and experiments with completely different situations into one big mash-up is an excellent way to obfuscate.
It is your way of evading the facts that do not support your sky-dragon-slayer friends, like DREMT, who deny the basic radiative heat transfer physics.
If you genuinely want to debate this science, then stick to the steel greenhouse model and audit its physics solution, as you claimed to be able to do.
Or not and go troll someone else.
I am quite familiar with Kirchoff’s law.
But to claim that it “disallows for a purely electromagnetic energy system to exist.” is total bullshit.
In the Steel Greenhouse, when the shell warms up it radiates inward and outward.
Kirchoff’s law explains why the inner black-body planet surface must abs.orb all of that inward flux coming from the shell. And as a result, it warms.
This is one of the key physics facts denied by sky-dragon-slayers.
Do you also deny it?
Nate says:
I am quite familiar with Kirchoffs law.
But to claim that it disallows for a purely electromagnetic energy system to exist. is total bullshit.
———————–
Sometimes part of what I intend to write goes missing. Its pretty easy to accidentally erase part of a sentence.
How it should have read is it ”disallows for a purely electromagnetic energy system that exceeds equilibrium to exist. Vaughn Pratt argued that RW Woods use of an elevated glass cover over the salt greenhouse prevented him from finding a significant greenhouse effect, then correcting that he found basically the same result as RW Woods.
Where you are at is with an incomplete theory. If something else is required to create a greenhouse effect that needs to be demonstrated.
Basically where we stand is all attempts to experiment with greenhouses has failed to produce a greenhouse effect.
We are regaled with GPE’s that show that slowing of cooling can force a system toward equilibrium with the input energy but without exception these efforts don’t document the input energy maximum.
We are told the maximum input is the temperature of the blue plate but for the blue plate to have a temperature in space it needs an energy input. . . .so ineffect the blue plate is actually a green plate and cooler than the input energy just like the green plate is cooler than the blue plate.
Further it appears the GPE is only ever physically demonstrated inside an atmosphere. A purely vacuum based model has not been built and fully documented. Swanson has the blue plate being warmed by an undocumented light source so by their own theory that plate will not warm to equilibrium so naturally when they add layers it will begin to approach equilibrium.
that isn’t a issue for an insulated plate like the earth’s surface where an equilibrium is stated (albeit ignoring SB equations regarding albedo where the equilibrium value does not change due to albedo) Instead they insert another non-standard and undocumented view of stating equilibrium to be the post albedo absorbed radiation.
Eventually the claimed greenhouse effect only gets documented in a thought experiment of the 3rd grader radiation model where equilibrium is exceeded by a dumb thought experiment.
Ultimately Nate concedes that the theory is unproven but its the only thing that fits common sense. But thats an argument from ignorance and is a fallacy. thats why the scientific method was created was to override declarations of fact based only on what somebody deems to be common sense. Science turns a lot of common sense into nonsense.
“We are regaled with GPEs that show that slowing of cooling can force a system toward equilibrium with the input energy but without exception these efforts dont document the input energy maximum.”
Huh? this makes no sense.
All we get is again FEELINGS but not PHYSICS.
Feelings do not tell you what the temperatures will be in a basic heat transfer problem, particularly when they don’t make any sense or agree with common sense.
Physics does tell us what the temperatures are in basic heat transfer problems like the GPE and Steel Greenhouse.
That is, after all, the whole point of developing laws of physics.
And showing what physics finds for these very simple (KISS) cases debunks the myths of the sky-dragon-slayers. Myths such as a passive object (insulator) cannot cause a heated object to get hotter.
With these misconceptions they will never be able to understand the more complex actual GHE.
“How it should have read is it disallows for a purely electromagnetic energy system that exceeds equilibrium to exist.”
Again, Kirchoffs law does no such thing.
Explain your feelings about what ‘exceeds equilibrium’ even means.
The show us where we are claiming that such a thing is happening.
Nate, insulated surfaces such as the surface of earth warm to equilibrium via purely electromagnetic means in accordance with thermodynamic laws and we have been told since I first got involved in this debate some 17 years ago that that temperature for the surface should be 255K.
Well I disagreed with that figure because the electromagnetic forcing in accordance with SB equations is sufficient to raise the equilibrium to 278.7K.
Of course that involves warming something not directly impacted by insolation which means something like a greenhouse effect would be needed to carry the system to the true equilibrium in accordance with SB equations.
I know better than to extrapolate about such things as parts of a whole as it seems the spinners love to do, ignoring all advice about the scientific method. So yes the initial radiation of the sun on the upper atmosphere may well require to to be 278.7k in mean temperature at the mean level of emission (nothing that 40 watts comes from a 288k surface and the coldest emissions those of CO2 must be derived from at least one to three possible locations either high in the troposphere or low in the stratosphere, and high in the mesosphere. What we can be assured of those mean CO2 emissions are above the mean emission spectra of water.
Nate says:
” ”We are regaled with GPEs that show that slowing of cooling can force a system toward equilibrium with the input energy but without exception these efforts dont document the input energy maximum.”
Huh? this makes no sense.
All we get is again FEELINGS but not PHYSICS.
Feelings do not tell you what the temperatures will be in a basic heat transfer problem, particularly when they dont make any sense or agree with common sense.
—————————
Stop playing stupid Nate! Obviously the blue plate doesn’t generate its own energy!!!
Anytime you do heat calculations you need. 1)the input energy; 2) the transmissibility of the objects being warmed by the heat source, including reflection, transparency, and coefficients of conduction or U-value, or R-value. and 3) the temperature of the limitless heat sink (e.g. environment).
If you are missing any of those quantities you can’t do heat calculations and can’t draw any conclusions regarding the warming of the blue plate by the green plate. First the green plate cannot warm the blue plate. Second the input source if the first object isn’t completely insulated can warm because of the quantities above documented for the second plate and all that will be affected by each additional plate until increases become to small to detect or the energy goes into the sink.
Anybody who has had to do these calculations knows that. I have done those calculations hundreds of times. The input establishes the limit of warming and that is documented in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5HyDp_Jgd8
“Anytime you do heat calculations you need. 1)the input energy; 2) the transmissibility of the objects being warmed by the heat source, including reflection, transparency, and coefficients of conduction or U-value, or R-value. and 3) the temperature of the limitless heat sink (e.g. environment).”
Oh you thought we didnt know all that? No wonder you’re confused.
Your audit was in error. We have all of that for both the GPE and the Steel Greenhouse.
I guess that ends that.
maguff…”This explains Christos Vournas reluctance to supplement his assertions with data, preferring to rely on anecdotes”.
***
That is one of the lowest, slimiest things you’ve ever implied. Christos states clearly on his site that he has a Masters degree in mechanical engineering. You are trying to infer he is a high school student.
Crawl back in your hole. It’s hard to accept you have a friend, never mind a friend in Greece.
There may be a lot of snow.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/03/18/2100Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-102.87,50.21,709
Filed under industrial innovations that turned out to be environmental disasters.
If you are a baby boomer and think millennials and Gen Z’ers seem cleverer than you, it’s because they are.
Those who grew up during the era when lead was added to gasoline to make engines run smoother (the 1930s through the 1990s), are in the two generations that were forced to breathe leaded air, and have five fewer IQ points on average as a result.
https://today.duke.edu/2017/03/lead-exposure-childhood-linked-lower-iq-lower-status
TM, dont try to blame your low IQ on others. You refuse to use your brain. Like all cult members, you let others do your thinking for you.
The brain needs constant exercise — use it or lose it.
Ecce signum!
That’s a good example of braindead, TM. You have a pat response so you dont have to use your brain. And that keeps you from having to face reality.
I think Goof is trying to explain why his IQ is so low. He’s blaming his ancestors. Not his parents though.
LOL!
While people living in the middle of a city in the 70’s may have a few points shaved off their IQs one cannot project that to a entire generation in comparison to another generation for so many reasons its almost ridiculous.
What happened to you McGuffin? Get a lobotomy?
TM,
Thankfully some of us can spare 5 IQ points and never miss them. Many don’t have that luxury, https://ibb.co/JpYr3w4, amirite.
maguff…”…and have five fewer IQ points on average as a result”.
***
An IQ test is pertinent to a society only. An IQ of 180 won’t keep you alive in the jungles of Borneo yet the natives there could not understand an IQ test yet they thrive.
An IQ assessment does not measure intelligence. It measures the ability to reason where the reasoning is based largely on a person’s experience. Intelligence is something else altogether and many kids from a young age have their natural intelligence suppressed, having their mind crammed with useless knowledge instead.
In other words, those who have been subjected to information and processes that are related to the reasoning problems on IQ test will fare better than those who do not. Many questions for example are based on mathematical series. For example, 2,4,8,16…what’s the next number in the series? That’s not as much about intelligence as it is recognizing a progression of mathematical numbers.
I recall writing a test for admission to a computer job and being presented with a problem that seems trivial. A guy comes home from work and needs to climb to the 10th floor via stairs. Rather than climb up he has arranged with his wife to open and close 5 blinds on the windows to form a code, so he can tell from the street what she needs at the store.
Obviously the blinds represent a binary code. If the 4 leftmost blinds are open and the right most is closed, that’s a binary 1. The question was to figure out how many items she could order by rearranging the blinds to form different codes.
At the time, I had not taken a course in digital logic and that question was obviously geared to finding people who had. After taking the digital course, I knew that the answer was 2^n. In other words, with 5 blinds, she could send 2^5 = 32 messages.
If anyone has an interest, try to find that number of codes by drawing out the pictures. Remember 00000 is a code. Then you go to 00001, 00010, 00100, 00101, 00110, 00111, which gets you to decimal 7. Start over with 01xxx and repeat the process to get to decimal 16 at 01000. Every time you fill the RHS zeros, move the 1 to the left till you get to 11111 = decimal 31.
Note that you started with 00000 as a code therefore 00000 – 11111 = 32 codes, including 00000.
After having taken a course in digital logic, it would be simple to lay out that table in less than a minute and count the number of codes by hand. Of course, you have to know that 00000 is a code as well.
They don’t just hand you the 2^n equation they take you though the binary code from 0b to 128b (8 bits) and from that, they present the relationship is always 2^n.
If that question had been on an IQ test, anyone who had studied digital theory would have aced the question. Anyone who had not would waste a lot of time trying to figure it out. Experience is important in IQ tests.
Actually, 128b = 10000000
I meant 0b – 127b, where 127b = 11111111
So, how many codes are represented by 0b to 127b?
A wave of frigid air from Canada is moving over the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/RNfcC8z/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-03-17-165422.png
Oh wonder❗
It seems this is all we can see on
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/input/gfs_world-wt_t2anom_d1.png
ren…we have set up fans to blow it away from the Pacific coast.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Australia Heat Wave: Record heat continues with 44.4C at Warburton today.
Monthly records were broken of both highest Tmines and highest Tmaxes.
See list of records below (data courtesy of Australian Weather News).
https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1636682165344714753
Are you trying to make a point?
Yes.
Please illuminate us.
Is it that you’re Australian, and your HVAC is broken?
It may not be possible to enlighten you, Troglodyte.
What point was that?
Why would you like to know, Richard?
What your point was.
Exactly.
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=10463
Trends in Maximum and Diurnal temperatures in Australia
in 3 different locations Yongala in SA,
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Heres a funny one I missed, until now.
I explained how many different types of units cant be simply added. I used a rate as an example — specifically two runners: But two people that can run at 10 mph can NOT run 20 mph simply by holding hands. Rates do NOT simply add.
Norman, wanting to provide another example of braindead, jumped in to confuse rates’ with distances’:
The speed does not increase but the distance covered is doubled when two people run at 10 miles per hour. They cover a distance of 20 miles in one hour while a single runner will cover just 10 miles.
Norman started off admitting that the rate could not be added, but continued to completely confuse the issue by adding distances. He had no understanding of the issue.
The funnier part is, most of his comment contained insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, as expected from an ignorant troll.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1459100
You almost have to feel sorry for him.
Clint R
You asshole idiot! I thought you were done with me you phony liar.
You can’t understand anything. Unable to think logically or rationally. A complete babbling incoherent idiot that likes to insult and taunt people. Why are you here? What is your purpose. You are not hear to discuss ideas in an adult intelligent fashion. You just ridicule and insult posters and offer nothing of value in the way of logic or reason.
Since you could not leave me out of your idiot post I will defend what I stated. You are using this as an analogy for fluxes not adding. A flux is a rate of energy with an area. Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes do not add to make one 630 W/m^2 flux but the energy a surface will receive will double. Very similar to the distance traveled (which would be analogous to the energy in the flux example). Two 315 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at a surface will add 630 Watts to each square meter if the surface absorbs most the energy.
Look at speed miles/hour like flux joules/second
The miles and joules are the component that will add. If two people travel 10 miles an hour the distance covered will be 20 miles. It two fluxes hit a surface the energy will also be doubled.
Quit being a total asshole and try to reason things through. Your stupid tactics annoy most everyone on this blog. They did when you went as g/e/r/a/n and you have not matured as Clint R. Still an asshole with nothing of value to contribute. Grow up little child.
Clint R
The problem with you is I have already explained it to you. You do not comprehend what is being said (kind of like Swenson with his Earth has cooled for 4.5 billion years). I told you two lower energy photons do not add together to form a higher energy single photon. I explained to your several times what adding fluxes mean, the energy of two fluxes adds to a surface. The energy of two lower energy photons adds to a receiving surface. I do not know how to make it more clear to you. In your limited thinking ability all you can understand when people say fluxes add is that two 315 W/m^2 will become one 630 W/m^2 flux. This is not the correct understanding of fluxes adding. What adds is the energy (which a flux is energy/time -area). If you have two fluxes reaching a surface the energy absorbed will double. If you don’t understand this then help us help you by telling us what you do not understand about that.
Well if you’re now willing to admit Folkerts nonsense is fraud, then youre making progress.
But something tells me you are afraid to accept reality….
Is Norman contradicting Tim?
“If you have two fluxes reaching a surface the energy absorbed will double.”
Seems not.
It appears Norman has started to suspect something (smell a rat). He has been searching for months for a valid technical reference to support Folkerts’ Fraud. But, he can’t find even one. There isn’t one.
So Norman is trying to somehow back away for Folkerts, without admitting he’s backing away.
That’s why this is so much fun.
It took Norman about a year to figure something was wrong. That puts ignorant Norman even ahead of you, barry. Or, to put it another way, you’re so braindead and ignorant that you’re way behind poor Norman.
Hahaha. You love to claim victory when you’ve lost. Norman isn’t contradicting Tim.
“If you have two fluxes reaching a surface the energy absorbed will double.”
F + F = 2F
Flux is power per unit area/time, as Norman (and Tim) rightly says.
To derive temperature for the surface requires additional factors, like emissivity of receiving surface, it’s area and accounting for the rest of the radiative environment. Part of that calculation is the sum of the incident radiation striking the surface.
To make the sum of the incident radiation the totality of the equation, as in 315 W/m2 X 2 = 615 W/m2, then all you need to do is make the surface a blackbody, and the source of the 2 fluxes comprise the entire radiative environment, otherwise known as unity view factor.
barry…”If you have two fluxes reaching a surface the energy absorbed will double.
Barry…if two fluxes from colder objects reach a hotter object, nothing will happen. Neither will be absorbed.
Even if they can be absorbed, it’s not the fluxes that add, and I think that may be Clint’s point. The EM must be converted to another form of energy and that energy adds.
Gordon,
A 1 meter square blackbody surface receiving 100 W/m2 from one source, and 100 W/m2 from another, will absorb a total of 200 Watts.
It will be receiving 200 W/m2.
Any resulting temperature will vary depending on area and the emissivity of the surface, but the basic principle remains the same.
“if two fluxes from colder objects reach a hotter object, nothing will happen. Neither will be absorbed.”
That’s bollocks. The main factor determining whether radiation is absorbed is the properties of the receiving surface, not its temperature. That’s why we read of albedo and blackbodies and greybodies and whitebodies. These all refer to absorp.tivity. You’ve never in your life read that a hot object can’t absorb radiation from a cold one.
That’s why no one proposing this myth has been able to supply a physics text saying so, and why I have provided plenty of physics texts saying the opposite.
Radiation is not heat. Radiation can and does flow from hot to cold, but heat only goes one way.
barry, 315 X 2 = 630, NOT 615.
That’s just one of the things wrong in your comment.
Please keep all these discussions where you’ve started.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1460838
Quit skipping all over the blog. It’s like you can’t sit still.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Barryif two fluxes from colder objects reach a hotter object, nothing will happen. Neither will be absorbed.”
You again show your ignorance of real experimental verified science in favor of Crackpot physics from Claes Johnson. He makes up things and you blindly believe him and think all these engineers and scientists that have verified real physics are wrong but the crackpot who makes up physics is correct. Why?
Why must you peddle false fake physics and act like years of evidence don’t matter or mean a thing. Your god Claes says this and it is so. He knows everything. You follow so may crackpots and dishonest people and you think honest researchers who actually do experiments are idiots.
One example is your opinion of Electron Microscope researchers. You act like they don’t know anything and some lunatic crackpot comes along and says they can’t see a virus and you blindly believe it. People who work on Electron microscopes see things on a daily basis and they get good at identification and they prepare the samples and understand what is in the image. But you think they are liars and dishonest but the crackpots that make up crap are the only people you will accept as valid.
You are a very strange person, sucked down a rabbit hole of fantasy and delusion fed to you by crackpots and conmen out to make money of the gullible.
barry, you’re spitting crap out faster than we can clean it up.
Flux is power per unit area/time, as Norman (and Tim) rightly says.
Wrong, incompetent troll.
Flux is energy per unit area/time.
You need to stop listening to those other trolls.
Puppy,
Flux has dimensions [quantity][time]-1[area]-1.
The flux we are talking about is usually expressed in watts.
Not in joules.
A watt is one joule per second anyway.
Calm down.
Sky Dragon cranks lose faster if we use joules.
norman…”some lunatic crackpot comes along and says they cant see a virus and you blindly believe it. People who work on Electron microscopes see things on a daily basis and they get good at identification and they prepare the samples and understand what is in the image”.
***
The lunatic crackpot to whom you refer is Dr. Luc Montagnier who is credited with discovering HIV and who was awarded a Nobel for his effort.
Montagnier admitted in a 1 hour interview that he could not see HIV on an electron microscope. His lab tech confirmed that in the same video.
You need to get it, with all your raving and innuendo, you are the lunatic crackpot, not a scientist who won a Nobel for discovering HIV.
Some people working with EMs get good at identifying the content of a sample, but there are many out there who presume what they see on an EM is a virus. It takes an expert like Stefan Lanka to tell what is a virus and what is simply an aggregation of cells.
barry…”A 1 meter square blackbody surface receiving 100 W/m2 from one source, and 100 W/m2 from another, will absorb a total of 200 Watts.
It will be receiving 200 W/m2″.
***
You misunderstand the meaning of watt. A watt is a measure of mechanical work rate, related to the HP, and radiation contains neither heat nor does it do work. It has the potential to cause heat to be produced in a solid, gas, or liquid. The reason the watt is used in lieu of heat is that work and heat have an equivalence. Neither has an equivalence with radiated energy.
You need to understand that all EM in the air is potential energy in nature. If it is absorbed by a surface, the electrons in atoms making up the surface can convert the EM to heat, or perhaps an electrical current. When you talk about a surface receiving so many watts/m^2 from EM you need to dig deeper and see where the watts apply and where they are produced.
Claiming that EM in free space has so many watts/m^2 is plain rubbish.
****
“if two fluxes from colder objects reach a hotter object, nothing will happen. Neither will be absorbed.
Thats bollocks. The main factor determining whether radiation is absorbed is the properties of the receiving surface, not its temperature”.
***
You need to study quantum theory and see the relationship between absorbed EM and electrons in orbitals around a nucleus. There is nothing else in an atom that can absorb EM except an electron.
I have studied electrons and their properties most of my life and it only occurred to me recently the relationship between a electromagnetic field and the electric and magnetic field that is a property of a moving electron. It seems so natural to me now that EM can be absorbed and emitted by electrons in motion.
We know that is true in metal conductors, so why do people have so much trouble with it in atomic orbitals? There is nothing else in an atom or a molecule that can process EM. EM is absorbed by electrons in an atom based on the frequency of the EM quantum matching the angular frequency of an electron in its orbit. It is simply not possible for EM from a colder source to affect an electron in a warmer target because it cannot reach the frequency required to excite the electron.
Until you understand this point, you cannot possibly understand why EM from a colder body cannot affect electrons in a warmer body.
That is what determines whether EM gets absorbed or not. All the crap you see about emissivity and absorp-tion is applicable only to blackbody theory, and much of it is wrong.
In blackbody theory, that originated with Kircheoff in the mid-19th century, mistakes were made that were corrected by Bohr’s theory in 1913. Blackbody theory claimed a two-way transfer between bodies in thermal equilibrium. Unfortunately, that seems to have been incorporated incorrectly into radiation between bodies of different temperatures.
Gordon,
“You misunderstand the meaning of watt.”
A Watt is an amount of energy per unit time. I understand it. Stop trying to split hairs unnecessarily.
“You need to study quantum theory and see the relationship between absorbed EM and electrons in orbitals around a nucleus. There is nothing else in an atom that can absorb EM except an electron.”
Atoms are constantly absorbing and emitting radiation, and the orbital state of the electrons is constantly changing.
The atom does not know nor care where the photon comes from, whether from a cooler or warmer body, but if that photon is at a frequency that can shift the orbital state of an electron, that photon will be absorbed.
A blackbody or anything close to it, like a sun, emits across a huge range of frequencies. A colder sun than ours will still emit photons in much the same frequency range as ours, but the peak intensity will be slightly offset, and the intensity will be less.
Therefore, photons from the cooler sun will be at the same frequencies that the surface absorbs from the hotter sun, and therefore WILL be absorbed by the atoms on the surface.
There is no mechanism for the surface to differentiate between hotter and colder emitter. All it knows it that a photon of a frequency that can shift an electron to a higher orbital has come along and it will be absorbed.
Quite right, Clint.
Radiative flux is energy per unit area/time. This is also known as radiative power.
Sorry Norman but rates don’t simply add. Just like fluxes don’t simply add.
Distance and energy can add, but rates and fluxes don’t add.
But sadly your contained insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, just verify what an ignorant troll you are.
Clint R
You can’t process what is written. You are just being an intentional asshole. I clearly explained to you that when people are saying fluxes add they are talking about the energy. Why are you such a total jerk and stupid? Please help yourself. You do not have to be a stupid asshole all the time. Show some signs of reasoning ability. If someone clearly tells you that posters are not saying two fluxes combine to form a larger flux but the energy of the two fluxes adds then you should try to understand this and not continue with your repetition. Why must you do this? What is the purpose of ignoring what is clearly stated then going on with a stupid side post?
Troll Norman, Folkerts fraud claims that two fluxes will add, i.e. 315 W/m^ and 315 W/m^2 arriving a surface will result in 630 W/m^2 being emitted.
So youre in DEEP denial over that.
But, your troll tactics have got you banned for the night.
Better luck next time.
norman…” If someone clearly tells you that posters are not saying two fluxes combine to form a larger flux but the energy of the two fluxes adds…”
***
That’s not really true. the energies that add are no longer electromagnetic energy but an energy derived from EM, like heat.
Fluxes are mathematically-based, imaginary entities that try to describe how energy is changing over an area. Fluxes can apply to the imaginary fields of EM, magnetism, and heat. I say imaginary, because there is something in space related to EM but it’s not the field being described by a flux, which is purely mathematical.
For example,with a magnetic flux, we can demonstrate some kind of field around a magnetic pole but to quantify it we need to invent notions like flux fields. When we talk about a magnetic flux, we are talking about a human measurement, but that says nothing about what is really there. We have no idea what energy is, whether it is thermal, magnetic, electromagnetic, mechanical, etc.
Heat is also referenced as flux when flowing through a material. The flux represents heat flow as its instantaneous rate of flow through the cross-sectional area of a material, even though we have no idea what energy is. The kind of energy that flows atom to atom in a material is called thermal energy. That is dependent on a potential difference in heat at different places on the material.
Electrical energy flows atoms to atom as well, both via electrons, but electrical energy is about electric charge, a property of electrons, whereas heat is an unknown entity. Electrical charges are driven through a conductor by an external potential in a battery or power supply.
It is interesting that both heat and electrical currents flow via electrons in atoms.
” It is interesting that both heat and electrical currents flow via electrons in atoms. ”
Typical nonsense.
Heat does not ‘flow’ like electrons: it is the result of the resistance of poorly conducting materials to the flow of electrons.
Robertson spends his time in guessing and inventing instead of reading and learning regardless what it is about.
Clint R
Perhaps you are smart enough to realize if a surface has a stable area the area of the term Watts/m^2 cancels and you can find the watts directly. If you have a square meter then a flux of 315 W/m^2 would deliver 315 Watts to such a surface If it has an area 1/10 a square meter the flux would deliver 31.5 Watts. If two fluxes are hitting the same area this factor can be calculated for and you covert to total watts received. It really is not that hard to understand.
This is what Tim Folkerts stated. You have two fluxes of 315 W/^2 reaching a surface. It really does not matter what area the surface has as it will receive so many watts and then have to radiate away the same amount. Just for simplicity use the area of one square meter. The surface receives 630 joules/second and so it will raise in temperature until it emits 630 watts.
And it does NOT imply ice can boil water by adding more and more energy to a surface. The maximum energy ice (at 0 C) can deliver to a one square meter surface is 315 watts no matter how much ice you have. That is why view factor knowledge is vital. A one square meter surface can only “see” one square meter of flux. If you have a 10,000 square meter area of ice only one square meter of this ice will reach a one square meter surface and only deliver 315 watts to that surface.
Norman, there you go again….
All that irrelevant rambling accomplishes NOTHING.
Folkerts’ fraud indicates that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes would result in the surface reaching 325K, emitting 630W/m^2. That is IMPOSSIBLE. That VIOLATES 2LoT. It would imply that you could boil water with ice cubes.
You’re just a braindead cult idiot posing as an ignorant troll.
That’s NOT an insult. It’s REALITY.
Pup, Pup.
Caps lock are NOT sound arguments.
Repeating your empty assertions for more than ten years accomplish NOTHING.
EXCEPT trolling.
Silly sock puppet.
Clint R
You are a truly hopeless idiot devoid of rational or logical thinking. It can be explained to you hundreds of times in multiple ways and you still cannot comprehend.
Tim Folkerts is correct and you are a deluded idiot. It will not change. You will repeat your idiot cult mantra “ice cubes could boil water” just like the other cult idiot Swenson “The Earth has cooled for 4.5 billion years”.
What a redundant pair of idiots pretending they know what they are talking about. Dumb and dumber invade and torture a science blog.
Norman, all that irrelevant rambling accomplishes NOTHING.
Folkerts fraud indicates that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes would result in the surface reaching 325K, emitting 630W/m^2. That is IMPOSSIBLE. That VIOLATES 2LoT. It would imply that you could boil water with ice cubes.
You’re just a braindead cult idiot posing as an ignorant troll.
That’s NOT an insult. It’s REALITY.
Clint R
Not in denial at all. Tim Folkerts is quite correct. That is what happens. Each flux adds 315 Watts to a surface and so it will warm up until it emits 630 Watts of energy. The same amount it is receiving (provided no other heat transfer mechanisms are in play).
Not sure why you can’t understand this simple example.
Troll Norman, the flux being discussed has units of W/m^2, not W.
You’ve got so much too learn. I think it’s best you just remain a braindead cult idiot. I doubt you can recover within your lifetime remaining.
Pup,
Watt to a surface.
If you never learn to read, you will never learn to argue.
Silly sock puppet.
norman…no matter how you look at it, two people running 10 miles each do not run 20 miles total. The total for each runner is 10 miles.
The only way you could claim that is two runners running 10 miles each for a cause. One runner runs 10 miles then the other runner starts at the 10 mile mark and runs to the 20 mile mark. That’s not the same as two runners starting at the same mark and running 10 miles each.
I have no idea what that has to do with fluxes.
Exactly, Bordon.
You have no idea.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
When I look at this picture of the ‘Climate Reanalyzer’ from my beloved Poland
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/input/gfs_world-wt_t2anom_d1.png
then I don’t see anything other than this:
” A wave of frigid air from Canada is moving over the Great Lakes. ”
Believe me: all the rest is NOAA’s daily nonsense.
The truth, the good, the real, the only truth is this:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/input/gfs_world-wt_t2_d1.png
SVB did itself in with ‘woke’ ESG policies.
Go woke go broke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvSOSM-QipE&ab_channel=FoxNews
Keep repeating that falsity, Kennui:
https://youtu.be/cJ26yZSJNyQ
Everything will be okay.
Pray tell more about Credit Suisse.
The Bank of England (BOE) is cutting funding for climate change initiatives championed by Canadian economist and central banker, now UN special envoy on climate, Mark Carney.
https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxjavTD5fOnYCEP7TYXdRLTBu9lMJ4S0lG
Teh Donald knew that no voter fraud stole the election:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/17/trump-research-voter-fraud-claims-debunked
For some reason this behaviour makes me think of yours, Kennui.
Credit Suisse executive describing ESG priorities a year ago. Credit Suisse is in ESG up to its ears.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImI-q0PtiT4&ab_channel=BloombergTelevision
Oh, Kennui.
Crdit Suisse is based in Switzerland. It holds all the carbon intensive resources you can dream of, including oil, coal, gas, gold, silver, lithium, name it. Lots of ETNs. One is USOI. Look it up.
But its current liquidity problems are related to the fall of Archegos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archegos_Capital_Management
In the best voice of Pup, this has NOTHING to do with ESG.
It is never too late to get out of the Newscorp sphere.
Here is more damning discussion about SVB and its focus on ESG.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ2agV8hFAw&ab_channel=CrossroadswithJOSHUAPHILIPP
Jumping from Newscorp to outright fascist propaganda is worst, Kennui:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times
I am sure you could show your support to teh Donald without going batshit crazy.
Being blocked in China is a recommendation.
Fascism is a form of socialism; not far right at all.
Far right is a nothing term used only by lefties so far around the bend sinister they can’t see the bend anymore.
Ad Hominem is just a way to avoid the truth.
Epoch Times is more reliable than most sources for their accuracy in reporting. Your slamming of it speaks volumes about your lack of ethics and moral values.
ken…”Fascism is a form of socialism; not far right at all”.
***
That’s right up there with your claim that the Moon orbits the Sun. You are claiming the NDP here in BC are fascists.
It also explains why you took shots at me for claiming Ukrainian nationalists are neo-Nazi. They ran off a democratically-elected president in 2014, something you seemed to condone. The Nazis were fascists and you are listing them under the umbrella of modern socialist countries like Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Germany, etc.
Is it mushroom season on the Island?
ESG is a war on meritocracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29BDqOtDD68&ab_channel=Unorthodoxy
“The Nazis were fascists and you are listing them under the umbrella of modern socialist countries like Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Germany, etc.”
The ‘othering’ that has been going on in Canada Swedeb New Zealand Germany etc is exactly the same as the Nazis did in Germany. No difference at all.
That’s why I daily stand at the bridge waving a flag and holding a sign ‘Trudeau must go’. There are serious problems in our government and Fascism is a very good descriptor of NDP and their policies.
You are a gift that keeps on giving, Kennui:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ny-grand-jury-trump-1.6731596
Wave your flag!
I don’t give a tinker’s damn about Trump.
Then stop arguing like him, Kennui.
Perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and buy some metal.
I like silver, what about you?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
updating The Great Global Warming Swindle
https://youtu.be/lQ2UW5MAxw4
good one, Eben…thanks for link.
Had to move this down here since it reveals the abject ignorance in the interpretation of the 2nd law.
Swannie…
“Here we have another example of Gordos ignorance of thermodynamics. He is stuck with a definition of heat as the energy content of a mass with a temperature, which is a instantaneous snapshot of that amount of energy. He is missing the fact that the temperature is just the state of the energy distribution within a system of other parts, which may change as more energy is supplied”.
***
No Swannie, temperature is a measure of thermal energy, of heat. Have you ever seen a thermometer used to measure any energy other than heat? To restate you words, ‘temperature is a measure of the average state of heat distribution within a system, and the temperature changes as more heat is added’.
Heat is the energy content of a mass that is measurable by temperature. An no, temperature is not an instant snapshot of internal energy, since some of the internal energy involves the mechanical vibrations of atoms in the mass. A thermometer will not measure the mechanical energy but that energy is proportional to the heat in the mass, increasing as heat is added and decreasing as heat is removed.
If I am measuring the temperature of a mass with a thermometer, and it measures T1, when I add heat, the mass temperature will rise to T2, where T2 > T1. The atoms in the mass will also increase their level of vibration, because that kind of internal energy has work equivalent to heat. Heat and work have an intimate relationship and that’s what Clausius talks about in his book on the equivalence of heat and work. The relationship was established by the scientist Joule circa 1940.
*****
“Clausius wrote about The Mechanical Theory of Heat, that is to say, machines which can convert thermal energy to mechanical work. His Second Law applies to such systems and can be extended to other systems as well. Such systems always result in the net flow of energy moving from hot to cold. However, the details of what happens within a system may appear to contradict this statement”.
***
Clausius did not talk about the conversion of heat to work, or vice versa, he talked about the ***equivalence*** of heat and work.
The 2nd law, written by Clausius, has no reference to work. It is stated…’Heat can never be transferred, by it’s own means, from hot to cold’ and mathematically as S = integral.dq/T. If the process is reversible, S = entropy = 0. If the process is irreverible, S > 0.
Since S is a sum (integral) of instantaneous values of heat (dq) and temperature T, it is a measure of heat given off by an object during an irreversible process. That heat can never be recovered.
The 2nd law is obviously about a one-way transfer of heat from a hotter object to a cooler object. It has nothing to do with work or radiation per se. You are confusing the 1st law with the 2nd law.
And the 2nd law has nothing to say about radiation. Radiation is the messenger and has nothing to do with heat.
A prime example is a boiler heating water. Using nat gas supplied to a burner at a constant rate, water flowing at a fixed rate thru some tubes placed over the burner could experience an increase in temperature, i.e., the water is heated. Add a firebox around the tubes and burner and the water temperature would increase as less energy is lost to the air. Adding insulation around the firebox would further decrease the energy losses, resulting in water at higher temperatures. Add a radiation shield around the firebox and the same insulation would result in still higher water temperature. In the end, the net energy gained by the water will always be less than the energy supplied from burning the nat gas.
Gordo apparently thinks adding that insulation would violate the Second Law. At each step outlined above, theres a new system produced and the snapshots of temperature at the one point where the water exits are changed. No, Gordo, theres no perpetual motion here, just an increase in efficiency. The same theory is true for the GPE and the GHE, as the systems change, the temperatures change as a result.
sorry, forgot I had the rest of Swannie’s post pasted and I forgot to respond to it.
“A prime example is a boiler heating water. Using nat gas supplied to a burner at a constant rate, water flowing at a fixed rate thru some tubes placed over the burner could experience an increase in temperature, i.e., the water is heated. Add a firebox around the tubes and burner and the water temperature would increase as less energy is lost to the air. Adding insulation around the firebox would further decrease the energy losses, resulting in water at higher temperatures. Add a radiation shield around the firebox and the same insulation would result in still higher water temperature. In the end, the net energy gained by the water will always be less than the energy supplied from burning the nat gas”.
***
Swannie is heating water flowing through pipes by a flame. He claims the water ***could *** experience an increase in temperature. The only way it might not is if the water was very cold and the flow rate very high while using a low flame that did not impart much heat to the pipes.
Swannie goes on to add more forms of insulation around the system even a metal shield to block radiation. The he observes the water is getting hotter because it is losing less heat to dissipation in the air.
Then he concludes, ‘In the end, the net energy gained by the water will always be less than the energy supplied from burning the nat gas”‘.
***
Of course it will be since it is not possible to insulate to a 100% level. The water will lose heat no matter how much insulation you add.
The he goes on…
“Gordo apparently thinks adding that insulation would violate the Second Law. At each step outlined above, theres a new system produced and the snapshots of temperature at the one point where the water exits are changed. No, Gordo, theres no perpetual motion here, just an increase in efficiency. The same theory is true for the GPE and the GHE, as the systems change, the temperatures change as a result”.
***
No, Swannie, I have never claimed that adding insulation would violate the 2nd law, I said it has nothing to do with the 2nd law. The 2nd law is a law limiting the direction of heat transfer, by its own means, to a direction from hot to cold.
The same is not true of the GHE/AGW theories, where heat is claimed to be transferred from a colder atmosphere, by its own means, to a warmer surface. Not only that, the heating element, IR, originates at the surface, gets absorbed by GHGs at cooler temperatures, then the GHGs allegedly radiate the IR back to the surface, where it is allegedly absorbed, raising the temperature of the surface above the temperature it is warmed by solar energy. That is where the perpetual motion comes in as a recycling of heat to raise the temperature of the emitting surface.
That has nothing to do with your water pipe scenario where heat transfer is hot to cold. Heat is transferred from the flame to the pipe to the water. Since the flame is hotter than the pipe, which is hotter than the water, the transfer of heat is always hot to cold therefore the 2nd law is not contravened.
Gordo dumps another long winded spiel onto the site, completely failing to understand what I wrote. He complains:
He claims thermometers measure “heat”, then ignores the fact that measuring the temperature of the flowing water also is measuring the heat content of the water at each instant as it passes said thermometer. It’s all about dynamics, Gordo troll.
He wanders on, giving his incorrect interpretation of the GHE:
The temperatures of the surface and the air above are instant measures the result of the energy flowing thru the atmosphere back out to deep space. Those temperatures are going to settle at some value which is the result of a balance of all the energy flows, including the existing contents of GHG’s. Your so-called “perpetual motion” is already happening at the surface, which both emits and absorbs IR between it and the atmosphere above. This is easily verified with measurements of the IR energy both upwards and downwards at the surface and above TOA, during both day and night.
The problem is that adding more GHG’s will change the balance thru the entire atmosphere, resulting in higher temperatures at some points than were previously experienced. Another result will be changes in what we call weather, as the day-to-day flows of air masses will also change with potentially undesirable consequences.
Here is tedious long winded discussion about climate just for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5omkpYC19E&ab_channel=TheHeartlandInstitute
Swanson, Ken, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
Do you realize that a Sun with 5000 K surface temperature emits radiation at almost the exact range of frequencies that a Sun with 5500 K surface temperature does?
If you know that, how can you believe that an atom knows which sun a photon of the right frequency to bump its electron into a higher orbital comes from?
It’s not heat that shifts that electron – we both know that radiation is not heat.
The marker of what gets absorbed is the correct frequency to shift the electron to a higher orbital. Both suns emit at that frequency, so, yes, a surface in equilibrium with the hooter sun is not going to reject photons from a cooler sun that is emitting at the right frequencies to bump electrons into higher orbitals.
Same goes for the GPE. The blue plate is not going to reject photons from the Green Plate if they are of the right frequency to shift electrons to a higher orbit. And as the two plates are blackbodies in the theoretical, the Green Plate is emitting at all frequencies.
barry…”If you know that, how can you believe that an atom knows which sun a photon of the right frequency to bump its electron into a higher orbital comes from?”
***
You are personifying atoms as humans, that they need to have knowledge of something to operate. There is nothing to know, the physics is built-in.
According to Bohr, electrons orbit a nucleus with a certain angular velocity. The angular velocity, w (omega), can be converted to a frequency.
w = 2.pi.f
or f = w/2.pi
w = omega, can be measured in radians per second
If an electron is orbiting the nucleus, the number of orbits per second is its frequency. Traditionally, frequency has been measured in cycles/second. meaning orbits for second for an electron. Cycles per second are now called ‘hertz’ and the measure is sec^-1, or 1/sec.
For argument’s sake, let’s say the electron is orbiting 1 million times/second (1 megahertz). In order to excite the electron, the exciting frequency must be in the neighbourhood of 1 megahertz. In other words, the exciting frequency must resonate with the electron frequency in order to excite it.
For example, with the hydrogen atom, only certain EM frequencies will excite its electron. The Lyman series lays out those frequencies. That is for hydrogen only.
Nothing needs to be known by the atom. It comes down to the frequencies of EM in the absorbed EM. However, emissions from an atom’s electrons are also dependent on the electrons’ frequency. The frequency will be dependent on the temperature of the material.
It needs to be understood that each atom has electrons that live at different energy levels. There are two basic ways to move them to higher orbital energy levels: one, by absorbing a quantum of EM, two, by absorbing heat. Therefore, if an atom is in a body of higher temperature, it’s electrons will live at a higher orbital energy level.
It stands to reason, that the same material at a cooler temperature will have electrons living at a lower orbital energy levels. Therefore, the will have correspondingly lower frequencies. If those atoms emit EM, and that EM reaches atoms at a higher temperature, the electrons in those atoms will be at a higher frequency and will not resonate with the EM from cooler bodies.
It also stands to reason that the broad frequency range of solar energy has frequencies that excite electrons on nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, hence warming them directly. That includes any CO2 and water vapour molecules.
There is no reason to think that surface radiation will warm those CO2 and WV any more than it is warmed by solar energy, at least during the day. By the time surface radiation moves a few feet off the surface it is too week to affect GHGs at higher altitudes.
A planet surface in radiative equilibrium with the sun has NOT any resemblance with the radiative equilibrium in the cavity with a small hole.
–
The planet average surface temperature (Tmean) is not a blackbody’s temperature.
–
Planet does not have a blackbody temperature, because planet has not a uniform temperature, and because planet is not a blackbody.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, as you have been told, the planet average surface temperature (Tmean) is the planet’s measured avg. thermometer temperature Ts which can be converted to avg. surface effective temperature Tse.
The planetary average effective temperature (Te) is measured by radiometer from space.
For Earth during a certain measured time period:
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K
The 288K is measured by satellites from space.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The greenhouse effect can be observed:
https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2018/flir-technology-new-technology-shines-camera-greenhouse-gas-emissions/55986
Of course the greenhouse effect can be observed:
FLIR Technology: ‘New’ Technology Shines a Camera on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Link:
https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2018/flir-technology-new-technology-shines-camera-greenhouse-gas-emissions/55986
–
The greenhouse effect is too small to worry about.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
The greenhouse effect already melted the Antarctic.
Your turn.
Do not believe everything on TV!
Christos 10:00 am, no, the 288K Tse CAN be measured by satellites in space but is not, the 288 K avg. Ts is measured by thermometer; the satellites measure calibrated effective temperature higher in the atm. as well as planetary Te.
Again, For Earth during a certain measured time period:
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K
Wikipedia says:
288K earth’s average surface temperature.
Measured by thermometer: earthen avg. Ts=288K
That has been converted to earthen effective surface Tse=288K.
Again Christos, for Earth during a certain instrumentally measured time period:
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K
“the planet average surface temperature (Tmean) is the planets measured avg. thermometer temperature Ts which can be converted to avg. surface effective temperature Tse.”
–
Please explain how to convert? And, what is the “avg. surface effective temperature Tse” term?
All that is detailed in the relevant literature, Christos. I urge you to come up to speed on the subject on your own by reading & understanding relevant past experimental & theoretical work in the field so you don’t have to ask.
The internet will prove useful as well as your local college-level library.
When Ball4 refers to *relevant literature*, he means hes making things up, again.
Hey, Pup –
https://www.pas.va/content/dam/casinapioiv/pas/pdf-volumi/acta/acta-22-pdf-papers/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Silly sock puppet.
sheer pseudo-science.
Come on, Bordon.
Is this the best you can do?
Thank you, Willard for the Link:
https://www.pas.va/content/dam/casinapioiv/pas/pdf-volumi/acta/acta-22-pdf-papers/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Here it is an interested me abstract:
“The thickening of the blanket has added 3 Wm-2 to the IR energy to
the planet. In response, the planet will warm and radiate this energy to restore the energy balance between the net solar energy flowing in and the
infrared energy flowing out. We will begin this discussion by making the
simplest assumption possible, which is that the surface and the atmosphere
behave like Max Plancks black body, in which case it will radiate energy
to space as a black body, which is given by σT4
, where σ is a fundamental
constant derived by Max Planck and T4 denotes the fourth power of temperature T. Based on this law, the surface and the atmosphere will radiate
3.3 Wm2 per 1C of warming. In other words, the planet can get rid of 3.3
Wm-2 for every degree warming. So to get rid of the 3 Wm-2 energy
trapped by manmade greenhouse gases, the planet will warm by (3/3.3=)
0.9C. This analysis ignores some major feedbacks between warming and
atmospheric greenhouse effect and planetary albedo.
16_RAMANATHAN (cmyk)_PP_230-241.QXD_Layout 1 15/12/15 10:27 Pagina 235
236 Complexity and Analogy in Science: Theoretical, Methodological and Epistemological Aspects
V. RAMANATHAN”
–
–
“simplest assumption possible, which is that the surface and the atmosphere
behave like Max Plancks black body, in which case it will radiate energy
to space as a black body”
–
Thank you again, Willard. It is a big help for my work!
–
***
Thank you again, Willard.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Are you suggesting that the Earth does not follow the laws of physics, Christos?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
DREMT
This might help explain why discussion here can be so unproductive.
https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2023/03/18/an-incomplete-series-of-misunderstandings/
There are People so stuck on ideology they are willing to deny the laws of fizzix , they are so stupid to realize if you could add radiation from cooler object to a warmer one the whole universe would run backwards and back into the big bang
I await your demonstration, Eboy.
Perhaps you could help Pup with his non-additive muttamatticks.
Willard, Dr. Spencer has already demonstrated experimentally that added radiation from cooler atm. object to a warmer one on the surface can be detected by increased thermometer readings showing Clint R’s long time related assertions are evidently wrong.
At least the experiments must then correct Eben to believe in the big crunch.
translation…B4 can’t think for himself so he appeals to authority. Worse still he’s an alarmist calling on Roy to help out.
Appealing to valid experiments by an accomplished expert Dr. Spencer is good science Gordon. Gordon should read them and try to understand the results. Though I am sure Gordon demonstrates not having accomplished the pre-req.s to reasonably do so.
Eben
We already have people who do not understand real physics and come up with their own made up versions. Don’t join this absurd culture.
It is quite well established physics. Experimentally verified by many including Roy Spencer.
The basic radiant heat transfer equation stated quite clearly it is factual.
Here:
“Net Radiation Loss Rate
If an hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah (3)
where
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ah = area of the hot object (m2)”
The proper symbols did not copy but the 4 is temperature raised to the 4th power.
The loss of heat is calculated as the amount it emits away (first term in parenthesis) MINUS what it receives, gains from the cold surrounding. If you want to claim otherwise I would like to see some solid evidence. Spouting incorrect and unreal opinions does not make you scientific.
The correctness of the equation
q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ah (3)
is not experimentally verified.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah (3)
Your fudge factor lacks syntactic sugar, Christos.
Willard, please, what surroundings? Do they have shape, do they have emitting area?
The equation simply is not correct:
q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ah (3)
The equation simply (in general) states, there is energy flow from a hot body towards colder surroundings.
This equation does not work quantitatively. You cannot use this equation to calculate the energy flow.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, unfortunately for your comment that eqn. has been experimentally & theoretically verified since the days of Planck and Clausius as it is just the 1LOT.
The equation is not verified quantitatively.
Christos, you just haven’t read up on the long standing 1LOT being correct. You need to hit the books harder.
Planck and Clausius never mentioned planet surface effective temperature.
They did mention & instrumentally measure the 1LOT eqn. to prove it.
Their successors then placed instruments based on their work to measure the earthen:
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K
“Their successors then placed instruments based on their work to measure the earthen:
Tse Te = 288K 255K = 33K”
–
–
I am not convinced…
Did they measured correctly?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CV, Ball4 is famous for making things up.
Hes a complete fraud, like many here.
The instruments are calibrated & precise enough with 95% confidence for a convincing understanding nature’s real answer lies in the CI range when you spend the time & have accomplished the pre-req.s to study the relevant published reports.
There is not any 33 oC greenhouse effect on earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not sure what Christos means by “greenhouse effect” since farmers do use the GHE effectively in reality. It is known by direct instrumental measurements though that the earthen planetary:
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K
Ball4 ALWAYS forgets to mention that 255K is to the calculated value for an imaginary sphere.
As usual, he’s not much into reality.
Clint R always provides humorous entertainment when Clint misses, or more probably doesn’t understand, the words “direct instrumental measurements” of the earthen planetary Te = 255K.
…of which, there are none.
The 255K is the calculated value for an imaginary sphere. Earth has no *real 255K surface*.
The cult deals in fraud, not science.
None? No, Clint that’s just your humorous entertainment in action.
In reality, not Clint’s imagination, there are over 20 years of continuous 24/7/365 Te measurements from several different instruments.
Clint’s imaginary sphere can be any temperature Clint imagines it to be but the real earthen calibrated, precision measurement results for Tse and Te will be what nature determines.
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K
None.
NOTHING.
IMPOSSIBLE
VIOLATES 2LoT.
NOT.
REALITY.
Silly sock puppet.
grammie clone is stuck in a loop, writing the word “NONE” repeatedly, while ignoring the scientific facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation#OLR_measurements
Clint R provides some of the best entertainment on this blog by being physically wrong so much of the time. It’s really hard work avoiding real physics experiments such as Clint R does to justify earning blog laughing stock.
“Clint R always provides humorous entertainment when Clint misses, or more probably doesnt understand, the words direct instrumental measurements of the earthen planetary Te = 255K”
You can imagine how much it pains me to say that Clint R, troll extraordinaire, is correct. There are no direct instrumental measurements of Te = 255.
This 255K is a calculation using stephan boltzman equations that estimate the surface radiation of the sun and calculations of how much of that radiative energy theoretically reaches the earth.
Ken srsly, you just haven’t read up & learned from the results of NIMBUS thru CERES packages on earthen satellites that instrumentally measure planetary Te = 255K. CERES alone is over 20 years of continuous measurements of Te = 255K. Earthen planetary Te does vary somewhat depending on time period observed & the variations (called anomalies) are continuously reported and of much interest.
Btw Ken, you will find the T anomaly results in the top post also are from those same satellite radiometer packages.
The 33K is more cult nonsense. It comes from comparing Earth’s average surface temperature of 288K to the calculated surface temperature of an imaginary sphere, 255K.
It is a cornerstone of the CO2 nonsense. If the 255K nonsense falls, the GHE nonsense falls. Hence all the cult interest in supporting it. Got to keep the cult alive.
To support the 255K, they are claiming that value can be measured at some point in space, based on the radiative outgoing flux at that point. But, that is due to the inverse square law. Earth’s surface emission would always be something less, at a distance. The cult’s imaginary sphere, with Earth radius and a surface temperature of 288K would result in 255K ‘effective temperature’ at about 1000 miles above the surface.
No Clint, the real Earth being measured from satellite is not an imaginary sphere. Funny comment entertainment though.
That bogus equation can be easily debunked.
Only incorrectly.
Clint R
Well the equation has not been debunked yet and your false statement won’t do it either.
The idiot that you are will form such stupid ideas but engineers who design things will accept the equation as factual and used in in design work.
Norman, how quickly you forget. You couldn’t show us how to add photons. That means you can’t show us how to subtract them either.
You know NOTHING about the relevant physics.
So funny that Clint R actually writes photons do not add and THEN Clint adds up photons (two, three, or four suns worth). Great entertainment Clint.
Yes Ball4, you dont understand any of this.
There’s no need to continue confirming that.
norman…I have already pointed out the flaw in q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ah (3)…
expand it..
q = Ah.e.sigma.Th^4 – Ah.e.sigma.Tc^4
that’s q = Ah.e.sigma.Th^4 minus Ah.e.sigma.Tc^4 in case the negative sign goes missing.
What does that tell you? It tells you both surfaces have the same area since they are Ah and that the emissivity is not defined because we don’t know if its the emissivity of the hot surface or the cold surface.
This is a fraudulent equation that someone made up by trying to apply S-B in both directions. That’s not allowed since S-B is based on a one way heat transfer from a surface between 500C and 1500C to an environment at room temperature.
S-B has nothing to do with heat transfer, it expresses only the radiation intensity from a surface at temperature T.
The 1LOT for q is not a fraudulent eqn. Gordon; the experimentally based known field of thermodynamics has figured that out since the time of Planck unlike Gordon.
Gordon Robetson
You repeat like Clint R and Swenson. I have addressed your stupid point multiple times. I have linked you to room temperature testing of Stefan-Boltzmann Law and you continue on and on about how it only applies at 500 C to 1500 C.
Scientists have done much more experimenting on this since the early days. There are many journals on science. You won’t find it on the Internet but you can if you do research at a library and look up information on Stefan-Boltzmann Law and experimentation.
I am certain you three will continue blabbing on about things you do not know and repeating false points over and over hoping to get converts to a weird cult.
You are all like Flat-Earth minded people. You go by belief and not evidence. You make up stupid points and act like they are fact.
Tell you what Gordon. If you are convinced the established (and widely used equation of radiant heat transfer) is wrong and all textbook physics is wrong on this, do real science an prove it with evidence (not your stupid ignorant opinion which no one cares about). If you can prove a well established physics equation is wrong I think you would win a Nobel Prize in physics. It would be an astonishing thing really. A random poster on a climate blog knows that established verified physics is wrong, her can’t prove it is but he spews out BS and thinks he is a genius. Well prove you are a genius and prove this equation wrong. Do some experiments and show scientists are full of crap and you are the expert in the field. It would be worth your time and money to set up valid experiments to prove established physics wrong as the Nobel Prize will net you around one million dollars. Go for it Gordon! You and idiot Clint R can collaborate together and win the Nobel Prize in Physics and establish yourselves as world changing scientists.
Don’t forget Flynnson, he would surely have a great input to the proof. Or, instead of a Nobel Prize in Physics, maybe their Earth shaking efforts could earn a Darwin Award. It’s probably too late for Gordo, but there’s still hope for the others.
Its always amazing that cult idiots like Norman and Swanson are always here to troll, but never here to answer any simple questions.
grammie clone, there’s no point in answering your “simple questions”, since they are mostly gotchya posts devoid of any substance. Any attempt to provide a logical answer based on well known physics is usually met with obfuscation, misdirection or silence.
Don’t worry, I’m sure that you can find another site with the idiots of the QAnon Cult variety and fit right in.
I understand Swanson, you consider reality a *gotchya*.
That’s why your cult remains so frustrated and angry all the time.
Reality has got ya!
norman…”If you are convinced the established (and widely used equation of radiant heat transfer) is wrong …”
***
S-B is not an equation of radiant heat transfer, it is an equation of surface radiation from surface of temperature, T. The basic relationship is I = e. A. sigma. T^4.
As I said, it is based on Tyndall’s experiment in which he heated a platinum filament electrically, between temperatures of roughly 500C and 1500C. The filament began to glow red around 500C and progressively changed colours from 500C to 1500 C. Another scientist converted the colours to a colour temperature and that’s when Stefan came into it. He had already figured out a rough relationship and needed Tyndall’s experiment to verify it.
The radiation applies only to a one way heat transfer from a much hotter filament to a much cooler room air temperature. There is no way to reverse the equation to make it apply to a fictitious heat transfer from cold to hot.
Repeat…S-B is not about heat transfer.
This article demonstrates the conjecture and general hokiness involved in S-B…
https://web.archive.org/web/20170103023924/http://www.applet-magic.com/stefanlaw.htm
This article confirms the above…
https://nov79.com/gbwm/sbc.html
I had an article that explained it in detail but the site is down.
Gordon Roberstson
The first link is an actual physics site and just explains how they derived Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Your second link is Crackpot Gary Novak. He just makes up garbage. Since you never studied real physics and fake it you can’t see the difference between nonsense and good science.
All you need to know from that guy:
“Virtually everything in physics is in error”
Babbling dachshund
The ignorant, superficial and stupid guy, so stuck on ideology: that’s you, and no one else.
What about reading what 2Lot specialist Rudolf Clausius wrote already in 1887, and what of course is discredited by lots of idiots unable to scientifically contradicting him, especially on this blog?
*
Original book
https://archive.org/details/diemechanischewr00clau
*
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
THIRD, REWRITTEN AND COMPLETED EDITION.
FIRST VOLUME.
…
SECTION XII.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect
…
1. Subject of the investigation.
…
What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that the cold body always experiences an increase in heat at the expense of the warmer one.
*
Of course, the one or the other stubborn denier certainly will have no problem in inventing some pseudo-argument against even Clausius’ knowledge!
*
Beginning, of course, with Robertson, this blog’s greatest ignoramus.
Once again Braindeadon shooting blanks by appeals to Claudius Ptolemy authority, while not understanding how the light works.
Babbling dachshund, despite admitting the lunar spin, is now full on par with this blog’s dumbest idiots.
And above all, he discredits exactly the same Clausius whose authority these idiots permanently appeal. That tells us all about his lack of logic.
How dachshund moreover comes to the idea that I wouldn’t understand how the light works, and what he means with that I don’t know.
Well done, dachshund, and… Welcome to the brainless!
binny…”What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well…”
***
I don’t know why you insist on being an idiot, but it serves us skeptics well.
I have pointed out numerous times that Clausius was wrong in this statement and his error takes nothing away from his definition of the 2nd law, entropy, or his work on the 1st law. Those still stand as he wrote them.
No scientist in the times of Clausius could figure out the relationship between heat and radiation. All of them, including Tyndall, Maxwell, Boltzmann, and Planck believed heat moved though air as heat rays. They believed there was some kind of aether that transported heat through the air as radiation.
It was not till Bohr produced his theory in 1913 that anyone understood the real relationship between electromagnetic energy and heat, and that depended on electrons in the atoms of matter.
Clausius did brilliant work on atoms without knowing that atoms were made up of neutrons, protons, and electrons. The electron was not even discovered till after Clausius had died. His hypothesis that the internal energy of a any substance part heat and part work was incorporated into the 1st law.
Clausius hypothesized that internal energy is heat int + work int. His theory was accepted but he got talked into simply calling it internal energy and the symbol was designated as U. The fact that he could figure that out without knowing the full story of atomic structure marks himself in my eyes as a brilliant scientist.
Clint R
This experiment demonstrates Tim Folkerts correct and you are an idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrKqDOfnMfM
You have a background temperature that is maintained by the surroundings. If you had only radiant energy then an object to reach 0 C (that is a good emitter) would need to have a source flux of 315 W/m^2 to maintain this temperature. Now if you add another heat source of 315 W/m^2 the temperature will increase. In ideal conditions it would be as Tim Folkerts stated. In real world conditions it could vary.
In this video link, you can’t understand, it does show adding another flux increases the temperature of objects. It does not even matter what the flux actually is that reaches the objects. The video demonstrates any additional energy will increase the temperature over ambient. Strange you have no ability to understand any of this. Continue trolling and demonstrating severe cult minded mentality with your posts. I do not find it funny or amusing that you are such an idiot. I think it is sad and lowers any hope the human race has for solving problems. So many dumb people like you, that are arrogant and believe themselves superior intellect, make hope difficult. Fools cannot solve complex problems because their limited thinking prevents them from even understanding problems.
Sorry troll Norman but that only demonstrates you found something else you can’t understand. That has NOTHING to do with Folkerts’ Fraud. It has to do with which surface absorbs better.
You don’t understand ANY of this.
Clint R
I no longer expect any reasoning or thinking from you. Your post was expected, you do not understand what else the video demonstrated. You do not have enough thinking power to see that the temperature went up as more energy was absorbed (a new flux that added more energy to each object in the experiment).
Tim Folkerts is not the fraud, look in the mirror you are. Again you are too stupid to form a rational discussion. You don’t know physics, you can’t think and you blab.
Troll Norman, when you’re as braindead as you are, anything you see is *proof* of your beliefs.
Folkerts Fraud means you could boil water with ice cubes. And, you’re perfectly happy with such nonsense.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Silly sock puppet:
https://youtu.be/gLfYTP4F23g
Clint R
No what Tim Folkerts stated DOES NOT mean ice cubes can boil water. This is only a false conclusion your irrational brain came up with when you can’t understand simple addition. I suppose in your world if 1+1=2 it means ice can boil water.
Can I ask a question? Which of the two (you and Swenson) repeat stupid unrelated points the most? I can’t tell both of you repeat nonsense endlessly so I thought you might know.
Norman, Folkerts Fraud claims that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes will result in an emission of 630 W/m^2. That means 10 315 W/m^2 fluxes would result in 3150 W/m^2, corresponding to a temp of 485K, 212C, 414F.
If you need to weld something, just add more ice….
Clint R
The question is how many times do posters have to teach you and you can’t learn. I am not the only one that tries to educate you. Others have attempted.
It has been explained to you that the 315 W/m^2 is what a surface is receiving. It has nothing to do with what ice or anything else emits toward a surface. Ice maximum is 315 W/m^2 regardless of how much ice you have. What in your mind makes this hard to understand?
If you surround an object with 0 C ice that is the maximum. More ice will not allow a surface to absorb more. Tim Folkerts clearly explained (many times) that the other flux was NOT from ice but from a visible source like the Sun that can penetrate clear ice (transparent) and the object surrounded by ice can receive an additional 315 W/m^2 so the temperature will rise until it is emitting 630 W/m^2 flux. If you add thousands of tons of ice around the initial ice sphere surrounding the object non will go through. Ice is NOT transparent in IR Band of EMR, it absorbs at a high percentage so the energy never reaches the object inside the ice sphere. Do you at least want to attempt to think about the issue or will you turn your brain off and post something really stupid? Your choice. I am sure what your choice will be. You really have no choice, it is in your nature.
Norman, Folkerts’ Fraud claims that two 315 W/m^2 fluxes will result in an emission of 630 W/m^2. That means 10ea 315 W/m^2 fluxes would result in 3150 W/m^2, corresponding to a temp of 485K, 212C, 414F.
All of your rambling in circles won’t cover up fraud.
Perhaps you should quote Mighty Tim once in a while, Pipidoopop.
Try this:
> Your cult fraud claims the plate would be emitting 800 W/m^2, at a temperature of 345K, because the fluxes add. Thats nonsense.
No. Science texts claim nothing of the sort. Fluxes ARRIVING at ONE surface add. So two separate fluxes of 400 W/m^2 (say from two sunbeams) arriving at a single surface add to 800 W/m^2.
No one every claimed 400 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at different surfaces add to give 800 W/m^2. No one ever claimed that two 400 W/m^2 fluxes LEAVING two different surfaces add to give a flux of 800 W/m^2 when ARRIVING at third surface.
But please, show anyone actually making such a claim so we can refute their error.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1446282
Silly sock puppet,
Clint R
If you had 10 heat lamps that delivered 315 Watts of energy to a surface yes it would heat the object to such temperatures. You seem morbidly stuck on the notion that a 315 W/m^2 flux corresponds to some temperature and you can’t get it through your thought process that it does not.
Tim Folkerts spent time explaining to you the difference between emitted flux and received flux. Please work to understand they are different. An emitted flux can let you know a temperature of some object if you know its emissivity. A flux received can reach a surface at 315 W/m^2 and it tells you nothing about the temperature of the emitting source flux. The Solar flux is at millions of watts/m^2 at the surface and at Earth distance it is down to 1365 W/m^2. So an object can have multiple fluxes reaching it and reach any type of temperature.
Ice emits 315 W/m^2 if at 0 C (or close to) but an object away from it will receive less than this.
Not sure why you think adding more heat lamps won’t make an object hotter. Not sure how you can come up with such stupid thought process. Does it take effort to continue to be stupid?
Yes Norman, you don’t understand any of this.
Maybe a new keyboard will help….
We live in an icehouse global climate and in the coldest time of
this 33.9 million year Ice Age.
There isn’t a climate emergency, we don’t have to stop using fossil fuels, politicians are stupid and insane claiming we must stop using fossil fuel, but it seems are parts of this insanity which worth
considering, one is idea they we are close reaching peak fossil fuel
use- and such idea has claimed for decades [and has been constantly being disproved, and there is understandable reasons to claim we running out of fossil fuel energy- such government have reason to find more fossil fuels which can be used and it’s a way of keeping fossil fuel prices higher- both a means of brainwashing public for various purposes, and one being to need have wars in the Middleast, for example]. Another “idea” is related to having overpopulation problem. This something politicians have “worried” about for thousands of years. It has always been wrong, and currently biggest possibly “real” politician problem is global under population.
One can not really say politicians “concern about overpopulation” has caused this possible problem of under population. But like problem of overpopulation, politicians can’t do anything about underpopulation.
Politicians have not done anything to reduce global CO2 emission, have not done anything about overpopulation, and likewise probably
can’t do anything about global under population.
So, we don’t have an over population problem {quite the opposite if anything], but we could ask how much human population is to much.
I have always tended to put the number at around 50 billion people, though it’s possible 100 billion people on Earth surface is not too much. The billion number assumes politician remain as they always been- stupid and insane. But possible we could get better politicians, and therefore govern much more than 50 billion people on planet Earth.
It seems if we had population of 50 billion people, a lot the population would live on the ocean and we live in less crowded world.
We live in crowded world, because a lot people live in large cities- and with 50 billion global population, one could have less people living these large cities. Or less crowded for about 20% of the people.
The question is do we have enough fossil fuel and/or cheap energy for
50 billion people- though, there is no immediate concern of such a high population.
With space exploration, we could discover how we have population of well over trillion people and that would not have a problem of having cheaper energy.
Grrrand Solaaar Minimmmum aheaddd!
https://i.postimg.cc/MTMqDVzK/EISNcurrent-180223.png
2023 03 18 2023.210 43 7.2 19 24
Only 43 Sun Spots! Unprecedented – since 2022, Nov 30 :–) !
And the GSM fanaticks keep silent!
How is that possible?
Sauve qui peut.
First change your soiled diaper, you stink up the room, then come back and we can talk
Oh, the ankle-biting dachshund loses control again, insults now with pathetic swinish, filthy words.
You are such a coward, dachshund…
Binny,
You wrote –
“Oh, the ankle-biting dachshund loses control again, insults now with pathetic swinish, filthy words.
You are such a coward, dachshund”
I’m not sure Eben will burst into tears, fall prostrate with grief, or don sackcloth and ashes to repent for having offended you.
Can you name at least one person who would value the opinions of a delusional SkyDragon cultist like you? What is your opinion of the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?
Go on, don’t be an ankle biting dachshund, hurling insults with pathetic swinish filthy words, hiding like a coward behind your sauerkraut SkyDragon pseudonym.
Toss in a few facts – grow a backbone!
The arrogant Flynnson nitwit with his posh, smugly 5 oclock teatime English is stalking again.
As usual, he has nothing to say and therefore urges to say something.
How boring, how boring.
He reminds me all the time the one or the other German elementary school teacher: different native tongue of course, but same behavior.
Nice guy Bindidon. Start out with a troll then launch an all out ad hominem attack on the first guy that responds.
Are you divorced too?
Solar wind
speed: 454.8 km/sec
density: 5.93 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 58
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 134 sfu
Updated 18 Mar 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 22.29×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.0% Below Average
[Thermosphere has lowered significantly from
it’s high, and I expect neutron count to remain
low from the big blast on Farside- lower sunspot number than
I thought, and doesn’t seem like to go spotless or something.]
Where you get this graph:
https://i.postimg.cc/MTMqDVzK/EISNcurrent-180223.png
Solar wind
speed: 431.5 km/sec
density: 5.39 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 35
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 140 sfu
Updated 19 Mar 2023
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 22.09×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.0% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.1%
Large coronal hole in south, large sunspot coming from
farside in northern hemisphere.
Solar wind
speed: 423.0 km/sec
density: 5.87 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 73
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 143 sfu
Updated 20 Mar 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.83×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.4% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.4%
The sunspot number is related spots enter from
farside recently, whether these spots grow or fade
is “interesting”, but not much spots going to farside
and so sunspot number is roughly going stay same unless
significantly more come from farside within next 3 to 4 days.
Or March is largely going way I expected. And April or May
could get a lot more active. But April might be about same
as March current low active, and expected it to more. I am looking
new and growing spots, and could see that within few days.
Solar wind
speed: 520.5 km/sec
density: 10.30 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 70
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 156 sfu
Updated 21 Mar 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.76×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -2.8% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.8%
No new spots.
Solar wind
speed: 492.6 km/sec
density: 8.99 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 70
Updated 22 Mar 2023
“A new sunspot is emerging
at the circled location.”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 152 sfu
Updated 22 Mar 2023
I wonder if flux is a little
higher, due huge coronal hole [in
southern Hemisphere].
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.55×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.1% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.8%
I think the Neutral Count is still low
due to the “huge blast” on farside, and
wondering when it’s spot is going to come
from the farside.
Anyhow, it seem things are decaying and tend
to think we could get some growth in about a week.
Highest numbered is 3260 which just came from farside.
Where 3261, 3262, 3363, etc, appear, could be interesting
Solar wind
speed: 415.5 km/sec
density: 14.90 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 73
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 159 sfu
Updated 23 Mar 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.52×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.3% Below Average
It seems going stay at low activity for
several days.
March will be sideways, and April might about
same, and start to pick up in May- up to highest
levels of month of Jan
Solar wind
speed: 518.4 km/sec
density: 9.49 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 108
Updated 25 Mar 2023
“Sunspot AR3259 is growing rapidly and could
soon pose a threat for strong flares”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 158 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.97×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.5% Below Average
48-hr change: -0.3%
It doesn’t seem to me, Sunspot AR3259 is
growing rapidly, but if it is, then I am going go back
to, April could be stronger- or pick up in April rather than
“start to pick up in May”
Elon Musk Makes a Big Announcement About SpaceX
–“SpaceX will be ready to launch Starship in a few weeks,” Musk said on March 17. He added that the exact timing of the launch depends on the Federal Aviation Administration approving a license.–
https://www.thestreet.com/technology/elon-musk-makes-major-statement-about-spacex
FAA- and the wind Boca Chica, very windy lately and apparently for next week. For test launch, you probably want ideal weather conditions.
“Successful testing of the spacecraft will pave the way for NASA to use a modified version of the Starship spacecraft to land the first woman and first person of color on the lunar surface, a mission that will take place no sooner than 2025.
The vehicle could also be deployed to ferry supplies to the moon to help build NASA’s proposed moon base. NASA is currently targeting the late 2030s for the first astronaut mission to Mars.”
Well, Starship would be kind of a lunar base- one of them is as large as past plans of lunar bases. Why not land 2 or 3 of them and call it a day?
Another weekly, from Marcus House
SpaceX is ready to launch Starship in a few weeks!? Will all the new upgrades hold?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSF0gCUMzyc
A lot about SpaceX but also on other launchers and a bit about
Chinese Space station- and ISS.
Young people are wise, old people are corrupt.
Hmm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3U4FHBF8UM
The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self
Or as was said, “don’t trust anyone over 30”
Greta isn’t wise.
The unwise ones were our erstwhile leaders who gave her an audience.
You can’t fix ‘stupid’.
Prager says never under estimate the intelligence of his audience, but don’t over estimate knowledge.
And issue of how much one changes over time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajy_MVvEu1s
I tend to regard life and humans as more intelligent than
supercomputers- or assume AI will be “limited” vs humans- but I think
AI might make good enough lawyers and politicians- maybe not as good
as some, but better than most.
Prager says he mostly stayed the same since he was a kid, and I think
that seems common, or seems same with me, and people I know.
In terms of knowledge, I have forgotten more than I know.
The young may have not gained “questionable knowledge” and have not forgotten some “things”, yet.
You missed your calling, Eboy:
https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/antitrans-speakers-fans-throw-nazi-salute-amid-counterprotest/news-story/997b16c1c4cbd5a6c72805f78c77a49b
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I will point at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
And I will point at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation
That is all.
Whacky Wee Willy,
All completely irrelevant. The Earth is not a black body, and temperatures are measured with instruments which give the degree of hotness of an object in “degrees”. Not W/m2, not “energy balance”, or any similar nonsensical attempts to reject reality.
The fake “climate science” rubbish is shown to be fantasy by the fact that none of its supporters can even describe the “greenhouse effect” n any way which accords with the reality that the Earth has actually cooled for four and a half billion years – not heated up!
Appealing to the authority of fellow delusional SkyDragon cultists makes you look as silly as them.
Keep at it.
Degree of hotness?? Is there a degree of coldness too Swenson? No? I thought not, that 1:27 am comment just shows Swenson remains lost in space.
Ball4,
Since you seem to be entrenched in the scientific Dark Ages, no, there is no “degree of coldness”.
Temperatures are measured in degrees of hotness, relative to a notional zero – roughly -273.15 degrees Celsius, commonly referred to as absolute zero.
There are no “cold rays”, phlogiston, or caloric.
“Fluxes” (whatever you think they might be) do not “add” if different temperatures are involved.
There is no “greenhouse effect” – and if you believe there is, you should be able to describe it – which you can’t.
Gullible SkyDragon fool!
Farmers more politely differ with you, Swenson, since they use the green house effect to make income in the wintertime. So there really is a GHE as many farmers demonstrate for the reliably lost in space Swenson.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
No need to tell me about degrees of hotness.
I am already taken,
Whacky Wee Willy,
All completely irrelevant. The Earth is not a black body, and temperatures are measured with instruments which give the degree of hotness of an object in degrees. Not W/m2, not energy balance, or any similar nonsensical attempts to reject reality.
The fake climate science rubbish is shown to be fantasy by the fact that none of its supporters can even describe the greenhouse effect in any way which accords with the reality that the Earth has actually cooled for four and a half billion years not heated up!
Appealing to the authority of fellow delusional SkyDragon cultists makes you look as silly as them.
Keep at it.
What are you braying about, Mike?
I know you find me hot.
“All completely irrelevant.”
Swenson is not really an advocate for modern science and technology. He’s more of ‘stick my finger out the window tells me all I need to know about the climate’ kinda guy.
The rest of us can safely ignore his homespun pearls of wisdom.
Willard:
“Outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR) has been monitored and reported since 1970 by an ongoing progression of satellite missions and instruments. Earliest observations were with infrared interferometer spectrometer and radiometer (IRIS) instruments developed for the Nimbus program and deployed on Nimbus-3 and Nimbus-4”
–
–
Yes, Willard, thank you.
Also, “since 1970 by an ongoing progression of satellite missions and instruments” it was measured by those very good instruments the Earth’s average surface temperature Tmean = 288K.
–
–
They measured the Earth’s average surface temperature first (288K).
Everyone would do it first…
–
So they could do it, and they did it…
–
The 288K did not match with the 255K… the rest you know.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you have been told the satellites do not measure surface temperature; thermometers measure earthen surface temperature and yet you show no understanding that “those very good instruments (thermometers measure) the Earth’s average surface temperature Tmean = 288K.” That is Ts.
Planetary Te is measured by the satellite instrumentation at 255K.
Measured thermometer Tse – Satellite Te = 288K – 255K = 33K
Satellites have measured average surface temperatures for all planets and moons in solar system.
–
Earth is a planet.
–
Satellites have measured Earth’s average surface temperature
Tmean =288K.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, Christos, yet again, earthen satellites measure Te not Tse. Ts 288K is measured by thermometer and converted to effective Tse for comparison to planetary Te. Someday there is hope Christos may figure this out correctly.
Where a planet like Mars has an atm., satellites also measure planetary Te and ground based thermometers on landers measure Ts which is then converted to Tse for comparison to Mars planetary Te.
Where there are no landers, there is no surface Ts measured.
Where there is nil atm. like the moon or planet Mercury, satellite radiometers do measure Tse and can compare that to lander surface Ts. Study this:
Measured thermometer Tse – Satellite Te = 288K – 255K = 33K
Willard, I know why.
–
Please wait till I find a very important reference I have somewhere saved, to support the 288K.
I already know about your old NASA memo, Christos.
Willard, please, if it is available, please produce it here – I have to answer Swanson first.
–
Then I’ll tell you about the pyramids.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190714
One cannot measure planet average surface temperature with air temperature measuring thermometers.
Those thermometers were invented for the weather forecasting purposes.
–
It is the satellites’ job to measure planetary average surface temperatures.
–
No one was able to measure Earth’s average surface temperature before the satellite era.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Read the sentence in bold again.
Do you know why ancient Egyptians built pyramids 4,5 thousands years ago?
They were told not to, but they, nevertheless, proceeded.
–
Do you know why?
Christos, As Ball4 noted, the satellite instruments, such as the MSU/AMSU, DO NOT MEASURE surface temperature. The MODIS instruments provide a measure for both ocean and land temperature, but only at fixed times of the day and the repeat time over a location is about 2 days, thus the daily global average is unavailable.
Perhaps you can provide a reference to support your claim.
Christos,
Do you know how they put caramel in the Caramilk?
Swanson, here it is a reference I have on the issue:
Link:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010RG000345
–
“[6] One consequence of working only with temperature change is that our analysis does not produce estimates of absolute temperature. For the sake of users who require an absolute global mean temperature, we have estimated the 19511980 global mean surface air temperature as 14C with uncertainty several tenths of a degree Celsius. That value was obtained by using a global climate model [Hansen et al., 2007] to fill in temperatures at grid points without observations, but it is consistent with results of Jones et al. [1999] based on observational data. The review paper of Jones et al. [1999] includes maps of absolute temperature as well as extensive background information on studies of both absolute temperature and surface temperature change.”
I too have so many concerns, Christos –
https://dictionary.apa.org/denial
Christos, Your 2010 reference uses the GISS data set and presents results as anomalies. The report is quite long and detailed, so read carefully. Please note that your mention of a global average temperature of 14C (288K) refers to the period 1951 thru 1980, which precedes the satellite era.
But, my point was that the satellites do not continuously measure at any location, but only provide a snapshot at fixed time of day from two satellites. Those satellites are the same ones which carry the MSU-AMSU instruments and may experience the same orbital problems as found in the MSU-AMSU records.
Willard, now that I have read about the denial, thank you, I’ll tell you about the pyramids.
–
At those ancient times (4,5 thousands years ago) the Northern Africa still was the best place on Earth to live. The best climate and the best environment, that is why many ancient kingdoms thrived there.
–
Then the climate started to get warmer and warmer. Egyptians were alarmed and started building pyramids to make the climate reversed.
–
Finally they accepted the only way was to adapt to the climate changes, but vast resources were spent in vain, ancient economies were destroyed, millions of populace were lost in those useless enormous efforts.
–
Does the above reminds the situation we are in now?
–
–
Now, you tell me how they put caramel in the Caramilk!
Swanson:
“Please note that your mention of a global average temperature of 14C (288K) refers to the period 1951 thru 1980, which precedes the satellite era.”
–
–
I was referring to the phrase:
“For the sake of users who require an absolute global mean temperature, we have estimated the 1951-1980 global mean surface air temperature as 14C with uncertainty several tenths of a degree Celsius.”
–
“1951-1980 global mean surface air temperature as 14C”
–
Swanson, it is impossible to estimate the average surface temperature from the global mean surface air temperature.
–
Those are different things.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Caesar invaded Egypt. Without its weat, Rome would have fell before it did.
Napoleon tried to invade Egypt. He reasons are more or less the same. He failed. Blame Nelson.
If what you say about Egypt was true, they would not have tried to take control the bread basket of Southern Europe.
Pyramids are symbols of the afterlife. They connect emperors to Gods. If your society is built on that kind of religious order, that connection matters more than climate.
It is alleged that how they put caramel in the Caramilk is a big mystery. If you have ever looked at footage of a chocolate bar factory, you can come with plausible explanations. It is just an old ad theme:
https://caramilk.ca/
No affiliation.
Christos, I agree with your point that the temperature of the surface will likely be different from that of the air at ~2m above.
Now consider my comment that the satellites are in polar orbits which are sun synchronous and which collect their data at one (or perhaps two) time points during the day for all locations. Also, the times of the locations vary with latitude at the satellite progresses around the orbit. As a result, are you claiming that a twice-per-day reading at fixed local time points can be mathematically combined to represent a surface average over the entire globe? What are the implications of the readings at high latitudes, where the orbits are close together and several measurements will result for each day?
I don’t know Swanson. What are the implications?
The implication is that you are playing dumb, Gill.
Swanson:
“Now consider my comment that the satellites are in polar orbits which are sun synchronous and which collect their data at one (or perhaps two) time points during the day for all locations.”
–
–
Why, should the polar orbits necessarily be sun synchronous?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Swanson, if you ask such a convoluted question does that mean you don’t know what you’re talking about?
(See how straight-forward my question is.)
That is simple enough, Pup.
Here is simple –
Why do you keep trolling under a fourth or a fifth sock puppet?
Christos, the orbits for the satellites are intentionally selected to cross the equator at the same local time of the day for each orbit. This requirement forces the use of orbits which pass near to, but not directly over, the poles.
Swanson:
“the orbits for the satellites are intentionally selected to cross the equator at the same local time of the day for each orbit.”
–
I think satellites’ orbit direction are fixed in space. Since satellites follow Earth orbiting sun during the whole year, the satellites’ orbit inevitably “visits” all the hours of the day-night cycle over all of the Earth’s latitudes.
