Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March 2023 was +0.20 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is up from the February 2023 anomaly of +0.08 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 15 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 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.23 | +0.16 | -0.14 | -1.44 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
The USA48 region had the 2nd coldest March in the 45-year satellite record, 1.44 deg. C below the 30-year normal. The coldest March was in 1981, at 1.91 deg. C below normal.
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for March, 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
Record warm absolute sea surface temperature, even without El Nino.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
Record warm when you exclude the cold anomalies below 6oS. https://www.farmonlineweather.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta
Atlantic is warm while pacific appears to be transitioning to el nino, while warm la Nina anomalies still persist. So both sides of the pacific are warm until on one side gains dominance. Interesting weather, not climate.
Nothing was excluded from that average.
And what exactly are “warm La Nina anomalies”? La Nina COOLS the planet.
If you want climate, compare the UAH average for this decade so far to the average for each of the other decades in the record. Then acknowledge that the average for this decade so far is lower than expected due to three years of La Nina.
La Nina warms our cold 3.5 C ocean, El Nino dumps oceanic heat into the atmosphere.
Since warming our cold ocean is global warming, but if concerned about land surface air temperature, a warmer ocean surface temperature {El Nino} causes a warmer land surface temperature- but it’s been cold, though it’s been wetter, where I live.
Though CO2 levels are at a record high and our thermosphere is at it’s warmest due to Solar Max [as compared to last 10 years].
Solar wind
speed: 513.7 km/sec
density: 10.60 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 54
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 127 sfu
Updated 03 Apr 2023
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 22.20×10^10 W Warm
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×10^10 W Cold (02/2009)
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.8% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.7%
Though not very active at moment and might
be very active in next week, I think it’s
going to take off in next couple months and thermosphere
will far exceed the levels it reached in April. Or it’s
presently down about 2 x 10^10 w from April peak.
Or I think it could get about 30 x10^10 [which is quite
bit lower the record of “49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)” but quite
a bit warmer than it has been for couple decades-
but it’s just a guess.
In terms of CO2:
February 2023: 420.41 ppm
It should be higher in March, but in couple months it will “seasonally lower down again”
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
“presently down about 2 x 10^10 w from April peak.”
I meant March peak, but maybe peaked Jan when Sun was
more active, but month of March and even now it’s higher
than it’s been in 10 years.
Here looking at graph:
https://www.spaceweather.com/images2023/01apr23/TCI_Daily_NO_Power_Percentiles.png
So, more 10 years, but I don’t it will peak higher than 2002 {it could] but doubt it will remain as high as 2000 to 2004 AD- but it might.
La Nina causes the deeper oceans to warm somewhat. The immediate effect on the ocean SURFACE during La Nina is COOLING. He was talking about surface temperatures.
“La Nina causes the deeper oceans to warm somewhat. The immediate effect on the ocean SURFACE during La Nina is COOLING. He was talking about surface temperatures.”
I live in Southern California, La Nina is probably why I getting such cold weather. And maybe why I got hurricane get close to me during summer.
But it’s weather not global climate, and isn’t La Nina close to not being La Nino- or at moment or last month, it would have had less of La Nino effect.
And it seem El Nino is longer lasting effect in terms warming the global air.
I guess question regarding La Nino, and global warming, is the southern Hemisphere ocean still not warming northern Hemisphere.
But I think that is rather complicated question.
Yes – that’s what I said – La Nina has a general cooling effect on the atmosphere.
And ENSO is neither a weather nor a climate event. It’s time scale lies in between the two. Unfortunately as there is no general name for such an intermediate effect, people get to use semantics to pretend it is either climate or weather. It AFFECTS weather, but is not weather itself. Apparently for many deniers, La Nina is climate but El Nino is “only weather”.
” Record warm when you exclude the cold anomalies below 6oS. ”
*
Interesting idea.
However, their latitude band averages within global temperature data (sea, land, atmosphere) are always weighted with the cosine of their respective latitude before final averaging into time units.
Thus, when you consider the temperatures below 60S, think of the weighting associated to them.
While a 2.5 degree latitude band just near the Equator is weighted with 0.9998, the bands below 60S or above 60N are weighted from 0.4810 down to… 0.0218 near the Poles.
The average weighting of the 12 bands near the Equator is 4 times higher than that for the 12 bands near the Poles, what clearly weakens the effect of the polar regions.
This latitude weighting has of course nothing to do with the area weighting provided by geometric projections.
The exact formula for latitude weighting:
Tg[i:j] =
∑[x=i:j] Tlat(x) * cos(rad(x)) / ∑[x=i:j] cos(rad(x))
where ‘rad’ converts x from degrees into radians between 0 and π/2.
Oh this scanner…
binny…”their latitude band averages within global temperature data (sea, land, atmosphere) are always weighted with the cosine of their respective latitude…”
***
In other words, they are fudged. The keepers of the surface record are notorious for fudging not only the current record but the historical record as well.
As Robert Mitchell has pointed out, the surface crowd have omitted temperatures below 60 S.
Besides all that Binny, what would you know about a cosine weighting function? You have enough trouble with straight line trends, never mind averaging over a period of time if the data should take on a cosine shape. The cosine function is obviously an attempt to model data and as such it obfuscates the reality.
Besides all that, what possible relationship could their be between weather and the cosine of a latitude? Do you even understand what a cosine is?
“In other words, they are fudged.”
You think weighting by area is fudging???
” Besides all that Binny, what would you know about a cosine weighting function? You have enough trouble with straight line trends, never mind averaging over a period of time if the data should take on a cosine shape. ”
*
Here Robertson again shows the immeasurable level of his ignorance, incompetence and stupidity. He is not even able to download any data, let alone to process it and to present us a graph showing what he did.
And he certainly wouldn’t be able to create a list of cosine weighting factors for say a 2.5 degree grid, but drooling on this blog, he can!
*
Imagine! This is the guy who is not even able to correctly compare anomalies computed out of different reference periods!
And who is dumb enough to gullibly suck what his authority chiefio aka E.M. Smith tells about NOAA time series:
– only one station in the Canadian Arctic
– faked temperatures in Bolivia during the 1990’s
– no stations in the Californian mountains
– etc etc etc.
He is so stupid that he doesn’t even grasp how necessary it is to apply latitude weighting not only wrt temperatures, but also when processing e.g. sea ice or ice sheet data.
Without that weighting function, the small pieces near the Poles would have the same surface as the grid cells at the Equator!
*
And above all: what he completely ignores is that when you generate time series out of UAH’s grid data without taking that latitude weighting into account, your series are… plain wrong, especially Northern and Southern Extratropics.
What a dumb, stubborn, ignorant, opinionated ass. All what he is able to do is to distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and lie.
*
All what Robertson writes about, be it viruses, Einstein (time dilation used in GPS, the precession of the perihelion of Sun-near planets), astronomy, the Russian aggression in Ukraine, and so on.
*
Robertson is the guy who best fits the good old French saying:
” C’est l'idiot du village, avec ses grosses chaussures à clous et, en guise de cervelle, un petit pois sous le crâne ” .
Any donkey knows more about everything than people like Robertson.
“This latitude weighting has of course nothing to do with the area weighting provided by geometric projections.”
Even though its produces the same results.
Blindsley Hood
” Even though its produces the same results. ”
No, it doesn’t. Not at all.
2. I have already explained that UAH’s Mollweide-based presentation of their monthly anomalies resp. lifetime trends shows everywhere, from the Equator to the Poles, exactly the same values as in the grid cells – of course unlike the time series generated out of them, which are perfectly weighted according to the formula
∑[x=i:j] Tlat(x) * cos(rad(x)) / ∑[x=i:j] cos(rad(x))
where rad converts x from degrees into radians between 0 and π/2.
*
2. And you were also explained that a simple cosine based weighting, as you wrongly proposed to W. Eschenbach, is not correct for contents.
Regardless what you weight on the sphere, you have to use the formula above. Should doubt as usual about this fact, feel free to construct a new spherical integration theory. Nick Stokes might laugh a bit.
And your proposal was wrong anyway because unlike latitude weighting of e.g. temperatures which affects a vector, Mollweide is a surface area transformation of a rectangle into a sphere, which needs squared cosines as weighting factor.
*
3. Conversely, I have to admit that I possibly made a mistake in the HadISST1 ICE corner because I weight there exactly like in their SST corner.
Because sea ice (and of course ice sheet) values are akin to surfaces, rather than being attributes of them, I probably should use there squared cosines as well.
Who knows? Maybe the difference seen here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebdqPl_tmxazXAMchHEU87zVvvPdonef/view
then luckily disappears (I attributed it to an excessive evaluation of the data by NSID~C).
“No, it doesnt. Not at all.”
So cosine weighting does not have the same results as area weighting that is also based on latitude (such as a Molweide projection)?
Sure. Idiot.
What is your calculation for a 2.5 degree grid in a equal area calculation and how precisely does it differ from a cosine weighting for the same grid?
(Assume for the minute that the globe is a perfect sphere)
P.S. An equal area weighting means just that, an equal area at the equator and the poles.
Blinny obviously does not think that 30N to 30S is 50% of the area of the sphere. (Cos(60 degrees) = Cos(1.0472 radians) = 0.5)
Blindsley Hood
I thought you would one day understand the problem, but I was too optimistic.
Though I admit to have myself used the term ‘cosine weighting’ above in my reply to Robertson (it is improperly used everywhere), you nonetheless actually should know what the whole world means with it when talking about temperatures – especially because we discussed that stuff last year.
However, it seems that like the brazen troll Robertson, you obviously only remember things written by others when what they wrote fits your personal narrative. Otherwise you silently ‘forget’ them.
*
By the way, people like you, manifestly lacking real technical skill in the domain we are talking about, can call me an ‘idiot’ as long as they want. That won’t change the level of their incompetence.