Thus satellites are being able to measure the surface temperature on every possible point on the earthen surface.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christoswrote:
You may be an engineer (like Gordo?), but you don’t understand the satellite orbits used for collecting geophysical data. Those with polar orbits exhibit precession, which keeps their Local Equator Crossing Time (LECT) fixed as the Earth orbits the Sun.
Swanson:
“Those with polar orbits exhibit precession, which keeps their Local Equator Crossing Time (LECT) fixed as the Earth orbits the Sun.”
–
–
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_orbit
“To retain a Sun-synchronous orbit as the Earth revolves around the Sun during the year, the orbit must precess about the Earth at the same rate (which is not possible if the satellite passes directly over the pole). Because of Earth’s equatorial bulge, an orbit inclined at a slight angle is subject to a torque, which causes precession. An angle of about 8 from the pole produces the desired precession in a 100-minute orbit.”
–
(which is not possible if the satellite passes directly over the pole)
–
We see that it can be done for the satellite in polar orbit to “visit” every local time on every latitude. Satellite naturally drifts thru local hours when Polar-Orbiting Earth.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos wrote:
Please pay attention, grasshopper. The orbits used are not exactly polar, as in, over the poles. The orbits are intentionally designed to provide fixed LEQT’s, thus they pass every other point at the same fixed time of day. The orbits of the early satellites do/did drift, but the more recent ones have station keeping to maintain the desired LEQT.
Swanson:
“The orbits of the early satellites do/did drift, but the more recent ones have station keeping to maintain the desired LEQT.”
–
Exactly, the Earth’s average surface temperature Tmean =288K was measured by early satellites. The Tmean =288K is known for forty years now – since 1981.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, As stated in your reference report, the global average surface temperature is produced with a global model. Their result was for the years 1951-1980. They later note in section 25 that the ocean temperatures were obtained from ship measurements and in section 26 that the use of satellite data for ocean temperatures did not begin until ~1982. As a result the satellite data was unavailable regarding average temperature mentioned in section 6.
Of course, the value of ~288k does not include any warming occurring since 1980, which may be more than 1.0C.
Yes, of course.
–
The 255K, how it is satellite measured?
Just like Christos pointing ~$30 Ryobi IR thermometer at a lab glass of ice water in a 70F kitchen measuring 32F read out which is same as mercury thermometer reading 32F with its measuring tip sufficiently in contact with the ice water.
I guess Swanson doesn’t know what the implications are.
I guess that Hunter doesn’t know what he’s writing about, as usual. After giving Christos information regarding the instruments involved, I see no need to waste time with his further education. If he (or you) want to spend a few years wading thru more than 50 years of technical reports, that’s his choice.
Just as long as you don’t go down that UAH underestimating summer warming in the polar regions again Swanson. You botched that one last time. So as long as you admit you don’t know any implications we can be done with it. . . .your lame excuse making notwithstanding.
ball4…”Christos, you have been told the satellites do not measure surface temperature; thermometers measure earthen surface temperature…”
***
Do they poke a hole in the surface and stick a thermometer into the hole? No, they measure several metres above the surface. Hansen, then head of NASA GISS lamented the serious problems with thermometers.
What’s an earthen surface temperature? Thermometers measure atmospheric temperature and not very well. They miss most of the oceans that make up 70% of the surface. The irony is those temperatures gathered over the decades are no suspected by alarmists, who are changing them to suit the warming meme.
AMSU Channel 5 may have its centre frequency at 4 km, which is halfway up Everest, but it can scan close enough to the surface to allow accurate extrapolation due to the voluminous data they acquire. The thermometers use extrapolation as well and it’s not very accurate.
OK.
Then use the borehole temperature derived surface temperature record.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/openbook/0309102251/xhtml/images/p200108c0g79001.jpg
It agrees well with the main features of the directly measured surface record.
You left out the important bit:
“This calculation gives us an effective temperature of the Earth of 252 K (−21 C). The literature gives a value of 255 K (−18 C), which is essentially the 239 Wm-2 outgoing longwave radiation,”
255K is a calculation.
By that logic nobody ever measured the speed of light, Kennui.
Scientists only measure measurements.
Sometimes these measurements cohere with theory.
When it does, it reinforces that theory.
Same with just about every calculation, including Roys.
Willard, please stop being stupid and irrelevant if you can.
Mike, Mike,
These are not the magic words.
“Willard, please stop being stupid and irrelevant if you can”.
***
And not necessarily in that order.
Come on, Bordon.
You are the most stupidly irrelevant here.
Even Pup bows to you.
Ken 8:27 am, all temperatures are defined calculations since temperature is a calculation from summing & dividing to find the avg. KE of the objects of interest molecules at the measurement site – kinetic temperature is measured by thermometer and brightness temperature is measured by radiometer.
The earthen planetary brightness temperature 255K measured surface is that atm. uppermost layer made by the observing radiometer instruments as they trace out their orbits over time. As others point out, the 255K can also be calculated theoretically using the 1LOT energy balance formula. You can find & learn, from 1st principles, the method in a beginning course text on atm. radiation.
“Infrared radiation of Earth is 239 W⋅m−2, one of two outgoing energy values of Earth’s energy budget, the other being the reflected energy of 102 W⋅m−2, and effectively being the 255 K calculated blackbody temperature of Earth.”
Of course though the earth isn’t a blackbody
Of course the finger is not the Moon.
Willards head is back out into outerspace.
What is the sound of Gill and Bordon yapping?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ken 8:30am, more accurately planetary avg. infrared radiation of Earth is measured at ~239 Wm-2 – by satellite radiometer at a surface traced out by the orbits of the various observing instruments on satellites. You can learn more about the process in a beginning text on atm. radiation.
By that logic we never measured the temperature of the Sun or the speed of light, Kennui.
At best you could argue that we do not measure theorical entities.
So at best you are making a silly semantic argument.
You can’t measure a theoretical temperature.
Nowhere is there a 255K surface temperature to measure.
You could try to prove stephan boltzman equation wrong. Good luck with that.
Read the quote again, Kennui –
“The literature gives a value of 255 K (-18 C), which is essentially the 239 Wm-2 outgoing longwave radiation, one of two outgoing energy values of Earths energy budget, the other being the reflected energy of 102 W⋅m-2”
On the one hand, we have calculations.
On the other, we have measurements.
Our measurements corroborate our calculations.
What is hard to grasp exactly?
Ken 6:29 pm, you can measure an actual brightness temperature and use 1st principles to theoretically verify understanding of the measurement even for a planet. This process has already been applied for several planets… and moons.
You can learn by using an IR thermometer to measure & read out actual brightness temperature of ice water at thermometer 32F and boiling water at thermometer 212F.
Weepy Wee Willy,
By any logic you are a delusional SkyDragon cultist who refuses to have anything to do with the reality that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, regardless of your imaginary “greenhouse effect”.
Keep playing “silly semantic games”, and trying to make people “waste space”.
You are obviously so confused that all you can do is whine and complain, and have tantrums without actually being able to say why!
Tut, tut, Wee Willy. Your desperation is showing. Why don’t you appeal to another “authority” – only to discover, again, that your “authority” supports me, rather than you!
You are as silly as that other idiot, Bindidon, who has abandoned his claims that he can predict the future by “dissecting” the past, and just lashes out mindlessly in all directions, instead!
Carry on – some other delusional SkyDragon more stupid than you values your opinion, I suppose. Ken Rice, of “andthenthere’sphysics”, perhaps?
Mike Flynn,
Kennui’s the one who’s playing a silly semantic game here.
Bray something to him.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ball4…”Christos, unfortunately for your comment that eqn. has been experimentally & theoretically verified since the days of Planck and Clausius as it is just the 1LOT”.
***
Nonsense. There is no verified equation that is written as badly as that equation. It expands to…
q = Ahot.e.sigma. Thot^4 – Ahot.e.sigma.Tcold^4
Makes no sense at all.
What the equation is incorrectly trying to replicate is Newton’s law of cooling…
dT/dt = K(Tsurf – Tenv)
It states the instantaneous change in temperature is proportional to the difference between surface temperature and the temperature of the environment.
K = constant of proportionality.
The other equation is nonsense. It has arbitrarily assumed it’s OK to reverse the S-B equation to have heat flowing cold to hot, and that’s the nonsense factor.
Gordon 3:49 am comments the 1LOT is nonsense. Typical comment from the uneducated Gordon. At least Clint R is humorously wrong; Gordon is just plain wrong. There is little hope Gordon will ever understand given his commenting record.
Gordon consistently mixes up his own words proving little understanding of basic thermodynamics since heat is the total motion of atoms/molecules in an object. EMR is NOT heat Gordon. The atoms do NOT flow between Thot and Tcold objects in the radiative 1LOT eqn. for q as does EMR.
” Gordon consistently mixes up his own words proving little understanding of basic thermodynamics… ”
*
This is by no means restricted to ‘basic thermodynamics’.
Robertson is a mix of (1) 360 degree denier and (2) ignoramus who thinks everybody would believe he knows everything better, from Newton over Clausius to Einstein, from viruses over science and engineering to the Russian aggression.
*
One of his most ridiculous attempts to deny science is when he claims that Newton himself would have found the reason for the missing 43 arcseconds in Mercury’s orbit precession when based on his gravity theory, a precession which was calculated with absolute precision when using Einstein’s GR equations (which by the way gave also a correction of 8.6 arcseconds for the orbit precession of Venus).
*
His downright pathological rejection of time dilation, the ignorance of which causes the GPS not to work at all (according to all the engineers involved), is also a wonderful example of the consequences of his egomaniacal ignorance.
*
The best of all is when this guy tries to tell us he was/is an engineer. Even the dumbest of my former engineering colleagues would not have shown his incredible mixture of ignorance and brazenness.
Bindidon
You are spot on about Gordon. It is almost certain he has never taken a college level physics course and passed it. He seems a complete phony with a huge ego.
And I forgot to mention the very best…
…namely, that this Robertson guy (the kind of guy Krauts calls ‘dummdreist,’ sort of a mix of dumb and bold) isn’t just whining that people who disagree with him would ‘appeal to authority’.
He himself even permanently appeals to the supposed authority of contrarian bloggers.
And if necessary, he manages to invent instances of appeal, for example to the scientist R.G. Wood who was a noted specialist in light (UV, visible, near IR) but who never and never, as Robertson constantly suggests, claimed to be a specialist in far IR, let alone gases, let alone CO2.
all that wood’s showed is there is no greenhouse effect as portrayed by the mainstream media with the help of political activists.
Hunter boy
” all that woods showed is there is no greenhouse effect… ”
*
Typical, incompetent Hunter boy blah blah – this time about Wood’s tiny, ONE SINGLE PAGE note about an ‘experiment’ Wood himself described a his note’s end as what it really was:
” I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter ”
*
It was just a small, unpretentious note, published in 1909 in the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine, vol 17, page 319-320.
A small note, however, blown up by thousands of Pseudo-skeptics into a highly scientific contradiction to all the work previously done in this area!
Even Knut Angström had at least tried a little harder.
*
The very best is that neither Robertson let alone the Hunter boy would understand what was wrong in Wood’s experiment and why it was.
*
– Did you ever read Wood’s note, Hunter boy?
– Do you know that not only Vaughan Pratt but also Roy Spencer himself and many others proved Wood wrong (Nasif Nahle being the only contrary exception in the list)?
– Did you ever read Charles Greely Abbot’s contradiction to Wood’s note, Hunter boy?
*
Last not least…
If R.G. Wood were an ardent admirer of the greenhouse effect, and if the work of Nobel laureate Arrhenius was an attempt to prove its non-existence, then Wood’s tiny, one-page note would have been literally torn up as superficial nonsense by every Pseudo-skeptic on Earth!
Binny,
You wrote –
“Do you know that not only Vaughan Pratt but also Roy Spencer himself and many others proved Wood wrong (Nasif Nahle being the only contrary exception in the list)?”
Do you know that Vaughan Pratt withdrew his “proof” after others pointed out that his experimental setup was so poor that Vaughan Pratt wound up fooling himself?
Do you know that Roy Spencer “proved” nothing of the sort?
You can’t even describe the “greenhouse effect”, which you believe cooled the Earth for four and a half billion years, then decided to heat it up again!
Stick to your sauerkraut utterances about dachshunds, Nazis, excrement, arrogance – and all the other diversions you try, in your efforts to avoid accepting reality.
binny…”Wood himself described a his notes end as what it really was:
I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter ”
***
Wood did not have to go deeply into the GHE theory since it was so egregiously and apparently wrong. His expertise with infrared radiation and gases like CO2 told him that.
What do you think Wood was photographing, bikini models? He specialized in the photography and optics of gases like co2, sodium vapour, etc.
And stop using Roy against us skeptics. We support Roy in his science and any difference of opinion is part of that support. Goes with the territory. You, on the other hand, are posting here specifically to refute his views on warming and climate and you are using him in an attempt to create division between us skeptics and Roy.
Wont happen.
Bindidon says:
Hunter boy
all that woods showed is there is no greenhouse effect
*
Typical, incompetent Hunter boy blah blah this time about Woods tiny, ONE SINGLE PAGE note about an experiment Wood himself described a his notes end as what it really was:
I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter
*
It was just a small, unpretentious note, published in 1909 in the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine, vol 17, page 319-320.
A small note, however, blown up by thousands of Pseudo-skeptics into a highly scientific contradiction to all the work previously done in this area!
——————————
Strawman Alert!
You are such an ignoramus Bindidon you couldn’t mount a decent debate argument against a 3rd grader.
first you take my claim and erase half the sentence. I am not disputing that there is a greenhouse effect. I think there is.
So why would I want to prove that there isn’t one?
Obviously that must not have even occurred to you since your skull must be about 3inches thick surrounding about a few cubic inches of grey matter.
So if you want to at least mount an argument that can’t be swept away in a single sentence you should try a little harder.
Obviously the only thing that R.W. Woods proved was that the greenhouse effect is not caused by backradiation as obviously backradiation from the IR opaque glass which had to have been about 100+watts more than the sky temperature didn’t register any additional warming in the greenhouse.
That blows to smithereens exactly what I said it did. And it blows apart all the arguments about backradiation warming the surface.
that leaves an insulation model which isn’t provided by a sheet of glass. But an insulation model in the atmosphere hasn’t been established and blueprinted. We are not allowed to audit the so-called climate models as they are viewed as proprietary to determine if they are based upon an established blueprint. but obviously they can’t be because they are always wrong anyway.
“re using him in an attempt to create division between us skeptics and Roy.”
Roy is a scientist. There is thus a deep natural divide between him and the anti-science regulars who post here. He has tried to correct science myths they push, and ban the most egregious trolls among them several times, but has since given up trying.
Gordo ranted:
I suppose it never occurred to Gordo that Dr. Roy’s MSU-AMSU products work as the result of the same physics of gasses as that of the poorly named Greenhouse Effect. Your “difference of opinion” is actually a rejection of Roy’s physics. Besides, Roy doesn’t reject the entire GHE, his disagreement is with the magnitude of rate of warming, AIUI.
Also, what Dr. Wood’s experiment demonstrated was that real greenhouses are mostly warmed by the suppression of convection with the atmosphere.
Gill, Gill,
You are a Sky Dragon crank.
Roy showed yall the door a long time ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Spamming his website for more than a decade is not skepticism.
Willard says:
”Gill, Gill, You are a Sky Dragon crank. Roy showed yall the door a long time ago:”
————————–
Of course you believe that because you are near totally ignorant on how the GHE works or you wouldn’t suggest that.
Roys says:
”I have allowed the Sky Dragon Slayers to post hundreds of comments here containing their views of how the climate system works (or maybe I should say how they think it doesnt work).”
Number one I haven’t posted how I think it works nor how I think it doesn’t work. I am simply relying on observations that it doesn’t work as advertised.
Roy isn’t of the school that CO2 is the control mechanism of the GHE and that everything works in lockstep with changes in CO2 even while his own demonstration of it obtained results that were vanishing small.
I am not opposed to the idea of positive feedback as it provides a basis for modern warming arising from the LIA. But say climate sensitivity was (if my memory serves as to Roys estimate from several years ago) .38 which is a negative factor of 2.5.
His observations were criticized for being shortterm. So then lets pile on the iconic 3.0 climate sensitivity to surface warming and we end up in the long run with a total of 1.14 degrees warming from doubling of CO2.
Blend in a little bit of LIA recovery positive feedback as per Dr. Syun Akasofu whose only claim was that to understand AGW one must first understand natural climate change and isn’t a member of the group addressed by Roy above.
Its not clear how much ocean oscillations may be affecting the temperature record either and of course that is being passionately embraced as a quite significant explanation by the institutional propagandists for the failure of the models.
However the propagandists are completely resistant to including that explanation in the models because then it might take 1,500 years for the 3 degrees they expect to be realized. that would be an absolute PR nightmare.
In fact every lukewarm scientist works on ECS figures precisely because they don’t buy into the CO2 nonsense sold to ignoramuses like yourself by the CO2 propagandists.
Since you do Willard don’t pretend you are in agreement with the lukewarm science community.
Gill, Gill,
You’re not a luckwarmer.
You’re a Sky Dragon crank.
Besides, Roy does not use the concept properly:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/lukewarmers-part-ii
You’re more than 10 years late to the party.
bill h…”Roys says:
I have allowed the Sky Dragon Slayers to post hundreds of comments here containing their views of how the climate system works…”
***
Just to be clear, that comment from Roy was from a few years back and was in reference to a group who were associated with the Dragon Slayers site. I don’t recall reading their comments but based on their site, some were pretty far out.
I do recall an interesting exchange between Roy and Pierre Latour, one of the authors of ‘The Sky Dragon Slayers’ but I have never seen posts from anyone supporting the group.
None of us skeptics posting today are part of that group as far as I know.
C’mon, Bordo.
The more you play dumb, the more you pretend not to know.
You deny the greenhouse effect.
That makes you a Sky dragon crank.
Only a crank denies the greenhouse effect.
Simples.
Willard says:
Youre not a luckwarmer.
————————
I am just glad you are endorsing Roy’s work.
I am a lukewarmer because I believe there is a greenhouse effect and have said in here repeatedly that I see it as a single layer effect.
I believe it is far less than the propagandist GHE sold to the mainstream media which is a multi-layered effect. I don’t accept the multi-layered effect because of convection and the tropopause combining to limit and/or mitigate a multi-layered effect and the effect of CO2.
Bill sez “Number one I havent posted how I think it works nor how I think it doesnt work.”
Then he immediately contradicts himself:
“I believe it is far less than the propagandist GHE sold to the mainstream media which is a multi-layered effect. I dont accept the multi-layered effect because of convection and the tropopause combining to limit and/or mitigate a multi-layered effect and the effect of CO2.”
FYI, the GHE theory he refers to DOES incorporate convection.
Nate says:
”Bill sez ”Number one I havent posted how I think it works nor how I think it doesnt work”
You took that out of the larger context Nate. This is in regards to the sky dragon theories that GHG’s can’t cause a greenhouse effect and Roy’s challenge of either a rational argument for why ghg can’t cause a ghe or a rational argument for how else the ghe is created.
I haven’t taken either of those positions. On the single layer vs the multiple layer I see the TOA as having an insulation potential, but there is only one TOA. So favoring one of the other is just a matter of supporting the best available science.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1463276
As usual Willard you don’t have clue one about what this is all about.
And so Gill did not get the memo yet.
I kinda specialize in the luckwarm brand.
He is not it.
Willard claims he specializes in something he obviously doesn’t know anything about.
The main difference between lukewarmers and the mainstream which believes in the unchanging model output over the past 50 years
is on the topic of ECS.
If you knew what ECS was you would not say that lukewarmers agree that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to the same temperature increase and that the only difference is how long it will take.
Educate yourself a little Little Willy. You effectively just agreed I am a lukewarmer once you understand what one is as you properly identified my argument and only screwed up on a definition.
But no doubt you will seek out something else to quibble about.
https://tinyurl.com/y265pfpe
Gill, Gill,
You goose.
You were talking about past temperatures.
You were saying that sensitivity was less than half a degree,
The first is silly, and the second is unphysical.
Luckwarming is a bet under 3C.
As such it is not even incompatible with the IPCC.
What is incompatible with the IPCC is to argue for a lower and a narrower range while pretending that there was more uncertainty.
That part is completely irrational.
Come to think of it, Luckwarmers might not be that different from Sky Dragon cranks.
Willard says:
”Come to think of it, Luckwarmers might not be that different from Sky Dragon cranks.”
Of course a sycophant who knows nothing on the topic would start to think that once they realize that lukewarmers disagree with the political conclusions of the IPCC.
But while you try to run and hide under the sciency IPCC skirt you should realize that its almost impossible to discuss the issue with you because you have no knowledge of the topic and are inconsistent in everything you say about physics.
You can’t rationally state one position. You demonstrated the same confusion in the spinner/non-spinner argument.
Here even your definition of a lukewarmer is changing within the same thread.
It is difficult to even discuss this topic because of the odd and non-conventional way the IPCC and climate scientists have endorsed the concept of feedbacks.
to wit within traditional definitions feedbacks would be what happens after a perturbation. . . .say an increase in energy being directed at the surface would be a traditional way of defining surface feedback.
But instead in climate science the word effectively represents what happens as a result not of a surface perturbation but instead an increase in energy absorbed by the atmosphere. thus feedbacks are often ignorantly assumed to be the result of a surface perturbation when they aren’t.
And to confound the discussion even further. A surface perturbation is defined as being the mean temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere and it isn’t even a surface temperature as defined in the theories of light radiation.
So what we have are proxies all over the place that only the ignorant believe are actual traditional representations of perturbations and feedbacks.
Lukewarmist climate scientists adopt the language of their profession and actually recognize and understand how and why it is unconventional. Namely, its all we have in terms of actual science and theory must arise from a solid foundation.
I agree with that foundation and that light is absorbed by the atmosphere as identified by science. But after that is where things start to go haywire.
We have the same unconventional way of defining rotation within the science of astronomy because of the complex motions of the planets in a universe where gravity is ubiquitous. Only ignoramuses conclude it to be the only means of defining rotation.
This is confusing in that it prompts you to effectively claim that negative feedback is impossible and for the same reasons that spinners argue incessantly for why orbital motion cannot be a rotation.
No climate scientist worth half a shaker of salt would claim that negative feedback would be physically impossible and unphysical as you have claimed.
The only reason why many lukewarmist scientists believe the sensitivity number is around 1.3 or 1.7 is they are operating on the basis of this non-conventional way of communicating and are focusing their work on observations of climate versus developing alternative theories. However, many of those who are lukewarmists have alternative theories, like Lindzen and Svensmark. Others throw wrenches into the circle jerk like Akasofu. Akasofu doesn’t have an alternative theory for climate change he simply recognizes that nature can change climate for as yet unidentified ways, not just mankind can do that.
The bosses who distribute the funds, whom often aren’t informed climate scientists themselves, would view anybody talking a different language on what I am talking about as not being in the ‘club’. that would include anybody who doesn’t identify with the unconventional definition of feedbacks for whatever reason. They are just assumed to be talking a foreign language and those ignorant of the unconventional definitions will think they are all cranks when actually they have that exactly backwards. . . .they are the crank.
And Kevin Trenberth the guy with all the money to communicate to the public sits there scratching his head about why he has so much trouble talking to the public is perhaps the biggest crank of them all.
The sensitivity estimates for lukewarm scientists will go negative if and only if the mean global temperature of the lower atmosphere dips very significantly for the agreed-upon approximate 2 decades. (though Ben Santer got away with a ”rounded” two decades of 17 years based upon a ‘blessed’ temperature proxy for surface warming). When the pause occurred argument arose over which proxy would be believed and thus it was never broadly accepted as a pause even though it was slightly negative by some measures.
All that would entail for a real scientist to endorse a negative feedback should be about a half a degree of unidentified cooling over a period of a couple of decades. Any such cooling period by definition, and ‘climate science convention’ that was unidentified should actually be identified as negative feedback. . . . but of course since this is political now it never would be.
But all that proves is you are either a climate scientist not worth a half shaker of salt or simply you are not a scientist since you fervently believe such a result would be impossible.
TL;DR, Gill.
Why the verbal diarrhea?
E. Swanson says:
Hunter troll wrote:
Nice job Swanson. You imitated putting a steel greenhouse over the clear plate and the clear plate cooled rather than warmed.
Nice job Hunter. You completely failed to understand what I did. The glass pane painted black is analogous to Elis Blue Plate which is also heated by an external source.
—————————-
What I understand Swanson is you want to just show one half of the effect.
What you have constructed is analogous to the steel greenhouse and it cooled the clear plate when it separated from the painted plate by eliminating conduction and depending instead upon the weaker electro-magnetic force radiation.
Solid barriers with air gaps do provide insulating effects. But what does that have to do with anything especially when you want to just focus on half the effect?
I have extensive experience in radiant barriers. Radiant barriers can reduce downwelling heat but are ineffective against upwelling heat. All your experiments are shams designed to show just a little and not all. And here where you get called on it you cry foul.
It is rare that Bill is not confused about whats going on.
“What you have constructed is analogous to the steel greenhouse and it cooled the clear plate”
Not at all.
The Steel Greenhouse, as has been shown to you several times, involves surrounding a HEATED sphere with an unheated black steel sphere.
Swansons experiments is obviously not that. The window that cooled is unheated.
The similarity is that both the heated sphere and the solar heated black window are INSULATED by a passive object separated by a GAP from the heated object.
With the GAP-insulator present, the heated object gets WARMER, in both cases.
Nate says:
It is rare that Bill is not confused about whats going on.
What you have constructed is analogous to the steel greenhouse and it cooled the clear plate
Not at all.
The Steel Greenhouse, as has been shown to you several times, involves surrounding a HEATED sphere with an unheated black steel sphere.
—————————–
Oh OK I can buy that. so the GPE isn’t in any shape of form related to a greenhouse effect. we can apparently agree on that.
If you choose to disagree then we are back to what I said.
As I said:
“The similarity is that both the heated sphere and the solar heated black window are INSULATED by a passive object separated by a GAP from the heated object.”
If you don’t get the physics of how a passive object can insulate a heated object and cause it to get warmer, which is happening in the GPE and the Steel Greenhouse, then you are joining the sky-dragon slayers, and definitely won’t get the GHE.
That is the point of these examples.
Well then it should be real easy for you to demonstrate how an insulator does that. You seem to be in denial of basic radiation theory.
According to the theory if you heat a plate with a 342 watt/m2 field of light it will according to radiation law warm up to a maximum of 278.7K and will do so without any insulation.
So where is the demonstration that makes it hotter than that? Every attempt I have seen has failed. Certainly you must have some evidence if you are just blabbering. educate us with a replicable demonstration of how this works.
I am aware that if you heat an uninsulated plate with a field of light it will lose some heat out the backside and not warm to its equilibrium temperature. But the greenhouse effect is about warming something to greater than its equilibrium temperature and such thing as never ever been demonstrated.
So please show us where we can find such a demonstration.
“Well then it should be real easy for you to demonstrate how an insulator does that. You seem to be in denial of basic radiation theory.
According to the theory if you heat a plate with a 342 watt/m2 field of light it will according to radiation law warm up to a maximum of 278.7K and will do so without any insulation.”
First of all there are no specifics here about the geometry. Where is the passive insulating plate or sphere?
You don’t seem to realize that the configuration matters.
I showed the real basic physics solution already several times.
You don’t get it. Oh well, that’s a YOU problem.
“But the greenhouse effect is about warming something to greater than its equilibrium temperature and such thing as never ever been demonstrated.”
Gee, I wonder what an actual greenhouse is supposed to do? Maybe make it warm enough to grow things when its cold outside?
How the heck could that work if “such thing as never ever been demonstrated.”
Oh that just taking hot air trapped in a box via restricting convection at the surface and copying that effect, layer by layer, into a phony free air radiant effect computer model.
Nah.
“Yes I believe the atmosphere actually works like greenhouse and that the mean surface temperature strongly suggests that that it does.”
Gill, Gill,
Luckwarmists do not hold that there was less warming.
They claim that future warming will be slower.
A decade or so, five or take.
You are making the same mistake as Roy,
Also, you are confused – your Sky Dragon crank arguments also disqualify you.
Willard through ignorance here no doubt Little Willy also believes 97% of scientists believe a doubling of CO2 is going to warm the surface by 3C.
Gill, Gill,
I know about luckwarm its more than you ever will, Gill.
Your shenanigans with Dragon cranks do not cohere with that BS doctrine.
LOL! Kidding yourself huh?
Wanna bet, Gill?
bet specifically on what? You wana bet that being a lukewarmer means a scientist believes a doubling of CO2 is going to warm the globe by 3C degrees and the only difference between that and mainstream is that its just going to take longer?
Gill, Gill,
There are three comments to read, Less than fifty words.
And you cannot follow?
I would not bet if I were you.
Willard on your blog you say:
”My understanding of the basic Lukewarmer viewpoint is that they regard lower climate sensitivity values as being more likely than the IPCC suggests, and higher one as being less likely. Replace IPCC with mainstream scientists, or whatever other term seems more appropriate, if you wish.”
Lukewarmer viewpoint is based on the benchmark of the effect of a doubling of CO2 via observation of both the increase in temperature vs the increase in CO2.
Yes they observe warming to be proceeding at a substantially slower rate than predicted by the IPCC. And they have also observed the rate at which CO2 presence in the atmosphere has taken.
The resulting ECS estimate of the lukewarmers indicates both that warming is proceeding more slowly and that the estimated amount of warming to be expected from CO2 increases is also much less.
The ECS figure they derive is insensitive to how fast the climate has actually arisen and is purely a measure of warming to be expected from increases in CO2.
As I said you need to gain a far better understanding ECS than you currently have before commenting on it further.
If you actually are already knowledgeable of the facts above and you are merely obfuscating or concluding that ECS could be higher than observed. . . .you should be informed that current AGW theory allows for such deductions based upon a 17 year period of time.
If you feel the time of observation has been too short, well I can agree with you on that. Eliminating the observations of Dr. Akasofu would take far longer than a couple of decades. Climate changes over an approximate 800 year cycle for unknown reasons and what brought us the LIA and MWP remains ever so as much of a thorn in the side of the AGW science as it was when it reawakened over 50 years ago.
However, the M&W effect is also deemed to have been adequately vetted via the same standard time of a short window of observation. . . .suggesting that the Nobel Prize was prematurely awarded (which it was by any measure). It seems the original 17 year measure established in IPCC AR3 remains intact and the tactics have been to attack the observations as opposed to the theory.
So I am very much aware a lot of scientists who hold that the observations are a travesty, but observations can’t be both a travesty and justification for a Nobel Prize in Physics at the same time.
the point of view that perhaps the period of time is too short falls very dangerously near the objections to it via Dr. Akasofu.
And I have been one to be unconvinced of the 17 year period from the first day I read about it, based upon my own experience in the fields in which I work. We have a good scientific basis for oscillations of climate that can extend over multiple time frames with an identifiable physical basis (deep ocean heat storage) that extent up to at least 1500 years in length. So at the current state of science observational science isn’t a substantial factor. Only in the minds of those with swords to politically cut the knot is a a factor.
So you might say my skepticism sees every credible skeptical scientist from those just measuring observations to those questioning the physics of the CO2 control mechanism to be all still be very much in play.
I realize your purpose here is to ridicule. However, I can agree the more you speak on the topic the funnier it gets.
Gill,
Are you trying to play without putting any chip on the table?
I did not know you were a cheater.
To be fair, I suspected it.
Auditors are expected to not a have a chip in the game Willard.
We established a long time ago that you were not an auditor, Gill.
I have little doubt you established that the same way you established the greenhouse effect and your spinner position. so its not any kind of surprise.
Gill, Gill,
Looking at how you argue is more than enough to establish that you are no auditor.
You provide receipts for it every day.
there you go again making deductions with no basis.
So exactly which observations led you to that incorrect conclusion Willard?
Seems you do that a lot.
ball4…”The atoms do NOT flow between Thot and Tcold objects in the radiative 1LOT eqn. for q as does EMR”.
***
B4 hits an all-time low in obfuscation. He seems to think, if he string s lot of words together it will confuse the hoi polloi.
The first law is about the relationship between heat, work, and internal energy. B4 is blethering about a radiative 1st law which has nothing to do with radiation.
B4 and other alarmists need to get it the 1st law is about heat and work, which have an effective relationship. Neither has the slightest thing in common with radiation, as far as energy is concerned.
I do hope that B4’s confusion is not permanent.
Gordon, the eqn. for q is the 1LOT applied to Planck radiation energy exchange between two objects in view of each other Th,Tc in a vacuum. The sign convention established on q indicates the direction of resultant net energy flow.
That Gordon doesn’t readily understand this just indicates the low level of Gordon’s thermodynamics education and application of the science for more astute readers on this blog.
Gordon’s delusions have sealed his brain preventing any data which refutes his confusion from having an impact. It’s easy to show that “back radiation” can cause a heated body to exhibit a temperature increase (as I did), but that does not mean there’s more energy “created” as a result.
I’d bet that even Gordo has a car with a catalytic converter which is surrounded by a heat shield. The purpose of that heat shield is to slow the flow of energy exiting the body of the converter, thus speeding the warm up to the necessary operational temperature.
swannie…”Id bet that even Gordo has a car with a catalytic converter which is surrounded by a heat shield. The purpose of that heat shield is to slow the flow of energy exiting the body of the converterId bet that even Gordo has a car with a catalytic converter which is surrounded by a heat shield. The purpose of that heat shield is to slow the flow of energy exiting the body of the converter”
***
The purpose of the heat shield is to prevent the excessively hot converter setting your car on fire.
We have already exhausted our proof as to why the conclusion you formed from your experiment is wrong. You confused a heat transfer from cold to hot with heat dissipation. In essence, you prevented a heated body from cooling in a vacuum by raising a plate in front of it. The only way the plate could cool in a vacuum was by radiation and you essentially blocked half its radiation. It had to warm since it could not rid itself of heat.
We’ll make a scientist of you yet, Swannie. We skeptics are not only right, we are magnanimous.
gordo wrote:
Your assertion may also be true, but the heat shield does act like an insulator by intercepting the IR radiation. But, for further proof of my conjecture, consider that the O2 sensors include a heating element to speed their temperature change to operating levels.
As usual, Gordo throws in his same old denialist explanation for my GPE demo results:
gordo insists on distorting physics, claiming some sort of “blocking” mechanism of the BP’s IR energy emissions for it’s temperature increase. As usual, he has no explanation from physics for this “blocking” process which he claims stop the IR from leaving the BP. He ignores the fact that, were the IR emissions “blocked”, the temperature of the GP could not change after being lifted into position, as was observed. He also ignores the fact that the BP’s temperature did not rise rapidly, but increased slowly as the GP’s temperature increases.
Gordo thinks he is a scientist, when he can’t even prove he’s an engineer.
swannie…”As usual, he has no explanation from physics for this blocking process which he claims stop the IR from leaving the BP”.
***
Look up Faraday shield.
BTW…if you have a cell phone in which you cannot easily remove the battery, and you don’t want to be constantly monitored by a cell phone tower, sit the phone in a metal container with a metal lid. A metal pot with a metal lid will do. No EM, including IR, gets through that.
ps. might come in handy one day if the crazy Democrats destroy our society and chaos comes about. You can hide from IR detectors using a metal foil, like a space blanket. Not the most effective solution but it may do in a pinch.
Gordo throws out a red herring to avoid explaining his claim that the GP “blocks” the IR from the GP. To be sure, a metal box will stop any EM radiation from a cell phone inside, but the cell phone’s temperature would also increase. Besides, what idiot (other than Gordo) would leave the cell phone turned on inside the box while the battery would continue to drain?
Try again, Gordo, you might make it to the engineer level yet. You have admitted that the catalytic converter example results in a reduced temperature on the outside of the shield. Remember grammie clone’s “steel greenhouse” situation in which the outside temperature should be the same as the inside mass.
Try again troll: What mechanism “blocks” the IR emissions from the BP and what causes the GP temperature to increase?
Swanson, are you STILL confused by the plates nonsense?
Put the plates in perfect contact until both are at the same temperature. Then, slightly separate them. Notice the BP does not get an increase in temperature. In a “perfect” condition (no losses), both plates would remain at the same temperature, as if they were still in contact.
It’s not that hard to understand, unless you’re braindead.
grammie clone thinks that his two plates, for the GPE case, one heated and the other not, will have the same temperature after separation as when in contact. grammie clone appears to suffer from the same brain dis-function of which he keeps referencing.
swannie…”What mechanism blocks the IR emissions from the BP and what causes the GP temperature to increase?”
***
Come on, Swannie, do I have to do all your thinking for you? The GP blocks the radiation from the BP. When it’s down, the BP is not as hot, and when it is raised, the BP warms.
Since the 2nd law tells us heat cannot be transferred from the cooler GP to the hotter BP, the BP heat obviously came from within the BP, after the GP was raised. That translates to a dissipation problem, not a contravention of the 2nd law.
"grammie clone thinks that his two plates, for the GPE case, one heated and the other not, will have the same temperature after separation as when in contact."
…and I absolutely agree with him. In the ideal case presented, with only one heat source, vacuum conditions, and no losses from the plates when separated (plates treated as being infinite parallel plates), then there’s no reason for them not to be.
grammie jumps in with his clone’s display of ignorance, writing:
One major point of these years long discussions is that the plates lose energy from their outside surfaces. grammie and clone want to ignore that with a mythical “ideal case” which is in no way related to the GPE case. If the heated plate can’t emit IR radiation to the surrounding environment, it’s temperature will climb until it is destroyed. Learn some physics, clown.
Both posts are just another round of obfuscation in his efforts to ignore reality and have fun at other’s expense.
You need to calm down, Swanson. "No losses" refers to losses past the edges of the plates, when separated. Nobody is saying that the plates don’t radiate to their environment. They do. When pressed together or separated.
Gordo repeats his usual mantra claiming the 2nd Law rules out energy moving from the cooler GP to the warmer BP, while ignoring the fact that energy does flow from the BP to the GP, causing the GP’s temperature to increase. From this fact, any rational physicist would understand that the BP’s emissions were not “blocked”.
Gordo, as usual, can’t provide an explanation for this so-called “blocking” of the BP’s energy flow. Same old mindless BS from the non-engineer.
This is a comment from the author of the Green Plate Effect problem, Eli Rabett, from his website Rabett Run:
"EliRabett said…
Just to concentrate minds. The problem assumes infinitely thin, infinitely large, perfectly conducting, flat plates with two sides.
This is physics, not engineering and such idealizations are common, clarifying and useful for understanding.
Blathering about the shape of the plates, how many sides they have, their thickness, their composition, how close they are to each other, etc are attempts (successful Eli might add) at distraction from the basic physics that the example provides.
19/10/17 5:13 AM"
Those were the idealizations made with his thought experiment. If you have two infinitely large, parallel plates, with a finite distance between them, then they are as close to touching as its physically possible to be, without ever quite actually touching. This is so that it’s understood that there are no losses from within (between) the plates. Of course the outsides of the plates still radiate! Nobody was saying otherwise.
grammie, lets get your straw man to stand up straight. Do you claim that for your “ideal” case with 2 plates (one heated, the other not), the result would be both plates remaining at the same temperature after separation?
"Of course the outsides of the plates still radiate! Nobody was saying otherwise."
…and of course the insides of the plates also still radiate, but only to each other. "No losses" past the edges of the plates.
"grammie, lets get your straw man to stand up straight. Do you claim that for your “ideal” case with 2 plates (one heated, the other not), the result would be both plates remaining at the same temperature after separation?"
It’s not a straw man, Swanson, I just proved to you that I am using the exact same idealizations as Eli Rabett himself specified in the first place. It’s his thought experiment, so we should use the same idealizations that he specified.
Now, press the plates together. Both sides of this debate agree that these perfectly conducting (see Eli’s comment) plates come to the same temperature. Both plates would be at 244 K. Now separate these infinitely large (see Eli’s comment) plates by a finite amount. They will be as close to touching as it’s physically possible to be without actually touching. The inside of the plates will only radiate to each other. The outside of the plates still radiate, as they did when pressed together. In this idealized scenario, yes, the two plates will remain at 244 K after separation.
Swanson, no matter how hard you fight reality, you always lose. Reality always wins.
For some reason, you believe a slight separation of the ideal plates would somehow result in and increase in BP temperature. If you understood 2LoT, you would know that is nonsense. Just separating the plates would NOT cause such a temperature increase. That would be a decrease in entropy with no increase in energy.
It’s the same violation of 2LoT as in the GHE nonsense.
No DREMT 8:45 am, your imagination is wrong, or alternatively the 2LOT is wrong.
DREMT’s imagination is wrong. In real nature, any real process of separating the plates by “a finite amount” MUST increase universe entropy so it is impossible that the separated plate remains at 244K at equilibrium after separation. dQ/T must be greater than zero to produce entropy at equilibrium endpoint of the natural process of separation thus the temperature of the now shaded plate must drop by “a finite amount” even in the “idealized scenario”.
Reality of the 2LOT in any real process always wins.
grammie pontificates again:
grammie pups again ignores physics, as is his usual MOA. The 2nd Law tell us that there must be a difference in temperature for the energy to flow from the BG to the GP, therefore the two plates can not exhibit the same temperature. If you accept Gordo’s delusional physics, no energy can flow from the BP to the GP, ’cause it’s “blocked”, the result being the GP cooling to background temperature.
You are both wrong.
Clint R’s 8:59 AM comment refutes both Ball4’s and Swanson’s subsequent replies, settling the issue eternally in our favour.
Swanson and Ball4, you two must be in competition to see who can violate the most laws of physics in one comment.
I would say you’re both about equal so far, so let the contest continue.
May the most incompetent troll win!
grammie pups can’t debate the physics, so he just repeats his usual nonsense. Troll on, idiot(s)!!
Swanson loses another one, with his usual grace.
When will grammie pups ever learn that he can’t just make up physics? His proof by assertion is meaningless. The 2nd Law requires a difference between the temperatures of the two plates when they are no longer in contact.
OK, we know he’s just another lying sociopath who likes to taunt people, watching them squirm just for the fun of it.
Swanson loses control completely.
Yep, laughably 3 swings and 3 misses so DREMT and Clint R are out of here with very humorous comments & no experimental support.
We’ve won, and this will be repeated as long as is necessary.
Swanson and Ball4 are STILL trying to pervert 2LoT. But, they got caught again.
There is no change in entropy in the steady-state flow of energy. All temperatures remain the same.
(What will they try next?)
> grammie pups cant debate the physics, so he just repeats his usual nonsense.
Exactly, ES.
Exactly, Clint R.
“The inside of the plates will only radiate to each other. The outside of the plates still radiate, as they did when pressed together. In this idealized scenario, yes, the two plates will remain at 244 K after separation.”
I just don’t understand why any sensible person would think, especially after all these years, that heat transfers through vacuum just as well as it does through metal!
It clearly does not. The laws of radiative heat transfer are different from the laws of conduction.
Under Eli’s ideal conditions the emissivity (e) was 1. Through a vacuum, the heat transfer rate depends on the difference in e*T^4 between the plates.
With no temperature difference there will be NO HEAT TRANSFER.
"The 2nd Law requires a difference between the temperatures of the two plates when they are no longer in contact…"
…absolutely not, Swanson. No temperature difference, no heat flow, and there’s no need for there to be any heat flow between the plates. They simply radiate out to space based on their temperature and emissivity. For there to be heat flow between the plates, one of the plates would have to be warming up, and the other cooling down! Either that, or the plate temperatures would have to be fixed somehow so that the GP was forced to remain cooler than the BP.
Plates pressed together, 244 K…244 K…, plates separated, 244 K…244 K. That’s the correct solution, always has been, always will be. Plates pressed together, 244 K…244 K, plates separated, 262 K…220 K is amusing. Like some sort of "heat accordion"…you separate the plates, up pops the temperature of the BP…push them back together, down it goes again. Very funny.
Exactly, Nate.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“For there to be heat flow between the plates, one of the plates would have to be warming up, and the other cooling down!”
I would urge people to be very skeptical of made-up rules about heat transfer handed down from people who clearly have little knowledge or expertise in heat transfer physics.
Anyone feeling that heat cannot flow in a steady state situation should be warned again that feelings are not physics. The 2LOT has no such requirement.
Obviously there are many many MANY real world examples where there is a steady state T gradient and heat is still flowing. Like an oven at 350 degrees in a room at 70 degrees and heat is flowing from oven to room. Or a satellite warmed by its electronics to a steady T, and radiating the heat to space.
“Either that, or the plate temperatures would have to be fixed somehow so that the GP was forced to remain cooler than the BP.”
It is quite common in heat transfer from hot to cold that there would be objects of intermediate temperature in between, such as the oven door between hot oven and the cool room, or the spacecraft shell in between the electronics and space.
grammie pups ignores the facts, as is his usual game. The GP has no energy source except for the IR radiation from the BP. But, it will still radiate IR from both sides, with both sides at the same temperature. Since the BP now absorbs the IR radiation from the GP in addition to that energy from it’s external supply, the temperature of the BP must increase for the BP’s energy flows to achieve balance.
"grammie pups ignores the facts, as is his usual game."
No, I ignore nothing, refute everyone, and win. That’s my usual game.
"The GP has no energy source except for the IR radiation from the BP. But, it will still radiate IR from both sides, with both sides at the same temperature. Since the BP now absorbs the IR radiation from the GP in addition to that energy from it’s external supply, the temperature of the BP must increase for the BP’s energy flows to achieve balance."
Pressed together, the GP has no energy source except that through conduction from the BP. But, it will still lose energy from both sides, with both sides at the same temperature. Since the BP now receives the energy from the GP via back-conduction in addition to that energy from its external supply, the temperature of the BP must increase for the BP’s energy flows to achieve balance…no wait, whoops…that doesn’t happen!
Both sides agree that pressed together, the plates achieve the same temperature, back-conduction or no back-conduction. With the plates separated, in this idealized scenario, the plates will also achieve the same temperature, back-radiation or no back-radiation. Same thing.
The impossibility of the "heat accordion" annihilates your religion.
> grammie pups ignores the facts, as is his usual game.
Of course he does.
That is after all what he does best.
Little Willy turns up, purely to attempt to irritate, as usual.
Gaslighting Graham soldiers on, oblivious to it all.
You have no understanding of the science, thus you have nothing to contribute on the science. Instead, you just show up occasionally to shout, "YEAH!", whenever someone more knowledgeable than yourself says something, that you believe to be on your "side".
Gaslighting Graham turns to an the hominem, seeking to irritate and distract.
As usual.
You’ve added nothing of any value to this discussion. That’s not ad hominem, Little Willy, that’s an accurate and fair description of your contribution so far.
“But, it will still lose energy from both sides” “back conduction, yada yada yada”
I would remind people that heat transfer by conduction and radiation are not the same.
Anyone claiming they should behave the same, or give identical results, does not know what they are talking about, and are ignoring these facts.
A vacuum does not conduct heat, and thus heat transfer through a vacuum is very much reduced and via radiation only.
People keep ignoring these facts.
Little Willy’s complete contributions so far:
"Exactly, ES."
"Exactly, Nate."
"Of course he does. That is after all what he does best."
"Gaslighting Graham soldiers on, oblivious to it all."
"Gaslighting Graham turns to an the hominem, seeking to irritate and distract. As usual."
And I would add for neutral readers: pay attention to the science and logic and ignore all the noise about the messengers.
No response from Swanson. Guess that’s that, then. He obviously concedes the point…and with nobody else that I’m currently responding to offering anything, there’s nothing more to be said. Clint R had already won the argument some time ago, I just added a bit more food for thought.
… which failed the 2LOT thus cannot be correct science but is very humorous reading DREMT & Clint R comments.
Nothing to take seriously from Ball4, as usual.
grammie gloats:
grammie pups thinks this is a chat room where the last post is the winner. No, it’s a science group and I long ago posted facts which grammie can not refute, so he just walks away and hides every time, throwing out mindless fluff along the way.
Swanson just lies about what has occurred in this sub-thread.
grammie pups thinks this is scientifically correct:
Radiation is not conduction, period. As grammie pups continues to ignore scientific facts, is it any wonder that he receives no reply?
I’m not arguing that radiation is conduction. I was just making the fairly straightforward point that we don’t think "back-conduction" has any heating or insulative qualities, so why do some people tend to think that "back-radiation" does?
Nevertheless, if something like the "heat accordion" actually occurred in nature, we’d know about it. It doesn’t. So that rules out your temperature rise in the BP on separation of the plates.
Gaslighting Graham does not always makes a straightforward point, but when he does he asks a question about his pet analogy.
Apart from seeking to irritate and annoy with their silly riddles no one but then cares about, have Dragon cranks anything else left?
We have the victory in the GPE argument. That’s pretty important, as it shows that (as one of Little Willy’s idols agrees), the back-radiation account of the GHE is debunked.
Gator had a refrigerator that proves Eli right.
Sky Dragon cranks have shitposting to try to irritate and annoy.
Tough call.
Little Willy continues with his shitposting.
“We have the victory in the GPE argument.”
Only readers can decide who made the better argument. If they pay attention to the science, only one team presented any real science, the other told us their feelings about what they feel heat should do, if it matched their feelings.
…Willy continues with his shitposting.
Exactly, Nate.
Graham is trying to bootstrap himself like the little gaslighter that he is.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Calling it a heat accordion doesn’t make it impossible.
bob embraces the “heat accordion”, never observed in nature.
Again I need to point out that incredulity of how heat transfers in the real world is not an argument against it. It is just showing that the poster doesn’t get it. No surprise there.
…embraces the “heat accordion”, never observed in nature.
” Like some sort of “heat accordion”you separate the plates, up pops the temperature of the BPpush them back together, down it goes again. Very funny.”
“Nevertheless, if something like the “heat accordion” actually occurred in nature, wed know about it. It doesnt.”
Not funny. And very real. The heat shield of the James Webb telescope is one. Astonishing conversion of incredulity into a fraudulent ‘fact’.
Again having a little common sense is helpful here.
Bring your finger into contact with a hot pan, there is high heat transfer to your finger, and the finger burns. It should be obvious that the heating of the finger cools the pot slightly.
Remove the finger from contact and the heat transfer drops, and the finger cools, the pot rewarms. Touch the finger again and again it burns!
The GP behaves similarly. Remove it from contact with the BP, the heat transfer from the BP drops (to 0) and the GP cools. With it cooler than the BP the temperature difference rises and heat transfer increases until a steady state T gradient is reached.
…“heat accordion”, never observed in nature.
Repeat this lie as much as you want. It will be lie each and every time!
…the “heat accordion”, never observed in nature.
Exactly, Nate.
Appeals to incredulity are of a few kinds. Some are more abusive than others. Our Sky Dragon cranks found them all. Gaslighting is not one of them. That is Grahams extension to the art form.
As long as it brings him to his happy place, it is fine.
I’m not appealing to incredulity, Little Willy. I’m pointing out that the "heat accordion" is not found anywhere in nature. Where does the act of separating objects cause one object to rise in temperature by (in this instance) 18 K? Then drop back down again when you push them back together…it just doesn’t happen. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far we have no evidence of it happening out in the real world.
This alone would strongly suggest that Eli’s thought experiment is a bust…but it’s not alone, is it? There’s been quite a few arguments made against the GPE over the years. There’s been quite a few made in this sub-thread alone. Surely nobody’s pretending otherwise!?
“it just doesnt happen. ”
Evidence?
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Exactly.
“Where does the act of separating objects cause one object to rise in temperature by (in this instance) 18 K? Then drop back down again when you push them back togetherit just doesnt happen. ”
But a nearly perfect illustration of ‘Argument from incredulity’.
One person shows astonishment at an ordinary phenomenon, then concludes it can’t happen!
…surely nobody’s pretending otherwise!?
This discussion of incredulity of ordinary phenomena and thinking its funny, and if so, it can’t be true, reminds me of an article about research on why babies laugh.
https://ideas.ted.com/meet-a-scientist-with-a-most-delightful-job-he-studies-baby-laughter/
The thing that universally makes them laugh is, peekaboo. They think the hidden person is really gone, but then they reappear and are surprised, and they laugh. One could say that they are incredulous.
The heat accordion effect has been observed, I just did it in my kitchen.
Sure you did, bob [rolls eyes].
Exactly, Nate.
Oftentimes contrarians confuse skepticism with what I used to call “incredibilism”:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210907073757/http://planet3.org/2012/08/24/incredibilism/
Most if not all of Pup’s repertoire fits under that description.
This is gaslighting. A number of individuals trying to pretend that something that has never been observed is commonplace, and that the person pointing out that it’s never been observed is making an argument from incredulity! Whilst also acting like there’s been no other arguments made…
And so Gaslighting Graham, out of his happy place, returns to it by gaslighting again.
Pup has NOTHING to show for himself besides riddles and basic incredulity.
That is ALL there is to that silly Dragon crank.
That would all be an ad hominem, Little Willy.
So we got an excellent example of Argument from Incredulity and now we’ve got a beauty of an example of Argument by Assertion:
The claim is that an effect has ‘never been observed’.
Nevermind that the effect is easily demonstrated with basic physics. And it agrees with common knowledge that vacuum is a poor conductor of heat while metal is an excellent conductor of heat.
Needless to say, such a statement is difficult if not impossible to support.
…would all be an ad hominem, Little Willy.
“One person shows astonishment at an ordinary phenomenon, then concludes it cant happen!”
Indeed so ordinary that millions of people have this phenomenon going on in their homes: double-paned windows.
Some people would be incredulous that the separated panes let less heat pass thru than if they were no separation!
But it is a fact that the separated panes do reduce heat transfer.
…all be an ad hominem, Little Willy.
Exactly, Nate.
Also note how Gaslighting Graham’s denial (“it has never been observed”) shifts the burden of proof.
Well if it’s been observed, Little Willy, it ought to be pretty easy to think of an example of it happening. How exactly am I supposed to provide evidence that it hasn’t been observed!? This "discussion" just gets increasingly absurd.
If Gaslighting Graham plays dumb long enough, will he be spoonfed another time?
So you can’t think of an example, then. Got it.
I know from previous discussions that certain people have tried various stupid and obviously inappropriate examples before. Ones that just plain don’t work, or don’t match any of the conditions of the thought experiment (even remotely).
I expect these will be dredged up again, if they haven’t been already.
> So you can’t think of
And already we reach stage 3 of the pitiful act –
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
Gee I remember when the debate team had the whiz kids. Now anybody thinks they can debate.
And to these people debate seems to mean making up BS and declaring it must true. Like how an ordinary phenomena ‘has never been observed’
“Nevertheless, if something like the ‘heat accordion’ actually occurred in nature, wed know about it. It doesnt.”
Then if someone from the other team debunks their assertion, they just plug their ears and cover their eyes and loudly say ‘La la la la la la, I can’t hear you!’
The idiocracy is here.
I’ll remind readers of yet another example where the phenomena would be observed:
A 12 inch thick layer of fiber glass insulation placed over a heated plate. The plate reaches a high temperature because it is well insulated by the high R factor fiberglass.
-Compress the fiberglass layer to say 6 inches, all the fibers are now in better contact and it conducts heat much better, its R factor drops,
https://insulationinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Compressed_R_values.pdf
and the heated plate COOLS. Decompress it and it conducts heat poorly again, R factor rises, and the heated plate re-warms.
Other examples where the effect would be observable.
Thermos with vacuum layer vs mug with no vacuum layer.
Multi-layer insulation, such as on JWST, compressed.
Kid touching hot pan, then not touching.
Double paned windows- panes brought together to make one thick window.
These things exist in the world, whether people read about them or not.
…I know from previous discussions that certain people have tried various stupid and obviously inappropriate examples before. Ones that just plain don’t work, or don’t match any of the conditions of the thought experiment (even remotely).
I expect these will be dredged up again, if they haven’t been already.
And just to head off some complaints:
This is the ordinary effect “Where does the act of separating objects cause one object to rise in temperature by (in this instance) 18 K? Then drop back down again when you push them back togetherit just doesnt happen. ”
I see no ‘special conditions’ mentioned here.
But lets say someone were to complain that vacuum and non-mirror surfaces are required ‘special conditions’. The response would be:
Fine. Take the double paned windows which are non-mirror surfaces, and pull the gas out in between them. What would change with vacuum? Since convection is removed, their R value would increase a lot and their heat conduction would decrease a lot!
Now bring the panes together into one thick pane of glass. Obviously the single pane conducts heat much better and its R value is much lower (that is the whole point of double paned windows).
So placing these materials in vacuum does not help.
…know from previous discussions that certain people have tried various stupid and obviously inappropriate examples before. Ones that just plain don’t work, or don’t match any of the conditions of the thought experiment (even remotely).
I expect these will be dredged up again, if they haven’t been already.
And now we reach the last stage of the exchange, in which Gaslighting Graham seeks to annoy and irritate by mindlessly repeating his comment to get the last word.
Not that getting the last word matters to him. No no no.
Little Willy, just keep ranting at the mirror.
And if by accident they hear the debunking of their claims that they tried not to hear, they simply attach derogatory labels to those inconvenient rebuttals.
The key point is the very simple fact that a solid layer of metal or glass is a very good conductor of heat.
Separating two such solid layers with a vacuum (or air) gap creates a poor conductor of heat, and this is why it is in done in the real world.
That real world phenomena, is all that is required to logically understand how this can be made to happen:
” the act of separating objects cause one object to rise in temperature by (in this instance) 18 K? Then drop back down again when you push them back together”
Nate says:
”The key point is the very simple fact that a solid layer of metal or glass is a very good conductor of heat.
Separating two such solid layers with a vacuum (or air) gap creates a poor conductor of heat, and this is why it is in done in the real world.”
Thats incorrect Nate but you are approaching learning.
Separating two solid layers with a vacuum does not created a poor conductor of heat. It simply does not conduct heat. Cooling progresses by radiation only.
Sure, Dr. Pedantic, But a vacuum is a poor conductor in the real world because in the real world vacuums are imperfect.
The main point is that radiation transfers heat very poorly compared to a good conductor.
Nate says:
Sure, Dr. Pedantic, But a vacuum is a poor conductor in the real world because in the real world vacuums are imperfect.
—————————————
Are you saying that heat does conduct through outerspace? Just very slowly?
Off topic…no thanks.
I remember some of the examples that used to be brought up, back in the bad old days. One that always stuck in my mind was the "double glazing" example. Now, I don’t know if that has been brought up again this time, as I don’t respond to my stalker’s comments, nor do I even read them…but just in case it has been brought up again…
…I’ll keep it as simple as possible. Call one pane of glass the "blue plate", and call the other pane of glass the "green plate". the panes of glass are illuminated by the Sun. Push the panes of glass together. Separate the panes of glass. When pushed together, does the "blue plate" pane of glass drop in temperature, compared to when the panes of glass are separated!? Of course not. The act of pushing together the panes of glass, and then separating the panes of glass, makes absolutely no difference to the temperature of the "blue plate" pane of glass. Why would it!? Do it in a vacuum, do it in the presence of atmospheric gases…makes no difference, really. If you think that the "blue plate" pane of glass is going to increase in temperature by 18 K (or beyond) just by the act of separating the two planes of glass…you’re deluding yourself.
All the examples that used to get brought up, suffer the same fate. They just don’t work…and in fact, it’s embarrassing to have to even respond to the level of intellectual dishonesty that would go behind making up such a ridiculous comparison.
Disgusting, really.
“When pushed together, does the “blue plate” pane of glass drop in temperature, compared to when the panes of glass are separated!? Of course not. The act of pushing together the panes of glass, and then separating the panes of glass, makes absolutely no difference to the temperature of the “blue plate” pane of glass. Why would it!?”
He doesnt read my posts??? Sure.
In any case this is all obfuscation intended to mislead, by not including an appropriate heat input in the problem!
Obviously there is heat input in the GPE and Steel Greenhouse examples.
I included a heat input in my one example with the fiberglass insulation placed over a heated plate with a constant heat input.
I assumed that people would understand that such a heat input could be included in ANY of the examples. I guess that was too much to expect with this crowd.
So indeed, for the case of the double-paned windows, if a constant heat input Qdot, is applied to one side of the window, call it the blue pane, with a cold space on the other side (call it the Green Pane), there will be a temperature gradient (DeltaT) from the warm side to the cold side (the outside Temp).
The DeltaT is = Qdot*R, the R insulation value of the windows.
If the panes are pushed together, to make a single pane window, as Bill knows very well, the R value will be lower. The Delta T = Qdot*R will be lower.
That means the warm-side Blue window will be COOLER in that case, assuming the outside T is the same.
And once again this agrees with common sense that with better insulated double plane windows the house will be warmer in winter. And one standing in the house in winter next to the single pane window will feel cold, while standing next to the double paned window one will feel warmer.
With a lower R value the, Delta T
…all the examples that used to get brought up, suffer the same fate. They just don’t work…and in fact, it’s embarrassing to have to even respond to the level of intellectual dishonesty that would go behind making up such a ridiculous comparison.
Disgusting, really.
Nate says:
If the panes are pushed together, to make a single pane window, as Bill knows very well, the R value will be lower. The Delta T = Qdot*R will be lower.
That means the warm-side Blue window will be COOLER in that case, assuming the outside T is the same.
————————————
Boy are you ever confused Nate:
1) you can’t separate two panes of glass from being together to apart in a ‘sealed’ dual glazed window assembly. The effect is entirely dependent upon being sealed completely with no air leakage.
2) the blue window will not be the same temperature as the outside. Instead the entire assembly will adopt a mean range of temperature halfway between the inside and the outside. the blue window will be cooler than the green window and warmer than the outside.
3)If we are talking R=2 for the entire assembly heat loss will be equal to one half of what a single glazed window will cool by.
4) the green window will be warmer than the blue window and the green windows will be colder than the inside temperature.
5) the mean temperature of the assembly will be outside temperature plus inside temperature divided by 2.
6) the insulation effect is provided by the air gap not the glass. So if the unit isn’t sealed against leakage the window will not perform properly.
So your discussion Nate is completely unintelligible because you don’t understand how this works. I thought you guys were talking about steel greenhouses out in the middle of space until you brought up window assemblies.
BIll,
“the green window will be warmer than the blue window”
Except for your reversal of my blue and green, we generally agree on the main points.
We agree that there will be a T gradient across the window, while DREMT denies this.
Now in my example the Qdot is set to a constant, and the T gradient adjusts, whereas in the case of a home, Q dot would adjust and the T gradient would be (more) constant.
We agree that with double paned windows the R value will be higher. That means that the T gradient will be higher when Qdot is held constant. That means the Blue window will be warmer.
Exactly, Bill. I take it that my stalker did bring up the double glazing example, then! Lol. Obviously I agree with you on how double glazing works, and I’m not arguing against your points 1 to 6.
The point I was making about the double glazing example is simple. What I asked for were examples from the real world where the act of separating two objects causes one of the objects to rise in temperature by 18 K, and then drop in temperature when you push them back together. This does not actually happen anywhere in nature, yet it is what happens with Eli Rabett’s Green Plate Effect plates. I call it the “heat accordion” effect. So it’s one of many arguments against the Green Plate Effect.
Now, with the Sun as the heat source (same as in the GPE), take two panes of glass. Call one the blue pane and the other the green pane. Add the green pane behind the blue pane so that the blue pane is between the green pane and the Sun. Push them together. Separate them. It makes no difference to the temperature of the blue pane.
That is why the double glazing example fails.
Illustration of the T gradient across a double paned window
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/images/double-pane-heat.png
“Obviously I agree with you on how double glazing works, and Im not arguing against your points 1 to 6.”
Yeah riiiight…
Bill:”the blue window will be cooler than the green window”
DREMT: “Plates pressed together, 244 K244 K, plates separated, 244 K244 K.”
This poster never thinks there needs to be a temperature gradient. But as Bill understands, there always is one across a gap.
“6) the insulation effect is provided by the air gap not the glass.”
And I know Bill agrees that the insulation R factor of the gap would be even higher with a vacuum in the gap!
…now, with the Sun as the heat source (same as in the GPE), take two panes of glass. Call one the blue pane and the other the green pane. Add the green pane behind the blue pane so that the blue pane is between the green pane and the Sun. Push them together. Separate them. It makes no difference to the temperature of the blue pane.
That is why the double glazing example fails.
“take two panes of glass. Call one the blue pane and the other the green pane. Add the green pane behind the blue pane so that the blue pane is between the green pane and the Sun. Push them together. Separate them. It makes no difference to the temperature of the blue pane.”
Obviously this poster has not understood all the previous links and discussion of heat transfer through glass window panes separated by a gap. In the presence of a heat input to one pane, the gap produces a temperature difference between the panes.
grammie clone continues his usual proof-by-assertion, writing:
He then repeats himself, as if saying: “I’m right and I don’t care what facts you have as proof”. What he is really saying, over and over, is: “I’m a moron and I don’t care about all your fizzix and book learning”. Pathetic.
Are you saying you think the blue pane of glass would increase in temperature by 18 K when separated from the green pane, Swanson? Then decrease in temperature by the same amount when pressed together? If so, that’s very funny.
“He then repeats himself, as if saying: ‘Im right and I dont care what facts you have as proof'”
Indeed so Swanson.
And if the Argument by Assertion trick doesnt fly, then return again and again to Argument from Incredulity.
Swanson knows that the blue pane of glass wouldn’t increase in temperature by 18 K. That’s why he’s disappeared.
Nate says:
”And I know Bill agrees that the insulation R factor of the gap would be even higher with a vacuum in the gap!”
But you have to keep in mind Nate that in a gaseous medium the basic cooling rate is doubled over what radiation would provide alone so creating a ”sealed” air gap reduces convective cooling and a vacuum reduces that extra cooling entirely allowing the object to equilibrate.
Additional layers merely eliminates more of the excess cooling cutting it in half with each additional layer.
changing it to a vacuum merely eliminates all the excess cooling with one layer.
Bottom line is what is the mean temperature limit that you can achieve by insulation. Nate believes there is no limit. I believe its the mean flux under the illuminated area as modified by an square distance adjustment. If I am not correct then there is no such thing as an equilibrium in basic thermodynamics and lot of famous scientists have been wrong.
Nate says:
”This poster never thinks there needs to be a temperature gradient. But as Bill understands, there always is one across a gap.
6) the insulation effect is provided by the air gap not the glass.
And I know Bill agrees that the insulation R factor of the gap would be even higher with a vacuum in the gap!”
Yes but it doesn’t matter.
And here is why.
the window ”assembly” within the atmosphere as does any insulation barrier within the atmosphere (like a window, insulated or not, or a wall insulated or not), no matter the amount of insulation, has a ”mean” temperature halfway between the warm side and the cool side.
Thats how equilibrium is measured, the mean temperature of the two sides.
If the assembly rotates in a way so that both sides are exposed to energy source that assembly will still possess the ”mean” temperature halfway between the warm side and the cool side.
That means the window is in equilibrium. Cooling has reduced but the window, like the earth, would possess its correct equilibrium temperature.
For a single glazed window it would have the same temperature on both sides. For the dual glazed window or a wall the ”assembly” would be colder on the cold side and warmer on the warm side with the ”mean” of the entire assembly being the correct equilibrium temperature and is equal to the ”actual” temperature of the single glazed window. i.e. no greenhouse effect.
This is an easy experiment to verify. One can do it on their own house with an IR detector at night and a difference between the inside temperature and the outside temperature.
Its also the result heat loss calculations (used to determine building heat losses) though it takes a couple for steps to get the inside and outside temperature of the insulation assembly.
Take it out into space will it perform differently? I doubt it.
So the GPE isn’t really warming anything its just redistributing heat. The only thing going on here is ignorance and or an intentional con on the part of anybody who knows the facts and offers up a lie instead.
DREMT: “Plates pressed together, 244 K244 K, plates separated, 244 K244 K.”
“The act of pushing together the panes of glass, and then separating the panes of glass, makes absolutely no difference to the temperature of the “blue plate” pane of glass.”
Bill “For a single glazed window it would have the same temperature on both sides. For the dual glazed window or a wall the ‘assembly’ would be colder on the cold side and warmer on the warm side”
Oh well, Bill shows DREMT is completely wrong. He can’t blame the messenger on this one.
Real world experience trumps incredulity and assertion, no matter often expressed.
Not to mention, so does common sense and basic physics.
End of story.
"For the dual glazed window or a wall the ”assembly” would be colder on the cold side and warmer on the warm side with the ”mean” of the entire assembly being the correct equilibrium temperature and is equal to the ”actual” temperature of the single glazed window. i.e. no greenhouse effect."
Sure, Bill, and of course I don’t disagree…but this double glazing example has nothing to do with the Green Plate Effect. A house is warmer on the inside than it is on the outside (generally speaking) so of course there will be temperature gradients across the double glazed windows. There has to be…but the Green Plate Effect thought experiment takes place in space, where there’s effectively no "ambient" temperature. The plates are just objects being placed in front of a heat source (the Sun), pushed together, and then separated. For the double glazing analogy to have any connection to the GPE, you need to take the glass out of the house altogether. Take it out of the window frames. Just have two panes of glass, a blue pane and a green pane, and bring them out into the desert or something.
Now, with the Sun as the heat source (same as in the GPE), add the green pane behind the blue pane so that the blue pane is between the green pane and the Sun. Push them together. Separate them. It makes no difference to the temperature of the blue pane.
That is why the double glazing example fails.
Some people lack the intellect to understand that heat transfer is a general phenomena whose laws are the same in all situations.
To claim such and such a problem is different (because its in space!) so different, unsupported, unspecified laws of physics apply, is simply sophistry.
The concept of insulation R factor applies as well in space as on Earth.
The understanding that a gap between window panes increases the insulating capacity, R factor, on Earth, equally well applies in space, in vacuum, between metal plates. Because the laws of physics governing these effects has not fundamentally changed.
And in fact, when one applies the laws of physics directly to the GPE, one finds the same effect, the temperature difference increases, when the plates are separated.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1460616
grammie is still obsessed with his stupid claims about pushing plates together then separating them. He’s got no proof of any sort to back up his delusions, but continues to assert that he’s correct and everybody else is wrong. In past posts, he has even demanded that I change my GPE demo to model his delusions, instead of doing the work himself (assuming he actually understood now to do it). What a clown!
"grammie is still obsessed with his stupid claims about pushing plates together then separating them"
Not my claims, Swanson. Team GPE’s claims. Team GPE (which includes you, by the way) claim that Eli’s thought experiment plates would both be 244 K when pushed together, but the BP would be 262 K when separated. That’s an 18 K temperature increase just from separating the plates. Push them back together again, you guys have it that the BP would drop in temperature by 18 K again.
That’s what you have to defend. They’re your claims, that follow from your stupid thought experiment.
They’re easily debunked, since the "heat accordion" doesn’t happen anywhere in nature.
Sorry, grammie pups, YOU are the one who has claimed that the GPE’s temperature difference is wrong, repeatedly writing “244-244”, etc. I demonstrated a temperature increase with my demo, though not as much as the GPE thought experiment. You’ve still provided zero support after years of your denialist rhetoric, so I’m still the winner of the debate by default.
BTW, that “heat accordion” applies only to double pane windows with a gas such as air between. Your comment conflates that construct with the vacuum situation of the GPE. The two cases involve different physics and your comment just continues to prove your ignorance.
No, Swanson, the "heat accordion" follows directly from Eli Rabett’s original Green Plate Effect thought experiment. According to everything as he set it out, the plates would be at the same temperature when pushed together, then the BP would supposedly increase in temperature by 18 K when separated. That is what Team GPE has been defending since the beginning. So, you’re wrong about that.
Hughes annihilated you on the experimental front.
“still obsessed with his stupid claims about pushing plates together then separating them.”
Indeed he is, and it bothers him.
He doesnt seem to understand that solving the single plate problem with real laws of physics and then solving the double plate GPE problem with real laws of physics tells you all we need to know.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1460616
The double plate problem gives a different answer that the single plate problem.
And it agrees with common sense and with the behavior of various Earth-bound problems like double-paned windows, as well as the heat shielding of the JWST.
Oh well, that’s what the laws of physics tells us! DREMT has not offered any sound physics argument against it.
Being incredulous of this result is not an argument, but it seems to be all he has.
Nearly a week has passed, and still nobody can refute this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1463023
Instead we have just had a lot of squawking and various people pretending that something not observed in nature is somehow an every day occurrence. The GPE cult will literally say, and do, anything to defend their religion.
They know full well that two metal plates, out in the Sun, are not just going to start changing in temperature if you separate them, and then push them together. They know it, but cannot ever say it out loud. Watch them avoid saying it out loud this time, once again. Never mind an 18 K increase in the BP on separation. It would not even increase in temperature by 1 degree. And they know it.
grammie pups insists:
grammie clone has even threatened to jump ship if he’s wrong. Guess what? I have a couple of old double pane window panels in my scrap pile. They are so old that they separated, so there’s the glass and the aluminum spacers. We had rain and clouds today, else I would already have painted one pane flat black and taped some thermo couples on to 2 panes, then put them put in the Sun.
I g-a-r-a-n-damn-tee you that I will see more than a 1 degree C increase on the BP when the panes are separated with the spacer in place. Can we count on grammie to honor his commitment? This is going to be fun.
“They know full well that two metal plates, out in the Sun, are not just going to start changing in temperature if you separate them, and then push them together.”
They would know that how? No one but you thinks incredulity is a valid argument.
“Nearly a week has passed, and still nobody can refute this comment”
Nah. Everyone knows that’s a lie.
Eli’s original physics analysis debunked it. I showed the same analysis here several times.
People can plug their ears close their eyes and loudly scream ‘La La La…, I don’t see or hear it’, then everyone understands that is someone with no answers.
Everyone else can read it.
OK, Swanson. Let the panes be pressed together until a steady state temperature is reached. Then separate the panes. See if the pane nearest to the Sun (the "blue pane") increases to a new steady state temperature. Then, push the plates back together. The "blue pane" has to decrease in temperature by the same amount. The only reason I can think that it might is because there would be half the mass to keep warm with the panes separated than with the panes together in one lump, where conduction between the panes is possible. So there might be a small variation in temperature due to that. Given that, I’ll revise my cut-off from 1 K to 5 K. If the blue pane increases in temperature by more than 5 K, I’ll stop commenting for 30 days (and if it increases by 18 K or over, it’s suicide).
If it’s under 5 K, you stop commenting for 30 days. You don’t have to offer up suicide in the bet. That’s how generous I am.
Sorry, grammie, you made a bet with yourself. You can’t change the “rules” after the game has begun. I’ve already started working on cleaning the yuk off the panes of glass. If the wind lets up, I may paint one later this evening.
No, my own personal bet was that an 18 K temperature increase wouldn’t happen. That bet remains, as I explained…that is the bet with myself.
You obviously don’t think the “blue pane” temperature will increase/decrease by more than 5 K, then. Otherwise you would take the other bet.
Let the hedging begin:
“Nevertheless, if something like the “heat accordion” (WITH MORE THAN 5K OSCILLATION) actually occurred in nature, wed know about it. It doesnt”
Just to reiterate, Swanson, the only reason I’m changing from 1 K to 5 K is because I identified a reason that the "blue plane" might change in temperature which is not in any way related to the Green Plate Effect. Do say if you disagree with the reasoning. If you can persuade me that it’s not an issue, perhaps I’ll return to the 1 K limit. I would assume that everyone wants a fair test, that gives a clear indication of whether there’s a GPE or not, and not something where the results could be down to something else.
Nate says:
”Some people lack the intellect to understand that heat transfer is a general phenomena whose laws are the same in all situations.”
————————–
Nate makes the unsupported claim that radiation works the same as convection.
Is that how science works Nate?
1K is not nearly enough. Laying something out in the sun is going to cause some shading and its very difficult to orient things such that you don’t change the shading in the process of moving the parts apart.
That was a flaw in Swanson’s previous GPE effort along with not documenting the incoming energy. Roy tried one of these experiments several years ago and commented how despite tweaking he could get rid of a spurious 1K difference between the boxes he was constructing as duplicates of one another.
“Nate makes the unsupported claim that radiation works the same as convection.”
As usual, Bill distorts what people say into things they didnt say in a lame attempt to make that person look silly.
Standard Bill trolling technique.
When I said the “Some people lack the intellect to understand that heat transfer is a general phenomena whose laws are the same in all situations.”, the point was that the laws of heat transfer on Earth DO NOT CHANGE when in space.
Thus insulation impedes the flow of heat, whether by radiation, conduction or convection, the same way on Earth and in space.
I am not saying the various modes of heat transfer work the same.
Judging from Bill’s 10:38 PM comment, it seems there might have been a suggestion that I was arguing the laws of heat transfer are somehow different in space than they are on Earth. That’s not what I was saying, just to be clear. What I was actually trying to say is that with the double glazing example, you have a pretty much fixed temperature ambient environment on one side of the glass, and a pretty much fixed temperature ambient environment on the other side of the glass. Inside the house remains generally the same temperature, with minor fluctuations of course. Outside the house the temperature will vary more, naturally, but it’s "fixed" in the sense that heat sources within the house cannot have any effect on the temperature of the outside. No matter how much heat leaves the house through the windows, it’s never going to "warm up" the outside (let’s assume the house is in a cold climate location). Therefore there is always going to be a temperature gradient through the windows.
Out in space there is not really any "ambient" temperature. It’s not like there’s the same situation with the inside and outside of a house. Thus the double glazing example doesn’t relate to the GPE. To make it relate to the GPE more, you need to remove the house from the equation, so that everything is happening outside. That is why I suggested doing what is probably right now being tested by Swanson – have the two panes of glass outside, in the Sun, and measure whether separating them and bringing them back together affects the temperature of the pane of glass nearest the Sun.
Hopefully that explains better what I meant…
Nate says:
”Nate makes the unsupported claim that radiation works the same as convection.”
As usual, Bill distorts what people say into things they didnt say in a lame attempt to make that person look silly.
————————
You said: ”Some people lack the intellect to understand that heat transfer is a general phenomena whose laws are the same in all situations.”
There are three modes of heat transfer Nate. You said they are all the same.
They aren’t. If you want to specify that Woods is wrong and it does make a difference if you block IR then how about some evidence of that someplace before making some vague claim that science doesn’t change based on location?
Show me how you elevate temperature above equilibrium using just radiation. . . .anywhere. And I don’t mean some pseudo-logical mathematical argument that assumes it does.
“There are three modes of heat transfer Nate. You said they are all the same.”
Nope. Stop lying and misrepresenting what I said in order to irritate. That is trolling.
“Out in space there is not really any “ambient” temperature. Its not like theres the same situation with the inside and outside of a house. Thus the double glazing example doesnt relate to the GPE. To make it relate to the GPE more, you need to remove the house from the equation, so that everything is happening outside. That is why I suggested doing what is probably right now being tested by Swanson have the two panes of glass outside, in the Sun, and measure whether separating them and bringing them back together affects the temperature of the pane of glass nearest the Sun.”
Indeed so. Boundary conditions (BC) matter.
In the GPE the boundary condition is a constant heat flux input on one side and constant Temp of space at near 0 K on the other side.
In my examples with double paned windows and fiberglass insulation, I changed the BC from constant T on both sides, to one in which a constant heat flux was input one one side and T is fixed on the other to match the GPE.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1465182
Perhaps it was missed.
“Now in my example the Qdot is set to a constant, and the T gradient adjusts, whereas in the case of a home, Q dot would adjust and the T gradient would be (more) constant.
We agree that with double paned windows the R value will be higher. That means that the T gradient will be higher when Qdot is held constant. That means the Blue window will be warmer.”
But the blue pane is NOT an insulator. As you add panes to the ”insulation assembly” the mean temperature of the assembly does not change. the insulation is the trapped air.
Air is a slow conductor of heat so that is what provides the insulation.
If you want to extrapolate this to space thats fine but then do you have any insulation? In vacuum pocket insulation the insulating value is derived by reducing emissivity by a factor of 50 or more. Otherwise like the sun does to the earth to produce 1362watts of flux it would warm the surface to the point it emitted 1362watts.
Thats why a steel greenhouse would not provide an insulating effect unless it was polished steel and you could use reflectivity to bounce the light. Otherwise it will be absorbed and continue its movement to space virtually unimpeded because of the high conductivity of steel.
As I have said before. I am not sure if I agree with DREMT or not on this. Its in need of carefully constructed experiment.
Forcing things to reach an equilibrium is easy but thats not what the greenhouse effect is about.
The only relevant discussion is one that leads to the surface exceeding its radiative equilibrium with its energy source. And here everybody is arguing about if you can use insulation to ensure it warms to equilibrium. Of course you can. Thats what insulation standards are for in building construction. Minimize the incoming energy required to warm or cool a building.
And warming to equilibrium is what we ”expect” radiation to do without any atmosphere. 15C is kind of chilly even as a mean temperature. Humans like it warmer so the huddle around the equator where the mean temperature is warmer. Even 20-22C is chilly but its the temperature desired for people out of the wind and wearing wool 3-piece suits. Folks in casual short sleeves and shorts finds that cold too without sunshine. . . .and here we are fretting about the world getting not as warm as that, arguing about insulation, and forgetting that insulation warms nothing over its equilibrium.
total nonsense.
Reinforced here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1466213
“Thats why a steel greenhouse would not provide an insulating effect unless it was polished steel and you could use reflectivity to bounce the light. Otherwise it will be absorbed and continue its movement to space virtually unimpeded because of the high conductivity of steel.“
Exactly right, Bill.
I wonder how Swanson is getting on with his experiment?
“Thats why a steel greenhouse would not provide an insulating effect unless it was polished steel and you could use reflectivity to bounce the light. Otherwise it will be absorbed and continue its movement to space virtually unimpeded because of the high conductivity of steel.”
Feelings are not physics, Bill. I see no laws of physics being applied here. I showed you the proper physics calculated temperatures that obey the laws of physics, and you cannot point out any flaws.
“But the blue pane is NOT an insulator. As you add panes to the insulation assembly the mean temperature of the assembly does not change. the insulation is the trapped air.
Air is a slow conductor of heat so that is what provides the insulation.”
Sure Bill, and you and I agree that the gap between double paned provides extra insulation, ie increases the R factor of the windows. In double pane windows the heat is transferred across the gap by convection, conduction and radiation.
Then you should understand that removing all the air from between the windows can only INCREASE the R factor by removing the convective and conductive heat transfer through the air. Only radiative heat transfer remains.
A vacuum gap thus has a high insulation R factor. That is why thermos bottles have one.
And yes shiny, low emissivity plates are even BETTER at insulating. But black plates are still way better than with no vacuum gap at all!
Example of standard radiative heat transfer between plates.
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/radiation_configuration_factor.htm
Nate says:
”Thats why a steel greenhouse would not provide an insulating effect unless it was polished steel and you could use reflectivity to bounce the light. Otherwise it will be absorbed and continue its movement to space virtually unimpeded because of the high conductivity of steel.”
Feelings are not physics, Bill. I see no laws of physics being applied here. I showed you the proper physics calculated temperatures that obey the laws of physics, and you cannot point out any flaws.
—————————
Of course thats total bullshit because you simply ignored the reference I provided.
Here is the entire reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5HyDp_Jgd8
What you are asking here is effectively that I prove there are no aliens hidden in Area 51. Laws of science are created by their proponents with evidence and proofs. You haven’t shown how Dr. Yong is wrong, but you should have deduced that a long time ago.
Since you referred to Stefan Boltzmann work you would know that a cold object cannot transfer heat to a warmer object. Thus it is impossible for cooler object to warm a warmer object.
Additionally if you decide to treat the issue as insulation you should be aware that static insulation can only adopt a mean temperature between the temperatures of warmer and cooler object and has no effect on the warmer object.
Thats because no insulation is necessary for an object under a radiative flux to warm to equilibrium.
Further every theory posed by the AGW enthusiasts has either been debunked or are in the process of being debunked. Thats why as Dr Yong in the reference given says the theory keeps changing. As it becomes debunked it changes and becomes a moving target.
all that is needed here is for a theory to actually outlast normal climate variation and the problem with that is it is at least an 800 year long process before you get into the Milankovitch cycles which themselves is poorly understood.
Bottom line wrt climate it will be necessary to just ignore it unless it starts to become unmanageable, then desperate measures can possibly be justified.
“What you are asking here is effectively that I prove there are no aliens hidden in Area 51.”
Hardly. I showed you the basic physics solution to a rather simple radiative heat transfer problem. You don’t understand it, can’t tell me what’s wrong with it, and offer no alternative solution.
Any science you don’t understand must be wrong. That’s your standard anti-science nonsense.
Go find someone else to troll.
Nate says:
Hardly. I showed you the basic physics solution to a rather simple radiative heat transfer problem. You dont understand it, cant tell me whats wrong with it, and offer no alternative solution.
Any science you dont understand must be wrong. Thats your standard anti-science nonsense.
—————————
You should take notice that this is a science blog and it is you who is in here hawking a science theory allegedly build solely on observation that doesn’t agree with the observations.
Come back and try selling it once it agrees with observations.
Grammie pups posted a challenge to the group regarding the effects of heating the Blue plate used in the GPE model when the Green plate is positioned to touch the Blue plate, then separating the two. His often repeated claim is that the two plates will have the same temperature when in contact and would then exhibit only a small temperature difference when separated.
He insisted the temperature difference would be 1 degree C when separated, then modified his claim to 5 deg C, but allowed that if the temperature change was 18 degrees C, as determined by Eli Rabbit’s original model, he would take “extreme measures”, so to speak.
I replied that I could use two glass plates from a double pane window, along with the panel’s spacer, and test his assertions. Well, here are my results from today’s test:
Run #1 – Clear skys after a cold night, little wind, dew point ~27F = -3 C. Both plates in contact, oriented roughly normal to the Sun’s incident radiation. Temperatures at steady state after a period of time:
Black painted plate, T = 51.1 C
Clear plate behind, T = 49.5 C
Ambient temperature, T = 17.2 C
Run #2 – Plates separated by adding the spacer between, again after a period of time:
Black painted plate, T = 60.3 C
Clear plate in rear, T = 34.5 C
IR thermometer, T = ~57 C
Ambient temperature, T = 17.0 C
Run # 3 – Removed spacer, plates touching together again. Some shadowing from trees:
Black painted plate, T = 44.2
Clear plate behind, T = 43.1
IR thermometer, T = 43
Ambient temperature, T = 18.2
Run #4 – Moved plates for better exposure to the Sun:
Black painted plate, T = 45.8
Clear plate behind, T = 44.6
Looks like grammie pups has lost his bet. We await his acceptance of his fate.
E. Swanson says:
Run #1 Clear skys after a cold night, little wind, dew point ~27F = -3 C. Both plates in contact, oriented roughly normal to the Suns incident radiation. Temperatures at steady state after a period of time:
Black painted plate, T = 51.1 C
Clear plate behind, T = 49.5 C
Ambient temperature, T = 17.2 C
Run #2 Plates separated by adding the spacer between, again after a period of time:
Black painted plate, T = 60.3 C
Clear plate in rear, T = 34.5 C
IR thermometer, T = ~57 C
Ambient temperature, T = 17.0 C
————————–
Nice job Swanson. You imitated putting a steel greenhouse over the clear plate and the clear plate cooled rather than warmed.
Well thats what greenhouse gases do in the atmosphere they limit high daytime temperatures. Without them the climate would be much hotter when the sun comes up. Of course we should already know that as we see what happens when clouds fly over and blot out the sun.
Hopefully we can move on without this topic coming up again.
“The only reason I can think that it might is because there would be half the mass to keep warm with the panes separated than with the panes together in one lump, where conduction between the panes is possible…”
…looks like this had more of an effect than I anticipated…unless Swanson completely fabricated the results, which I wouldn’t put past him. Either way, the BP rise and fall was not the 18 K minimum that it should be given that the plates in Eli’s thought experiment are black bodies, whereas any real plate or pane will have some degree of reflectivity, thus should radiatively insulate even more than Eli theorized. Plus the radiation from the Sun that the real plates received is going to be much more than 400 W/m^2, so everything should have been scaled up and the temperature differences even greater than the 18 K once again.
So, a bit of a disappointing result for Team GPE, if true. Also, I would have stopped commenting for 30 days since the temperature increase/decrease of the blue pane was supposedly more than 5 K, but Swanson didn’t take the bet. So I don’t even have to stop commenting.
“ither way, the BP rise and fall was not the 18 K minimum that it should be given that the plates in Elis thought experiment are black bodies”
Strawman.
Nobody predicted 18 K for this setup that is different from the GPE. The obvious difference is air in between and surrounding the plates that reduces the T difference that would be expected in vacuum.
The effect was still quite large. This thoroughly debunks the made-up claim that ‘heat accordions’ don’t exist in the real world.
Nice work Swanson.
” You imitated putting a steel greenhouse over the clear plate and the clear plate cooled rather than warmed.”
As expected, Brainiac Bill completely misunderstood what the experiment was.
It is NOT at all like the steel greenhouse, which is an unheated shell place around a heated sphere.
Well, if true, Swanson has successfully found evidence that an object with half the mass of another object will be warmed to a higher temperature by the same energy input. It’s certainly not evidence in support of the non-existent GPE.
Nate says:
”As expected, Brainiac Bill completely misunderstood what the experiment was.
It is NOT at all like the steel greenhouse, which is an unheated shell place around a heated sphere.”
—————
What do you mean its not like the steel greenhouse. An opaque plate was put between the sunshine and the ground and then another plate was created out of the first plate which caused the top plate to warm and the plate under the steel greenhouse to cool.
This is like triple glazed insulation, insulating the ground from the 2 plates and the middle plate from the top plate. what is happening here is the steel greenhouse is slowing the rate of warming by creating rigid air gaps.
Eventually if wind and convection is completely eliminated the temperatures will equalize.
For the earth’s greenhouse effect it is operating in a similar manner. All one needs to understand why there is about a 50watt greenhouse effect that raises the temperature from 278.7K to 288K. I see more than one possibility but none for the Manabe/Hansen theory.
Simply going out there and proposing some rather silly mid-atmosphere effects I don’t think gets you there. But its incredibly weak anyway you want to cut it.
We have real challenges we need to face and they are more linked to things getting cooler than warmer. It would actually be a huge benefit to mankind if things did get warmer. Fortunately they have been for a few hundred years. . . .but as pointed out by Dr. Akasofu that might be purely a result of natural variation.
Understanding how climate works is what we should be doing rather than declaring it a settled science and spending money on anti-fossil fuel actions. All that is is a environmentalist pipe dream. Got to get the environmentalist off drugs and back to worthwhile projects.
While I didn’t find the Blue plate temperature increasing by 18K, the painted glass plate did exhibit an obvious increase which was much larger than that which grammie insisted must result.
Of course, grammie also accuses me of lying, as if I would have any reason to do so, given the simplicity of replicating this experiment. I did run it again today, with some variations that I thought might be relevant (which they were). Like any real world experiment, it’s difficult to separate all the variables to find the influence of a single one.
As expected, grammie pups decides to walk away from his bet. Funny thing, after years of spewing his ignorant posts, grammie seems to think he has no reason to admit his failures and intends to keep on with his gross spamming of the group. Why is this not a surprise?
"As expected, grammie pups decides to walk away from his bet."
You didn’t take the bet, Swanson, so there’s nothing to walk away from. Nobody has commented on my "non-GPE" explanation for the temperature increase, which I made even before the experiment was run and reiterated a couple of times since, so I’ll assume I hit the nail on the head with that one. No GPE.
You have completely missed the nail DREMT since the 1LOT and 2LOT really are correct thus the GPE stands supported by E. Swanson’s convincing experiments.
No GPE.
… only when the 1LOT and 2LOT are incorrect.
Either you can explain what’s wrong with my "non-GPE" explanation for the temperature increase we’re supposed to believe Swanson observed, or you can’t. If you can’t, then please stop trolling.
Ball4 says:
”You have completely missed the nail DREMT since the 1LOT and 2LOT really are correct thus the GPE stands supported by E. Swansons convincing experiments.”
Swanson’s experiments were only convincing for those that don’t understand the math of radiation. I pointed out the discrepancies and noted to Swanson how he could repeat the experiment and fill in those discrepancies. However, Swanson declined to fix the problems.
Hunter troll wrote:
Nice job Hunter. You completely failed to understand what I did. The glass pane painted black is analogous to Eli’s Blue Plate which is also heated by an external source. The clear plate is an IR absorber/emitter which is analogous to the Green Plate. In this case, convection is still active on the outer sides of both plates, in addition to the radiation emissions from each to the environment.
That analogy is like that which grammie has argued about for many months with his “plates together, then plates separated” BS which he claims exhibit the same temperature for both plates in both situations. Sorry, reality doesn’t work that way.
Hunter later writes:
“That analogy is like that which grammie has argued about for many months with his “plates together, then plates separated” BS which he claims exhibit the same temperature for both plates in both situations. Sorry, reality doesn’t work that way…”
…but only because the Sun is having to keep twice the mass warm when the plates are pushed together than it is when the plates are separated. It has nothing to do with “back-radiation warming”, which is of course physically impossible.
“but only because the Sun is having to keep twice the mass warm when the plates are pushed together than it is when the plates are separated. ”
Nice try but a red herring. Heat capacity is relevant to the rate of T change of the objects, but not to the final steady state temperatures reached.
Heat capacity never appears in the solution to the GPE, again because we are interested in the final temperatures.
So, DREMT had made an extraordinary claim that ‘no heat accordion exists in the real world’.
It was proven wrong by an experiment. No excuses accepted.
It’s wrong, end of story.
“…but only because the Sun is having to keep twice the mass warm when the plates are pushed together than it is when the plates are separated…”
…either that or it will be radiative insulation due to the reflectivity of the clear pane. One thing it definitely won’t be is ”back-radiation warming”.
No GPE.
Nate’s right in pointing out that the mass of the plates has nothing to do with the steady state temperatures.
But grammie wanders further off track as he replies:
Physics grammie. The clear glass plate is a good absorber of thermal IR radiation, thus does not “reflect” same. The clear plate is an IR emitter, the rate of emission depends on it’s temperature. From the perspective of the black painted glass (also a good absorber at the rear), the clear plate provides some amount of “back radiation”.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0038092X79900574
Whatever is the cause of the results (if genuine), it won’t be "back-radiation warming".
No GPE.
… only if the 1LOT and 2LOT are incorrect. It won’t be from back radiation DREMT because it is just radiation.
Whatever, Ball4. It’s just stupid. You may as well have had only one glass pane, had it lying on the ground, then lifted up the glass pane off the ground and hey presto! Now the glass pane is receiving the radiation from the ground as well as from the Sun, so according to you guys it would just rise in temperature. No doubt Swanson would claim to do an experiment, tell us the results, and you’d all just go, "there you go…case closed". I would point out that things don’t just rise in temperature when you pick them up off the ground, you’d all say that Swanson has done the experiment demonstrating that it does happen, and then that would be it. We’re all just supposed to believe it. Even though we all know that not a single person here is ever going to replicate one of Swanson’s experiments.
grammie pups references some theoretical research from 1979, with these comments in the abstract:
Let me translate that so that ignorant grammie might understand. In this report, the CALCULATED emissivity dropped from ~90% to ~85% when corrected for off nadir incidence. The emissivity is still quite large, so the glass is a very good emitter of thermal IR radiation, producing a strong “back radiation” toward the painted glass plate, which is also a very good absorber.
Learn some physics, troll thing.
Swanson, why don’t you run the experiment with just one single pane of glass? Just have it on the ground, initially, then put it on your window spacers so it’s separated from the ground. Then you can demonstrate that lifting something off the ground makes it rise in temperature. After all, once you have the back-radiation from the ground in addition to the radiation from the Sun, the object should warm, right? At least, according to Team GPE it should.
We’re all familiar with that experience of things spontaneously warming up when you lift them off the ground.
DREMT, your 9:39 am physics reasoning is faulty; there is no presto!
When on the ground the pane of glass is reflecting, transmitting, and absorbing the radiation from the ground too as well as conducting. When you lift it off the ground, then the conduction from the ground stops and conduction from the air starts on relevant side. You need to account for all of that to get any realistic answer for delta Tpane. The GPE is in a vacuum. See Eli’s long ago workout for the correct GPE answers.
So a pane of glass lying on the ground is absorbing radiation from the ground, according to Ball4.
Anyone else got anything ridiculous to say? Might as well get it all out of your systems, now.
grammie pups, why don’t you stop posting idiotic claims along with demands that someone else prove your conjecture(s)? Besides, you totally lost the last round, so maybe you should re-consider such activities.
Hey, even you might be able to afford a cheap thermocouple meter.
When you’ve got a religious belief, as DREMT does, then no physics, logic, common sense, or even a contradictory experiment will alter that.
That’s what we’ve learned this week.
“According to the calculated results, only under the normal incidence condition inside the far IR, the glass has a total reflectivity of 0.107”
Much closer to a blackbody than a mirror. Oh well, some people are persistent in their ignorance.
Of course, those that want to gobble up your supposed results as evidence of "back-radiation warming", will do, Swanson. I’m convinced there must be a rational explanation for them. Why don’t you start a new thread at the bottom of the comments, and see what the others have to say?
Here is the explanation.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1467168
Hunter is still hopelessly confused. The glass plate stuff is in reply to grammie’s bet and is not like the steel greenhouse BS that you folks keep throwing up. As I noted above, the test is more like Eli’s Green Plate Experiment and my real world effort to reproduce it.
That’s because the energy from the Sun heats the Black painted glass, which must then lose energy from both sides to the surroundings until steady state is reached. Adding the spacer and the clear glass just insulates the rear side and the small distance between the plates reduces convection, leaving radiation heat transfer as a significant fraction of the total heat loss. The black painted plate exhibits a temperature increase and the clear plate temperature is less that the case with both together, but greater than ambient. That’s just an example of basic heat transfer engineering.
OK, I’ve started a new thread at the bottom of the comments, since Swanson obviously wasn’t going to.
grammie pups has thrown up another red herring, using glass plates for the GPE (or who knows what), then asks for an immediate reply to his delusions. The game continues for grammie, who apparently has nothing better to do than spend his days ranting about silly mental models without any physics behind them.
Every single word of that is wrong, Swanson. First of all, using glass panes for the GPE is not my idea. Try reading through the thread before you vomit up your hate-filled nonsense. Secondly, I’d have been happy for the discussion to end days ago. Team GPE can never leave it alone, and so here we are.
I’ll take it that you concede the blue plane of glass would not increase in temperature by 18 K. That means we can discard the idea of "double glazing" being an example of the "heat accordion" effect. Truth, justice, honesty, decency and integrity wins again.
“Ill take it that you concede the blue plane of glass would not increase in temperature by 18 K. That means we can discard the idea yada yada..”
Hardly. He hasn’t conceded anything. Bill debunked it. Your argument remains one of incredulity, assertion, and not even a tiny bit of real science.
…I’ll take it that you concede the blue plane of glass would not increase in temperature by 18 K. That means we can discard the idea of "double glazing" being an example of the "heat accordion" effect. Truth, justice, honesty, decency and integrity wins again.
I would point out that
“Separate them. It makes no difference to the temperature of the blue pane.”
Was already disputed by Swanson, as ‘argument by assertion.’
Then DREMT demanded a quantitative answer to an unquantified problem, trying to pull a Clint.
Of course he did not answer this idiotic troll question!
…take it that you concede the blue plane of glass would not increase in temperature by 18 K. That means we can discard the idea of "double glazing" being an example of the "heat accordion" effect. Truth, justice, honesty, decency and integrity wins again.
Nah.
OK, Team GPE. Here’s a bet for you…with the Sun as the heat source (same as in the GPE), take two panes of glass. Call one the blue pane and the other the green pane. Add the green pane behind the blue pane so that the blue pane is between the green pane and the Sun. Push them together. Separate them. If the blue pane raises in temperature by 18 K when separated, and then lowers in temperature by the same amount when pushed together, I’ll commit suicide. I’m literally happy to bet my entire life on it, that the rise in temperature by 18 K won’t happen.
Now, if they were being honest, they’d agree. Of course it wouldn’t happen! Who has ever experienced anything like that happening in their entire lives!? But, this is how far they’re willing to go to in support of their religion. They’ll stop at nothing. They’d claim anything to support the GPE.
You are safe DREMT. Of course 18K difference won’t happen because the imaginary window panes will have plenty of transmissivity so the sun shines straight thru them (in part) unlike in the GPE opaque plate theoretical and experimental examples where there is a 262K 244K difference.
… 262K – 244K difference.
At least Ball4 can admit that the temperature increase/decrease won’t happen. Though you could replace the transparent panes with metal plates and arrange them the same way, out in the Sun. The “blue plate” would not increase in temperature by 18 K when separated from the green, then decrease in temperature by 18 K when the plates are pushed together. It just wouldn’t happen.
Oh, a window pane temperature increase will still happen, DREMT, because the eqn.s for conduction and radiation are different as demanded by the 1LOT, 2LOT in the process of being pushed together.
I’ll let DREMT work out the answers for the window pane exercise including transmissivity based on the GPE solution from Eli years ago where 1LOT, 2LOT proved the opaque plates with the 262K – 244K difference.
…though you could replace the transparent panes with metal plates and arrange them the same way, out in the Sun. The “blue plate” would not increase in temperature by 18 K when separated from the green, then decrease in temperature by 18 K when the plates are pushed together. It just wouldn’t happen.
DREMT only imagines it wouldn’t happen whereas Eli proved with 1LOT, 2LOT the ideal opaque plates 262K – 244K difference, DREMT, then E. Swanson backed up the ideal plates example with the real plate experimental data confirming Eli’s work.
The workout is really very basic thermodynamics, about as basic as thermo. gets. Even DREMT could solve it with window pane transmissivity added & a little help from a more astute thermodynamics degreed engineer.
"DREMT only imagines it wouldn’t happen…"
Put it to the test, then, Ball4. Same bet as before…with the Sun as the heat source (same as in the GPE), take two metal plates. Call one the blue plate and the other the green plate. Add the green plate behind the blue plate so that the blue plate is between the green plate and the Sun. Push them together. Separate them. If the blue plate raises in temperature by 18 K when separated, and then lowers in temperature by the same amount when pushed together, I’ll commit suicide. I’m literally happy to bet my entire life on it, that the rise in temperature by 18 K won’t happen.
You are safe DREMT, infinite plates Eli used are not available in reality to ever obtain the 262K – 244K idealized difference. Just look up E. Swanson’s actual opaque plate experiments and have a more astute degreed thermo. Engineer explain them to you. Then use the same degreed engineer help you solve for when the infinite plates are not opaque in the window pane example.
As a pro., that degreed engineer may ask for compensation but it will be a worthwhile tuition expense for DREMT.
“You are safe DREMT…”
…I know, and not just because the plates are not infinite in size.
Swanson never did an experiment using the Sun as the heat source, and where he separated the plates and then brought them together, etc. So you can stop appealing to his authority.
grammie pups can’t understand his own red herring. The GPE model is supposed to apply to conditions in space, that is a vacuum. Double pane windows are on the ground and the gas between them is likely air (or maybe Argon). The two panes are separated by a fixed distance and are sealed against any convection from the outside. The energy supply to the double pane window is the air and thermal IR radiation within the building. We have no clue why grammie pups claims an 18K difference, though I think we know grammie doesn’t know either.
As for my GPE demo, grammie wonders why I didn’t use sunlight to heat the plates. If he had half a brain, he might realize that attempting to do would require some sort of tracking setup and there would be no control for the weather during the hours long runs nor could runs be conducted after dark when the room temperature was relatively stable.
Swanson conclusively proves that he cannot follow a discussion.
“grammie pups can’t understand his own red herring.”
It’s not my red herring, Swanson. It’s my stalker’s.
“The GPE model is supposed to apply to conditions in space, that is a vacuum. Double pane windows are on the ground and the gas between them is likely air (or maybe Argon).“
Yes, I know. Exactly.
“The two panes are separated by a fixed distance and are sealed against any convection from the outside. The energy supply to the double pane window is the air and thermal IR radiation within the building. We have no clue why grammie pups claims an 18K difference, though I think we know grammie doesn’t know either.”
I don’t claim there’s an 18 K difference. Learn to read and follow a discussion.
“As for my GPE demo, grammie wonders why I didn’t use sunlight to heat the plates.”
No, I don’t wonder that at all. Learn to read and follow a discussion.
You didn’t use the Sun as your heat source, and then start with the plates pushed together, separate them, and then push them back together, because you know full well that if you had done so, you would have recorded no temperature increase of the BP when separated, and no temperature decrease in the BP when pushed back together.
Don’t worry about it Swanson, this entire discussion has gone over your head. Just go back to sleep.
“Ill commit suicide.”
Nobody wants that. Stopping the trolling would be sufficient.
Swanson,
The double pane windows were brought up to debunk this argument by assertion by DREMT:
” if something like the ‘heat accordion’ actually occurred in nature, wed know about it. It doesnt. So that rules out your temperature rise in the BP on separation of the plates.”
Double-paned windows have a higher R factor than single pane windows.
That means that given a fixed heat input into one side of the window, the temperature differential from hot side to cold side of the window would be LARGER for double paned windows than single paned windows, and Bill confirms this difference comes from the GAP between the windows.
And a link I provided agrees.
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/images/double-pane-heat.png
This means that in a thought experiment: in the presence of a constant heat input from one side of the window, the act of separating and pushing together the two panes of a double-paned window, would produce a rise and fall respectively of the temperature difference from the hot side to the cold side.
This is the ‘heat accordion’ effect in action. It exists.
…just go back to sleep.
Nate, I understand how double pane windows work. They take advantage of the fact that convection is suppressed when the distance between the plates is less than a critical value. Air is a poor conductor without convection, so the R-value insulation effect increases with the distance between the plates.
But I was replying to grammie’s attempt to hijack the discussion with a new mind game for the GPE model with glass instead of metal plates. With a vacuum between the plates, it’s a different ball game, so to speak. grammie is so clueless that he apparently thought that sunlight would heat the glass just as much as when metal is used, so he throws out a mention of an 18K temperature increase.
You’re so stupid it’s unreal, Swanson. You literally cannot follow a discussion, then when I try to set you straight on it, you still don’t understand that you’re not following the discussion!
1) The double glazing example is not mine, Swanson. Get it through your thick head. It’s not my idea.
2) I don’t think the blue plane glass, heated by the Sun, would increase in temperature by 18 K when separated from the green pane, then decrease by 18 K when pushed together.
3) I don’t think a blue metal plate, heated by the Sun, would increase in temperature by 18 K when separated from a green metal plate, then decrease by 18 K when pushed together.
4) The 18 K comes from the original Green Plate Effect thought experiment. OK? Look it up.
grammie pups, We know that YOU are the one who has claimed that the GPE’s temperature difference is wrong, repeatedly writing “244-244”, etc.
grammie pups, YOUR red herring about 2 glass plates in air has NOTHING TO DO with the GPE in a vacuum environment. You are such a moron.
You are pathologically incapable of following a discussion.
"grammie pups, YOUR red herring about 2 glass plates in air has NOTHING TO DO with the GPE in a vacuum environment"
I couldn’t agree more. My stalker’s red herring about the double glazing has nothing to do with the GPE. Thanks for your support, Swanson.
Yes Swanson, with glass panes separated and air in between the R factor is higher. And that is a real ‘heat accordian’ found in nature (the real world) that does debunk his claims that no such effect exists.
It does just that. And that is all it was designed to do.
He is now creating a strawman by swapping that problem for the GPE problem and claiming that the very same Temperature changes should happen, and if they don’t something is wrong.
Of course this is pure obfuscation and trolling. Just ignore him.
…thanks for your support, Swanson.
SUNDAY MORNING PUZZLE
Guess who wrote this:
> If you apply fluxes directly to the same spot, it should raise the kinetic energy of the atoms.
Was it someone who believes that fluxes add like Mighty Tim or a Sky Dragon crank like Pup?
Youre not a puzzle, worthless willard, youre easy to figure out.
Youre an ignorant brat with nothing going in your life except keyboarding.
Not much of a puzzle, is it?
Pupettipopup,
Easy to see that you got NOTHING.
You are saying NOTHING.
To be able to say NOTHING for more thats ten years is quite SOMETHING, however.
Silly sock puppet.
Willard, please trying to troll.
wee willy…”> If you apply fluxes directly to the same spot, it should raise the kinetic energy of the atoms”.
***
Nothing there about fluxes adding.
Come on, Bordo.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Einstein received a Nobel Prize for explaining why people who thought like you were wrong.
Come on Willard – accept reality.
It’s not hard to accept that you are Mike Flynn, Mike.
What are you braying about?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Einstein received a Nobel Prize for explaining why people who thought like you were wrong.
Come on Willard accept reality.
I accept that you copy-paste your comments, Mike.
What are you braying about?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Einstein received a Nobel Prize for explaining why people who thought like you were wrong.
Come on Willard accept reality.
I accept that you’re a good boy, Mike.
Again?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Einstein received a Nobel Prize for explaining why people who thought like you were wrong.
Come on Willard accept reality.
I accept that you keep being a good boy, Mike.
Again!
Willard, please stop trolling.
trouble posting…
binny…Odd that you should hold that opinion. Neils Bohr consulted Wood re sodium vapour radiation.
R. W. Wood had a broad interest with his experiments. Although he had an interest in op.tical matters he was not limited to that interest. He was a physicist first. He also studied chemistry which would have required a basic understanding of the structure of molecules like CO2.
“Woods best known contributions were the line and continuous absor.p.tion of sodium vapor, fluorescence phenomena, particularly the discovery of the resonance radiation of gases and vapors and the influence of foreign gases and magnetic fields on such phenomena. He also contributed to the development of x-rays, photography, meteorology, archeology, explosives, and acoustics”.
“His greatest contribution to physics, however, was his perfection of the art of ruling diffraction gratings. The improvements he made to Rowlands original machine made the continuous flow of gratings from his lab possible and made it the only source for these parts of the spectrograph. Wood invented the echelette grating, experimented with replica gratings, and modifying the sizes of gratings that were possible”.
https://tinyurl.com/57dy9tz8
And you are trying to tell us Wood knew nothing about CO2 and infrared radiation? Compare his accomplishments to those of mathematicians Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS or geologist Mike Mann.
Robertson
You are once more loosing your time here. And mine as well.
You are not even able to understand that Wood’s excellent knowledge and experience in the sense we are discussing in this blog had NOTHING to do with atmospheric gases and CO2.
Don’t try to explain me who was Wood, Robertson.
binny…”Dont try to explain me who was Wood, Robertson”.
***
I have to, you are far too stupid to understand who he was.
The experiment performed by Wood was directly connected to the atmosphere and Co2. He prove that CO2 could not warm a greenhouse, that the warming came from a lack of ventilation. That’s what he set out to do, to prove that fact, since he could not see, based on his professional experience, how Co2 could possibly warm the atmosphere.
That should have been apparent to any scientist. A trace gas at 0.04% of a gaseous mix could not possibly add more heat than its mass percent, which is about 0.04C of a 1C rise in the total gas temperature.
Wood proved that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is not caused by trace gases like CO2 and WV. Therefore his experiment is directly related.
Binny,
Here’s what Wood said –
“THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.”
Of course, the deranged SkyDragons quickly stopped singing their greenhouse tune, and cried “When we said “greenhouse”, we didn’t really mean “greenhouse”, and we’re not going to tell you what we really meant, so there!”
And there the matter rests – nobody can actually describe the “greenhouse effect”, apart from the facts that it has nothing to do with greenhouses, and allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years.
Carry on refusing to accept reality.
As I was researching on the Net, something someone said spurred a thought.
In the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen molecules out-number CO2 molecules by 2500 to 1. It is clear from that fact, the N2/O2 molecules are going to force CO2 to the same temperature, not the other way around.
Furthermore, as R. W. Wood pointed out, infrared radiation from the surface will rapidly lose intensity due to the inverse-square law. Wood suggested it would have little effect a few feet above the surface.
That is directly in the expertise of Wood, who specialized in the radiation of gases in the UV and IR ranges. He photographed such emissions as a pioneer in the field. He would have been intimate with the effect of the inverse-square law.
I have offered an example of such an inverse-square law loss that is more dramatic. A 1500 watt ring on an electric stove glows red, just above the IR range. Within a foot of the ring, any IR effect is minimal and within 4 feet it is imperceptible. That’s how quickly IR drops off over distance.
The meaning is clear, CO2 and WV above a few feet of the surface are unaffected by surface radiation. Furthermore, there is only enough CO2 to absorb about 7% of the radiation. Above a few feet, 7% of nothing is nothing.
” Furthermore, as R. W. Wood pointed out, infrared radiation from the surface will rapidly lose intensity due to the inverse-square law. Wood suggested it would have little effect a few feet above the surface.
That is directly in the expertise of Wood, who specialized in the radiation of gases in the UV and IR ranges. ”
And once again, Robertson invents what R.W. Wood had never any real expertise about.
Wood was a worldwide renowned expert in visible light and frequencies near them, i.e. UV and near IR.
Robertson the alleged ‘Sir’ can’t stop to distort the reality until it matches his egomaniacal narrative.
And I repeat, for the geniuses a la Robertson, Flynnson and other Hunter boys:
If R.G. Wood had been an ardent admirer of the greenhouse effect, and if the work of Nobel laureate Arrhenius had been an attempt to prove its non-existence, then Woods tiny, one-page note would look quite different, and would have been literally torn up as superficial nonsense by every Pseudo-skeptic on Earth!
Basta ya, people, with your stoopid anti GHE blah blah.
Yeah, except Wood was right and Arrhenius wrong.
Bindidon says:
”Woods tiny, one-page note would look quite different, and would have been literally torn up as superficial nonsense by every Pseudo-skeptic on Earth!”
Indeed perhaps it might have except for the fact it described a replicable experiment that has been verified by similar experiments numerous times.
In fact there are entire architectural books devoted to how to design heat sequestration systems for passive solar space heating to avoid the failures of the Woods kind in not obtaining an effect. I should know as I spent a number of years designing and building such projects and read the books myself.
Please tell me it isn’t so, global warming has been postponed in the UK. The climate seems to be changing, it’s getting colder.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/10/met-office-warning-storm-larisa-batters-uk-blizzards-trapping-drivers-m62
It’s nearly spring and they are having blizzards in the UK.
Meantime, on the Pacific coast of Canada, temperatures are well below average and will be the rest of March.
C’mon, Bordo.
That’s called weather.
Whacky Wee Willy,
And of course, your plagiarized weather reports aren’t?
Yes, Wee Willy, weather does exist. The statistics of historical weather observations are called “climate”, and are of no practical use whatsoever, being a mere curiosity.
It is, at best, a vague average description of what has happened over a long period of time in a particular area – which is of no use to the people who have experienced the weather, and of even less use to people who haven’t!
How is your search for a description of the “greenhouse effect” proceeding? Some people believe that CO2 affects weather, but can’t quite say how, or when, or where. Pretty useless, if so.
Can you do any better, or do you just have tantrums because nobody seems interested in your fantasies?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Whacky Wee Willy,
And of course, your plagiarized weather reports aren’t?
Yes, Wee Willy, weather does exist. The statistics of historical weather observations are called “climate”, and are of no practical use whatsoever, being a mere curiosity.
It is, at best, a vague average description of what has happened over a long period of time in a particular area which is of no use to the people who have experienced the weather, and of even less use to people who haven’t!
How is your search for a description of the “greenhouse effect” proceeding? Some people believe that CO2 affects weather, but can’t quite say how, or when, or where. Pretty useless, if so.
Can you do any better, or do you just have tantrums because nobody seems interested in your fantasies?
Bray a little more, Mike.
Whacky Wee Willy,
And of course, your plagiarized weather reports aren’t?
Yes, Wee Willy, weather does exist. The statistics of historical weather observations are called “climate”, and are of no practical use whatsoever, being a mere curiosity.
It is, at best, a vague average description of what has happened over a long period of time in a particular area which is of no use to the people who have experienced the weather, and of even less use to people who haven’t!
How is your search for a description of the “greenhouse effect” proceeding? Some people believe that CO2 affects weather, but can’t quite say how, or when, or where. Pretty useless, if so.
Can you do any better, or do you just have tantrums because nobody seems interested in your fantasies?
Good boy.
Whacky Wee Willy,
And of course, your plagiarized weather reports arent?
Yes, Wee Willy, weather does exist. The statistics of historical weather observations are called climate, and are of no practical use whatsoever, being a mere curiosity.
It is, at best, a vague average description of what has happened over a long period of time in a particular area which is of no use to the people who have experienced the weather, and of even less use to people who havent!
How is your search for a description of the greenhouse effect proceeding? Some people believe that CO2 affects weather, but cant quite say how, or when, or where. Pretty useless, if so.
Can you do any better, or do you just have tantrums because nobody seems interested in your fantasies?
More spam, Mike.
Good boy.
La Nina
Skeptics always complaining the southern hemisphere isnt warming as much
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/argentina-melts-late-summer-heat-wave-records-tumble-2023-03-03/
Did you notice the record is based on 1952?
So beautiful:
https://youtu.be/gLfYTP4F23g
So true.
When will our Sky Dragon cranks learn?
Wonky Wee Willy,
So cryptic.
So obscure.
So pointless.
When will you learn that providing YouTube links without a description of what it is about, is about as useful as poking yourself in the eye with a needle. Nobody cares.
Does the link provide a description of the “greenhouse effect”? No?
I didn’t think so.
Mike Flynn,
So much braying.
So much to clock on –
https://youtu.be/gLfYTP4F23g
So much art.
Wonky Wee Willy,
So cryptic.
So obscure.
So pointless.
When will you learn that providing YouTube links without a description of what it is about, is about as useful as poking yourself in the eye with a needle. Nobody cares.
Does the link provide a description of the “greenhouse effect”? No?
I didnt think so.
Mike Flynn,
You want a description of the link?
Clock on it –
https://youtu.be/gLfYTP4F23g
You won’t?
Suit yourself, silly sock puppet!
Wonky Wee Willy,
So cryptic.
So obscure.
So pointless.
When will you learn that providing YouTube links without a description of what it is about, is about as useful as poking yourself in the eye with a needle. Nobody cares.
Does the link provide a description of the “greenhouse effect”? No?
I didn’t think so.
Why so coy, Wee Willy?
Mike –
https://youtu.be/gLfYTP4F23g
Silly sock puppet.
Wonky Wee Willy,
So cryptic.
So obscure.
So pointless.
When will you learn that providing YouTube links without a description of what it is about, is about as useful as poking yourself in the eye with a needle. Nobody cares.
Does the link provide a description of the greenhouse effect? No?
I didnt think so.
Why so coy, Wee Willy?
Mike
https://youtu.be/gLfYTP4F23g
Good boy.
Wonky Wee Willy,
So cryptic.
So obscure.
So pointless.
When will you learn that providing YouTube links without a description of what it is about, is about as useful as poking yourself in the eye with a needle. Nobody cares.
Does the link provide a description of the greenhouse effect? No?
I didnt think so.
Why so coy, Wee Willy?
Mike –
https://youtu.be/gLfYTP4F23g
Wonky Wee Willy,
So cryptic.
So obscure.
So pointless.
When will you learn that providing YouTube links without a description of what it is about, is about as useful as poking yourself in the eye with a needle. Nobody cares.
Does the link provide a description of the greenhouse effect? No?
I didnt think so.
Why so coy, Wee Willy?
Mike Flynn,
So repetitive,
So boring.
So –
https://youtu.be/PCu_BNNI5x4
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Mach Principle, Newton’s spinning bucket , spinning reference frame
https://youtu.be/W0RuZb1yhpA
plus Instant electromagnetism bonus in last segment
All these issues are subject to debate
Thanks for video and this is not a shot at you.
I think Mach was on drugs. Did he not understand that Newton did not give a hoot about inertia being relative to anything else but the reference frame in which we live? Not a big fan of thought experiments.
I think Newton was the pinnacle of science and that it has gone downhill since. 400 years after his era, scientists are openly talking garbage, like big bangs, black holes, climate change, and that gravity is not a force, but a space-time anomaly.
Of course, you will be over-joyed to hear all this, yuck, yuck.
Sorry man, I’m having a bad hair day.
binny…”Beginning, of course, with Robertson, this blogs greatest ignoramus”.
***
That will be Sir Robertson and Mr. Ignoramus to the likes of you.
You, a ‘Sir’ ???
No one deserving such a distinction would ever use name calling like ‘cheating SOB’ or the like.
You, Robertson, behave as much as a Sir as does the Third Viscount behave like a Lord.
P… ..f, you’re just some kind of ill-mannered coachman.
I wanted to see barry fall into his own trap, but he got sent to his room too early.
Nate took the fall for barry. Nate used the scenario of the sky filled with hundreds of suns. He admitted that Earth’s temperature would NEVER be above the temperature of the suns: It is the amount emitted at the suns surface.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1462029
The flux arriving Earth would NOT be the sum of all the suns, because fluxes do NOT add like that. Nate unwittingly debunks Folkerts’ Fraud.
And that simple fact destroys the GHE nonsense.
Puprikatipup,
It is easy to see when you got NOTHING.
You stsrt GLOATING while HANDWAVING.
Try this instead:
https://youtu.be/gLfYTP4F23g
By your logic, any function that is closed under some domain D is IMPOSSIBLE.
Willard,
You wrote –
“By your logic, any function that is closed under some domain D is IMPOSSIBLE.”
Ah, mind reading again. About irrelevant and pointless matters to boot.
Exceptionally stupid, when you can’t even describe the GHE.
Logic isn’t a matter of psychology, Mike.
Nice try!
Willard,
You wrote
By your logic, any function that is closed under some domain D is IMPOSSIBLE.
Ah, mind reading again. About irrelevant and pointless matters to boot.
Exceptionally stupid, when you cant even describe the GHE.
Which part of “Logic isn’t a matter of psychology” you do not get, Mike.
Willard,
You wrote
By your logic, any function that is closed under some domain D is IMPOSSIBLE.
Ah, mind reading again. About irrelevant and pointless matters to boot.
Exceptionally stupid, when you cant even describe the GHE.
Mike Flynn,
https://youtu.be/gLfYTP4F23g
Willard,
You wrote
By your logic, any function that is closed under some domain D is IMPOSSIBLE.
Ah, mind reading again. About irrelevant and pointless matters to boot.
Exceptionally stupid, when you cant even describe the GHE.
Mike Flynn,
I wrote –
https://youtu.be/PCu_BNNI5x4
Cheers.
Willard,
You wrote
“By your logic, any function that is closed under some domain D is IMPOSSIBLE.”
Ah, mind reading again. About irrelevant and pointless matters to boot.
Exceptionally stupid, when you can’t even describe the GHE.
Repeat your comment again, Mike.
https://youtu.be/gLfYTP4F23g
Hundreds of suns. How about 360 sun, one at every degree. But that’s pretty “unrealistic”. How about 360 “suns” in GEO. But that somewhat “unrealistic” also- pretty hard making something that small, so hot.
You could reflect the sun, you make mirrors about the diameter of the Moon and have orbit Earth/Moon L-1 in say 50,000 Km radius orbit.
Also do, Earth/Moon L-3, 4, 5 point. But this only a most dozens rather and hundreds.
And you same thing in GEO, and could be relatively small compared
mirrors at Earth/Moon L points, or have slightly bigger and completely Moon when they were aligned with Moon, and they have about apparent diameter of Sun or Moon. But these only shine around dawn and sunset and at night. Of course it wrecks Earth based optical astronomy. Though it would make solar energy on Earth’s surface work.
It certainly would effect Earth climate, it would be much warmer than greenhouse global climate. But these suns around the equatorial regions. And could do polar orbits, but let’s stick to sun near the equator regions.
So, rather average temperature of Ocean being +10 C, as with Greenhouse global climate, it’s more like +20 or +30 C average ocean temperature.
An average ocean temperature of +5 C, is well beyond the end of world for many people who want to stay in an Ice Age.
Now, take mirrors at Earth/Moon, you can point them all at the same spot on Earth, or you can magnify the sunlight- thereby make the sunlight hotter. In same way you magnify sunlight on Earth, and melt brick.
But if not focused same spot, then it’s not magnified sunlight.
You can also magnify candle light, the limit of temperature is the temperature of the flame [which is a lot cooler than the sun- or it can not melt brick].
Though this complicated By Earth ocean, which is very unlike a rocky surface or blackbody surface. The transparent ocean surface of depth 1 mm, doesn’t absorb much sunlight, the meters of depths of ocean absorbs all energy of shortwave sunlight, direct, indirect and scattered and diffused light. Warmer water rises. The surface of ocean will be warmest [unless it’s acts like solar pond, which can have 80 C water a meter below the surface with surface around 30 C.
But what destroys solar pond is waves- and one could assume you don’t have a still ocean or waveless ocean].
Having two or more suns, gets to situation similar to Earth at Venus distance from the sun- or one can assume, Earth has a lot more clouds. And if assume average ocean is 30 C, one has to have surface of ocean warmer than 30 C- unless something like/similar to a solar pond. Or our ocean surface temperature doesn’t change much during one day. Hmm, it’s possible we have weather we have simply have never seen before. And seems we discovering aspect of weather, which is “new” and we just have one sun.
Or just than rocky surface would make it easier- and particularly without an atmosphere.
Clint sez:
“Nate used the scenario of the sky filled with hundreds of suns. He admitted that Earths temperature would NEVER be above the temperature of the suns: It is the amount emitted at the suns surface.”
Which IS the SUM of flux from all sources in view, in this case, multiple suns like ours, and DOES agree with what Tim and I have been saying about ice.
The resulting flux of hundreds of suns is obviously MUCH MUCH larger than Clint’s claimed maximum of 1368 W/m^2, which is the flux of our single sun at its usual distance:
“Now, the extra 1368 W/m^2 is trying to be absorbed by the sphere that is already at the maximum temperature for 1368 W/m^2. It cant work.”
So Clint, oddly, debunks his own silly claims!
If it true that adding more sources doesnt add more flux than that of a single source, the NFL and MLB could save a lot of $$ on all those lights they used to light up the fields!
Nate, youre making more traps for yourself, and falling into them.
Stadium lights and multiple suns are NOT what this is about. All of your efforts just reveal your lack of understanding, and/or your willingness to distract from the issue.
Folkerts Fraud is about solar flux adding to flux from the sky. He claimed the different fluxes add. In fact, he even provided the bogus equation as to how they add. Hes completely WRONG. His claims are fraud.
So try to divert, deny, distort all you want but you can’t boil water with ice cubes.
Pup,
Here is Mighty Tim himself –
> Your cult fraud claims the plate would be emitting 800 W/m^2, at a temperature of 345K, because the fluxes add. Thats nonsense.
No. Science texts claim nothing of the sort. Fluxes ARRIVING at ONE surface add. So two separate fluxes of 400 W/m^2 (say from two sunbeams) arriving at a single surface add to 800 W/m^2.
No one every claimed 400 W/m^2 fluxes arriving at different surfaces add to give 800 W/m^2. No one ever claimed that two 400 W/m^2 fluxes LEAVING two different surfaces add to give a flux of 800 W/m^2 when ARRIVING at third surface.
But please, show anyone actually making such a claim so we can refute their error.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2023-0-04-deg-c/#comment-1446282
Silly sock puppet,
That silly comment about "sunbeams", again…
Gaslighting Graham found himself a new ploy to keep himself in a game he is bound to lose.
I can’t help but win when the GHE’s been debunked nine ways to Sunday by now. It’s sweet that there’s still people that believe in it, but it’s nothing for reality-lovers to concern themselves over.
Playing dumb might not be the best way for Sky Dragon cranks to support their denial.
As long as it keeps Gaslighting Graham happy.
Little Willy false accuses until he’s made himself sick with the lies he spouts. Oh well, if it keeps him happy. Nobody takes him seriously, so he’s not doing any harm.
Gaslighting Graham deflects, diverts, and distracts from the point being made.
He also gaslights, but that is a gimme.
If that suits him, fine with me.
"Gaslighting Graham deflects, diverts, and distracts from the point being made."
If you can explain exactly what is meant by a "sunbeam", in this context, and can explain exactly how you would go out and record the flux absorbed from one "sunbeam", and compare it to the flux absorbed by another "sunbeam", be my guest. You won’t be able to, because it’s deliberately vague nonsense designed by Tim to obfuscate.
"He also gaslights, but that is a gimme."
I’ve never gaslighted.
Gaslighting Graham could address the point that fluxes indeed add.
Or he could light two lamps in his living room.
Hard to make it simpler than that.
Sure, fluxes add…but do they simply add?
Also:
"Stadium lights and multiple suns are NOT what this is about"
and
"Folkerts Fraud is about solar flux adding to flux from the sky"
By playing dumb and hiding his lack of argument behind a leading question, Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again.
Let him light two lamps in his living room and see if he notices any difference.
Sure, lighting the second lamp in the living room will make a difference. Never argued otherwise. Don’t really have much interest in this "fluxes don’t simply add" thing, just making sure that people aren’t misrepresented or falsely accused, and just pointing out that Folkert’s comment which you keep linking to, is silly.
Gaslighting Graham does not always washes his hands over what Pup says, but when he does he will white knight his favorite sock puppet chivalrously.
I’ve done absolutely nothing wrong.
“multiple suns are NOT what this is about. ”
Yes that was exactly what you posted about. And what you posted about multiple suns producing a maximum flux on Earth = what is emitted at the surface of one sun CONTRADICTS your earlier statement that the maximum flux is 1368 W/m2, which is obviously much much less than what is emitted at the surface of the sun.
So a self rebuttal. Oh well!
…done absolutely nothing wrong.
So what? Not everything is about you.
My post was not for you or about you, so kindly go troll someone else!
…absolutely nothing wrong.
Gaslighting Graham needs to reconcile two inconsistent objectives, Nate:
He must not look like he is responding to you.
He must have the last word.
So he repeats what he told me in response to your comment.
Make that what you will.
Yeah, I don’t respond to Nate. So if I see he’s written something, without bothering to read it, I just repeat the last sentence of whatever I said previously. Or, I might choose to respond to somebody else, if they’ve commented. This is because if I let him, he’d take advantage of the fact that I no longer respond to him, by sneaking in last words under every single comment I make. That’s what he’s like.
“Yeah, I dont respond to Nate. So if I see hes written something….” I do respond to what he wrote, because…. I am insane???
…that’s what he’s like.
Not insane, Nate.
Gaslighting Graham is just trying to irritate and annoy.
No, I’m trying to prevent Nate taking advantage of the fact I no longer respond to him.
His behavior makes no sense.
My posts containing actual logic and science that refute his posts, are there for all to see.
Last wording does nothing at all to prevent that. All it does is tell people that he has no substantive response and he needs self-soothing.
…I’m trying to prevent Nate taking advantage of the fact I no longer respond to him.
How Gaslighting Graham behaves makes lots of sense when you understand it as gaslighting, Nate.
But here he only seeks to annoy and irritate.
I’m neither gaslighting, nor attempting to irritate, Little Willy. From what I’ve seen of Nate’s commenting patterns, he often drifts around up-thread, waiting for discussions to get to the point where most people have finished with them, then he will slip in a last word. "Last wording" is very important to Nate. From past experience, he’ll continue in a discussion for far longer than most other people would. Sometimes weeks at a time! Hence, I know that if I allowed him to, he would take advantage of the fact that I no longer respond to him, and would continuously comment on every single thread I’m involved with, in order to get that last word.
However, my aim is to get Nate to stop responding to me altogether. I have no desire to have any interaction with him, or for him to respond to any of my comments, or to even mention me in comments to others. The plan is, if he eventually gets the idea through his head that I’m never going to actually interact with him, and he can’t even get the last word in (I’m not actually responding to him or any of the things that he says, I just repeat the final sentence of a previous comment)…he might just stop responding to me altogether.
I know, I know…it seems like a long shot when you’ve got somebody as pathetic as Nate…but, worth a try.
Gaslighting Graham does not always says that last wording is important, but when he does he attributes that belief to others.
This kind of gaslighting seeks to irritate and annoy.
"Last wording" is very important to Nate, and also to you too, Little Willy. You’re one of the most persistent people I’ve come across who’s always keen on trying to get the last word. Obviously, as the mirror, to show people up for what they are, I have to insist that I get the last word myself. This can be tedious, but there you are. My continual responses usually end up bringing out the truth about others, for all to read, and that’s the aim there.
Gaslighting Graham does not always gaslight, but when he does it is always very obvious.
Like here.
OK, he almost always gaslights.
Hence his nickname.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“The plan is, if he eventually gets the idea through his head that Im never goin”
The plan is failing. That’s why it makes no sense.
The facts about heat flow are what they are, and not messenger dependent.
Some people erroneously think if they ignore the messenger they evade the facts.
But thats wrong and lame.
…Willy, please stop trolling.
Exactly, Nate.
“waiting for discussions to get to the point where most people have finished with them, then he will slip in a last word.”
Nah, I have a life beyond this blog. But this sounds a lot like DREMTS strategy.
When I get on early in the morning there are days with 20 new posts, all by DREMT getting in last words, often a week after the previous post.
” “Last wording” is very important to Nate.”
Well there is no doubt who it is most important to. DREMT has made this 3rd grade playground tactic his raison-detre.
“Gaslighting Graham does not always say that last wording is important, but when he does he attributes that belief to others.”
On target, Willard.
March 13, good example of dozens of belated DREMT last-words. Mostly to Willard.
"Exactly, Nate."
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham does not always PST to stop people from commenting, but when he does it’s on dead subthreads.
How would a PST stop someone from commenting?
Instead of conceding the point, Gaslighting Graham plays dumb again.
PSTs don’t stop people from commenting. So your point goes poof! into a puff of air.
See, Nate?
Gaslighting Graham just cannot keep a consistent stance three comments in a row unless he repeats himself.
That may explain why he keeps repeating himself constantly!
My stance has been entirely consistent, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham does not always claim hein consistent, but when he does it is right after having said one thing about his last wording and another about his PSTing.
I don’t see what the inconsistency is. Perhaps you could clearly and concisely explain it.
Willard, you don’t it. DREMT never says anything false, negative, contradictory, derogatory or harmful in any way.
Thems the rules.
…perhaps you could clearly and concisely explain it.
Nate,
If Gaslighting Graham sees no contradiction between:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I’m trying to prevent Nate taking advantage of the fact I no longer respond to him.
and
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] PSTs don’t stop people from commenting.
It’s fine with me.
There’s absolutely no contradiction there…and that’s fine with me.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
Next he’s gonna argue that “It is raining but I don’t believe it is raining” is not, stricly speaking, contradictory…
No, that statement about the rain would be contradictory. Whereas the two statements you quoted do not contradict each other. Happy to help.
And so Gaslighting Graham proves Nate right.
I doubt that very much.
And so Gaslighting Graham soldiers on, oblivious to it all.
You have a problem with me no matter what I say and do. It’s all those arguments you lost.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once more.
Little Willy trolls, as usual.
Anyone can see that Gaslighting Graham interjected in this sub thread only to irritate and annoy.
No, just setting you straight on the comment from Tim that you keep trying to use and abuse.
Here is Gaslighting Graham setting things straight –
[GG] That silly comment about “sunbeams”, again
The substance came at 11:59 AM:
"If you can explain exactly what is meant by a "sunbeam", in this context, and can explain exactly how you would go out and record the flux absorbed from one "sunbeam", and compare it to the flux absorbed by another "sunbeam", be my guest. You won’t be able to, because it’s deliberately vague nonsense designed by Tim to obfuscate."
You had no rebuttal.
Gaslighting Graham does not always concede a point, but when he does he deflects to his pet riddle, which he once again presents as a point.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Right on Nate,
I remember saying the first time this issue came up, that the name of the series was Friday Night Lights, not Friday Night Light.
Wrong on, bobby baby,
Your religion’s been falsified from here to eternity more ways than you’ve had hot dinners (which I’m guessing is a lot, fatty fatty boom boom).
You poisoning the well by calling it my religion means you lose the argument again.
You wish, fatty.
Fallacies and insults, is that all you got DR EMPTY.
…”, said bob, calling me the same insulting name he has been using for years.
Remember DR EMPTY, you started the name calling, no?
Doubt it, bob. You tend to be fairly childish, so I expect you’ve been insulting and calling me names from the beginning. I did call you blob for a long time, but stopped when you complained about it. I stopped months ago (probably over a year now) and you’ve continued with your name-calling ever since. So I guess I’ll just start calling you fatty.
Quite right, Bob.
One of the first sock puppets by Gaslighting Graham was pure name calling.
Oh, I’m not complaining about name-calling, or insults. bob was. That’s why I pointed out the irony in him mentioning insults whilst insulting me, in the same sentence.
And so Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights a little more.
Not in the least, no.
If you want to wrestle with pigs, you have to get down to their level.
You’ve never been out of the mud, fatty.
See DR EMPTY,
You are gaslighting me again, not that I am complaining, just pointing out a fact, like the fact I wasn’t complaining about you insulting me in this thread.
bob, I’ve never gaslighted anyone. You’re just latching on to Little Willy’s regular ad hom. OK, you didn’t complain about being insulted, but you mentioned it. You said:
"Fallacies and insults, is that all you got DR EMPTY"
Which was amusing, since you included an insult in the same sentence.
The GHE’s been debunked for years, by the way.
“The GHEs been debunked for years, by the way.”
Yeah, but we need names, dates, publications, and evidence that the GHE = 0
Hardest thing to do in science, is provide evidence that something is zero.
It’s debunked, bob. Smug grin.
No it isn’t.
see I can play any game you suggest.
No games, here. I’m just stating facts with a broad grin of victory on my face.
Maybe, but the Dolly Madison cupcake in your shirt tells me you are living in a fantasy world with no connection to reality.
fatty’s dreaming about cupcakes again…
DR EMPTY,
“No games, here.”
Ha!
You got fraud games, you got asshole games, you call people names games.
Hey, you got game!
You have completely lost it, bob. Fraud games? What are you talking about? Asshole games!? As for the name-calling, I make a point of only calling people names that have refused to call me DREMT. That would be you, Little Willy, Brandy Guts and maybe a couple of others. I should call Swanson something as he also refuses to call me DREMT, but I feel sorry enough for him already. No point adding insult to injury.
And so Gaslighting Graham plays dumb once again.
I’m not really sure what bob means by fraud games. If I had to guess it would be something to do with his recent confusion over my name. Seems he’d got it into his head that I was actually pretending to be a real moderator! Oh dear. So, if that’s what he means, then he’s just being silly.
As for asshole games, who knows? Guess he’s just basically calling me an asshole. Oh well.
Gaslighting Graham is playing dumb once more.
The fluxes do not add meme is pure fraud.
In professional contexts, to try to sell the idea that fluxes do not add would be grounds for getting fired or sued.
When will Gaslighting Graham stop to seek to irritate and annoy?
Is that what bob means by fraud games? I really wouldn’t have thought so…but now you’ve said it, he’ll probably pretend that’s what he meant.
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb once again.
Maybe I could be left to talk to the person who actually wrote the comment, to see what they meant by it…
DREMPT
You are a liar.
“I make a point of only calling people names that have refused to call me DREMT.”
You called me names long before I started calling you DR EMPTY.
As for frauds, here’s one
The GHEs been debunked for years, by the way”
There’s more, do you want a complete list?
Ball on a string for two
Green Plate effect for three
Wait there’s more if you pay me my regular fee, I will drop all my pressing affairs and devote all my attention
“You called me names long before I started calling you DR EMPTY”.
Not sure if that’s true, bob. All such a long time ago, now.
So you’ve decided to redefine “fraud” as “things you lost an argument over”.
“So youve decided to redefine fraud as things you lost an argument over.
No, because the Greenhouse Effect has not been debunked at anytime.
You lack the science education to determine that.
Just saying the Greenhouse Effect has been debunked, doesn’t mean it has been debunked, it just means you are lying again.
Oh bob…not the "L" word again…we know it’s game over when you start with the false accusations.
DR EMPTY,
Either you can provide evidence that the greenhouse effect has been debunked or you are lying about it.
Just declaring it debunked doesn’t make it so.
Pretending that it’s not been debunked won’t make it so, bob.
DR EMPTY,
You have three choices,
1) Debunk the greenhouse effect
2) lie about it being debunked
3) Continue to troll
Or as the late Meatloaf sang, two out of three ain’t bad.
By the way, here’s where you lost the argument
“Your religions been falsified from here to eternity more ways than youve had hot dinners (which Im guessing is a lot, fatty fatty boom boom).”
bob, I don’t have to do a thing. Except wait until you stop responding to me, noting the bizarre stuff you come up with along the way.
Well DR EMPTY,
You could stop responding to me, if you wish me to stop responding to you.
You could stop trolling.
You could stop lying.
You could stop being an asshole.
Why would I stop responding to you when you keep bringing up so many great posts! You’re really painting yourself in a negative light, and that’s the aim here. All I need to do is give you guys enough rope to hang yourselves…I keep responding to you, and you reveal the rot at the root of your religion. Easy.
bobdroege says:
You have three choices,
1) Debunk the greenhouse effect
2) lie about it being debunked
3) Continue to troll
——————-
First nobody is denying that there is an effect that moderates the temperature of the surface. Life on this planet would be far more difficult if it had the climate of the moon. So the issue isn’t if the earth has such an effect.
the question at hand is how does the effect vary over time. this is perhaps one of the largest Gordian Knots in all of science and the Empire builders of the world are trying to solve the great knot in the same manner of Alexander the Great seeking the throne of all of Asia.
Hunter,
“First nobody is denying that there is an effect that moderates the temperature of the surface.”
If by that you mean, the greenhouse effect, there sure are people here denying that. You want names?
If you mean something else, by all means describe what you are talking about.
"First nobody is denying that there is an effect that moderates the temperature of the surface. Life on this planet would be far more difficult if it had the climate of the moon."
Quite. One question is whether that effect is due to "GHGs". The answer is – it’s not.
Sorry Bob but I don’t know anybody denying the greenhouse effect.
I am very much aware of many persons stating no theory of how the effect is created has been established in science but thats a lot different than denying what the temperature is outside.
Gill, Gill,
Do you *really* deny knowing any Sky Dragon crank?
Quite an auditor we got there!
Bill,
That’s cranky on so many levels.
Willard says:
Do you *really* deny knowing any Sky Dragon crank?
——————————–
I have only seen that expression used in this forum and have no idea how you define it.
Seems you throw it at anybody who disagrees with you. If thats the definition then heck there are probably billions of people that fit that definition
Of course you never read my comments about that, Gill.
Prove me you are an auditor – find one comment where I explain it to Bordo.
Ask Bordo for help.
I have no interest in your ad hominems Willard. Why do you think I would?
“https://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/”
She says of the sky dragon slayers:
” I was hoping to put to rest any skeptical debate about the basic physics of gaseous infrared radiative transfer. There are plenty of things to be skeptical about, but IMO this isnt one of them.”
” If youve followed the Skydragon threads, you can imagine the obtuseness, false accusations, deliberate misrepresentations, sophistry etc. that dominated these emails.”
Strawman alert!
I am in no way at all disputing the basic physics of radiation transfer nor the use of Stefan-Boltzmann equations to show a net cooling rate of a heated body.
In fact the Stefan-Boltzmann equations use an emissivity factor that I don’t in any way question, but note that SB equations are used to treat the earth’s surface and TOA as a blackbody.
Now the surface is much closer to a blackbody than TOA is yet we are regaled with both being blackbodies in the estimation of what the greenhouse effect actually is.
This potential error mathematically is capable of tripling the greenhouse effect.
Currently I endorse Judith Curry’s work and understand why she uses the established convention of assuming a single source of warming for the purpose of estimating climate sensitivity.
Lets just say that Judith Curry doesn’t take a position on whether global warming is due to a single source or is the accumulation of multiple sources her estimate of sensitivity is carefully specified as being based upon certain assumptions (as I recall by the IPCC).
So if you want to enlarge the group of radiation deniers using Judith Curry you have no basis in doing so.
If you actually read her blog her professional focus is on known science and her knowledge is that at a minimum our greenhouse effect has greenhouse gases as an essential element.
I have said repetitively that greenhouse gases are a necessary element of the greenhouse effect. The only questions I have is how variability of that effect operates and whether there are any other factors that can affect such things as evaporation, wind, or ocean current patterns, precipitation, ocean heat uptake or release, or clouds that affect primary sensitivity and/or feedbacks.
So in that quest I endorse a single layer greenhouse effect that explains at a minimum why the surface temperature is at least 278.5K using straight-up SB equations with the emissivity factors that specify an object can reach the same equilibrium temperature while reflecting a great deal of radiation.
I also note that the difference between 278.5k and 288k is hauntingly near 50% of the excess heat put in the atmosphere via latent heat from ocean surface evaporation.
This evaporation may in part be enhanced by greenhouse gases but it seems equally likely that it would be the same or more with less CO2.
Finally, there are a number of alternative theories that ignoramuses who believe there must be some kind of single equation cause for the greenhouse effect.
So they ignorantly are quick to reject anything that questions it as being a nutty solution. Of course that attitude is real skydragonship hand in hand with their rejection of observations.
You will need to do some more research before building your strawmen. For example ask Judith yourself if she believe that Lord Monckton fits in her sky dragon territory. He seems to have about as much basis for his point of view as the mainstream physicists. I know for a fact that Dr. Curry doesn’t consider Dr. Syun Akasofu as a sky dragon enthusiast. Just read her blog.
The quickness with which you draw conclusions certainly isn’t limited by any knowledge you actually have.
Exactly, Bob.
The good old days:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-534488
Pup had NOTHING then, just like he has NOTHING now.
Exactly, DREMT, good comment.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team is a moron.
Did grammie just reply to his own post, or did he forget to change his login to grammie clone?
I replied to my own post, to make the point that Little Willy praising bob’s comment is no different to me praising my own. Little Willy will always worship bob, no matter what he says, so it’s utterly meaningless whenever he chimes in with an "exactly, bob".
Exactly, ES.
Little Willy shlurps away.
Gaslighting Graham soldiers on.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“you can make the field more brighter more better see football, with more than one spot light.”
Yep, relevant, observable fact. Some here think empty rhetoric is a good rebuttal.
DREMT Impersonator (12:52 PM), please stop trolling.
Exactly, Nate.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Hey Hey Hey,
There’s a post here that proves you are not Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, so I can call you DR EMPTY all I want because you are posting here under false pretenses.
Einie, meanie, minie, mo, there is a moderator on this blog and you are not it!
If you’re referring to the comment at 12:52 PM, there’s somebody here who writes the occasional post using my name, which completely undermines the entire credibility of the posting system at this blog, but hey ho.
Incapable of responding to Bob, Gaslighting Graham once again tries to irritate.
Not true at all.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
False.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Anyone can see that Gaslighting Graham is gently gaslighting for the sole purpose of annoying and irritating.
“If youre referring to the comment at 12:52 PM, theres somebody here who writes the occasional post using my name, which completely undermines the entire credibility of the posting system at this blog, but hey ho.”
The thing is, now I have proof that Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team is just your fraudulent nym.
Furthermore, it shows that you DR EMTPY are a fraud.
But then, we have always known that.
Huh? How does that work, bob? Anyone could post under your name if they wanted to. It is just a flaw with the way the site works.
There is some moderation on this site.
Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.
You are not the moderator, maybe you should start posting as Graham.
Obviously I’m not the actual moderator, bob. The name is clearly tongue in cheek. Just playing with the fact there is no real moderation here, hence the “emergency”. Of course, the lack of moderation is the best feature of this blog. It allows me to repeatedly request that people who are trolling, stop doing so.
What confuses me is what any of this has to do with the 12:52 PM comment?
Gaslighting Graham does not always seek to annoy and irritate, but when he does he constantly repeats his refrains.
OK. Almost always.
I’d be far happier if the people I continually asked to stop trolling actually stopped trolling, rather than just getting annoyed with it.
Gaslighting Graham does not always seek to annoy and irritate, but when he does he would prefer if the people he annoys and irritates get the memo and he is annoyed and irritated.
Huh?
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb once again.
I don’t find your comment to be coherent, Little Willy. Then again, it’s probably not important.
“Just playing with the fact there is no real moderation here, hence the emergency.”
Yeah, there is moderation, Roy does use a light touch.
Some get banned and don’t come back.
Appel for one.
Some get banned but come back as socks
Swenson and Clint R.
“Id be far happier if the people I continually asked to stop trolling actually stopped trolling, rather than just getting annoyed with it.”
So only the trolls can be happy?
Sure, OK.
Gaslighting Graham seems to enjoy having the last word, Bob. But now that his PSTs looks more like begging more than anything else, he may be a little less happy right now.
Gaslighting will always return Graham to his happy place, however.
Oh, it’s never begging. Just a polite request for someone to stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham returns to gentle gaslighting.
Not in the least.
Gaslighting Graham found his happy place.
#3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
(Estr) Suppose I substract 1 to 1.
(Vlad) You have zero.
(Estr) Right, but suppose I add it to 1 – 1.
(Vlad) You still have zero.
(Estr) Correct, but suppose this goes on forever.
(Vlad) What do you mean?
(Estr) That means you do 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 etc.
(Vlad) Yes, and?
(Estr) Does it still equal to zero?
(Vlad) Of course! Why would it not?
(Estr) An indefinite addition has no parity.
(Vlad) Try English.
(Estr) We do not know if the last operation is +1 or -1.
(Vlad) I see, well scratch infinity.
(Estr) In that case, should we scratch infinite suns too?
(Vlad) Nah, I need that trick to troll Roy’s under a sock puppet.
H/T Numberphile –
https://youtu.be/PCu_BNNI5x4
Weird Wee Willy,
Talking to yourself again?
Trying to find somebody who values your opinion?
Carry on.
I already found you, Mike.
Keep braying softly to me.
Weird Wee Willy,
Talking to yourself again?
Trying to find somebody who values your opinion?
Carry on.
Good boy.
Weird Wee Willy,
Talking to yourself again?
Trying to find somebody who values your opinion?
Carry on.
Hey, Mike –
https://youtu.be/PCu_BNNI5x4
Weird Wee Willy,
Talking to yourself again?
Trying to find somebody who values your opinion?
Carry on.
I am talking to you, Mike.
With love –
https://youtu.be/PCu_BNNI5x4
Weird Wee Willy,
Talking to yourself again?
Trying to find somebody who values your opinion?
Carry on.
https://youtu.be/PCu_BNNI5x4
Good boy.
wee willy…”(Estr) An indefinite addition has no parity.
(Vlad) Try English.
(Estr) We do not know if the last operation is +1 or -1″.
***
That’s not what parity means. It’s an indication of whether the number of 1s in a byte of data is odd or even. You add the bits in a byte and attach a bit to the end of the string to indicate an odd or even number of 1s.
Come on, Bordo.
How do you determine parity again?
You check if the last bit is a zero or a one.
How do you do that with an infinite sequence?
No wonder you kept trolling this website for more than a decade.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Interstellar Research Group: 8th Interstellar Symposium Second Call for Papers
by Paul Gilster on March 20, 2023
–Topics of Interest
Physics and Engineering
Propulsion, power, communications, navigation, materials, systems design, extraterrestrial resource utilization, breakthrough physics
Astronomy
Exoplanet discovery and characterization, habitability, solar gravitational focus as a means to image exoplanets
Human Factors
Life support, habitat architecture, worldships, population genetics, psychology, hibernation, finance
Ethics
Sociology, law, governance, astroarchaeology, trade, cultural evolution
Astrobiology
Technosignature and biosignature identification, SETI, the Fermi paradox, von Neumann probes, exoplanet terraformation —
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/
Well, I am always interested in “Exoplanet discovery and characterization” and not very interested ideas of “habitability”
Or it seems possible every planet and dwarf planet in Sol system is “habitable”. And question is which one will be first one to be
discovered to be habitable, and tend to guess Europa or other moons of Jupiter {or something quite “unexpected”}.
Gordon Robertson
Here is all you need to prove Gary Novak is a crackpot.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/iMB8o.jpg
Way back scientists did actual experiments (not made up opinions and beliefs). They demonstrated Stefan-Boltzmann Law was correct for temperatures from 100 C (boiling water) to their high end of 1260 C.
Textbook science is based upon many years of experimentation and validation. It is time for you to grow up and give up your childish beliefs of various crackpots and lunatics. Real science is more interesting because it is based upon evidence. For children making up fantasy worlds is exciting and fun. When one grows up the real world can be just as interesting and challenging to set up experiments and find evidence. Science is evidence based not fantasy based. Clint R will never grow up, but can you?
Norman,
It should be no problem for you to post a short description of the GHE, which includes the reason for the GHE not heating the surface for four and a half billion years.
Which science textbook has such a description, if you wish to demonstrate how unhelpful you can be by not posting the description here?
Maybe you could be really, really, unhelpful by pretending you can describe the “greenhouse effect” but you refuse to do so, because . . . because . . .
I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting for you to refuse to describe the “greenhouse effect”.
What is the greenhouse effect?
“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. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and water vapor. (Water vapor, which responds physically or chemically to changes in temperature, is called a “feedback.”) Scientists have determined that carbon dioxide’s warming effect helps stabilize Earth’s atmosphere. Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s surface would be some 33C (59F) cooler. ”
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
This is wrong.
gb…[from NASA GISS]”The greenhouse effect is the way in which heat is trapped close to Earths surface by greenhouse gases. These heat-trapping gases can be thought of as a blanket wrapped around Earth…”
***
There is no heat to trap by GHGs. When the infrared radiation is created, the heat is lost as the radiation is created. Therefore the heat created in GHGs by the radiation is not the same heat that was lost at the surface.
Furthermore, radiation is not heat, both energy types have nothing in common. Also, the intensity of the radiation reduces according to the square of the distance from the surface. After a few feet, the radiation lacks the intensity to affect CO2.
The GHE theory is pseudo-science.
It is rather silly.
It has now been ascertained that the mean temperature of the earth is 16 (61 F.), instead of the calculated 6.5 (43.7 F.). Deducting the 20 due to the influence of dust and clouds, we obtain -14 (7 F.), and the observed temperature would therefore be higher than the calculated by no less than 30 (54 F.). The discrepancy is explained by the heat-protecting action of the gases contained in the atmosphere, to which we shall presently refer (page 51).
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/69022/pg69022-images.html
“The chief invisible constituents of the air which participate in this effect are water vapor, which is always found in a certain quantity in the air, and carbonic acid, also ozone and hydrocarbons. These latter occur in such small quantities that no allowance has been made for them so far in the calculations. Of late, however, we have been supplied with very careful observations on the permeability to heat of carbonic acid and of water vapor. With the help of these data I have calculated that if the atmosphere were deprived of all its carbonic acidof which it contains only 0.03 per cent. by volumethe temperature of the earths surface would fall by about 21.”
“greenhouse effect, a warming of Earths surface and troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere) caused by the presence of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, and certain other gases in the air. Of those gases, known as greenhouse gases, water vapour has the largest effect.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/greenhouse-effect
“Swedish physicist and physical chemist Svante Arrhenius is credited with the origins of the term in 1896, with the publication of the first plausible climate model that explained how gases in Earths atmosphere trap heat. Arrhenius first refers to this hot-house theory of the atmospherewhich would be known later as the greenhouse effectin his work Worlds in the Making (1903).”
Of course hot-house or hothouse is British word for greenhouse.
But it’s wrong.
gb…”…Svante Arrhenius is credited with the origins of the term in 1896, with the publication of the first plausible climate model that explained how gases in Earths atmosphere trap heat…”
***
In the days of Arrhenius, scientists thought heat flowed through air as heat rays. They could not envision that heat had been converted to a different form of energy (electromagnetic) and the rays were electromagnetic energy, not heat.
It was not till 1913 that Bohr discovered the relationship between electrons in atoms and the EM/IR they emit. Some claim electrons only do that at UV frequencies but hydrogen, for example, radiates IR in the near IR band. The electrons in atoms are capable of radiating EM at any frequency across the EM spectrum.
There is no other atomic particle that can radiate EM/IR, other than the electron. It has an electric field with a magnetic field when it moves in orbit, and when it gives up energy as it drops to a lower orbital, it radiate energy with an electric and magnetic field. Some call that a photon.
However, today’s climate alarmists still think heat can move through air as infrared energy. They can’t seem to understand that IR is not heat. Therefore the modern adoption of the views of Arrhenius are simply wrong, since he thought heat could move through air as heat.
Gordon,
Only one thing is true, that even when you are corrected, you will still peddle your bull.
“Also, the intensity of the radiation reduces according to the square of the distance from the surface.”
The inverse square law works for point sources, not surfaces.
If you could handle the math, you could find out that it goes with 1/r for line sources and there is no reduction for a plane source.
gb,
I agree. I go a little further – not only wrong, but contrary to four and a half billion years of progressive cooling.
The blanket analogy is just stupid – wrapping a thermometer in a blanket does not make it hotter. In fact, wrapping a thermometer in a blanket, placing it in the Sun, then removing the blanket, immediately results in the thermometer getting hotter!
These dimwits even think that purging CO2 from a sample of air will reduce the temperature of the air!
No wonder they are working for the Government!
Unfortunately, Swenson guesses the wrong answer not having run the thermometer experiments. Swenson is still obviously lost in space. Run the experiments Swenson. Show your work.
Read this and you will understand ‘Greenhouse effect’.
https://klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Radiation-Transfer.pdf
In particular see the diagram page 8.
“This simple example illustrates how important greenhouse gases are for life on Earth. The surface temperature with no greenhouse gases would be -14F (-10C), well below the freezing point of water. Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a lifeless
snowball with all water frozen.”
Earth has too much water at it’s surface for there to be zero amounts
water vapor.
Mars has 240 ppm of water vapor, and it’s average temperature is much
colder than -10 C.
If Mars average average was -10 C and was covered snow/water ice, one assume it’s water vapor would much higher than 240 ppm.
If Earth had average temperature of -10 C it would regarded a very habitable world, though perhaps all or most of it’s life would be
in in oceans.
Earth could have average temperature of -10 C, it could be further from the sun {doesn’t have to very far] or our star could be less bright.
Or imagine finding planet like Earth with average temperature of -10 C and has immeasurable amount of CO2.
If Earth was -10 C, it probably would have small amount CO2, because any CO2 would freeze out in polar region.
Suppose we found this -10 C world, how we describe it?
We might say, wow the equatorial region of this planet has average temperature of about 15 C. If our tropics was more than 10 C colder, it’s tropical ocean engine would very weak compared to our Earth.
It’s poles would not warmed by the tropical ocean heat engine, and location such as US also not get much warming from the tropical ocean
engine. And you have a less cloudy tropics. You might have higher
daytime high temperatures on some land in tropics, as Earth has ever recorded. Or tropics, would be less tropical- less uniform temperatures. Instead tropical ocean warming the rest of world, it’s confined to mostly warming the rest of the tropical zone.
So air temperature in polar region could be colder than -100 C [during winter] and could have highest recorded daytime temperature
higher than, our Death Valley recorded temperature, over 100 year ago.
Some might like this cold world, more than Earth.
Few reasonable people imagine Earth is ever been Snowball Earth, though might consider Slushball Earth as possible.
This because 40% of Earth [the tropics] get more than 50% of the sunlight.
Some reasons which might allow Slushball is that Earth could have less tropical ocean. In the tropical zone, we presently have about 80% of total area being ocean surface. And one could have world where there is only 60 or even less than 50% of tropical zone being ocean area.
And with less tropical ocean heat engine, the less the tropical ocean heats the rest of the world. And with world spinning faster and more land in the equatorial bulge, one could easily get much higher mountains, than we have today.
Also possible that with less tropical ocean, one could get as much heat transported out of tropics, by the ocean currents rather than tropical ocean heat engine, than Earth currently transports out of the tropics. Though having a lot of “polar sea ice” would seem to make that more difficult to imagine.
You have a point, very few people are into the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformity
I’d like to see those experiments. Remember, the bottom temperature recorded by Tyndall for an electically-heated platinum filament was about 500C. That was the temperature at which it glowed red, obviously the bottom end of the spectrum for visible light.
All you would get from boiling water is infrared radiation. S-B applies to visible light, there’s the evidence that infrared behaves the same way?
Gordon,
“S-B applies to visible light,”
Incorrect, it applies to all light, as derived from the Planck function.
https://byjus.com/jee/stefan-boltzmann-law/
bob, please stop trolling.
You are not the moderation team.
Fraud
bob, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham seeks to annoy and irritate once again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
#2 You are not the moderation team.
I know. I’m just asking you to please stop trolling.
Yes you are, by trolling.
Your please stop trolling requests add nothing to anything anywhere.
"Yes you are, by trolling"
Yes I am what? I swear some people are starting to make less and less sense in what they write.
And so Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more.
I guess bob’s not going to explain himself. Oh well.
Poor Gaslighting Graham.
Always misunderstood.
Always finding things hard to understand.
What did bob mean, then?
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb again.
Little Willy obviously doesn’t know, either.
DR EMPTY
The yes you are was referring to your “I’m just asking”
So you are jaaqing off and trolling
“Please stop trolling” isn’t a question, bob. What you’re saying just makes no sense.
Gaslighting Graham is playing.dumb once more.
So explain to me what bob’s on about. Here’s the discussion:
bob: You are not the moderation team.
DREMT: I know. I’m just asking you to please stop trolling.
bob: Yes you are, by trolling. Your please stop trolling requests add nothing to anything anywhere.
DREMT: Yes I am what? I swear some people are starting to make less and less sense in what they write.
bob: The yes you are was referring to your “I’m just asking”. So you are jaaqing off and trolling.