*
I explained to you so clearly last year that cosine weighting makes sense ONLY FOR AREA.
Here is – for the umpteenth time – the comparison between UAH6.0 LT original and a cosine weighted generation from UAH’s LT grid data:
https://tinyurl.com/4budtf4r
And here is the comparison between UAH6.0 LT Original and a correctly weighted generation from the same UAH grid data:
https://tinyurl.com/2p9xfykc
based on the formula
∑[x=i:j] Tlat(x) * cos(rad(x)) / ∑[x=i:j] cos(rad(x))
I found it in 2016 in a text book online but lost the link to the explanations.
As you cans see, there is no difference between Spencer’s generation and mine, as they are based on the same weighting mechanism.
*
Hence one can use the cosine weights for e.g. sea ice or snow, but not for e.g. snow-water equivalents, wind, rain or temperatures as they are not proportional to the areas they decorate.
You think I’m wrong? Ask Roy Spencer.
Do you think he and John Christy are wrong? Feel free to come up with a new theory: you are being hailed by all the Pseudo-skeptics in the world.
Simply because the global LT trend – given a rough cosine weighting – then drops from the current 0.13C/decade to 0.08…exactly what you want as a future reality, isn’t it?
*
Will you now finally stop stalking me with your boring cosine and Mollweide stuff?
Nate, there are a couple of things that warm the oceans. Plastic pollution and higher salinity. CO2 actually cools the oceans.
Evidence?
Anything which prevents ocean from being transparent, cools ocean,
don’t have anything on higher salinity- other more sunlight and less wind and wave will give higher surface salinity. Less waves is less mixing- or less warming.
You made no mention of CO2 in your response. That was what was being challenged.
“You made no mention of CO2 in your response. That was what was being challenged.”
Oh, CO2 is suppose to cool in polar regions.
I don’t think CO2 cools.
But if CO2 cools in polar region it would be important.
AQ,
What has CO2 to do with the temperature of anything?
Surely you are not silly enough to believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter, or removing it makes air colder? Only joking – of course you do!
Delusional SkyDragon cultists share your belief. Your religion is your affair – as Thomas Jefferson said, as long as your religion neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, why should I worry what you believe?
Is there anything else you’d like to know? You seem to be a wee bit short of facts.
gbaikie
“Suppose to” according to who?
Google: cooling effect of co2 Antarctica
First hit:
Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide actually cools part of Antarctica
https://www.science.org/content/article/rising-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-actually-cools-part-antarctica
So only central Antarctica. Not “polar regions”. And only for 6 months of the year.
“The boundary layer (BL), where this IR originates, is in thermal equilibrium with the surface skin. This is due to the massive back and forth conduction between the two entities. When a photon is sent from the BL to the surface you disrupt this equilibrium. The 2nd Law doesnt like this imbalance and it is rectified by more energy conducting back into the BL. IOW, back where it came from. Both the BL and surface skin are exactly as they started.
When the IR energy initiates an evaporation, the energy disappears from the BL-SS combo. It is hidden as latent heat until it condenses which is often high in the atmosphere.”
Richard, this has been repeatedly debunked, here and elsewhere.
1. Heating is not cooling. Adding extra heat from CO2 cannot result in cooling. Certainly some of the extra heat can end up in the atmosphere via evaporation, but a warmer atmosphere results in a warmer surface by reducing convection and radiation.
2. The boundary layer is indeed thin, but conduction within seconds to minutes carries that heat below the surface and wave action mixes it down further.
3. In reality the net IR from the ocean surface is always upward. It is used to measure the ocean T by satellite. The CO2 increase simply REDUCES the NET upward flow of IR. With a steady solar SW input, and a reduced LW output the ocean must warm. And it has warmed.
“So only central Antarctica. Not polar regions. And only for 6 months of the year.”
“Central Greenland is now the record-holder for extreme cold in the Northern Hemisphere. The WMO confirmed on Wednesday that an automated weather station named Klinck, located near the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, measured a temperature of -69.6C (-93.3F) on December 22, 1991.”
Because central Greenland not cold enough? Or not big enough?
Or is it elevation of land?
I would guess if has to do with the atmosphere at given elevation,
say 5000 meter, the arctic troposphere is as cold as antarctic troposphere.
And if about the elevation of land- it’s one reason I don’t believe it, as follows my general rule, ocean warms, land cools.
And could be about Ozone holes. And both south and north have them.
But main issue, is I think CO2 does cause some warming and I think CO2 doesn’t do some cooling.
And this largely related to Mars and Venus.
Nate, it’s called evaporative cooling. You can look it up in Wiki.
Evaporative cooling doesn’t require the presence of CO2, and is not enhanced by it at atmospheric pressures.
Evaporation requires heating.
If you think heating is cooling then Im worried about you.
Seriously, though, that myth has been thoroughly debunked.
Nate
Evaporation cools the surrounding air, which gives up its energy to the evaporation process.
However ‘evaporative cooling’ is a term used in air conditioner technology, so that is clearly where he heard the term and formed his belief. And he clearly believes that this means it applies to CO2 in the atmosphere. What he doesn’t understand is that the technology works by evaporating liquid CO2 (clearly not at 1 atm pressure).
Gaseous CO2 doesn’t provide this cooling because there is no phase transition left to absorb energy.
This is what these people do … they google a phrase and apply it improperly without proper research.
AQ, evaporative cooling requires addition energy. As CO2 levels increase we get higher boundary layer IR directed at the surface. This IR can only instigate evaporation and does not cause warming due to the existence of thermal equilibrium at the surface. The loss of this energy, as the created water vapor convects upward, is a cooling process.
Nate, evaporative cooling requires energy. It can come from heat (kinetic energy) or it can come directly from IR photons.
The part climate science has been missing is the IR energy that directed at the surface from increasing CO2 cannot cause any warming. The reason is simple once you think about it (that is the hard part).
The boundary layer (BL), where this IR originates, is in thermal equilibrium with the surface skin. This is due to the massive back and forth conduction between the two entities. When a photon is sent from the BL to the surface you disrupt this equilibrium. The 2nd Law doesn’t like this imbalance and it is rectified by more energy conducting back into the BL. IOW, back where it came from. Both the BL and surface skin are exactly as they started.
When the IR energy initiates an evaporation, the energy disappears from the BL-SS combo. It is hidden as latent heat until it condenses which is often high in the atmosphere.
Mother Nature is very tricky. She gets CO2 to enhance the water cycle without causing any warming. However, since this is a cooling effect she needed to added some energy back to the surface. Hence, the widening of the 15 mm frequency band which traps a little more energy from the atmospheric window.
Richard M, The physics of boundary layers (BL) is quite complex, especially over rough surfaces, such as the Earth. The roughness induces turbulent flow, i.e., mixing, with the effects very near the surface being like a thin conductive interface. A flow of cold air over a warm wet surface would result in energy leaving the surface as both sensible energy (the air warms) and as latent energy (water is converted to gas). conversely, a flow of warm air over a a cold surface could result in energy loss from the air to the surface, both by sensible heat loss to the surface and latent heat loss via condensation.
Your discussion of the effects of CO2 IR radiation misses the fact that the BL radiates in both directions, so the next layer above is warmed by the out bound emissions from the BL. Think of multiple layers and one might appreciate that each layer is both warmed from below and thence warms the layer above. Because of convection in the troposphere, the higher layers are cooler than the lower ones and thus the net effect of GHG emissions is to move more energy from the surface upward thru the troposphere. Above the tropopause, there’s no longer significant convection, so the IR radiation eventually exits the Earth.
AIUI, the widening of the 15 micron CO2 bands/a> is due to pressure effects, which also changes the GHG emission/absorp_tion vs. altitude.
E Swanson,
you are correct about the boundary layer being complex. However, that is mostly irrelevant to the process I described. The radiation upward is a different topic and not really relevant to the fact the downward radiation ends up cooling the surface.
Keep in mind that while increasing CO2 does increase the amount of upward radiation, it also slows down the speed of that movement. The two changes compensate and keep the upward flow constant.
As usual, Richard M posts his personal thoughts and thinks it’s enough.
What about backing up your strange claims
” The radiation upward is a different topic and not really relevant to the fact the downward radiation ends up cooling the surface.
Keep in mind that while increasing CO2 does increase the amount of upward radiation, it also slows down the speed of that movement. The two changes compensate and keep the upward flow constant. ”
with some real, approved science?
Simply writing such things directly out of the own imagination: that’s a bit brazen, isn’t it?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1468738
We have a real world demo of surface heating with a microwave oven heating a cup of water. The microwaves only penetrate ~ few mm. Evaporation from this layer doesnt compensate for the extra heating. Because of conduction and convection, the whole cup gets hot within a minute.
Another experiment I did, and anyone can repeat it.
Point a ceramic 150 W IR heater downward at a cup of water. This produces thermal wavelengths of IR that penetrate microns.
The water gets hotter. QED
Try it yourself!
The required equipment
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/W/IMAGERENDERING_521856-T1/images/I/71LzwsVUCIL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
https://www.amazon.com/Simple-Deluxe-Infrared-Amphibian-Incubating/dp/B07KLZCDQH/ref=asc_df_B07KLZCDQH/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=309821834089&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1854583572364361748&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9001873&hvtargid=pla-626637556755&psc=1
Nate appears to be confused. I’ll be more specific.
“Adding extra heat from CO2 cannot result in cooling. ”
The heat is moved. It cools the boundary layer/surface layer and moves the latent heat into the upper atmosphere after the water vapor condense. So, in a sense you are right. There’s no overall cooling, but that was not the topic of my comment. I will discuss how this upper atmospheric heat is handled at another time.
“The boundary layer is indeed thin, but conduction within seconds to minutes carries that heat below the surface and wave action mixes it down further.”
I am referring to the atmospheric boundary layer in my comment, not the ocean. This is where the CO2 exists which radiates IR towards the surface. In fact, it’s just the lower 10 meters that does almost all the work.