The only way I can interpret that is that bob’s saying to ask something is to troll…and also that he thinks "please stop trolling" is a question. Neither of which make any sense. It’s not a big deal, as this is only another of you and bob’s childish tantrums, but I’m still just curious as to what he’s talking about.
Usually one doesn’t say please unless one is asking for something.
Why DR EMPTY doesn’t understand this is out of my control.
But he is projecting his trolling on the rest of us.
Anyway this whole sub thread started with me responding to Gordon with a link to the derivation of the S-B equation to answer his question if S-B applies to IR light.
That is not trolling, but DR EMPTY chimes in with his please stop trolling request.
More asshole points awarded.
Sure, asking for something, but not asking a question!
bob can’t even explain his own comments…
…then he wonders why I ask him to stop trolling. Sheesh.
“Please stop trolling isnt a question, bob.”
Of course it is DR EMPTY.
Maybe if you speak the kings english, it’s not, but around here it is a question, answerable by yes I will stop trolling, or no I’m not trolling, or no I will not stop trolling, or GFY.
Of course you understand me, you are just being obstinate, among other personality defects.
Had a date lately?
Had a date? I’m married, bob.
No bob, "please stop trolling" isn’t a question. Jesus wept.
Why does Graham interprets a request as a question, Bob?
I hope it is to gaslight a little more, for then I will know he found his happy place.
bob interprets a request as a question, so Little Willy falsely accuses me of interpreting a request as a question, then suggests that I am the one that is gaslighting.
And so Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once more.
The JAQing off applies to the moment where he *asks* questions, like
– Yes I am what?
– What did Bob mean then?
A request indeed *implies* a question: can anyone provide information or effectuate an action.
In our case the request is
– Could you please let me have the last word? I am a child and I need it,
Gaslighting Graham confuses a question with an interrogation.
Oh well.
Little Willy – the most unreasonable individual I’ve ever encountered.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1465272
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more.
There is no pragmatic difference between Bob asking Graham:
(A) Would you please stop earning asshole points?
(A*) Please stop earning asshole points.
In both case a “no” would mean that no, Gaslighting Graham, being the worst asshole to ever troll this website, won’t stop earning asshole points.
Note that a “yes” would not work, because a request is more than a question. Were he right, sealioning would be unrelated Just Asking Questions. Which is obviously false:
(B) Please gimme a sammich.
(B*) Would you please gimme a sammich?
The difference between both carries little pragmatic difference.
His PSTs are fake requests anyway. He’s just trying to annoy and irritate.
I think most readers are aware that you are the troll, Little Willy.
Let readers decide if Gaslighting Graham succeeds with his silly No U.
Sure. I’m confident that most readers are aware that you are the troll. In fact, I’m sure you’re universally despised, wherever you comment.
Gaslighting Graham forgets once again the magic words.
No, I’m interested in seeing how long you’ll keep pointlessly commenting for.
G
N
a
o
sl
I
ig
m
hti
in
ng G
t
raha
swannie…”I suppose it never occurred to Gordo that Dr. Roys MSU-AMSU products work as the result of the same physics of gasses as that of the poorly named Greenhouse Effect. Your difference of opinion is actually a rejection of Roys physics. Besides, Roy doesnt reject the entire GHE, his disagreement is with the magnitude of rate of warming, AIUI”.
***
Nonsense. AMSU units measure radiation from oxygen molecules, which, according to climate alarmists don’t radiate at all. The so-called greenhouse effect is allegedly based on the quaint notion that a trace gas in the atmosphere, CO2, is responsible for all warming in the atmosphere. Not only that, the same magic gas, even in trace amounts, is responsible for all radiation of surface heat to space. Apparently the surface is incapable of radiating directly to space without intervention from the magic gas.
If I recall Roy correctly, he stated that it is unknown how much warming CO2 produces in the atmosphere. He did concede that it likely produces some warming.
*****
Also, what Dr. Woods experiment demonstrated was that real greenhouses are mostly warmed by the suppression of convection with the atmosphere.
***
What you omit is his reasoning for doing the experiment. Wood could not see how the trace gas, CO2, could warm the atmosphere. His experiment was set up to prove that a greenhouse did not warm due to trapped infrared related to CO2, a dumb proposition to begin with, but due to a lack of convection. He was right.
The atmosphere is rife with convection.
An expert with gases, Wood revealed the real reason the atmosphere warms. The majority gases N2/O2, making up 99% of the atmosphere, collect heat directly from the surface via conduction, and since N2/O2 allegedly don’t radiate well at terrestrial temperatures, they tend to hang on to the heat.
Furthermore, according to me, N2/O2 is warmed by incoming solar. Since N2/O2 molecules out-numbers CO2 molecules by 2500 to 1, any warming of CO2 by surface radiation is seriously swamped by the heat in N2/O2.
Wood made another great point. Since surface radiation intensity is quickly diminished by the inverse square law, it is essentially useless for warming after a few feet above the surface.
“Furthermore, according to me, N2/O2 is warmed by incoming solar. Since N2/O2 molecules out-numbers CO2 molecules by 2500 to 1, any warming of CO2 by surface radiation is seriously swamped by the heat in N2/O2.”
That is wrong. This:
“An expert with gases, Wood revealed the real reason the atmosphere warms. The majority gases N2/O2, making up 99% of the atmosphere, collect heat directly from the surface via conduction, and since N2/O2 allegedly dont radiate well at terrestrial temperatures, they tend to hang on to the heat.”
Of course most of Earth’s surface is the ocean surface.
The land ground surface can heated by sunlight and land surface is warmer than air above it, can heat the air.
A wet land surface will warm up much until until the surface dried by evaporation. A dried land surface can heat up to 60 C to 70 C, if air
is about 40 C, and have clear sky and sun close zenith, the ground
surface reach about 70 C. Or need sidewalk to be around 70 C to cook
an egg, which sort of can do, if like to eat your egg fairly close to raw.
Anyhow, ocean is 70% of Earth surface, it’s surface air has higher average temperature than average land surface air, and ocean maintains the average temperature of entire atmosphere. From baseline
average global air temperature, land can air above it become quickly warmer. Or Ocean surface stay warm from day to night. Land temperature swing widely from day to night- and dry land surfaces have wider swing in day and night temperature.
The atmosphere has thermal mass due the velocity air molecules travel at, which is about the speed of a bullet. 2.5 meter ocean surface water has same amount of thermal mass has entire atmosphere.
Whereas land surface has not much thermal mass, particularly when it’s dry land.
Gordon Robertson
Prove Wood made your false claim! I know you can’t and he never made such a claim. He was an actual scientist not a phony like you are that just makes up fantasy idea after fantasy idea. I requested you grow up and give up this childish delusion but it is too strongly ingrained into your personality.
Prove your false statement!! “Wood made another great point. Since surface radiation intensity is quickly diminished by the inverse square law, it is essentially useless for warming after a few feet above the surface.”
It is hundreds of watts miles above the Earth and is measured.
You have never understood the Inverse Square Law. You have never taken a college level physics class so keep pretending you have. If you had you would know how the Inverse Square Law works but you do not. In your little example of holding your hand away from a heated plate do this surrounded by such red hot metal coils and see how it goes. You know nothing of physics but pretend knowledge. Question for you, who are you trying to impress? You only sound like a little kid making up things so you are not impressing anyone with a real science background. Why do you need to pretend you know science when all you have is phony science from crackpots like Gary Novak who also just make up things they know nothing about.
Norman, since youre talking about people making things up, maybe youd like to support your imaginative beliefs that Earth has a *real 255K surface* and *two fluxes arriving a surface result in the surface emitting a flux equal to the sum of the fluxes*.
I’m sure you don’t want to be a *little kid making up things*, or a *crackpot*. But, I could be wrong….
Puprurupup,
https://youtu.be/bMzUMZx_VTs
Silly sock puppet.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Got your gibberish generator generating gibberish again?
Well done’
What are you braying about, Mike?
Clint R
You are a blithering moron. All your stupid points have been addressed so many times and still you repeat them and you think you are not a child? That is what little kids do.
Yes two fluxes arriving at a surface will result in the surface emitting the sum of the fluxes. A real fact you can’t understand no matter how many examples you are given. Did you try to turn on two heat lamps on a surface yet. No you didn’t but you repeat this stupid point endlessly like a little kid who needs attention.
I explained the surface so many times it is not funny. It just shows how stupid you are that you can’t think or understand any information you receive.
You and Gordon both have the mentality of kids. He makes stuff up all the time and you act like a little spoiled brat who needs constant attention. That is why you post here. You beg for attention and find you get it with stupid posts. You are addicted to posting idiot material since it gets you attention.
Sorry Norman, but that’s all wrong.
You have avoided providing any valid support for your nonsense, because there is NONE. If you had anything you would be showing it all over this blog. You know how you love links.
But, you’ve got NOTHING, so you must resort to insults and false accusations. You’re in extreme meltdown, on you way to being a worthless troll.
At least you have company.
Clint R
I have given you tons of real evidence. You know what your stupid response is don’t you. “Another link you don’t understand”
That is the sum of your idiotic comments to excellent evidence. You already know why you never accept any evidence, you are here to get attention and you get it with idiot posting like “Another link you don’t understand” That is an idiotic post as it means nothing at all. Just a way for you to get attention. You are a spoiled kid who needs constant attention. Eat up what I give you. You are addicted to it so there is no stopping your endless number of idiot posts.
Have you done any experiments with two heat lamps yet? No I didn’t think so.
Sorry again Norman, but that’s just trolling. You have NOTHING, so you insult, misrepresent, and falsely accuse.
You have attempted to throw crap against the wall, claiming it supports your nonsense. But it was quickly debunked. At least once, it wasn’t even relevant. You haven’t provided ANY valid support.
If you had any, you’d be showing it everywhere. You know how you love links.
Now, I have no interest in responding to your trolling, all day. So, either put up or shut up.
PS Heat lamps have NOTHING to do with Folkerts’ Fraud. Your cult understands NONE of this.
Clint R
Only in your own mind have you debunked anything including the Moon spinning on its own axis (which it does in around 28 days).
You have NOT or, or even attempted, to find out why the well established radiant heat transfer equation (used by engineers in design work) is bogus. You make all these childish comments and support ZERO on all of them.
Fluxes don’t add?? Stupid is what stupid says! Have you got some heat lamps set up yet childish one? To further prove how stupid you really are, don’t just use two, get a few and turn them on one at a times and see if the object they are pointed out keeps getting warmer.
You just continue to spout childish ignorance to get attention. You still have not stopped yet. Your last post has no information of value. Just your butt-hurt whining.
When you are confronted you repeat yourself like a little child who mocks his companions with parroting. You really are a childish spoiled brat that craves attention.
What stupid post will you put in response to this intelligent assessment of your childlike personality. Probably something really stupid. Intelligence is not something you seem to possess.
They have the same units, are both composed of light, and hitting the same surface, so of course you can add them like vectors, anyone who says differently isn’t playing with a full deck/
bob, if you can add fluxes then you must be able to add photons. So what is the wavelength of a photon that results from adding two 15μ photons?
Nope Clint R, one photon plus one photon is two photons.
You see that’s how you add photons.
Blundering Bobby,
You wrote –
“Nope Clint R, one photon plus one photon is two photons.
You see thats how you add photons.”
One deranged SkyDragon cultist like you, plus one deranged SkyDrsgon like you, obviously just means that the stupidity quotient remains unchanged.
Are you saying that one idiot plus one idiot is two idiots? Is that the standard of deep thought that enabled your employment on a submarine? No wonder you weren’t put in charge!
You do realise that one plus one equals two is taught in kindergarten, in many schools around the world? Maybe you could tell me how to add some photons emitted by ice to heat some water. How hard can it be for a genius who has just accepted that one plus one equals two?
Just having a laugh at your expense, of course. You cant help being retarded, and I can’t help laughing at your retardation. Win-win.
Sorry Swenson,
“No wonder you werent put in charge!”
Except I was put in charge.
I had the highest rank and the most responsibilities possible for a 6 year enlistment on a submarine.
But then, you are not saying one photon plus one photon is not two photons.
That’s what Clint R is saying, when he says photons don’t add.
Have you found that description of the greenhouse effect I posted on this blog yet?
And yes Swenson plus Clint R is two idiots.
Add Robertson and you have three.
DR EMPTY makes four.
Well bob, all that huffin’ and puffin’ about how you could add fluxes but a simple question makes you look like a boob.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
Crack that Quantum Physics textbook if you still have it and didn’t sell it for crack.
“bob, if you can add fluxes then you must be able to add photons. So what is the wavelength of a photon that results from adding two 15μ photons?”
One photon plus one photon is still two photons and the wavelength would still be 15u.
You still don’t understand this, probably never will.
boob, you obviously have no concept of what is being discussed here. You don’t even know the issue. I’m saying you’re such a braindead idiot you can’t describe this *fluxes dont add* issue.
Prove me wrong.
Clint R,
You got nothing.
You’ve been licked all over on this issue, so you attack, because you got nothing left.
The issue is the addition of the DWIR to the incoming Solar flux, which causes the surface to be warmer than it would be without the DWIR.
You don’t even comprehend the 255 K “surface” issue, and you still demand that we tell you where that “surface” is.
There isn’t one.
bob d…”One photon plus one photon is still two photons and the wavelength would still be 15u”.
***
Here’s the fly in that ointment. In a source like the Sun you have discrete photon frequencies measured in terrahertz. That means each of those thousand billion photons have to somehow combine to form a wavefront to travel through space.
During WWII, there were sometimes 1000 bombers that needed to get aligned in a formation. That meant sending them up from different stations in England and arranging for them all to meet up to form bomber waves, or formations.
How does that work when you have well over 1000 billions discrete photon frequencies emitted from one star? How do they form themselves into waves so they can move through space in wavefronts? If they did not form fronts with precision, the UV waves would get here at different times than the IR waves. Ad different frequencies that affect our eyes to produce colours would have the colours all out of sync.
It gets even more complicated when you consider that a photons is a definition of a particle of EM, with a frequency, that has momentum but no mass.
As I predicted bob, you don’t understand the issue.
The issue is about the fraud Folkerts promotes as *F + F = 2F*. That is shorthand for two identical fluxes arriving a surface will result in the surface emitting one flux that has twice the value of one of the fluxes. His exact example was 315 W/m^2 and 315 W/m^2 will result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2, at a temperature of 325K.
That is WRONG, INVALID, and blatant FRAUD. But your cult has been attempting to deny, distort, and pervert reality. They have used spotlights, infrared heaters, multiple suns, and Swanson even tried an off-topic experiment! All in an effort to keep the fraud going.
You, and your cult, are involved in fraud to keep your cult hoax alive. But, you’ve been exposed and that’s why you are in meltdown.
“His exact example was 315 W/m^2 and 315 W/m^2 will result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2, at a temperature of 325K.
That is WRONG, INVALID, and blatant FRAUD. ”
You can declare such things all you want, but you havent made the scientific case.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1461810
Your unsupported assertions end up contradicting your previous ones.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1462935
Clint R,
I am not melting down, but Gordon with his waves of world war 2 bombers is making more sense than you.
What we need from you is another temperature of the sky report.
Which proves the greenhouse effect and that fluxes add.
This is what Clint R said
“Folkerts Fraud is about solar flux adding to flux from the sky.”
This is what Bob said
“The issue is the addition of the DWIR to the incoming Solar flux,”
What’s the diff?
Thanks bob and Nate for verifying you don’t understand the issue. Just more evidence you’re both braindead trolls.
That means I don’t have to waste my time trying to explain reality to you.
Clint R,
I asked you a question.
Are you too chicken to answer?
Are you smart enough to answer?
boob, you really need to grow up and quit avoiding reality.
The issue is about the fraud Folkerts promotes as *F + F = 2F*. That is shorthand for two identical fluxes arriving a surface will result in the surface emitting one flux that has twice the value of one of the fluxes. His exact example was 315 W/m^2 and 315 W/m^2 will result in the surface emitting 630 W/m^2, at a temperature of 325K.
I can’t explain reality to someone that is braindead. Grow up and behave responsibility, or your comments will be ignored.
Clint R,
I can’t help you if you can’t get your story straight.
So what is the issue?
Is it
“Folkerts Fraud is about solar flux adding to flux from the sky.”
or is it
“The issue is about the fraud Folkerts promotes as *F + F = 2F*.”
Which is it?
You know I am correctly quoting you both times.
Puppeteerissimo,
Watts per meter does not tell you on how much surface,
Just posit a (finite) surface S.
Say a meter.
You should see that fluxes suddenly add.
Ask any lighting designer.
Both quotes are correct, bob.
The second one adds clarity to the first one.
Clint R,
Then I assume you can explain why either one is wrong.
I predict you will just flap your gums and explain nothing.
Well, bob…
"Folkerts Fraud is about solar flux adding to flux from the sky"
…if it was the case that DWIR simply added to the solar flux…at certain times of the day, in various parts of the world, the solar flux received by the ground will exceed 1,000 W/m^2. If the DWIR was 333 W/m^2, for instance, and those fluxes simply added, then the ground would be receiving enough radiation to heat a BB surface to 119 C or above. Well above boiling point. Does the ground get to well above boiling point, or anywhere near that? Bear in mind that there would occasionally be conditions where convection would be limited, etc.
bob, DREMT explained both!
Your job is to try to understand and accept that reality.
I predict you can’t.
If the sun didn’t set, it might.
“The highest natural ground surface temperature ever recorded may have been an alleged reading of 93.9 C (201.0 F) at Furnace Creek, California, United States, on 15 July 1972. In recent years a ground temperature of 84 C (183.2 F) was recorded in Port Sudan, Sudan.”
You can fry an egg on a tank
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=294SBNdW5nI
bob calmly tries to pretend that a couple of record ground temperatures means the DWIR definitely simply adds to the solar flux.
Once again Gaslighting Graham seeks to annoy.
No, I was just seeking a win, and got one.
Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh
“bob calmly tries to pretend that a couple of record ground temperatures means the DWIR definitely simply adds to the solar flux.”
That’s the sound of my point going way over your head.
It definitely adds, but not simply, simpleton.
bob tends to keep arguing long after he’s lost the point. I expect he’ll be here for days on end if I keep responding.
Bob,
It seems that Gaslighting Graham does not like having someone jumping in on his every comment with some remark that seeks to annoy and irritate. Why does he do it to everyone here except Dragon cranks?
Little Willy attempts to irritate again.
Gaslighting Graham, irritated, gently tries to gaslight again.
Anyone can see that you are obviously a troll, Little Willy.
Anyone can see that Bob was responding to Pup, and that Gaslighting Graham has been interjecting irrelevant crap for the sole purpose to irritate and annoy.
That is obviously untrue, Little Willy:
“bob, DREMT explained both!
Your job is to try to understand and accept that reality.
I predict you can’t.”
This sub thread starts with Norman responding to Pup.
Then Bob mentions a trivial thing about units.
Then Mike Flynn provides comic relief.
Then Bob responds to Mike Flynn.
Pup trolls in response, then Mike Flynn, then Bordo.
Then Nate and me remind Pup to mind his units,
Only then does Gaslighting Graham interject, with his usual MO.
Seek to annoy and irritate.
He had no business in that thread.
Just like Dragn cranks have no business here.
bob asked Clint R to explain something, I explained it instead, Clint R agreed I had explained it correctly. So of course what I said was not “irrelevant crap”! I had no intention to irritate.
You’re just jealous and bitter.
DR EMPTY,
You didn’t explain it correctly, you forgot about the fact the the Earth rotates.
Rookie mistake.
Why are you still making rookie mistakes?
I forgot no such thing, bob. There is more than enough time at the location receiving in excess of 1,000 W/m^2 solar flux and 333 W/m^2 from the atmosphere to warm a BB surface to temperatures beyond 119 C, if those fluxes indeed simply added. They obviously don’t. Remember, I’m not talking about an average temperature, taken over a full day. I’m just talking about the ground temperature at the hottest part of the day.
Except the temperature is still going up when the Sun starts going down.
It’s not long enough to reach those temperatures.
You’re telling me there’s nothing they could put out in the Sun and supposedly combined atmospheric flux to warm to those temperatures in the several hours available!? I think if something could be heated to those temperatures by the combined fluxes we would know about it by now. The fluxes do not simply add.
If only Gaslighting Graham minded his units properly, like Nate and Bon told Pup to do.
But no, he has to try to annoy and irritate, once again by playing dumb and repeating a point refuted a thousand times.
Here is where we are –
To quote Clint directly so no one can legitimately claim they are being misrepresented:
With one sun providing 1368 W/m^2 to the sphere, it reaches 279K, emitting 342 W/m^2. Now, with an equal sun, at an equal distance, providing the same 1368 W/m^2 to the other side of the sphere, the sphere would reach 331K, emitting 684 W/m^2.
For 4 suns, equal, and at equal spacing, we can make a table:
1 sun, 279K, 342 W/m^2
2 suns, 331K, 684 W/m^2
3 suns, 367K, 1026 W/m^2
4 suns, 394K, 1368 W/m^2
Note that the above is NOT what the issue is. All flux is being absorbed, none is being reflected.
The issue is if another equal sun is added. Now, the extra 1368 W/m^2 is trying to be absorbed by the sphere that is already at the maximum temperature for 1368 W/m^2. It cant work.
We can point out that this is simply incorrect. There is no such maximum.
There is no problem exceeding 1368 W/m^2 by adding more suns here. The fluxes of additional suns continue to sum until the true maximum is reached.
The true maximum would only be reached when the sky is completely filled with suns. Then, and only then, will the average flux ARRIVING at the Earths surface equal the amount EMITTED by the sources.
And that would be much much higher than 1368 W/m^2.
Now I expect this will be labelled as a false accusation or a misrepresentation, with no evidence given.
As I see it, the issue of multiple Suns, or lights, adding, is simply a distraction from what Clint R’s really getting at, which is that the DWIR flux from the atmosphere does not simply add to the solar flux. That’s what I’m trying to demonstrate with the point I made, and that’s why you’re distracting back to multiple Suns again.
“The fluxes do not simply add.”
Yeah, just keep repeating your nonsense.
Fluxes add, if you know how to do it.
“If the DWIR was 333 W/m^2, for instance, and those fluxes simply added, then the ground would be receiving enough radiation to heat a BB surface to 119 C or above.”
No above about it, and actually it would be less than 119, more like 118.42
Yes, there is an “above” about it, because as I mentioned but you excluded in your quote, the solar flux can be in excess of 1,000 W/m^2.
As I see it, Dragon cranks have only a few memes to try to irritate and annoy
Hence the constant shitposting by Pup, which Graham supports with his gaslighting.
It would be comical if there were less gaslighting from Graham.
Yeah, but you often see things wrongly.
And so Gaslighting Graham returns to his usual gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The Sun has gone down and the Moon has come up, long ago someone left with the cup.
But DREMPTY soldiers on oblivious to the fact that he knows not of what he posts.
It’s funny that they just can’t ever leave it alone. The discussion, such as it was, ended some time ago. Yet we’re all still here. Very strange.
Gaslighting Graham soldiers on.
Little Willy soldiers on.
Gaslighting Graham forgets the magic words.
Little Willy forgets the magic words.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting again.
Willard,
Do you notice how DREMT and Clint R are always projecting.
Little Willy, bob, please stop trolling.
Of course they do, Bob.
Not sure if Gaslighting Graham knows about Karl Roves playibook.
Pup surely knows about it.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gordo demonstrates his delusional physics yet again:
There’s so much that’s wrong with that paragraph that it’s hard to know where to begin.
1 – (O2) molecules…according to climate alarmists dont radiate at all.
Gordo, it would be great if you actually documented your BS.
2 – …a trace gas, CO2, is responsible for all warming in the atmosphere. the same magic gas, is responsible for all radiation of surface heat to space.
NO, Gordo, convection at the surface is quite strong and H2O is also a strong greenhouse gas. But above the tropopause, CO2 is a major actor, along with O3.
3 – Apparently the surface is incapable of radiating directly to space without intervention from the magic gas.
No, Gordo, there’s a range of wavelengths which can pass directly thru the atmosphere. Other wavelengths from the surface may be blocked by the trace gases including H2O and CO2.
The rest of his post is similarly ignorant.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
bill h…”Obviously the only thing that R.W. Woods proved was that the greenhouse effect is not caused by backradiation…”
***
Depending on the article you read, he actually questioned that CO2 had the ability to warm the atmosphere, based on the GHE. His experiment was an attempt to prove that radiation trapped in a greenhouse by glass did not warm it any more than a greenhouse made with rock salt, a medium that will allow solar energy in and not block IR escaping.
I don’t know why he had to go to all that trouble because no one has ever proved that trapped IR will warm anything. His conclusion was interesting, that the greenhouse heated due to a lack of convection. Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both of whom work in thermodynamics, agreed.
The interesting part for me, however, was the explanation Wood offered for atmospheric warming. He hypothesized that nitrogen and oxygen, the majority gases, collected heat from the surface directly and as the heated air rose, it could not dissipate the heat via radiation.
We also know, from Lindzen’s explanation of the warming that air and water transports heat from the Tropics poleward.
Come on, Bordo.
You have a quote?
Wasted Wee Willy,
Are you too incompetent, or merely too lazy to look for yourself?
Idiot SkyDragons cultists can’t find anything to support their mad CO2 “warming” ideas, so they resort to demanding “quotes” and “citations” to make themselves look clever.
At least it’s better than the never ending stream of gotchas, deranged “appeals to authority”, and “playing silly semantic games.”
You can’t even figure out how the Earth has managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years, can you?
Go on, try using “logic”! You idiot, “logic” does not change a single physical fact!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Are you suggesting you are too incompetent, or merely too lazy to look for a description of the greenhouse effect?
I believe you.
Wistful Wee Willy,
I don’t claim that a “greenhouse effect” exists. Nobody who claims that it does (deranged SkyDragon cultists), can provide a description.
So it doesn’t exist. Just like phlogiston, unicorns, or Mike Mann’s Nobel Prize!
You may believe that others value your opinions, of course. Or even that your stupid gotcha “Are you suggesting . . . ?”, would be deserving of an answer!
Have you found out how the Earth managed to cool for four and a half billion years? It’s fairly easy – but you might have to discard a few of your SkyDragon cult beliefs along the way. Probably easier than trying to convince people that you have a description of the “greenhouse effect”!
Keep on being an idiot – it suits you!
Mike Flynn,
So if I hear you right, you finally concede that you are too lazy and too incompetent to have looked for a description of the greenhouse effect.
Everybody knows it.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
How much of the incident on a planet surface solar flux’s radiative energy can a planet absorb?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
More than what Sky Dragon cranks will ever be able to deny.
https://climateball.net/but-abc/
What portion of the incident on planet surface solar flux’s radiative energy gets transformed from SW incident into the IR emitted (the IR outgoing) energy?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You already know the answer:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190772
Willard, you are referring to the average planetary Albedo.
–
Io (Jupiter’s satellite), Io’s Albedo a =0,62
–
Moon (Earth’s satellite), Moon’s Albedo a =0,11
–
Why those Albedo are so much different?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I am referring to this comment:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190772
I mean, srsly. Your performance is not much better than the other Sky Dragon cranks here.
Willard,
Earth’s Albedo without clouds is a =0,08
Io’s Albedo a =0,62
–
Why there is so much difference?
You know how it ended with Socrates, Christos?
I think it was Solon who visited the Pyramids.
christos…how about Alexander?
christos…”Why those Albedo are so much different?”
***
You need to help wee willy, he’s not that bright? Get it, bright?? Now what would make a planet righter than another?
Come on, Bordo.
Christos is just pulling my leg, and if you have a lamp to spare, Pup would need it to refute physics.
Yes, we are approaching now the second very much important concept of my research:
–
Planets and moons (without-atmosphere, or with a very thin atmosphere, Earth included) may have very smooth planetary surfaces, or they may have very much cratered (the heavy cratered) planetary surfaces.
–
The smooth surface planets, when solar irradiated, exhibit a very strong specular reflection, which cannot be measured by satellites (as a supplementary portion of Bond Albedo), because the specular reflected portion of solar flux does not enter into the satellite’s sensor.
–
The heavy cratered surface planets, when solar irradiated, do not exhibit specular reflection, because the incident solar flux is subjected there to multiple reflections within the planetary surface craters, and thus, its radiative energy being captured and absorbed – not having the ability to escape as a specular reflection.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We already been over that too, Christos.
Less than two weeks ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1457097
Willard,
Planets and moons with a low Albedo tend not to be Lambertian scatterers, in fact they tend to scatter more light into the oblique angles than a Lambertian scatterer.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Armwaving is boring.
So stop it, Little Willy.
Gaslighting Graham seeks to annoy once again.
Oh, so you don’t like having someone jumping in on your every comment with some snarky remark!? Why do you do it to everyone else then?
Gaslighting Graham is trolling again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Is the Moon, Europa of Jupiter, a world with large liquid ocean covered by a very cold H20 icy thick crust?
And this ice crust could as thin as about 1 km thick to as much as more than 10 km thick. And might liquid ocean tens of km deep?
Though some describe it:
“Unlike Earth, however, Europa’s ocean lies below a shell of ice probably 10 to 15 miles (15 to 25 kilometers) thick, and has an estimated depth of 40 to 100 miles (60 to 150 kilometers).”
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/jupiter-moons/europa/in-depth/
Also:
“From ground-based telescopes, scientists knew that Europa’s surface is mostly water ice, and scientists have found strong evidence that beneath the ice crust is an ocean of liquid water or slushy ice.”
And:
“So while Europa is only one-fourth the diameter of Earth, its ocean may contain twice as much water as all of Earths oceans combined. Europas vast and unfathomably deep ocean is widely considered the most promising place to look for life beyond Earth.”
And as I recall, with ice vs rock, per km depth, ice conducts a bit more heat than most kind of rock. And Earth mantel rock conducts more heat than crustal rock, and crustal rock has 25 C heat gradient over 1 km distance depth.
What does wiki say:
“Geothermal gradient is the rate of temperature change with respect to increasing depth in Earth’s interior. As a general rule, the crust temperature rises with depth due to the heat flow from the much hotter mantle; away from tectonic plate boundaries, temperature rises in about 2530 C/km (7287 F/mi) of depth near the surface in most of the world.”
“However, in some cases the temperature may drop with increasing depth, especially near the surface, a phenomenon known as inverse or negative geothermal gradient. The effects of weather, sun, and season only reach a depth of approximately 10-20 metres.”
I would guess that has to do frozen ice, more conductive rock and other factors. Or 1 km depth of ice sheet isn’t 20 C warmer- or movement of glacial is mostly about the higher pressure, similar to how ice skates “work”.
Anyhow, does theory that Europa could have liquid ocean, a sound theory?
The mass of our Moon is about 1/81th of mass of Earth
Luna: 7.346 x 10^22 kg
density: 3344 kg/cubic meter
Radius: 1737.4 km or diameter x 2 = 3474.8 km
Gravity: 1.62
Europa: 4.799 x 10^22 kg
density: 3013 kg/cubic meter
Radius: 1560.8 km
Gravity: 1.314 m/s
Europa is small, less dense, and less gravity [easier to land on
or leave with rocket].
A different between Europa and Moon is we have a pretty good
idea of how old the Moon is, it’s at least 4 billion year old.
And I don’t know if anyone guessed how long ago Europa formed
into it’s moon. Less than 1 billion, 3 billion, maybe older than
our Moon. Not even sure we how much Europa is currently being
impacted. I got to check.
“Dynamic studies have shown that the presence of Jupiter tends to reduce the frequency of impact on the Earth of objects coming from the Oort cloud, while it increases the number of impacts of asteroids and short-period comets.
For these reasons Jupiter has the highest frequency of impacts of any planet in the Solar System, justifying its reputation as the “sweeper” or “cosmic vacuum cleaner” of the Solar System. 2018 studies estimate that between 10 and 65 impacts per year of meteoroids with a diameter of between 5 and 20 meters (16 and 66 ft) can occur on the planet.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_events_on_Jupiter
Jupiter gets hit more simply because it’s a bigger target, but other
than that aspect, it’s moons and going to hit about much “per square km” of area. So moons might have started large rocks, large rocks in various orbits and hit other rocks in orbit, and rocks passing into or thru system, can impact the moons- or could be quite young.
But there are various theories about where Jupiter formed, and most think it could have rapidly formed… Or looking at, also moved inwards [or outward] from the sun. All it’s formation around all planet’s formation timeline. But it seems it still leaves open, a question about Jupiter’s moons formation- and some moon could older than others, but might say nearer and bigger one [such Europa] are likely around 5 billion year old- allowing for 100 km diameter [or bigger[ rocks have impacted it within last 3 billion years.
> I fixed the problem for myself because I had learned as a technician before returning to university.
Cool story, Bordo.
He is yours, SkynDragon cranks.
Witless Wee Willy,
If that’s your best effort at pointless trolling, you will probably receive more scorn than applause.
What in blue blazes does “He is yours, SkynDragon cranks.”, mean?
Are you trying to be cryptic, or are you just naturally sloppy and incompetent?
[laughing at bizarre trolling attempt by SkyDragon cultist fool]
He is just a bore. No point trying to overthink this.
Oh, Kennui. You are honouring your nick to tonight!w
FYI –
https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/30352-peter-thiel-silicon-valley-bank-collapse-founders-fund/
The dimwit posts irrelevant journalistic waffle, thinking that this will impress.
He’s right – deluded SkyDragon cultists lap up any swill which diverts attention away from the fact the Earth has actually cooled, not heated, over the last four and a half billion years!
So much for the heating properties of “greenhouse gases”.
Mike Flynn,
You waffle so much that you could skip breakfast.
nice cherry-pick wee will wanker. Unfortunately, for you, everyone knows what a pathetic troll you are.
Picking at someone’s qualifications as a means of discrediting them is the act of a desperate, wanker-loser. It’s a tired old act of losers, if you can’t debate someone one on one, try to discredit them by challenging their credentials.
The wanker alarmists tried to get Lindzen on something he said long ago related to second-hand smoke. They went after Fred Singer because he spoke on behalf of tobacco companies 50 years ago. They have gone after Roy and John Christy related to their religious beliefs, completely oblivious to the fact that Newton was far more religious than either Roy or John.
Today, the losers are still at it, trying to discredit legitimate scientists who have done nothing wrong but who hold a different opinion than the status quo. They now call anything that opposes them as disinformation.
I don’t think science has ever hit this kind of low, except maybe during the witch hunts of the 15th and 16th centuries.
“Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei were two scientists who printed books that later became banned. Copernicus faced no persecution when he was alive because he died shortly after publishing his book. Galileo, on the other hand, was tried by the Inquisition after his book was published”.
The Holy Climate Church of Science is the modern version of that era.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1675/copernicus-galileo-and-the-church-science-in-a-religious-world
Come on, Bordo.
You keep using fallacy fluff.
The concept of cherry-picking might not mean what you make it mean.
Wobbly Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“The concept of cherry-picking might not mean what you make it mean.”
That’s exceptionally silly, isn’t it? If he makes it mean something, then that’s what it means!
Your attempts to troll might not be as annoying as you think they are.
Keep trying – you aren’t capable of supporting the mythical GHE, so you might as well try to play silly semantic games. One day, you might even win one. Or maybe not.
Are you spending too much time indulging in self-abuse, do you think?
You have a point there, Mike Flynn.
How Bordo misuses the concept of cherry picking is silly.
But it is not exceptional, as Bordo misuses fallacies in general.
You, by contrast, are exceptionally silly.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
dremt…[from Eli Rabbett]…”This is physics, not engineering and such idealizations are common, clarifying and useful for understanding.
Blathering about the shape of the plates, how many sides they have, their thickness, their composition, how close they are to each other, etc are attempts (successful Eli might add) at distraction from the basic physics that the example provides”.
***
That’s hilarious, Eli. Moving the goalposts, are we?
Eli, have you figured out the catastrophic error in your rebuttal of the G&T paper falsifying the GHE? When G&T tried to invoke the 2nd law for heat transfer, you and your team replied that in a system with two bodies of different temperatures radiating toward each other, the 2nd law would mean one plate was not radiation.
Eli, radiation is not heat and the 2nd law applies only to heat transfer. That’s why it specifies that heat can only be transferred, by its own means, from hot to cold. It doesn’t matter a hoot that radiation is flowing isotropically outward from each body and some of that radiation is intercepted by both bodies. The truth is that radiation from the colder body has no effect whatsoever on the hotter body.
That’s what G&T were trying to tell you. Yet, here you are producing a ridiculous thought-experiment with a blue plate and a green plate obviously trying to replicate the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere, complete with solar energy and back-radiation. It’s nothing more than alarmist pseudo-science for the simple reason that radiation from a cooler GP has no effect whatsoever on the BP.
Unfortunately, you got poor old Swanson sucked into your pseudo-science and he put together an impressive experiment from which he drew the wrong conclusions. At least he tried an experiment as opposed to you who settles for a bad thought experiment.
Gordon,
Josh Halpern (Eli Rabbett) manages to fool himself with great regularity. When anybody points out that he is living in a fantasy world, he dismisses reality as “irrelevant”.
Just another SkyDragon cultist with delusions of intellectual grandeur. Apparently refuses to accept the fact that the Earth has a glowing hot interior, and of course, must cool.
No doubt he considers this an inconvenient fact, at odds with his “multicoloured self heating plate” fantasy!
What a donkey!
Hey Gordon,
How come your electrons orbiting the nucleus don’t emit electromagnetic waves?
“An accelerating charged particle produces an electromagnetic (EM) wave. Electromagnetic waves are electric and magnetic fields traveling through empty space with the speed of light c. A charged particle oscillating about an equilibrium position is an accelerating charged particle. If its frequency of oscillation is f, then it produces an electromagnetic wave with frequency f. The wavelength λ of this wave is given by λ = c/f. Electromagnetic waves transport energy through space. This energy can be delivered to charged particles a large distance away from the source.”
from
http://labman.phys.utk.edu/phys222core/modules/m6/production_of_em_waves.html
Better take some aspirin before you try to answer, or your head will explode.
bob d…”How come your electrons orbiting the nucleus dont emit electromagnetic waves?”
***
You’ll have to ask Neils Bohr. Maybe we can channel him.
I suspect the reason is that you need electrons reversing direction at a high rate of speed in a conductor to radiate an electromagnetic field. The electron in orbit might represent a direct current, and it produces both an electric and magnetic field around the electron, but it doesn’t radiate EM.
It is an interesting question. Bohr arrived at his theory after a friend advised him to recheck his theory on the hydrogen atom. It was already known through experiments that hydrogen absorbed and emitted at discrete frequencies (Google Balmer lines).
To get his theory to work, Bohr hypothesized that electrons needed to dump energy at specific frequencies to drop from one orbital energy level to another. He hypothesized the opposite as well, that electrons needed to absorb EM at discrete frequencies in order to jump up a level.
Gordon,
Wrong answer.
The correct answer is that electrons in the Bohr atom, or any other atom don’t orbit the nucleus, because if they did, they would be accelerating, and as you know accelerating electrons emit electromagnetic radiation.
And electrons bound to nuclei don’t.
Blundering Bobby,
You wrote –
“Hey Gordon,
How come your electrons orbiting the nucleus dont emit electromagnetic waves?”
How come you ask such stupid gotchas? Either you think you know the answer, and are just trying to make Gordon look stupid, or you dont – and are showing that you are stupid yourself!
I hope you dont accept the contents of your link without question. That would show that your knowledge is limited indeed.
You need to know what you are talking about, so that you can at least appeal to a decent authority, which you havent. All irrelevant – you are just trying to divert attention from the fact that you can’t even describe the GHE! Your protestations that you have described it on multiple occasions, but that you either can’t or won’t post a copy here, make you look either stupid or intentionally unhelpful.
Not likely to engender a lot of support, I imagine.
You could always give up while you’re behind, but it’s unlikely you are that clever.
Carry on.
Swenson,
If I post another description of the greenhouse effect, will you shut up about it?
I actually just did yesterday, you must have missed it, because you don’t care about it, you just want to insult people.
Which you don’t do very well.
By all means present your latest description of the GHE, bob.
Thats always fun.
You can’t find it either?
Did you hit your head on something hard recently?
Why the evasion, bob?
Are you ashamed of your beliefs?
Clint R,
While discussing said greenhouse effect, I asked you a question, you didn’t answer.
Why the evasion?
I don’t mind discussing it with you bob, as along as you behave.
So start by presenting your latest description, with no more evasion.
I am not evading Clint R,
First you have to answer the question I asked you.
But I don’t think you understand the Greenhouse Effect no matter who explains it to you.
You aint behaving bob, youre evading. Thats why this must be brought to a close. This is your last chance.
Either put up, or shut up.
Someone has to be the adult in the room.
… and that someone is not the always humorous Clint R.
I’ve put up, Clint R, now you shut up.
Do you need me to hold your hand and baby walk you through it?
Ball4, bob, please stop trolling.
norman…”Prove Wood made your false claim! I know you cant and he never made such a claim”.
***
Careful not to fall off your soapbox, Normie.
From the paper by Wood in 1909…
“This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped. Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere?”
***
“The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions. I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.”
***
Wood did talk about the inverse square law wrt to surface radiation, but I am tired of digging up stuff for you basically because you are a rude person who deserves no response. I don’t need Wood as an authority figure since I have already provided adequate proof that would satisfy an intelligent mind.
Surface radiation is very weak compared to a glowing ring on an electric stove with a rated electrical power of 1500 watts. The surface of the Earth won’t even heat your feet adequately most of the year where I live, however, if you stood on the electric ring on the stove you’d be rushed to hospital with serious burns.
If you kneel and hold your hand 6 inches above the Earth’s surface you can detect no radiation from it. If you do the same over a stove ring glowing red, you can feel something, but it’s not clear how much heat comes from heated air molecules or from radiation.
If you hold your hand 4 feet above the surface you definitely feel nothing from radiation and the same is true if you hold your hand 4 feet above the glowing stove ring.
NASA claims there are 388 W/m^2 emitted by Earth’s surface. That is bs but I’ll go with it. There are about 10.77 square feet in a square metre. I am going with square feet because I estimate the large stove ring at 1 square foot. Therefore we must divide the 388 watts/m^2 by 10.77 to get the equivalent in square feet.
That comes to about 36 w/foot^2.
I am trying to get it trough your thick skull, Normie, that you cannot detect radiation from a 1500 w/foot^2 source at 4 feet, so how in the heck can you detect 36 w/foot^2?
That’s how quickly radiation intensity decreases due to the inverse square law. If you hold a marshmallow on a fork, as close to the ring surface as possible without touching it, the marshmallow will not only burn, it will likely catch on fire. But is the heating coming from radiation or super-heated air in contact with the ring and right above it?
If you pull the marshmallow back a foot, it likely wont even get hot. Pull it back 4 feet and nothing will happen. If this was not blatantly true, we could never stand by a heated stove ring and cook anything.
Gordon,
Scientists use more precise instrumentation than marshmallows on forks.
Astronomers have observed a star that is 28 billion years away.
The inverse square law is for point sources, not for stove ring elements.
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote “The inverse square law is for point sources, not for stove ring elements.”
Do you really believe the nonsense you spout?
Stove ring elements are subject to the same physical laws as stars 28 billion [(light] years away, whether SkyDragon cultists choose to deny it or not.
Yes I believe stove rings are not point sources, what you think they are?
Yes same physical laws, did I imply otherwise.
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote “The inverse square law is for point sources, not for stove ring elements.”
Then you wrote “Yes I believe stove rings are not point sources, what you think they are?
Yes same physical laws, did I imply otherwise.”
I’ll let others decide whether you are implying that the inverse square doesn’t apply to anything except point sources – and you have gone to some pain to point out that stove rings are not point sources, without mentioning that neither is anything else, in fact.
You are free to believe that radiation from objects like stove ring elements, the Moon, the Earth, or the Sun does not obey the inverse square law if you wish. Your beliefs have no effect on physical laws, but might give others the opportunity to have a laugh at your expense.
Have you found an explanation for the fact that the Earth somehow cooled for four and a half billion years? What physical laws do you think were involved, or do you put it all down to the “greenhouse effect”?
Only joking, I don’t expect an intelligent response from a retard.
Carry on.
Swenson,
Have you found a source for this nonsense?
“Have you found an explanation for the fact that the Earth somehow cooled for four and a half billion years? What physical laws do you think were involved, or do you put it all down to the greenhouse effect?
If not I’ll just assume you are babbling in your Maypo again.
Swenson,
“Ill let others decide whether you are implying that the inverse square doesnt apply to anything except point sources and you have gone to some pain to point out that stove rings are not point sources, without mentioning that neither is anything else, in fact.”
There are stipulations for when you can treat something as a point source.
You seem to be as unfamiliar with those as you do with the rest of Science.
“The inverse square law is for point sources, not for stove ring elements”.
***
Somebody should have told that to Newton, he used sources of any size, including that of the Sun, as the basis of the inverse square law.
If the ISL was just for point sources, it would be useless.
When you study calculus, dividing by 0 is a no-no. In any math it’s the same. However, in calculus, using limits, there is a way to approximate the condition and arrive at a solution you could not reach by actually dividing by 0. It’s similar with the inverse square law, you just have to find the proper solution to a certain problem.
Newton did that with the Moon to calculate the dissipation of Earth’s gravity at the distance of the Moon. He simply took Earth’s radius as r1 and the distance to the Moon as r2. r2/r1 is approximately 60 and r^2 in the ISL becomes 60^2 = 3600. So, 1/r^2 = 1/3600. Using that number as a multiplier gives you the dissipation of Earth’s gravity at the Moon when applied to the gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 at Earth’s surface. The acceleration due to Earth’s gravity at the Moon is about 0.003
If you wanted to use a square foot as the source you’d need to be inventive, but R. W. Wood, who excelled with the inverse square law as applied to light tells us the surface radiation would dissipate quickly over a few feet from the surface leaving surface IR unable to be effective as a warming agent.
I don’t need math to convince me, I simply turn on a 1500 watts electric source and feel it at various distances from the source.
Gordon,
r is the distance to the point source, not the radius of the point source.
When did you ever pass Calculus?
bob, please stop trolling.
I am reposting part 2 because you and your fellow alarmists lack the comprehension to read long posts.
***
Surface radiation is very weak compared to a glowing ring on an electric stove with a rated electrical power of 1500 watts. The surface of the Earth won’t even heat your feet adequately most of the year where I live, however, if you stood on the electric ring on the stove you’d be rushed to hospital with serious burns.
If you kneel and hold your hand 6 inches above the Earth’s surface you can detect no radiation from it. If you do the same over a stove ring glowing red, you can feel something, but it’s not clear how much heat comes from heated air molecules or from radiation.
If you hold your hand 4 feet above the surface you definitely feel nothing from radiation and the same is true if you hold your hand 4 feet above the glowing stove ring.
NASA claims there are 388 W/m^2 emitted by Earth’s surface. That is bs but I’ll go with it. There are about 10.77 square feet in a square metre. I am going with square feet because I estimate the large stove ring at 1 square foot. Therefore we must divide the 388 watts/m^2 by 10.77 to get the equivalent in square feet.
That comes to about 36 w/foot^2.
I am trying to get it trough your thick skull, Normie, that you cannot detect radiation from a 1500 w/foot^2 source at 4 feet, so how in the heck can you detect 36 w/foot^2?
That’s how quickly radiation intensity decreases due to the inverse square law. If you hold a marshmallow on a fork, as close to the ring surface as possible without touching it, the marshmallow will not only burn, it will likely catch on fire. But is the heating coming from radiation or super-heated air in contact with the ring and right above it?
If you pull the marshmallow back a foot, it likely wont even get hot. Pull it back 4 feet and nothing will happen. If this was not blatantly true, we could never stand by a heated stove ring and cook anything.
Atmospheric water vapor (TPW) and climate change
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/21/atmospheric-water-vapor-tpw-and-climate-change/
–By Andy May
In the latest IPCC major report, AR6, they report: a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3 C, with a very likely range of 2C to 5C. They also report that CO2 concentration might control climate change. This estimate includes the laboratory estimate that CO2 alone, if doubled in the atmosphere, would increase the average global surface temperature about 1.2C. The remaining 1.8C (60%) is supposedly achieved through feedbacks to the initial CO2-caused warming.–
Chris Colose chimed on:
> There are so many basic errors in this that its difficult to begin. He doesnt understand that the physics setting WV is completely different than evaporation/precip (they dont go up at the same rate) or the very large literature discussing deficiencies in certain data products .
https://twitter.com/CColose/status/1638377588828647424
–Judith Curry
@curryja
7h
Very thorough and informative analysis of water vapor trends and feedback by @Andy_May_Writer
Climate models are not consistent with observations. This issue has serious implications for estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2–
It seems to me, that if add +100 ppm of CO2, had greened the Sahara desert, we would have increased global temperatures by significant amount.
Maybe if 6000 years ago, we had added 100 ppm of CO2, it would have greened the Sahara desert.
Chris Colose appeals to his own authority, and then proceeds to say nothing definite at all.
At least his command of English is not very good. Either that, or he is sloppy, and managed to leave a word out here and there.
Oh well, he maintains the standard set by Wonky Wee Willy, who thinks Chris “chimed on”, rather than “chimed in”.
Delusional SkyDragon cultists do not concern themselves with minor inconveniences such as spelling, grammar, clear English, science, or reality in general. They believe that if observations and models disagree – the observations must be incorrect!
Mike Flynn appeals to his own idiocy.
Little Willy please stop trolling.
Nobel Laureate in Physics; “Global Warming is Pseudoscience”
https://youtu.be/SXxHfb66ZgM
What is the ideal global temperature?
We have 1/3rd of our land area, deserts.
I live in a desert, and as long as I get enough water,
I am happy with it. But I don’t think we need 1/3 of the total
land area being deserts, 1/5th might better or even 1/10th.
Maybe should have less deserts where there is not enough water
we people can get.
Also we also got a lot land area covered in ice- having less of
this might be better.
But if lot of people could live on ocean, we could more land covered
in ice and deserts.
But since humans are tropical creature, for humans it seems higher
average global temperatures would be better, or since ocean has a higher average temperature, more humans should live on the warmer oceans.
But the main thing is I don’t governments controlling global climate- mainly because governments do a lot stupid things and what they doing
in terms of global warming is an obvious scam.
Appeal to old guy crank authority…
Old guy being right just proves that ad hominem is not valid argument.
Cranks are seldom right, Kennui.
When they are, they stop being cranks.
Or you could argue that they always are right.
Collectively speaking, what have cranks not said?
Being right is one thing, being right for the good reasons is another.
crank
2: American informal: someone who gets angry easily and is unpleasant to other people.
1: British informal: someone with ideas or behavior that you think are very strange
“Protesters were dismissed as cranks.”
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/crank_1
I tend think of someone who is grumpy and maybe a bit strange
also.
Or like a crank call- which is roughly someone off topic or
a distraction or strange.
“People are strange when you’re a stranger
Faces look ugly when you’re alone
Women seem wicked when you’re unwanted
Streets are uneven when you’re down
….”
The war, is making me a bit cranky.
ESG makes me think of the future lawsuits,
I tend to imagine there going to a lot and big-
which could be boring, but also a bit amusing.
But Semantics is boring, gb:
https://climateball.net/but-semantics/
For some reason you forgot to mention a powdered substituted amphetamines or the mechanical concept.
“But Semantics is boring, gb”
Yes, lots of stuff is boring.
The delayed launch of starship is boring.
Even the horrible war in Ukraine is boring.
TV ads are worse than boring- as is US politics.
Actually, what I am saying war in Ukraine is far
worse than Ads and US politics- but we “see” less
of it, due to TV ads and US politics.
Everything we wasting trillions of dollar of wealth
we not “seeing” much of- and could say it’s seen,
as worst then boring.
As general rule, boring is better than a lot things.
But I would thrilled if you want to up the game.
What is interesting? Or better, what make you happy?
What politician is doing something, you regard as good?
What might make this world, a better world?
I think if it was a bit warmer, it would a better world.
If I thought CO2 caused enough warming I would have like
what the Chinese leadership is doing- even if they are
boring.
Using less words could be less boring.
DJIA down: 530.49 today.
Take first stage and 2 second starship “hulls” weld
second stage to either end of first stage. Seal and pressurize
with air to 6 psig. Put in ocean. Fill with freshwater.
Have Broadside to wave. How effective is it, stopping waves?
Or how large would waves need to be, for it to not have much
of effect?
Weird Wee Willy,
Facts are facts. SkyDragon cultists often find facts annoying or inconvenient, but the facts remain.
For example, it is a fact that you either can’t, or won’t produce a description of the GHE which accords with fact.
You can argue all you like, but the fact remains.
Accept reality Wee Willy.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, the delusional opinions of Carl Sagan and James Hansen (to mention just a couple) notwithstanding.
Carry on with your fantasy.
You know what makes me happy, gb?
Seeing when Dragon cranks abide by the cooperation principle.
A crank refers to someone who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.
A crank refers to an annoyingly eccentric person.
A crank refers to someone who holds unusual or strange beliefs.
There are a shit ton of definitions you could find online that would prevent you from playing dumb like you did.
So, yeah. Look up the Cooperation Principle. It is a good one.
“A crank refers to someone who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.”
Unless the someone is yourself, how do know someone holds an unshakable belief?
There is no atheists who have an unshakable belief there is no god,
but they could argue endless that there is no god.
This seems true of most “true believers”.
And there is nothing in science which has any unshakable belief.
I would like to meet anyone with any kind of unshakable belief.
Because it would be so unbelievable and weird.
One could the sky is blue or up is up and down is down- but this arguing about words- it’s not a belief.
I think you mean high confidence about something, until “something” changes their mind about something.
I don’t think people who claim the world will end from higher CO2 emission- they if think there is some chance of it, and they are wrong.
Weird Wee Willy,
You have described delusional SkyDragon cultists as cranks. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a delusional SkyDragon cultist by any other name is still in denial of reality. If you want to refer to SkyDragon cultists as SkyDragon cranks, go ahead.
No facts have been changed.
You hold unshakeable beliefs which you can’t even describe! How eccentric is that?
If you choose to let people annoy you, that shows you lack self control. Dn’t blame me.
Telling people to look at some irrelevant nonsense, just makes others think that you are irrelevant and nonsensical. You are too busy being cryptic to state what the “cooperation principle” is, because you are scared that you will be exposed as a fact free reality denier!
I’m not sure what “. . . a shit ton of definitions you could find online that would prevent you from playing dumb like you did.” means. A “shit ton”? Is this some SkyDragon cult secret language? I’m fairly sure that a rational person wouldn’t bother wasting their time looking for a “shit ton” of definitions about anything you think they should.
Definitions don’t change facts. If you want to define four and a half billion years of natural cooling of the Earth as four and a half billion years of heating due to the “greenhouse effect”, don’t blame me if people think you are a delusional SkyDragon crank (or cultist, or however you want to define it).
At least you don’t have to play dumb, or pretend to be a gullible fool.
Cooperation Principle:
“In social science generally and linguistics specifically, the cooperative principle describes how people achieve effective conversational communication in common social situationsthat is, how listeners and speakers act cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way.”
wiki
Well, you can’t really get that on internet.
And you want to do this with cranks to be happy?
How about just one crank so that you can be happy?
Baby steps.
So, for example, can we agree that we are currently
in what is called an ice house global climate?
And it’s believed that there warmer climate states
in the past, called, greenhouse global climates?
Of course you can get cooperation on the Internet, gb.
It is really hard to communicate, and you just did.
I do not expect it every time.
Just once in a while.
Even Mike Flynn sometimes do.
Less than once in a while, but with such a buffoon there is nothing much to expect.
> It is really hard to communicate
without it, that is.
It being the cooperation principle.
Weird Wee Willy,
Unfortunately, communication is merely the imparting of information.
There is no cooperation needed or involved. An example is TV transmission – one way communication.
You might be referring to your fantasy, where delusional SkyDragon cranks endeavor to impose their eccentric ideas on others, accompanied by threats of violence, incarceration or death, in some cases.
A case of “cooperate” (agree) or suffer the consequences.
Facts, like the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, don’t care whether you believe, agree, or cooperate until you are blue in the face!
Keep diverting, Wee Willy. Reality won’t change, you fool.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Allow me to answer srsly your silliness for once –
When you tell a joke, are you merely *parting* information?
How about when you ask for the same sammich over and over again for the last ten years – what information do you *impart* exactly?
Perhaps you can tell me why you are wearing a sock puppet simply by *imparting* information?
No need to answer these questions. They only prove how ridiculous your name is. Most of what we do with words are speech acts.
Language is a social art.
Dear Mr Willard,
Cranks and bores have nothing of value to add to the discussion.
You’re proof of that.
Sincerely.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“When you tell a joke, are you merely *parting* information?”. You know, with just a tiny bit of effort on your part, you could actually spell words correctly – if, indeed, you meant “imparting”, rather than “parting”. Feel free to tell me what you really meant.
As to your gotcha, why are you asking such a daft question? Don’t you know the answer, or are you just trying to be annoying? Do you really care what I think, and if so, why?
You quoted Willard van Orman Quine, saying “Language is a social art”. Apart from you, who cares? Does it make any difference to the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, in spite of SkyDragon cultists insisting that “It should have warmed, the models say so.”
Keep rejecting reality – don’t blame me if reality takes no notice.
Kennui,
The information model of communication has been dead for more that half a century.
If you did not know that, then now you know.
Which means that I contributed something to this thread.
Tell me about what the last thing you brought to the table.
I do not think you bring much.
Which means that your Ennui act is getting old:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
norman…”You are a blithering moron”.
***
Two morons standing at the edge of a roof. The big moron fell off, why didn’t the little one?
He was a little more on.
Good Gordon. Stay with humor. You do far better with it than science.
On the other side of the coin, what you alarmists present as science is comedy. It would be funny except the consequences are dire for mankind if alarmists get their wishes.
Yeah, you should start your own comedy website.
And leave us out of it.
This page could do with a lot less of your codswallop.
Lake Shasta has reached average level, New Melones dam
is 90% full from average level. Oregon is still in bigger
drought than California, and Florida is a bit drought
coonditions than California.
I would say California is normal, and will get a bit more
rain, and it it has large amount of snowpack.
For me it’s not normal, because it was more raining, then
pouring/flooding type California thing. But other parts of
the state, may have more of the pouring, rather the raining.
But I think safe to say that the drought is over- unless
trying to predict what next year is going to be like.
I tend to think next year prediction are sort of like predicting
the hurricane season [which is approaching in month or two].
So, let’s focus on the shorter term, what kind Hurricane season
are going to get, this year?
–WESH
Number Of Storms
We’re coming off three straight La Nia hurricane seasons, and expected to head into an El Nio late this season. When looking deeper in this, there is data supporting a somewhat average hurricane season.–
https://www.wesh.com/article/2023-hurricane-season-forecast/42888945#
Has detail changes from 2022, but roughly average.
So, other than details, CA was average rainfall, and
seems likely, if that CA gets another average in term rainfall
next year.
How about something more exciting, what will March global average temperature going to be?
Average, or +0.0 C?
Waiting for Bezos- I hope he doesn’t die soon.
No significant Starship news. Still waiting for FAA to do
it’s job. Boca Chica, has been windy, and going to be windy
for next week, though you can take +3 day forecast too seriously.
You can sort of see, why I don’t believe in God.
But obviously it’s my own damn fault.
But if believe in God, I might think it not possible that space rock could impact Earth or some huge volcanic eruption is not going to
happen. And I do tend to think big impactor and God is related.
If God = impactor, I believe.
If we didn’t have impactor, we would be stupid dinosaurs- thank
God. But why make them? So we can eat chickens?
But if you see impactor happen, it’s pretty god like thing to
see. And I tend to think Sodom was impactor:
Cosmic impact could be inspiration behind biblical story of Sodom
Archeologists found traces of a similar event to the one described in the bible.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/cosmic-impact-could-be-inspiration-behind-biblical-story-of-sodom/
And think in general, human are religious because impactors.
And might have ghosts because of drugs, spiritually vs gods.
But I am believer in education- just not what calling education
these days- a prison for kids.
But you got to admit, we are living in good times,
and seems unlikely our future will be very, very bright.
Let me know when there is a ship going to Fiddler’s Green.
I don’t give a damn about Mars Moon or other uninhabitable place.
“Halfway down the trail to Hell,
In a shady meadow green
Are the Souls of all dead troopers camped,
Near a good old-time canteen.
And this eternal resting place
Is known as Fiddlers’ Green.
Marching past, straight through to Hell
The Infantry are seen.
Accompanied by the Engineers,
Artillery and Marines,
For none but the shades of Cavalrymen
Dismount at Fiddlers’ Green.
Though some go curving down the trail
To seek a warmer scene.
No trooper ever gets to Hell
Ere he’s emptied his canteen.
And so rides back to drink again
With friends at Fiddlers’ Green.
And so when man and horse go down
Beneath a saber keen,
Or in a roaring charge of fierce melee
You stop a bullet clean,
And the hostiles come to get your scalp,
Just empty your canteen,
And put your pistol to your head
And go to Fiddlers’ Green. ”
http://tulsatvmemories.com/fiddlersgreen.html
Maybe, Gordon will be interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDvnu3RgO3k
Nothing more than more western propaganda. The commentator is an airhead, she spent the first 3 minutes talking about her raspy voice and how she got it. Then she produces a clip by CNN, the mother of all propagandists, not to mention perverts.
I would like to see one of them go into why Putin has called some Ukrainians Nazis. She called it propaganda, without offering the slightest bit of explanation. She is an airhead who regurgitates what she is told.
Of course, research would take too much intelligence and a desire to understand. Still, all it would take is a quick read of the Wiki article on the Ukrainian UON, a group of Ukrainians who sided with the Nazis in WWII, and whose dark legacy is still celebrated by thousands of Ukrainian nationalists today.
It is so stupid, the propaganda. A search of their own newspaper would reveal that the US Congress has already identified Nazi activity in the Ukraine.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/380483-congress-bans-arms-to-controversial-ukrainian-militia-linked-to-neo-nazis/
Gordo, Its propoganda.
Its intended to get your support for consription in Canada. (because no Canadian with brains will volunteer to go to this war)
You are old enough to know better.
“The commentator is an airhead, she spent the first 3 minutes talking about her raspy voice and how she got it. ”
So, you don’t like Julie, she is new to this stuff.
She as younger kid, wanted to be lawyer. Her parents are dems, and she in last 2 two years, discovered she was conservative. Was a swimmer and went Harvard or something {and quite a few of college friends [and some some extent her parents] think she gone off the deep end}.
Airhead next day:
Mosul Eye
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvhuS-5NVUI
There was only small number Nazis in Iraq though
not mentioned much.
Actually there was a lot, but I don’t want argue about it,
nor was mentioned at all, in above video.
https://www.ajc.org/news/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-wagner-groups-role-in-russias-war-against-ukraine
You can rave all you want with your red-herring arguments. The point is, the Wagner group, whoever they are, are not attacking fellow Russians. In the Ukraine, Ukrainian nationalists who are essentially neo-Nazis are attacking fellow Ukrainians.
https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2022/opinion/russias-long-history-of-neo-nazis
Wily Wee Willy,
I notice that the link from which you have presumably cut and pasted contains the word “opinion”.
You arent appealing to the authority of someone expressing an “opinion”, and trying to pass it off as fact, are you?
I wouldnt be at all surprised if all parties involved in the conflict claim they have God on their side. Generally, one side loses convincingly, and the winner loses as well.
Thats life.
Mike Flynn,
I notice your bothsidesism.
Meanwhile:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/11/neo-nazi-russian-militia-appeals-for-intelligence-on-nato-member-states
Wily Wee Willy,
I notice that the link from which you have presumably cut and pasted contains the word the guardian”.
You arent appealing to the authority of a journalist expressing an opinion, and trying to pass it off as fact, are you?
I wouldnt be at all surprised if all parties involved in the conflict claim they have God on their side. Generally, one side loses convincingly, and the winner loses as well.
Thats life.
Mike Flynn,
Here:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/23/russian-neo-nazis-participate-in-denazifying-ukraine-der-spiegel-a77762
Keep spamming.
Willard says:
What is the Wagner Group?
The Wagner Group is a private military company with ties to Russian white supremacist and neo-Nazi far-right extremists.
——————-
Hmmm, the Russians were considered to be people of color by both Hitler and the Ukrainian white nationalists. Western Ukraine was the seat of power of the ‘white’ army fighting the ‘red’ army back in 1920 or so after the Bolshevik revolution.
Russians racially are mostly a mixture of slavs and asians as a result of Russian lands being absorbed with a great deal of genocide by the Mongols and held for about 200 years.
Hitler saw the Russians as literally a mongrel race. The etymology of the word mongrel arose in the centuries of the Mongol expansion.
You think you might be overstating all this a bit?
Try to rationalize this, Gill:
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2015/9/23/behind-russias-ultra-nationalist-crackdown
Seems to fit like a glove what I said Willard.
Russians are anti-Nazi. . . .convicting on and sending him to prison for life seems to do nothing but support what I said.
Of course being anti-Nazi doesn’t mean you aren’t a fascist.
Ukraine on a per capita basis appeared to have provided more Wehrmacht volunteers than any other non-Axis population.
Putin is rumored to have Jewish ancestry. His mothers maiden name may be derived from a Russianized version of Shalom though most jews in Russia converted to the Orthodox church due to so many years of oppression. and he does seem to be an almost dead ringer for Moshe Dayan the famous Israeli General and politician.
“Ukraine on a per capita basis appeared to have provided more Wehrmacht volunteers than any other non-Axis population.”
Sure, and Germany provided way more per capita!
And?
Is this supposed to inform us about German and Ukrainian attitudes today, 70 years later?
Nope!
And no doubt the racist baiting we have seen with recent Democrat administrations is far more egregious as it is next to impossible to assemble a racist crowd even with monetary inducements paid for by the extreme left.
Meanwhile in Ukraine prior to 2022 no inducement was necessary at all.
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-far-right-menace-radical-militants-ultranationalists/
What about whataboutism, Gill?
You are not supposed to acknowledge that your distraction was irrelevant, you know.
so how do you fancy yourself? As a member of the speech police?
Oh, Gill.
You are of course free to be as silly as you want.
Please.
The question is Willard why are you so interested in the US being the world policeman. I suspect you are politically-motivated as I would guess you were opposed to the invasion of Iraq and all for getting involved in the Ukraine and supporting the Arab Spring in Syria.
For you does it align with which party is in power?
Oh, Gill,
Ze question is rather why you would use the Ze Question trick once again.
Do you at least recall the topic of the comment to which you responded at first?
Ze question is why are you so politically aligned? Can’t you think for yourself and you need a political party to tell you how to think?
Bill oddly thinks there isn’t bipartisan agreement on Ukraine.
hmmm so you think bipartisanship is whatever it takes to get a single RINO to agree with what they are doing?
You being an unthinking stool pigeon of some partisan interest I suppose thats true. But so what? There is a neo-con republican interest that is typically feeding from the same hog trough that the neo-libs are feeding from. . . .so should I be surprised?
“RINO”
Bill seems to have forgotten what Republicans used to stand for.
Senate vote for Ukraine assistance 86-11.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00191.htm#top
Nate you mean like ending slavery and passing amendments to the Constitution to protect minorities against Democrat opposition?
Its rather like sleazy side of the Republican party of the ’50’s McCarthyism switched sides and reappeared after nearly 7 decades of being almost invisible.
Returning back to the topic of the thread, the support for the Ukraine assistance is quite bipartisan.
You are wrong. That’s all there is to it.
Wagner Group, Russian PMCs & Ukraine – History, motives & privatised warfare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXKUNc9yI2A
PMCs is: private military companys.
Wagner Group is allowed to offer shorter prison sentences if criminals will fight in the war.
And the criminals used to probe enemy defenses- and if don’t to it because it would suicide, they are shot.
Not many going live thru this war. Something hundred thousand of them
and tens of thousands have been killed [I doubt any get out because they are wounded]. But after testing defense, elite Merc, follow- not many of them, and a lot been killed or wounded.
Does Willard favor consciption to fight in a war in which we have no national interest?
What does Ukraine have to do with Trucker’s protest in Ottawa? Hey look, a squirrel.
Is Kennui a tankie or a paleo-con?
Does he realize that America First has been infiltrated by Nazis?
Heck, does he even know that Ukrainians helped build his province?
http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CB%5CR%5CBritishColumbia.htm
Will Kennui ever grow up?
Woeful Wee Willy,
Will you ever realise that others laugh at your pretentious silliness?
Mike Flynn,
Do you ever realize when you are braying?
Woeful Wee Willy,
Will you ever realise that others laugh at your pretentious silliness?
You can’t even describe this silly “greenhouse effect” so beloved of deranged SkyDragon cultists, can you?
Are you too incompetent to find a description of the greenhouse effect, Mike, or are you just too lazy?
Could be both.
Both is good.
Nobody is interested in a description of a greenhouse effect theory that is unsubstantiated.
Have you checked, Gill?
anybody that is, like you, I am sure has already looked. you bring nothing to the table here Willard. May as well mosey along someplace else where they are looking for your wares.
So you have not, Gill.
When will you?
Its y’all presence subverting the science that I am here. Y’all leave and this place would be real quiet.
Perhaps a close look at your results might convince you?
So you may never look, Gill.
Why do you think I would do your homework for you?
“Does Willard favor consciption to fight in a war in which we have no national interest?”
Hyperbole often, Ken?
Sounds like America Firster talk in 1940.
Climate Brawl Debate: Tony Heller vs Gerald Kutney
https://youtu.be/Qmev8btSm68
I shut it off after the idiot Kutney started to talk. His opening criterion was the number of skeptic papers published compared to alarmist papers. I don’t want to waste my time listening to closed-minded idiots.
In his 1 minute opening statement he used the word science 10 times,
Hard to listen to that
bob d…”Gordon,
Wrong answer.
The correct answer is that electrons in the Bohr atom, or any other atom dont orbit the nucleus, because if they did, they would be accelerating, and as you know accelerating electrons emit electromagnetic radiation.
And electrons bound to nuclei dont”.
***
Bob, I’d sure like to know what medication you are taking. Why would an electron traveling at a constant velocity need to accelerate? And What force would be causing the acceleration?
And, no Bob, a change in the direction of a velocity vector representing a constant angular velocity is not an acceleration.
Where have you ever heard of an electron being bound to a nucleus? This confirms that the closest you have been to a nuclear lab is as a janitor.
Look up Bohr radius.
Gordon,
Velocity is a vector, so it includes direction, so an electron moving in a circular orbit at constant speed is still accelerating, in other words the velocity is changing, so no it’s not constant.
The force being the electrostatic attraction between positive and negative charges.
“Where have you ever heard of an electron being bound to a nucleus?”
During first year chemistry classes at university, which I actually passed, and completed all courses necessary to get a degree in Chemistry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy
Gord
Gordon Robertson
bobdroege is quite correct. Read up no the real science and not the made up version you hold in your head. You could learn some things if you tried.
Here:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Mechanics/09._The_Hydrogen_Atom/Atomic_Theory/Why_atoms_do_not_Collapse
norman refers me to an article on hypothetical/mathematical nonsense which has nothing to with Bohr’s original theory relating the electron in hydrogen to the proton it is allegedly orbiting. I claim it is nonsense because it uses nonsense to explain why the electron’s orbit dos not collapse into the proton nucleus.
Here’s the real reason Norman…***nobody knows why!!!!***. Feynman stated it succinctly when he claimed that quantum theory works but no one knows why. That is also why the idiots who claim quantum theory has replaced Newtonian theory don’t know their butts from a hole in the ground.
Quantum theory is a stab in the dark that tries to explain the motion of electrons around atomic nucleii. Quantum theorists claim their theory cannot be approached by Newtonian mechanics, therefore QM has replaced NM. Absolute horse bleep.
The only reason Newtonian mechanics cannot be applied is that we lack the instrumentation to measure at the atomic level. Guess what??? Neither do quantum theorists have the instruments and that leaves them free to create any kind of bs theories they can muster.
Here’s a quote from your link…
“However, an electron, unlike a planet or a satellite, is electrically charged, and it has been known since the mid-19th century that an electric charge that undergoes acceleration (changes velocity and direction) will emit electromagnetic radiation, losing energy in the process. A revolving electron would transform the atom into a miniature radio station, the energy output of which would be at the cost of the potential energy of the electron; according to classical mechanics, the electron would simply spiral into the nucleus and the atom would collapse”.
***
They are presenting knowledge from the mid-1800s when the electron was not discovered till the 1890s. They are comparing charges to a charged particle!!! The notion that a revolving electron would lose energy due to radiating it away in orbit is sheer nonsense.
Anyone with a basic understanding of electronics/electrical theory, knows that an electron moving through a conductor or through space creates a magnetic field around it. That same person knows that to radiate the EM field the electron has to reverse direct several thousand to million times per second.
In other words, a direct current does not produce the varying EM field associated with the EM produced by a radio station. The electron moving in an orbit would be equivalent to its motion in a direct current circuit.
Furthermore, as an electron moves through a conductor with its magnetic field, nothing is lost. It has the same magnetic field strength at the beginning of a conductor as it does at the end.
Another matter. No one knows the relationships between an electrons velocity and the charge it carries, which is regarded as a constant. The charge on an electron is rated at 1.6 X 10^-19 coulombs and I have never heard of that charge varying in quantity.
As an electron moves through a circuit, it is constantly radiating an electric and a magnetic field, yet it does not lose its charge. If it did, the current in a circuit would diminish along the length of conductor, yet current is a constant in any leg of a circuit despite any number of voltage drops.
When the crappo theory was created about electrons losing energy in an orbit, no one had any idea what he/she was talking about. Yet, the stupidity continues to this day. The explanation offered at your site is just as horrendous. They are using an obfuscated analogy based on potential and kinetic energy to explain something that has no explanation.
Gordon Reobertson
Quantum Physics is NOT a stab in the dark as you believe. It is established by many and varied experiments and observations. You need to read more real science and get off the blogs.
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/may-2011/synchrotron-radiation
Here again I will prove you are completely wrong and have never studied any real physics in your life. You pretend you do but your information comes from superficial blogs (like the crackpot Gary Novak who knows nothing of physics…his specialty was fungus and now he is a deluded crackpot).
I have not seen the slightest evidence from any of your posts you know any physics at all.
You are adept in the crackpot world of science but far, far away from the real thing.
Read through some of these. You get some points for some of your posts.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
I don’t think of you as a trolling idiot like I do Clint R. I think you have just jumped into the world of crackpot delusions and you are lost in a maze of confused and distorted ideas. You need guidance back to the real world of science that is based upon experiment, logic, rational thought, observation, predictability, etc.
You may have hope if you actually start reading the links I send your way. I can see great resistance to them in you but if you keep reading them they may guide you out of the crackpot reality.
Gordon,
“The only reason Newtonian mechanics cannot be applied is that we lack the instrumentation to measure at the atomic level.”
Try this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Bumbling Bobby,
Maybe you could try linking to something which does not totally destroy the delusional SkyDragon cult belief that the future states of the atmosphere can be predicted.
It might help if you understood what you link to, but you obviously don’t.
For example, you wrote earlier –
“Velocity is a vector, so it includes direction, so an electron moving in a circular orbit at constant speed is still accelerating, in other words the velocity is changing, so no its not constant.”
Even your favorite source of incorrect information, Wikipedia, states –
“Electrons do not orbit a nucleus [ . . . ], but instead exist as standing waves.”
But of course, you are going to say that you did not say that electrons orbit a nucleus, did you? Or did you? You can’t make up your mind whether electrons move “in a circular orbit” as you said, or not, can you?
Oh dear, bumbling Bobby, you can’t actually decide whether electrons travel in circular orbits or not, much less point out the errors and contradictions in the Wikipedia article about the uncertainty principle, can you?
What role does the uncertainty principle play in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? How did it suddenly change, and create planetary warming?
Yes, you’re right – I’m laughing at you! And why not?
Carry on.
Swenson,
Are you capable of following the whole discussion about electrons orbiting the nucleus or not?
It’s easier to cite wikipedia, rather than dragging out any quantum mechanics textbooks and citing them.
Do you understand that global average temperature is not a climate state, and as such it is still possible for the IPCC to predict that, even though prediction of the exact climate state is not possible.
You should be careful of what you post or else you expose just exactly how much you don’t know.
But hey, it’s a free world, or at least it is where I am, so carry on.
bob, please stop trolling.
Greta Thunberg received Honorary Doctorate from Finnish University
https://youtu.be/Hpm5dvJAuoM
You can’t fix the ‘stupid’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-egJZiawSo&t=1021s
Campus Liberty Tour debate on climate science, March 15, 2023
Linked from:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/22/koonin-wins-in-cornell-oxford-style-debate/
Koonin wins in Cornell Oxford Style Debate.
None of them mentioned using space resources and
Koonin wonders about change by 2100 AD -but
the date of debate is by 2050 AD
How much can things change before 2050 AD?
We could be mining lunar water by 2030 AD.
And we could be exploring Mars by 2040 AD
and could be mining Mars water before 2050 AD.
But let’s assume, no one mining water on Moon or
Mars by 2050 AD. We could have good idea of whether
this can or can not be done by the year 2050 AD.
And Earth launch cost could be less than $500 per kg to
Low Earth orbit. And with any large scale activity within
within couple decades be less than $100 per kg.
But going back mining water either on Mars or Moon, this could
cause more reduction in launch costs and could lead to SPS being
used on either or both Mars and Moon, which in turn will
lead to SPS for Earth. Or if find mineable water and mined
could be by 2050 AD, and if not, by 2100 AD.
Watch the introduction to get a sense of the participants in the polling. The votes from outside the auditorium were likely pre-selected from relatively conservative groups, such as the Steamboat Institute that sponsored the debate. Besides, Cornell is an engineering oriented college and we know engineers tend toward pro-development and anti-environment world views.
The fact is doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere results in 3Wm-2 of further reduction of direct thermal radiation to space.
The context is in light of the difference of 91 Wm-2 energy from the sun reaching earth apogee to perigee in the course of its orbit around the sun.
People of technical common sense would understand 3Wm-2 is too small to effect significant change to the climate. I would expect the engineering community to have a lot more technical common sense than high school dropouts like Greta and her adherents.
Radiation Transfer by William Happer
https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/
Noice.
About tie you bring some good old Climateball instead of your usual reactionary rants.
You always being the same, but it is a start.
Whiffling Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Noice.
About tie you bring some good old Climateball instead of your usual reactionary rants.
You always being the same, but it is a start.”
Apart from the spelling mistakes, poor grammar, and incomprehensibility, what are you attempting to troll about?
Have you managed to find any “climate models” which show four and a half billion years of cooling, followed by a couple of hundred years of warming?
No? Does that make Michael Mann look more stupid than Gavin Schmidt, or vice versa?
Dimwit – you can’t even manage to be a competent troll!
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Whiffling Wee Willy,
You wrote
Noice.
About tie you bring some good old Climateball instead of your usual reactionary rants.
You always being the same, but it is a start.
Apart from the spelling mistakes, poor grammar, and incomprehensibility, what are you attempting to troll about?
Have you managed to find any climate models which show four and a half billion years of cooling, followed by a couple of hundred years of warming?
No? Does that make Michael Mann look more stupid than Gavin Schmidt, or vice versa?
Dimwit you cant even manage to be a competent troll!
Good boy.
Again?
Whiffling Wee Willy,
You wrote
Noice.
About tie you bring some good old Climateball instead of your usual reactionary rants.
You always being the same, but it is a start.
Apart from the spelling mistakes, poor grammar, and incomprehensibility, what are you attempting to troll about?
Have you managed to find any climate models which show four and a half billion years of cooling, followed by a couple of hundred years of warming?
No? Does that make Michael Mann look more stupid than Gavin Schmidt, or vice versa?
Dimwit you cant even manage to be a competent troll!
More spam, Mike Flynn?
Repeat your comment again, just for me.
Swenson says:
Whiffling Wee Willy,
You wrote
Noice.
About tie you bring some good old Climateball instead of your usual reactionary rants.
——————————
Willard is just one of those guys that completely believes educators should be kings and that the peons should be more subservient. A real Dr. Fauci. . . .probably one of the world’s best examples of the Peter Principle.
Gill acts like a spoiled brat who thinks that because his parents paid for his tuition he is allowed not to carry his weight wherever he goes.
Just because your parents paid your tuition doesn’t mean they paid mine. In fact they didn’t.
Canucks don’t need refinancing to pay tuition fees, Gill.
I pity the fools who had to hire you as an auditor.
Willard says:
”I pity the fools who had to hire you as an auditor.”
Why?
Oh, Gill,
First, because you should have realized by now that I am not a Murican, and therefore would have needed less parental support.
Second, because you are being dishonest most of the times.
Third, because you *never* act like an auditor here.
Fourth, because I have to tell you all of this before you get it.
I don’t like the way Happer deals with the hoax, but I do like it.