While the ocean boundary layer would do some mixing, the conduction from the ocean skin back into the atmosphere works at micro second speeds. And, with the enhanced evaporation the ocean boundary layer is losing energy which causes the mixing to bring energy up to the surface.
“The CO2 increase simply REDUCES the NET upward flow of IR.”
Nope, the added CO2 has no effect on the overall temperature as I have shown. That keeps the upward radiation constant. In addition, within the atmosphere the individual photon flow gets a little slower and there is an increases the amount of photons. These two changes cancel out leaving the net flow constant.
Nate says: “We have a real world demo of surface heating with a microwave oven”
Not equivalent. The energy for a microwave does not come out of the air within the microwave. It comes from your electrical outlet. If that’s the best you can come up with, I can only shake my head.
Bindidon says: “What about backing up your strange claims with some real, approved science?”
It appears you think I said something unusual. Everything I stated is very simple physics. You can learn about it from any Physics textbook.
When you increase CO2 you will increase the number of energy transfers between CO2 molecules simply because you have more molecules. And, the distance covered by the transfer is shorter because you run into another CO2 molecule quicker. This is very simple logic.
More energy being transferred with each transfer a shorter distance. Both change as a log function of the concentration of CO2. Do the math.
“While the ocean boundary layer would do some mixing, the conduction from the ocean skin back into the atmosphere works at micro second speeds. And, with the enhanced evaporation the ocean boundary layer is losing energy which causes the mixing to bring energy up to the surface.”
Indeed heat deposited on the skin layer can be conducted downward as well as upward. And evaporation can remove some of it.
But in the end there can be only warming from this extra energy input. It is beyond preposterous to claim it would result in cooling.
The experiment with the ceramic IR heater pointed downward at a bowl of water is an experimental test of your claim that additional DWIR should result in cooling. The experiment showed clear warming..
Your claim is falsified.
The source of the IR is irrelevant to the claim. And would make no difference tegardless.
“But in the end there can be only warming from this extra energy input. It is beyond preposterous to claim it would result in cooling.”
And why is that? Because extra energy warms the water at the surface. That could result in evaporation, but never MORE than the extra energy could vaporize. In reality it is always less, since some of the heat is conducted away.
And the experiment confirms this.
Nate says: “Indeed heat deposited on the skin layer can be conducted downward as well as upward. And evaporation can remove some of it.”
The important question is what happens the majority of the time. When the IR photon is produced, energy is removed from the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL). When that photon is absorbed at the surface, energy is added to the surface skin. These two events create an energy imbalance.
The net result is energy will be conducted back into the ABL at a higher rate than it is conducted towards the colder deep ocean. It’s a statistical computation based on the good old law of large numbers.
Since conduction back into the ABL restores thermal equilibrium, it will win out very quickly.
I realize this nut is going to a tough one to accept by AGW supporters, but it is based on the most simple thermodynamic law, the 2nd law.
Nate says: “The experiment with the ceramic IR heater pointed downward at a bowl of water is an experimental test of your claim that additional DWIR should result in cooling. The experiment showed clear warming..
Your claim is falsified.”
Once again your energy is coming from outside the “system”. There’s no thermodynamic imbalance created between the air and the water. Hence, there’s no conduction back into the air.
It’s good you are challenging the process. It will help you to understand exactly why this occurs in our atmosphere. The energy is coming from the ABL which cools it. This is the key reason why the energy simply conducts back into the ABL.
“Once again your energy is coming from outside the ‘system’.”
The original issue was whether the ocean warmed or not with dwir. It does.
Now you seem to expand the system to include the atmosphere which emitted the dwir, and say well, that balances out.
Duh. But pointless. The ocean still warms as a result of CO2. The land also warms. The atmosphere also warms.
The main forcing is at the TOA. And its warming effects are felt throughout the system.
Nate says: “The original issue was whether the ocean warmed or not with dwir. It does.”
No, it original issue was whether CO2 cooled the oceans. The CO2 is in the atmosphere. Not one of your experiments have come close to replicating this situation.
The rest of your comment is just babbling your beliefs. You stopped trying to understand the physics. Pure denial.
At least I have experiments.
You only provide a random walk of unsupported assertions, that often violate the real laws of physics, such as the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Come back when you can show actual evidence, real physics or sound logic that supports your original nonsense claim that ‘CO2 actually cools the oceans’
Nate continues to babble: “You only provide a random walk of unsupported assertions, that often violate the real laws of physics, such as the First Law of Thermodynamics.”
Everything I stated is based on very basic physics. If it wasn’t you’d be able to find something wrong. The fact all you can do is babble means even you recognize this fact. You just can’t admit it.
With that I will move on to the 2nd part of the process.
We’ve already seen that increasing CO2 simply leads to an increase in evaporation with the increase in energy from CO2 expanding the 15 mm frequency band now stored as latent heat.
Since water vapor is a light weight molecule, more of it will create a stronger source of convective currents. The speed at which convective currents rise will be increased. Once again, very simple logic.
The speed of the convective currents determines how high in the atmosphere the water vapor reaches. Therefore, it will now be carried higher into colder parts of the upper troposphere. The result is more of the water vapor condenses into liquid or solid water. There’s less water vapor left behind.
This process releases the energy collected from the surface and would lead to a warming of this part of the atmosphere if not for the reduction in water vapor. With less water vapor the trapping of upwelling IR is reduced. More IR gets to space faster. This compensates for the warming. We are left with no net warming either at the surface or in the upper troposphere.
What we get is more beneficial precipitation to enhance plant growth in concert with the higher CO2 levels. This actually makes sense.
“Everything I stated is based on very basic physics. If it wasnt youd be able to find something wrong.”
Some physics, then lots of not physics, just assertions of the form ‘then this will happen, and then this other thing will happen’ which are the behaviors of a complex system, and thus conjecture.
Whereas when real physics is applied and what happens is calculated (rather than conjectured) for this system, such as with Manabe and Wethereld 1967, or better with GCM models, it is found that CO2 produces warming of the surface (land and ocean) and the atmosphere.
And the water vapor produces feedback and additional warming.
A good example of the erroneous conjecture is this:”The result is more of the water vapor condenses into liquid or solid water. Theres less water vapor left behind.
This process releases the energy collected from the surface and would lead to a warming of this part of the atmosphere if not for the reduction in water vapor. With less water vapor the trapping of upwelling IR is reduced.”
The measurements show the opposite: water vapor has been increasing, as the troposphere warms, and the increase results in more trapping of upwelling IR.
Would you please link to a peer-reviewed paper which demonstrates that CO2 cools the oceans. You’ll have to excuse my unwillingness to accept the unsupported musings of someone who doesn’t even qualify as an amateur.
Nate claims “The measurements show the opposite: water vapor has been increasing”
The opposite of what? I clearly stated water vapor would increase. That’s what happens with increased evaporation. You just stated I am right.
Since water vapor greenhouse effect is saturated at low levels of the atmosphere, it doesn’t matter whether it is increased there. What matters is in the higher atmosphere where it is not saturated.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
As we can see, it has decreased as predicted by this simple logic.
AQ provides a nice example of basic physics denial: “Would you please link to a peer-reviewed paper which demonstrates that CO2 cools the oceans. ”
You actually need a peer reviewed paper to explain simple physics to you? LOL. If you can’t understand the very basic physics I presented then you aren’t capable of understanding science period. That means even a simple climate paper would be way beyond your grasp.
“The speed of the convective currents determines how high in the atmosphere the water vapor reaches. Therefore, it will now be carried higher into colder parts of the upper troposphere. The result is more of the water vapor condenses into liquid or solid water. Theres less water vapor left behind.”
Riiiight. Again conjecture. The water cycle and cloud formation and how it changes with GW is not ‘simple physics’.
Unlike your conjectures, GCM models have to consider and include the complexity.
Each time you say stuff like “You actually need a peer reviewed paper to explain simple physics to you” you sound quite ridiculous.
Nate is clearly stressed out: “”Unlike your conjectures, GCM models have to consider and include the complexity.”
GCMs do not “include” the complexity at this level. They can’t do clouds, do you really think they are modelling convection currents? As a result, they make assumptions. Those assumptions lead to the non-existent tropical hot spot. Obviously, their assumptions are wrong and I’m pointing out why.
“Each time you say stuff like You actually need a peer reviewed paper to explain simple physics to you you sound quite ridiculous.”
Why did you leave out the question mark? If you are going to quote me, include the entire context.
“They cant do clouds, do you really think they are modelling convection currents? As a result, they make assumptions.”
And yet for you, its just simple physics at work. You don’t need assumptions.
So stupid.
The GCM can reproduce the large scale convection patterns and how these change under AGW. That’s why they are called General Circulation Models.
Indeed clouds are harder.
These models find warming of surface and atmosphere, and a water vapor increase that adds to the GHE, a positive feedback.
It is very unlikely that you have found the secret sauce that these models missed.
GCMs are just a computer-aided form of a thought experiment. Everything is dependent upon the variables you use and how you choose to manipulate them and what effects you recognize and what effects you ignore.
Nate says:
”Unlike your conjectures, GCM models have to consider and include the complexity.”
Nate argues that computers think and should be obeyed.
Bill stalks and baits.
“GCMs first assume CO2 generated IR causes warming and actual physics shows it wont.”
False they use physics and complex Earth properties to find addwd CO2 causes warming.
You have delusions that they have missed the key and basic physics that you have discovered.
Play with Modtran which uses real physics You can add extra CO2 or extra water vapor, and it will calculate the changes in UW or DW IR, at various altitudes.
Test your speculations.
http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home#plot
Richard, the problem with your ‘physics’ scenario is aptly described by Bill:
“Everything is dependent upon the variables you use and how you choose to manipulate them and what effects you recognize and what effects you ignore.”
Nate says: “And yet for you, its just simple physics at work. You dont need assumptions.
So stupid.”
Look, if you have some actual physics that I have left out, feel free to point it out. But, you don’t. All you have is denial.
I have provided solid physics to support my claims as to why the GCM assumptions are wrong. GCMs first assume CO2 generated IR causes warming and actual physics shows it won’t. The models then claim that enhanced convection will not occur which is again refuted by basic physics. Sorry, your worship of GCMs is unfounded and you cannot provide any science to support your view.
“The models then claim that enhanced convection will not occur which is again refuted by basic physics.”
False. You erroneously assume the models are not using physics to find out what happens to convection. They certainly do.
Nate, models use code, not physics. They can’t simulate at physical levels. The models would take centuries to simulate a few minutes of real time. That’s why they make assumptions. All you are getting with GCMs is the assumptions coded in by the programmers.
“Nate, models use code, not physics. They cant simulate at physical levels.”
That’s quite ignorant, Richard.
The models are solving physics equations from fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. The same ones solved in numerical weather models, the ones that do a damn good job of predicting the weather.
Using numerical computation to solve physics equations was done first in the Manhattan Project.
It is quite normal and useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model
“AGCMs consist of a dynamical core which integrates the equations of fluid motion, typically for:
surface pressure
horizontal components of velocity in layers
temperature and water vapor in layers
radiation, split into solar/short wave and terrestrial/infrared/long wave”
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
7 day change??
Look at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/urbanization-effects-on-ghcn-temperature-trends-part-iii-using-population-density-1880-2015/#comment-1464773
That was also said 7 (or so) days ago.
So its a 14 day (or so) cooling now.
Nah
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Are you saying that the tropics is not going to feed into higher latitudes?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/mdrglob.png
Blindsley Hood is an adept ace at showing what cools while silently keeping hidden what gets warmer:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Comme il est ennuyeux et opinionâtre, ce mec!
Ooops?! ‘opinionâtre’ ?! An unwanted synthesis of ‘opinionated’ and ‘opiniâtre’, as it seems :-{(
Duh.
Whereas Blinny does not want to acknowledge any data that does not show warming. In fact the data shows both warming and cooling and the future will determine which is the most relevant.
Blindsley Hood
As long as NOAA’s CFSv2 forecasts for ENSO showed it falling and falling into a strong La Nina, you and a few other die-hard coolistas never tired of posting the link to it.
But now the CFSv2 data points to an even stronger El Nino and therefore no longer shows what you want it to show – simply because you are wedded to an imminent global cooling.
And then – wonder of wonders – instead of the suddenly wrong NOAA forecast, I remember connections to very short cooling phases.
It’s the exact same attitude as your domineering display of the latest monthly UAH readings (11, OMG) lower than for the same month a year ago.
I had shown you results of SQL queries from my database, which proved that this was nothing special: it happened already three times in UAH’s history.
But that didn’t bother you, because only the short-term counts for you – but of course only if it’s about an upcoming cooling off!
*
This, Blindsley Hood, is what really matters:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Just like a year ago!
I think you ‘predicted’ an El Nino, 1, 2 and 3 years ago also.
As usual, Blindsley insidiously insinuates Hood, which he cannot prove, and which is false at that.
In the summer of 2021 I was still a 100% fan of JMA TCC’s ENSO forecasts (based on Nino3).
It took me weeks to accept that they were wrong and that TCC had completely underestimated ENSO’s turn from a week-long El Nino to a stronger La Nina, in contrast to NOAA’s CFSv2.
I wrote many comments defending TCC – until I finally saw their own backtrack showing values like NOAA.
And of course: I was then stalked – mostly by the dachshund aka Eben, but also by… Blindsley Hood.
I never predict anything: like many others – you included, I follow the path laid out by those I consider competent enough.
Blinny complains that others get things wrong, but never him of course.
“Are you saying that the tropics is not going to feed into higher latitudes?”
The random short-term noise in a part of the equatorial Pacific generally does not measurably feed into higher latitudes.
What does is sustained warming of the Eastern Pacific over months that delivers sustained convection of latent heat and moisture into the troposphere which is then transported around the Globe.
That is scheduled for the Fall.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/uah-tropics.jpeg
for last months tropical data. This months follows in a few days.
Rebuttal? Seems not.
Ok guys, answer me this.
Dr. Spencer wrote recently about heat island effects etc. Does the same effect influence the look down satellites measurements? Well, enough to make a difference?
Reanalyzer? Whats that? A new kind of thermometer?
Averages for each decade:
80s … -0.28
90s … -0.14
00s … -0.03
10s … +0.12
20s (first 39 months) … +0.21
This despite being in La Nina for most of this decade so far.
Yep. The average ONI is -0.7 from 2020/01 to present. The 2010’s average was 0.0.
In the real world decades start at 1 and end at 10. There’s only been 27 months in the 20s. I realize this will throw a wrench into your calculations.
Starting at 1 for each decade…
UAH TLT
80s … -0.28 C
90s … -0.14 C
00s … 0.00 C
10s … +0.14 C
20s … +0.15 C
ONI
80s … +0.05
90s … +0.05
00s … -0.05
10s … +0.05
20s … -0.83
FWIW my analysis shows a 0.14 C per 1 unit change in ONI response for UAH TLT from ENSO. If we adjust the 20s by 0.14 C * (-0.83 – 0.05) = 0.12 C then we would have an ENSO adjusted 20s value of +0.27 C.
UAH TLT (ENSO corrected)
80s … -0.27 C
90s … -0.13 C
00s … 0.01 C
10s … +0.13 C
20s … +0.27 C
“In a recent YouGov survey, 64% of Americans said the next decade will begin on Jan. 1, 2020, and end on Dec. 31, 2029. But nearly 20% said they weren’t sure and slightly fewer people said the next decade won’t start until Jan. 1, 2021.”
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/27/791546842/people-cant-even-agree-on-when-the-decade-ends
” In the real world decades start at 1 and end at 10. ”
Though there was no ‘year 0’, the ‘real world’ is what we all use every day.
The third millennium started at 2000, and no one did wait for 2001 to start it – especially not all software packages worldwide.
Actually that is incorrect.
The “3rd millennium AD” began in 2001.
But “the 2000s” began in 2000.
Similarly, the “3rd decade of the 21st century” began in 2021.
The “2020s” began in 2020.
The “first decade of my life” began on the day I was born.
The “fifth decade of this data set” began in December 2018.
But no one goes around talking about “the 3rd decade of the 21st century”, so in that respect you are correct. Everyone thinks of “the decades” as meaning the 80s, 90s, etc.
Formally you are of course right, but I suppose you have understood what I wanted to say.
What a ridiculous statement.
A decade is a 10-year period – nothing more. It starts whenever you choose it to start. But I have never heard someone saying “last decade” or “next decade” and meaning what you claim.
AQ…besides the point that your stats are meaningless, what other point might you be trying to make?
What we are seeing in your stats is on-going interference by NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut in the fudging of surface temperatures.
So you continue to assert without proof. How sad is it that you don’t understand that I was dealing with satellite data, not surface temperatures. Perhaps you’d care to explain how surface temperature data affects UAH averages.
I am questioning your math, your ability to calculate a meaningful average. For example, you claim an average of -0.03 which has been achieved largely by UAH moving the baseline range by a decade.
If the average after the baseline adjustment is 0.03C then before the adjustment it was above the baseline. That’s what you need to watch carefully with averages, is the context from which the average is taken.
Personally, I’d forget about the math and look out the window to experience the weather and the ocean level. The math can only offer a ballpark figure that is misleading. The graphs deal with fractions of degrees C which is meaningless.
The baseline is not relevant. What is important is the CHANGE over time. It makes no difference whether those values are -0.28, -0.14, -0.03, +0.12 and +0.21, or whether they are +0.72, +0.86, +0.97, +1.12 and +1.21.
I have been teaching maths for 35 years, so excuse me for not taking maths advice from someone who doesn’t understand that DIFFERENCES are preserved after changing the baseline.
And NO, that was NOT the only thing you were questioning. You are now trying to run away from your ridiculous claim that NOAA has changed the UAH data.
The only time you need to be careful with baselines is if you are comparing things that are on different baselines.
Which is not the case here. As has been said a zillion times here, anomalies are used in order to measure change over time (and compare results for any locations/regions with ease).
Anomalies are an obfuscation of reality therefore they are not representative of that reality. Specifying a baseline that represent a 30 years average, obviously skews temperatures from one 30 year period to the next.
Even if you use absolute temperatures, stating a global average based on them is essentially meaningless. Stating a global average of 15C does nothing for someone freezing his/her butt off in the winters of the Arctic or Antarctica.
I think it reached 15 C here the other day and by night time it was down to about 3C. So, what does a 15C average tell you globally for people in specific areas?
It’s all mathematical bs to me but I do understand UAH offering it professionally.
Yes, you are indeed crediting Roy Spencer and John Christy with engaging in “mathematical bs.”
In reality, you are simply ignorant of the utilities and limitations of using anomalies, and your claptrap is what is obfuscating the matter.
Barry,
You wrote –
“Yes, you are indeed crediting Roy Spencer and John Christy with engaging in “mathematical bs.””
I couldn’t see that particular credit. Could you provide a quote – or are you just making stuff up ?
Last line of his post:
https://i.imgur.com/FGaeZIy.png
Barry,
You wrote
Yes, you are indeed crediting Roy Spencer and John Christy with engaging in mathematical bs.
I couldnt see that particular credit. Could you provide a quote or are you just making stuff up ?
You have provided a link to something or other. I take it you can’t provide a quote, and you are trying to avoid looking foolish.
OK.
Robertson: “It’s all mathematical bs to me but I do understand UAH offering it professionally.’
This ornery site barred me from posting a copy and paste of the quote earlier today. The link was to a screen shot of it.