I dont like that he goes along with the 3 W/m^2 nonsense, but I like that he reduces it to squat by pointing out Earths annual variation in solar. Of course 3 W/m^2 can not make a difference when 90 W/m^2 doesn’t make a difference.
Most of society is clueless about the physics involved, and would not be able to understand why the 3 W/m^2 is bogus. So Happer uses a viable method of dealing with the braindead — KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Clint R
You may be correct that most of society does not understand the physics. You are most certainly an idiot who can’t understand physics. For people who have real science backgrounds and understand physics (evidence based not your cult minded opinion based physics with zero supporting evidence) they can easily understand the 3 W/m^2 reduction of surface energy to space.
We all know your misleading false interpretation. I think you have repeated it dozens of times now. Your false claim that more radiators will act to cool the surface more is the only bogus BS around here and it stinks. Roy Spencer has already educated you that more CO2 will cool the Upper Atmosphere but it will warm the surface to a higher temperature than without.
I do not think any science based poster has had any luck with your education. Cult minded braindead idiots like you are not able to learn even when evidence is given directly to you. Instead only a childish comment from you “Another link you don’t understand” like this is supposed to mean something. It only shows your incredible deluded thought process.
When I first started commenting here, Norman tried to fake a knowledge of science. But, he’s been exposed and busted so many times that he went into extreme meltdown months ago. He no longer comments like he used to. He’s now a full-time troll, just insults, false accusations, misrepresentations, and making up crap.
A full-time troll is the end-state for all braindead cult idiots, as exemplified by several here.
Clint R
I am not sure who you are addressing. I think the majority of posters on this blog think you are an annoying idiot who has no real reason to post. You never have good points.
I have validated my points with good valid science. You have no science and nothing validated. Ever!
You claim the radiant heat transfer equation is bogus. As of yet you provided zero evidence to support this idiot claim.
Basically this perfectly describes you: “Hes now a full-time troll, just insults, false accusations, misrepresentations, and making up crap.”
That is what you do all the time. You make up stupid things and make idiot unsupported claims.
Did I point out that I will give you valid information except you always reject it with your idiotic “another link you don’t understand”
> When I first started commenting here
See for yourself:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/do-gcms-model-a-flat-earth/#comment-114648
Vintage 2014.
Willard
Thanks for the link. It seems Clint R could not logically follow points back then. Curt provides excellent thoughts that he cannot follow. This one cannot learn no matter what information he is given. Many have tried, none have succeeded in educating this poster.
Norman and Wee Willy Wanker,
Neither of you managed to produce a single fact to support your opinions, did you?
Which of you is the more useless, do you think?
Norman, youre avoiding reality.
You conveniently forget that you cant support the Folkerts Fraud nonsense.
You cant even make a comment without insults, false accusations, or misrepresentations.
Most welcome, Norman.
You might also like the sound of a young Mike Flynn braying:
> Nobody has figured out a way to stop this big blob of molten rock cooling, as it has been doing for the last four and a half billion years. Sitting in the close to absolute zero of outer space, with the Sun warming only one side from about 150 million kilometres away, its not surprising that raising the temperature of the Earth would be a magic trick of some standing.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/12/2014-a-record-warm-year-probably-not/#comment-173624
Again, vintage 2014.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You quoted Mike Flynn –
“Nobody has figured out a way to stop this big blob of molten rock cooling, as it has been doing for the last four and a half billion years. Sitting in the close to absolute zero of outer space, with the Sun warming only one side from about 150 million kilometres away, its not surprising that raising the temperature of the Earth would be a magic trick of some standing.”
I’m surprised you post facts which make a mockery of your SkyDragon cult beliefs
Are you completely deranged, or have to decided to accept reality as depicted by Mike Flynn?
Maybe you are not quite as retarded as people think you are.
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
Will you be here in 2034, asking for the same sammich over and over again?
Well, I think geothermal oceanic could closer to 1 Wm-2 and I think that is significant factor- but only if talking about thousands of years.
But I think global climate is talking about thousands of years.
The evidence seems to indicate a +800 year delay related to CO2 levels.
But I focus on the next 100 years as beyond this is more of philosophical question than anything to do with public policy.
But if want ride that road, does China have 100 years of coal?
Also, I would favor greening the Sahara desert, even though it could disrupt global weather and could add 1 C to global average temperature. Though costs of doing it- does it cost more than 1 trillion dollars is important factor compared other things one do with 1 trillion dollars.
The total costs of exploring the Moon and Mars, could be less than 1 trillion dollars.
In terms of NASA budget [and not getting into inflation factors] NASA spends about 20 billion dollar not doing crewed Moon and Mars exploration per year, with crew exploration one can add about 5 billion dollar per year for it [and we almost doing that now- as we are doing crew exploration of the Moon] and one might expect the per year number could lower over time.
But if include what world doing, it bump it up to 10 to 15 billion per year. I want to do it faster {it will be better and cheaper to it faster], so say done in 30 year. 15 times 30 = 450 billion dollars.
Or there some hope it could less than 1000 billion dollars.
But if cost 1 trillion dollar or more- it’s still worth it, if discover that there is no mineable water on Moon and Mars.
One could argue spending 40 billion on SLS was waste of money- it was
but I don’t think it’s worth canceling it now- 10 years ago, I was favor of cancelling it [mainly due to it being a waste of time].
But now it’s lesson is what not to do, and trying fix it, so it’s wasn’t just complete and total loss of money and time.
They is significant value in education.
swannie…”Cornell is an engineering oriented college and we know engineers tend toward pro-development and anti-environment world views”.
***
You mean, engineers care about people and helping them adapt to their environments. Alarmists, on the other hand, especially the extremists, would rather have humans disappear from the planet.
E. Swanson says:
”Besides, Cornell is an engineering oriented college and we know engineers tend toward pro-development and anti-environment world views.”
Being pro development isn’t a mutually exclusive choice Swanson. You can’t understand the conservative pro-environmental stance unless you read the Conservative Manifesto on the environment.
If you want to educate yourself on environmentalism you can’t be successful unless you understand the different positions and why they are different.
Hard Green by Peter Huber outlines the conservative view of the environment and why it is the only view that can be successful by any measure. You can pick up a used copy for about $6 on Amazon. You may be surprised about how good a read it is.
https://www.amazon.com/Hard-Green-Environment-Environmentalists-Conservative/dp/0465031137
Part of a balanced review:
“Hard Green also contains unsettling discrepancies. For example, Huber presents the hard/soft distinction as a clean differentiation between traditional conservation and modern environmentalism. But this creates difficulty in knowing how to address modern environmental problems such as air pollution. Modern air pollution problems are categorically distinct in character from those that were recognized before the mid-20th Century. How does the hard green philosophy deal with modern air pollution? Not very well, actually. While Huber asserts that hard greens are concerned about pollution, he notes that their concern runs only to the aesthetics of pollution. That is, the reason pollution is unacceptable is that it is ugly. It also follows, taking his premise out to its logical extension, that unseen substances must be harmless. Thus, a hard green would be concerned about a visible smoke nuisance but not the toxicological effects of smoke’s chemical constituents. Nor would a hard green be concerned about lead exhausted from leaded gasoline, toxic industrial emissions, or exposure to radiation, all of which have toxic properties that are not visible. All of these implications contradict what we have learned over the last fifty years.
To rescue the hard green concept from the observation that it is inapplicable to modern environmental problems, Huber admits that unseen substances might be harmful. But his rescue effort only digs itself deeper by arguing in addition that since one cannot know which substances are the harmful ones nothing should be done about them as a class and that their harm will be mitigated by dilution.
The only consistent thread running through this set of arguments is Huber’s denial that modern environmental problems should be addressed as such. Taken literally, Huber’s argument defines
them into nonexistence. Indeed, one gets the sense that since he doesn’t like the remedies for modern environmental problems he has to deny their existence so that the remedies won’t be
necessary. Defining away modern environmental problems makes it unnecessary to address the practical questions associated with them: how to determine the extent of such hazards? how to assign responsibilities? who shall be liable for breach of a responsibility? With modern environmental problems defined into non-existence, early 20th Century conservation approaches are all that is required.
And so, when one plays out Huber’s argument one finds it difficult to accept for two fundamental reasons: (1) that modern environmental problems are categorically different in nature from early 20th Century conservation, and (2) that in consequence T.R. couldn’t have meant “environmental policy” when he said “conservation” because the kind of problems that gave rise to environmental policy as we know the term now had not occurred yet. Thus, it is an anachronism for Huber to call T.R. an “environmentalist,” at least as we use the term now, and that mistake leads to unwarranted inferences.”
to start off Nate you seem to assume that a lack of well being would fall outside of the aesthetic window as if health was not an asthetic quality which clearly it is. Its not just the ”appearance” of things that provides aesthetic pleasure. Aesthetics is merely word that puts things in a ”human perspective” as opposed to a false ”save the world” perspective.
Saving the world is something we know very little about. Biodiversity is a great example. The benefits to mankind from biodiversity is huge. From medicines to chemicals it is more than any diamond mine.
Huber says from an ‘absolute’ perspective we have no clue was to what makes a perfect world. We measure everything from a human perspective. We know for example that environmentalism is far more of a concern to the well off and environmental degradation is very much attached to living standards. So the TR issue was a rejection of European Conservation because it unduly made the rich richer and the poor poorer by locking up huge tracts of land in Conservation easements passed on heirs and denied to the public at large.
And TR also argued forcefully that vast areas needed to be set aside while protecting ecosystems for the aesthetic pleasure, health, and robustness of all the people.
this was the story of his own life growing up as an overly protected child. ”TR described himself as a ‘sickly, delicate boy’ whose life was dominated by his struggle with asthma.” It wasn’t until he moved to his families ranch in the west that he grew into a robust man. That experience led him to his policies on conservation.
So your argument about the conservative view excluding health is completely without merit.
Indeed the ”wise use” of TR himself is soundly criticized by the preservationists. But that is just a ‘personal’ perspective regarding what allowable activities should be, excluding all but ones personal use. . . .ala European-style conservation shoved by fiat onto the larger population of the less fortunate.
Of course Nate calls anything that he agrees with a ”balanced” view and in complete dispute the citizens of fly-over territory that is essentially all that’s left of conservation.
Willard:
“For 4 suns, equal, and at equal spacing, we can make a table:
1 sun, 279K, 342 W/m^2
2 suns, 331K, 684 W/m^2
3 suns, 367K, 1026 W/m^2
4 suns, 394K, 1368 W/m^2
Note that the above is NOT what the issue is. All flux is being absorbed, none is being reflected.”
–
A planet by definition orbits one sun. A planet cannot orbit four suns, it is against the definition of orbiting.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Your baiting is duly noted.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Also flux cannot be averaged over the entire planet surface. It doesn’t happen that way in real world.
–
What solar flux does when hitting surface is to interact with matter.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What solar flux does when incident on Earth L&O surface is to be absorbed by matter, reflected by matter, or transmitted.
SW Incident flux = SW Reflected + IR emitted + transformed into heat and absorbed…
–
After a while, Absorbed = also IR emitted.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“All flux is being absorbed, none is being reflected.”
–
It is impossible! A planet should reflect something.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The person you have quoted is confusing a black hole with a black body.
A new thought occurred to me. Well not completely new, but it’s related to FAA.
SpaceX {Musk} plans are for many launches per day.
Musk has said [and should know] that to do this, he needs oceanic launches of rockets.
The FAA should be huge fans of oceanic launches {my new thought].
And are they?
And am I, correct?
Well it depends on how exactly are ocean launches are done.
And maybe, FAA should study this.
Now I think ocean settlements need cheap floating breakwater.
And why I say settlement on Mars will cause Earth to have oceanic
settlements.
I think launching from ocean every day with rockets, needs cheap floating breakwater.
But one could say, one could launch rockets from the ocean, by using
the general idea of a Sea Dragon rocket.
Which is building rocket in dry dock, dragging out to the ocean, and it’s has what one call a zero stage, which allows the rocket to float
vertically in the ocean, and then take off.
Which is quite similar to my idea, which I call a pipelauncher, but with pipelauncher the blast off of rocket occurs, say 50 meters above the ocean surface, and sea dragon starts it’s blast off, a bit under
the waterline.
And I think my pipelauncher is more environmentally better- but not
what it was designed for.
The pipelauncher was simply to launch any rocket from the Ocean- cheaper than using an oil platform and to lower a rocket’s gravity loss.
What other things lower gravity losses. You have rail going up a mountain, have some kind of rocket sled on which rocket is mounted,
accelerate sled, and when fairly fast and at top mountain, have rocket blast off.
One of problems is logistics involved launching rocket from some remote region [and one would tend to want near equator, probably].
Whereas some kind of oceanic environment is better, for logistical
stuff. We move lots of stuff and big stuff with ocean ports- and
that is part of thinking to do having Sea dragon made in dry docks,
but shipping stuff to some middle of ocean, isn’t expensive in terms of thousands of tons of rocket fuel.
Anyhow, the rail and sled thing is something you could call a mass driver, and idea about using things Mag Lev mass driver- which no one
made, unless count Mag Lev trains. As compared rocket sleds or rail guns which are mass drivers used to rapidly accelerate stuff.
A pipelauncher in theory can accelerate something fast and would easier if could accelerate rocket at 2 or 3 gee, but initial would be to test at around 1 gee- mainly pipelauncher would designed for existing rockets, rather making a rocket for the pipelauncher.
And main idea is it’s cheap launch pad, but it does move, adds about 100 mph to the rocket take off speed.
And you might able to add 300 mph, it’s not generally a starting goal. And trying to mach speed, is problematic.
Another thing it’s comparable to is launching from a mothership- as Virgin Galactic is doing with it’s suborbital.
Anyways, main thing is FAA should not thinking that the future of
rocket launches, is likely is going to be restricted to land launches.
It makes way more sense to build a settlement on Ceres than it does Mars or Moon. Mars and Moon are gravity holes on bodies where there is no economic value. Ceres is located in mineral rich belt where it could be used as a central base for mineral exploration and exploitation.
There is not likely ever to be a settlement on Mars unless something really uniquely useful is discovered.
What is a gravity hole?
Earth.
Gravity holes are useful.
Unfortuately, Sol doesn’t have good enough gravity hole to
be very helpful for star travel.
I tend to think it’s reason, they aren’t here.
Also, there seems to a shortage of them- for some reason.
Gravity hole is any planet that costs more in terms of energy to escape gravity than any possible income that can be earned by landing there.
I wrote something long and didn’t post.
I will briefly this doesn’t apply to the Moon [at all] and with
Mars the loss is small.
Or space is big, space is where you travel much faster than living
on Earth. Or the orbital speed is kept.
“There is not likely ever to be a settlement on Mars unless something really uniquely useful is discovered.”
Depends what you call useful, in terms of rich minerals, sizable amount of stuff we mine on Earth, came from impactors, and Mars or Moon has been impacted.
But most useful and valuable thing for Humans is water, if course Ceres, could have far more water than Mars. But Ceres would be hard to explore- unless you mean by robots. We spent decades robotically exploring Mars, and mostly got pretty pictures. Or in terms of amount exploration you get per decade and billion dollars spent, robotic exploration takes a lot of time and a lot money compared to crewed exploration. Particularly if use both crew and robotic assets.
I am no big fan of exploring Moon and Mars, but I am fan of getting it done- then exploring something else.
I had zero interest regarding the Moon, until they discovered there could be mineable water.
A common question is should we get rid of NASA, so we might get some space exploration done. I don’t expect much exploration done by NASA, but exploring the Moon to find mineable water is not hard to do.
The idea of having a government mine anything is pretty crazy, but US govt [unlike any other govt] has done some exploration of the US- they did this quite early in US history- and it was quite helpful. It seems to me it was major element in US becoming a successful country. You could give a dozen reasons, but it would be one of them.
Anyways most of space activity by countries is military related- and US military despite not being require to explore space, did discover water on the Moon. But space activity is mostly the commercial satellite market. NASA almost a parasite to commercial satellite
market- or I think NASA wouldn’t even exist without the commercial space market- not also why can’t rid of NASA. Satellite market is too important, not to have some kind of space agency.
Anyways NASA is suppose to explore the Moon {and then NASA can do what has claiming it wanted to do, for decades, explore Mars.
And you got, Musk making rocket, designed to sent crew to Mars- this is because of Mars space cadets- both inside and outside of NASA.
So, going to Moon is about practicing going to Mars AND every other country in the world wants to explore the Moon, mainly Japan, but India, and Europe and others. It probably mostly glamor thingy for pols- proving they doing something useful.
So, I think NASA should just hurry up. Else it will be overtaken.
One of religions of NASA is lowering launch costs- and they have never done. European were somewhat successful, but they were focused
on the commercial satellite business- something kind of forbidden for NASA to do. NASA suppose to explore space, though also suppose to help the airline business, also [in terms research type things].
Because Mars is a gravity hole, it wouldn’t be worth going there if the entire planet were solid gold. Mars is not ever going to amount to anything of monetary worth.
We need to go to habitable planets (similar or better than earth) that can be successfully colonized. Mars isn’t going to be habitable without a God driven Genesis.
I would prefer Venus of solid gold, it would be a starport, rather than just a good hub of our solar system. Mars would not seems very useful if it was solid gold- it would much harder land on or leave, but it could be good place/orbit to bring space rocks, but not better the our Venus orbit is, to bring space rocks.
You generally don’t want to go to planets which are harder to leave than Earth is, but Earth is good place to land on- very cheap to land on Earth, quite expensive to leave Earth- if was significantly worst
to leave Earth, then we might be able to leave Earth cheap enough.
As they say getting to Earth orbit, is half way to anywhere.
If first half was 25% more, it would be rather hard to do- and wouldn’t likely have satellite market.
Unless you willing to use Nuclear Orions. With Nuclear Orion you could “land on” and leave from Jupiter.
“Mars is not ever going to amount to anything of monetary worth.”
It could have land worth as high as $500 per acre or 247 acre per
square km and 144 million square km = 17784000 million or 177 trillion dollars. But say couple trillion dollar in terms of real estate value after 3 decades after first settlement. And after 3 decades mined 50 billion tons of water worth average $100 per ton [started at $1000 per ton but before reach 1 billion tons it’s lowered significantly so averages $100 per ton. And in coming decades will be about $10 per ton. So 5 trillion dollars of water mined. And less than 1/2 is exported, 2 trillion dollar of export value.
And we assume Mars has debt. Just like US when it settled was highly in debt [though US has far more debt, currently].
One might ask after 3 decades settlement, how much tourism Mars has,
it could less than France does, but that is not insignificant- or it significant part of France’s economy.
It seems caves on Mars could be quite important, in terms of it’s economy- but let’s just say Mars has no caves which are vaguely interesting.
It has to grow food. Mars without growing food- is nothing, it is not habitable. In terms of exporting food, and if not exploring sizable
amount of it’s close to nothing.
And it seems at point, we getting into why Venus orbit is important to Mars. Mars will export water to Venus, in order to more easily travel to Earth, and travel from Earth to Mars. And so one could have
some people living in Venus orbit, who would buy Earth food and Mars food
It’s possible Mars gravity is too low.
But roughly you can say a problem with microgravity
is human body adapts to microgravity, and has problems
adapting to Earth gravity after returning to Earth.
So, one say, going to Mars, you experience microgravity,
adapt to that, and then on Mars, it adapts to Mars
gravity and problem could going back to microgravity
and finally adapting to back to Earth’s gravity.
But another issue is does artificial gravity work, and
how well does Mars artificial gravity work.
And Mars artificial gravity is easier to do than Earth
artificial gravity.
So you could travel to Mars with Mars artificial, and have
little difference between this and natural Mars gravity, then
leave Mars, again using Mars artificial gravity, and land on
Earth with less adaption needed to Earth gravity. Or less than
6 month or 1 year in microgravity- 6 months is common, 1 year
has been done.
But to have less adaption to Earth gravity, one need to use
more the 1 gee of artificial gravity or even more than 1 gee
of artificial gravity doesn’t make significant difference and/or
artificial gravity just doesn’t work- you adapt to artificial
gravity and it’s different in important ways to natural gravity.
And also there different 1 gee artificial gravity- 50 meter radius
vs 1000 meter radius.
And these unknowns, could make it questionable whether we even send crew to Mars to explore Mars. But doesn’t effect crewed exploration of the Moon- unless long stays on the Moon are deemed needed {but they aren’t].
I tend to think Mars artificial is better than microgravity but there
is a better or best radius of this and be nice to know which shortest
radius which will work.
Of course Mars gravity is not magical, one could also determine whether lessor gravity like the Moon and Ceres would work.
So least amount artificial gravity and least radius works.
And if only works with large radius and more than 1 gee, Venus orbit
is expensive.
But if gravity is not expensive, and it’s possible lower gravity
is better for people, maybe particularly better for older people- or
maybe even better for younger people. And maybe better just in terms of superficial reasons of appearance rather than longer lifetimes/health reasons.
Global warming and environmentalism is a Trojan horse for communist take over of the economy
Jacob Nordangrd: UN/WEF openly planning to use the CO2 scam to control us
https://youtu.be/jtiy-P-pfGA
All gullible people will like it.
Alice through the Looking Glass’ mechanics: the rejection of (climate) science
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/alice-through-looking-glass-mechanics-rejection-of-climate-science/
It doesn’t matter how many propaganda papers are written to complain that there is a climate crisis. Its the salient data that matters.
There is still no salient data showing that GHG emissions from human activity are significantly changing earth’s climate.
See the top of this website for details.
Oh, Kennui.
Nothing matters much to you, except perhaps kids on your lawn.
KIDS, GET OFF KENNUI’S LAWN!!!1!
Willard, please stop being an idiot troll.
These are not the magic words, Mike:
> What psychological factors drive the popularity of conspiracy theories, which explain important events as secret plots by powerful and malevolent groups? What are the psychological consequences of adopting these theories? We review the current research and find that it answers the first of these questions more thoroughly than the second. Belief in conspiracy theories appears to be driven by motives that can be characterized as epistemic (understanding ones environment), existential (being safe and in control of ones environment), and social (maintaining a positive image of the self and the social group).However, little research has investigated the consequences of conspiracy belief, and to date, this research does not indicate that conspiracy belief fulfills peoples motivations. Instead, for many people, conspiracy belief may be more appealing than satisfying. Further research is needed to determine for whom, and under what conditions, conspiracy theories may satisfy key psychological motives.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963721417718261
Willard quotes:
”Belief in conspiracy theories appears to be driven by motives that can be characterized as epistemic (understanding ones environment), existential (being safe and in control of ones environment), and social (maintaining a positive image of the self and the social group).”
Which one of those does not apply to a segment of the public who is employed to identify the first, has the basic animal intuition that creates fear of the unknown in the second, and the extension of those fears into the third where perceptions about impotence, and limitations on opportunity for advancement both for themselves and the group as a whole by the displeasure of single fund Empire could be realized by a failure to communicate the desired result?
Gill JAQs off once more.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Descending into psychobabble because you can’t figure out how the world cooled over four and a half billion years?
Tut, tut, Wee Willy – next thing you’ll be accusing people of JAQing off!
Will you be trying to be annoying, or just demonstrating your level of maturity?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Too lazy or incompetent to research about the entropy of the universe?
Keep braying.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You idiot. Are you going to explain the “greenhouse effect” as being due to the “entropy of the universe.”?
You haven’t got a clue, have you?
Your deranged SkyDragon cult is based on belief and gullibility. You fools believe that you can convince people that fantasy is superior to fact.
You’re not the brightest bulb in the box, are you? Who’s smarter – you, or the faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat Michael Mann?
Off you go now, think about it. If you can, of course.
Mike Flynn,
You said earlier –
“You quoted Mike Flynn”
Why do you keep denying that you’re Mike Flynn?
Whacky Wee Willy,
Forced to resort to JAQing off, are you?
Oh dear, you might believe that juvenile masturbatory references are the mark of supreme intelligence, but others might think you are trying to avoid the reality that your “greenhouse effect” has cooled the world for four and a half billion years, while simultaneously making it hotter!
That’s too ridiculous, even for you, isn’t it?
Hence all your silly diversions, lame attempts at trolling, trying to be annoying – and all the rest of the Idiot SkyDragon cult stupidity.
You might as well carry on, and provide others with a bit of no doubt unintended comic relief.
dullard…”Too lazy or incompetent to research about the entropy of the universe?”
***
Here’s the equation for entropy…S = integral dq/T
Let’s see you derive the entropy of the universe from it.
C’mon, Bordo.
Here’s a quote:
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.5038
If entropy was all important, how do you explain that it’s warmer now than some times before?
Willard says:
”Gill JAQs off once more.”
Hmmm, what would make Willard think of that? Sounds like a Freudian Projection.
Who asked the silly question like a third rate Colombo?
That would be you, dearest Gill.
Columbo didn’t ask questions Willard. He talked about what confused him and then listened carefully to the answers he got.
Thats what auditors do. Questions tend to arise when you ask for more elaboration when the first hand description seems a little unclear.
Gill, Gill,
Check this out:
http://changingminds.org/techniques/questioning/columbo_technique.htm
Oh, one last thing – are you sure you ever watched Columbo?
Apparently Columbo was a bit over your head.
> Columbo is a shrewd and intelligent blue-collar homicide detective whose trademarks include his rumpled beige raincoat, unassuming demeanor, cigar, old Peugeot 403 car, love of chili con carne, and unseen wife (whom he mentions frequently). He often leaves a room only to return with the catchphrase “Just one more thing” to ask a critical question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbo
Are you sure you do not want to revise your stance, Gill?
Everybody asks questions Willard.
The difference is subtle.
Columbo’s approach was to look like a fool and identify who the narcissistic manipulator is. Of course once identified then he would ask the manipulator to solve the crime from him, which inevitably resulted in the criminal filling in all the answers to questions never asked. Sure surrounding all this was Columbo asking a few non-threatening questions that everybody expects from any investigator. So he did ask the questions anybody would expect.
When I said Columbo did not solve crimes by asking questions I didn’t mean he never asked any questions.
His approach was to enlist help in solving the crime and he played the ignorant bumbler disorganized detective role to a hilt to find the manipulator who figures Columbo could be easily sent down the wrong path. Its the killer who has the interest in deception. So by the end the killer had convicted himself usually from some benign fact the question for which would have never been asked.
Gill, Gill,
Here’s what you said:
[GILL] Columbo didnt ask questions
Now you’re into:
[ALSO GILL] Everybody asks questions
So once again, would you care to revise the claim you made that is obviously wrong?
Stop being so dense Willard. Columbo primarily solved crimes by inducing the killer, who he always quickly identified (not by answers to questions but by their eagerness to mislead Columbo), to solve the crime for him. In the process of that the killer would reveal a lie to a question that hadn’t yet been asked. In the end Columbo would reveal what how the killer had tripped up and it was nearly always because the killer couldn’t shut his mouth and give more answers than Columbo had asked him/her to give.
There is really no need to try to mansplain Columbo to me when you cannot even accept that you denied that he indeed asked questions, Gill.
Also, you forget the main ingredient in his technique – he tells prime suspects directly that he believes they are. In fact viewers witness the crime right from the start. So the show is about a Socratic dialog between a detective and a guilty party over reconstructing a series of events.
Willard says:
March 28, 2023 at 6:09 AM
There is really no need to try to mansplain Columbo to me when you cannot even accept that you denied that he indeed asked questions, Gill.
Fine Willard you got me on grammar. You were accusing me being a 3rd rate Columbo for asking ”Hmmm, what would make Willard think of that?” when you were engaged in your 7th grade rated ad hominem attack.
Indeed if you think like a 7th grader who can’t get any pussy you must be a 7th grader that can’t get any pussy. That was Freud’s hypothesis.
”Projection is involved in the process of othering, where the other comes to represent the opposite of the self, often that which is disavowed in the self.”
https://tinyurl.com/yyhz7fbf
Gill, Gill,
You were the one JAQing off.
Like the third rate Columbo that you are.
And Columbo indeed asked questions.
Your No U is plain silly.
Please.
Lots of people jack off Willard. Why are you ashamed of it?
Gill, Gill,
JAQ stands for Just Asking Questions.
Please.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”Some have pointed out the far right received only 2% of the vote in Ukraines 2019 parliamentary elections…”
***
The point is Wee Willy, that 2% are armed and causing all sorts of problems in the Ukraine. In 2014, the protest was peaceful till that 2% got involved with their arms. Then the protest turned violent and a democratically-elected president was ousted in a coup.
It doesn’t matter what goes on in the Ukrainian parliament re democracy if armed thugs are allowed to roam the country abusing and offing anyone who protests against them.
Russia doesn’t pretend to be a democracy. I am not defending Russia or Putin, I am simply protesting the whitewashing of the Ukrainian conflict by the western media. To me, it’s no different than protesting against climate alarm or anything else that is undemocratic, like forcing untested vaccines on people. Unfortunately, people are dying in the Ukraine while an ego-maniac runs around manipulating the rest of us to fight on his behalf.
Actually, at the moment, Putin is far less at fault re democratic infringements than Zelensky, the leader of the Ukraine. He is getting away with murder and his crimes are being completely ignored in the West.
Cool story, Bordo.
Here are some more facts for you to gloss over:
https://javafilms.fr/film/russias-neo-nazi-network/
We have mobs stealing from stores- what they call themselves is not
politically relevant, unless want to get into weeds, and note that most politicians are criminals and such things as Mobs buying politicians is not some fantasy.
Locally we the Mexican Cartel- which controls the Mexican govt and reaches into US and lots of other countries.
Any corrupt country will have Mob families.
With US or any country, you have totalitarian State [one group of criminals] or you fight crime.
A reasonable response to “defund the police” is to buy guns. One could say the dems have been greatest promoters of buying guns.
As is noted Biden family stealing is small potatoes.
But to get back issue, what does it matter what these criminals call their gang.
We should end the war on Drugs. Wars don’t work. And I will note the US has been losing all it’s wars.
I’d say the US of A rolls around 50-50, gb, but they won the two most important ones, and should be on the side that will win this one.
Vladimir has always been connected to ZZs:
https://youtu.be/XQc6mJ7u8gQ
The most responsible response to “defund the police” is to invest in vocational education.
Wars might be necessary, but not at all costs.
Weaken Russia or China is a bad idea.
I do support helping a nation attacked by aggressor,
but I believe things can worked out so Russia wins and
Ukraine wins, but maybe Ukraine wins the most.
Ending war as quickly as possible makes Ukraine wins the
most.
The video at your link is utter propaganda. It’s what I call the talking head syndrome, where a propagandist sits in front of a camera as if he is speaking to an audience yet there is no one there but him and the film team.
I am not claiming what he says is not true, I am claiming only that he offers no proof other than video clips that could have been taken anywhere.
Before I go on, I need to re-iterate that I am not promoting the Russian invasion, or defending it. I am protesting the stupidity we are exhibiting in the West that could lead to a nuclear war. Whereas you are claiming it’s OK for the Ukraine to have Nazis because Russia has them, I am far more worried about being blown to smithereens by nuclear bombs.
Besides, all that, I am sick and tired of the blatant lies we are being told in the West by our governments and media, not just about Ukraine, but covid, climate, and a new world order that is being derived through clandestine meetings of the rich and famous. These clowns, like the Club of Rome, think democracy doesn’t work and that we need dictators to sort us out.
The talking head in the video dismissed the Azov connection to neo-Nazis as propaganda yet he wants us to believe his reference to Russian neo-Nazis is not propaganda. The Azov battalion had fighters in the group who wore Nazi insignia on their helmets and uniform and their flag insignia was a rip off of Nazi insignia.
Nowhere in the video do you see proof of neo-Nazism other than what the talking head claims to be neo-Nazism. Some skin-heads promote be neo-Nazism, but a skin-head per se is not a neo-Nazis, they are just idiots. That’s all the talking head had, were references to skin-heads.
The neo-Nazi connection in the Ukraine dates back to 1929 when the UON (Ukrainian nationalists) was formed. The Ukraine was part of the USSR. There were no Nazis in Russia between 1929 and 1990 when the USSR broke up and Nazis were roundly hated for the evil they imposed on the Russian people. In fact, the neo-Nazis in the UON were hunted by Russian forces. It was largely due to the Ukrainian fascists that the slaughter began in the Ukraine in 1933 by Stalin, who starved Ukrainians as reprisals for the fascist actions.
That does not excuse Stalin, he was a brutal idiot. Neither does it excuse the UON, who knowingly committed sabotage knowing that ordinary Ukrainians would pay for it. But what was the sabotage about? It was to promote a fascist mentality based on White Supremacy, the same mentality of UON sympathizers in the Ukraine today.
You are defending scumbags who openly claim Allied forces in WW II were ‘scum’ fighting on behalf of Jews.
ps. compare your video to the video produced by Oliver Stone, Ukraine on Fire, and what stands out is the information offered by Stone, which can very easily be corroborated. Nothing can be verified in your video.
Cool story, Bordo.
Gloss over this too:
https://www.cidob.org/en/publications/publication_series/notes_internacionals/n1_128_russia_for_russians/russia_for_russians_ultranationalism_and_xenophobia_in_russia_from_marginality_to_state_promoted_philosophy
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Id say the US of A rolls around 50-50, gb, but they won the two most important ones, and should be on the side that will win this one.”
Surely you jest.
Maybe you could provide a list of US “rolls” (whatever that is), and explain why you think the US “won” the “two most important” ones. I might suggest that you take into account that the past does not predict the future, and that fairly recent history shows that the US is demonstrating just how impotent it can be in real terms.
War doesn’t seem to benefit anyone in particular, although views might differ. For example, the US dropped atomic bombs (weapons of mass destruction) on two largely undefended civilian cities in WW2, killing around 330,000 civilians, having chosen cities with predominantly timber housing, to maximise the destruction by subsequent fire. The justification given by the President at the time was that this would save between a quarter of a million and a million US military deaths, as the Japanese were likely to object to a US invasion.
Would a US adversary be justified in dropping nuclear bombs on say, Washington and Los Angeles, to avoid the consequences of having to fight on US soil?
Times change. Patriotism is one thing, mindless xenophobia quite another – in my opinion, which is worth what you just paid for it.
Mike Flynn,
May you one day distinguish between writing and quoting.
The piece continues:
Deltiologist.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Guess is +0.15C for March UAH Global.
Could be a little higher, if Hunga-Tonga effect is still in the mix. If not, lingering La Ni&nilde;a effect may pull it lower.
+0.15 is the average of all guesses.
Looks like +0.33 to me.
+0.25
norman…”You [Clint] claim the radiant heat transfer equation is bogus”.
***
We have explained why it is bogus and you have yet to explain why it is not. The equation to which you refer is an incorrect application of S-B and I explained why it is incorrect. You have yet to respond to my post on that.
S-B is based on a one-way transfer of heat from a surface to a cooler environment. The focus of S-B is the amount of radiation intensity given off by a surface of temperature, T, in the range of approximately 500C to 1500C. Your bogus radiant heat transfer equation is an abomination based on the incorrect assumption that S-B can be applied in both directions to measure the heat transferred between bodies of different temperatures.
S-B was never designed to do that, it is only an indication of radiation intensity from a surface at temperature T. It has nothing whatsoever to do with heat transfer and your equation, as written, contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which restricts heat transfer, by its own means, from hot to cold.
Gordon,
Here’s a definition which might suffice –
“the amount of radiation emitted per unit time from an area A of a black body at absolute temperature T is directly proportional to the fourth power of the temperature.”
There are some idiots who believe that matter interacts with photons only by absorbing their energy. They just just refuse to accept that transparency and reflectivity, for example, actually exist.
Even for visible light (a miniscule fragment of possible frequencies), seeing a green leaf through a glass window shows reflection – “green” wavelengths from the Sun reflected from the leaf (not being absorbed), and transparency – the “green” light travelling through solid glass without noticeable attenuation – not being absorbed or reflected.
RW Wood (physicist and “greenhouse effect” denier), invented a glass which is transparent to both UV and IR, but absorbs and reflects visible light – being opaque to those wavelengths.
Delusional SkyDragon cultists live in a strange fantasy world.
Gordon Robertson
I will continue to see if you can get out of the “Crackpot Physics Maze” your mind is lost in.
Here read this with an open mind (if possible for you).
https://engineeringlibrary.org/reference/radiant-heat-transfer-doe-handbook
Engineers use the equation you call bogus. This article clearly addresses your issue and your misunderstanding of 2nd Law.
I have done experiments to validate this equation. You have yet to do it. As it stands you offer an incorrect opinion on how you believe science works (more like a religious dogma than science).
The experiment is to use an IR thermometer. Have two walls facing each other one is heated the other room temperature. Get a normal thermometer to compare what the IR thermometer reads and the two walls. Turn the IR thermometer to one wall. It receives IR energy from the wall and uses this to get a temperature. Verify if this is a valid temperature by using standard thermometer to compare. Turn the IR thermometer to the opposite wall (only IR from this wall will enter the IR thermometer). You will find (logically) that IR energy is moving from both walls to the other. There is a two-way transfer of IR energy from wall to wall.
The temperature of the colder wall will change the rate of heat loss from the hotter wall. Roy Spencer showed this. It is established science based upon many experiments and observations. It is not only used in science it also is used in engineering applications. This would suggest strongly that your opinion is based upon incorrect thinking and it is up to you to correct it.
Again, Clint R is not able to alter his poor thinking ability, he can’t think or reason or do any actual testing (like setting up tow heat lamps to demonstrate fluxes adding…he is too damn stupid to do this simple of a test but he has opinions an horrible science all day long….don’t be as dumb as him…THINK!)
Your opinions are that, opinions. They are based upon nothing but your beliefs. I give you a real test of your opinions. I have already done it, now you need to do it as well. Be less of an opinion and more of a factual based thinker.
Anyway you are wrong but only time will tell if your EGO can handle this or if you will ignore all evidence and come back on the next thread ignoring evidence and never doing any actual experiments yourself.
norman…I just sent the people at your link an email to straighten them out.
“Your article on a 2-way transfer of heat via radiation is wrong. It contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that heat can only be transferred, by its own means, from a hotter object to a colder object. What you have done is apply the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in both directions but the S-B equation is not about heat transfer, only radiation intensity of a surface at a temperature T.
There is no time factor in the S-B equation, therefore the use of Q dot (dq/dt) is wrong. What you need is Newton’s Law of Cooling for Q dot.
It also contradicts basic quantum theory as laid out by Bohr in 1913. Electrons in atoms are the only particles that can transmit or absorb radiative energy, which is electromagnetic energy that cannot carry heat. In fact, when a body radiates EM it loses heat at the same rate it emits the EM. Therefore the process you describe is not possible, a two way transfer of heat via radiation.
Besides, there is no possible way to measure a two-way transfer, even if it existed. The notion that heat can be transferred two ways using EM is an anachronism dating back to the 19th century, when scientists believed heat was transmitted through space via heat rays. Bohr proved that idea wrong in 1913”.
I love it when Gordo displays his ignorance for all to see, yet again:
From Norman’s reference:
Come on Gordo, get a grip. What do you think “Btu/hr” means?
We know that Gordo isn’t an engineer, else he might understand radiation heat transfer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_Active_Thermal_Control_System
The question that doesn’t get answered by the spinners here is why is M&W theory needed to explain the greenhouse effect when they keep telling us its not necessary.
SEE my reply below, which was accidentally not posted here.
ask Nate
Hunter troll, You were the one mentioning a “M&W theory” this month, not Nate, AIUI. A link to something from Nate might help. If you can’t explain said theory, you should be able to at least describe the details.
Perhaps you just wandering freely thru the scattered remains of your brain as you type, trolling for replies like grammie pups.
No need to “ask Nate”. You appear to be the only one who mentioned “M&W theory”, etc. If you can’t describe your M&W theory, you are just trolling for another round of pointless anti-science spam, as usual.
Nate originally brought it up quite sometime ago. Any even casual observer who has been paying attention has noted the failure of the greenhouse theory being able to be demonstrated at the surface. One has to be in diapers being fed information through a tube to not observe the results of these experiments at the earth’s surface.
Enter M&W which provides the theoretical foundation of the computer models where supposedly clouds and moisture are manipulated to provide a greenhouse effect. One can see the structure of these models in the papers of Manabe. Nate pointed to a so-called seminal paper by Manabe and Wetherald. Manabe was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics on the basis of his work being realized by ‘observations’. Which actually is laughable, though Manabe no doubt was very pleased to get his portion of the million dollar annual award divvied up among 3 awardees.
So if you want details on why this is convincing to Nate you should ask him.
I have no clue about Nate’s comments, since you offered no reference. For example, there was Manabe and Wetherald (1975) paper, which was an early attempt to predict the effects of doubled CO2. As you might glean from reading the paper, the model was rather simple:
Hunter may be referring to later work from M&W, but the 1975 paper is instructive. He should read the whole thing to perhaps learn just how crude the modeling was at the time. Other researchers had also attacked the problem with varying projections of temperature increase. By 1980, the models had improved, but there was much to be done, such as modeling which included the circulation of both the atmosphere and the oceans.
There were other researchers involved, such as William Kellogg at NCAR who wrote two books during the 1980’s (see the list of references) and Stephen Schneider at Stanford. Hunter has no clue about the vast amount of work done over many decades in an effort to understand the Earth’s atmosphere and to estimate the impacts of mankind’s impacts on our life support systems. Instead, Hunter insists on demonstrating his ignorance of science, for all to see.
E. Swanson says:
”I have no clue about Nates comments, since you offered no reference.”
I certainly can’t explain Nate’s logic as well as Nate can. As I said ask Nate.
Bill never quotes me but twists what I say into something I didnt say.
Standard Bill trolling technique.
You are here Nate. Explain it to Swanson. I haven’t twisted anything you have said even if you think so. But if you explain it to Swanson then you can be sure of it.
And while you are at it explain why its needed to explain the greenhouse effect. If we believed Swanson’s theory which has never been demonstrated to cause an equilibrium to be exceeded what would the need of M&W be?
Gordon Robertson
With luck they might be able to educate you in correct science.
You are wrong when you claim “Electrons in atoms are the only particles that can transmit or absorb radiative energy”
The molecule itself will absorb and emit IR. There is a whole branch of analytical Chemistry based upon molecules ability to absorb and emit IR energy.
https://tinyurl.com/2p85ht4y
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “Besides, there is no possible way to measure a two-way transfer, even if it existed.”
Yes there is, I described the process in my post above. Use an IR thermometer and it will show you EMR leaving a hot object heading toward a colder one (turn the IR thermometer to the hot object). Now turn it and have it face the colder object. It will then measure the IR from the cold object heading to the hotter one.
A hot object receiving energy from a colder object DOES NOT violate the 2nd Law. If the hot object got hotter and the cold object colder than you would violate the Law.
A lot of the thought process you and idiot Clint R get confused by is the difference between an object that is heated (receiving energy continuously) and just a hot object with no extra energy added. The two systems are not the same.
Sorry, Hunter troll, I don’t understand your comment RE: “M&W theory”. Perhaps you could explain “M&W theory” to us so that we might appreciate your insightful comments.
swenson…”Heres a definition [of S-B] which might suffice
the amount of radiation emitted per unit time from an area A of a black body at absolute temperature T is directly proportional to the fourth power of the temperature.
***
It suffices and more….thanks. Repeated here for dimwits who don’t get it. Says nothing about radiation or heat transfers, just relates the temperature of a surface to the radiation intensity it emits.
swenson…”the amount of radiation emitted per unit time…”
***
Just noticed while checking out Norman’s site that they are using a time factor in S-B when there is none. They write it as Q dot, which means dq/dt, a differential quantity. In that case, S-B would have to be written as a differential equation that requires integration to get an answer.
It’s not, the equation is in the integrated form already, therefore Q dot cannot be used. S-B is a simple statement of the T^4 relationship between surface radiation and the surface temperature.
No time factor? None? Gordon, a usually completely wrong rookie, isn’t even aware S-B law is per unit time and is also unaware of the units on sigma the S-B constant as E. Swanson pointed out.
EMR is not heat, Gordon, EMR transfers thermal energy both ways.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
from wee woolly willy …”Over the last 50 years, climate scientists have built an increasingly clear picture of how the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that arise from human economic activity are changing the Earths climate. Current atmospheric CO2 levels are higher than at any time since at least a million years ago, and there is no notable scientific dissent from the consensus position that global warming is happening, is human caused, and presents a global problem”.
***
There you have it folks, no proof for the GHE, it’s only consensus.
C’mon, Bordo.
What logic is this?
Also, “But Consensus” is silly –
https://climateball.net/but-consensus/
Wee Willy Wanker,
Facts pay no mind to logic or consensus.
You can play with your balls (climate or otherwise), until they drop off, but you can’t change a single physical law, can you?
What logic and consensus is needed to explain the fact that you can’t even describe the GHE, let alone explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of terrestrial cooling?
Try and slime your way out of that – if you can.
Carry on, fool.
Mike Flynn,
Facts pay no mind to sock puppets who keep repeating the same crap for ten years on an obscure website.
Thinking goes beyond observing facts.
Chirotonsor.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Facts pay no mind to logic or consensus.
You can play with your balls (climate or otherwise), until they drop off, but you cant change a single physical law, can you?
What logic and consensus is needed to explain the fact that you cant even describe the GHE, let alone explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of terrestrial cooling?
Try and slime your way out of that if you can.
Thinking changes no facts. The idiotic Naomi Oreskes tried to convince a judge that she was an “expert climate witness” because she “reads papers”, and “thinks about them”!
Go on, fool, think fiction into fact!
Who died and made you King of facts, Mik Flynn?
There is global warming. About 1C since 1850.
CO2 is rising. Its about 410 ppm now.
There still is no evidence that CO2 increase is causing much if any of the warming. The models on which the hypothesis relies, all project much more warming than is observered. The observations are outside the 95th percentile of the statistical average of all the climate model projections considered by UN IPCC. Its clear the models are profoundly wrong; the hypothesis its scientifically false.
Simply having consensus isn’t a substitute for reasoning and evidence.
Its clear that Willard is not trained in the sciences. No wonder he is such a bore.
> There still is no evidence that CO2 increase is causing much if any of the warming
Another unsupported negative claim, this time by one of the most boring Climateball player I have ever encountered:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140125081231/http://climatechangenationalforum.org/your-logic-escapes-me-by-john-nielsen-gammon
We need better contrarians, at least ones who can distinguish evidence from inference.
ken…”There still is no evidence that CO2 increase is causing much if any of the warming. The models on which the hypothesis relies, all project much more warming than is observered”.
***
On this we agree. We also seem to agree on vaccines and that the freedom convoy was good. We don’t agree on the Moon.
But hey, two out of three ain’t bad.
Come on, Bordo.
You also forget the greenhouse effect thing, which is the relevant thing here.
While Kennui is a contrarian Troglodyte, you are a Sky Dragon crank.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
If you think a little bit of warm air is bad wait when the polar vortex hits
https://youtu.be/1tDyAVi_2c4
Written, directed, and produced by Greta Thunberg, out of her allowance.
If you wanted to build a dike to protect against sea level rise would you use data from a tide gauge or from a satellite to determine how fast sea level is rising or falling?
Why?
You use insurance claims from the site and climate models for the regions.
Next stupid riddle.
Thanks Willard. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t know.
It’s hard to answer a question that relies on you not knowing how any of this works, Kennui.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Answering a question is hard?
Here’s an easy one – what role did the “greenhouse effect” play in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?
If you can’t answer, try diversion, or a bit of psychobabble. Blame your lack of knowledge on Mike Flynn, or excessive self-abuse, if you think that will get you some sympathy.
Found anybody who cares what you “think”? What’s its name?
Playing dumb again, Mike?
So far reading is that satellite measurement is reference to earth center. Tide gauge is reference to ocean bottom and is therefore a relative measurement more appropriate to the situation of building dikes.
So each is actually measuring something different.
That helps explain why average sea level rise by tide gauge is 1.8 mm per year and satellite sea level data is 3.4 mm per year.
This is a problem when people are inappropriately cherry picking data to support the climate change narrative of the chicken little variety.
And none of that matters for the problem at hand, which relies on relative measurement to establish a rate of change and reasonable odds to manage risks properly, In fact having two sources of data is a Good Thing.
Contrarians who want to be taken srsly need to show that they know how to solve real life problems with relevant know how so that their outlook adds something to the discussion, not mere reactance.
don’t satellites that measure sealevel drift?
Gill plays dumb once again.
Bill is right. If UAH/NOAA sats drift, then any sat will drift unless it has complex orbital correction mechanisms.
Come on, Bordo.
How can Gill be right by asking a question?
the question was formed to emphasize the double standards by which the spinners live and breathe in here. A ”little bit of play” is only allowable when in support of the spinner religion.
Which double standard, Gill?
For a guy who claims to emphasize things, you do not spell out much.
“A little bit of play is only allowable when in support of the spinner religion.”
So the double standard I see is that non-spinners are allowed to poison the well, but the rest of us do not do that.
Sure Bob. Spinners whether the moon or AGW aren’t the ones trying to constrain interpretations. DREMT allows for either interpretation of the moon and allows for a variety of potential as yet unspecified means for the greenhouse effect to exist. And so do I. Thats the nature of skepticism and it is most not in any way related to a religious position. Proselytizing a specific and or narrow interpretation of words is well-identified with religious beliefs.
Demonstrated and replicable science OTOH can be supported directly by the means of proof.
Actually, Gill, my first comment on this issue was to the effect that Moon Dragon cranks would have at best am quivalant model. All they need is to produce one. Have you seen any?
You mean you want me to prove there are no aliens being hidden away in Area 51?
Gill, Gill,
Please.
Bill,
“DREMT allows for either interpretation of the moon”
I don’t think so Bill
“allows for a variety of potential as yet unspecified means for the greenhouse effect to exist.”
I don’t think so Bill
You go right on ahead Bob believing you can heat warm stuff with cold stuff.
There are a lot of ignorant people in the world. No shame for you in being one.
Gill, Gill,
Are you trying to suggest that igloos are not possible?
Please.
Well if you knew that an igloo works much like a greenhouse and and that a greenhouse does not work like nor is claimed to work like the mainstream greenhouse effect then you might maybe perhaps realize that you don’t have clue about which you are talking about. But I doubt that will happen.
Gill, Gill,
You said –
“You go right on ahead Bob believing you can heat warm stuff with cold stuff.”
It’s the “Columbo does not ask questions” blunder all over again.
Bill,
“You go right on ahead Bob believing you can heat warm stuff with cold stuff.”
Been there, done that, do you need the T-shirt?
Not a single sign of an intelligible response. Typical!
Global tide gauge says sea level is rising 1.8 mm per year
Satellite says its 3.6 mm per year
Satellite says local land mass is rising 4 mm per year. So total sea level drop based on satellite is 0.4 mm per year.
Local tide gauge says relative sea level is dropping 1.66 +/- 0.66 mm per year.
If you use tide gauge data, land is rising 3.46 +/- 0.66 mm per year.
I’ve not found error bars for satellite data.
Lots of difference between the two standards. Which is the more suited for the dike building problem?
Particularly when both standards say sea level is dropping while the city is claiming there will be 1 meter sea level rise by 2100. I think this is based on someone’s lousy model.
Something isn’t right.
Satellites are clearly not stable platforms from which to make accurate measurements to the mm level. No orbit can be controlled to such a tolerance.
“That helps explain why average sea level rise by tide gauge is 1.8 mm per year and satellite sea level data is 3.4 mm per year.”
That’s quite false. They agree with each other within uncertainty in the overlap period.
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9119-1/MediaObjects/10712_2011_9119_Fig4_HTML.gif?as=webp
More recent
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-021-21265-6/MediaObjects/41467_2021_21265_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21265-6
When it comes to space, failure isn’t just an option it’s a requirement
By Rick Tumlinson
https://www.space.com/spaceflight-failure-necessity-sls-spacex
“Generally speaking (and in my humble opinion) there are four types of failures when launching a rocket or rocketship.
1. A new, untested tested technology or group of technologies fail.
2. An incorrectly tested technology or group of technologies fail.
3. Humans in the loop ignore rules or design criteria from their own plans or cut corners, usually for financial, performance or political reasons.
4. Having had one of the three types of failures above, no learning has occurred, or learning did occur and was ignored, and they happen again.”
“Then, as I mentioned, came the shuttle program, with an entirely different system and an almost all-new management team, given the time lag between the end of Apollo in 1972 and the first flight of Columbia in 1981. Ironically, the space shuttle was supposed to be the system that would make human access to space safe and routine. It was almost the opposite. To get it funded, the original plan was compromised to save money and gain support. For example, as proposed to Congress, the shuttle system consisted of two totally reusable flyback systems that would take off vertically and land on runways, ready to fly again. As political sausage-making took over, however, this approach was replaced by the massive hydrogen and oxygen tanks and solid rocket boosters we are familiar with today. ”
Ah, the flybacks, often they were pined for.
I didn’t know they were part of original design.
I knew they changed the original plans- all you have to do is look at it:).
Anyhow Rick, space cadet, space pirate, and madman.
Sea level snow cone job
https://youtu.be/uBPXjQRJA90
Well, it’s good news for satellite measurement- apparently it’s
accurate enough, to measure sea levels.
We need more of them.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You are clearly wrong, Christos, since thermometers 6′ AGL measure Tmean.earth surface = 288K in a certain period
Satellites carry radiometers which measure Teffective.earth planetary system = 255K in same period
More technically, Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K
When a body radiates EM it loses heat at the same rate it emits the EM. Therefore the process IS A ONE WAY process.
–
When EM radiation of the same intensity hits another body, the resulting INTERACTION with matter doesn’t put-in the same amount of heat being lost in the emission process by the first body.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
EMR is not heat. Emission and absorp_tion of EMR are inverse processes, Christos, occurring continuously from all matter & non-zero intensity at all frequencies. Ref.: Planck radiation function
Christos did not say that EM is heat, he said heat is lost as EM is produced. Therefore, the EM carries no heat from the source. Planck radiation function has nothing to do with the conversion of kinetic energy in atoms, via electrons, to EM. You are presenting a red-herring argument.
Since the KE represents thermal energy, as an electron drops to a lower orbital, that KE gets converted to EM, and as such no longer represents heat.
There is no other mechanism in an atom or molecule that can produce EM, other than the electron. The notion that EM can be produced independently of the electron is simply wrong. An electron has an electric field due to its electric charge and when it moves in orbit, it produces a magnetic field. That is the source of EM (‘electro’ – ‘magnetic’) energy that is radiated or absorbed.
Gordon, it is obvious you are an improperly informed rookie in these discussions since Christos wrote “When EM radiation of the same intensity hits another body, the resulting INTERACTION with matter doesn’t put-in the same amount of heat” so Gordon is wrong again: EMR is not heat so EMR cannot “put-in” heat to anything as Christos incorrectly wrote. EMR is absorbed (death of photon) & emitted (birth of photon) in inverse processes, reflected (life for photon), and transmitted (life).
Heat in an object is reduced when EMR is emitted, heat is not “lost” as Gordon writes.
Gordon writing “There is no other mechanism in an atom or molecule that can produce EM, other than the electron” is incorrect, since the electron does not possess enough mass to absorb/emit light momenta (linear and angular) where the entire molecule and/or atom does. Gordon has been told this many times but has yet to demonstrate understanding this basic physics.
b4…”since the electron does not possess enough mass to absorb/emit light momenta (linear and angular) where the entire molecule and/or atom does”.
***
I wont bother with the first point you made because it is incoherent. This second point is just absurd. Even though an electron is about 1/1800th of the mass of a proton it has the same charge, albeit opposite in polarity. It’s the charge on an electron that creates the electric field hence the magnetic field.
Show me any other particle in an atom that has an electric and a magnetic field that is moving at the speed of an electron. When the electron loses KE and drops to a lower energy level the energy it gives up is electromagnetic.
That’s it, the other major particles are neutron with no charge and protons with a positive charge. That applies to both atom and molecules, the only particle in an atom capable of emitting EM is the electron.
According to you inane theory, electrons reversing direction at high speed in an antenna cannot produce an EM signal for communications. Or, electrons moving in a conductor cannot produce an electric field and a magnetic field. Maxwell would have been thrilled to converse with an idjit like you. Bohr too.
As a misinformed rookie, Gordon always misses that molecular and atomic spin is quantized. Emission and absorp_tion of EMR influencing atm. IR opacity at our tropospheric temperatures are both dominated by molecular spin transitions not molecular electronic transitions of which there are basically none since the gas temperature isn’t high enough.
Gordon, antennas and conductors do not inhabit our natural N2,O2, trace gas troposphere. Gordon should take that debate to an antenna forum where any degreed antenna engineer knows that the effective area of a receiver can be much larger than its geometrical area unlike our emissivity .LT. 1 atm.
Gordon,
“the only particle in an atom capable of emitting EM is the electron.”
Nope, the nucleus can emit EM.
Ball4, bob, please stop trolling.
I think geothermal heat is significant factor in global climate- but I tend to think oceanic geothermal heat is much larger factor than
geothermal heat in regards to land area.
Though geothermal energy under ice sheets, could be considered quite
significant- or I don’t dismiss volcanic activity under the Antarctic ice sheet, nor the Greenland ice sheet as potentially having cause and could cause “climate change”.
The global warming cargo cult dismisses any significant present time effect from geothermal heat, though the religion doesn’t deny completely, past period where geothermal heat has cause major changes in global climate.
Recently, I have been wondering, how much geothermal oceanic heat would there need be, for geothermal oceanic heat to obviously have a climate effect?
Currently there is a mystery of whether Europa has a large liquid ocean under it’s icy crust and recently it’s thought Pluto could large liquid ocean below it’s icy crust.
Or have same question, how much geothermal heat is needed to create
such oceans and do Europa/Pluto have lot more or lot less geothermal
heat as compared to Earth.
Episode 2058 Scott Adams: Looking For “Good” Trump Indictment, Race Grifter Democrats, TikTok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWdoqolX2aA
Scott says Peggy Noonan is a Dem.
And he is not just trying piss her off.
Trump doesn’t just drive Lefties crazy, he has made Noonan a dem.
Where did Earth’s water come from? Not melted meteorites, say scientists
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Where_did_Earths_water_come_from_Not_melted_meteorites_according_to_scientists_999.html
Also:
ttps://www.whoi.edu/press-room/news-release/where-did-earths-water-come-from-not-melted-meteorites-according-to-scientists/
“The team of researchers analyzed seven melted, or achondrite, meteorites that crashed into Earth billions of years after splintering from at least five planetesimalsobjects that collided to form the planets in our solar system.”
And:
“Achondrites account for about 8% of meteorites overall, and the majority (about two-thirds) of them are HED meteorites, possibly originating from the crust of asteroid 4 Vesta. Other types include Martian, Lunar, and several types thought to originate from as-yet unidentified asteroids. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achondrite
Well only thing interesting is they found very little water:
“After analyzing the achondrite meteorite samples, researchers discovered that water comprised less than two millionths of their mass.”
[Me: Or about 1 millionth or volume- CO2 is 420 millionth of our atmosphere- 1 millionth is small amount. Mineable water is about
10,000 millionth- asteroid can have 20,000 millionth of water but
it’s thought to chemically bonded- or dry concrete has a lot water about 20% per volume which is chemically bonded. Mineable lunar water is not chemically bonded- or if was, would be less mineable. But if concrete was impactor, it would give up it’s water- assuming it hits at + 2 km/sec]
Anyhow: “Water makes up 71% of Earth’s surface, but no one knows how or when such massive quantities of water arrived on Earth.”
71%, hmm. Ocean is a bit more 70% and than got lakes and ice sheets, but how did it get here. Bible says come up from the ground, which roughly maybe right. Is possible for Earth to make water {a more crazier idea}. Anyhow:
How the Earth made its own water out of rocks
“Apparently it doesn’t take Moses to make water from rock.
Scientists have long believed that icy comets brought water to Earth. But Dr. Wendy Panero, an associate professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University, says Earth’s water may have been here all along, locked up in the planet’s rocky mantle and there may still be lots of water still trapped there.
Panero explains that it’s not water as we think of it: It’s neither liquid nor in the form of water molecules, the H2O we all know. Instead, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that form water are stored separately in certain minerals within Earth’s deep interior. And under certain circumstances, those atoms will recombine to form liquid water.”
https://theworld.org/stories/2015-01-10/how-earth-made-its-own-water-out-rocks
Assuming Earth was hit and made a moon, and before this you have a proto Earth- what kind of planet was the proto Earth.
I guess we will get more clues when look at more planets around other stars.
Willard says:
The Wagner Group is a private military company with ties to Russian white supremacist and neo-Nazi far-right extremists.
——————-
Hitler saw the Russians as literally a mongrel race. The etymology of the word mongrel arose in the centuries of the Mongol expansion.
You think you might be overstating all this a bit?
Willard is a troll, and a boring one at that. His agenda is to destroy any semblence of civil discussion. You need not pay attention to anything he says.
Now wee willy is defending Hitler…accepting his assessment of Russians.
Sorry…brain not functional yet. Thought Bill’s post was from wee willy.
But, yes, wee willy is overstating it a bit. Pointing out that neo-Nazi groups are operating in Russia does not excuse the Ukraine from doing the same. They are supposed to be democratic, after all.
One of the Ukrainian nationalists sitting in the Ukrainian parliament claimed the Allies in WW II were ‘scum’ who worked for the Jews. I can dig up a link if you like. There are several neo-Nazi groups operating in the Ukraine, like Right Sektor, and they are armed.
The Ukraine, if anything, is a primitive democracy. I think they should be helped if they are willing to rid themselves of these extreme nationalist groups. They will need help to do that but we can’t help them as long as our focus is only on Russia as the problem. The current war is a result of a civil war dating back to 2014, when the said nationalists over-threw a democratically-elected pro-Russian president.
> brain not functional yet
Another ten years and it will get there, Bordo.
Gordon perhaps you should drink more coffee. I just started and
haven’t had enough.
https://www.euronews.com/2023/03/24/wagner-boss-openly-defies-kremlin-ukraine-nazi-narrative
Whinnying Wee Willy,
It seems that the US accepts that free speech is alive and well, unlike the US, where anybody who questions the official line is likely to be illegally investigated by the FBI, have charges laid in order to ruin the dissenter’s life, such charges strangely withdrawn due to lack of evidence at the last moment.
If that sort of thing also happens in Russia, it shows that Russia is no better or worse than the US when dissent raises its ugly head.
Oh dear, powerful people don’t like people contradicting them? You are surprised?
Accept reality Wee Willy. People are people. Gavin Schmidt may complain that his models are correct, but people refuse to behave in line with Gavin’s wishes, but that won’t make any difference to the weather, will it?
Back to your fantasy WillyWorld, where you are powerful, wise, and respected.
Mike Flynn,
It seems that you brayed a little more.
Say hi to Aleksei:
https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-neo-nazis-fighting-ukraine/31871760.html
Ask him what he thinks of your molten Earth theory when you get the chance.
Of course, we will take the word of someone making a video and claiming he is a Nazi.
Of course you do not, Bordo.
Perhaps you prefer Dimitry:
https://irgac.org/2023/1720/
At least your friend Vladimir likes him.
Weary Wee Willy,
Appealing to the authority of a self-proclaimed “a Russian antifascist journalist.” doesn’t seem all that clever.
How much did you pay for his opinion? Nothing? That is obviously what you thought it was worth. All the opinions in the world (plus $5) will buy you a $5 cup of coffee!
Maybe you should find a journalist who can explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, do you think?
Only joking, nobody can explain a GHE which allows a planet to cool by making it hotter.
Gullible fool.
DID YOU CLOCK ON A LINK, MIKE FLYNN?
Dim witted Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“DID YOU CLOCK ON A LINK, MIKE FLYNN?”
I do as I wish, you idiot, and there is nothing you can do about it, is there?
Why should I answer your witless questions addressed to Mike Flynn?
Are you quite mad?
You’re definitely strange – you seem to have an obsession with what Mike Flynn does. You don’t even have any control or influence over what I do, you clown!
Go on, exercise your super powers – strike me dead, if you can.
Idiot.
Hey, Mike –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Just for you.
swenson…”it shows that Russia is no better or worse than the US when dissent raises its ugly head”.
***
The irony is that Edward Snowden, former CIA operative, was forced to flee the US after reporting that the CIA spies on US citizens. He now resides in Russia, not by choice, but due to the fact the US withdrew his passport when while he was in Russia awaiting a flight to South America.
Another irony, South America is not even in the US, the other America. One might think that South America is a reference to Louisiana or another southern state.
More irony. In Russia, Snowden is allowed to carry on freely but he cannot even return to his native country. In many ways, we in the West are no different than Russia.
Say what you will about the ZZ tenets, they have an ethos:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/putin-summons-defense-officials-after-supposed-ukrainian-attack-in-russia
The Newscorp ethos.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Supposedly? Claimed?
Have you considered that journalists from Russian propaganda sources might be saying the opposite?
You really are a gullible wee chappie, aren’t you? For example, you don’t seem to realise that “Radio Free Europe” (from whom you quoted before) is ” funded by the U.S. Congress through the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM). USAGM is independent federal government agency that oversees all U.S. civilian international media. In addition to RFE/RL, this includes Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, Radio Free Asia, Alhurra, and Radio Sawa.”
Gee, just another government propaganda machine.
I suppose you might nor realise that “Free Europe” really means a Europe where US has control – although maybe not to the extent of being occupied by US armed forces like Germany.
It makes no difference. The future is unpredictable. Winners become losers, losers become winners, and life goes on for the survivors. It all seems a bit pointless to me, and at least 75% of the world’s population are keeping out of the Russia/Ukraine conflict.
Mike Flynn?
Braying?
Tell me, Mike:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Barkashov
Who granted amnesty to Barkashov in 1994?
Wringing Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Who granted amnesty to Barkashov in 1994?”
Ooooh! A gotcha! How novel!
Who gives a toss? Go on, tell everyone the answer to your gotcha – and listen for the sound of silence!
Another stupid attempt to divert attention away from your complete inability to even describe the “greenhouse effect”, let alone explain how it managed to cool the world for four and a half billion years, but is heating it now!
Dimwit.
Have you said something, Mike?
Very well:
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/if-russia-serious-about-de-nazification-it-should-start-home
Bordon idol is BORN to be a wild Night Wolf.
bottom line is there are evil leftist and evil rightist forces at work in every nation on earth. Protecting our own freedom is to suppress attacks on free speech, the 2nd amendment and our other constitutional protections.
The weaponization of regulatory bodies to impinge on those freedoms via targeted threats of use of regulatory powers is just plain extremist politics whether it is left or right.
Russia and Ukraine are virtually tied by one measure of extremism in the number of banned political parties. Russia has 18 banned and Ukraine has 19.
Very clearly it seems our desire on this is for a stalemate. If that involves Russia retaining its land bridge to Crimea that is quite likely the best possible outcome. An economically healthy Russia is clearly in our best interest. It also would be nice if the citizens of both Ukraine and Russia were freer but that typically only arises out of economic health.
Gill, Gill,
Bottom line is that teh Vlad is projecting:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy7y8q/vladimir-putin-russia-far-right
Russian Imperial Legion is a white supremacist terrorist organisation according to your own country, BTW.
Dragon cranks sure know a thing or two about projection.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I see it a bit like school days when two thugs went after each other. The student body stood around relishing the battle without being supportive of either, hoping they would beat the crap out of each other.
Sending a few arms to the weaker thug seems to be a good way of helping that to happen. What you want to see least is a winner. . . .unless of course you are thug friend of one of the thugs.
Gill,
Think of it this way.
Suppose you got a silly troll who keeps saying *please stop trolling*.
As disgusring as it sounds, this is what Vlad is doing.
Simples.
Trolls don’t say ‘please’.
ROFLOL
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I was wondering what tidally locked world which has global ocean water at further distance from Sun would be like.
So, I was thinking what about Pluto- and if you bring it closer to the Sun.
And then I was thinking, probably want to hit Pluto with a space rock in Jupiter’s L-4 or 5. Then I thought maybe you to hit Charon, so as to have Charon, hit Pluto. {Though maybe, not}.
It seems with “jet pack” you leave Charon, but you some need sort lander to land on Pluto [or quite a big and bulky “jet pack”].
So, Charon is about “19591.4 km” from center of Pluto and “17181.0 km” from their Barycenter. And seems interesting that you probably hit Pluto with pistol bullet from Charon.
It’s orbital velocity, is: 0.21 km/s or 210 m/s or 468.72 mph.
And a “rocket belt/jet pack” can hover or work for about 1 minute.
Though could look up EVA suits, wiki: “The AMU was a backpack using hydrogen peroxide as the fuel. The total delta-v capability of the AMU was about 250 feet per second (76.2 meters per second)”- that wouldn’t be, anywhere near enough. Also didn’t even consider how many hours you would be in vacuum.
Anyhow gravity is 0.288 m/s {1/34th of Earth and somewhat close to 1/6th of the Moon [1/36th of Earth would be a 1/6th}.
In terms of given escape velocity: 0.59 km/s.
Our Moon’s escape is: 2.38 km/sec [4 times more].
Now, what it be like to go from Pluto to Charon?
Pluto is less gravity then our Moon:
Surface gravity: 0.620 m/s vs 1.62 m/s of our Moon.
Plus the Pluto/Charon L-1 is close to Pluto.
One do a sub-orbital from Moon to Earth/Moon L-1. And it’s about 50,000 km up from lunar surface, and it’s about 2.1 km/sec of delta-v
as compared low lunar orbit which is about 1.7 km/sec.
So, wild guess, low orbit of Pluto is about 1.5 km/sec and to Pluto/Charon L-1 would easily be less than 2 km/sec.
So, from Charon to going to Pluto/Charon L-1, once there, it’s less than 2 km/sec to get to Pluto surface. So about 2.5 km/sec to get either way to these airless worlds [and there no atmosphere which could helpful on either of them].
Now, wondering where L-2 is. Oh:
“Fact 11. Pluto is the only known dwarf planet with an atmosphere. It is very thin and would be toxic for humans to breathe. When Pluto is at its perihelion (closest to the sun), Plutos atmosphere is gas. When Pluto is at its aphelion (farthest from the sun), its atmosphere freezes and falls like snow.”
And:
“Fact 6. Pluto is 33% water in the form of ice and 67% rock. It means that there is more than three times as much water on Pluto as in all the oceans on earth, despite the dwarf planet being just 13.05 billion kgs in mass.” Well it’s not 13 billion kg, and 13 billion tons is just 13 cubic km of water. it’s “0.01303 x 10^24” or
1.303 x 10^22 kg. Or 1,303,000 trillion tons. Or 1.3 million trillion
tonnes.
“Fact 32. On Pluto, the sun rises and sets about once a week”
Oh, then in also do this on Charon, right:
Orbital period (sidereal) 6.38723040.0000011 d
(6 d, 9 h, 17 m, 36.7 0.1 s)
Anyways, nothing about L-points.
“Do Pluto and Charon have unusual Lagrange points?”
“What is the difference between the unstable equilibrium at L1 (or L2 and L3 for that matter) and the unstable equilibrium at the barycenter? It seems to me that an object at the barycenter and one at L1 would both fall toward Pluto if nudged toward it, and would both fall toward Charon if nudged toward it. So if there’s a difference could please explain it?
gciriani
Dec 25, 2021 at 10:04
@gciriani, there’s no equilibrium at the barycenter: the net gravitational force is towards Pluto. An object at the barycenter would accelerate towards Pluto at about 0.2 m/s. (An object in an orbit passing through the barycenter would be out of phase with Charon; I’m fairly sure the resulting three-body interaction would slow it down until it crashes into Pluto.)
Mark Dec 25, 2021 at 21:41”
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/8192/do-pluto-and-charon-have-unusual-lagrange-points
Ok, agree, [and sort of counting on it] but what about L-2?
Hmm, with Earth/Moon L-1 and two they line up. And with Pluto/Charon they still line up, because they both have a day about 1 week long.
Or L-1 and L-2 are fixed relative to both Pluto and Charon.
Hey, maybe this like spinning Moon thing.
I wasn’t going to post this, but I guess I have to.
Other than lack of sunlight, high GCR, and low gravity, you could live there without bringing it closer to a star. And space aliens might prefer it. And you could be more successful using solar energy as compared trying to do this on Earth surface.
One thing you might want is space elevator between Pluto and Charon.
And that would seem to be far easier than than lunar space elevator
which unlike Space elevator for Earth, is possible to do.
A question is, does Pluto have liquid ocean, how far is it below the surface, and what temperature is it?
And other question is, how many creatures live in the space between the stars. Do more live there, than nearer to the stars?
And if there are many planets and twin planets, then there could many
oceans with different temperatures- or what would be the best temperature?
If humans live under their ocean, it going to be fairly cold ocean- and people are living under the ocean, and temperature is not a problem. Pressure is more of an issue and pressure would far less of
an issue is any liquid ocean of Pluto.
With Earth there is pressure difference of 1 atm per 10 meters of depth difference. With Charon it’s 1/34th of that, or 1 atm difference per 340 meters of depth difference.
So if had balloon 50 meters in diameter filled with air there could
be little difference between air pressure and water pressure.
But also have buoyancy issue, but it’s 1/34th of buoyancy compared
Earth. But on Earth that is huge amount of force and you could half that huge force by having 1/2 of sphere filled with water, and you could make that warmer water.
And could do same with Charon or Pluto.
The Biggest Fraud Ever – Exposed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mEnew0PgsI
Not biggest fraud ever, but he is quite pissed off about
stolen valor regarding someone he did interview.
And New York Times did article recently which filled in
some details that he wasn’t aware of, but Rob says before this
he was aware that some things weren’t right about the guy.
“The earth absorbs 240 W/m^2 from the sun. ”
–
–
No, the earth does not absorb 240 W/m^2 from the sun. Earth is a planet. A planet is irradiated from one side only.
When solar irradiated, a planet surface does not absorb the incident solar energy.
What planet surface does is to INTERACT with the incident solar flux.
Only a small portion of the incident solar energy a planet surface absorbs in inner layers.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, only a planet that doesn’t spin wrt its sun is irradiated from one side only. The Earth spins on its own axis wrt to our sun!
The natural tropical earthen land surface absorbs about 95% of incident solar rays, reflects 5%, while transmitting none for a measured emissivity of about 0.95, give or take. Christos has a lot yet to learn about optics and radiation in our atm.
Given clouds, snow/ice regions, & oceans et. al., the total natural earth system reflects about 30% (albedo) of incident solar flux from space as measured by satellite radiometer over decades.
“The natural tropical earthen land surface absorbs about 95% of incident solar rays, reflects 5%, while transmitting none for a measured emissivity of about 0.95, give or take.”
–
–
How much it is in W/m^2 ?
What exactly does Christos 9:49 am mean by “it”?
The natural tropical earthen land surface absorbs how much in W/m^2 ?
The Earth spins on its own axis wrt to our sun!
The natural tropical earthen land surface absorbs how much in W/m^2 ?
Over what particular time period?
Over the year 2022 of course.
That’s only a weather time period, Christos. Climate data is not applicable. The answer would be possible to dig out of the weather records but I’ll leave that work for Christos who apparently is more interested.
When solar irradiated, a planet surface does not absorb the incident solar energy.
What planet surface does is to INTERACT with the incident solar flux.
Only a small portion of the incident solar energy a planet surface absorbs in inner layers.
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No that’s physically wrong, Christos 2:39 pm. The earthen L&O surface in large part absorbs, in part reflects, and in part transmits the solar SW irradiance. This is known by instrumental measurements and is basic in field of optics. Christos has yet to learn about physics of radiation.
Only a small portion of the incident solar energy a planet surface absorbs in inner layers.
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Small portion” of the incident solar SW at satellite orbital height, but a large part (~95%) of the solar irradiation reaching the natural land surface through the atmosphere absorbing, scattering/reflecting, transmitting processes & over a climate timeframe as instrumentally measured.
Only a small portion…
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Small portion of the incident solar SW at satellite orbital height, but a large part (~95%) of the solar irradiation reaching the natural land surface through the atmosphere absorbing, scattering/reflecting, transmitting processes & over a climate timeframe as instrumentally measured.”
No instrumental measurement needed. The Earths surface is no longer molten. It has cooled. I dont believe you can explain the role of the GHE in this cooling, but feel free to try, if you believe I have misjudged you.
Ken
You wrote above, re sea level rise:
1. ” That helps explain why average sea level rise by tide gauge is 1.8 mm per year and satellite sea level data is 3.4 mm per year.
This is a problem when people are inappropriately cherry picking data to support the climate change narrative of the chicken little variety. ”
*
Sorry, Ken: this is simply incorrect.
You rely to sources intentionally comparing two completely different things:
– (a) the average sea level rise measured by tide gauges during their entire activity (beginning for some like Brest in France around 1800)
– (b) the average sea level rise measured by satellites since 1993.
*
If you want to accurately compare tide gauge and satellite data trends, you must do this with regard to the same period.
Would you compare the trend of weather stations’ data for the period 1895-2022 with the trend of weather stations’ data or of the lower troposphere’s data for the period 1979-2022?
I hope not: only the technically incompetent people do that, who, for example, even compare anomalies from the years 1901-2000 with anomalies from the years 1991-2020, which of course makes no sense at all.
*
Let us compare the trends – in mm/year – for the periods 1900-2015 and 1993-2015, depending on different evaluations (2015 is the end year of the evaluation by Dangendorf & alii).
1900-2015
– Dangendorf & alii: 1.4 (mm/year)
– Frederikse & alii: 1.5
– Foster: 1.4
– Bindidon: 1.6
1993-2015
– Dangendorf & alii: 2.8 (mm/year)
– Frederikse & alii: 3.1
– Foster: 2.9
– Bindidon: 2.9
– NOAA’s satellite altimetry data: 3.1
*
You might ask: how is that possible?
Well, I know a lot of ‘specialists’ who – despite never having downloaded let alone evaluated any tide gauge or sat sea level data – proudly will tell you it’s due to the tide gauge data having been ‘adjusted’ to the sat data.
This is as dumb as brazen.
Let us have a look at the different sea level evaluations:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12euF2AcLVUdKqYxrGEebGISen2A4CZfo/view
Out of the tide gauge time series starting in 1900, we can compute the trends of the consecutive five year distant periods (1900-2015, 1905-2015, …, 1995-2015), and display these trends as time series:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1unX9nvORdkmSipb22DfldIGRT-U3n5BE/view
You see that, while there was no sea level rise till around 1950, things became different later on:
1900 1.5 (mm/year)
1905 1.5
1910 1.5
1915 1.5
1920 1.5
1925 1.5
1930 1.5
1935 1.4
1940 1.4
1945 1.5
1950 1.5
1955 1.6
1960 1.8
1965 1.9
1970 2.0
1975 2.2
1980 2.3
1985 2.4
1990 2.6
1995 2.8
Sources
PSMSL
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
NOAA satellite altimetry
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/socd/lsa/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_gbl_free_all_66.csv
Episode 2059 Scott Adams: Trump Rally, DeSantis LKS, AOC Supports TikTok, Ye & Jonah Hill, More Fun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qBijBI8C8A
I still haven’t got enough coffee and just started listening.
I don’t know who Jonah Hill, but you got to like Ye.
Is Obama a Muslim? Probably, but is there anything wrong with Muslims
other than their terrorist governments? Or if Iranian govt was not so evil, there would less problems. And it’s not vaguely the case that the people of Iran like their govt.
Of course we don’t like our govt either, but it doesn’t seem it has got as bad of Iranian govt, yet.
Of course Obama lived in Indonesia, which not vaguely as bad as Iran or Saudi Arabia govt. Or probably, generally Islam is less of problem- though Lefty + Islam has a problem- as is Lefty with anything.
If you take the God out of Christian, Jew, or Islam- it gets bad/evil pretty fast. Anyhow, it seems Obama not very religious nor much of Christian or Muslim.
He is a politician, who is pretty inept. But Joe Biden trying to win the prize of worst president, ever.
But if look at Obama and Joe as destroying the dem party- there some
noble aspects of doing that- dems were and are racists.
So, I like Obama and Joe- for their destructive effect- not too worried that Dems can’t make new political party- and I will let them decide what they want to call their new political party.
Though Socialist Party is a good fit.
Scott doesn’t like China.
Is China great? No. It was great during a time when the world was
less great. Is Russia great? No.
Does China + Russia make it great? No.
Are there any great countries in the world?
Well, one has to say that recently US was great.
Even if stupid enough to think UN is great, US created
that useless organization.
One could say US had it’s century, at least.
One country which might called great is India- this most
overly populated country has the potential of becoming greater
and it could happen fairly quickly- if it’s not already, great.
The EU was something I didn’t have much faith in, but recently
I changed mind a bit. I think it depends on how it deals with
Ukrainian war. US isn’t going to solve it, anytime soon, so that
leaves it up to Europe, what is does to solve an European problem-
all it needs is couple good politicians. So EU is, now, a maybe
that EU will be great.
Similarly if Africa can make something as good as EU, they can be
great.
But you shouldn’t count the US, out.
Scott says AI is everything. How about AI write a peace agreement
with Russia and Ukraine.