“Its all mathematical bs to me but I do understand UAH offering it professionally.”
This is clearly how Gordon feels about science in general. Science will file his opinions in the appropriate place.
Stats for March –
7th warmest March, but still a lot cooler than March 2016, at 0.64.
Of the top 10 warmest March’s 7 have happened in the last 10 years.
My forecast for 2022 (just a simple linear extrapolation) saw a bit of a rise, up to 0.13 +/- 0.13C from 0.09C.
“Pause” is now starting in July 2014. I think this might be the first point in a while where there is no starting point that will give you a trend Of 0.3C / decade. But the tend since September 2007 is still twice the overall trend.
That’s according to the fudgers at NOAA, GISS and Had-crut.
Claiming one month or one year is warmer than another has more to do with opinion than fact. We are dealing with small fractions of a degree warming, and based on the size of the planet and how poorly it is covered by surface thermometers, averages must be relegated to the garbage bin.
Gordon Robertson,
“Thats according to the fudgers at NOAA, GISS and Had-crut.”
No it’s according to UAH. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you. I’m nearly quoting the figures supplied by Dr Roy Spencer in this very blog post. I make no claims on their accuracy.
Bellman’s analysis is based on UAH data, I believe.
barry,
You wrote –
“Bellmans analysis is based on UAH data, I believe.”
And this is supposed to be, what? Important? Meaningful? Can you name someone who cares what you “believe”?
He made the same reply to my comment. I clearly made a comment on UAH figures, then he claimed that these figured had been “fudged” by NOAA. That’s what happens when people recite mantra – they recite it without thinking.
AQ,
You wrote –
“He made the same reply to my comment. I clearly made a comment on UAH figures, then he claimed that these figured had been “fudged” by NOAA.”
You claim an anonymous person made an unstated reply to an undefined comment, but you were supposedly very clear about something apparently irrelevant to NOAA.
If you are trying to say something, just say it – you are allowed to quote what someone said, disagree, and provide reasons for doing so, if you wish. Or you can just dance around the point, stirring up a veritable storm of vacuity.
Are you disagreeing with something that someone said, or just hammering your keyboard for no good reason?
Swenson,
Gordon said that the monthly rankings Bellman gave are ‘fudged,” attributing the fudging to NOAA, GISS and CRU.
Instead they are from UAH, which Gordon lionises.
The man doesn’t think. Neither do you.
Temperature still oscillates in the 0.0-0.5C band. It has been there for almost a decade. In what direction and when will the next step change?
stephen…no one knows, we have not been around long enough to witness a long term average and how the planet behaves in a so-called normal mode.
Even scientists studying this down the road will be out of luck since NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut have fudged the record so badly it will be completely unreliable.
While CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmos the long term trend will be upwards, punctuated by occasional el Ninos that make it look like a step-jump, as Roy demonstrated here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-luis-salas-nails-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.”
barry,
You wrote –
“While CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmos the long term trend will be upwards, . . . “.
Do you have a particular physical reason for believing you can predict the future? Four and a half billion years of CO2, H2O, and continuous sunlight has resulted in a fall in temperature.
Obviously, reality is not a factor in your belief that you can foresee the future. How are you at predicting the stock market, or horse racing outcomes? Some deluded SkyDragon cultists seem to believe that “maths”, and “formulas”, combined with advice from farmers with greenhouses, enable “experts” to divine the future!
I believe you are delusional, but others may flock to you – in awe at your ability to predict the future.
Good luck.
Median for last 5 years: +0.21
Median for previous 5 years: +0.15
In the U.S., still frost and snow in the west, tornadoes in the east.
https://i.ibb.co/mFbDGss/gfs-toz-NA-f072.png
https://i.ibb.co/dWsJVFw/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f072.png
The planet has been warming for hundreds of years. I don’t know why anyone would expect the warming to suddenly stop now. The current pause may go on a while longer, but it will end… just as the previous pause ended.
Mechanism?
If I knew that, I wouldn’t be here leaving random comments… I’d be doing the talk show circuit and making millions.
At least we can enjoy your honesty here… :-{)
For recorded history we’ve had fairly stable temps with small variation.
So without a mechanism in mind, such as AGW, the sensible prediction would be small variations around a long term gradual cooling trend since the Holocene optimum, which was ~ 8000 years ago.
The hockey stick is fake (although the author who likes to file lawsuits is obviously a very honest and competent scientist who just made an innocent mistake). The Medieval Warm Period was real. The Little Ice Age was real. The current warming is evidenced from the 19th Century and probably started in the 18th Century. Where is the mechanism for that? Stable weather and climate is a Climate Change talking point for uninformed people.
It’s a whole hockey league of hockey sticks now. And FWIW Mann not only accepts the MWP as real he has even hypothesized the primary mechanism being the AMOC.
bdgwx,
That would be Michael Mann the faker, fraud, scofflaw, deadbeat, and self styled “climate scientist”, would it?
Maybe you could explain why the Earth, after cooling for four and a half billion years, suddenly changed course, and started to heat up.
CO2 and H2O have been in the atmosphere for billions of years, I believe, but you may have more up-to-date information.
Mike Flynn,
A hockey league is many teams.
A bit like the Sky Dragon cranks here, but without the sock puppets.
There are now more than 3-dozen ‘hockey sticks’ in the research literature, based on different proxies, different methods and done by different groups around the world.
You reckon they’re all fake?
barry,
You wrote –
“You reckon theyre all fake?”
Of course. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
Yes.
barry,
And why is that? “Just because”, perhaps?
No.
That has to dumbest thing Ive ever read. The climate has never been stable before. It is chaotic and always changing. Our recorded history is basically a grain of sand if youre talking about justhe MWP and the LIA.
Nice self-referential sentence to open with!
AQ,
You wrote-
“Nice self-referential sentence to open with!”
Your keyboard needs mindless pounding again, does it?
Idiot.
Are you asking for permission to pound my keyboard? Sure, if that tickles your fancy. It comes with male and female connectors – I suspect you’ll be needing the former.
AQ,
You wrote-
Nice self-referential sentence to open with!
Your keyboard needs mindless pounding again, does it?
Idiot.
skeptikal…no one knows the extent to which the Little Ice Age cooled the planet for over 400 years till it ended circa 1850. It is estimated to be 1 to 2C, and globally, even though the cheaters at the IPCC are claiming it was a local phenomenon. I am still looking for their explanation for how Europe can cool 1C to 2C while the rest of the planet remains at a normal global average.
In France, the Mer de Glace glacier near Chamonix, expanded so enormously that it swept down a valley, wiping out farms and villages that had been established for 100s of years. One can only imagine the increase in ice depth of the mountains and glaciers elsewhere in the world, especially in solid land masses like Greenland and Antarctica.
It could take another century or more for those ice regions to normalize and that takes a lot of solar energy and heat spread from the Tropics to melt the ice back to normal. That’s especially true since those regions get a limited amount of solar energy, and none for some of the year.
Syan Akasofu, who has expertise as a geophysicist (he pioneered research on the solar wind) claims we should rewarm at 0.5C per century. If he’s right, we have warmed about 1C since 1850, about 170+ years, and if the figure is correct about the LIA lowering global averages 2C, then we have at least another century to go to get back to normal.
Instead of bragging about their endlessly ignorant and incompetent stuff, people like Robertson should try to educate themselves, e.g. by spending a few weeks in the European Alps and visiting hydrologists at ETH Zurich in Switzerland who have been monitoring glacier retreat for decades.
Here is a report published in 2011 by these ETH people:
https://www.bafu.admin.ch/dam/bafu/de/dokumente/hydrologie/externe-studien-berichte/gletscher-und-abflussveraenderungen-im-zeitraum-1900-2100-in-sieben-einzugsgebieten-der-schweiz.pdf.download.pdf/gletscher-und-abflussveraenderungen-im-zeitraum-1900-2100-in-sieben-einzugsgebieten-der-schweiz.pdf
It’s in German of course, and the pdf file is moreover full of copy&paste blockers (thanks, Adobe), so Google Translator might not help much.
*
ETH Zurich is anything but a bunch of climate alarmists, and this work was commissioned by Switzerland’s Department of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications.
But as we know, people like Robertson prefer to cowardly discredit such people and denigrate their work, conveniently hidden behind their fake blogger pseudo-identities.
We are not talking about glacier activity in the Alps over the past few decades, we are interested in how much they have receded since 1850 at the end of the Little Ice Age. More importantly, we want to know how much they expanded since about 1300 when the LIA struck.
I have already posted about the Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps and how, during the LIA, it expanded down a valley, wiping out established farms and villages in its way.
Klimate Klowns are trying yo make it appear as if the Mer de Glace was always a certain length and that anthropogenic forces since 1850 have caused it to recede.
What kinds of idiots ignore that a glacier had grown enormously since 1300 due to a mini ice age then began receding after the mini ice age ended, and blame the recession on anthropogenic gases.
That’s the issue I have with the IPCC and those pushing this catastrophic global warming nonsense. They are all blatant liars and/or too stupid to look at the real evidence.
Bndidon, you can paste the link into ChatGPT and ask for it to translate from German to English. You should check the results, as the AI is no more perfect than google translate. But it will put out a complete translation that you can copy, and then save it to pdf or other app to link here.
You’ll have to sign up with ChatGPT, but after that it’s a cinch. Be sure to check the results, though. The AI has strengths and weaknesses that google translate doesn’t, so you could ask ChatGPT to print out the original German, copy that from the interface, and then run it through google translate or other translation engine. ChatGPT can solve a few problems like this.
Actually, the document is too long for ChatGPT to translate in entirety. If you can break it into smaller chunks then you could do it piecemeal. Not a good workaround after all, sorry. ChatGPT can give you the original text or translation for any particular page, but not the whole document. I just asked it to translate page 10 and gave the link, and it did it no problem.
Sorry barry: my interest in things like ChatGPT is equal to zero dot zero.
binny…”Robertson again shows the immeasurable level of his ignorance, incompetence and stupidity. He is not even able to download any data, let alone to process it and to present us a graph showing what he did”.
***
Why should I re-invent the wheel? Roy has already done a magnificent job of analyzing the real data and presenting it to us on a very informative graph, complete with a red running average curve. I have every faith in Roy and his work, I think he is a scientist of integrity, one of the few left
Perhaps you would explain to the good readers of Roy’s blog that you are here representing climate alarmists and that your sole purpose is to misrepresent what Roy presents here on his blog.
****
“And he certainly wouldnt be able to create a list of cosine weighting factors for say a 2.5 degree grid, but drooling on this blog, he can!”
***
Once again, why do we need cosine weighting factors? You can’t even explain what it’s doing. If we are talking lines of latitude, which are measured as the number of degrees departure of a radial line from the Equator, the cosine is obviously the ratio of the radial line length to the length of a line along the equator, when formed with a right angle to a vertical line. The sine is the ratio of the opposite length (vertical line) of the same triangle formed, and neither line is on the surface of the planet.
So, explain to me what mumbo-jumbo this cosine function is supposed to represent. Obviously it’s nothing more than statistical jargon to enable yet another climate model.
And don’t forget, I took a year course in advanced statistical and probability theory for engineers while at university. I don’t pretend to remember a lot of it, mainly because I was up to my butt in alligators trying to cope with other EE and math courses. We quickly learned to priorities and I’m afraid probability and statistics was not rated that high up the ladder of my requirements.
Still, I remember enough to understand when I am hearing bs. There is no need to be applying cosine weighting functions when we are dealing with an already fudged linear trend. I am referring to the surface data not the UAH sat data.
****
Imagine! This is the guy who is not even able to correctly compare anomalies computed out of different reference periods!”
***
That’s rich, coming from someone who has no concept of what an anomaly is. Even when I provide the definition of an anomaly from his authority figure, NOAA, he still doesn’t understand.
NOAA defined an anomaly as a deviation for a long term average, and that anomalies above the average represent warming while those below represent cooling.
When you start introducing statistics without understand why they are being applied, or the context of applying them, you move into a fairy world of pseudo-science. All I have tried to point out is the 24 year flat rend we have experienced since 1998, with the exception of an unexplained and sudden jump step following the 2015 super EN.
You cannot claim a flat trend and a positive trend in the same range, therefore the declared positive trend of 0.13C/decade is wrong in that range. That smooth 0.13C/decade warming claim suits the anthropogenic meme but it is plain wrong. The truth is, we’ve had 24 years of relatively flat trends since 1998 and that throws the anthropogenic theory out the widow.
****
“And who is dumb enough to gullibly suck what his authority chiefio aka E.M. Smith tells about NOAA time series:”
***
Let’s put it this way Binny van der Klown, E. M. Smith has done stellar work researching the chicanery of NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut, and I’d rather accept his good work than the blethering of a nutter Klown like you.
Surely the point of area weighting is to correct for the fact that lon/lat areas are different sizes depending on latitude. Thus, if you do an unweighted average the tropics will be given more weight in the average just because the grid boxes are larger than at the poles.
Area weighting the globe gives a slightly lower long term warming trend than without area weighting.
https://towardsdatascience.com/the-correct-way-to-average-the-globe-92ceecd172b7
Barry,
I suppose you can explain the weighting that results in the Earth having cooled over the last four and a half billion years – and then reversing itself, and deciding to warm up for no particular reason?
Inconvenient fact, four and a half billion years of cooling, I know. How do you justify denying fact in favour of fantasy?
A temperature is what it is. If “weighting” is based on anything except fantasy, then one thermometer can be selected and “weighted” to indicate the “global average”, surely? This would save a considerable amount of time, effort, and money.
Or is “weighting” just a delusional SkyDragon euphemism for torturing data into the shape needed?
Why would I try to have a conversation with a barking dog?
Barry,
You wrote –
“Why would I try to have a conversation with a barking dog?”
Presumably, you are asking some sort of bizarre gotcha, but I’ll play your silly game. I don’t know – why would you try to have a conversation with a barking dog?
Do you often have conversations with dogs? Cats?
Sounds strange to me, but I suppose you believe you get something out of it.
Carry on.
Presumably you do not know what is a gotcha, Mike Flynn.
barry…from article…
“…a 1 x 1 grid box occupies less area as it moves from the tropics to the pole”.
***
This is a load of tommy rot. A 1 degree x 1 degree area is exactly the same on a sphere at any location. The author is far too gullible to be writing about this. He has likely never studies triple integrals used to calculate surfaces on spheres.
If modelers are using a Mercator projection to derive 1 x 1 degree cells they are the fools. Their models should b programmed to treat the Earth as a sphere, not a flat-Earth model as he admits.
If you are using a Mercator projection, you should be smart enough to realize a 1 x 1 degree square does not look the same on a Mercator projection yet data from that area should be over the same area.
This is a problem when trying to model the Earth’s surface, or anything else. If you have no idea what you are doing, you will run into issues like this.
The focus of this thread is cosine weighting, Why would you need it unless you are applying it to a non-spherical projection of a real sphere? It would not be required on a real sphere. Then again, climate models don’t apply to a real Earth.
I guess you failed spherical coordinates. Just like you failed the moon’s phases.
I guess you failed spherical coordinates. Just like you failed the moon’s phases.
AQ,
Ah, given up on describing the GHE, have you?
Why don’t you divert into stupidity – making pointless dribbles like “I guess you failed spherical coordinates.”
That’s fairly pointless, isn’t it? Do you think somebody cares what you “guess”?
Maybe you could hazard a guess about the role of the GHE in creating four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, or would that be too much of a strain for a delusional SkyDragon cultist? Go on, guess away!
Dimwit.
Mike, Mike –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Gordon:
“A 1 degree x 1 degree area is exactly the same on a sphere at any location.”
Dear me, how can you say something so ignorant?
Latitude lines are equidistant, longitude lines get closer together the nearer to the poles you are. Therefore the area of a 1 degree by 1 degree grid box gets smaller the nearer the poles you are.
You can see this quite easily in this image.
https://tinyurl.com/24byrfea
If area weighting produces a lower long term warming trend, I don’t know why it would be called a ‘fudge’ done by ‘alarmist’ researchers.
barry,
Well, if a “trend” depends on “weighting”, what would be wrong with creating a cooling trend?
Or does the weighting depend on the current opinion of the weighter?
It might be more productive to look into the reasons for thermometers showing rises in temperature. Some believe that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, Im more inclined to believe it is due to higher temperatures in the vicinity of the thermometers.
What do you think?
Given that weightings depend solely on gridded areas, there is no room for opinion. There is no “weighter” – the weights are simply ratios of areas.
AQ,
Ooooh, the “weightings” depend on the “gridded area”, do they?
So someone who said “If . . .”, and “I don’t know . . .” was delusional? What is the “gridded area”, anyway? Would that be an actual measured surface area, a calculated projected area based on an ever changing geoid or something else entirely?
Next thing, you’ll be trying to convince people that “surface temperature” actually refers to the temperature of the Earth’s surface! Ah well, at least the ex-chairman of the IPCC said “The science is very clear — its loud, articulate and incontrovertible. On this basis I think its time the world moved on,” so that must mean something about something.
Maybe you are confused, and are really referring to the weighting applied when Kriging. Kriging is a deterministic method of interpolation wherein the weight applied to the estimated value is a function of the distance from known data points – beloved of some “climate scientists”, who just make up data to look clever. Called “torturing the data” by some.
Have you managed to figure out the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of global cooling, or have you just decided that the Earth was created “as is”, around 4004 BC, as ArchBishop James Ussher (Professor, Trinity College) calculated. Not an opinion, a professional professorial calculation.
I suppose he was wrong – in your opinion of course, without actually checking his calculations!
Fool.
Has it occurred to you to seek your own answers by doing some research? Of course it hasn’t – your goal is muddying the waters, not seeking answers.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Has it occurred to you to seek your own answers by doing some research? Of course it hasnt your goal is muddying the waters, not seeking answers.”
A gotcha followed by an unsupported opinion!
Who but a fool would demonstrate such ineptitude? I assume that you are attempting to be gratuitously offensive, but of course I generally decline to feel offended, insulted or annoyed by the actions of retarded persons, so you might be wasting your valuable time.
Here’s something you might like to find for me, if you want to be helpful – a description of the GHE which accords with observed fact. I can’t find one.
Only joking, I’d be sending you on a fruitless chase after a fantasy. I’m far too nice to do anything as annoying as that.
Carry on.
Thanks for confirming my previous comment.
AQ,
I take you cant provide a description of the GHE, then?
Colour me unsurprised. Nobody can.
Carry on.
Thanks for conceding by omission that weightings depend only on area.
Nice doing business with you.
AQ,
I take you cant provide a description of the GHE, then?
Colour me unsurprised. Nobody can.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Why do you keep lying?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Pseudomod
It would be wiser on your part to invite Swenson to stop trolling.
He, and nobody else, is the biggest troll on this blog.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Thanks for the stupid reply.
#2
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
binny…”All what Robertson writes about, be it viruses, Einstein (time dilation used in GPS, the precession of the perihelion of Sun-near planets), astronomy, the Russian aggression in Ukraine, and so on”.
***
Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your inaccurate allegations.
On viruses, I have quoted an expert, someone who discovered the first virus in the ocean, Stephan Lanka. He became interested in claims about viruses and decided to investigate them from the first mention of them in modern literature. What he found is astounding.
As late as 1935, one scientist claimed that no virus could meet the requirement of Koch’s Postulate. By 1953, another scientist had made an erroneous claim about viruses and was awarded the Nobel Prize. Of course, a Nobel prize is not offered on the basis that what the scientist has claimed is true, only on what the Nobel committee thinks is cool.