I don’t high opinion of pols, but I think some of them could do
that.
Maybe, AI could write thousand of them, and one could pick the right
one.
gb,
If a computer program generated a thousand peace plans, would you trust a politician to peer into the future, and pick a peace plan which actually resulted in peace?
Its pretty simple – if the Ukrainians wish to fight the Russians, good for them.
If the West wants to fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood by prolonging the conflict, so be it.
If China feels like extending the conflict by supplying arms to Russia, I have no doubt that there will be howls of outrage from the US, which believes that supplying arms to one party in a conflict is a right exclusively reserved to them.
No easy answers, I fear. Ill keep out of it if I possibly can. I dont speak either Russian or Ukrainian, so I wouldnt even be able to understand the reasons for killing given by either side.
I would guess, 50% of any people are smarter than most pols- it could be voted on.
Ken (cntnd)
You wrote also above:
2. ” Satellite says local land mass is rising 4 mm per year. So total sea level drop based on satellite is 0.4 mm per year.
Local tide gauge says relative sea level is dropping 1.66 +/- 0.66 mm per year.
If you use tide gauge data, land is rising 3.46 +/- 0.66 mm per year. ”
*
Sorry again, Ken: this also is a bunch of incorrect stuff.
Tide gauges are on land, and hence move with the portion of land they are located at: this is vertical land movement.
Land is either stable, or moves up, due to e.g. glacial isostatic rebound, or moves down due e.g. to subsidence.
This is the reason why tide gauge data evaluation must be restricted to gauges to which a GPS station is located as near as possible to these gauges.
Near the PSMSL data source, an evaluation of tide gauge data therefore uses GPS data provided by the SONEL database:
https://www.sonel.org/
There you can access about 1,000 GPS station velocities which are then used to apply corresponding corrections.
*
Here you can see what happens when you ignore the existence of vertical land movement (VLM):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qQ_sIIQNkCF3PDOZvCS4VJnFySP8WrOu/view
*
A typical example for subsidence: CONUS’s East coast:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18KuPJgGkxgJxwEM6p1acUBzAzv_gOgL9/view
In case of subsidence, sea level rise is visibly lower when taking VLM into account.
*
The inverse happens in case of glacial rebound, e.g. in the Bothnian Gulf (between Sweden and Finland):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jZkZJoBTjlhVE_u2QO8oL2Ci1Dlf-MRq/view
The difference between without and with VLM correction is even more clearly visible here.
You forgot to correct for the Expanding Earth you Dummkopf
I was 100 % sure that the ankle-biting dachshund would come along and leave a little stinking dog poo.
Et j’avais raison!
Binny,
You wrote –
“I was 100 % sure that the ankle-biting dachshund would come along and leave a little stinking dog poo.”
Is that sort of thing considered a mark of supreme intelligence among SkyDragon cultists?
Or is that the sort of nonsense you come out with to disguise the fact that you are stupid, as well as impotent?
Once more, the most arrogant of all posters describes himself:
” Or is that the sort of nonsense you come out with to disguise the fact that you are stupid, as well as impotent? “
Binny,
No, that was directed at you, for good reason. Stupid, because you imply that the GHE played a role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, and is also responsible for planetary heating at present. That sounds pretty stupid to me, but obviously you have no trouble believing two contradictory things at once. You could always claim that you are afflicted with a mental affliction, like other SkyDragon cultists.
Which is it?
You are impotent in respect to being able to exercise any influence over how, when, and in what fashion I comment, or how much I laugh at your silly attempts to convince others that you can predict future climate states!
Your turn – you refer to me as arrogant, stupid, and impotent, but you can’t bring yourself to say precisely why, can you?
That’s because you are stupid. Even if you could provide reasons for your silly opinions, you still couldn’t do anything about them, could you? That’s impotence for you!
Carry on being stupid and impotent, if you wish. You don’t need my permission to be a delusional SkyDragon cultist, do you?
Flynnson
The more you post your arrogant nonsense, the less you can yourself ‘disguise the fact that you are stupid, as well as impotent’.
The problem is of spending money on dikes where the tide gauge is located … so the tide gauge does matter even as the land it is sited on is rising faster than the global sea level rise.
You might like:
https://geoenvironmental-disasters.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40677-018-0101-9
Willard, you blithering idiot, you quoted “Catastrophe models are computer-assisted calculations that estimate financial losses resulting from natural hazard events.”
About as useful as “climate catastrophe models”!
Nothing is uninsurable – the insurer charges a sum which he believes will result in a profit, strangely enough. When the belief turns out to be wrong, the premium will be adjusted, generally upwards. When insurance companies get their fortune telling wrong too often, they fail.
Most homeowners object to being accountable for their actions – for example, purchasing home on a flood plain, abutting a beach, at the bottom of a hill, and so on. “Someone has to pay for my mistake!”, they cry. “Nobody warned me specifically that I would be flooded, inundated by storm, demolished by a mudslide, etc.”
Life is uncertain, and comes with risks. Nature is trying to exterminate you from the moment of conception, and eventually succeeds.
Accept reality – nobody owes you anything.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Nothing is uninsurable”
You might like:
https://winknews.com/2022/02/17/floridians-running-out-of-options-for-home-insurance/
Being the insurer of last resort, the government can decide that your property is too much at risk.
So sad, too bad.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Why would I “like” some useless and irrelevant journalistic opinion?
You point out that five insurers are “pulling out”. Their attempts to peer into the future lost them money, did they? Not sufficient profit?
Yes, I said nothing is uninsurable. You might not be happy about the premium, but – so sad, too bad. If you cant afford the premium, go without the insurance. Many do.
The government is not “the insurer of last resort”. Thats just stupidity – people expect the government to bail them out when their predictions about the future are in error.
The US government tends to be stupid enough to think it can borrow its way out of debt, by handing out money it doesnt have, to people who dont deserve it. I am prepared to pay for my mistakes, you obviously expect someone else to pay for yours!
Accept reality – nobody owes you anything.
–Those 52 insurance companies writing policies in Florida lost more than $1.6 billion.
This year, fewer insurance companies will write policies in Florida because of those losses.
That is forcing more homeowners to rely on Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, the states insurer of last resort.–
52 and then got five less?
I think 30, should be enough- if not you could buy the govt’s insurance.
Mikr Flynn,
A new business opportunity for you:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/26/australias-unraveling-climate-risk-leaving-more-homes-uninsurable-against-flooding-expert-warns
Perhaps you should sell Kim something more Enron-like.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
Why would I want to offer insurance if you don’t? You’re pretty stupid for suggesting that, aren’t you?
If somebody doesn’t want to pay $48,000 insurance premium, they don’t have to, do they?
Accept reality – nobody owes you anything. You live in some sort of dream world, where you can be as stupid as you like – and you expect the government (or someone else) to pay for your errors of judgement.
Why not? If someone else is stupid enough to pay for your mistakes, take advantage of them.
Even better, if the government is borrowing money to pay for your mistakes – someone else is probably going get saddled with the debt. Maybe you’re not so stupid after all!
Keep sponging.
Mike, Mike,
You said that nothing was uninsurable.
Do you have 45K for Kim?
Kim would like to be insured.
Please reassure her.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“You said that nothing was uninsurable.
Do you have 45K for Kim?
Kim would like to be insured.
Please reassure her.”
Why would I give $45,000 to anybody? Are you quite mad? If someone chooses not to insure their house, that is up to them. If someone thinks I should pay for them to have something they “like”, but can’t afford, they are as stupid as you.
The world doesn’t owe you anything, dummy. Your “likes” are your business – don’t expect me to pay for them!
> Why would I want to offer insurance
Because you claimed that nothing was uninsurable, Mike.
You goose.
I like Justinian Trust Doctrine. Where Justinian Trust Doctrine is recognized, no one is allowed to own private property within 200 meters (horizontal) of the high tide line.
If we did that imagine how much catastrophic property damage would be reduced.
https://www.fairfieldbeachaccess.org/history
It should be 1000 meter from high tide and 200 meters from creek or river.
All the homeless can go there, and they can washed away in a cleansing storm.
Ken,
Whoops! There go the British Houses of Parliament, the Tower of London, Manhattan Island, amongst others.
Maybe catastrophic property damage would be replaced by catastrophic societal damage.
Damn! I think I live within 1000 m of the high tide line.
Bad luck for me?
Noice, Kennui.
You might also like:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/the-uninsurables-how-storms-and-rising-seas-are-making-coastlines-unlivable
Wimpy Wee Willy,
Oh so sad! People are having to make hard choices about where they live, are they?
Boo hoo. Live is hard for many. It’s part of reality.
Donkey.
I love how you’re moving the goalposts, Cornuted Mike.
Do continue!
Ken
” The problem is of spending money on dikes where the tide gauge is located … so the tide gauge does matter even as the land it is sited on is rising faster than the global sea level rise. ”
*
There is a tide gauge at Furuogrund, Sweden, at the end of the Bothnian Gulf.
The land there rises at a velocity of 10 mm/year.
The gauge has a sea level rise velocity of -8 mm/year.
Why should anyone be dumb enough to spend money on a dike in Furuogrund?
The +2 mm/year is Furuogrund’s local contribution to global sea level change and not indicative of dike construction.
There is a tide gauge in Campbell River. Its shows relative sea level is dropping 1.66 mm per year.
City of Campbell River isn’t consulting the tide gauge. Chicken Little alarmism is the norm. Actually the scam is to get money from the province to protect private property on land that is prone to flooding and blame it on non-existant climate change.
Ken,
I believe only SkyDragon cultists would claim to be able to read tide levels to within 0.01 mm. That’s less than one half of a thousandth of an inch, for those stubbornly adhering to British Imperial measurements. Less than a hair’s breadth, literally.
Maybe it’s a miracle of SkyDragon average – average imprecise measurement, and produce stunning accuracy and precision from garbage!
I like it.
–7 Countries Where Insects Mean a Great Meal
The Netherlands
Some Dutch citizens are trying to bring bug-eating culture to their home country by making chocolate infused with ground mealworms. The Dutch are all about being culturally diverse and receptive to foreign influences, so eating insects is right up their alley.
The United States
Surprise, surprise. You’ve probably seen reality TV shows where contestants are challenged to consume bugs an idea which thoroughly disgusts many Americans. But if you’ve ever worn red lipstick or eaten red candy as a snack, you’ve likely ingested the insects used to produce that red dye, called cochineal.–
https://www.terminix.com/blog/whats-buzzing/7-countries-where-insects-mean-a-great-meal/
No country eats any significant amount bugs, except government will allow a lot things which accidentally get into food which is processed and sold- so rat turds or bugs or whatever.
So, if eat a lot processed food, you have eaten lots of bugs or whatever.
But there is no sense in the global warming cargo cult, advocating for people to eat bugs to save world.
And it seems one avoid eating processed food, to avoid eating bugs.
Soylent Green is people. Brought to you by Minute MAiD.
Skeptics continually point out that there is no scientific definition of the Greenhouse Effect. Heres a perfect example of the hand-waving we get:
Note the first sentence, which AUTOMATICALLY claims the GHE is valid, before ANY discussion.
In the same old sing-song, they contend that absorbing infrared AUTOMATICALLY means the planet is being warmed by the absorber. Thats like claiming bananas are warming the planet because they also absorbed infrared.
To continue the fraud, they invoke the *33 degree Celsius*, which does NOT relate to Earth. That value comes from an imaginary sphere.
Is this “scientific definition” from a science textbook, or scientific journal??
Or is from a source aimed at the general public?
Is there any other scientific definition about anything which isn’t
aimed at the general public?
Mike Flynn’s favorite is this one –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
He says he does not clock on links, but we now know he does.
Witless Wee Willy,
I dont need to follow your links – particularly when somebody has already told me that the link is a video produced by a face-pulling “content creator, musician, and author”, and doesn’t contain a description of the GHE.
If it did, you would say so. You are a tiny bit transparent at times, you fool.
Bad luck Wee Willy – posting the same link 50 times won’t do you any more good than not posting it at all. Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different outcome. Your time is yours to waste as you see fit.
Waste as much as you like. I don’t care. Maybe you could name someone who does, but I doubt it.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You don’t even have to admit that you’re Mike Flynn.
Deny to your heart content!
Gallicide.
Thats the definition from your cult, Nate. That quote was from National Geographic.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/greenhouse-effect/
But, its the same nonsense as from NASA:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
All of the cult blah-blah is the same — CO2, heat trapped, infrared, 33C….
Thats how a cult works.
Psst, Pup:
I don’t think you understand the meaning of “definition.”
Yes, it’s all the same blah-blah.
That’s how a cult works.
Cults work rather like that, Puppidooppup –
https://www.tiktok.com/@timo.helmers/video/7174499694264077573
Wonky Wee Willy,
Who cares what you supposedly “think”? Nobody has described the GHE, much less described how it allowed four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, have they?
What has “definition’ to do with anything?
Mike Flynn,
You have a point –
Nobody cares what you think.
However, that does not mean nobody cares what scientists think.
Cheers.
In terms of general ideas, it’s thought the atmosphere at higher elevation radiates a lot energy, but because the higher elevation
is colder, it’s lower temperature limits amount it can radiate.
And if average global surface temperature is warmer, the elevation in atmosphere is higher where is radiates into space.
And in terms of radiant effects of greenhouse gases, the more you have the higher in elevation the atmosphere radiates at.
There are number of problems with this. One is we living in an Ice House global climate. And we are in icehouse climate due to geological changes of the Earth surface- or it has nothing to do with atmosphere, rather it is more to do with the ocean.
So, when we were in different geologic conditions, we were in a much warmer world, which is called greenhouse global climate.
A significant difference of greenhouse global climate is a more uniform global air temperature, and average temperature of ocean was 10 C or higher. Whereas our ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C.
In terms of atmosphere during a greenhouse global climate, a more uniform global climate temperature would have less difference of the troposphere height, than we have currently, wiki:
“From the planetary surface of the Earth, the average height of the troposphere is 18 km (11 mi; 59,000 ft) in the tropics; 17 km (11 mi; 56,000 ft) in the middle latitudes; and 6 km (3.7 mi; 20,000 ft) in the high latitudes of the polar regions in winter; thus the average height of the troposphere is 13 km (8.1 mi; 43,000 ft).”
So, rather than about 13 km average, it could be 14 to 15 km average
and raising average height could be mostly near polar regions the air is much warmer.
But also within our icehouse global climate we also had much more uniform global temperature and a lot more global water vapor which is the most significant greenhouse gas.
Rather than having average ocean temperature of about 3.5 C, during
recent interglacial periods the average temperature of our ocean has 4 C or higher with sea levels 4 meters or higher.
Also rather focusing on the atmosphere, we all know the changes in Earth orbit around the sun make huge difference in global average temperature- it can make Earth have a more uniform average global temperature.
And changes Earth’s orbit within last 5000 years, have been making our world have a less uniform average temperature.
Recently, during a period called the Little Ice Age, global average temperature may dipped down around 13 C, and it’s considered that 20th century is it’s average was about 14 C, and in 21 century
it’s claimed to be about 15 C whereas warmer periods lasting thousands of years during past interglacial periods [when during favorable times in Earth’s orbit, average global air temperature were 17 to 18 C with average ocean temperature 4 C [or more].
And global warming is more than 90%, warming our ocean which has average temperature of 3.5 C.
Or global warming is mostly about warming our ocean.
Clint R
YOU: “To continue the fraud, they invoke the *33 degree Celsius*, which does NOT relate to Earth. That value comes from an imaginary sphere.”
Only in your deluded cult mind of fantasy physics you fake skeptics make up or pull out of your ass!
The reality is this is a measured value based upon the average brightness temperature of the Earth’s surface and the brightness temperature measured at the TOA. Yes Clint “Idiot” R the scientists measuring the outgoing Longwave radiation (around 240 W/m^2) do take into account the Inverse Square Law. You see real scientists are not as stupid as you are. They think deeply and thoroughly about the subject they are involved in. You can’t understand real thinking because you are able to accomplish this.
You are good at trolling, insulting posters and making really stupid points. You are very good at not being able to read or understand physics but pretend you are an expert.
Your level of science is grade school. Evidence is you only understand orbital motion as a ball on a string. This is a very simple analogy designed for children. It is NOT and adult version for explaining orbital motion. That is done by use of equations and math. Things you are no so good at using.
Good trolling, Norman.
No science. Nothing but insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. No appreciation for reality.
You did forget the links you can’t understand, however.
Clint R
My post contained science. You are not intelligent enough to process it. Your level of intellect can only perceive insults.
Since this is the only information you can process let us try.
Hey dumbass the Earth’s average surface temperature comes in at 288 K. Asshole, the outgoing longwave radiant energy has a brightness temperature of 255 K (240 W/m^2). The difference between the surface brightness temperature and the Outgoing longwave brightness temperature is 33 K.
I will see if you can process the correct data when insults are added. You do not seem to be able to process good science, evidence or facts. I am hoping a few insults will allow some information to get into your lead head and stubborn stupidity.
Sorry troll Norman, but youre making things up again.
TOA does NOT have a 255K temp. Youre still confused about a real 255K surface. Earth does not have one. The bogus *33K* comes from comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere.
Reality seems to make you angry.
Norman,
You wrote “My post contained science.”. Well, it certainly contained many unsupported assertions.
“Hey dumbass” and “asshole”, seems to indicate that you are endeavoring to be gratuitously offensive. What do you do if someone chooses to laugh at your immature attempts, rather than feeling insulted?
You showed that you have no clue what you are talking about when you wrote “The difference between the surface brightness temperature and the Outgoing longwave brightness temperature is 33 K.”
Yet again, I point out that the surface is the Earth is no longer molten. Oceans consist of liquid water, well below boiling point. Was “The difference between the surface brightness temperature and the Outgoing longwave brightness temperature is 33 K.” true when the surface was glowing hot, or when the first liquid water appeared?
You can’t even describe the “greenhouse effect”, can you? Your SkyDragon temple seems to be built on a foundation of fantasy and wishful thinking, doesn’t it?
Are all SkyDragon cultists as thick as you?
Clint R, the Earth system is real so it can be observed & thus its LW emission measured by radiometer unlike your imaginary sphere.
Funny 6:16 pm comment though.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
By the “the CO2 15 mm band is saturated ” I understand that there are very few CO2 in atmosphere, and almost all of them are very “busy” absorbing and emitting at 15 mm band.
–
Thus, any additional amount of CO2 in atmosphere adds very little to the absorbing-emitting issue.
–
There is another view though, which says the atmospheric CO2 content is already very much high, and therefore it has absorbed earth’s surface the entire IR emission at 15 mm band, so there is nothing more has left for CO2 to absorb at 15 mm band.
This kind of “saturation” leads to the conclusion that there has nothing left to absorb for the additional CO2 no matter how much is added.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
Are you serious?
What about reading something like
The CO2 GHE demystified
Posted on February 23, 2013 by Clive Best
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4597
written by one of these scientists I name the ‘Skeptics’ – in contrast to the bunch of ‘Pseudoskeptics’ endlessly posting they superficial trash on this blog?
*
Abstract
” This post describes a new approach to calculating the CO2 greenhouse effect. Instead of calculating radiative transfer from the surface up through the atmosphere to space, exactly the opposite is done. IR photons originating from space are tracked downwards to Earth in order to derive for each wavelength the height at which more than half of them get absorbed within a 100 meter path length.
This identifies the height where the atmosphere becomes opaque at a given wavelength. This also coincides with the ‘effective emission height’ for photons to escape from the atmosphere to space.
A program has been written using a standard atmospheric model to perform a line by line calculation for CO2 with data from the HITRAN spectroscopy database. The result for CO2 is surprising as it shows that OLR from the central peak of the 15 micron band originates from high in the stratosphere.
It is mostly the lines at the edges of the band that lie in the troposphere. The calculation can then show how changes in CO2 concentrations affect the emission height and thereby reduce net outgoing radiation(OLR). The net reduction in OLR is found to be in agreement with far more complex radiative transfer models.
This demonstrates how the greenhouse effect on Earth is determined by greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere and not at the surface. ”
*
When you will have read it, you’ll understand better how useless your simplistic approach really is.
And then you might be interested in reading Clive’s succeeding 2013 posts:
Radiative Forcing of CO2
Posted on February 27, 2013 by Clive Best
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4697
*
Water Vapor Decline Cools the Earth: NASA Satellite Data
Posted on March 6, 2013 by Clive Best
(Guest post by Ken Gregory P.Eng., Friends of Science.org)
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4730
Thank you, Bindidon, for your respond.
By the the CO2 15 mm band is saturated I understand that there are very few CO2 in atmosphere, and almost all of them are very busy absorbing and emitting at 15 mm band.
Thus, any additional amount of CO2 in atmosphere adds very little to the absorbing-emitting issue.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bindidon, since you’re trying to fake a knowledge of the science, here’s an easy question where you can really “strut your stuff”:
How do we know that “billions and billions” of 15μ photons can NOT raise Earth’s average surface temperature?
Exactly as ‘we’ [quotation marks needed] ‘know’ [quotation marks needed] that Moon’s motion is like the ball on a string.
Can’t answer the simple question, huh Bin?
You can’t even fake an answer. You’re not even as good a fraud as Norman. When asked a question he can’t answer, he just links to nonsense. Then, when called on it, he claims he’s already answered!
You need to take lessons from Norman, if you want to be a better troll.
Binny,
Maybe you could avoid answering by rushing around barking, and crapping on everything in sight! Only joking – I know you stride around in your highly polished jackboots, slapping your thigh with a lead-weighted riding crop, snarling “Schweinhund! Schiesskopf!” as you go.
It won’t help, you know. It doesn’t matter how much you froth at the mouth, the Earth cooled for four and a half billion years, so you can’t claim the GHE heats the planet without explaining why the Earth managed to cool in spite of being heated by the GHE!
No use saying “Well, it’s hotter than it should be.” It has cooled, and a thermometer tells you how hot it is – not how hot you think it “should be”.
Over to you.
There is another view though, which says the atmospheric CO2 content is already very much high, and therefore it has absorbed earths surface the entire IR emission at 15 mm band, so there is nothing more has left for CO2 to absorb at 15 mm band.
This kind of “saturation” leads to the conclusion that there has nothing left to absorb for the additional CO2 no matter how much is added.
Bindidon, you claim, though, that the earth’s surface IR emission band at 15 mm is not entirely absorbed by CO2 yet. You claim that the 15 mm band is not saturated yet.
You claim that adding some CO2 will absorb more at 15 mm band…
–
I agree with you, adding some more CO2 will absorb and emit more at the 15 mm band.
–
Also, I strongly insist on that, the 0,04% CO2 atmospheric content is very much small for anyone to worry about its absorbing-emitting behavior.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Bindidon, you claim… ”
No, Vournas: I did NOT claim anything.
I presented a post written by a real scientist: exactly what almost none of us are, beginning with simple-minded ‘ball-on-a-string’ers a la Clint R.
Obviously you weren’t able to understand what Clive Best wrote – if you were even willing to read it.
Although Christos 2:45 pm has been tempted to “strongly insist” that increasing carbon dioxide can only eventually saturate all lines with no other effect thus resulting in an upper limit on infrared radiation from the atmosphere, this just assumes incorrectly that the atm. temperature profile does not change.
Saturation of CO2 absorp_tivity does not necessarily imply saturation of consequences. Emission from the atmosphere to Earth depends on atm. layer emissivity & also depends on the atmospheric temperature profile.
Here, Vournas: one more paper which might help you in escaping out of your simplicistic views.
Greenhouse Effect: The Relative Contributions of Emission Height and Total Absorp~tion
JEAN-LOUIS DUFRESNE & alii, 2020
https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.pdf
Il n’est jamais trop tard pour apprendre.
binny’s paper is by an alarmist who uses models and innuendo to make scientific claims. The paper reference Arrhenius circa 1880 as a primary source. The paper is based on model propaganda as well as ‘mays’, ‘maybes’ and ‘mights’.
Typical alarmist schlock.
Binny,
From your authority –
“To establish the physical laws that govern the surface temperature of a planet, Fourier (1824, 1837) made the analogy between a vessel covered with plates of glass and Earths surface covered by the atmosphere.”
Fourier did no experiments whatsoever. 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.”
I know you believe you know better than Richard Feynman.
You can’t even describe the “geenhouse effect”, can you?
From your reference “This offers the possibility to propose a new quantitative simplified description of the greenhouse effect that is more realistic than the too simple single layer model called the “blanket model””
Unfortunately, the delusional French SkyDragon authors don’t offer either a previous description (just a reference to a “model” which they call “too simple”), nor come up with a better description – just a “possibility to propose” a description!
Keep the nonsense coming. Or accept reality.
Flynnson
Stop boasting your little lies. You have no idea about what Jean-Baptiste Fourier did or did not.
Its not just CO2, its H2O that also absorbs the 15 mm band. The spectrum is saturated.
Summer in Ontario is very humid. CO2 doesn’t absorb much of the IR; its absorbed by the water vapor. In winter its too cold for the air to hold much moisture so CO2 does have an effect on climate; winters are moderated slightly. Not much; freezing your ass off is still freezing your ass off.
Ken, the basic textbook eqn.s show that downward radiation to the surface increases with increasing concentration of atm. infrared-active gases, accompanied by higher atmospheric (lower tropospheric) temperatures. Saturation of various atm. layers is opposite effect.
So it is as unreasonable to expect an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to eventually result in some asymptotic value for infrared atmospheric irradiance as to expect the value to increase indefinitely.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“the basic textbook eqn.s show that downward radiation to the surface increases with increasing concentration of atm. infrared-active gases, accompanied by higher atmospheric (lower tropospheric) temperatures. Saturation of various atm. layers is opposite effect.”
Maybe you were having an attack of temporary insanity?
As the SkyDragon Raymond Pierrehumbert said “CO2 is just planetary insulation”, and you can’t produce any “basic textbook eqn.s” that say putting more insulation between the Sun and the surface makes the surface hotter! What do you think sunshades, parasols, and hats are for? You obviously don’t use one, and your skull has become overheated due to insufficient insulation between your head and the Sun!
Or do you suffer from mental retardation from another cause?
It doesn’t matter – I can poke fun at you regardless, I suppose. There’s nothing you can do about it, either, is there?
No GHE. The Earth cooled. Accept reality.
Wrong Swenson, many farmers still use the GHE to their continued economic benefit every day proving the GHE exists.
Swenson could actually visit such a farm and start to learn about the GHE. Pity Swenson doesn’t understand the GHE but there the comment is for all to read & laugh.
Ball4,
You wrote “Wrong Swenson, many farmers still use the GHE to their continued economic benefit every day proving the GHE exists.”
Complete garbage. You can’t even describe the GHE. Not only that, you cannot name even one farmer who “uses the GHE”, can you?
Farmers have to worry about floods, droughts, wind, hail, and all the rest of natural weather, not to mention everything else – insects, diseases, fuel, fertilizer, etc.
Still no GHE – you can’t even describe it, can you?
Joe. There’s one name I know using the GHE to advantage. But actually Swenson can ask any GHE farmer at all to describe his/her GHE it is so common place and learn a lot about the process instead of just writing funny comments hereabouts.
You seems to agree these days that radiation is not heat. Radiation from a colder atmosphere cannot be absorbed by a hotter surface that provided the radiation in the first place. The claim that such a cyclical transfer of heat to raise the temperature of the source is plainly perpetual motion.
Then again, you alarmists and your guru, Naomi Oreskes, seem to think consensus is a valid form of science so I guess you have no problem applying perpetual motion as valid science.
It’s not perpetual motion Gordon, the EMR transfer process will stop when the sun stops its input.
“cyclical transfer of heat”
No Gordon, EMR is NOT heat!
Ball4,
You wrote – “Its not perpetual motion Gordon, the EMR transfer process will stop when the sun stops its input.”
Which happens every night, when the process reverses, and the surface cools.
Even when subjected to 6 months of continuous sunlight, parts of the Antarctic continent remain below -40 C, down to -80 C or so. How much colder do you think these areas should be, due to the GHE?
Temperatures on the Moon were measured by DIVINER down to -250 C, without an atmosphere!
Does the GHE make Antarctica 200 C hotter than it “should be”? Throw a few explanations into the nonsense, if you feel like a change.
Wrong Swenson, the sun’s input doesn’t stop at night. Funny comment though; the laughter at Swenson’s comments doesn’t stop day or night either.
Ball4,
The amount of sunlight measurable at night (defined as a lack of sunlight) is roughly the same as your knowledge of physics.
You might not be aware that four and a half billion years of sunlight shining on a rotating Earth has resulted in the Earth cooling, not heating.
So just how much hotter has the GHE made the Earth? Not at all?
Oh dear, Ball4, the wonderful GHE which you can’t describe, seems to simultaneously heat and cool the Earth – but only if you are a delusional SkyDragon cultist. You might as well keep laughing – that’s a good excuse for not being able to say anything sensible.
Laugh on, fool.
Ken
” Its not just CO2, its H2O that also absorbs the 15 mm band. The spectrum is saturated. ”
Sorry, wrong.
H2O doesn’t absorb/emit anything at 15 mu, look at Spectral Calc.
H2O vs CO2, 5-20 mu, 10 km altitude, scaling by atmospheric abundance:
https://i.postimg.cc/JnTJqBdd/H2-O-CO2-5-20-mu-5-km.png
CO2 is way weaker than H2O, but not at 20 km because H2O precipitates above the tropopause:
https://i.postimg.cc/8cJ49V9G/H2-O-CO2-5-20-mu-20-km.png
But CO2 is currently not the primary problem yet, imho.
Binny,
According to Wikipedia “Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.”
How does that work? Maybe you could describe the GHE, as different people seem to be thinking different things. If you can’t, how can you expect people to take you seriously?
Wikipedia are no help. They just say the “greenhouse effect” makes the Earth hotter, due to sunlight!
Very illuminating – not!
H2O DOES absorb at 15 um. See the sketch:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Ken
I apologize for insisting, but… you are still wrong.
The picture you show above was made by Berkeley Earth’s major collaborator Robert A. Rohde long time ago.
It is present in numerous web pages, e.g. which however mostly don’t explain at which specific wavelengths water vapor (not: water!) absorbs and emits in the atmosphere.
It is quite inaccurate – because it is intended for the general public – and has often been misused to claim that CO2 is at 15 µ IR emissions inactive because H2O already absorbs them all.
*
Some web pages contain valuable information about that however, e.g.
Absorp~tion coefficient of water vapor across atmospheric troposphere layer[s]
Peng-Sheng Wei & al. (2019)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844018327415
This work describes the comparison of the coefficients generated according to their absorp~tion model with values
– theoretically predicted (e.g. by M. F. Modest, 1973)
– resulting from experiments (e.g. by G. Yamamoto and G. Onishi, 1948)
*
You see already in the abstract at which wavelengths water vapor is active; in section 2, paragraph 4 you read furthermore:
” Absorp~tion bands of water vapor are considered to be in wavelength ranges centered at 71, 6.3, 2.7, 1.87 and 1.38 µm. Those of carbon dioxide are centered at 15, 4.3, 2.7, and 2 µm. ”
In section 3.2 you see in Fig. 3 resp. 4 the correlation between model, theory and experimentally obtained values.
*
Now back to SpectralCalc and the HITRAN database at
https://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
I have created two separated picture files within which you see absorp~tion and emission lines of H2O and CO2 in the range 10-20 µm.
H2O (6131 lines in the range)
https://i.postimg.cc/15m7X6Lg/H2-O-raw-10-20-mu-0-km.png
CO2 (122315 lines in the range)
https://i.postimg.cc/VN8Cs9Vp/CO2-raw-10-20-mu-0-km.png
*
Please compare the two pictures.
You can repeat this little exercise by using SpectralCalc’s link, and
– selecting either H2O or CO2 in the ‘Species’ of the line list;
– selecting ‘Microns’ , ‘Scale by atmospheric abundance’ and ‘Linear’ scale;
– specifiying this time for example 14 – 16 µ for the plot’s range.
You should then obtain 1142 lines for H2O, and 52326 lines for CO2.
James Webb Space Telescope finds no atmosphere on Earth-like TRAPPIST-1 exoplanet
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-no-atmosphere-trappist-1-exoplanet
“Astronomers used the James Webb Space Telescope’s Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI) to measure the temperature of the planet TRAPPIST-1b. Out of the seven planets that make up the TRAPPIST-1 star system, this planet orbits the closest to the parent star and is about 1.4 times as large as Earth.”
I thought TRAPPIST-1 star system would be near perfect solar system
for spacefaring civilization that travelled to stars.
And airless planet 1.4 times Earth, doesn’t change that- such a planet would not be hard to leave or land on for spacefaring civilization.
Though as far as evolving life on that planet- that’s different.
There is no physical evidence that such a planet exists, never mind having an atmosphere. Even James Webb cannot see at that level of detail, to make out a planet orbiting a distant star.
An exoplanet, according to NASA can be identified in two ways…
1)by checking the wobble of a planet. Duh!!! That presumes that a planet and star system produces a wobble around a barycentre. With the Earth, the so-called wobble is a few feet on its polar axis, whereas, based on the Earth-Moon barycentre, it should be about a several kilometre wobble.
The notion of a planet-star barycentre is strictly a mathematical definition to identify the centre of mass of the system. In reality, the star-planet do not rotate about that barycentre. The force of gravity at the great distances between them is simply far too weak to cause such a rotation.
For example, the acceleration of the Moon from Earth is about 0.003 m/s^2 whereas close to Earth it is 9.8 m/s^2. That is barely enough to divert our moon 5 metres off its path for every 8000 metres traveled tangentially.
There is no way the Earth-Moon are orbiting a barycentre, therefore NASA’s opinion is as stupid as their claim that the Moon rotates exactly once on a local axis per orbit. NASA should stick to what they are good at, launching space missions. They are pathetic with astronomy and climate science.
2)NASA also claims an exoplanet can be detected when it blocks light from the mother star. More nonsense. The only way that could happen is if the planet had sufficient mass to block a significant amount of light. Anything in-between the star and earth could do that, even create the impression of a black hole.
— Gordon Robertson says:
March 27, 2023 at 5:09 PM
There is no physical evidence that such a planet exists, never mind having an atmosphere. Even James Webb cannot see at that level of detail, to make out a planet orbiting a distant star.
An exoplanet, according to NASA can be identified in two ways
1)by checking the wobble of a planet. Duh!!! That presumes that a planet and star system produces a wobble around a barycentre. With the Earth, the so-called wobble is a few feet on its polar axis, whereas, based on the Earth-Moon barycentre, it should be about a several kilometre wobble.–
This can be done and mostly done with fairly small telescopes [1 meter diameter is what mean by small- compared to 10 meter diameter mirrored ones] on Earth surface.
gb…to show what you’re dealing with, prior to Hubble and Webb, the largest telescope on Earth could not amplify Jupiter to an image larger than a Canadian loonie (dollar coin, for others).
Those were visual telescopes and Webb operates in the infrared region. So, any picture you see from Webb has been fudged to give it colour.
Take a look at this enhanced Webb photo and see the problem. Look how small the stars are and it gives you an idea of trying to see an exoplanet around one.
https://www.nasa.gov/webbfirstimages
In other words, Webb cannot see this imagery it has to be coloured and enhanced to see it.
If you compare Earth to Jupiter distance then Webb to the nearest star, you are talking a major difference in distance. Webb simply lacks the definition to see something as small as an exoplanet orbiting a distant star.
NASA admits as much, claiming they use other parameters than direct focus to claim an exoplanet.
When I studied a year of astrophysics as an elective, I thought it would be an exciting course. It was one of the most boring courses I have ever taken. Geology was exciting in comparison. There is simply nothing going on in astronomy except major guesses as to what is going on out there in the Universe.
Astronomy is almost as bad as anthropology, for making up crazy scenarios about our past. In astronomy, they make up ridiculous hypotheses about the universe.
We are so limited by our instrumentation that we cannot tell the size of the universe or where we might be located in its vastness. Think about it. Does the universe need somewhere and if it does, what’s on the other side?
We have no instrumentation that will allow us to see atomic structure and absolutely nothing to see beyond a certain distance in space.
Stargate uses fictitios star gates to get out where telescopes cannot see. Until we get one, or something similar, the Universe will always be a big mystery.
https://www.nasa.gov/webbfirstimages
“Located roughly 7,600 light-years away, NGC 3324 was imaged by Webbs Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) and Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI).”
The TRAPPIST-1 star system is 40 light years away.
So, put basketball at 40 feet and another basketball 7600 feet away.
You can see basketball 40 feet away but not the one over a mile away.
Imagine Earth going around a tiny sun and it’s not as bright as
our sun, but Earth is so close to sun, it’s hotter than Sun at Venus
distance.
And at night you looked at our Moon- it would be brighter in visible light.
At our distance of sun, 1/2 sunlight is near Infrared. This tiny sun
is more like 1/4 in visible light or 3/4 near infrared.
Webb is “Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam) and Mid-Infrared”.
And I assume it would be similar to looking at our Moon at night- though full moon might hard to get, but you could easily get a 1/2 moon.
And we know where it will be, because their orbits have already been discovered.
wee willy wackjob…”[S]uppose we want to isolate the effect of anthropogenic forcing. If the stadium wave is the primary manifestation of multidecadal natural variability, we can do this by simply considering a period equal to one complete cycle of the stadium wave…”
***
Here you have the anthropogenic theory in a nutshell. No one can explain it in scientific terms so the alarmists are forced to use inane analogies, like nuisances at a game standing consecutively to emulate a wave moving around a stadium.
C’mon, Bordo.
You’re quoting NG:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nielsen-Gammon
If you’re too dumb to distinguish when I quote stuff, perhaps you should skip my comments.
Wee Wee Wanker,
You wrote ” . . . perhaps you should skip my comments.”
What – and miss the chance to have a good snigger at your lame attempts to deny reality?
I certainly find myself laughing at your silliness on many occasions, so it’s not all sniggering.
Others can laugh and snigger at you all they want. Neither you nor I can do anything about it, can we?
Keep at it. Maybe you could post another YouTube video created by a face-pulling “content creators and musician”, for fun. Don’t admit that it doesn’t contain a description of the GHE. That’s what someone told me, anyway. Who was lying – them or you?
You don’t have to answer, of course.
Mike Flynn,
I thought I was talking to Bordo.
Are you Bordo?
No, you’re not.
You’re Mike Flynn.
Stupid sock puppet.
Silly Billy Willy,
You wrote –
“I thought I was talking to Bordo.
Are you Bordo?
No, youre not.”
And I’m supposed to care what you “think” because . . . ?
Are you important and powerful perhaps? Can you cause me severe personal injury by focusing your incredible intellect (only joking) at me, and stealing my brain waves?
If you think that, your tinfoil hat is probably too tight – it’s causing hallucinations.
Accept reality – I don’t really give much weight to what you allegedly “think”.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Perhaps I was not clear.
Or perhaps I was and you’re just playing dumb.
If we can call it playing.
Please, do continue to be the dumbest Climateball player in the known universe!
Cheers.
Silly Billy Willy,
You wrote
I thought I was talking to Bordo.
Are you Bordo?
No, youre not.
And Im supposed to care what you think because . . . ?
Are you important and powerful perhaps? Can you cause me severe personal injury by focusing your incredible intellect (only joking) at me, and stealing my brain waves?
If you think that, your tinfoil hat is probably too tight its causing hallucinations.
Accept reality I dont really give much weight to what you allegedly think.
Carry on.
swenson…”I certainly find myself laughing at your [wee willy’s] silliness on many occasions, so its not all sniggering”.
***
ditto. Wee willy is good comic relief.
Cool story, Bordo.
It was about time you come at Mike Flynns rescue.
Whining Wee Willy,
Cant you think of anything better to say?
You cant even string a few words together without showing how sloppy you are, can you?
You dont need to pretend to be stupid.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Yes, I can.
But why would I?
It is just Bordo, and now you.
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
You wrote-
“Mike Flynn,
Yes, I can.
But why would I?
It is just Bordo, and now you.
Cheers.”
You claim you can string a few words together without showing how sloppy you are. The facts indicate something different. You prefer fiction to fact. Good for you.
As you say, why would you prefer fact to fiction? I don’t know. Why would you?
You don’t have the faintest idea, do you?
Carry on being an idiot..
Still on your iPhone, Mike?
from the wiki article…
“On December 22, 2009, Nielsen-Gammon wrote a detailed analysis of the erroneous projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers in the Working Group II section of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report which said that “the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”
The guy is clearly an idiot. Th Himalaya has most of the highest mountains in the world feeding those glaciers. It’s far too cold on average for those glaciers to melt. The Khumbu glacier, fed by Everest, Lohtse, and Nuptse terminates around 18,000 feet.
K2, the 2nd highest mountain, along with other 8000 meter giants feed the Baltoro glacier. Although its about 3400 metres, it is not retreating either.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/e807534cb7354eee9c516ff04959c06b
Also, he uses models and mathematical techniques to make his predictions.
It’s no coincidence that he is at the same university as Andrew Dessler, another climate alarmist idiot.
Come on, Bordo.
The only idiot between you an NG is you.
Your incredulity is duly noted.
It I after all the incredulity of the saddest crank.
Come on, Bordo.
Between you and NG, there is only one idiot.
And it is not NG.
The incredulity of an idiot is duly noted.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Another stupid SkyDragon assertion?
You can support your nonsensical with fact? Only joking, of course you can’t!
What a fool you are! Feel free to prove me wrong, fool.
Another stupid question, Mike?
Go on.
Whining Wee Willy,
You have appointed yourself the “stupid” arbiter, have you?
If you can’t provide some facts to support your self-appointment, whom do you think is going to take notice of your decisions?
Certainly not me, and certainly nobody else you could put a name to.
Not terribly clever, Wee Willy, not terribly clever at all!
What are you braying about, Mike?
Whining Wee Willy,
You have appointed yourself the “stupid” arbiter, have you?
If you can’t provide some facts to support your self-appointment, whom do you think is going to take notice of your decisions?
Certainly not me, and certainly nobody else you could put a name to.
Not terribly clever, Wee Willy, not terribly clever at all!
Good boy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Moral Catastrophe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwOasTi0eE0
The Airhead and an American extremist rightwinger.
Makes me wonder whether anyone thinks Dr. Michael E. Mann is
a truth teller- because he is obviously viciously attacked.
Also it does appear to be bit pathetic, I am never attacked in any serious way. Actually it’s close to zero.
Maybe, because no one takes “global warming” as serious issue.
I don’t take seriously, just interested mainly cause I am
interest in topic of “space”- mainly been interested in why
NASA appears to be so incompetent.
Or as once said, why are people interested in space aliens.
No evidence of them, but if there were space aliens- one just have
dialogue between bureaucracies- Earth with space aliens- which would
be completely, embarrassing.
And wonder whether space aliens have somehow “fixed” having really stupid governmental bureaucracies.
And brings back to issue, is any governmental bureaucrat who was a
truth teller. Well there was NASA administer which is/was lionized,
but I don’t know many details of it- and can’t remember his name.
We have famous FBI director- who was hideous, and can’t remember his name, either. Google: Edgar Hoover. And well at it:
JAMES E. WEBB NASA Administrator, February 14, 1961-October 7, 1968
I guess he deserves it, or lucky enough to leave, when he did.
Oh dear, methane doesn’t warm as much as it should:
Surprise effect: Methane cools even as it heats, say researchers
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/03/27/surprise-effect-methane-cools-even-as-it-heats-say-researchers/
How can get out these cold 15 C temperatures?
gb,
When someone writes “By holding on to energy from the sun, methane is introducing heat the atmosphere no longer needs to get from precipitation.”, you have to wonder why some fool somewhere keeps handing the writer taxpayers money to keep producing gibberish.
Nothing “holds on to” sunlight. Objects heat during the day, cool at night.
im not surprised that SkyDragon belief in a GHE which simultaneously cools the Earth for four and a half billion years, and heats the Earth at the same time, is based on the premise that supposed GHGs cool while they heat! Or do they heat while they cool?
Cooking the laws of thermodynamics with CO2
https://youtu.be/sY2xHk0ThJ8
Never have so many been so wrong. Climate alarmists, that is.
Or not…
https://apnews.com/article/renewable-energy-coal-nuclear-climate-change-dd4a0b168fe057f430e37398615155a0
Bindidon:
“Greenhouse Effect: The Relative Contributions of Emission Height and Total Absorp~tion
JEAN-LOUIS DUFRESNE & alii, 2020
https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.pdf”
–
Earth is known having a very thin atmosphere… The GIANTS never confused Earth’s atmosphere with Venus’ ATMOSPHERE !!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
What is the point of mentioning Venus in relation to Dufresne’s essay?
A helpful idea?
Do you really think this man would ignore how thin the Earth’s atmosphere is? Really?
Are you that condescending, Vournas?
Venus atmosphere may be large, but at Earth distance from the Sun, Venus would be colder than Earth.
It’s atmosphere absorbs less than Earth’s and it has almost twice amount of sunlight as at Earth distance.
Or if Earth absorbs 100 watts per square rather than 240 watts, how cold would Earth be.
It’s similar question as, what would Earth average temperature be, at Mars distance.
If course as practical issue, Mars is warmer than Earth, because Mars atmosphere is close to vacuum- Or Mars atmosphere is not cold, like Earth air temperature at it surface.
There is disadvantage, on Earth you can air cool a car engine, and that engine would over heat on Mars.
Eboy found a goldmine:
Consciousness of Electrons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zTc7y2wIEQ
I don’t know what this guy is on about, that electrons have a consciousness. It’s the same dumb argument presented by some quantum types who think electrons can communicate at vast distances.
In the experiment offered, where a magnetic is moved quickly into and out of a coil connected to a galvanometer, the needle moves, indicating a voltage being induced. He asks how the electrons in the coil know to react to the magneticfield and that textbooks don’t explain it.
The reason is obvious. The electrons carry a negative charge and the magnetic field of the magnet’s field interacts with the electric field produced by the electrons. That electric field is there whether the electrons are moving or not. Therefore it has to be in text books, or in the minds of professors, or I would never have learned that.
What we don’t know is how the magnetic fields and electric fields are related. Why is it, when an electron moves, it automatically produces a magnetic field around itself?
It is entirely premature to presume the electrons have a consciousness or knowledge with regard to reacting to a magnetic field.
It has long been known, that in a cathode ray tube, electrons accelerated from the cathode to a positive anode can be bent out of their path by a magnetic field applied from a coil through which the electron beam moves. That is the basis of television and oscilloscopes operation.
It would also appear, that in the zeal to prove Einstein’s space-time propaganda, theorists got it wrong when they claimed the mass of the Sun bends light out of its way. It is clearly obvious that the Sun, being a huge ball of electromagnetic energy, and light, being an electromagnetic field, are interacting to bend the light in a manner similar to the magnet producing a current when moved in and out of a coil.
The question is, can we right the ship of physics after the serious damage done by theorists who have no understanding of the basics.
A: The misinformed physics rookie Gordon with no understanding of the basics can become a well-informed veteran by accomplishing a bachelor’s degree in physics from a reputable college.
Ball4 dispenses irrelevant and unsought advice which will be treated with the disdain it so richly deserves.
Wrong Swenson, since Gordon asked: “The question is…” so my answer was sought by Gordon; humorously Swenson is free to ignore the advice but chose not to do so. Found the GHE exists yet Swenson? Evidently not.
Ball4 you idiot, any fool can see what Gordon wrote.
You refer to me ignoring some “advice” you gave without being asked. Are you living in some bizarre fantasy world, where people ask delusional SkyDragon cultists for “advice”?
What form of insanity leads you to believe that anyone at all would value your unsolicited advice? Asking the completely stupid question “Found the GHE exists yet Swenson? Evidently not.” shows the depth of your delusion. You might as well ask me if I have found a unicorn, a fairy at the bottom of the garden – or even Michael Manns Nobel Prize!
All of these things may appear real to you, but like the GHE, you cant actually produce any of them. They are all non-existent – just like the GHE.
Keep trying to convince people that you can.
And the super-troll ball4, who likely did not graduate from high school, continues to lie through his teeth.
B4 is good at slinging ad homs and other nonsense yet he is seriously lacking in the ability to provide a scientific rebuttal. Until he does offer a serious rebuttal, I’ll continue to dismiss him as a super-troll.
Cool story, Bordo.
Have you ever watched **21 grams**?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Reminding everyone (upthread) that the cult has no viable definition/description of the “greenhouse effect” produced some interesting responses.
We learned that trolls Norman and Ball4 still have not found their bogus “real 255K surface”, and that Bindidon can’t answer the simple physics question: “How do we know that “billions and billions” of 15μ photons can NOT raise Earth’s average surface temperature?”
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
Just “so much fun.” It used to be “hilarious”. I guess it has toned down a bit from those days.
Troll Norman, your cult brother needs help. Can you answer the easy question for Bin?
“How do we know that “billions and billions” of 15μ photons can NOT raise Earth’s average surface temperature?”
Because they still exist as unabsorbed photons.
Ball4, you nitwit, a photon by definition is a photon – that is, it is “unabsorbed”.
When light interacts with matter, it ceases to exist, you fathead.
You really have no clue, do you?
Wrong again funny Swenson since if light interacts with matter, the light does NOT cease to exist when the light is reflected or transmitted by the interaction. When reflected or transmitted: “billions and billions” of 15 micron photons can NOT raise Earth’s average surface temperature since they are still photons.
Humorously, Swenson is still lost in space. Found the GHE and figured it out yet Swenson? No? I thought not, so just ask a relevant farmer to show you around one & explain the GHE exists.
b4…”Wrong again funny Swenson since if light interacts with matter, the light does NOT cease to exist when the light is reflected or transmitted by the interaction”.
***
Is a reflection an interaction? Or is it something like solar energy being absorbed by the surface and converted to infrared at a longer wavelength? If you can’t explain it then why mock someone who has offered a different answer?
AFAIAC, it’s a complex problem. Light is made up of bazzillions of frequencies/wavelength and electrons in atoms react to each frequency differently. In fact, electrons in each type of material will react to light differently.
Maybe you can explain it to us.
“Wrong again funny Swenson since if light interacts with matter, the light does NOT cease to exist when the light is reflected or transmitted by the interaction.”
No, look it up. In particular, try and find out why some materials are transparent to certain wavelengths of light? Explanations like ” An object looks transparent because light waves pass through unchanged.” are common, but uninformative. Might be more difficult than you think. Maybe a farmer can help you out? Yes, Im having a snigger at your stupidity.
Are you sure you understand the phenomenon of reflection? You might rely on something like this – “Reflection and transmission of light waves occur because the frequencies of the light waves do not match the natural frequencies of vibration of the objects.”
Complete nonsense of course, but good enough for dimwits.
When an election absorbs a photon, the photon cease to exist. When an electron emits a photon, it wasnt there before, you nong.
Ask any farmer.
[ROTFLMAO]
No, an electron doesn’t emit a photon, Swenson, since its mass is too small to provide the linear and angular momentum possessed by any emitted photon; atoms and molecules emit/absorb, reflect, and transmit light waves.
Any incident light wave excites molecules in smooth (on the order of the wavelength) lab glass to radiate secondary waves that combine to form a net reflected light wave given by the law of reflection and a net transmitted light wave given by the law of refraction.
The really fun bit is you couldn’t recognize a viable definition or description of the Greenhouse Effect if it hit you in the posterior. You don’t fool me; you got your science qualifications from a box of cracker jacks.
Troll Ken, your immaturity and ignorance makes you angry and frustrated. And, the fact that you can’t learn makes things even worse for you.
This is not your first sock, sock puppet.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Only ignorant Flat Earth cultists ask such stupid questions like
” How do we know that ‘billions and billions’ of 15μ photons can NOT raise Earths average surface temperature? ”
*
If you would try to translate this French paper in your own native tongue
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques-Treiner/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/links/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/Leffet-de-serre-atmospherique-plus-subtil-quon-ne-le-croit.pdf
and would try to understand its contents, then you possibly could understand how nonsensical your ‘ball on a string’-like question is.
*
” The Moon does not rotate on an internal axis because it always shows us the same face. ”
Yeah… wonderful. Different context, identical behavior.
Faudrait p'têt consulter un psy un de ces jours, mon gars.
Sorry Bin, but your reference is not relevant to the question. It’s an easy question, but it does require a basic understanding of radiative physics. As does REAL climate science. That sorta leaves your cult out, huh?
But, you’re correct — Moon does NOT rotate on its axis.
… wrt earthen observers.
Reference frames have nothing to do with it. If the Moon is not physically rotating about a local axis in one reference frame it cannot start rotating by observing it from another reference frame.
You are confusing local rotation with an apparent rotation, an illusion similar to the apparent motion of the Sun, which appears to be orbiting the Earth. Some of us can actually see past these illusions, B4.
Gordon, earthshine is incident on only the man-in-the-moon lunar face while sunshine is incident on all lunar faces. This circumstance is no illusion; all motion is relative.
b4…”earthshine is incident on only the man-in-the-moon lunar face while sunshine is incident on all lunar faces. This circumstance is no illusion; all motion is relative”.
***
I explained this using the analogy of a race car doing laps on an oval. If you are in the stands, sitting along a straightaway, you see all sides of the car. If you are inside the track, you only see the driver’s side if the car is a North American type and it is going CCW.
The Sun is obviously shining from inside the Earth’s orbit with the Moon orbiting so it has the near side lit when outside the Earth’s orbit and the far side (wrt to an Earth observer) lit wen it is between the Sun and the Earth.
The Moon does not have to rotate on a local axis to experience those conditions. The orbital motion itself will do it.
Gordon first writes: “Reference frames have nothing to do with it.”
Secondly, Gordon invokes reference frames for what is observed being different so now in Gordon’s updated more correct view reference frames have something to do with it by Gordon writing: “If you are in the stands… If you are inside the track… wrt to an Earth observer” so forth. Good update, since all motion IS relative.
Gordon’s new found useful arbitrary reference frames can be inertial or accelerated, so let’s see if Gordon can learn from which earthen observers are observing.
b4 is very good with red-herring arguments. He ignores the part that disproves his premise and repeats his inane whine about reference frames.
I live on Earth, it is my reference frame. I have no interest in fictitious reference frames and furthermore, I don’t need them. If I was interested in my walking speed wrt the galaxy, I’d calculate it. Since I have no need for such a reference frame I will go with my everyday experience here on Earth.
From my perspective on Earth, the Moon is not rotating on a local axis. And from any fictitious reference frame it is not rotating on a local axis either.
There was no ignoring. “From my perspective on Earth” means Gordon once again correctly invokes a reference frame. Even non-spinners agree the Earth is rotating on its own axis thus Gordon is observing the Moon from the “perspective” (Gordon term) of an accelerated frame. When that earthen non-inertial frame acceleration is correctly accounted, the Moon is found to be inertially rotating on its own axis.
from the article…”State-of-the-art radiative models can be used to calculate in a rigorous and accurate manner the atmospheric greenhouse effect…”
***
Binny doesn’t get it that models have to be programmed, often by idiots who do not understand basic physics. It doesn’t matter if the model is state-of-the-art, the model’s operation depends on a program written by humans. If the program is incorrect, so is the model.
So, how does anyone program a model to represent a greenhouse effect that cannot be explained in scientific terms? Lindzen claimed the GHE s normally presented is overly simplified, and I thought he was being kind. There is no reason why trapped IR in a real greenhouse should warm it. R. W. Wood proved the warming has nothing to do with trapped IR, that the greenhouse warms because the hated air molecules cannot escape.
The author in Binny’s paper proposes to replace the greenhouse model with yet another model. More insanity.
Binny leaves with a shot at the non-spinner argument… The Moon does not rotate on an internal axis because it always shows us the same face.
At no time, has any spinner tried to prove this statement is wrong and that’s obviously because they can’t.
The lunar statement is not wrong, Gordon, all motion is relative.
The Moon does not rotate on an internal axis wrt to Earth because it always shows earthen observers the same face. The Moon does rotate on an internal axis wrt to the sun because it shows solar observers all faces.
What you are missing is this. If the Moon is rotating on a local axis it has a local angular momentum. That angular momentum has no relation to a reference frame, the Moon is either turning or it is not. So, changing the reference frame cannot affect the angular momentum.
Forget your reference frames and focus just on the Moon. It is rotating on a local axis, or it is not. If it is not rotating on that local axis, you cannot generate the required force to start it rotating by changing reference frames.
Invoke your newly found reference frames Gordon.
What you are missing is this. Since the Moon is inertially rotating on a local axis as observed from the sun (a star), the Moon has a local angular momentum. That lunar inertial angular momentum must be the same in all arbitrary reference frames, the Moon is either inertially turning or it is not. So, changing the reference frame cannot affect the inertial lunar angular momentum thus the reference frame chosen must then itself be accelerating.
The misinformed and/or underinformed rookie Gordon, would know this had Gordon become a veteran by having accomplished that reputable college degree in physics.
Ball4,
You nitwit, as Newton pointed out, with reference to an observer outside the Moon’s orbit around the Earth, all sides of the Moon may be seen successively, giving the same effect as if the Moon was rotating about an internal fixed axis, and was viewed from within its orbit.
However, Newton also pointed out that the Moon is in free fall towards the centre of the Earth. This is why when you look up at the Moon, all you see is the bottom, as it falls to Earth, and a little of the sides, if you are not directly under it.
I’m not all that sure that Sir Isaac Newton had a degree in physics from a reputable college, so maybe Newton’s Laws of Motion, Newton’s Law of Cooling, and few other bits and pieces are not to your liking. Feel free to ignore anything with which you disagree.
Michael HockeyStick Mann has physics degrees from reputable colleges, and is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat, as well as probably suffering from an untreatable delusional psychosis.
Gavin Schmidt, of course, doesn’t have a physics degree of any kind, reputable or otherwise. His computer models are based on fantasy and wishful thinking, obviously.
Maybe you should explain the role of the mythical GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, before you start trying to convince people that Sir Isaac Newton should be ignored because he didn’t have a physics degree from a reputable college.
I think that you are an idiot of the SkyDragon variety. Others may think differently.
Swenson is evidently “not sure” of a lot of physics reality including the physics veteran Newton’s formal education.
It remains humorous Swenson hasn’t yet contacted a relevant farmer to learn the GHE does exist despite Swenson’s claim of “four and a half billion years of planetary cooling” enabling that GHE to exist.
b4…”What you are missing is this. Since the Moon is inertially rotating on a local axis as observed from the sun (a star), the Moon has a local angular momentum”.
***
But it’s not rotating inertially at all. If it’s not observed to be rotating about a local axis from Earth, it is not rotating about a local axis from anywhere.
You have yourself all bent out of shape with philosophical theories. Try grounding yourself and get in touch with where you really are.
Rookie mistake Gordon, since if the Moon is observed to be not rotating about a local axis from the “perspective” of Earth, an accelerated frame, then it can be inertially rotating about a local axis from the “perspective” of the sun (a star).
And that is what is observed by earthshine incident on only one lunar face; sunshine incident on all lunar faces.
Ball4, you wrote –
“It remains humorous Swenson hasnt yet contacted a relevant farmer to learn the GHE does exist despite Swensons claim of four and a half billion years of planetary cooling enabling that GHE to exist.”
Oh dear, you make the claim that mythical anonymous farmers can describe the GHE, but you cant actually name one!
I dont feel like wasting my time trying to contact people who dont exist. I leave that to idiots like you who cant even describe their mythical GHE, far less explain its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling.
Others can decide for themselves whether claims that the GHE simultaneously cools and heats the planet seem feasible.
Carry on being nonsensical and evasive.
b4…”Rookie mistake Gordon, since if the Moon is observed to be not rotating about a local axis from the perspective of Earth, an accelerated frame, then it can be inertially rotating about a local axis from the perspective of the sun (a star)”.
***
Your obtuseness is getting worse by the post. If I take a bicycle wheel, on Earth, and lock it so it cannot possibly turn, you are claiming it will be turning about the axle on which it is locked if I look at it from a different reference frame.
This is the same argument about the wooden horse bolted to the floor of a carousel. It cannot possibly rotate about its COG without ripping the bolts out of the floor. Yet you spinners claim it will be rotating about its COG if viewed from a different perspective.
I know where you are coming from. You are visualizing a situation where the entire carousel, playground, and Earth are rotating about the COG of the horse. Now tell me, is that stupid, or what?
You are living in some distant universe in your mind. If a wheel is locked with a lock going through its spokes, the wheel cannot possibly turn without breaking the lock or the spokes. That’s your rookie mistake, B4, thinking in terms of theory rather than looking at the reality staring you in the face.
That seems to be a common problem with all climate alarmists.
I already named a greenhouse owner Swenson; perhaps your 2nd grade formal training in reading was lacking. What Swenson needs to do to learn about the GHE is contact a farmer of Swenson’s choice that also owns a greenhouse and have the farmer explain the GHE exists to Swenson.
Only Swenson claims “the GHE simultaneously cools and heats the planet”; the relevant greenhouse farmer will laugh at that too, and, being of Swenson’s choice, the farmer can further explain the GHE exists for Swenson.
swenson…”Michael HockeyStick Mann has physics degrees from reputable colleges…”
***
Actually, he is a geologist, wouldn’t know physics if it was explained to him slowly. Same with Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician.
No Gordon 7:25 pm, if I take a bicycle wheel, on Earth, and lock it so it cannot possibly turn wrt the axle, as you write, I am not claiming it will be turning about the axle on which it is locked if I look at it from any different reference frame.
The bolted wooden horse on the spinning carousel isn’t rotating about its COG wrt the carousel (“If you are inside the track”) but it is rotating on its own axis wrt to the room containing the carousel (“If you are in the stands”).
Now that Gordon has invoked reference frames, Gordon needs to learn to do so correctly.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“I already named a greenhouse owner Swenson;”
Well, thats helpful – not. You didnt, actually. You demand I waste my time seeking a fictitious farmer, then tell me I must waste more time, because you are an idiot who now claims he really meant “greenhouse owner”, who doesnt exist, of course, so cant even describe the mythical “greenhouse effect”. Appropriate, I suppose.
You idiot. You are ducking and weaving, but it wont do you any good. You cant describe the “greenhouse effect”, so you demand that people seek a description from people you cant actually name, nor explain why you havent contacted them yourself to obtain a description.
Or are you just trying to show that you can be really, really, unhelpful? Neither option shows that you have any credibility.
Run away, Ball4, seek out your “college librarian”, or “relevant greenhouse farmer” (whomever that might be – very mysterious), or fellow delusional SkyDragon cultist.
After you have got a “greenhouse effect” description, post it if you feel like being helpful – or keep it a closely guarded secret if you prefer.
Do you really think anybody believes a fantasising buffoon of your calibre?
I dont.
I made no such demand Swenson & the greenhouse owner I named is not fictitious. Actually, any greenhouse owner can explain the GHE.
Carry on.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“I made no such demand Swenson & the greenhouse owner I named is not fictitious. Actually, any greenhouse owner can explain the GHE.”
Hang on there, partner. First it was an imaginary farmer, now it is an imaginary greenhouse owner, is it?
I didnt ask for an “explanation”, you donkey, I asked for a description – which you obviously dont have, cant find, and would refuse to provide, in any case.
The problem is that if you cant (or wont) describe the “greenhouse effect”, why should I believe your assertion that someone else can (or will)?
Youre not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
b4…”The bolted wooden horse on the spinning carousel isnt rotating about its COG wrt the carousel (If you are inside the track) but it is rotating on its own axis wrt to the room containing the carousel (If you are in the stands).”
***
This confirms your lack of a high school diploma. Ask any high school student if a woooden horse bolted to a rotating platform is also rotating about its COG…from any reference frame…and he/she will like regard you with incredulity.
How can anything bolted to a surface turn about its COG?
No Swenson 8:09 pm, funny comment but greenhouse owner farmers are not imaginary. Their GHE exists to the farmer’s benefit, ask one! The one I named is laughing at your comment too.
—-
Gordon 2:40 am asks: “How can anything bolted to a surface turn about its COG?”
All motion is relative, Gordon. Invoke reference frames correctly as even Gordon has done at times (“inside” and “outside” of racehorse orbit):
When it is viewed from the room in which the carousel is turning, like our Moon wrt to sun, all sides are seen of the bolted down horse so horse is turning wrt the room observers & has inertial angular momentum wrt those observers defined as the inertial frame.
When viewed standing still riding the carousel at its center, the bolted horse is seen not turning about its COG presenting same side to viewer just like the BoS and our moon seen wrt Earth observers, the ref. frame itself is accelerating wrt the room.
Again, all motion is relative i.e. wrt to something else.
…but what Ball4 will never understand is that the wooden horse can be said to be (wrt an inertial reference frame) rotating about an axis in the center of the carousel, and not on its own internal axis. Which is, as simply as I can explain it, why the moon issue is not resolved by reference frames.
Ball4 will now take what I’ve written, and change some of the wording, to express it as he sees it (which we all thoroughly understand by now, we just disagree with him). There is really no need for Ball4 to make the same point over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. We got it years ago. It’s just that he’s wrong.
Ball4 says:
”When viewed standing still riding the carousel at its center, the bolted horse is seen not turning about its COG presenting same side to viewer just like the BoS and our moon seen wrt Earth observers, the ref. frame itself is accelerating wrt the room.
Again, all motion is relative i.e. wrt to something else.”
This argument is specious.
the reason is a chalked circle on a rotating disk will appear to not be rotating at all from the center of the disk but wrt to space it will appear to be rotating independently of the disk if you focus on it.
So if you buy into this notion you can apply it to any group of particles of the earth as well. We know the earth is rotating and random clumps of particles like Mt Everest will not appear to be rotating from the center of the earth but will appear to be independently rotating wrt to the stars. So you would according to your logic above conclude that Mt Everest rotates independently of the earth. LMAO!!!
That’s only your own faulty conclusion Bill since Mt. Everest will not appear to be rotating “independently of the Earth” when viewed from the sun (a star). You can do better.
b4…”When viewed standing still riding the carousel at its center, the bolted horse is seen not turning about its COG presenting same side to viewer just like the BoS and our moon seen wrt Earth observers, the ref. frame itself is accelerating wrt the room.
Again, all motion is relative i.e. wrt to something else”.
***
I understand that all motion is relative, but there are rules that supersede relative motion, and those are rules that apply to local motion. Once you establish the rules of local motion, then you can apply rules pertinent to relative motion.
For example, if I am moving on Earth and observing the motion of something on Mercury, there is no point calculating relative motion on Mercury til I establish all motion involved. Am I turning on Earth as it is in orbit around the Sun, and is someone on Mercury rotating on a local axis as Mercury is orbiting the Sun? I also need to know how fast I am rotating on Earth and whether I am observing motion on Mercury or just the entire planet.
WRT the wooden horse bolted to the floor of a rotating carousel, I must first ascertain whether or not the horse is rotating on a local axis (its COG) because I don’t know if it’s bolted to the floor. I can figure that out by jumping on the carousel to see if the horse will rotate about its COG. Then I may notice it is bolted to the floor.
Even if it’s not bolted to the floor, and free to turn about a vertical axis, I can give it a push laterally to see if it will turn about a vertical axis. Maybe it’s locked and unable to turn. That’s the point, you need a force applied along a lever arm to start the horse turning. If it’s not turning, changing reference frames will not supply the require force to make it begin turning.
That’s where your theory falls apart. You are mistaking an actual angular rotation about a COG, that requires a force applied to the horse, or a momentum for an already rotating horse, with a changing orientation of a head to tail vector representing the horse.
If it’s the latter, a changing orientation, then I agree the reference frame matters. However, if it’s the former, the horse unable to turn on a local axis (COG), then I disagree. An object that is locked, so it cannot rotate about a local axis cannot possibly begin rotating about that axis by changing reference frames.
That’s the case with the Moon, it cannot possibly keep the same face pointed at Earth and rotate about a local axis at the same time. However, a tangential vector representing the instantaneous motion of the Moon will be forever changing direction wrt the stars.
“That’s the point, you need a force applied along a lever arm to start the horse turning. If it’s not turning, changing reference frames will not supply the require force to make it begin turning.”
Gordon, consider the carousel stopped, not turning wrt the room in which it is contained with the horse bolted to the carousel floor. The observer standing in the room sees one side of the horse over time so the horse is not turning wrt the room. Got it so far? This is the defined inertial observation frame.
The observer remains stationary in the room & flips a switch to an electric motor and accomplishes your “force applied along a lever arm to start the” carousel to now be turning on its own axis. The observer now sees all sides of the horse once per rotating on its own axis carousel complete turn. The horse is now observed turning! On its own r radius axis as well as rotating about the carousel center axis on radius R. The horse has two components of angular momentum imparted by the electric motor – on r and R after the switch is flipped.
The observer jumps on the rotating wrt to room carousel, moves to the center, and stands looking at the horse. The observer now rotating on own axis wrt to the room sees only one side of the horse over time. The observer also sees the room in motion so the observer is now in an accelerated reference frame.
All motion is relative. Just have to get any reference frame used correctly identified as to whether the frame is defined inertial or accelerated.
“The horse is now observed turning! On its own r radius axis as well as rotating about the carousel center axis on radius R.”
Wrong. It is just rotating about the carousel center axis, wrt an inertial reference frame. Or, you could describe it as translating in a circle, whilst rotating on its own internal axis. Again, wrt an inertial reference frame. You cannot describe it as rotating about both an external and an internal axis.
You don’t ever learn, you just keep repeating the same wrong stuff over and over again. You are making one argument, and one argument only, on the moon issue…and you repeat it endlessly.
“You cannot describe it as rotating about both an external and an internal axis.”
I just did so correctly at 4:04 pm.
As observed from the defined inertial frame of the room. Bolted down horse shows all sides rotating on r to that inertial frame observer while the electrically driven carousel is also rotating the bolted down horse on R.
You’re wrong. I’m right.
gordo flunks physics multiple times as he writes:
Of course, Gordo ignores the fact that angular momentum is a constant when measured against a non-rotating (inertial) reference frame absent an external torque. He insists incorrectly using the Earth-Moon radial line as his reference and that radial line rotates as the Moon orbits. Besides, as has been pointed out many times, the Earthly observer DOES NOT view the exact same portion of the Moon’s face at every Full Moon, the effects called Librations.
Gordo is hopelessly confused as he fails to understand that linear momentum and angular momentum are different properties of a moving object. Quantifying angular momentum REQUIRES an the use of inertial reference frames which are fixed WRT the stars.
…and, wrt an inertial reference frame, the moon is doing just the one motion – “orbiting”.
Thats correct. The type of motion is defined by whether it has consistent rotational elements or those elements result in closed loop or unclosed curvature motions.
The number of motions is defined by energies that create the motion.
astronomy ‘chooses’ for practical reasons to treat the moon’s rotation as two motions as the entire science realm of astronomy does not concern itself with creating worlds but instead just observing worlds.
From an engineering perspective one must look to how to create motions. Thus it becomes impractical to treat the moon’s motion as two motions.
Aerospace engineers must account for the full motion but can do it with redundant engineering to modify the full motion at will and remove spurious forces quickly, and create forces to reposition the vehicles to any posture.
Spinners are nothing more than the inculcated who simply believe as physical fact anything they think they were ever told by their professors like trained seals. ”Uh let me look at the training manual again!”
Very clearly in their cult they can’t afford to stir the pot. . . .or its likely to result in a huge waste of time arguing about definitions.
But ultimately the substance of the moon’s motion is a single motion and thus it has to be that the orbit is a single motion that causes the moon to maintain one face toward the earth. A little play in the motion is allowable by testimony of every single spinner in the group because one cannot get away from a little play in any motion.
… as observed from Earth.
Shut up, Ball4.
All we can observe from Earth is one lunar motion, DREMT, as we can see our Moon orbits the Earth & earthshine is seen incident on only one lunar face.
You’re just making the same argument over and over again. Shut up.
Bill
“astronomy chooses for practical reasons to treat the moons rotation as two motions as the entire science realm of astronomy does not concern itself with creating worlds but instead just observing worlds.”
What a load of codswallop.
Astronomers treat the motion of the Moon as more than two motions.
They express at least 4:
The spin of the Moon
The elliptical orbit of the Moon
The precession of the spin of the Moon
The rotation of the major axis of the elliptical orbit
There are probably more, those are just off the top of my head without looking anything up.
Those are motions due to other causes. You left out the motion of the moon around the sun and the motion of the moon around the galaxy.
My discussion of 2 motions was focusing on the overlap between rotations on a external axis and a motion synthesized from the assumption one doesn’t need to consider the orbit that you can do with any rotation on an external axis and instead focus on that motion being around an internal axis.
that motion around an external axis is the only motion from which one can synthesize a different motion of a rotation around an internal axis and you can do that with any group of particles rotating around an axis not in the center of those particles.
Thats why Nate is wrong when he claims the moon’s rotation around its central axis is a unique motion. Nothing unique about it all it applies to any rotation that is caused by external force for any group of particles. He tried to argue rigid objects but that simply denies rotations on external axes and he could provide a physics definition of rigidity that would apply uniquely to his claims.
Bill,
“Those are motions due to other causes.”
You weren’t discussing what was causing the motions of the Moon, now were you?
You are correct there Bob. I wasn’t talking about all the motions of the moon. I was talking about one motion of the moon. The rotation of the moon around the earth.
So you are not talking about the observed rotation of the Moon about an axis through the Moon.
Got it.
Robertson
There is only ONE idiot here on this blog, and that’s you.
You’re such an incompetent idiot that you’re not even able to correctly compare temperature anomalies calculated from different reference periods: a job any 10-year-old schoolboy would do with his eyes closed.
Let alone would you ever be able to grasp that time dilation exists, or that Einstein’s General Relativity theory was the way to correctly compute Mercury’s and Venus’ perihelion precessions, what was impossible to achieve when using Newton’s gravitation formula.
And you, an absolutely uneducated nobody whose alleged engineering career is 100 % fictitious, dare to discredit and insult scientifically educated people!
Gros souliers à clous, et un petit pois sous le crâne: c'est Robertson tout craché.
This is Binny trying to kiss up because I proved him wrong…again!!!
And where did ignoramus Robertson prove me wrong… again?
Bin, you prove yourself wrong every time you deny reality.
Whenever Robertson doesn’t respond to a question about his claims, he remains silent.
And we therefore know he was lying.
Bunny,
You wrote –
‘a job any 10-year-old schoolboy would do with his eyes closed.” Indeed. People who do this type of job are extremely proud of their efforts and call themselves “climate scientists”.
I might point out that Sir Isaac Newton did not have “scientific” educational qualifications, nor any advanced degrees. Albert Einstein managed to come up with some original ideas while only qualified with a teaching diploma from the Federal Institute of Technology.
Gavin Schmidt believes he is a “climate scientist”, and has no scientific qualifications at all.
Appealing to the authority of “scientific education” seems a bit silly.
You cant even describe the GHE, can you? Do you believe someone with a “scientific education” could do better than a 10 year old schoolboy in this regard? No.
The “100% fictitious” to which you refer, is your knowledge of physics supposedly supporting a “greenhouse effect” which you cannot even describe.
Keep at it.
It is Swenson that can’t describe the GHE, at least until Swenson visits a greenhouse and learns about the GHE which Swenson refuses to do. Pity.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“It is Swenson that cant describe the GHE”. Correct. Of course I do not clam to be able to describe an imaginary concept. Nobody can.
Keep ducking and weaving. Maybe you could contact your imaginary greenhouse farmer, ask him to provide you with an imaginary GHE description, and proudly wave it around in your imagination.
That would be convincing, wouldnt it? You idiot.
swenson…B4 is in full loser-mode retreat, slinging anything he can get his hands on to save face.
As usual, always the boring, 360 degree discrediting stuff of the arrogant Flynnson twat, who never proved anything, never contributed to anything, but comfortably, cowardly discredits all scientists.
Funny comment Swenson 8:03 pm, evidently to Swenson farmers and their greenhouses thus their GHE are imaginary. More astute commenters (exclude Gordon from that list) know differently & return here for such ad. hom. filled Swenson entertainment.
Bindidon says:
”As usual, always the boring, 360 degree discrediting stuff of the arrogant Flynnson twat, who never proved anything, never contributed to anything, but comfortably, cowardly discredits all scientists.”
Strawman Alert!
Swenson did not discredit ”all scientists”. He is just discrediting the bad scientists that won control over vast government funding to attack the fossil fuel industry for any reason possible.
the idea was apparently originally fostered by Margaret Thatcher who was angry at striking coal miners. The anti-progress, anti-population growth, the anti-smog, the anti-coal water pollution environmental organizations that grew up fighting fossil fuel companies over pollution seized onto this idea and ran with it. Nut case professors who wrote stuff believing in it or because they have been strongly leaning green; won control of huge amounts of funds to use as a recruitment tool on a topic that to this day science doesn’t understand.
those are who are being criticized. I am sure Bindidon you are naive enough to actually believe no scientist is that stupid or that corrupt. But you would be wrong. Scientists are every bit as twisted as any random population of men.
Seems you believe whatever political science tells you Bindidon and try to call anybody out as anti-science anybody that says anything that disagrees with the narrative you have adopted as your own.
So lets run a test here.
Do you believe these scientists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5HyDp_Jgd8
https://judithcurry.com/2023/03/28/uns-climate-panic-is-more-politics-than-science/#more-29950
If you do then by your own measure you are insulting all scientists.
Gill, Gill,
One stopped being a scientist a long time ago and the other believes electrons have consciousness. And you wonder why nobody believes you are a luckwarm?
Get a grip.
Willard, sit on your thumb and spin.
Gill, Gill,
You have not listened to the videos Eboy poasted, and it shows.
Silly Sky Dragon crank.
Hunter troll, your linked youtube video by a supposed expert is seriously flawed. He doesn’t understand that the atmosphere’s energy flows are quite complex and the CO2 greenhouse effect is just one part of those processes. He throws out Gordo’s objection about the need for an “amplifier” and ignores the fact that water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas for which the atmospheric concentration is strongly dependent on temperature. Increase the temperature and the GHG effects of H2O increases, the result being warmer temperatures than that due to CO2 alone. He also fails to mention the fact of Arctic Amplification as snow and ice cover are negatively correlated with temperature, which is another positive feedback. These effects can not be found in his data, which is based on global averages from models which do include them.
The guy is just another over educated expert from one area of science who thinks he knows what’s going on, but fails in his explanation.
Swanson he is a spectral radiation specialists and his credentials are an order of magnitude greater than yours.
Quite simply, I believe, that science in general has not correctly approached this problem since it became a political target by Al Gore. Before that it was largely a niche topic. Margaret Thatcher demonstrated its political utility and the rest is history. A perfect storm for the corrupt tax and spend institutional/industrial complex.
As we know there are some effects from GHG and what those effects are in blocking radiant heat loss from the surface, which is almost certainly saturated in CO2 frequencies, in large part because of overlap with water vapor. The pie-in-the-sky golden goose for the CIC like the pandemic was for the PIC and Ukraine is for the MIC what we are observing is how corrupt all governments are wrt to the powers they possess. And I am saying this as a non-partisan as the corrupt don’t know party they only know which side their own bread is buttered on.
Gill, Gill,
Your new guru is citing Harde’s crap.
Which means he’s a Climateball grasshopper –
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/?s=harde
Please.
Hunter boy
I just need to read you ignorant stuff
” … which is almost certainly saturated in CO2 frequencies, in large part because of overlap with water vapor. ”
and understand that you don’t understand anything of what you are talking about.
Try to read my reply to Ken’s supposition that H2O absorbs/emits at CO2’s main far IR wavelength range near 15 micron:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1466060
*
I anticipate however that you will discredit all that, just like you discredit anything about the computation of the lunar spin.
Unlike Ken, you are an opinionated ignoramus who thinks he knows more than all scientists he dislikes the results of.
Probably you too doubt like the Robertson pseudo-engineer about time dilation and Einstein’s corrections of Mercury’s and Venus’ perihelion precessions, etc etc etc.
And, like him, you would never be able to scientifically contradict what you discredit.
Bindidon and Willard.
I think its just fine that you criticize myself and Gordon for arguing on behalf of no alarm about fossil fuels.
After all neither of us have presented our credentials for being an authority figure with regards to the matter.
However, since neither of you can explain how the effect works. . . .and actually believe a simple version of the effect that has been shown to not work you probably ought to look to all those with more than adequate credentials. Scientists such as Dr. Syun Akasofu, Dr. Fred Singer, Dr. Roger Revelle, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Cristy, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Yong Han, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Nir Shaviv, Dr. Don Easterbrook, Dr. Craig Idso, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, Dr. Freeman Dyson, Dr. Ian Plimer, Dr. Ivar Giaever, Dr. Myron Ebell, Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Dr. Patrick Michaels, and thousands of other well qualified scientists that aren’t part of the corrupt institutions that are profiting from this scam and believe them.
but you already know that. You also can’t explain yourselves how the effect works. You actually believe in an effect that has been demonstrated not to work but that doesn’t faze you in the least. You guys are just. . . .uh. . . .idiots.