The truth is, we know far less about viruses than what is claimed today. Virus theory is so messed up these days that a perfectly good method for physically isolating a virus has been replaced by a method that infers a virus rather than detects one.
****
Time dilation is not used in GPS. There is no instrument that can measure time dilation. If time could dilate, all of our clocks would be wrong and the Earth’s rotational speed would need to change since time is based on it.
Furthermore, Einstein’s theory infers that lengths change as well as we approach the speed of light, which is more nonsense. I am sure Einstein was a good guy and he did good work with the discovery of the photoelectric effect, but, really, what else of any use has he discovered?
****
I have never talked about the precession of perihelion.
****
Re the Russian aggression, I have heard no one talk about the mindless aggression of the Ukrainian government in Kyiv on fellow Ukrainians in the Donetsk region. They have treated them brutally while the West stood around cheering and arming them the government.
“I have heard no one talk about the mindless aggression of the Ukrainian government in Kyiv on fellow Ukrainians in the Donetsk region.”
Because the trouble there was neither mindless nor without provocation. The Ukrainian government intervened after Russian-backed, pro-Russian forces in the region seized government buildings and began a local insurgency, while Crimea was being taken by Russia.
Your myopic and twisted framing of this issue is likely why you don’t get many people parroting your nonsense.
“KIEV (Reuters) – Ukraines parliament approved a law on Thursday that grants special status to the Ukrainian language and makes it mandatory for public sector workers, a move Russia described as divisive and said discriminated against Russian-speakers.” Other similar patriotic laws have since been passed. This will teach the brutal Russian sub-human beasts a damn fine lesson, I suppose.
Imagine if Canada banned French or English. Maybe the US could insist that Government workers were only allowed to use English. No more “Felice Navidad”, or similarly un-American activities. Or China could decree no more Tibetan, English, or Portuguese would be allowed. Bad luck for Tibet, Hong Kong, or Macau people. Follow Ukraine – if it’s Ukrainian, it must be excellent.
The Crimea reference is interesting, though. The Ottomans, British, French and Sardinians fought the Crimean War against the Russians, in Crimea presumably. When did the freedom loving Ukrainians conquer Crimea? Or were they given Crimea by someone who didn’t actually own it?
When are you going to help out in Ukraine? I admire your passion, but I won’t be joining you. Along with more than 75% of the world’s population, Im happy to leave it to people like you.
Good luck.
> Imagine if Canada banned French or English.
Imagine if you knew something about Canuckistan, Mike Flynn.
Anything.
Winsome Wee Willy,
I’m happy enough to leave the imaginary world to you.
Imagine if you were not braying, Mike.
Worried Wee Willy,
Im happy enough to leave the imaginary world to you.
I know that you will keeping braying, Mike.
You always do.
barry…”The Ukrainian government intervened after Russian-backed, pro-Russian forces in the region seized government buildings and began a local insurgency, while Crimea was being taken by Russia”.
***
You are talking about two separate incidents. The rebellion in the Ukraine circa 2014 was by Russian-speaking Ukrainians. They were rebelling against armed Ukrainian nationalists ousting a democratically-elected Ukrainian president for whom they had voted.
You mention nothing about the protest of Ukrainians against that president, that became violent when armed nationalists intervened. Why do you support the undemocratic removal of a Ukrainian president by force and support the suppression of other Ukrainians who protested the ouster?
The Russians took Crimea back in retaliation over the illegal removal of the Ukrainian president. From what I have read, the Ukraine had no claim to it, and when they annexed it, the Russians were weak.
The Ukrainians never owned Crimea, it was part of the former USSR.
I don’t care what you think, from my POV, you don’t call yourself a democratic country and allow your president to be removed in a coup. No other democratic country would stand for that. Heck, here in Canada, they called out the troops when there was a faint suggestion of it during the trucker’s convoy standoff.
Gordon,
“The Russians took Crimea back in retaliation over the illegal removal of the Ukrainian president.”
In your universe, it is apparently ok for one country to invade another if they disapprove of that country’s domestic issues.
“You are talking about two separate incidents.”
Rubbish. The Ukrainian government suppression that you brought up as if it justified a Russian invasion, was directly a result of the insurgency in the Donbas region of Ukraine, which was armed and backed by Russia, which had been agitating secession there for years.
Post-soviet Ukraine is hardly a model for peaceful democracy. Like many countries with recently-shifted borders and new independence, it has been riven by competing interests from various groups. Russia has interfered in the Ukraine to foment these divisions. None of this justifies an international invasion.
Gordon,
“Furthermore, Einsteins theory infers that lengths change as well as we approach the speed of light, which is more nonsense.”
That wasn’t Einstein, it was Lorentz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz
Keep your eggheads straight.
Bumbling diversionary Bobby,
You don’t seem to be able to provide a copy of the description of the GHE, but you have plenty of time to waste on pointless diversions.
I know that you are trying to be as unhelpful as possible by refusing to supply a copy of the description of the GHE that accords with reality. What’s the matter, Bobby? Top-secret submarine stuff, is it? The secret submarine heating method – keep CO2 levels above 5000 ppm, and the GHE makes the submarine so hot that it can run turn water into steam, and run underwater steam engines with the excess heat! Only joking – it’s the sort of nonsense that a delusional SkyDragon cultist is likely to believe!
Or does the GHE only work in the imaginations of delusional SkyDragon cultists, who can’t translate their wishful thinking into words on paper?
By the way, George Fitzgerald predated Lorentz, and both speculated in an endeavor to explain results from experiments showing the apparent absence of the luminiferous ether. Einstein had a bit of a think, and came up with explanations for some previously unsupported hypotheses by employing his special theory of relativity.
You just copy random bits off the internet, don’t you? It might not make you look as clever as you hope. I can copy stuff off the internet faster than you can. Do you admit that this makes me look cleverer than you?
Dimwit.
Mikey,
I have already provided a description of the greenhouse effect for you.
So you are lying, you have a bad memory, and you are stupid.
“keep CO2 levels above 5000 ppm,”
On submarines, no they don’t. And you would know that if you passed a submarine qualification board and was entitled to wear the dolphins.
bob…Lorentz should have gotten credit for it even though he too was wrong. It was his formula for relative motion that Einstein borrowed for his own relativity theory. He also borrowed e = mc^2.
Here’s a good, short video on the Lorentz transformation, which transforms the coordinates of a stationary body A as viewed from a moving body B.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHqD2aDn8Vk&ab_channel=MichelvanBiezen
Couple of things to note.
1)The time equation is tA = tB/(root [1 – u^2/c^2])
note that u = velocity
This clearly suggests that time can change, which is a load of nonsense. The only time we know is the time based on the Earth’s rotation. If time changes, the Earth’s rotational velocity must change.
2)the other formula is for length, LA = LB. root(1 – u^2/c^2)
This bs as well. There is no way the atoms in a mass are going to lengthen or shorten based on velocity.
Einstein should have noticed such basic errors before he carried on with the work of Lorentz.
You should distinguish between time periods and time.
It’s not time that changes, it’s the experience of time that changes, I suggest you read some science fiction.
Because you can’t get Einstein’s papers.
bob, please stop trolling.
Believe What You Say
“Spider analogy is excellent”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ2qOWLh12E
It has been something I have wondered about.
Since the mass of the troposphere is constant (deviations can occur during El Nino and La Nina) the global temperature is limited. Real climate change occurs when changes in solar activity result in changes in circulation in the stratosphere. The polar vortex in winter works its way up to the equator, as shown in the graphics below.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
Incorrect. The average height of the tropopause has risen about 100 metres over the last 20 years.
AQ,
You know this because . . .?
Because that is common knowledge to good Climaball players, Mike Flynn.
You had more than 10 years of training. When will you do any research?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The major troll – here as anywhere else on the blog – that’s Flynnson, and no one else.
Bindidon, you ought to be able to recognize that Little Willy is a troll.
Antonin Qwerty says:
”Incorrect. The average height of the tropopause has risen about 100 metres over the last 20 years.”
How was that measured? Climate models?
” the global temperature is limited”
That’s a new one…
We are still waiting for ANY demonstration of how it isn’t limited Nate.
Regale us again Nate of what your crystal ball says about how much warming we should expect from a doubling of CO2.
Bill tries the reverse the standard of proof ploy.
Nate admits to not being able to give an answer. Why is that Nate seems a lot of others in here seem to have an answer. Do you disagree?
Bill fails at the reverse the standard of proof ploy, and fails to understand that he has failed, and why.
Index Nino 3.4 is clearly “fluctuating”.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Your interpretation of this being … ?
You ask because . . . ?
Mike please stop trolling.
G,
You are confused. Who is Mike?
If you are referring to me, I comment as I wish, and how I wish, so you are wasting your time if you think your request is likely to influence me. Is there a particular reason that you think I should take notice of you?
I might take notice if you could provide a description of the GHE which accords with observed fact. Otherwise, I assume you are just another delusional SkyDragon cultist, preferring fantasy to fact. Would you value the opinion of such a person?
Mike Flynn,
You are Mike.
Galaxie500 = Willard
Projections
Exactly, gb.
You’re projecting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The New Pause lengthens to 8 years 9 months
“I have set out these new calculations in some detail because once it is more widely known it will help to bring the climate nonsense to an end.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/03/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-8-years-9-months/
It’s whistling in the graveyard.
The Earths Green Future is Forked
https://judithcurry.com/2023/04/03/the-earths-green-future-is-forked/
I rather look at it in simple terms, China was Mexico, other countries will be Mexico for corporations [or the global order],
and their hoped for future is Mexico.
And if most of world population doesn’t follow order, then some wars can be made.
It’s actually pretty funny – how brain dead the ‘analysis’ is, as well as the fact that people lap this up like those who give astrology credence.