Gill, Gill,
Craig, Ian, Kiminori, and Willie are cycle nuts. Don, Syun, and Nir are Sky Dragon cranks. Myron, Fred, and Pat are industry shills.
What are Freeman, Bjorn and Roger doing in that list? Freeman is a professional curmudgeon, Bjorn is not even an economist, and you are confused about Roger:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/roger-revelle-was-right-eli-because-he.html
So even Roger wasn’t exactly luckwarm.
Also, what about Yong?
And what are your qualifications for calling those PhDs a bunch of nutx Willard. Near as I can tell you would be challenged to advance to the 4th grade.
Gill, Gill,
It takes basic reading skills to see that your list is quite short, and a little Climateball experperience reveals that contrarians have a short bench. Sky Dragon cranks like you have a shorter bench. Hence why you put cranks and.contrarians on the same bench.
Have you considered developing these reading skills? If you ever want to become an auditor, ey would come handy.
Please do.
“Dr. Roger Revelle, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Cristy, Dr. Judith Curry,”
None of these deny the GHE or AGW or the radiant heat transfer physics behind it, unlike the many sky dragon slayers here.
I think you are confounding denial of the greenhouse effect as you describe as a denial of any greenhouse effect.
Yes I believe the atmosphere actually works like greenhouse and that the mean surface temperature strongly suggests that that it does.
The issue in my view is what consists of sufficient conditions to produce the greenhouse effect and how it varies.
Roger Revelle had an opinion on how it worked but acknowledged that the science wasn’t there yet. I tend to disagree somewhat with his opinion. Richard Lindzen believes the effect doesn’t materialize because of other processes. Yes I agree with Lindzen and from extensive experience in producing such effects I have some ideas maybe Lindzen hasn’t thought of yet that also yield results.
I agree with the idea that light absorbed by the atmosphere must be accounted for and I don’t think my views differ in that respect from any of the people you mentioned. But all you are doing here is like that stupid survey that claimed to show 97% of scientists believe the figures offered by the IPCC when Roy noted his papers put him in the warmist category.
Yes there is a GHE and it must be accounted for. But making up unphysical processes to account for because you can’t figure out how to test the various theories really isn’t science, its political science. Its like being a wild west huckster medicine show selling medicines with exaggerated claims.
Willard says:
Gill, Gill,
It takes basic reading skills to see that your list is quite short, and a little Climateball experperience reveals that contrarians have a short bench.
—————————–
Paying people to talk makes for a lot more visible Coca Cola advertisements than you see anti-coca cola ads.
If you measure the bench by publications. . . .money will determine the winner. This is one helluva a lot of money for one side and hardly any for the other side. Now we even have free speech being cracked down on my the authoritarian despots that profiting from it.
I have noted that Climateball favors the billionaires and the institutions, and the individuals working to promote it. Legislators and executives are raking in green endorsements and winning huge favors via selective funding. Climateball is nothing but an establishment tool.
“Roger Revelle had an opinion on how it worked but acknowledged that the science wasnt there yet.”
Yep, the evidence wasn’t clear in 1990.
“I might point out that Sir Isaac Newton did not have ‘scientific’ educational qualifications, nor any advanced degrees. Albert Einstein managed to come up with some original ideas while only qualified with a teaching diploma from the Federal Institute of Technology.”
Swenson tries to make some sort of point.
“Gavin Schmidt believes he is a ‘climate scientist’, and has no scientific qualifications at all.”
Then tries to make some sort of opposite point.
Its a moment by moment sort of thing I guess.
Gill, Gill,
No need to count publications.
Faster to count the number of guys on contrarian bench.
I also note that you forget how the fossil fuel industry played Climateball for decades.
Nate says:
”Roger Revelle had an opinion on how it worked but acknowledged that the science wasnt there yet.”
Yep, the evidence wasnt clear in 1990.
————————
Thats correct! Manabe’s paper had been out for more than a decade in 1990.
So now it is proclaimed to be validated by observation.
But observations are not supporting the Manabe/Hansen predictions.
There have been many natural warming periods throughout recorded history some lasting hundreds of years. There is no clear separation between the current warming period and historic warming periods. Climate science is too young to be coming to conclusions that justifies the starving and homelessness of so many people.
Even the established standard of 2 degrees warm up hasn’t yet been met. It might be only a half a degree.
“But observations are not supporting”
33 years ago is not NOW, Bill.
Unless you can wake the dead, Roger Revelle cannot comment on what we know today, after 33 years of additional warming and lots of other evidence gathered.
Greenhouse effect is an impossible Energy amplifier
https://youtu.be/P5HyDp_Jgd8?t=520
https://youtu.be/P5HyDp_Jgd8?t=825
this guy isn’t fooled like our spinners are to a man.
Eben,
From your link –
“To summarize briefly, radiative forcing has been introduced in attempt to quantify the imagined Greenhouse Effect for climate modeling, but the related theory belongs to a psychological thriller that can hardly be justified by basic laws in thermodynamics.”
Hes being far too polite.
“Radiative forcing” is a product of the imagination of James Hansen, a delusional SkyDragon cultist.
Heres what MIT says about it –
“Radiative forcing is what happens when the amount of energy that enters the Earth’s atmosphere is different from the amount of energy that leaves it.”
Something that “happens”? This is the best that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology can come up with? No wonder the USA is falling behind more enlightened countries.
swenson…”Radiative forcing is a product of the imagination of James Hansen, a delusional SkyDragon cultist”.
***
It gets even worse. A forcing function is a mathematical function used as the input to another function to test its response. For example, an electron amplifier can be written using imaginary numbers in a differential equation to account for frequency variations in the circuit. In order to test it, an input signal like a square wave is often employed since the abrupt rising edges cause problems for circuits and tend to cause them to create undesirable oscillations.
Such input equations are called forcing functions and I am sure that’s where the name ‘forcing’ originates. As the guy in the video claims, it’s all imaginary as developed in a climate model using differential equations. Unfortunately, modelers don’t seem to understand they are living in a virtual world and think their models represent reality.
Confused denier pep rally?
Bill, Eben is a spinner.
Eben, Bill on-off says there is a greenhouse effect.
Troll Nate, got an answer?
“How do we know that “billions and billions” of 15μ photons can NOT raise Earth’s average surface temperature?”
There are at least “trillions and trillions” of 15μ photons .
Multiply that by another trillion, still can’t warm 288K surface.
Do you know why?
Because so far, it hasn’t had a measurable effect??
Because they still exist as unabsorbed photons.
Actually, there is no theoretical limit to the number of photons of any wavelength zipping around the universe at the speed of light.
There is not even any theoretical limit to the number of photons within a certain volume – say 1 mm3.
Photons are a type of boson, and the exclusion principle doesn’t apply to them.
Delusional SkyDragon cultists refuse to accept reality. A warmer body cannot increase temperature by being exposed to radiation from a colder. There are no, repeat no, exceptions.
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.”
There are no experiments supporting the GHE, because its delusional promoters cannot even describe the GHE!
Dr. Feynman was right so humorous Swenson is wrong. Swenson’s beautiful theory does not agree with experiment. It’s as simple as that.
Dr. Spencer’s experiments show thermometer data where a warmer body can show an increase in temperature by being exposed to added radiation from a much colder body.
Farmer’s greenhouse experiments show a GHE; farmers can readily describe the GHE as it is a money maker for them. Swenson is just funny entertainment hereabouts & is too afraid to go learn the experimental GHE facts.
Ball4 you need to catch up. The radiation in a greenhouse doesn’t change due to the greenhouse. You can walk in one and measure it to confirm that fact. The only thing a greenhouse does is still allow the light in while preventing cooling breezes from cooling the greenhouse by convection.
Trapping the air allows the sunlight time to heat the air by conduction with the surface. Its why you can burn your feet on hot sand on the beach while being cool or even cold in the ocean breezes.
https://tinyurl.com/y6d5afw4
Bill 6:34 pm demonstrates Swenson is wrong 5:44 pm: “There are no experiments supporting the GHE”. Bill even describes the GHE for Swenson.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Bill 6:34 pm demonstrates Swenson is wrong 5:44 pm: “There are no experiments supporting the GHE.”Bill even describes the GHE for Swenson.”
You live in a bizarre fantasy world.
Apparently, only others can describe the non-existent GHE, as you suffer from a severe mental defect which prevents you from doing so. Do you really expect others to value the opinions of a nutter like you, who claims everybody else can describe the GHE, but you can’t unfortunately, due to mental retardation?
Bad luck, Norman. Have you looked at a copy of the latest IPCC report, or didn’t you even realize it had been released? It seems nobody really cares what a group of delusional SkyDragon cultists are crying about any more.
Keep at it, Norman. Maybe you could try putting words in peoples’ mouths, or claiming your fantasies are superior to fact.
It may depend upon what definition you are using.
To some the GHE means a CO2 controlled effect.
To others it only means that the mean near surface climate temperature is warmer on average than would be expected from established laws of passive thermodynamics and solar insolation.
If you define it as the former I think thats wrong. If you define it as the latter I think thats right.
Bill, you will have to ask Swenson 5:44 pm: “There are no experiments supporting the GHE, because its delusional promoters cannot even describe the GHE!”
Bill showed Swenson an experiment supporting the GHE and Bill described the GHE proving what Swenson wrote 5:44 pm is wrong. Nice work.
Ball4 says:
”Bill showed Swenson an experiment supporting the GHE and Bill described the GHE proving what Swenson wrote 5:44 pm is wrong. Nice work.”
Wrong Ball4. Bill showed a greenhouse which warms air by sequestering it. By sequestering it the greenhouse prevents that air from being cooled by greenhouse gases via radiation to space and as Woods showed it only requires sequestration and does not require IR blocking.
Bill continues to describe experiments supporting the GHE & explain the GHE of which Swenson wrongly claimed there are none. Nice work Bill.
Ball4, the R.W. Woods, Vaughn Pratt, Roy Spencer experiments all demonstrate that the GHE is at a minimum extremely over exaggerated or the effect doesn’t exist at all.
So public feels it is being conned by an industrial/institutional elite that is fleecing the public through taxes on goods using fossil fuels and then handing the money off to this elite class to create solutions the non-problem.
It is my feeling that its not up to the skeptical community to prove this fact. The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the people profiting from this scam. In the meantime I will be casting my vote for those that committed to ending this corruption.
You can say what you want Ball4. You may even be profiting yourself off the scam. So your empty claims about fossil fuels causing a phenomena that has existed since the beginning of time is doing nothing but highlighting how little evidence of what you claim exists. Keep up the good work Ball4.
We don’t know that.
The Moon is tidally locked with Earth.
Earth has two greenhouse effects.
Earth’s current CO2 [and no amount of CO2 levels] causes
33 C of warming. There is no runaway effect related to
CO2 levels.
No greenhouse gas make Earth hotter.
The problem with any religion [including the cargo cult of
global warming] is the religious followers not being religious-
or not knowing their religion.
NASA has been claiming more than 90% of global warming is
warming our cold ocean with an average temperature of 3.5 C.
What is the religious significant of this?
” Earths current CO2 [and no amount of CO2 levels] causes
33 C of warming. ”
That’s what dumb alarmists say (and in addition, what dumber anti-alarmists claim normal people would say).
The greatest part of the 33 C is until now certainly due to H2O.
*
And indeed: the mild temperature of the oceans is partly responsible for the mild temperature on Earth.
When Milankowitsch’s eccentricity cycle reaches its maximum, or when aerosols stay in the atmosphere for too long a time, due for example to uninterrupted volcanic eruptions with VEI >= 5 during many decades, the oceans begin to cool.
*
Where do you see anything religious above?
I see above as much religious as in the computation of the lunar spin.
Religious, and locked in a cult that totally dominates them, are those who distort, discredit and denigrate science without being able to scientifically contradict it.
Bin, are you still pretending a knowledge of science?
You’ve forgotten that you can’t answer the simple questions:
1) What is your model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”?
2) https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1465691
Just keep pretending. That’s how you avoid reality.
” Bindidon says:
March 29, 2023 at 9:33 AM
Earths current CO2 [and no amount of CO2 levels] causes
33 C of warming.
Thats what dumb alarmists say (and in addition, what dumber anti-alarmists claim normal people would say).”
If google greenhouse effect:
Oh, they are changed it, oh if “The theory of greenhouse effect”
the top item is:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
With:
“Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s surface would be some 33C (59F) cooler. ”
You have different parts of NASA- one part is wrong.
Nate says:
Eben, Bill on-off says there is a greenhouse effect.
—————————–
Strawman Alert!!
I haven’t claimed there isn’t a greenhouse effect you moron!
Thats all you got is ad hominems and strawmen!
The question is how the greenhouse effect happens and you have bought into a narrative that isn’t established in science. You are just a run of the mill follower.
Most physicists are followers. They go through an extensive indoctrination period in school to learn a lot of tools and what science has gone before them. Most of what they learn is helpful. Some of what they learn limits their ability to think for themselves.
When you get a job using the tools you have learned then is when you really begin to appreciate their usefulness and their limitations. Many academics never get that opportunity.
Thats why top notch schools will seek out men of extensive experience and induce them to become professors to bring that practical knowledge to bear.
Your theory isn’t science because it remains an undocument deduction like the Big Bang Theory where it isn’t science established by observation; its a projection of what they think science may consist of.
Manabe wins the 2021 Physics Award and even Manabe feels thats strange but of course he is ecstatic to get the recognition and the cash. Other scientists applaud Manabe saying that his work has been borne out by observations.
But have they? Here Dr. Curry calls out the IPCC for ignoring the observations. https://judithcurry.com/2023/03/28/uns-climate-panic-is-more-politics-than-science/#more-29950
And here Dr. Sung calls out the entire Manabe/Hansen theory, created because the original Arrhenius theory wasn’t sufficient.
Dr. Lindzen has mocked the Manabe/Hansen theory.
Yet it is embedded in every climate model and the climate models as a whole have been greatly exceeding observations.
Here is a physicist that calls out the theory has an amplifier without a power supply but generates heat via connecting a weak signal output to the input.
Scientists Gerlich and Tscheuschner did the same thing as have many others.
Your theory is failing on many levels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5HyDp_Jgd8&t=520s
bill h…”Here is a physicist that calls out the theory has an amplifier without a power supply but generates heat via connecting a weak signal output to the input”.
***
I have been whining about that all along and I am glad to see a physicist finally acknowledge it. The concept of feedback is used incorrectly by alarmists.
Feedback falls largely in the domain of electronics for a simple reason. In electronics, you use feedback with amplifiers, without which a runaway feedback cannot exist. Without the amplifier, there can be no positive feedback.
There are roughly two types of feedback. There is a control feedback which involves a +ve or -ve D.C signal fed back from a sensor to a controller. No amplification is used other than an amplifier to maintain the feedback signal over long conductors. The other feedback, which is being implied in climate science, cannot operate without an amplifier and involves AC signals.
The latter type is described by the equation…
G = A/(1 + AB)
where G = overall gain
A = amplifier gain
B = feedback signal
Take the ‘A’ away and you have nothing.
If the feedback signal is in phase with the input signal, the signals add during each cycle and the output increases exponentially. That’s positive feedback. If the feedback signal is 180 degrees out of phase with the input signal, they subtract and we have negative feedback.
A controlled form of positive feedback is used in oscillators to produce a sustained oscillation that can be used as an AC signal source. Negative feedback is used in audio amplifiers to flatten the frequency response. The other form, with no amplification, is used in servo systems to control the speed of motors, etc.
When anyone talks about a positive feedback in the atmosphere, especially one that has a runaway effect leading to a tipping point, he/she is talking through his/her hat.
Your feedback equation works fine for simple systems such as electronics but breaks down when you move to more complex multivariate systems such as ecological and climate systems.
You then need more complex models.
https://ecologicalprocesses.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13717-016-0063-3
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Imagine going to planet with an uniform global surface air temperature of 15 C.
A planet with uniform global surface air temperature of 20 C would
be much better.
Earth’s has average global surface air temperature of 15 C, because it is in an icehouse global climate.
Earth’s average ocean surface air temperature is about 17 C, and average land surface air temperature is 10 C.
When you average the warmer ocean with the colder land, it gives an
average global temperature of about 15 C
China’s average air temperature is about 8 C.
Europe which closer to arctic region, has average temperature of
about 9 C.
9 C is cold.
But Europe would be much colder if wasn’t warmed by the ocean- if consider than the ocean causes greenhouse effect, then Europe is warmed by a greenhouse effect.
But most Europeans imagine the atmosphere is keeping them warm and they are very worried the atmosphere will make then “too warm”.
It seems most of people living in colder parts of world are hysterical about future warming.
Have planet covered with ocean and cover the ocean with a dome of glass or transparent plastic.
Will planet have greenhouse effect?
Does in have greenhouse effect because it’s covered with glass?
No, the glass is to stop there from being an atmosphere- or without
the glass, there would be an atmosphere.
It could be just frozen ice, but then it still has atmosphere- unless the ice is very very cold.
gb,
It’s a fairly easy experiment. Put two bowls of water in the sun, with matching thermometers in each one.
Cover one bowl with a blanket, a sheet of glass, pot lid, or inert object of choice. Compare the two thermometers. A devout SkyDragon cultist will peer into his fantasy, and tell you that the water in the covered bowl is indisputably 33 C hotter than it otherwise would be – and the fact that the thermometer indicates that the other bowl is actually hotter must be due to defective thermometers.
The 33 C warmer has to do with what is called the global average surface air temperature- which somewhere around 15 C.
Some mistaken people like to imagine that if our atmosphere didn’t have any CO2 gas in it, the global average surface air temperature
would 15 C minus 33 C, which would be a temperature of -18 C.
This might seem rather silly, and roughly, it is.
The issue of a “greenhouse effect” is related to a question, why aren’t nights colder.
So the 33 C and blankets stuff is about what keeps the nights from
getting colder.
The general answer to why European nights colder [particularly during the winter] is that ocean warmth prevents the nights getting colder.
But more broadly and simply nights are warmer because they living in homes which are heated.
Or very simple experiment, is switch off the heater and see what happens.
Dr. Curry asserts here to the Australian press that the IPCC is misleading the world’s policy makers on AGW and explains why.
https://judithcurry.com/2023/03/28/uns-climate-panic-is-more-politics-than-science/#more-29950
Skeptic scientific support continues to grow and lies on the part of the alarmists continues to exaggerate.
How braindead trolls respond to reality:
Realist — The sky is blue.
bobdroege — I know physics and you don’t. You can’t even find your physics book. You never had physics, so you don’t have a book. What color is your physics book?
Norman — Stupid, you’re so stupid. Earth has a sky, stupid. Here’s a link about sky. Don’t you know what “sky” is? You’re so stupid.
Folkerts — “Is blue” does not describe the situation correctly. What do you mean by “is”. Do you mean “equal to”? As in 4 plus 4 “is” 8? What’s your definition of “is”?
Nate — What about if there are clouds? Clouds are white.
Ball4 — Experiments show hues colorimetry coinciding with vis. coincident with all experiments and scientific literature.
barry — You forgot “view factor”, you lying dog.
Bindidon — Anyone knowledge of never and never in ancient astrologers in Latin, rotating on all axes.
Willard — Fettucini is not a color, pup.
Swanson — Well said, Willard. These clowns don’t know the first thing about science.
Ken — “Realist” is not into reality. Who cares about the sky. I just want to be an angry, immature, ignorant troll. Leave me alone.
How Clint R responds: The sky isn’t blue; especially at night or on cloudy days, that realist is braindead & (… insert dozen other ad hom.s …) with 200 more follow-up comments from Clint R wrongly asserting something and (… insert several dozen other ad hom.s from 8:58 am list …). All in a day’s blog comments by Clint R ignoring realist experimental evidence providing great humor, worth sticking around here for the laughs at Clint’s comments.
Proper, convincing experimental reality wins and always humorously defeats Clint R.
Ball4, you fathead.
You wrote –
“Proper, convincing experimental reality wins and always humorously defeats Clint R.”
It’s a great pity, then, that you cannot describe the GHE, so of course cannot provide experimental support for something you can’t describe.
Are you an idiot, as well as being stupid and ignorant?
Mike Flynn,
Glad you ask –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
For the ten thousandth time at least.
Please continue to lie like the lying moron you are.
the point is Willard is scientists don’t agree on the mechanism claimed for current mainstream greenhouse effect.
That was one of the earliest observations I made when I became engaged in the discussion. Put 10 scientists in a room and they have 10 different ideas about how it works.
For the same reason Dr. Yong does not agree, I don’t agree. But that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in a greenhouse effect as I do. The issue is how it works and how it varies over time. Without that knowledge we find ourselves likely wasting billions of dollars that could be better applied to more credible problems.
Gill, Gill,
Not “Ze” issue again.
Ze issue here is that Mike Flynn pretends nobody fetched him the sammich he kept asking for more than a decade on this website.
Please.
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Gill, Gill,
Not Ze issue again.
Ze issue here is that Mike Flynn pretends nobody fetched him the sammich he kept asking for more than a decade on this website.
Please.”
You have your gibberish generator cranked up. It’s obvious you are not just pretending to be an idiot.
Still no description of the GHE yet? Just wasting more of your time trying to pretend you have a description of the GHE – but you aren’t about to reveal it!
Carry on trying to deny reality.
Woeful Wee Willy,
Clint R said that your link is the face-pulling Sabine Hossenfelder (content creator, musician, and failed physicist), pretending she knows something about physics – as well as everything else.
No wonder you are too embarrassed to describe your meaningless and irrelevant link. Posting it 50 times won’t transform fantasy into fact.
Maybe you can describe the GHE, rather than just pretending a description exists.
Have you examined the latest IPCC report? Issued with more of a whimper, than a bang. Maybe it has a description of the GHE in it, but I doubt it.
Dimwit.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Willard, Swenson isn’t asking for a ‘sammich’ he is just asking for a description of the effect that you guys claim is going to cause death and destruction.
If you guys can’t explain it, it must be a fraud.
Gill, Gill,
Asking for a sammich –
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/make-me-a-sandwich
Let Mike Flynn play dumb.
Please.
Clint R
You are not quite correct.
“Realist The sky is blue.”
Clint R: That is bogus! Only braindead cult minded idiots believe the sky is blue. Not all photons are blue. What happens if you have billions and billions of blue photons? Everything intelligent science experts say is wrong. The sky is only blue if I say it is. I am not only one on the planet with enough intellect to figure out anything and everything I say is correct. Any one stating different or providing evidence I am wrong is a cult minded idiot. This is so much fun.
https://img.freepik.com/premium-photo/blue-sky-with-cloud_87394-8065.jpg
Oh look another link Norman does not understand.
Troll Norman, did you intend for that comment to be twisted, perverted and devoid of reality?
If so, you did a great job.
norman…”Not all photons are blue”.
***
No photon is blue…or yellow, or green or whatever. If photons do exist they have no colour. The colour is a property of the eye, particularly the cells in the retina that respond to different light frequencies with a colour.
That is more evidence that evolution is major bs. No chance meeting of basic elements in primeval muds could produce anything as magnificent as the human body, let alone design eyes with receptors that can turn light frequencies into different colours.
Also, there is no mechanism in the human eye to sense depth. Depth is added by the brain after it analyses the light it receives and creates a 3-D image. But how does it project that image so that eyes that can only see in 2-D can see a visual field of 3-D?
If you look at a photographic image, it is plainly 2-D, yet your brain can turn it into a 3-D effect in which you see in depth.
If you have ever worked with a stereoscope, something I learned about in geology, you can use it on a 2-D map to see features like mountains as if you are actually looking down on them from a airplane.
Clint R,
I doff my cap to you, sir.
I can only aspire to such lofty heights.
I’ve never said Clint R doesn’t have a physics book, I’ve said a lot of things about Clint R’s physics book, but never that.
I’ve said he hasn’t cracked it open, he’s never taken the wrapper off, and that he sold it for crack.
But never that he doesn’t have one.
bobdroege,
You wrote “Ive never said Clint R doesnt have a physics book, Ive said a lot of things about Clint Rs physics book, but never that.”
What form of mental defect leads you to think that anybody cares what you didn’t say?
You don’t say anything useful, so anything you don’t say is likely to be even more worthless than what you do say.
How is your search for a description of the GHE going? Does it agree with observed fact, or is it imaginary, so you can’t actually put it into words?
Questions, questions – pity you have no answers, deranged SkyDragon cultist!
Come on, spout some puerile gibberish.
Can you even follow a conversation or a thread.
I was responding to what Clint R said I said about his physics book, so he obviously cares what I said about his physics book.
Keep trying to be clever, I find your attempts amusing.
bob, please stop trolling.
Is Life a Game? | Timeless with Julie Hartman — Tuesday, March 28th, 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWgUn2s1fz8
It’s a reason soccer, sucks to watch.
Some think it’s due to lack of making scores.
It’s also why if you cheat winning world series, you lose.
Despite baseball having various allowed “cheating” within it- stealing a base- is allowed/encouraged, if the rules are followed.
But some things wreck baseball- for me it was management going
along with the lockdown rules, was a deep violation of fundamental baseball.
Having a sport where you pull down bathing suits- might be a good
sport, but it isn’t a sport.
I would say life is a game. But a game has rules.
A game without the rules, is not a game.
Anyhow, I will probably watch baseball again.
It’s a great sport, it’s just that it has been made less great.
At some point it could not be watchable- when you can cheat to win the world series- that might end it. If or when they admit they screwed up during lockdown- that would help.
testing….
gb…”Its a reason soccer, sucks to watch.
Some think its due to lack of making scores”.
***
Having played the game much of my life I can tell you why it sucks these days. That was not always the case, in it’s heyday soccer was exciting to watch because you had real forwards with high skill levels competing against real defenders with equally high skill levels.
These days, you have forwards who are actually defenders, converted, sans skills, to being forwards. Why? Because some anal dweebs decided that counting consecutive passes (ball control) was more important than scoring goals or entertaining the viewers. Some teams actually employ a person to count the number of passes completed.
That’s not soccer. It is a game of individual skills that must be honed by daily practice fro an early age. It’s also a game that requires a high level of imagination and anticipation. When you hand.cuff players by demanding they complete so many passes rather than trying to be inventive, you get boring soccer.
These days, soccer is played largely by players who can run but who lack individual skills. They are so boring I cannot bring myself to watch the game. In the last World Cup, the media raved over a French winger who was fast but lacked the basic skills to take a defender on and beat him cleanly.
The downfall of soccer began in the ’60s when the Italians developed their catenaccio defensive system. The object was to get one goal then close down the store with a stifling defense. The older systems used a 5 – 3 – 2 system with 5 forwards, 3 midfielders, and 2 defenders. Two of the 5 forwards, called inside-forwards would drops back to various degrees to help out on defense. However, those forwards could be running up to 8 miles a game and the whiny newer generation lacked the fortitude for such running.
Today the use 4 – 4 – 2 system with 8 defenders and two forwards.
With the 5 forwards, you had 2 genuinely skilled wingers trained to take on and get past defenders. Those wingers could be tremendously exciting in themselves. The Italians dropped the wingers back to defense and had them overlap like real wingers. Of course, they were defenders and lacked the skill of the traditional winger.
Pretty soon you had only 1 forward patrolling the front end at any one time and that’s when the dreariness began to set in. It was far too easy to mark forwards and play them out of the game. That’s where we’re at today. Teams are continually playing the ball back the way, almost all the way to the goalkeeper. They had to change the rules so the goalkeeper could not pick the ball up if a teammate played the ball back to him.
It’s boring because it’s not soccer. It is now a game of bean-counters, tacticians, and zone defenses that break down dramatically because zone defenses lack accountability for marking individual players.
The irony is this. A while back, a team promoted to the English premier division began beating top-flight teams by playing the older style, which some marked as ‘kick and run’. Of course, it was never straight kick and run as played by children, it was calculated to force defenders to defend. The pundits blamed them for ruining ‘the game’. They were winning playing old style soccer that was far more entertaining and were blamed for ruining the game.
Earlier, Ball4 appealed to the “authority” of farmers with greenhouses, apparently foolish enough to believe that the “greenhouse effect” has something to do with real greenhouses.
He wrote –
“Funny comment Swenson 8:03 pm, evidently to Swenson farmers and their greenhouses thus their GHE are imaginary. More astute commenters (exclude Gordon from that list) know differently & return here for such ad. hom. filled Swenson entertainment.”
Ball4 is not only mentally retarded, he is exceptionally gullible. Or exceptionally confused, due to his affliction. His attention span is obviously too short to actually remember the description of the GHE which he claims everyone else has.
What a dingaling!
The delusional SkyDragon Ball4 wrote the following nonsense –
“No, an electron doesnt emit a photon, Swenson, since its mass is too small to provide the linear and angular momentum possessed by any emitted photon; atoms and molecules emit/absorb, reflect, and transmit light waves.”
Blundering Ball4 rewrites current physics, believing his fantasy is superior to fact – no doubt appealing to the authority of an imaginary greenhouse owner wth a farm.
From a Richard Feynman lecture (just the first thing that bobbed up on the internet, actually) –
“As the two electrons approach, one of these electrons emits a photon of energy . . . “.
Bumbling Ball4 suffers from delusional mental retardation. Facts are meaningless in his frame of reference. Oh well, thats life.
swenson…”From a Richard Feynman lecture (just the first thing that bobbed up on the internet, actually)
As the two electrons approach, one of these electrons emits a photon of energy . . . .”
***
That’s part of Bohr’s original theory. As an electron falls between discrete (quantum) energy levels it releases a quantum of energy as EM. Schrodinger’s wave equation is about the relationship between the electron in hydrogen and its sole proton nucleus.
The reason Bohr finally got it was the relationship between the discrete emission lines of hydrogen, which is EM, and electrons orbiting the hydrogen nucleii. The emission lines represent the frequencies of the EM emitted and Bohr was able to relate the frequency and intensity between the electron and the frequency/intensity of the emitted EM.
There is nothing else in an atom can release that EM. If a proton was moving by itself it might be able to release a quantum of EM but I have not studied this at all and have no idea how it would work. A proton has a positive charge and I don’t know the difference between the electron’s negative charge and the proton’s positive charge.
This would be very hard to measure without having a cyclotron or a means of measuring the solar wind, which is made of electrons and protons. In that case, the solar wind should emit different kinds of EM, one would think, and it should be detectable.
However, when we speak of atoms, we mean either in a gas, a liquid or a solid. Could be a gas plasma but let’s keep it simple.
When we talk about EM striking a surface, we generally mean a solid surface where the atomic nucleii are bound and cannot move more than the distance of vibration. That’s simply not fast enough to generate an EM field. Even electrons moving at high rates of speed in orbit are not supposed to generate an EM field. According to Bohr, the EM is generated when the electrons change speed as they slow down to a lower orbital energy level.
However, to make the theory work, Bohr had to stipulate there was not time period for the transition.
The thing is, the electron is the only particle in a mass with the means of absorbing or emitting EM. There is absolutely nothing else can do that, and that applies equally to molecules.
The electron carries an electric due to its negative charge and when it moves, it emits a magnetic field that is orthogonal to the electric field. When the electron needs to shed energy as it tramsitions to a lowe energy level, the energy released is electromagnetic.
Electromagnetic = electric field + magnetic field.
Where else could that kind of energy come from but from an electron? It has both.
Ahhh… I observe the traditional appeal to authority. A quantum wavefront walks into Feynman’s bar. It says to bartender Feynman: “Man, I’ve been everywhere today!” and collapses.
I note the Feynman clips are discussing molecules with quantized electronic excitation above base level. So your clips are not applicable to molecules of air at our normal tropospheric temperatures, this is not the blog for you. Why?
The first electronic spacing between quantum levels for exciting troposphere air molecules relative to kT is about 300 times higher kT than the first level spacing between quantized rotationallevel excitation for typical air molecules.
And first electronic level spacing about 10 times higher kT than the spacing between first level in excited quantized vibrational modes. Our tropospheric atm. emission is thus dominated by quantized rotational transitions of air molecules and to a somewhat lesser extent vibrational transitions.
For that reason, at earthen air normal tropospheric kT, there are NO photon emissions from quantized electronic transitions, the natural molecular kT isn’t high enough to bump up an electronic level. So Dr. Feynman is not discussing photon emission by excited molecules in our tropospheric air.
Dr. Feynman is discussing for higher than tropospheric temperatures (high kT) electronic transitions where the emitted photon energy (which is directly proportional to the photon’s electromagnetic frequency) comes from and completely leaves out from where that emitted photon’s conserved momentum (linear and angular) comes from.
You both will want to dig deeper into the Feynman lectures or current authors to find out & move that discussion to another blog. This is a climate bar, no electronic transitions admitted.
Ball4,
Are you completely delusional, or intentionally lying?
You wrote –
“I note the Feynman clips are discussing molecules with quantized electronic excitation above base level. So your clips are not applicable to molecules of air at our normal tropospheric temperatures, this is not the blog for you. Why?”
What “clips” are you talking about? You just make up this nonsense as you go along, don’t you?
You attempt to be sarcastic – “Ahhh I observe the traditional appeal to authority.”, as you refuse to accept reality. This from a dim witted SkyDragon cultist who claims that a greenhouse owning farmer can describe the GHE, but you unable to because it is not your intellectual property – or something equally dull-witted.
Good luck with trying to rewrite physics – you might have noticed the IPCC have just released another report – which nobody seems to be taking seriously. I wonder why?
Carry on trying to sound convincing. You just demonstrate you don’t know what you are talking about. Are you the idiot who didn’t realize that John Tyndall was referring to angular degrees rather than “degrees of hotness” in one of his experiments, or was that some other equally confused SkyDragon cultist?
b4…”at earthen air normal tropospheric kT, there are NO photon emissions from quantized electronic transitions”
***
You are opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble. Flinging sh*t at a wall to see how much will stick.
You are claiming air at STP has no CO2 molecules or WV molecules that can absorb and/or emit EM. You seem to think both those gases can heat or cool without electron transitions yet there is nothing else in the molecules but electrons and protons.
How about N2 and O2. If they absorb heat from solar energy or from direct conduction at the surface, how do they dissipate the energy?
I think the idea that N2/O2 do not absorb or radiate in the IR spectrum is more propaganda than fact. This article addresses that with several examples.
https://tinyurl.com/2yauyuf3
Gordon,
Air temperature measurements show that air both absorbs and emits infrared radiation, by definition. Adding to, or removing CO2, H2O, or any other passive constituent makes precisely no difference to the temperature of air.
B4 has no clue, in concert with all delusional SkyDragon cultists. They are all reality rejecting idiots, if they support a “greenhouse effect” which they cannot even describe in any way that agrees with reality.
Even Dr Spencer is investigating whether observed temperature increases might be due to heat, rather than the malign influence of “fossil fuels”, which can be regarded as “stored solar energy”, in any case. He is practicing “science”. Time will tell if he is right.
“I think the idea that N2/O2 do not absorb or radiate in the IR spectrum is more propaganda than fact. This article addresses that with several examples.”
Why? We all know that materials like water can be transparent to visible wavelengths of light. Some materials are transparent to only some wavelengths, like ruby or sapphire.
So why the can’t a gas be transparent to IR wavelengths?
Gordon Robertson
I question your ability to process information that you link to.
Did you look at the amount of IR that is involved with O2 and N2? Around a tenth of a watt per meter squared. It is there but not significant. We have been on this path many times with you in the past. MODTRAN shows both have will emit IR (based upon some complex molecular arrangements) but very small when compared to GHG, Not sure what your point with your link was.
You still don’t understand molecular vibrations and how they can emit IR. There is a whole branch of Chemistry that uses the knowledge of molecular vibrations to determine the types of atoms in different molecules based upon how they vibrate.
Your false science grows old after a time. You refuse to learn real science and keep peddling things you know very little about but post as some pseudo expert. Why you need to do this only you know.
https://tinyurl.com/2p85ht4y
Gordon incorrectly writes 10:15 pm: “You (Ball4) are claiming air at STP has no CO2 molecules or WV molecules that can absorb and/or emit EM.”
No Gordon, funny and wrong. What I wrote: “Our tropospheric atm. emission is thus dominated by quantized rotational transitions of air molecules and to a somewhat lesser extent vibrational transitions.”
Gordon’s claims are immediately falsified. CO2 and WV absorb EMR in the earthen troposphere by excited energy level jumps in their quantized spin and quantized vibration modes & then are de-energized back to base level spin and vibration by EMR emission.
Nate 4:58 am, more physically water and some gases are translucent or semitransparent to visible light.
Also, Swenson 3:09 am has missed that Bill Hunter has described the GHE.
We see upthread the genial sentence:
” I think the idea that N2/O2 do not absorb or radiate in the IR spectrum is more propaganda than fact. ”
*
Recently, Robertson wrote similar nonsense:
” For example, O2 radiates in the microwave range which is just below the IR range. Therefore O2 radiates!!! ”
Hooray! O2 radiates!!! Hooray! Hooray!
*
As we all know, everything with a temperature above 0 K radiates.
The relevant question here is, as always: how much compared to the rest around, and at which wavelengths is the radiation significant?
It should be evident that the farer you move away from Earth’s major emission range (around 7.5 till 12.5 mu), the significance of absorp~tion / emission will correspondingly decrease.
*
The best info is given as usual by Spectral Calc with its page
https://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
showing for different gases their relative ability to absorb and emit radiation at various wavelengths (or wavenumbers), depending on the selected altitude, and (very important) according to their respective atmospheric abundance.
Normally, one compares the intensities in the solar (0 – 5 mu) or the begin of the far IR range (5 mu – 20 mu); but let’s take this time a slightly broader spectrum going to 40 mu.
For the altitude, let’s choose for example 5 km, well amid the good old lower troposphere: if we would select 20 km, for example, the most relevant gas H2O would be absent.
What we have to consider in the results:
– the intensity (on the y-axis)
– the number of absorp~tion / emission lines detected.
*
1. H2O
Intensity range: ~10^-2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12JThOo4l-TuQ7MVWC10DX6HuP7RqRM8R/view
2. CO2
Intensity range: ~10^-3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18o_sKIMoI32SeIgXh5WLWMGm-qiVzopD/view
3. O2
Intensity range: ~10^-10
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17aLovAJkjgJ-iJI7ccXQgl8_4svylt_Y/view
4. N2
Intensity range: ~10^-13
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fbY9IG7HeQc4vBqt5FQZiK4mS7ofyoS0/view
*
We see that genius Robertson compares absorp~tion / emission capabilities of O2 and N2 with those of H2O and CO2, though CO2’s capability is ~10^7 times higher than O2’s, and ~10^10 times higher than N2’s, despite their relative atmospheric abundance being already considered.
Unfortunately, Spectral Calc does not inform us about the integral value within a wavelength range, i.e. the sum of all lines’ intensities in the plot. Then the comparison for O2/N2 would be far less favorable.
**
Yeah, once more the typical stuff posted by the eternal ignoramus de service.
He has been corrected so often… but never cares about that.
He certainly will claim that Spectral Calc is based on a completely wrong theory.
And in one week, one month, 3 months the latest, he will come along on this blog, and write again:
” I think the idea that N2/O2 do not absorb or radiate in the IR spectrum is more propaganda than fact. “
“This would be very hard to measure without having a cyclotron”
I’m in the conference room, the cyclotron’s in the vault.
We take hydrogen molecules and split them into component hydrogen atoms and then turn those into negatively charged ions, which we accelerate using RF, then we turn them into positively charged hydrogen ions and smash them into a target composed of heavy water.
Most miss and those that miss emit a buttload EM.
Which we can measure using a geiger counter.
bobdroege,
“We”? You’re employed as a button pusher (or used to be – you mentioned getting fired because the management refused to acknowledge your intellectual brilliance).
However, what has any of this to do with the GHE that you can’t describe?
Was it you that claimed the Earth was formed at near absolute zero, and has achieved its molten interior through some process you also can’t describe, or was that some other idiotic SkyDragon cultist?
You wrote “Most miss and those that miss emit a buttload EM.”
Completely uninformative, poorly written, and generally demonstrating mental retardation or some other form of mental affliction.
Why don’t you just admit that you can’t even describe the GHE, and quit while you’re behind?
Shut the fudge up, I was responding to Gordon.
And I said the Earth formed from cold interstellar dust, you will find that’s the most popular theory, no one except you claims it formed in a completely molten state.
Blundering Bobby,
“Shut the fudge up, I was responding to Gordon.
And I said the Earth formed from cold interstellar dust, you will find thats the most popular theory, no one except you claims it formed in a completely molten state.”
No – I don’t care to whom you were responding, why should I? What do you intend to do about it? Nothing, because you are impotent, as well as stupid. I comment as I wish, and there is precisely nothing you can do about it, is there? Accept reality, buffoon.
Here’s a quote you can look up –
“Earth formed from the Suns protoplanetary disk about 4.6 billion years ago. In the beginning, it was a molten spheroid with scorching temperatures. Over time, it cooled, and a solid crust formed. Eventually, the atmosphere cooled, and life became a possibility.”
It looks like you are wrong again. At least one other person supports my opinion.
Do you agree that “Over time, it cooled . . . “? You always whine about not saying anything, so here’s your chance to express yourself.
You won’t of course, because delusional SkyDragon cultists refuse to say what they believe. They think they are being clever, rather than stupid.
Swenson,
Why do you worship Fraser of Order of Kilopi?
He doesn’t mention whether or not the core was solid at that time, now does he?
If that’s your go to guy, you have some explaining to do.
Busted for being a gullible moron who believes anything he finds on the net.
Try and find this you foolish ignorant frenchperson
“In a process known as runaway accretion, successively larger fragments of dust and debris clumped together to form planets. Earth formed in this manner about 4.54 billion years ago (with an uncertainty of 1%) and was largely completed within 1020 million years.”
Bob, you bumbling buffoon,
You wrote –
“no one except you claims it formed in a completely molten state.”
I merely pointed out that you were wrong, as usual.
You then started whining –
“He doesnt mention whether or not the core was solid at that time, now does he?”
Who cares? Are you claiming I did? You fathead, just putting the contents of your fantasy into other peoples’ mouths doesn’t turn fantasy into fact, does it?
If you want to deny that the Earth once had a molten surface but has cooled since (without saying so, of course), you are free to do so. It is quite possible that others might think you are just a delusional SkyDragon trying to be clever. What do you think?
Swenson,
“If you want to deny that the Earth once had a molten surface but has cooled since (without saying so, of course), you are free to do so.”
But that’s not what you claimed, now is it?
You claimed the Earth started off as a completely molten blob.
You have no, zero, zip, zilch and even less evidence for that.
A Geiger counter can’t tell you what set it off. Besides, if you split hydrogen into two atom, you have two protons, which are already positively charged.
Using your Geiger counter, how would you tell if the proton is creating an EM field. And if it does create such a field, is the field the same as an EM field created by an electron?
None of this is important because protons in a solid are not free to move around other than via vibration.
Gordon,
This is what you said before you said you needed a cyclotron.
“A proton has a positive charge and I dont know the difference between the electrons negative charge and the protons positive charge.”
Yeah, you don’t know anything do you?
Blundering Bobby,
He wouldn’t have to know much at all to be smarter than you, would he?
Tell me, what do you know? Anything useful or factual?
Yeah I do,
a: always sonicate your mobile phases.
b: never saddle a dead horse.
c: never pipette fuming acids, order them in the exact volumes you need.
Bobby,
A – Why? More efficient methods exist.
B – Roy Rogers’ stuffed horse, Trigger, is most assuredly dead. Someone put a saddle on that particular dead horse.
C – “Pipette” is not a verb – unless you live in a backward country. Notwithstanding that, if you are talking about fuming sulphuric, nitric, or hydrochloride adds, sure you can. You just pour acid out of a carboy, do you? Good luck with that!
I hope you know a few things that are true, and useful. You are not doing too well so far.
How about describing the role of the GHE in planetary cooling, or don’t you believe the Earth has cooled since it had a molten surface?
How hard can it be?
Swenson,
1: more efficient methods may exist, but are they cheaper?
2: I wasn’t talking about actual saddles one would put on a horse, a saddle isn’t always between a butt and a back.
3: You are again a moron
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+word+pipette+a+verb&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS964US964&oq=is+pipette+a+verb&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0i15i22i30l2j0i390i650l3.9208j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
bob, please stop trolling.
Gordon:
“Astronomy is almost as bad as anthropology, for making up crazy scenarios about our past.”
–
Agreed!!!
Thanks, Christos. How’s it going in Athens? Has it warmed up yet? It’s still pretty cold over here, especially at night.
We have since Sunday one hour forwarded. So it is 9 : 12 AM, March 30.
We had a cold wave for two days. It will be warmer today: +5 oC was at night, +19 oC will be in the afternoon!
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In the early hours of 11 March, pummeling rains wore down a levee on the Pajaro River, unleashing a torrent. Barajas, 50, had escaped with her daughter and grandson under the blare of sirens. But the floods swallowed the town and perhaps their future here.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/27/california-farm-workers-pajaro-california-flooding
willtard…the title of the story is “They grow Americas strawberries. A vicious flood made them climate migrants”
The Guardian is an alarmist rag who are reporting a weather event and claiming it as climate change.
You are an alarmist troll who supports such rags.
C’mon, Bordo:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-20/a-long-history-of-racism-set-the-stage-for-pajaro-flooding
H/T Richard.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Nate says:
March 13, 2023 at 2:59 PM
“Earths T is measured in both the day and night and averaged. Anybody think that averaging makes the GHE go away?
The solar flux is strong in the day and the T is higher, while the solar flux is 0 at night and the T is lower.
If were averaging the temperature over day and night why cant we average the solar flux over day and night?
Anybody think this changes everything and makes the GHE go away? Why?”
–
***
Thank you, Nate, for a very important question and the way you straight-forwarded it!
–
It should be answered, it is a very important the theoretical physics issue!
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Your math contains illegal division by zero
Sublimation temperature of water in vacuum = 150K ?
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/sublimation-temperature-of-water-in-vacuum-150k.798322/
150 K = -123.15 C
On Earth water is always evaporating [and condensing]. Or if dry enough it cools. And if high enough elevation clouds water is frozen, and if dry enough evaporating. Glacier grow if wet enough and sublimate when dry enough.
Wet lapse rate is tiny water droplet in the air chaotically evaporating and condensing. A cold lake might not be evaporating much, unless there is wind, and more if drier air and windy.
And we in a icehouse global climate- cold and dry.
I wonder if anyone seriously considered what weather would like in a warm world [in a greenhouse global climate].
It not very practicable as Earth not going to become this warm any time, soon.
Before I forget, roughly when in Greenhouse global climate, one could say you don’t have interglacial and glaciation periods, but Earth orbit is changing, and there is change in global climate caused by changing orbit of Earth.
Now, we been in this icehouse global climate for 33.9 million years, that number is related to when ice sheets formed in Antarctica and inly about 3 million years ago when got ice sheets in Greenland.
Anyhow, just cause got ice sheet in Antarctia, it doesn’t mean you got interglacial and glaciations period, but do have changes from the changes of Earth orbit.
I guess a question is when did we first have polar sea ice. Having polar sea ice, doesn’t make glaciation period. But when?
And which pole got polar sea ice, first?
bill h…”To some the GHE means a CO2 controlled effect.
To others it only means that the mean near surface climate temperature is warmer on average than would be expected from established laws of passive thermodynamics and solar insolation”.
***
Bill…not telling you anything you don’t know, just taking the opportunity to spout off about the obvious.
It never hurts to employ lateral thinking but I don’t think CO2 is an issue in real greenhouses, upon which the GHE is based. In a real greenhouse, it is claimed that SW solar enters through the glass and heats the soil and infrastructure. The heated surfaces then emit infrared which is blocked by the glass. For some unscientific reason, it was concluded that blocked infrared energy could warm the air in the greenhouse.
Nothing mentioned about CO2 in the official theory of a real greenhouse.
I don’t know why anyone would reach such a conclusion but there is one possible answer. In the days of Tyndall and Arrhenius, it was believed that heat was transmitted through space as heat rays, and presumably those heat rays are regarded as infrared energy. No one would have known that much about EM/IR in the day, and the key to Bohr’s theory, the electron, had yet to be discovered.
For some reason, that anachronism has persisted as a paradigm and no one except R.W. Wood thought to question it even though he did so in 1909.
When Tyndall discovered that certain molecules like CO2 could absorb infrared energy, it was somehow believed the CO2 was absorbing heat, whereas it was creating heat anew. The original heat related to the IR was long gone via dissipation.
Therein lies the analogy to the glass in a greenhouse, which does block heat, it blocks the heated air molecules that represent heat. Scientists of the time believed heat was being blocked as infrared energy, but they were wrong.
None of them had the insight offered by Bohr that related electromagnetic energy, of which IR is a part, to electrons in atoms. Bohr made that discovery in 1913, and here we are more than a century later with scientists still believing that infrared energy is heat.
Glass does block heat as atoms/molecules but alarmists are claiming CO2, a trace gas in the atmosphere, can trap heat in the same manner. When the stupidity in that became clear they moved the goalposts and began claiming that CO2, still a trace gas, affected the rate of heat dissipation at the surface by slowing it down. No one has explained how that works with CO2 but Newton explained how it works using the entire atmosphere.
Newton’s law of cooling claims that the rate of heat dissipation of a surface depends on the temperature difference between the surface and its environment. The environment of the Earth’s surface is the atmosphere and it is 99% nitrogen and oxygen and 0.04% CO2. It’s hardly likely that the trace amount of CO2 is dictating the temperature of the environments, unless you are a crazed alarmist zealot.
I claim that because the Ideal Gas Law proves it. Science proves that a trace gas cannot possibly control the temperature of a mixed gas or control the rate of heat dissipation at the Earth’s surface.
— Gordon Robertson says:
March 30, 2023 at 9:04 PM
bill hTo some the GHE means a CO2 controlled effect.
To others it only means that the mean near surface climate temperature is warmer on average than would be expected from established laws of passive thermodynamics and solar insolation.
***
Billnot telling you anything you dont know, just taking the opportunity to spout off about the obvious.
It never hurts to employ lateral thinking but I dont think CO2 is an issue in real greenhouses, upon which the GHE is based. In a real greenhouse, it is claimed that SW solar enters through the glass and heats the soil and infrastructure. The heated surfaces then emit infrared which is blocked by the glass. For some unscientific reason, it was concluded that blocked infrared energy could warm the air in the greenhouse. —
I was going to mention that Earth’s greenhouse effect [the atmosphere
and the Ocean] is mostly not about radiant effect from greenhouse gases. Though I think the term, enhanced greenhouse effect, is mostly talking about CO2 levels [or other greenhouse gases].
The Venus greenhouse effect has nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
–Experts Urge a Six Month Moratorium on AI Research
I have high hopes for the AI scare. As Ive predicted several times, I believe fear of malevolent AI will be the next great public fear to replace the climate scare. If I keep predicting it Ill be right sooner or later, youll see.
Is AI actually a great threat? From what Ive seen it is more of a great productivity boost. —
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/30/experts-urge-a-six-month-moratorium-on-ai-research/
…
–And there is always the rather disturbing but I believe ultimately necessary option of merging with our creation, augmenting our human brains with AI implants, if we start to fall behind.–
Well, we have more than started to fall behind in terms of public educational efforts. So… rather than trying to fix it, AI could function as substitute to getting an education the old fashion way.
Yes, when irradiated, the matter (on the very instant of incidence) reflects, emits and absorbs.
–
When a planet surface is solar irradiated with some amount of EM energy, at the same very instant the surface INTERACTS WITH THAT AMOUNT of EM energy, and by doing so, the surface (on the very instant) SW reflects a portion of the incident EM energy, and (on the very instant) transforms some other portion from the SW into IR and emits it as IR outgoing EM energy, and what EM energy is left from SW reflection and IR emission, the planet surface (on the very instant) transforms it into heat and absorbs it in the inner layers.
–
Thus, when planet surface is solar irradiated:
at the same very instant the surface INTERACTS WITH THAT AMOUNT of EM energy and as a result
–
1). Some of SW gets reflected as SW
–
2). Some of SW gets transformed straight into IR (by omitting to decay as heat) which IR instantly gets emitted as IR
–
3). And the rest of the incident SW EM energy, gets transformed into HEAT, and that heat is what gets absorbed in the inner layers.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you missed that when some of the planet surface is solar irradiated, some of the SW EM energy is transmitted through the surface. Which raises an interesting question:
If look upon reflection as the rebound of photons at a surface and transmission as their penetration through the surface, then why, if all photons are identical, are some reflected and some transmitted?
Even more puzzling is why photons should be specularly (by which is meant mirror-like) reflected, because for photons imagined as particles of vanishingly small dimensions, all surfaces are rough.
Thank you, Ball4, for your respond:
“why photons should be specularly (by which is meant mirror-like) reflected, because for photons imagined as particles of vanishingly small dimensions, all surfaces are rough.”
–
When interacting with matter photons get reflected, of transformed into IR outgoing EM energy, or absorbed as heat.
–
The reflection is always a mirror-like action, when surface is more mat, there are much more microscopical mirrors, and there is a stronger the diffuse reflection part.
Diffuse reflection is not an isotropic phenomenon, like the actual emission is.
–
Also reflection is always directional, since light comes in from some direction. That is why the Φ -factor, for smooth spherical surface is about 0,47
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
More confusion from troll Ball4:
“…some of the SW EM energy is transmitted through the surface.”
EM does NOT transmit through Earth’s surface. It is either absorbed or reflected.
“If look upon reflection as the rebound of photons at a surface and transmission as their penetration through the surface, then why, if all photons are identical, are some reflected and some transmitted?”
Again, Ball4 is confusing “transmission” with “absorp.tion”. And, like his cult, he doesn’t understand that all photons are NOT identical.
“EM does NOT transmit through Earth’s surface.”
Laughing at Clint R’s newest perversion of reality is hitting new heights today with that latest gaffe wherein Clint doesn’t realize Earth’s surface consists of plenty of liquid water ocean transmitting SW EMR through its surface to some depth.
Your wording needed clarification, Ball4. Your attempt to clarify, “to some depth”, doesn’t help much, but at least you tried.
With Earth, solar photons are either absorbed or reflected. That’s keeping it simple, “KISS”. Of course, your cult likes to confuse things.
Do you mean Earth with its atmosphere or without?
Because you are neglecting scattering.
Which is also why the sky looks much bluer than it actually is.
It’s clear what Clint meant by ‘through the surface’. It’s you, as usual, who has perverted the meaning to serve your own purpose, which is trolling.
Gordon,
Clint R was doing his usual schtick, trying to sound smart while ignoring actual science.
In other words, he is trying to baffle us with bullshit.
Bumbling Bobby,
You wrote –
Gordon,
“Clint R was doing his usual schtick, trying to sound smart while ignoring actual science.
In other words, he is trying to baffle us with bullshit.”
It’s a great pity that you can’t (or won’t) actually say what the “actual science” you are whining about.
Care to give it a try?
I didn’t think so.
Swenson,
I did you moron.
“Because you are neglecting scattering.”
bob, please stop trolling.
15 Minute City by Randy Hillier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq-9-XfPzwM&ab_channel=RandyHillier
It’s more like town. We should have a lot of 15 min towns.
And have a lot cities and towns which are not 15 min.
The human eggs should be children, and children can stay in the 15 min towns, or they can leave once reach a certain age.
I wouldn’t put age limit at 21 or 18, I think 16 years old is old enough.
But the 15 min towns should be more fun. The towns could have a beach, and can go fishing, surfing, sailing and other oceanic activities.
Of course one should be able to have children in non 15 min cities and should able to go anywhere, including to 15 min towns. And able to work doing many things, including making 15 min towns, and making stuff for the 15 min towns, and star travel if you want to.
test
nate…”We all know that materials like water can be transparent to visible wavelengths of light. Some materials are transparent to only some wavelengths, like ruby or sapphire.
So why the cant a gas be transparent to IR wavelengths?”
***
Let’s throw it open to discussion. Why, for example does CO2 absorb and emit IR but N2/O2 can’t?
Here’s a CO2 molecule…
O=====C=====O
The double-dashed lines represent electron bonds that hold the oxygen molecules bonded to the carbon molecule.
Do you see anything in that molecular arrangement excep.t 2 oxygen atoms, one carbon atom and the multiple electrons (4 of them) that hold the molecule together? There are other electrons involved as well that can interact with EM but which don’t take part in the bonding. Even bonding electrons can change energy levels as they absorb/emit EM.
Do you see anything else in that arrangement that can absorb and emit IR excep.t for the electrons in the bonds? Remember, nucleii comprised of protons and neutrons do no absorb/emit IR.
Here’s a good, short video on the N2 molecule Lewis structure, which is a diagram laying out it bonding structure between two nitrogen atoms. Note that it has 3 electron bonds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FImG-s_-xts&ab_channel=chemistNATE
Carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are so close to each other in the Periodic Table that they all call for the basic structure of 2 electrons in the inner orbital band and 8 electrons to fill the next band.
When the inner band is filled, we have helium, an inert element. When the 8 electrons in the second band are filled we have the inert element neon. That’s the idea behind electron bonding, to make the outer shells of the molcules as complete as possible.
The theory goes that CO2 has something special that allows it to absorb and emit in the infrared band. Based on the information I have supplied above, what is it? Some claim it is the linear arrangements of the O and C atoms, that allow the bonds to vibrate symmetrically or asymmetrically. However, N2 and O2 appear to have the same linear arrangement re bonding electrons.
There is nothing else in any of these arrangements, CO2, N2, or O2 that that can absorb or emit EM excep.t for electrons. According to alarmist theory, the electrons in N2 and O2 cannot absorb or emit in the IR region.
The IR region of the EM spectrum is significant only because surfaces at terrestrial temperatures tend to emit in that region. Since Tyndall proved that CO2 and WV can absorb in that region, must we accep.t that N2 and O2 cannot? They have an almost identical electron composition as CO2 yet we are asked to accep.t that the electrons in N2 and O2 will not react to infrared frequencies.
Sorry, I am not willing to blindly accep.t that. I think something egregious is being missed. One things that is being clearly missed is that incoming solar has a very broad band of frequencies and there is no way N2 and O2 will not absorb some of them. Therefore, N2/O2 have to be warmed by incoming solar, just the same as any atom/molecule on the surface.
I don’t think people dealing with this, including myself, have the background to assess the reality. Scientists who do, likely wont come forward for fear of being blackballed by the alarmist cretins who are running science today.
Gordon,
“Do you see anything in that molecular arrangement excep.t 2 oxygen atoms, one carbon atom and the multiple electrons (4 of them) that hold the molecule together?”
Uhmm,
That’s 8 of them.
It’s not that O2 and N2 don’t absorb IR, it’s just that CO2 and Water vapor are about a billion times better at it than o2 and N2.
Exactly, bobdroege!
I wrote something similar upthread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1467214
As usual, the post you reference is garbage. You claim CO2 has an ability in the order of nearly a billion to absorb infrared better than O2 or N2. Where’s your proof based on the structure of those molecules, in which the constituent atoms have very similar structures?
The site to which you refer has no monopoly on the science. They likely created it based on the same, tired old science used by climate alarmists.
I have noted that Bob. D is using the same old rhetoric, lacking the ability to explain the discrepancy at the atomic level.
Gordon,
Two points
1: O2 and N2 absorb at different wavelengths than the other greenhouse gases, so it’s an additional effect and it’s not at the peak of the Earth’s emission spectrum.
2: The concentration of O2 and N2 is not changing, there is no enhanced greenhouse effect due to O2 and N2.
Bobby,
Maybe if you describe this “Greenhouse Effect”, others might have some idea of what you are trying to say.
Is this the “Greenhouse Effect” which allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years, or some other imaginary “Greenhouse Effect”?
You just can’t (or won’t say), can you?
That’s because you are just a deranged SkyDragon cultist, trying to turn fantasy into fact. Well, you just aren’t that clever.
You don’t have to believe me, of course.
Swenson,
Maybe you remember something like this
Putting moar CO2 gas between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better on average over moar time.
Your sammich is hard rotten and digested by rats and cockroaches.
test
bob d…”1: O2 and N2 absorb at different wavelengths than the other greenhouse gases, so its an additional effect and its not at the peak of the Earths emission spectrum.
2: The concentration of O2 and N2 is not changing, there is no enhanced greenhouse effect due to O2 and N2″.
***
1)O2, N2, and carbon have very similar electron orbital patterns. Carbon has 6 electrons, 2 in the inner shell and 4 in the outer shell, Oxygen has 8 electrons, 2 in the inner shell and 6 in the outer shell. Nitrogen has 7 electrons, 2 in inner shell and 5 in outer shell.
I realize different atoms have different orbital energy properties but not to the extent where they behave so differently wrt to IR.
2)The question is whether O2 and N2 can absorb IR to a significant degree. If they can, your point 2) is moot.
You are avoiding answering the question regarding behavior at the atomic level.
If 2 oxygen atoms are bonded together by double electron bonds to form the CO2 molecule and two nitrogen atoms are bonded by 3 double electron bonds to form an N2 molecule, explain why the electrons involved cannot absorb the same infrared energy.
This is an investigation, Bob, get with the program.
The formal explanation makes little sense to me. Because O is more electronegative than C, when bonded as CO2, the electrons tend to gather around the O atoms creating a dipole bond. Somehow that dipole bond in supposed to make the difference and I want to know why.
While we’re at it, we might as well solve Newton’s problem of converting mercury to gold. They are right next to each other in the Periodic Table. with an electron and proton the only difference.
Gordon Roberstson
I have explained your question many times but you are not wanting the answer.
YOU: “If 2 oxygen atoms are bonded together by double electron bonds to form the CO2 molecule and two nitrogen atoms are bonded by 3 double electron bonds to form an N2 molecule, explain why the electrons involved cannot absorb the same infrared energy.”
You are stuck in your false belief that only electrons can absorb EMR. This is not correct and never has been. What is absorbing the IR is the molecule itself. The energy of the IR is increasing the amplitude of distance between the positive and negative poles of CO2. N2 and O2 do not have electric poles so when they vibrate (which they do) there is not changing electric fields. In the molecule with dipoles, the electric field is changing and the rate of change determines the frequency of the absorbed or emitted IR.
You can ignore this or not understand what is going on but don’t act like no one has explained it to you several times. It is very established Chemistry. They use this information to figure out what molecular arrangements are in an unknown substance because different molecular bonds absorb and emit IR at different frequencies. It is a fact you just won’t accept.
Gordon,
It’s already been explained to you at the atomic level like Norman said, do I have to go over the same basic stuff in every post?
Nitrogen has a triple bond, and Oxygen a double bond, the triple bond being stronger than the double bond, so they vibrate at different frequencies, so they absorb different frequencies of light, but in this case it’s not infrared.
CO2 is a trivalent molecule which can bend about the Carbon atom, this is where the molecule is IR active, because it takes less energy to bend a CO2 molecule than it does to stretch a O2 or N2 molecule.
Gordon,
“While were at it, we might as well solve Newtons problem of converting mercury to gold. They are right next to each other in the Periodic Table. with an electron and proton the only difference.”
I find it easier to add protons to nuclei, so converting Hg to Au would be quite difficult, turning Au to Hg would be a lot easier.
I’ll stick to turning Oxygen into Fluorine, that’s where the money is.
bob d…”Its not that O2 and N2 dont absorb IR, its just that CO2 and Water vapor are about a billion times better at it than o2 and N2″.
***
It’s not a billion times more, according to the recent article I posted it’s about 1.5 times more. And N2/O2 outnumbers CO2 by 99% to 0.04%. Figure it out.
What difference would it make if O2 or N2 or both absorbed IR about a billion times better.
Mars has far more CO2 than Earth has.
It seems the 25 trillion tons of CO2 on Mars doesn’t work much better
than 25 trillion ton of N2. Both would absorb heat [or more correctly both gain kinetic energy from the warmed Mars surface].
Both won’t absorb much heat and both would have a small insignificant
greenhouse effect.
If added 250 trillion tons of CO2, it would more greenhouse effect, but Mars despite slight increase of temperature, would colder, than
the more vacuum like atmosphere that Mars currently has.
But if make a big lake of water, the region around the lake would be warmer- the lake would absorb more heat per square meter from the sunlight- and you still have near vacuum conditions. You would still need to cool spacesuits, as do, whenever you in a vacuum.
Here is the absor ption spectrum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_window#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.svg
O2 is absorbing UV spectrum from the sun; its why we don’t get fried by UV. Its not absor bing anything from the earth.
N2 is inert gas. Period.
Yes we do have the ability to assess the reality.
test
N2 is not an inert gas. Inert gases like Helium and Neon don’t bond together without going through a complex method.
I have asked the question, why does N2 and O2 not operate the same as CO2. The elements involved has similar electron arrangements.
I have yet to see an explanation of this from the atomic level. Everything I read treats CO2, N2, and O2 as molecules that have properties which are unexplained. Since they all have similar atoms in the molecular arrangements, why do they treat IR so differently?
I have indicated part of the reasoning has to do with the behavior of the bonds but that does not explain much. The EM still has to be absorbed by electrons and there is no other way to absorb it. Electronegativity is also a factor but it still does not offer a clear explanation of why N2 and O2 cannot absorb IR.
Although I regard Tyndall’s experiment as brilliant, I have questions about some matters. For one, the sensors he used to detect how much IR got past the gases like CO2 were rather primitive. For another, in the days of Tyndall, scientists thought heat moved through air as heat rays. Tyndall thought it was enough to use a detector that responds to heat because he did not know that IR is not heat, nor does it behave like heat.
I am wondering if a better source of IR and better sensors would reveal a significant absor.p-tion of IR by O2 and N2.
Gordon,
Tyndall’s thermopiles were far more sensitive than you might imagine. Would you believe his thermopiles could pick up temperature changes of better than 0.0001 C?
Here’s a snippet from Wikipedia –
“By 1880, Langley’s bolometer was refined enough to detect thermal radiation from a cow a quarter of a mile away. This radiant-heat detector is sensitive to differences in temperature of one hundred-thousandth of a degree Celsius (0.00001 C).” Home made, like Tyndall’s.
Earlier, Lord Rosse measured the heat from the Moon, and came up with a figure higher than NASA some 150 years later. Rosse’s assumptions about the physical properties of the Moon’s surface were incorrect, but pretty good, nevertheless!
N2 and O2 do absorb (and emit) IR. Air consists of mainly nitrogen and oxygen and definitely has a temperature above absolute zero. All matter above absolute zero emits IR.
Delusional SkyDragons refuse to accept reality, which is sometimes almost stranger than fiction.
“Nitrogen dioxide has strong absor ption bands in the visible and near ultra- violet regions of the spectrum and for wavelengths between 430 and 450 nm the absor ption varies rapidly with wavelength.”
So not in the IR range therefore not a GH gas.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf
Link not work.
Title of paper is ‘Measurement of Stratospheric Nitrogen Dioxide from the AES Stratospheric Balloon Program’
Ken
Here is what you were looking for:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00046973.1976.9648412
When a link to an article doesn’t work, simply enter the article’s title in Google.
The link above was the very first one in Google’s result list for the search.
Ken
” Yes we do have the ability to assess the reality. ”
As you can see, this is not valid for all persons posting their stuff here.
The one writes:
” N2 is not an inert gas. Inert gases like Helium and Neon don’t bond together without going through a complex method.
I have asked the question, why does N2 and O2 not operate the same as CO2. The elements involved has similar electron arrangements. ”
and the other writes:
” N2 and O2 do absorb (and emit) IR. Air consists of mainly nitrogen and oxygen and definitely has a temperature above absolute zero. All matter above absolute zero emits IR.
Delusional SkyDragons refuse to accept reality, which is sometimes almost stranger than fiction. ”
There is no chance to discuss about anything with such all-time-everything-better-knowers.
What I wrote to you upthread
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1467214
is for them far away from their egomaniacal narrative, and therefore has to be discredited.
So what!
*
Now, what you have read and posted out of the article about measurement of stratospheric nitrogen:
” Nitrogen dioxide has strong absor p~tion bands in the visible and near ultra- violet regions of the spectrum… ”
nonetheless is highly questionable, again when compared to the information provided by Spectral Calc (this time starting at 2 microns, in order to show N2 in the solar SW as well)
1. O2
Intensity range: ~10^-10
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17aLovAJkjgJ-iJI7ccXQgl8_4svylt_Y/view
O2 absorbs! And even above the solar, in the far IR!
But… O2’s ability to absorb is still 10^7 times lower than CO2’s and 10^8 times lower than H2O…
*
2. N2
Intensity range: ~10^-9
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y2tF11R7TqKvy0HVWbpD_uo3d-W6VDAk/view
N2 absorbs/emits, but only in the solar SW region, and with 819 lines at an intensity in the ~10^-9 range, absolutely insignificant.
*
How then can somebody write that ‘Nitrogen dioxide has ‘strong absorp~tion bands‘ inn the SW corner?
My guess is: it might be due to improper use of SpectralCalc, if you plot intensities in logarithmic instead of linear form:
https://tinyurl.com/3ddbehad
In such a presentation, not only does CO2 look as strong as H2O; both O2 and N2 look like ‘strong absorbers’ as well.
Ah well ah well, Mike Flynn and his sock puppets love to say…
There is no question here Nate you are now in obfuscation mode.
Swanson shows how the steel greenhouse actually works by intercepting radiation from the sun. the shell then warms and then that hot shell begins to warm the greenhouse that it surrounds.
The single clear pane of glass is merely acting as a single glazed window initially taking on the mean temperature between the steel greenhouse blue glass and the early morning cold surface.
But in building construction single glazings do not result in any insulation value due to the fact cooling can adequately deal with the situation via two modes of heat transfer.
What is being demonstrated here is a ‘slowing of warming.’
You know the part always ignored by CAGW advocates in their rush to con the public. Greenhouse gases allow for slowing of radiation on its way to the surface such that only about 160watts of 341watts reaches the surface. Sunlight is 50% IR so that accounts for a huge drop in the amount of light that reaches the surface. Clouds according to your theory amounts to negative feedback since clouds aid in blocking light reaching the surface. And your theory claims you need CO2 to have any water in the atmosphere. Its really a stupid theory as if a 1362 watt sun rising over the horizon can’t do it but 24 watts of CO2 does it all. LMAO! You really have to be ignorant to get this far and going beyond it. . . .LMAO!
> What is being demonstrated here is a slowing of warming.
Well done, Gill!
Now, explain that Mike Flynn.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Slowing of warming is warming more slowly, you fool.
You really have no clue about trolling, have you?
Twas a trick question, Mike.
Nobody can explain you.
Cheers.
Bill,
“There is no question here Nate you are now in obfuscation mode.”
No quote or reference to my post? What is it that I am saying that gives you such conniptions?
I notice you STILL are very confused about what experiment Swanson did. It was not the Steel Greenhouse.
Try to get that straight.
Pick one experiment. Try to make a specific cogent point about it.
All I was noting is a plate in the sky above the clear plate did not cause the clear plate to get hotter than the blue plate. You can extrapolate what that means all you want.
Then it was pointless, since no one thought is should have warmed.
Reverse the clear and the black, and you will get the black to warm with the clear plate above it.
We know that blocking convection will cause some warming. Here the sides are open but there is still some blocking. But as RW Woods showed it didn’t matter if the clear plate blocked IR or not. So you have to compare the warming achieved with two different clear plates. One that blocks IR and one that does not.
And of course I will take your response there as an admission that the steel greenhouse doesn’t work as steel isn’t clear.
“he steel greenhouse doesnt work”
Still mixing up all experiments and models into a confused stew of obfuscation.
The steel greenhouse works exactly as it’s supposed to work.
But we understand to please your sky-dragon-slayer friends you have to deny that it does.
You are really an ignorant boob Nate. You just argued above that the clear plate had to be above the opaque plate. . . .then upon realizing that eliminates the steel greenhouse you back track.
Thats the whole deal here with folks being confused by the so-called one way glass atmosphere. if the sun doesn’t reach the surface it can’t be trapped.
the only thing that is happening in a greenhouse is the trapping of air and eliminating its cooling via convection. See below how you botched the argument about the thermos bottle.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1467955
“You are really an ignorant boob Nate. You just argued above that the clear plate had to be above the opaque plate. . . .then upon realizing that eliminates the steel greenhouse you back track.”
Wrong. Idiot. Troll.
The opaque plate is heated by the sun, thus the plate above needs to be transparent to sunlight.
The outer shell of the Steel greenhouse is opaque, the inner sphere is heated, but NOT BY THE SUN.
You ignore these differences either because you can’t keep track of them or you are intentionally mixing them all up in order to obfuscate, or both.
Which is it?
Swanson has supposedly run another Green Plate Effect experiment. This time he has taken two panes of glass, painted one black, and put them outside in the Sun with a means of recording the temperature of the panes. He’s started with the two panes pressed together, black pane arranged facing the Sun, clear pane of glass beneath it, and let them come to a steady state temperature. Then he’s separated the panes and let them come to another steady state temperature. Then he’s pushed them back together again. The results are as follows, quoting Swanson:
"Run #1 – Clear skys after a cold night, little wind, dew point ~27F = -3 C. Both plates in contact, oriented roughly normal to the Sun’s incident radiation. Temperatures at steady state after a period of time:
Black painted plate, T = 51.1 C
Clear plate behind, T = 49.5 C
Ambient temperature, T = 17.2 C
Run #2 – Plates separated by adding the spacer between, again after a period of time:
Black painted plate, T = 60.3 C
Clear plate in rear, T = 34.5 C
IR thermometer, T = ~57 C
Ambient temperature, T = 17.0 C
Run # 3 – Removed spacer, plates touching together again. Some shadowing from trees:
Black painted plate, T = 44.2
Clear plate behind, T = 43.1
IR thermometer, T = 43
Ambient temperature, T = 18.2
Run #4 – Moved plates for better exposure to the Sun:
Black painted plate, T = 45.8
Clear plate behind, T = 44.6"
Discuss.
Something tells me Swanson didn’t use a vacuum for his “spacer”!
😀
As long as he doesn’t hurt himself, he provides ongoing evidence of how devoted the cult is to their false beliefs. Likely he will continue until he figures out a way to boil water with ice cubes!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
The bedbugs are asking if the Greenhouse Effect works in a vacuum?
Oh wait, the cockroaches told him to ask the rats, they are smarter than Clint R.
No vacuum conditions, but I’m still surprised by the results…to the extent that I doubt they’re genuine. Never having encountered an object spontaneously rising in temperature just because it’s been separated from another object, or hearing of such a thing happening, it is quite a revelation to me. I keep being gaslighted by others insisting that such an event is an everyday occurrence, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s not.
Just wondered if anyone had a rational explanation for these results, or if the most likely answer is: Swanson just made them up.
DREMT,
I can’t see where separating a solid into two pieces has resulted in a rise in temperature of the rear piece.
Where two solids are in close contact, the surface facing the heat source will be hotter, the rear surface cooler. Taking into account application of coatings a la Leslie’s Cube.
Separate the two solids, depending on the properties of the objects, the front object will increase in temperature as it cannot lose heat as quickly as before. The rear object will be cooler, as the front object is blocking radiation radiation from the heat source. The front object is hotter than its surroundings, and will radiate excess heat from all surfaces – in all directions.
Nothing surprising.
Swanson should read Prof John Tyndall’s accounts of his experiments, and get some insight on good experimental practice. If Swanson had a result where the rear object spontaneously increased in temperature, with no corresponding drop in temperature of the front object, I would invest immediately. Use some of the extra energy to move the plates closer and further apart, and harvest the surface. Perpetual motion.
Amateurish and sloppy, and based on wishful thinking. Nothing in his results to indicate anything unusual. Maybe I have missed something, but the description is exceptionally lacking in useful information, as is usual with delusional SkyDragon “experiments”.
Yeah DREMT, it’s likely Swanson is more incompetent than dishonest. But with the cult, it’s hard to tell the difference. For example, bob claims over and over that a train on a circular track is rotating about its axis. It’s hard to believe that someone could be so incompetent. But, that’s bob.
Yeah Clint R,
That’s why I told you to look at the toy train on a circular track through a toilet paper tube.
But you are too stupid to do even the simplest experiment.
Hat’s off to you.
Bobby Buffoon,
You wrote “Thats why I told you to look at the toy train on a circular track through a toilet paper tube.”
And that’s why I think you are a buffoon.
bob now employs a *toilet paper tube* to improve his *science*!
You cant make this stuff up….
Well if it’s good enough for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horkheimer
it’s good enough for me.
” others insisting that such an event is an everyday occurrence, but as far as Im concerned, its not.”
No logic or physics were offered up to support the claim that the so-called ‘heat accordion’ cannot happen.
One person’s incredulity that it shouldnt happen was never a sound argument.
If anyone has any doubts they should repeat the experiment.
Here is a simple version that I did. Put a cast iron pan with a thin layer of vegetable oil out in the sun on a towel.
Put a flat-bottom glass bowl inside. I used a glass food storage bowl, The oil insures thermal contact. Let equilibrate (> 20 min). Remove bowl and measure the temp of the pan’s surface, I used an IR thermometer.
Repeat with the glass bowl turned upside down. There is now an air gap. Let equilibrate. Remove bowl and measure temp of pan surface. It will be higher.
Repeat as needed to confirm results.
DREMT we discussed this at length. Its a matter of whether the first surface to receive the radiation loses heat out of only one or both surfaces.
So Swanson is just manipulating angles and time of day to get his desired effect. He needs to draw up what he is doing, the emissivity of the various surfaces, including outside of the experiment measure everything and then submit it. He did the same thing with is vacuum experiment and when it was pointed out to him that crucial data was missing he refused to repeat it so he could capture all of the relevant data.
To this day he says the initial input into the system is irrelevant. In fact that is the only thing that is relevant as unless you know that you can’t claim a greenhouse effect.
The thought experiments these guys are operating from claim that each doubling of the greenhouse layers, 2 layers, 4 layers, 8 layers, 16 layers would add up to a temperature 8 times the initial input.
I am still waiting on that demonstration as it would have incredible application for deriving energy via steam. According to Nate if you put enough layers the core will get as hot as the sun.
Do your own damn experiment, then.
“The thought experiments these guys are operating from claim that each doubling of the greenhouse layers, 2 layers, 4 layers, 8 layers, 16 layers would add up to a temperature 8 times the initial input.”
Wrong. Idiot.
Yes Bill, these thought experiments they come up with, certainly seem to involve unreasonable temperature increases that don’t tie in with any sort of known physics of insulation. The steel greenhouse ties in directly with the Green Plate Effect. The steel greenhouse is just the 3-plate scenario of the Green Plate Effect, if you ever followed that. That’s where you have a central blue plate receiving an electrical energy supply, and two surrounding passive green plates. It’s like the steel greenhouse in that the two surrounding green plates are like the passive shell on either side of the central, heated sphere. The similarities don’t end there, as in the steel greenhouse (and the three-plate GPE scenario), the temperature of the central sphere (or blue plate) increases indefinitely as you add more shells (or green plates). At least, according to the logic of those that came up with it. It’s all completely bonkers.
Exactly, Nate,
Sky Dragon cranks only have only trolling and gaslighting, so of course they will not do any experiment.
It’s all completely bonkers.
No experiment.
establishing a fact as a matter of physics is the job of the person promoting the fact.
Very clearly in this discussion of energy transfer in space I have no opinion as I have no facts. If someone were to provide facts I could easily form an opinion.
Secondly its not clear to me why I should strive to form an opinion. Nobody is suggesting the earth is enclosed in rigid bubbles of glass filled with vacuums so it becomes just a ridiculous exercise that proves nothing.
.
Gill, Gill,
Nobody expect you to see anything clearly.
You might still like –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Watch this.
Please.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”The similarities dont end there, as in the steel greenhouse (and the three-plate GPE scenario), the temperature of the central sphere (or blue plate) increases indefinitely as you add more shells (or green plates).”
Its ridiculous. Everybody who has set out to do this fails to produce results matching the mainstream math. I have read some scientists think a few tenths of a degree is possible via expanding the CO2 shoulders. Whether that would add on could be the case. Water doesn’t saturate many frequencies because its not present uniformly. That does provide a robust means of greenhouse variability but none of this greenhouse light blocking stuff, IMO, explains why the GHE is warmer than the computed equilibrium. I have some ideas of why that is and continue to contemplate that.
Gill the luckwarmer hath spoken!
Every time DREMT posts sky-dragon-slayer talking points, denying the basic radiative heat transfer physics, Bill offers up support.
Then says things like:
“Yes I believe the atmosphere actually works like greenhouse and that the mean surface temperature strongly suggests that that it does.”
It is all very confusing.
“Very clearly in this discussion of energy transfer in space I have no opinion as I have no facts. If someone were to provide facts I could easily form an opinion.”
Yet you did express an opinion!
“My years of experience suggest that it isnt true.”
These are thought experiments. As such we can only show you what the laws of heat transfer say will happen.
The SB law and the 1LOT are facts that have been applied often, even in space.
The radiative heat transfer law (based on SB law) was shown to you.
Putting these laws together to find the solution to the Steel Greenhouse was shown to you.
In addition use common sense. Air gaps produce insulation. Vacuum gaps should be even better insulators. They are used for that in thermos bottles.
“Its ridiculous…”
…it certainly is. They’ll just keep on defending it for the rest of their lives, though.
Nate says:
”The SB law and the 1LOT are facts that have been applied often, even in space.
The radiative heat transfer law (based on SB law) was shown to you.
Putting these laws together to find the solution to the Steel Greenhouse was shown to you.”
”In addition use common sense. Air gaps produce insulation. Vacuum gaps should be even better insulators. They are used for that in thermos bottles.”
————————–
The concept of insulation is in reducing heat flow. Evacuating the air and narrowing the gap to choke convection between the walls of a vacuum bottle are parts of two different strategies.
Removing the air reduces heat transfer by convection and conduction to zero. Having an air gap reduces it by about 1/2.
To reduce heat loss further in a vacuum bottle another strategy is employed to reduce heat loss by radiation. So they polish the insides of the bottle walls to a very high reflective value to reduce radiant heat loss. These walls can have an emissivity of .02. Nice steel walls can have an emissivity of .98. The polishing and reducing emissivity of the walls creates an approximate 96% reduction in heat transfer by radiation. You can’t do that for windows because that much reflection would block all light coming through the window. So instead they aim to only reduce it by a percentage usually less than 50%. For vacuum thermos bottles they can go all in and go for the 96% reduction. By way of comparison sunglasses block about 75% to 85% of light. For low e windows you can see the reduction in light but its typically much less than sunglasses.
So when you start trying to break down the physics of a vacuum bottle to make your case you should be aware the two strategies of insulation are different.
This is well understood by physicists who design windows and vacuum bottles. Apparently they left it out of your high school physics curriculum.
One thing you can’t do is reduce heat loss between a warm surface and a cold surface to a negative number. You can approach zero though by intelligently working both strategies.
All you are doing above is attempting to ignorantly mash it all together unintelligibly. thats a pretty ignorant way to approach this argument.
“The concept of insulation is in reducing heat flow.”
Yep.
“Removing the air reduces heat transfer by convection and conduction to zero. ”
Yep.
Thus reducing heat transfer by removing air from between standard high emissivity glass (or metal) panes, increases their insulating R factor.
Do you think, Bill, that the insulation R factor, decreases when air is removed between such plates? Decrease to 0?
Gill, Gill,
You’re overthinking this.
Say your accountant makes you save income tax payments that you would otherwise pay because you suck at income tax. Would you keep arguing that your accountant does not make you richer? I hope you would not.
It’s been ten years now.
Time to give it a rest.
Please.
“To reduce heat loss further in a vacuum bottle another strategy is employed to reduce heat loss by radiation. So they polish the insides of the bottle walls to a very high reflective value to reduce radiant heat loss.”
Yes, note that is how radiative insulation works. Whereas some people seem to think it works even with a theoretical blackbody surface.
“Yes, note that is how radiative insulation works. Whereas some people seem to think it works even with a theoretical blackbody surface.”
Radiation radiates from black bodies as it does from real world bodies, just a bit better.
The typical glass panes have emissivity 0.9, they transfer heat 10% less effectively than an ‘ideal’ black body with emissivity = 1.
Some people think the word ‘ideal’ allows anything they want to happen, even violations of the laws of physics.
…whereas some people seem to think it works even with a theoretical blackbody surface.
And I’ll remind people that the analysis of Multi-Layer-Insulation (MLI) explains the GPE, and it works even for emissivity = 1 and it shows that there will be a T gradient across such layers.
“he principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
“The blanket can be further IMPROVED by making the outside surfaces highly reflective to thermal radiation”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
grammie points out that:
whereas some people seem to think it works even with a theoretical blackbody surface.
Engineering experience and experimental evidence proves that the “back radiation” from the clear plate acts as a radiation shield with a near BB surface which will warm the top plate. The effect is not as strong as that for a Dewar flask, but it is still there.
More BS from Team GPE, who just cannot stop responding to me. Swanson argued here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1467963
that his results with the panes of glass were to do with removing a cooling influence from the black pane, similar to removing cooling fins from contact with a CPU. Now he wants to change his mind and pretend that back-radiation was the cause of the temperature increase!
More looney stuff from Team Sky-Dragon-Slayer, who just cannot stop arguing that vacuum is some kind of superconductor for heat.
…now he wants to change his mind and pretend that back-radiation was the cause of the temperature increase!
held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1″
“this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance.”
Note that a blackbody surface emitting 230 W/M^2 must be at 252 K.
There is a 48 K difference between the heated plate and the passive radiative shield plate.
Thus the notion that in the GPE the heated BLUE plate and the passive radiative shield GREEN plate should be at the same temperature makes no sense.
…he wants to change his mind and pretend that back-radiation was the cause of the temperature increase!
” Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
March 31, 2023 at 6:39 PM
No vacuum conditions, but Im still surprised by the resultsto the extent that I doubt theyre genuine. Never having encountered an object spontaneously rising in temperature just because its been separated from another object, or hearing of such a thing happening, it is quite a revelation to me.”
It’s double pane windows- they stop heat loss from house [inside pane is warmer than outside pane] but didn’t I consider the issue that the double panes would also inhibit the sunlight from heating the house as much {I don’t think it’s much of effect, though- and closing the shades would do more].
DR EMPTY,
“Never having encountered an object spontaneously rising in temperature just because its been separated from another object, or hearing of such a thing happening, it is quite a revelation to me.”
Try opening the back of your computer and removing the cooling fins on top of your CPU chip, and see how that works.
bob, “stopping a fan” does not equal “separating two objects”.
gammie, If you think separating the plates is not a problem for your computer, unlatch the cooler and lift it away from the CPU, the fan still connected. No touching allowed. Then, go back to playing your favorite mindless video game.
Swanson, nobody is denying that removing something which is specifically designed for cooling an object is going to make that object warmer. Please stop saying ridiculous things.
DR EMPTY,
What part of removing cooling fins involves a fan?
Same principle. Read my reply to Swanson.
grammie pups, There’s no real difference between “removing something which is specifically designed for cooling an object is going to make that object warmer” and separation of two plates by a small distance, one heated and the other not. The details in each case may be different, the the results will be the same.
Of course, we expect that you will continue to display your ignorance and lack of understanding of physics.
Good, then you admit that the warming of the black pane you claim to have observed had nothing to do with back-radiation.
DR EMPTY,
“Same principle. Read my reply to Swanson.”
Wrong, one is a passive cooling mechanism, the other uses energy to provide cooling.
Are you really that ignorant?
Rhetorical question bud.
You have been smoking crack again.
Same principle in that removing a device specifically designed for cooling is not the same as just separating two objects.
DR EMPTY,
Nice back-peddle there.
False.
DREMT
Are you sure about your comment?
YOU: “Never having encountered an object spontaneously rising in temperature just because its been separated from another object, or hearing of such a thing happening, it is quite a revelation to me.”
That one can happen quite easily. let an electric oven burner get red hot (about 900 F). Now put a pan of ice on top of it, it cools quickly and no longer glows red. If you have a high temperature thermometer you could record the temperature drop. Now remove the ice pan and the temperature goes up. Pretty simple thing to test for yourself.
On the green plate concept. One plate is heated by an external source so its temperature is NOT a set value, the temperature will depend upon how much energy it is losing. When the plates are together (in vacuum conditions) the green plate is removing energy from the blue plate via conduction. When moved away conduction heat loss is removed now you have only radiant heat loss. The green plate radiates some of its energy back to the blue plate so the blue plate loses less energy than it did with conduction removing energy so its temperature will go up.
Anyway I am amazed you have never encountered an object heating up when a form of energy loss is removed.
I was talking about two passive objects, Norman. Not a heat source, like the oven burner.
“When the plates are together (in vacuum conditions) the green plate is removing energy from the blue plate via conduction. When moved away conduction heat loss is removed now you have only radiant heat loss. The green plate radiates some of its energy back to the blue plate so the blue plate loses less energy than it did with conduction removing energy so its temperature will go up.”
No, with the original thought experiment conditions, no temperature increase in the Blue Plate would occur, and no temperature decrease in the Green Plate. It’s just conductive heat transfer being replaced with radiative heat transfer, in ideal conditions, between ideal objects. The BP is not “losing less energy” through radiation than it is via conduction.
In Swanson’s experiment with the panes of glass, the black pane is not at the maximum temperature it could be to start with since it will be losing energy through conduction with the air, convection and radiation, at all times. Removing the clear pane from contact with the black pane just removes an additional cooling influence from one side of the black pane, returning it to closer to its maximum temperature. Under vacuum conditions, the black pane would be at its maximum temperature to start with, only able to lose energy through radiation, and only receiving energy through radiation.
” Its just conductive heat transfer being replaced with radiative heat transfer, in ideal conditions, between ideal objects. ”
Exactly so. And radiative heat transfer is much much less effective than conduction through metal.
The word ‘ideal’ doesnt allow you to evade laws of physics.
So typical glass with emissivity 0.9 would transfer only 10% less heat by radiation than the ‘ideal’ black body with emissivity of 1 for the same T gradient.
And Bill knows very well, that typical glass double-paned windows have an insulation R factor. Remove the air and the R factor will be even larger.
Now increase the emissivity to 1, ‘ideal’, will decrease that insulation R factor by 10%, ie not much.
It will not go to zero!
Thus the insulation R factor of the ideal separated black plates in vacuum is not 0. And heat transfer through them still requires a temperature gradient.
Oh well. Heat flow and temperature do what they do.
…in Swanson’s experiment with the panes of glass, the black pane is not at the maximum temperature it could be to start with since it will be losing energy through conduction with the air, convection and radiation, at all times. Removing the clear pane from contact with the black pane just removes an additional cooling influence from one side of the black pane, returning it to closer to its maximum temperature. Under vacuum conditions, the black pane would be at its maximum temperature to start with, only able to lose energy through radiation, and only receiving energy through radiation.
grammie pups wrote:
Of course, that’s what happens with the GPE. The black paint is intentionally added to cause a uniform heating of the plate (aka: the Blue plate in the basic GPE model). Now add the clear plate (aka: the Green plate) some small distance from rear and the “back radiation” from that plate would add to the energy input to the black painted one. Grammie has agreed that said “back radiation” occurs, yet he still refuses to say what happens to that energy, since he can’t admit it warms the Blue plate.
Same old story, another failure to face reality.
I have always agreed that back-radiation occurs, but that it can’t warm/insulate. It’s amazing that you haven’t paid any attention for the last however many years I have been arguing the exact same thing. Gordon, Clint R and Swenson have all been saying the same things to you, as well, Swanson. You just can’t follow a discussion. You only hear what you want to hear, apparently.
grammie pups wrote:
Perhaps, but I’m not going back thru ~5 years of your spam. But, you once again ignore the basic question. What happens to that “back radiation” from the Green plate to the Blue one? Since you still have no answer, I contend you can’t simply dismiss the evidence that the Blue plate warms as a result. Without evidence, you have no argument left.
I’m happy that there’s no GPE.
grammie has no answer to the question, but he’s happy with that. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
…happy that there’s no GPE.
… because 1LOT and 2LOT are wrong per DREMT.
Nate says:
”And Bill knows very well, that typical glass double-paned windows have an insulation R factor. Remove the air and the R factor will be even larger.”
Nate is getting really sloppy with his physics.
If you have a dual glazed window with a vacuum gap, yes it will have a higher R value. . . .but only if you still have air on the inside and outside of the window transmitting heat to and away from the two panes of glass.
In other words to have insulation you need a heat flow and a means of slowing that heat flow.
The only way you can do that with radiation is to reflect it or have some insulating material between the panes of glass that also blocks radiation. Certainly any glass window is going to reflect some light so some minor effect should be obtained.
“the black pane is not at the maximum temperature it could be to start with since it will be losing energy through conduction with the air, convection and radiation, at all times. Removing the clear pane from contact with the black pane just removes an additional cooling influence from one side of the black pane, returning it to closer to its maximum temperature.”
DREMT explains to himself how a ‘heat accordion’ works in the real world. It is what we have explained to him all this time!
“Under vacuum conditions, the black pane would be at its maximum temperature to start with, only able to lose energy through radiation, and only receiving energy through radiation.”
Non-sequitur. The same basic heat transfer logic, as above, apply here. Vacuum is a good insulator compared to conduction through metal.
With the plate in contact we have effectively a single plate fully exposed to the cold of space, which is a ‘cooling influence’.
Removing the green plate from contact, now provides an insulating radiative shielding. Now the blue plate is surrounded by a warm surface rather than being exposed to the ‘cooling influence’ of direct exposure to the deep cold of space.
The ‘cooling influence on one side of the blue plate has been removed.
It really is simple common sense, that bears get.
Bill,
“In other words to have insulation you need a heat flow and a means of slowing that heat flow.”
Indeed so, and as you agreed “If you have a dual glazed window with a vacuum gap, yes it will have a higher R value”
A higher R value means ‘slowing that heat flow’!
“but only if you still have air on the inside and outside of the window transmitting heat to and away from the two panes of glass.”
In the Swanson experiment, nothing on the outside of the assembly is changing, only the inside is changing: a gap is created.
And creating that gap with air, increases the R value of the assembly, or creating a vacuum gap (YOU AGREE) ‘yes it will have a higher R value”
Thus a ‘slowing of heat flow’ would result when an air gap or a vacuum gap is created.
"If you have a dual glazed window with a vacuum gap, yes it will have a higher R value. . . .but only if you still have air on the inside and outside of the window transmitting heat to and away from the two panes of glass.
In other words to have insulation you need a heat flow and a means of slowing that heat flow.
The only way you can do that with radiation is to reflect it or have some insulating material between the panes of glass that also blocks radiation. Certainly any glass window is going to reflect some light so some minor effect should be obtained."
Bill gets it. In the original Green Plate Effect thought experiment, which takes place entirely in vacuum, that Green Plate is not an insulator. There is no reflection going on, as it’s a blackbody plate.
You simply cannot honestly compare it to any Earth-bound situation where there is air on the inside and outside of the window, and where there are essentially fixed temperatures on the inside and outside of the window, such that there is a permanent temperature gradient through it. It’s just not the same thing in the GPE thought experiment at all. People need to stop trying to pretend that space is some kind of "extremely low temperature surroundings". Space is not "surroundings". Space is the absence of surroundings. It’s just a vacuum. For all intents and purposes, it should be treated (in this thought experiment) as having no temperature.
The Green Plate is not insulating the Blue Plate from the "cold of space". That’s just a nonsensical way of looking at it, and it is entirely what leads people to these erroneous conclusions. The Blue and Green Plate are just objects in a vacuum receiving heat from the Sun. There is no point trying to look at "vacuum gap" insulation effects because the entire thing is happening in a vacuum!
“The Green Plate is not insulating the Blue Plate from the “cold of space”. ”
I see people who claim they are not reading my posts are in fact reading my posts.
Fine.
No one disputes that on the other side the Blue plate is exposed to the cold of space and thus emits a NET IR of 200 W/m^2 (which is sigma*(Tb^4-0) and receiving nearly nothing back from space (thus indicated by the 0 in the equation).
And thus that is strong ‘cooling influence’.
With no Green plate the same is true on its other side. It is exposed to the cold of space and a strong ‘cooling influence’ emitting 200 W/m^2 (which is sigma*(Tb^4-0) and receiving nearly nothing back from space (thus the 0 in the equation).
Now place a warmed GP behind the BP. It should be obvious that on that side the BP is no longer exposed to the cold of space and no longer has the same ‘cooling influence’ of it.
In fact it receives back radiation from the warmed GP according to its TG and the SB law. Thus its previous loss of 200 W/m^2 to space on that side will be reduced.
And in fact the radiative heat transfer law agrees. The Blue plates heat loss will now be sigma(Tb^4-Tg^4).
So with the GP in place, there is simply no common sense, logic, or physics support in claiming that it is not acting as radiation shield from the ‘cooling influence’ of exposure to space.
The GP is acting as insulation for the BP. Just as the second pane of double paned windows does.
…Bill gets it. In the original Green Plate Effect thought experiment, which takes place entirely in vacuum, that Green Plate is not an insulator. There is no reflection going on, as it’s a blackbody plate.
You simply cannot honestly compare it to any Earth-bound situation where there is air on the inside and outside of the window, and where there are essentially fixed temperatures on the inside and outside of the window, such that there is a permanent temperature gradient through it. It’s just not the same thing in the GPE thought experiment at all. People need to stop trying to pretend that space is some kind of "extremely low temperature surroundings". Space is not "surroundings". Space is the absence of surroundings. It’s just a vacuum. For all intents and purposes, it should be treated (in this thought experiment) as having no temperature.
The Green Plate is not insulating the Blue Plate from the "cold of space". That’s just a nonsensical way of looking at it, and it is entirely what leads people to these erroneous conclusions. The Blue and Green Plate are just objects in a vacuum receiving heat from the Sun. There is no point trying to look at "vacuum gap" insulation effects because the entire thing is happening in a vacuum!
“In other words to have insulation you need a heat flow and a means of slowing that heat flow.
The only way you can do that with radiation is to reflect it or have some insulating material between the panes of glass that also blocks radiation.”
Again here we see an erroneous idea, that the radiation between two black body plates is, by some magic, just as good at transferring heat as solid metal! It is not.
This is the mythical notion that black bodies in vacuum are, by some magic, superconductors for heat.
They are not.
They simply transfer heat by according to the laws of physics, which for large parallel black body plates (1,2), the heat flux would be:
F = sigma*(T1^4 -T2^4).
So lets imagine that T1 = T2. Then the heat transfer would be 0. No heat transfer. It is fully blocked.
If we require heat to be transferred then there MUST BE a temperature difference T1 > T2. With T1-T2 = tens of degrees K in the GPE problem.
But to transfer the same amount of heat flux through thin copper requires T1-T2 to be teeny tiny, milliKelvin. Because conduction through metal is much much better than radiation through vacuum.
Thus indeed radiation across a vacuum gap DOES reduce heat loss. It insulates.
…gets it. In the original Green Plate Effect thought experiment, which takes place entirely in vacuum, that Green Plate is not an insulator. There is no reflection going on, as it’s a blackbody plate.
You simply cannot honestly compare it to any Earth-bound situation where there is air on the inside and outside of the window, and where there are essentially fixed temperatures on the inside and outside of the window, such that there is a permanent temperature gradient through it. It’s just not the same thing in the GPE thought experiment at all. People need to stop trying to pretend that space is some kind of "extremely low temperature surroundings". Space is not "surroundings". Space is the absence of surroundings. It’s just a vacuum. For all intents and purposes, it should be treated (in this thought experiment) as having no temperature.
The Green Plate is not insulating the Blue Plate from the "cold of space". That’s just a nonsensical way of looking at it, and it is entirely what leads people to these erroneous conclusions. The Blue and Green Plate are just objects in a vacuum receiving heat from the Sun. There is no point trying to look at "vacuum gap" insulation effects because the entire thing is happening in a vacuum!
“The Blue and Green Plate are just objects in a vacuum receiving heat from the Sun.”
No DREMT, EMR is NOT heat!
BP absorbs EMR from the sun, GP absorbs EMR from the BP.
The BP (by def. a BB) absorbs more radiation emitted from the added GP than the 244K BP at first did from space. The added GP causing a higher BP equilibrium T1 262K, all by 1LOT and 2LOT.
—-
Nate: “In fact it receives back radiation…”
No. BP absorbs EMR from the GP & the sun. This debate would be much more limited if the word “back” had not ever been used.
And I’m sure some people will continue to express their different feelings about what they think heat does in space, but they will not invoke any laws of physics.
Again, feelings are not physics. And physics can be verified and learned, while feelings, not really.
Based on that alone, people can judge who is making the better argument.
But in addition they can judge based on common sense and their own experience that exposure to cold, eg opening the freezer door, is a ‘cooling influence’ that can be felt. While blocking that cold by closing the freezer door, removes that ‘cooling influence, and it can be felt.
Yes Ball4, EMR is not heat. I agree completely. That’s one of the many reasons why there’s no GPE. Thanks for your assistance in the debunking of your false religion.
“In fact it receives back (radiation) from the GP.”
As in ‘He receives back a refund from the IRS after filing his taxes’.
Which was unfortunately not me.
I dont think anyone can quibble with that.
…thanks for your assistance in the debunking of your false religion.
Norman says:
Anyway I am amazed you have never encountered an object heating up when a form of energy loss is removed.
————————–
Of course when you consider losing a form of energy loss it has to mean that the surface in question isn’t at equilibrium with its energy input because when that is the case there already is zero energy loss and you can’t lose more energy loss when its already zero.
Nate says:
”But in addition they can judge based on common sense and their own experience that exposure to cold, eg opening the freezer door, is a cooling influence that can be felt. While blocking that cold by closing the freezer door, removes that cooling influence, and it can be felt.”
We know that cooling accelerates toward cooler surfaces but you mathematically don’t have a cooler surfaces when you have chosen to work from mean temperatures.
All you are doing is trying to make a circular argument that more CO2 which already is cooling the upper atmosphere is going to slow down doing that and thus warm the surface.
But in a multi-layered model the surface cannot see the top layer so there is no avenue for heat loss to be suppressed.
One can’t just wave ones arm, claim the upper atmosphere is retaining more heat without radiating it to space and then claim it will warm the surface instead.
Heck that might be the case. But you still have to deal with other facts like huge amounts of being heat radiated to space by from latent heat being released by convecting water vapor sublimating into ice crystals at the top of clouds.
The reason it sublimates is water doesn’t condense or freeze at established temperatures but we know the air must be below freezing for that to happen. So what happens if the air isn’t freezing. . . .from energy by absorbed by CO2? water vapor is lighter than air and even heavier than air molecules like CO2 find their way into the mesosphere due to molecule collisions overriding the force of gravity. So the water vapor is going to continue to rise until it condenses or sublimates.
I get that CO2 could have an effect on climate. But so can natural climate change which has large swings in climate of all kinds of time periods up to the Milankovitch cycles which move climate change into the 100’s of thousands of years.
the problem is in differentiating natural climate change from anthropogenic. I have been working in this area for decades and constantly see powerful political forces attempting to force government to act on extrapolated data that more often than not results in harm. Of course 10 years downstream from science improves the new scientists claim the old scientists were politically corrupt as the actual fact is that among the entire range of all the scientists making predictions the range can go from nothing to some huge number. We actually see that today where even a cherry picked group of scientists can’t agree on how warm it will get.
My local weather scientists have gotten better over the years. But still tomorrows temperature prediction can be off by more than a few degrees. The prediction for 3 weeks out is so bad they don’t offer it as an official prediction.
According to climate science the mean temperature in 2100 will be anywhere between a few degrees cooler (since certain explained and unexplained cooling events can’t be predicted either) to 12C or more warming.
That should be enough to tell you that you are a fool to pick one.
And Bill rambles off topic to nowhere.
“Space is not “surroundings”. Space is the absence of surroundings. Its just a vacuum. For all intents and purposes, it should be treated (in this thought experiment) as having no temperature.”
More hand-waving BS assertions.
It is again the feelings ‘solution’ to a heat transfer problem.
Meanwhile in the real universe, heat loss from planets and space-craft, like the JWST, is analyzed with physics: the radiative heat transfer equation, like the one I used for the GPE.
I’d like to see how the ‘no temperature’ of space goes into the radiative heat transfer equation.
"Of course when you consider losing a form of energy loss it has to mean that the surface in question isn’t at equilibrium with its energy input because when that is the case there already is zero energy loss and you can’t lose more energy loss when its already zero."
Exactly. Which is why the blue plate, in space, doesn’t get warmer when you separate the green plate from it.
“More hand-waving BS assertions.”
As usual, Nate.
Little Willy shlurps along.
“Of course when you consider losing a form of energy loss it has to mean that the surface in question isnt at equilibrium with its energy input because when that is the case there already is zero energy loss and you cant lose more energy loss when its already zero”
Maybe somebody can translate this from gobbldegook to english?
…Willy shlurps along.
Nate says:
”Hunter says: Of course when you consider losing a form of energy loss it has to mean that the surface in question isnt at equilibrium with its energy input because when that is the case there already is zero energy loss and you cant lose more energy loss when its already zero”
Maybe somebody can translate this from gobbldegook to english?
———————————–
How about in your own language Nate?
”So lets imagine that T1 = T2. Then the heat transfer would be 0. No heat transfer. It is fully blocked.” That comes from this thread from you. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1468780
There will only be heat transfer from a larger ”T” to a smaller ”T”. Yet you ascribe to physics that defies the laws of science and your own arguments in this thread. Are you so inculcated into this crazy belief that you defy your own knowledge. Have you been hypnotized?
Nate says:
”It is again the feelings solution to a heat transfer problem.
Meanwhile in the real universe, heat loss from planets and space-craft, like the JWST, is analyzed with physics: the radiative heat transfer equation, like the one I used for the GPE.”
the radiative heat transfer equation when calculated by an engineer requires one account for all sources and all sinks of radiant energy.
Swanson GPE did not do that. You lack a well-controlled experiment to prove your theory.
California’s Title 24 Engineers understand how to do this as well as any engineer working to get an electronic device UL listed.
Obviously you need more training to understand how to do that.
Saying and engineers calculations for UL listing of electronic devices is way understating it. UL Listings for for any device using or producing electromagnetic energy. That includes furnaces, boilers, etc.
The problem with claiming that a vacuum is an insulator depends on their being an energy flow present that the insulation slows or stops.
So a vacuum in combination with a barrier can be considered an insulator in stopping or slowing convection or conduction. But there is no evidence it stops or slows radiation. And the 2nd law prevents a cooler object from contributing net energy to a warm object to warm it.
Yeah, transmission of heat by conduction happens faster than transmission of heat by radiation.
DUH
bob old boy, heat is not transferred by radiation…not physically. It’s a three part conversion: heat to IR, IR through the air, then IR to heat. There is absolutely no relationship between the heat in stage one and the heat created anew in step three.
I explained before that the current in an antenna producing an EM field in the antenna of a radio station has nothing to do with the current induced in the antenna of of a radio receiver. Same thing.
Actually, your so-called transmission of heat from the Sun takes 8 minutes but heat transfer through a piece of copper is done very fast, in a fraction of a second.
Gordon,
“Actually, your so-called transmission of heat from the Sun takes 8 minutes but heat transfer through a piece of copper is done very fast, in a fraction of a second.”
That’s what I said old goat.
bob…That would be Mr. Old Goat to a reprobate like you.
Fumbling blubbering Bobby,
You wrote –
“”Actually, your so-called transmission of heat from the Sun takes 8 minutes but heat transfer through a piece of copper is done very fast, in a fraction of a second.”
Thats what I said old goat.”
No you didnt, you fool. You are just lying again, hoping nobody will call you out.
What a dummy you are!
Swenson,
This is what I said
“Yeah, transmission of heat by conduction happens faster than transmission of heat by radiation.”
This is what Gordon said
“your so-called transmission of heat from the Sun takes 8 minutes but heat transfer through a piece of copper is done very fast, in a fraction of a second”
Same thing, but I actually said that when I quoted Gordon.
So you can eat those nits you pick.
Bumbling Bobby,
That no doubt comes as a giant surprise to the survivors of Space Shuttle re-entries.
Luckily, the transmission of heat from the white-hot insulation tiles was radiated away to space (and the atmosphere, of course) faster than it could be conducted into the interior.
By the way, what is “Clint R,
The bedbugs are asking if the Greenhouse Effect works in a vacuum?
Oh wait, the cockroaches told him to ask the rats, they are smarter than Clint R.” supposed to mean?
There is no Greenhouse Effect, but I presume that you are trying to be gratuitously offensive because you know that you can’t even describe this “Greenhouse Effect”.
Your attempts will fail miserably if you cannot find somebody silly enough to feel offended by the dribblings of a bumbling buffoon who calls himself bobdroege.
Donkey.
Swenson,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccHrgxsO9z0
Maybe you should ask the bedbugs, the cockroaches, or the rats for their copy of the greenhouse effect.
They have already eaten your sammich.
I have already provided a description of the greenhouse effect, obviously you are not an elephant.
Bumbling Bobby,
You havent provided a description of the “Greenhouse Effect” of any sort, let alone one that explains why the GHE failed to prevent the Earth fo9rm cooling!
Carry on digging lies out of your fantasy.
Idiot.
Actually GHE has been described here often. Too bad you lack the wit to understand.
Now I’m doing it. Nuts.
Swenson,
Now you are lying again.
I have provided a description of the greenhouse effect for you.
“Yeah, transmission of heat by conduction happens faster than transmission of heat by radiation.”
OK, but then that’s not the Green Plate Effect. The Green Plate Effect is supposedly the back-radiation from the clear pane insulating the black pane and thus causing the black pane to come to a higher temperature in the presence of the heat source and back-radiation.
The Green Plate Effect is not what Swenson describes:
“Where two solids are in close contact, the surface facing the heat source will be hotter, the rear surface cooler. Taking into account application of coatings a la Leslie’s Cube.
Separate the two solids, depending on the properties of the objects, the front object will increase in temperature as it cannot lose heat as quickly as before.”
Which is the same thing you are implying by stating that the transmission of heat by conduction happens faster than transmission of heat by radiation. Neither of you are describing the Green Plate Effect.
“is supposedly the back-radiation from the clear pane insulating the black pane ”
Is someone trying to move the goal posts? The experiment was only meant to demonstrate a ‘heat accordion’ effect happening in the real world.
It succeeded in that.
No one claimed it was proving ‘back radiation’.
Swanson’s earlier experiment with vacuum did that.
Nate,
You wrote “Is someone trying to move the goal posts? The experiment was only meant to demonstrate a ‘heat accordion’ effect happening in the real world.”
Minor problem – there is no such thing as a ‘heat accordion’ effect! It’s about as stupid as a ‘greenhouse effect’.
Maybe you could invent a ‘cold piano’ effect? There are lots of musical instruments, when you get sick of accordions and pianos.
Keep trying, fool.
Not to mention that the GPE is a thought experiment’ in a perfect world with perfect objects and no losses.
In such a scenario, both plates would be at the same temperature.
“Minor problem there is no such thing as a heat accordion effect! ”
The term is a DREMT invention. You’ll have to take it up with him.
“Minor problem – there is no such thing as a ‘heat accordion’ effect!“
Not in the original Green Plate Effect thought experiment created by Eli Rabett, there wouldn’t be, no. As Clint R explains:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1463023
Separating the plates would not lead to a temperature increase in the blue plate.
In real life, without perfect objects, without view factors = 1 between those objects, and without vacuum conditions, looks like there might be a “heat accordion” effect. Quite a surprise, but ultimately doesn’t change anything. Still no GPE.
… only if the 1LOT and 2LOT are incorrect.
The claim was made that no ‘heat-accordion’ exists in the real world, cuz ‘we’ would know about it.
This was a false assertion.
And it was made repeatedly to ‘debunk’ the GPE. So the basis for that ‘debunking’ has now evaporated.
Swanson’s experiment shows a large temperature gradient between the plates with air in between. That is expected, because it is well-known the air gap provides additional thermal insulation, an R factor.
“The understanding that a gap between window panes increases the insulating capacity, R factor and the T gradient”
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/images/double-pane-heat.png
Now people need to realize the obvious: that removing the air between the plates only makes the insulating effect of the gap BETTER, the R factor LARGER.
Or do people honestly think that removing the heat transfer modes of convection and conduction, somehow makes the gap a BETTER transmitter of heat, ie make R factor and the T-gradient go to 0?
That is quite illogical.
Nate says:
Or do people honestly think that removing the heat transfer modes of convection and conduction, somehow makes the gap a BETTER transmitter of heat, ie make R factor and the T-gradient go to 0?
That is quite illogical.
——————–
thats just because you think illogically and extrapolate a lot. There is more at play than what you acknowledge.
Yes insulation reduces the rate of heat transfer but traditional insulation is measured with regards to the number of modes of heat transfer not changing. On the front side of the glass you have two warming modes and on the backside of the glass you have two cooling modes. Take away one cooling mode and the glass will heat to equilibrium because you completely removed a cooling mode. It now has two warming modes but only one cooling mode.
One can imagine that if you have one mode of warming via radiation instead of two by both radiation and conduction/convection. That the effect would be the same. but before I start extrapolating I like to see the test. I am not denying it will perform the same. I am sure it has been tested sometime in the course of the space program. I just wonder why people who claim to be educated in the matter don’t have a reference. . . .once again. Seems to me they are just talking through their hat. . . .once again.
This is quite a basic heat transfer question.
It seems Bill is uncertain about whether removing the air in the gap between the plates would make the gap a better or worse transmitter of heat.
No GPE.
You are right DR EMPTY,
I am describing the accordion plate effect.
A derivative of the green plate effect if you will.
Huh? What are you talking about, bob? Either there is a Green Plate Effect, or there isn’t. Make up your mind.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
As I said, no GPE.
Nate says:
This is quite a basic heat transfer question.
It seems Bill is uncertain about whether removing the air in the gap between the plates would make the gap a better or worse transmitter of heat.
——————————
the insulation value isn’t a measure of what the object will equalize as.
In the dual glazed window there are two modes of warming on the warm side and 2 modes of cooling on the cool side.
The insulation is the slowing of transmission of heat across the gap. It isn’t like radiation that occurs at the speed of light.
That slowing of heat transport slows the cooling of the first pane and slows the warming of the second pane by convection.
Obviously in that situation a change in temperature is going to occur.
Same 2 panes with a vacuum on every side. Light speed of light to the warm pane, a transfer by conduction that is more effective than the IR rays across the section of glass, a speed of light transfer across the gap, another fast movement of heat across the 2nd pane of glass and a speed light transfer from there. Where is the slowing?
Oh thats right its mathematical not experimental. For math to determine a physical effect on uninsulated panel one needs to be sure all the computations of all the movements above are correct. There is no slowing in the IR/conductive path and by removing the 2nd mode of cooling from every surface, not just the intermediary surface well you have an entirely different condition.
Swansons experiment failed to detect it because of a field of view issue between the two plates. Not all the radiation from the first plate went to the second plate so it was cooler.
the dual glazed window to work in air, filled with air needs sealed borders.
I am not saying what the result is. A good experiment is possible. Why hasn’t it been done if it hasn’t been done? Why do you believe the answer without ever seeing of it being done?
We do know that a vacuum filled dual glazed window unit in a gaseous environment will have better insulation than one with gas between the panes. Thats a no brainer and has been demonstrated. But the window unit on the outside of the assembly has modes of warming and cooling double more than double the rate of the inside so the warmside pane will warm up and the coolside will cool down. Make the inside as fast as the outside then you don’t have insulation.
You haven’t shown me where the slowing occurs with radiation and vacuums on all sides. . . .keeping in mind that SB equations are dependent upon no other power sources or modes of cooling being present.
> Oh thats right its mathematical not experimental.
A **physics** gedankenexperiment, Gill.
Please.
DR EMPTY,
Are you losing it?
“Separating the plates would not lead to a temperature increase in the blue plate.”
This is not the Green Plate effect, in that experiment the plates are always separated.
If you have the plates together and then you separated them, that’s the accordion effect.
Never mind, bob. Nobody expects you to understand.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
At 6:09 PM, bob completely dodged the point I made. I reacted accordingly.
DR EMPTY,
The problem is that when you separate the plates you change the way the energy is transmitted, so you have to recalculate the temperatures, with the result that the temperatures do indeed change.
I can’t help you if you willfully refuse to learn the thermodynamics involved.
And make fallacious arguments and willfully act the ass.
bob, this:
“Where two solids are in close contact, the surface facing the heat source will be hotter, the rear surface cooler. Taking into account application of coatings a la Leslie’s Cube.
Separate the two solids, depending on the properties of the objects, the front object will increase in temperature as it cannot lose heat as quickly as before.”
is not the Green Plate Effect, by which I mean it is not “back-radiation warming”. You can’t try to defend the GPE, which is specifically about back-radiation from the green plate warming/insulating the blue plate, by pointing to the idea that conduction transfers heat faster than radiation.
DR EMPTY,
Except I am not defending the Green Plate effect by pointing out that heat transfer by conduction is easier than heat transfer by radiation.
Why are you so confused?
I’m not confused, bob, I’m just making a point that you can’t refute, so you’re getting all uptight as usual.
DR EMPTY,
Tell me what point you are making again.
No GPE without any supporting argument again, I see.
I’m very much chill and not uptight.
Saying I’m uptight is gaslighting me.
I’ve made the point, you can’t refute it, so now we’re going to get comment after comment of…this.
DR EMPTY,
Any point you think you made is not following the laws of thermodynamics.
No GHE,
No GPE,
None of those are points you have made.
The pointless waffle continues…
DR EMPTY,
Yes, exactly
You continue to make no points.
I won a while ago. Just waiting patiently for you to stop responding, as usual.
And so Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more.
DR EMPTY,
Yes you made no points but you still won.
Here is your internet cracker jack prize.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/29/476183872/cracker-jacks-prize-in-the-box-will-now-be-digitized
bob continues to prattle on.
grammie pups continues to ignore the fact that my test of his thought experiment shows he was wrong. He just keeps repeating his cult’s mantra: “There’s no back radiation” when experimental facts prove otherwise. For example, he just posted:
There’s no reason to consider the “speed” of the transfer, as in, “speed of light”. With the GPE, there’s no conduction across the vacuum, only radiation HT. grammie ignores the obvious fact that without the “back radiation” in the GPE case, the Blue plate would remain at a constant temperature since the energy flowing in would equal that leaving via IR radiation.
“He just keeps repeating his cult’s mantra: “There’s no back radiation”“
Pathetically wrong, Swanson. There is back radiation. Nobody is saying otherwise, and in fact we never have. The existence of back radiation has always been acknowledged. It just doesn’t warm/insulate. Your entire comment fails accordingly.
Is it possible? Does grammie pups really admit that there is back radiation from the Green plate toward the Blue plate in the GPE case? OK then grammie, what happens to that thermal IR radiation? Wouldn’t it be absorbed? If not, tell us what happens to it.
"Is it possible? Does grammie pups really admit that there is back radiation from the Green plate toward the Blue plate in the GPE case?"
Of course, I’ve never argued any different. You’re either wildly dishonest, or so incompetent that you cannot follow even the simplest argument.
"OK then grammie, what happens to that thermal IR radiation? Wouldn’t it be absorbed? If not, tell us what happens to it."
Absorbed, reflected…who knows? All we know is that it can’t raise the temperature of the blue plate.
grammie pups replies to my question, writing:
Once again, the denialist grammie posits that “WE” know something to be true without any evidence to support his claim and in opposition to the easily replicated experimental results. grammie doesn’t understand that one can’t prove a negative, that is to say, one can’t prove that something didn’t happen, only what did.
“…and in opposition to the easily replicated experimental results…”
How is it in opposition to the experimental results? You’re far from establishing that the rise in temperature of the black pane that you supposedly observed was anything to do with back-radiation from the clear pane. In fact, you argued up-thread that it was akin to removing a cooling device from contact with a CPU.
The denialist cult, as usual, has no clue about how double pane windows work.
Think of the black painted glass being the inside pane and the clear one being the outside pane of a double pane window placed in a wall of a house. Now, measure the temperatures of the two panes on a cold day with the inside of the house warmed by some external energy supply. While you are at it, measure the temperatures across a single pane window with double thick glass.
The result in both cases is just basic engineering heat transfer from hot to cold. The air space between the panes acts like the insulation within the walls. Said insulation effect involves both conduction thru the layer of air and radiation HT between the panes, INCLUDING BACK RADIATION.
Swanson, is all that rambling supposed to explain your *spacer*?
grammie clone, If one understands the physics of double pane windows, there’s no explanation needed.
If one understands the physics of double pane windows, one understands that their function has nothing to do with “back-radiation warming”.
Double pane windows do not have one pane painted black, Swanson. The plates nonsense has both plates the same emissivity. It appears you’re changing up everything in some failed effort to prove ice cubes can boil water.
Why not just work with ice cubes and a bowl of water? Keep it simple.
Careful you don’t scald yourself….
Who ever said that boiling water had to be hot enough to cause a scald. The problem, Clint, is that your only definition of ‘boil’ is as defined at standard atmospheric pressure.
Wrong troll Ken. That is NOT my ‘only’ definition of boil. Misrepresentations and false accusations are troll tactics. That’s why you’re a troll.
But, since this is Fools’ Day, you may want to impress us with your ignorance.
Why can’t “billions and billions” of 15μ photons increase Earth’s 288K surface?
Because they are still unabsorbed photons.
ken…”The problem, Clint, is that your only definition of boil is as defined at standard atmospheric pressure”.
***
Ken, old chap, we are discussing global warming/climate change in this blog and much of it takes place largely at STP. All surface thermometers are located as if at STP and I doubt that any are adjusted for varying pressure. These thermometers should be adjusted for altitude but I have not aware of any in scientific use that are calibrated for altitude. If they are, perhaps we need to look into discrepancies in that regard.
STP is a defined quantity. Water boils at 100C at STP but only 68C at the peak of Mount Everest. That definitely makes boiling water luke warm, which is a complaint about many mountaineers at altitude.
At the peak of Everest, which is above 4 km, the height at which channel 5 on AMSU units are centred, alarmists argue that is too high to measure surface temperatures. Is the peak of Everest not on the surface?
What Clint and others are arguing is that climate change theory has been generalized to exclude basic physics principles. Alarmists are arguing that the radiation from ice can boil water and Clint is claiming that is absurd. A basic argument of alarmists is that back-radiation from colder air can raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface, that provided the radiation in the first place.
I know you object to our skeptical discussions of the Moon but opponents, who are also climate alarmists, like to use similar arguments against us. They refuse to accept the standard physics definition of rotation about a local axis and imply, indirectly, that under certain conditions, the Moon is rotating when it is clearly not. Whereas you are correct about boiling water temperature and air pressure, by taking it out of context, you are enabling climate alarmists and their pseudo-science.
“What Clint and others are arguing is that climate change theory has been generalized to exclude basic physics principles.”
All that Clint and others arguments demonstrate is a lack of understanding of basic physics. That lack of ecumen does nothing for the cause against climate change narrative.
“They refuse to accept the standard physics definition of rotation about a local axis and imply, indirectly, that under certain conditions, the Moon is rotating when it is clearly not.”
The moon does rotate on its axis. Your stubborn refusal to accept this fact means you have no credibility in any field of science including climate.
Both you and Clint are blatherskytes and are a discredit to any attempt to correct the record on the climate change narrative. Anyone who comes here seeking knowledge about actual climate science isn’t going to find it and that is on you and your viper’s nest of trolls.
Ken, I’ve learned to not waste time with people like you that have no appreciation for reality or honesty. For example, what is one example of me getting any physics incorrect?
Where is your model of *orbital motion without axial rotation*?
If you can’t do anything but spew your cult tactics, you’re got NOTHING. Youre just another immature brat on a keyboard.
Clint R,
You are too funny, you ask for an example of when you got the physics wrong, and they you give an example of when you got the physics wrong.
Sorry bob, you can’t see reality looking through a toilet paper tube.
Clint R,
And why not?
You too funny.
ken…”The moon does rotate on its axis. Your stubborn refusal to accept this fact means you have no credibility in any field of science including climate”.
***
Then again, you’re the one who claims the Moon is orbiting the Sun, which reveals an abysmal lack of understanding of the physics involved. I’ll pass on your opinion on the Moon rotating on its axis. The fact that you take shots while refusing to offer your own explanation of how the Moon can keep the same face pointed at Earth and still rotate about a local axis, suggests strongly you are blindly basing your opinion strongly on an appeal to authority, just like the alarmists/spinners.
If all you have is an appeal to authority, it will come around and bite you in the bum.
To make matters worse, the article you cited states that the Moon orbits the Earth and that the spiral path shown, albeit incorrect, is an attempt to show the path of a barycentre around the Sun, not an orbital path for the Moon.
You need to work on your comprehension, Ken, before you go making silly challenges against we non-spinners. Besides, you should be on our side since we too are skeptical about catastrophic warming/climate change and we support Roy and John Christy and their work.
I don’t know about the others, but I vehemently reject the covid propaganda and what was done to the truckers. I’m sure we have a common ground somewhere but you seem to have shut down your objectivity.
Gordon,
An orbit is a path formed by the motion of the Moon.
Of course there is such a path for the Moon around the Sun, so it is OK to say the Moon orbits the Sun, because it does.
Swanson
You wrote –
“Now, measure the temperatures of the two panes on a cold day with the inside of the house warmed by some external energy supply.”
This would be a Tim Folkerts hidden energy input, would it, that doesnt actually exist?
Youre a fool. Think about your glass panes as glass panes. They dont exhibit any strange behaviour – no GHE, no anomalous heating. If you want to discuss
“Think of the black painted glass being the inside pane and the clear one being the outside pane of a double pane window placed in a wall of a house. Now, measure the temperatures of the two panes on a cold day with the inside of the house warmed by some external energy supply. While you are at it, measure the temperatures across a single pane window with double thick glass”,
then just do it. How hard can it be?
Seems pretty simple, but you wont find any GHE there either.
No perpetual motion, no CO2 heating. Accept reality – the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and you cant explain this in terms of the mythical GHE, can you? Try and describe the GHE – Ill bet you cant, in any way that accords with reality. Nobody can.
You need more imaginary scenarios to back up your other irrelevant and pointless analogies, trying to explain the perfectly ordinary results of your amateurish and sloppy attempts to support some bizarre notion you have about some GHE that you cant even describe.
Go on, appeal to bumbling bobby, or Wee Willy. They do a good line of gibbberish, and will keep repeating that they had a perfectly good description of the GHE, but the dog ate it!
What a pack of dingalings!
Flynnson wrote:
Insulation does not produce more energy than that which is available from the source. Increasing the steady state temperature at one point within a system does not imply more energy from the source. There’s no “Perpetual Motion” or a violation of the 2nd Law.
Accept reality.
swannie…” Increasing the steady state temperature at one point within a system does not imply more energy from the source”.
***
Nice red-herring.
If the source is providing the IR to heat GHGs, and the GHGs send back IR to allegedly raise the temperature of the source, that is definitely perpetual motion. It’s a recycling of heat from surface back to surface.
How else are you going to increase the steady state temperature ‘at one point’? You need a source of heat to do that and solar energy cannot be used as that source. Solar energy has already set the temperature of the surface that radiated the IR to heat the GHGs.
It’s also a contravention of the 2nd law for the simple reason that heat is allegedly being transferred from a colder source to a warmer surface.
Swanky,
You wrote –
“Increasing the steady state temperature at one point within a system does not imply more energy from the source.”
Well yes, it does, without a corresponding decrease in temperature resulting in no gain or decrease in energy within the system. Unless, like delusional SkyDragon cultists, you don’t accept the conservation laws.
Your “experiment” doesn’t seem to demonstrate anything that requires any alteration to present physical laws, and seems easily explicable – to me, at least.
As I said, maybe I have missed something along the way. Maybe you could point out something that you think requires an explanation not covered by my explanations to date. What was the testable hypothesis you were endeavouring to test with your experiment?
Just making assertions as you did in your previous comment (which appears to be wrong, prima facie), does not really explain anything, does it?
swenson…”Think about your glass panes as glass panes. They dont exhibit any strange behaviour no GHE, no anomalous heating. If you want to discuss…”
***
But, but, but….Swannie thinks doubling a pane of glass magically allows heat to be transferred, by its own means, from the colder outside air to the warmer inside so as to make the room even warmer than it is heated by the house furnace.
swannie…”The denialist cult, as usual, has no clue about how double pane windows work”.
***
What does this have to do with your argument that heat can be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot? Are you saying that heat is transferred from the colder outside air to the warmer inside air to raise the temperature of the inside air?
Here I’m also replying to Gordo’s comment above.
Gordo again demonstrates that he has no clue about heat transfer, his two comments presenting grossly incorrect claims about the effects of double pane glass. He casually ignores the fact that most modern houses in colder regions use heating systems controlled by thermostats.
The thermostat’s function is to maintain the temperature inside said house near some desirable temperature by regulating the rate of energy supply to the inside of the house. Changing the insulation in the walls and/or ceiling of the house will change that rate of energy supply. Insulation does not “create” more energy supply.
Single pane windows are poor insulators and replacing them with double pane (or better) windows increases the overall insulation of the building’s envelope, thus reducing the necessary flow of energy into the building. The double pane windows insulation is the result of the suppression of convection in the space between the panes, but there is still a net flow of thermal IR radiation between them. Adding “low-e” coatings to either pane reduces some of that IR radiation, in either direction.
Swannie,
What has any of that to do with the non-existent GHE?
Maybe you dont realise that a double pane window and a single pane window in a constant temperature environment have precisely the same temperature.
Insulation merely slows the transfer of heat between two objects at different temperatures.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and the rate of cooling of the mantle has reduced – the insulation of the thickening crust, and what lies over it, slows the rate of cooling. Slow cooling is still cooling. Really, really, slow cooling is still cooling.
No sudden reversal of cooling, suddenly becoming heating! Even you are not silly enough to believe such a thing, are you?
Go on, tell me you are just that silly!
Bumbling blundering Bobby has lost contact with reality.
He wrote –
“Swenson,
Maybe you remember something like this
Putting moar CO2 gas between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer read moar hotter moar better on average over moar time.
Your sammich is hard rotten and digested by rats and cockroaches.”
Typical response of delusional SkyDragon cultists. He must think he is saying something, by saying absolutely nothing! What an idiot!
Swenson doesn’t realize it when someone is making fun of him.
No no…
” He must think he is saying something, by saying absolutely nothing! What an idiot! ”
Flynnson was just speaking about himself, but clicked on the wrong button.
binny…”What an idiot!”
***
Binny hears the word idiot and automatically thinks he is being hailed.
swenson…”Bumbling blundering Bobby…”
***
Please don’t call Bob, Bobby, he doesn’t like it. Bumbling and blundering are apt descriptions but ‘Bobby’ offends Bob’s sensibilities. Not that there’s anything wrong with hitting below the belt. The Marquis would have objected but I have found that offering an opponent a good kick in the slats works wonders.
But this is a scientific discussion and neither of you have the chops to kick me in the nuts metaphorically speaking.
Tell me about those phases of the Moon again, Gordon.
I was not challenging you physically, Bob, I leave that nonsense to people who are legends in their own minds. It’s all meant in good fun.
My reference to kicking someone in the slats comes from my unfortunate forays into undesired and mainly unprovoked street fights. I mean, who in his right mind wants to engage in a street fight, in the dark, when there are no cops around to save you? On the other hand, it can prove quite exhilarating, especially if the other guy quits.
I recall an incident in the States when several carloads of us young Canadian punks drove across the border to a local seaside town. The last thing we had on our minds was fighting, we were looking mainly for young US babes. Of course, the local US lads saw it as an intrusion on their territory and wanted to fight.
During the tussle, one of our guys kicked one of the Yanks in the slats and that provoked outrage, bringing the melee to a standstill. Apparently, all they wanted to do was ‘wrastle’.
Our butts were saved by a US army soldier who waded in and started grabbing his fellow Yanks and berating them. He essentially told them to eff-off. Apparently there was no love lost between the US soldiers at a nearby base and the local youth. I guess the soldiers saw them as idle slackers. Then he turned to us and suggested we vacate the area, advice we did not need repeated.
I for one was mighty thankful to the US Army.
Earlier, Swanson wrote –
“grammie clone, If one understands the physics of double pane windows, theres no explanation needed.”
Som delusional SkyDragon cultists believe in a “greenhouse effect” which they cannot describe in words, but which is apparently responsible for the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years, and then heating up for a couple of hundred or so (SkyDragons can’t or won’t commit themselves to a definite time).
This “greenhouse effect” is supposed to relate to “greenhouse gases”, coal, oil, and gas, atmospheric pollution, anti-Semitism, insulation, and in the latest assertion – double pane windows, in some mysterious and unstated fashion!
Pardon me while I laugh.
Mike Flynn,
Keep denying –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Wninnying Wee Willy,
Awwwww – not even a hint of what it is you think I’m “denying”?
Does that link lead to some YouTube nonsenses which you are too embarrassed to describe? Why don’t you waste your time posting the same link 50 times (or have you already?), hoping that somebody might think you are clever – trying to divert attention away from the fact that you are a delusional SkyDragon cultist, to a nonsensical amateur video – which of course, won’t contain a GHE description either!
Maybe you could deny that you can’t describe the GHE in any way that agrees with reality, but who would believe you?
Would you believe somebody who claims they have something, but refuses to show it to you?
Not terribly bright, are you?
By the way, have you figured out how the GHE caused the four and a half billion year cooling of the Earth? Maybe you could link to a face pulling content creator providing an explanation. I’d probably look at it myself for the comedy content.
Off you go now, waste some more time chasing rainbows.
Mike Flynn,
You ask if that sammich is really a sammich –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
There’s only one way to find out.
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“Theres only one way to find out.”
Find out what, fool?
Clint R already told me whats at your irrelevant and nonsensical link. You havent disagreed with his assessment. That tells me all I need to know – that you you are indeed a fool, and suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder, repetitively posting stupid links, and begging me to click on them!
If youre the best and brightest that the SkyDragon cult can muster, the cult is doomed.
Go on, post your link again. Watch me to call you a fool for doing so, while I refuse to click on it! Or have I already, so you are really, really, really, wasting your time? Do you think I would enjoy the spectacle of you wasting your time imploring me to click on a link for absolutely no reason at all?
Youll never know, will you, because you are an idiot. “Audit” that, moron!
[laughing at suddenly confused delusional SkyDragon]
Mike Flynn,
Is this the best you can do?
Here is your sammich again –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Carry on, fool.
Wee Willy dimwit,
Let me know when you’ve posted a video from a failed physicist, content creator, and all round delusional SkyDragon, 50 times – for exactly the same result.
You ask “Is this the best you can do?”
Absolutely – why should I waste my time looking at some irrelevant nonsense which are begging me to look at? Doing nothing is the best I can do, of course.
Maybe you could keep looking at the silliness you keep posting to no avail. You seem to find it singularly fascinating, presumably because you have a very short attention span. Bad luck Wee Willy, I can’t be bothered complying with your groveling requests, and theres nothing you can do about it, is there. Boo hoo.
Carry on, delusional,SkyDragon cultist.
Mike, Mike,
Why would I find a Sky Dragon crank video when I have this?
I already have a good one –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, the somewhat retarded bobdroege wrote –
“DR EMPTY,
Are you losing it?
Separating the plates would not lead to a temperature increase in the blue plate.
This is not the Green Plate effect, in that experiment the plates are always separated.
If you have the plates together and then you separated them, thats the accordion effect.”
Effect on effect! Two plates always separated – one makes the other hotter using magic – the Green Plate effect.
Two plates occasionally separated – one makes the other hotter using magic – the accordion effect!
Of course, the Green Plate effect, the accordion effect, the green house effect – none actually exist, other than in the twisted imaginations of their delusional SkyDragon cultist supporters.
Ask for a description of any of them, and you’ll be told that the descriptions got worn out by being written too often, the dog ate them, the subhuman Russians or the crafty Chinese stole them – any ridiculous excuse to avoid being pinned down will do.
Time for blundering Bobby to explain why the US Navy committed a grave error by not giving him command of a nuclear submarine.
[laughs at retarded dimwit]
Use the heat transfer formulas and do the calculations.
Or not.
Which formula, the legitimate one from Fourier that covers heat transfer through a metal plate or the fraudulent one, incorrectly based on S-B, that adds a fake heat transfer from cold to hot?
There is no heat transfer from cold to hot using the so called fraudulent one.
Heat transfer is always from hot to cold, it’s defined that way.
Energy transfer from cold to hot is not heat transfer.
You don’t get the second law of thermodynamics, I wonder why.
Braindead Bobby,
You wrote –
“Energy transfer from cold to hot is not heat transfer”
You are precisely correct. It is nothing at all – a figment of your imagination.
Go on, fool, transfer some energy from cold to hot, and tell me how you measured the effect on the “not”!
Swenson,
“Go on, fool, transfer some energy from cold to hot, and tell me how you measured the effect on the not!”
I assume you meant “hot”
With a thermometer of course.
Unfamiliar with analytical equipment are you?
Bumbling Bobby,
Off you go then, transfer some energy from a cold object to a hotter thermometer. Tell me how you figured out the amount of “energy” which was “transferred”!
You just aren’t terribly bright, are you Bobby?
Thermometers measure “degrees of hotness’ – nothing more, nothing less.
You just said there is no heat transfer, but you claim you can measure the transfer of “energy” from a cold body to a hot one, using an instrument that doesn’t measure energy at all! The SI measure of energy is the Joule. Have you invented an imaginary energy measuring device and called it a “thermometer”? What units does it display?
You flannel-headed fool, you don’t understand what you are burbling about, do you?
No GHE. You can claim you have described the GHE, and you can claim you sell therodynamics lesson for “50 bucks”, and you might get laughed at on both counts. Accept reality – there is no GHE, and nobody believes you have a clue.
Swenson,
Is English not you primary language?
“You just said there is no heat transfer,”
No, I did not, I said something else, which is obviously above your level of intellect.
Swenson,
If you want to continue to display your awesome level of ignorance, keep on truckin!
“You just said there is no heat transfer, but you claim you can measure the transfer of energy from a cold body to a hot one, using an instrument that doesnt measure energy at all! The SI measure of energy is the Joule. Have you invented an imaginary energy measuring device and called it a thermometer? What units does it display?”
Do you know the units of heat capacity?
So that you can convert a temperature change into an energy change.
I see that you don’t.
Basic science is not your forte.
But carry on with your display of ignorance.
Bumbling braindead Bobby,
You wrote –
“Use the heat transfer formulas and do the calculations.
Or not.”
Ah, I see. Using mysterious “heat transfer formulas” and doing “calculations” will produce descriptions for the Green Plate effect, accordion effect, and Green House effect will it?
Others might well see, all too clearly, why the US Navy made no mistake at all by not giving bobdroege command of a nuclear submarine.
Yet another attempt by a delusional SkyDragon cultist to avoid accepting reality, and admitting that they cantt actually produce a description of the “greenhouse effect”. Maybe the Russians or the Chinese stole Bobbys “heat transfer formula” as well!
Oh dear, bumbling Bobby, you are looking really, really deranged, you know.
Carry on.
Dear Swenson,
You can’t be bothered to learn how to do heat transfer calculations, you know a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
And of course they didn’t give me command of a nuclear submarine, I wasn’t a ring thumping O-diver.
Bumbling buffoon Bobby,
I wrote –
Ah, I see. Using mysterious heat transfer formulas and doing calculations will produce descriptions for the Green Plate effect, accordion effect, and Green House effect will it?
Answer the question, fool, answer the question.
Only joking – I was having a laugh at your expense. “Heat transfer formulas” won’t provide a description of any of your mythical effects, will they?
You said “And of course they didnt give me command of a nuclear submarine, I wasnt a ring thumping O-diver.”
No, it was because you are too stupid to be put in command of anything. First, you would need to be able to communicate in plain English, which is definitely beyond you. It gets worse from there, obviously.
Carry on with the idiocy.
Swenson,
Thermodynamics lessons are 50 bucks each.
“Using mysterious heat transfer formulas and doing calculations will produce descriptions for the Green Plate effect, accordion effect, and Green House effect will it?”
You want to pay for something I have already given you for free?
Now who is the stupid one?
Pea-brained Bobby,
Using mysterious heat transfer formulas and doing calculations will produce descriptions for the Green Plate effect, accordion effect, and Green House effect will it?
Why can’t you just answer the question? Too stupid? Don’t know what a description is?
You are rather delusional if you believe that a heat transfer “formula” is anything but what it is. I will guarantee it does not mention a Green Plate effect, accordion effect, or Green House effect at all!
You’re off with the fairies, bumbling Bobby.
I’m still laughing at your inability to deal with reality – do you really think anybody would pay you anything at all for “thermodynamics lessons” from a blithering idiot like you?
Keep dreaming, witless SkyDragon cultist.
Swenson,
You are too stupid to even have a conversation with.
Of course the thermodynamic equations don’t specific problems or examples, they are generic and apply to all possible systems.
Why do you keep asking for the same thing you have already been provided with?
Too stupid to realize the questions you ask have already been answered.
“Why cant you just answer the question? Too stupid? Dont know what a description is?”
Moron, I already answered this, more than once, I don’t want to play your juvenile trolling game.
bob, please stop trolling.
bob d…”This is what Gordon said
your so-called transmission of heat from the Sun takes 8 minutes but heat transfer through a piece of copper is done very fast, in a fraction of a second”
***
Note the ‘so-called transmission of heat’. No heat is actually transferred, it is EM being transferred, and it moves at the speed of light, since EM and light are essentially the same thing.
Since heat cannot be transferred as heat through the 93 million miles of space between the Sun and Earth, I may have to re-appraise my answer. Once the EM is absorbed and converted to heat, the heat should move at the same speed it does given a material.
That raises the question, can light warm you? If I shine a bright flashlight in a room, it lights up the entire room. If I put my hand over the end of the flashlight to lock the beam, I feel nothing.
Gordon,
You can’t refer to heat like it’s a substance contained in a body.
Thermodynamics define it as energy in motion.
It’s the exchange of thermal energy between systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer.
“That raises the question, can light warm you? If I shine a bright flashlight in a room, it lights up the entire room. If I put my hand over the end of the flashlight to lock the beam, I feel nothing.”
Now what about if I exchange the flashlight for a light bulb with a little more power, say a 1000 watt metal halide bulb.
Would you feel some heat transfer then?
By the way, it would be interesting to have a far IR filter blocking everything above 5 mu, and to feel the difference.
They advertise small flashlights which are hot enough to start a fire, and otherwise, very bright and can be blinding to criminals/enemies in the night- and military suppose to use them.
But I have not bought any to check it out.
Braindead Bobby,
Why don’t you exchange a flashlight of undetermined type and output for a 1000 watt metal halide bulb, and and answer your own completely stupid gotcha?
If you replaced your brain with a peanut, would it make you any more intelligent?
Pretty easy to see why the US Navy didn’t put you in charge of a nuclear submarine.
Have you found a “formula” for the description of the non-existent GHE?
[laughing at idiot]
#5
Ah, that stupid, opinionated fake German elementary school teacher, who never has anything to say but keeps all the time pushing for something irrelevant to say.
Always the same boring stuff, along with an increase in aggressiveness: clear signs of a neurodegenerative disease.
I know Flynnson: you will never stop disturbing. As with Robertson, your egomaniacal behavior is beyond your own control, it is too late for you to correct yourself.
Swenson,
“Have you found a formula for the description of the non-existent GHE?”
Yes I have, and for 50 bucks I’ll post it for you.
Do it with a five watt laser , then report findings
Weather is bad all week, if you Boca Chica weather forecast are accurate. FAA and weather is preventing a superheavy starship test
launch, anytime soon.
Most are guessing later in April. Musk might like a 4/20 launch date- as it would be funny.
Other than launching largest rocket ever launched, SpaceX has scheduled 4 Falcon Heavy launches this year which is the largest operational rocket in the world. But schedules do slip, and largely because of weather or payload it’s ready, yet. One of them:
October 5 Falcon Heavy Psyche
“A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket will launch NASAs Psyche asteroid mission. The Maxar-built spacecraft will travel to the metallic asteroid Psyche, where it will enter orbit in 2029. This is the first spacecraft to explore a metal-rich asteroid, which may be the leftover core of a protoplanet that began forming in the early solar system more than 4 billion years ago. The Falcon Heavys two side boosters will return to Landing Zones 1 and 2 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station for recovery. The center core will be expended. Delayed from 2022 due to payload software issues. Moved forward from Oct. 10, 2023.
Updated: April 01”
There was short movie made of Starship test launch and they had it break up upon re-entry [due to tiles failing, I guess]. I think that
is unlikely- I would guess less than 10% chance it will fail like Columbia orbiter failed. Wiki:
“At 8:53:46 am, Columbia crossed over the California coast; it was traveling at Mach 23 at an altitude of 231,600 feet (70.6 km), and the temperature of its wings’ leading edges was estimated to be 2,800 F (1,540 C). Soon after it entered California airspace, the orbiter shed several pieces of debris, events observed on the ground as sudden increases in brightness of the air around the orbiter. The MMACS officer reported that the hydraulic sensors in the left wing had readings below the sensors’ minimum detection thresholds at 8:54:24 am. Columbia continued its reentry and traveled over Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, where observers would report seeing signs of debris being shed.
At 8:58:03, the orbiter’s aileron trim changed from the predicted values because of the increasing drag caused by the damage to the left wing. At 8:58:21, the orbiter shed a TPS tile that would later land in Littlefield, Texas; it would become the westernmost piece of recovered debris.
The crew first received an indication of a problem at 8:58:39, when the Backup Flight Software monitor began displaying fault messages for a loss of pressure in the tires of the left landing gear.
“The orbiter began flying along a ballistic trajectory, which was significantly steeper and had more drag than the previous gliding trajectory. The orbiter, while still traveling faster than Mach 15, entered into a flat spin of 30 to 40 per second. ”
Or I think unlikely to have significant problem between Mach 25 and 15. But Mach 10 to 5 is fast enough to cause problems.
Hmm when does Shuttle’s reach max gee upon descent:
“The speed changed by 4000 m/s over a time of about 250 seconds. So that is an acceleration of (4000 m/s)/(250 s) = 16 m/s^2. That is a little over 1.6 gs.”
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-acceleration-of-the-space-shuttle-during-its-re-entry-to-the-atmosphere
4 km/sec delta-v going from 6 km/sec to 2 km/sec [17.49271 Mach to
5.830904 Mach] for Space Shuttle]
But is going to be anything like the Shuttle re-entry profile?
“As with any airplane, the shuttle’s wings generate lift. As the atmosphere gets denser, the wings are going to generate more lift, and this upward lift will cause the descent rate to slow. In fact if the shuttle maintained a wings-level attitude, it would eventually start to gain altitude causing it to “skip” across the atmosphere several times until it was slow enough to fall through.
…
So, instead, when the decent rate starts to slow, the shuttle goes into a bank. By controlling the bank angle, they’re able to control how much upward lift the wings are generating, and, by extension, control their descent rate.”
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21981/how-does-the-space-shuttle-slow-down-during-re-entry-descent-and-landing
So, starship not going to do “banks”, it seems to me it should do “skips” and then do it’s belly flop. SLS return capsule did a skip-
first time that been done [at least in terms open source stuff].
It’s a start
Married father kills himself after talking to AI chatbot for six weeks about his climate change fears
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/04/ai-chatbot-encouraged-man-obsessed-with-climate-change-to-kill-himself-to-save-planet/
You aren’t doing enough about climate change, you should kill yourself.
I doubt married father killed himself because he talked to AI chatbox. But talking to AI chatbox for 6 weeks indicates something very wrong with the married father.
I understand why ten year old could have fears about climate change, but not an adult.
We were not designed to live our lives denying reality. It works short term, but the end result is suicide.
Reality always wins.
Heads up … we weren’t ‘designed’ … period.
Humans are endowed with the innate desire to believe in something. It’s our job to reject false beliefs. We get to use reason and science in that effort.
People that choose to believe passengers jets fly backwards, or ice cubes can boil water, or refrigerators can build themselves, have chosen false beliefs over reason and science.
There are convincing videos of passenger jets flying backwards, convincing experiments showing added ice can boil water, and with AI someday refrigerators might even be able to build themselves.
Clint R laughably chooses imagination & a belief system over the reality of science and fact-based commenting.
I rest my case.
Aeroplane stall speeds are measured relative to the wind. If the wind speed is greater than the stall speed then you can move backwards relative to the ground.
Antonin, yes in that limited circumstance. Comedian Clint R was yet again forced to rest his case after being shown video of Harrier jump jets flying backwards and Dr. Spencer’s published experiments with ice.
The laughable thing here is neither Ant nor B4 can describe what the passenger jets issue is about. They just know they have to pervert reality for their cult.
I made no claim specific to passenger jets. Only when the stall speed is less than the wind speed. And THAT explained “what the issue is about”, unless you have no concept of what stall speed is.
The topic was *passenger jets flying backwards*, Ant. So thanks for admitting you werent following the topic. You were only trolling.
The topic was Evo, Pup.
Only sock puppets are designed.
“The topic” was “Married father kills himself after talking to AI chatbot for six weeks about his climate change fears”.
Ever heard of practising what you preach?
Terminator is here.
bob d…”Gordon,
You cant refer to heat like its a substance contained in a body.
Thermodynamics define it as energy in motion.
Its the exchange of thermal energy between systems”.
***
Once again, referring to heat as energy in motion fails to identify the energy in motion. There is no such things as generic energy that is impelled into motion, the energy must be specified. You call it thermal energy, but I confirmed with Christos, who is Greek, that thermal and heat are the same word in Greek. The root of thermal is Greek, ‘therme’ (with an accent over last ‘e’).
The Encyclopedia Britannica reserves the word thermal energy for internal energy. That is wrong too since heat, as energy, is an unknown entity. Same for all forms of energy, no one knows what the heck is going on. Energy is a motivator of unknown origin, it causes things to happen.
All we can do is associate energy with different modes of it based on association. Heat is associated with atomic motion, something causes atoms to move, either in a substance or in a liquid, or in a gas. No one knows why the atoms move but the motivator is called heat.
Do you have an explanation for why atoms in solids vibrate in proportion to temperature, which is a measure of heat. Please don’t call it a measure of internal energy because that has no specific meaning. It is simply energy that is inside a mass.
Heat is not a substance. At one time that was the belief, they called the substance caloric. No one knows what it is, it is simply there, and if you increase it, atoms start moving faster.
As a motivator, we have to call it something, and we call it thermal energy, or heat.
Consider electrical energy. It is associated mainly with electrons, in particular, the charges electrons carry. But no one has any idea what charge is. If the charges are alike, they repel each other and the force is called electromotive force (EMF). There is also a motivator associated with magnetism and it is called magnetomotive force.
These forces motivate things to move and the motivator itself is called energy.
To complicate matters, heat is transferred through a conductor by electrons. So, electrons not only transfer charge they also transfer heat. And, they also, create magnetic fields when the charges move.
Electromagnetic energy is another form of energy. It has an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and it too is created by electrons. Maybe in a star, where hydrogen tends to dissociate into proton and electrons, the protons can produce EM, I don’t know. But if the hydrogen atoms dissociate, how can you have hydrogen and helium?
Science has been simplified way to much. There is a heck of a lot we know nothing about yet people are willing to mis-define heat as a generic energy in motion.
ps. I prefer the definition of Clausius for internal energy, the official definition with symbol U in the 1st law. He defined internal energy as both internal work and internal heat. He claimed heat is what causes the atoms to vibrate internally and the vibration is internal work.
Gordon,
You should refer to thermodynamic textbooks instead of encyclopedias.
“Do you have an explanation for why atoms in solids vibrate in proportion to temperature, which is a measure of heat.’
Here you are mistaken again.
Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms and molecules.
And kinetic energy is something and we know what it is.
bob, don’t forget to mention that you don’t have a clue about REAL science. You view the world through your *toilet paper tube*.
That ain’t science.
Clint R,
As usual, you are full of it.
How does viewing the world through a toilet paper tube change reality?
I’ll await your excellent dissertation, as well as your promised proof that the Moon doesn’t rotate on an internal axis.
You didn’t pass any physics classes, now did you?
Tell the truth.
Looking at things through a toilet paper tube is like a horse wearing blinders, bob.
Or, like being in a cult….
Clint R,
What a horse sees through blinders is still reality.
Keeps them from being distracted.
Looking through a toilet paper tube at the locomotive of a toy train on a circular track allows you to see that it is in fact rotating.
That’s the reality.
But you are distracted by your preconceived notions of what reality is.
Hope that helps.
Good point, bob. Don’t let reality distract you.
bob…”Looking through a toilet paper tube at the locomotive of a toy train on a circular track allows you to see that it is in fact rotating”.
***
Have you seen a turntable used to turn locomotives around? What if I had one for a car? I drive the car onto it and the tunntable rotates the car through 360 degrees about its COG. Are you claiming that looking through a toilet paper tube at a car on a track causes it to rotate through 360 degrees in the same manner?
If so, you are dealing with a vitamin deficiency, at least.
bob…”You should refer to thermodynamic textbooks instead of encyclopedias”.
***
About 75% of the time, those I have referenced, as well as Internet sources, present the classical definition of heat, that it is related to atomic motion.
You have to understand that people who write textbooks cannot be authorities on everything about thermodynamics. When it comes to universities, they have strange paradigms like the one you quoted, in which heat is merely a transfer of some unknown energy. That’s a paradigm similar to the one in electrical engineering, which is completely false, that electrical current flows positive to negative.
Every EE textbook I have read claims the same thing. All the arrows representing current in circuits point in the direction from +ve to -ve. They are even so stupid they claim holes left by vacating electrons, in the valence bands of atoms, as they move, are a current. Ergo, textbooks do misrepresent the truth.
Well, if empty holes can be a real current I suppose in the same imaginary world heat can be a transfer of itself and not real energy.
We need to establish that something is flowing through a piece of steel when one end is heated by a torch. You claim it is not heat flowing but that heat is a transfer of thermal energy. I ask what the difference is between thermal energy and heat.
Bob, I urge you to challenge what is written in textbooks. Sometimes what is written in them is utter garbage. If you think this through, heat has to be energy and as energy it is has to represent something. I am claiming that heat is the energy that motivates atoms to vibrate harder in solids and it causes molecules in a gas to become more agitated.
We must give that energy a name and the name is heat. Call it thermal energy if you want, to me it’s the same thing.
Gordon,
“I ask what the difference is between thermal energy and heat.”
Thermal energy is related to temperature, the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules.
Heat is thermal energy being transferred from one system to another.
There is a difference between challenging textbooks and making shit up.
For one thing
“If you have a piece of steel sitting on a work table at 20C, the atoms in the material will be vibrating at a certain rate.”
This isn’t true, the atoms will be vibrating at different rates in accordance with the Boltzmann distribution, some atoms are vibrating faster or slower than others.
bob d…”Heat is thermal energy being transferred from one system to another”.
***
I regard that as a semantics argument. Thermal comes from the Greek word for heat. It was good enough for Clausius and many other scientists and it’s good enough for me.
Bob, throw out your textbooks and think for yourself. Or, at least, tear out the pages that claim heat is only a transfer of energy.
With regard to vibrating atoms, Boltzmann’s distribution is about a gas, not a solid. In a metal, it’s unlikely all atoms will be at exactly the same temperature and they may vibrate at slightly different rates. I posited, however, a piece of steel at 20C.
bob…”Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms and molecules”.
***
And what do you call the energy described by the ‘kinetic’ modifier? The word kinetic means in motion, but what energy is in motion? Please don’t claim it is internal energy, wherein ‘internal’ is simply another modifier. What energy are we talking about?
Clausius explained internal energy in a solid as partly the work done by vibrating atoms and part by the heat energy that motivates the vibration. Doing work on a piece of steel, like drilling holes in it or manipulating it will cause it to warm. However, work will not increase the temperature anything like apply a torch with a flame temperature of 2000C.
His definition was accepted for U in the 1st law, but people like Thompson talked him into calling it simply U, likely because the sum of Qint and W int cannot be measured directly. It’s far easier to measure the initial temperature and the final temperature externally then find the amount of heat imparted. The vibrations of the atoms don’t matter much unless they start tearing the mass apart.
If you have a piece of steel sitting on a work table at 20C, the atoms in the material will be vibrating at a certain rate. If you apply a torch to the metal, the atoms will begin vibrating harder. What energy have we added to bring that about?
I call it heat and I’ll bet 99% of anyone you ask will claim the same, even though they have no idea what heat is. We have to name the energy that is added and it has a name…heat. You call it thermal energy, which is the same thing with another word.
Gordon,
Well, if you want to call anything heat, you run into a problem when you try to claim heat can’t be transferred from cold to hot.
The qualifier is ‘by it’s own means’. I have never claimed heat cannot be manipulated into being transferred from cold to hot, only that it cannot do so naturally. In the atmosphere, heat does not have the means to be transferred cold to hot.
bob…to expand on the transfer of heat from cold to hot, look at how it is done. In an air conditioner, there is no direct transfer of heat from a cold area to a warm area, it has to be done indirectly using external power and equipment.
If you have a warm room you are trying to cool, you need to move warm air in the room to the outside environment, to warmer air. That is done using a special gas that compresses easily, a compressor, external power to run the compressor, and two radiators with added devices to atomize a liquid back to a gas.
The first radiator is installed in the room to be cooled. It contains a low pressure gas that can absorb heat from the room. That warmed LP gas runs through a compressor where it is compressed to a high pressure liquid. The HP liquid is pumped through a second radiator that is exposed to outside air, where the absorbed heat from the room is dissipated.
The HP liquid now has a lower temperature and it is run through an atomizer to convert the liquid to a low pressure spray. Then it goes back into the LP radiator and the cycle repeats.
That’s why you cannot transfer heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, without the apparatus.
The thing that amazes me is how Clausius managed to figure this out circa 1850, long before electric power and compressors were readily available. He reasoned it using heat engine theory, yet here we are nearly 200 years later, still arguing about it.
bob, please stop trolling.
“If you have a piece of steel sitting on a work table at 20C, the atoms in the material will be vibrating at a certain rate. If you apply a torch to the metal, the atoms will begin vibrating harder. What energy have we added to bring that about?”
Just guessing but propane torch gases going around 3000 m/s and room air is about 500 m/s. SpaceX raptor engine is 3700 m/s which rocket engine burns at high pressure and makes the molecules go in one direction:
“Raptor Vacuum
While the vacuum-optimized Raptor engine is aiming for a specific impulse of ~380 s (3,700 m/s)”
The high pressure and rocket nozzle is about getting highest velocity
that gas type can do, propane rocket isn’t a particularly a high velocity gas and rockets burning oxygen rich. The blue flame part of
propane torch is oxygen rich [more than enough oxygen to burn the fuel]
flame color temperature:
“Orange flames range from around 1100C to 1200C. White flames are hotter, measuring 1300C to about 1500C. The brighter the white, the higher the temperature. For blue flames, or flames with a blue base, you can expect the temperature to rise dramatically, hitting roughly 2500C to 3000C.”
The difference of propane torch and rocket is rocket makes exhaust gases go in one direction, and torch is directed but not quite as efficently directed.
Ok. But what is it in the flame that causes the molecules of gas to act so energetically when they react with a flame and oxygen.
And…why are the molecules moving in the first place? In a tank of gas at STP, the gas atoms/molecules are always moving. Why? And if you add this thing called heat, why do they start moving faster?
There is an energy involved but what is it? I call it heat, as do many others, but no one knows what it is. Some people call it kinetic energy but that’s not good enough for me. All that tells you is the energy is in motion. And internal energy only tells you it’s inside something. Others call it thermal energy provided it is internal but that’s simply another word for heat AFAIAC.
And Greeks agree. The root word for thermal is the Greek word therme (with an accent) and Christos assures me that therme means heat in Greek.
El Nio on way but cloudy pacific .
Not enough indicators for a temp drop so expect a big bounce back up. Sad
–HMM: American IQ Scores Have Rapidly Dropped, Proving the Reverse Flynn Effect.
The study, published in the journal Intelligence, used an online, survey-style personality test called the Synthetic Aperture Personality Assessment Project to analyze nearly 400,000 Americans. The researchers recorded responses from 2006 and 2018, in order to examine if and how cognitive ability scores were changing over time within the country. The data showed drops in logic and vocabulary (known as verbal reasoning), visual problem solving and analogies (known as matrix reasoning), and computational and mathematical abilities (known as letter and number series).
On the flip side, however, scores in spatial reasoning (known as 3D rotation) followed the opposite pattern, trending upward over the 12-year period. Theres a debate about whats causing it, but not every domain is going down; one of them is going up, Elizabeth Dworak, a research assistant professor at Northwestern University and one of the authors on the study, says in a news release. If all the scores were going in the same direction, you could make a nice little narrative about it, but thats not the case. We need to do more to dig into it.
Less stringent reading and writing assignments, more 3D videogames?
Posted at 8:34 am by Stephen Green—
https://instapundit.com/
I used do a lot videogames, but not in last 10 + years.
gb…”The study, published in the journal Intelligence, used an online, survey-style personality test called the Synthetic Aperture Personality Assessment Project…”
***
The tests are not worth the paper they are written on. They use a sample size representing 1% of the US population and draw an inference from it.
It is quite a bit less than 1%, but if were 10%, it wouldn’t make much difference.
But we don’t have any need of a narrative- and I fine with the idea that they can stop digging.
I wonder how many are happy Joe Biden is President.
And if happy, do think think Joe and Dems are not going to be blamed
for the ongoing disasters- which might not be their fault?
There is discussion on what is the molecular difference by which CO2 absorbs infrared radiation but oxygen and nitrogen do not on page 11 of the brief or page 17 of the document.
Wonderful post