Method – run a linear regression starting around the highest anomaly in the record. This will give you a downward trend to present. Based on this hilariously obvious cherry-pick, claim stuff about the trend.
Many in the climate debates predicted that the new “pause” would start when we got a new highest global temperature.
I’ll predict that when the trend goes positive, ‘skeptics’ will pick their new start point around the next record-breaking global temperature and recycle all the talking points.
Sometimes dumb is funny. This is one of those instances.
The snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades measured 237% of average for the date, which is the time of year when snow is generally at its peak and provides a good idea of how much water will melt off for cities and farms. Mondays snow level reflects 61.1 inches of water.
The accumulation of snow marks the most snow since the state Department of Water Resources established its modern network of monitoring sites in the mid-1980s. Its also more than the 227% of average that was found during the April snow survey in the blustery year of 1983 and comparable to the epic year of 1952, which also tallied 237% in April.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/california-s-booming-snowpack-ties-70-year-17875978.php?fbclid=IwAR15spIYTufkaCPsPJx531FPl2tc2uLiLQoLcs1o2QD8wSOxtB0621kK4LI
Global warming = more glaciers
Check your score
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1464450
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1464499
I don’t share my predictions. But this was the first time I’ve ever predicted the anomaly precisely, and the first time in months I’ve been close.
AQ,
Yes, occasionally guesses are correct. Not often enough to be useful or dependable, of course, even when called “predictions” or “forecasts”.
dont share my predictions ?
sure share a lot of trolling , what a twerpy reply
The irony of you replying to my innocuous non-trolling comment with a trolling one to complain about my supposed trolling.
Indeed, it would appear Hunga-Tonga is still a player.
When you made this claim earlier, you used NASA to back up your claim. I then pointed out that the NASA press release you referred to stated that IF this happened, and IF it was noticeable above the noise, it wouldn’t begin for about three years. Three years after that press release is August 2025. Now you choose to ignore that correction … based on WHAT?
Wrong Ant. I’m not ignoring anything. Your false accusation merely reconfirms your interest in trolling.
The H-T volcano was *unprecedented*, so we may not get all the details for years. NASA has admitted it will cause warming, as already confirmed by UAH. But, they are wrong about the methodology.
If there is enough interest here, maybe Dr. Spencer will expound on it. I suspect he understands it better than most.
Now, you can get back to your trolling….
Sorry to interrupt your trolling.
NASA made no such “admission”. They said it MIGHT cause warming. They said that if it happened it would not begin for about 3 years. And they said it might not be evident above the noise.
Here is the report on the NASA press release. Try reading it yourself:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/08/05/volcano-eruption-tonga-record-climate/
AQ,
In their usual waffling fashion, NASA admitted in had precisely no clue as to the effects of the eruption.
Here’s part of NASA’s press release (from NASA’s website) –
“This extra water vapor could influence atmospheric chemistry, boosting certain chemical reactions that could temporarily worsen depletion of the ozone layer. It could also influence surface temperatures. [ . . . ] and the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat. The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects.
The dimwits don’t seem to realize that “climate” is just the statistics of historical weather – hence saying something silly like “exacerbate climate change effects” just demonstrates the usual delusional SkyDragon inability to accept reality.
All quite irrelevant – climate does not “control” anything at all. It’s just a name for some statistics.
Swenson takes a dump on Clint’s fantasies. Nice to see troll on troll action…
Nate,
You wrote –
“Swenson takes a dump on Clints fantasies. Nice to see troll on troll action”
Were you trying to be gratuitously offensive, or just demonstrating pointless idiocy of the delusional SkyDragon variety?
Diverting either way. Got any more?
Ant, here is just one quote: HT-HH may be the first volcanic eruption observed to impact climate not through surface cooling caused by volcanic sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming caused by excess H2O radiative forcing.
You are free to interpret that any way you want. Facing reality is your responsibility. Trolling, with all its desperate tactics, is NOT being responsible.
When you struggle to support nonsense like ‘passenger jets flying backwards’, you’ve lost the debate about who is the troll.
No need to be shy, Pup:
https://www.wionews.com/science/tonga-underwater-volcano-impact-can-affect-ozone-layer-heres-what-you-should-know-503705
We all know you like Indian news outlets.
Would you like assistance with the word “may”. It really isn’t a difficult word.
Here is a quote which you “forgot” to provide:
“Milln 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.”
Is there a reason you ignored that one?
As I stated Ant, You are free to interpret that any way you want. Facing reality is your responsibility. Trolling, with all its desperate tactics, is NOT being responsible.
I said 0.24 +/- 0.2 C. My model predicted 0.09 C for 2023/02. My worst recent prediction was 0.11 C for 2022/07. I was off by -0.25 C which fell outside my 95% CI window.
My preliminary estimate for 2023/04 is 0.19 +/- 0.24 C. I can refine that a bit throughout the month using global circulation models by I can only improve the skill by a modest 0.04 C. The UAH TLT values have a lot of noise in them. Christy et al. 2003 cite the uncertainty on monthly values as +/- 0.20 (2-sigma).
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …..
We don’t do a good job of teaching science – so it’s never a good bet to assume that just because scientists have answered climate change denial questions a thousand times, that would be enough. Moreover, the creativity of the scientifically illiterate is boundless.
It gets worse…
Bordo has a disciple!
Willard is an idiot!
Mike Flynn is braying!
Willard is an idiot! Mike Flynn doesnt seem to commenting at all.
Willard lives in a fantasy world, where his fantasies are considered superior to fact.
Poor Wee Willy.
Mike Flynn denies being Mike Flynn!
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn denies being Mike Flynn!”
Typical delusional SkyDragon cultist failure to realise that facts are not subject to stupid fantasies.
Maybe someone values your opinion, but I doubt it!
“Willard denies being an idiot” makes no difference to the fact that Willard is indeed an idiot.
Just as Willard claiming to have a description of the GHE makes no difference to the fact that he is lying.
Carry on dealing, fool.
Mike Flynn keeps playing dumb!
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Quantum theory is a stretch indeed, but chaos theory fits very well. A better concept is to predict turbulence at low Reynolds Number above 1600. The atmosphere is far more complex than flow in a smooth pipe, so chaos theory fits. The humorous part is the very significant distribution of climate model predictions being presented as a consensus. The basic facts are simple, but the big picture is extremely complex. If one takes a serious look at the famous Trenbeth energy budget, it is very clear that a mere 1% increase in predicted latent heat effect from clouds changes the entire result. If climate really was a science topic instead of a political topic, there would be very robust debate about all of the uncertainties. Instead, we have scientists behaving like politicians and politicians pretending to understand science. It is a mess that will not be easy to sort out in the short term until genuine long term effects are demonstrated.
Tim S,
In one of his lectures, Richard Feynman pointed out that the operation of the uncertainty principle (supported by the most rigorous experiments in the history of mankind) prevents predictions of future states of fluids, without mentioning chaos at all.
As Feynman also pointed out, the properties of dry water are significantly different from wet water, and devoted seperate chapters to their treatment. Not a joke.
It seems the atmosphere acts chaotically, and therefor future states are unpredictable in any useful way. Richard Feynman reached exactly the same conclusion using quantum physics. Feynman said “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment.”
If it agrees with reproducible experiment, thats good enough for me. Better than the unsupported religious doctrine followed by SkyDragon cultists.
There goes Swenson Mikey Flynn trying to be all smarty pants again.
“It seems the atmosphere acts chaotically, and therefor future states are unpredictable in any useful way.”
No that is not it, chaos is not why climate states are unpredictable.
Since your brain has only one more than three neurons, that makes your comments unpredictable.
maguff…your derision typifies your abject ignorance of the point the good Senator is trying to make, Here’s a response from one of his critics…
“Dr Marshall : Its the radiation that gets absorbed. The earth radiates heat. Mostly its infrared…”.
That is the ignorance you are defending. The Earth does not radiate heat, it radiates infrared energy that has nothing in common with heat. There is no heat to trap.
The Senator is trying to make a point, that it is the glass in a greenhouse that traps heat and that a gas like CO2 cannot trap heat. If you can prove otherwise, let’s hear it.
“…it radiates infrared energy that has nothing in common with heat. “
I have an infrared heater in my travel trailer that keeps me warm and toasty during winter camping trips.
As usual, you’re full of shit.
TM,
Technically, Gordon is correct.
Radiation is not “heat”, regardless of what you may choose to think.
Heat is a result of radiation interacting with matter.
If your infrared heater has no power source, it is still radiating infrared – yes, really.
If you believe it will keep you warm and toasty while it is colder than you, you are probably thinking the same as GHE believers who think that cold CO2 must heat things because it is radiating infrared radiation. Yes, it does – continuously.
All quite irrelevant, I suppose, except that some people believe that colder CO2 can increase the temperature of a hotter surface and make it hotter still.
Your experience with your unpowered infrared “heater” shows that it, like CO2, will not keep warm or toasty at all.
No GHE – just ignorance and wishful thinking.
Swenson,
You are trying to be all smarty pants saying radiation is not heat.
But the truth of the matter is radiation transfers heat.
And CO2 transfers energy from the atmosphere to the surface which adds that energy to the heat transferred from the Sun to the surface.
Swenson is a scientifically illiterate troll.
Notice how he debunks his own strawman. What an idiot.
bob, “heat” is the transfer of energy from HOT to COLD. The atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of Earth.
You can’t understand this because you’re viewing reality through a toilet paper tube.
That ain’t science.
Clint R.
You moron, I didn’t say otherwise.
The fact that the heat transfer is always from hot to cold, doesn’t prevent the atmosphere from causing the temperature of the surface to rise.
It can do that without transferring heat from the atmosphere to the surface.
If you were smart, you could figure that out.
Too bad, your science textbooks are still wrapped in plastic.
Bumbling Bobbby,
You wrote –
“You are trying to be all smarty pants saying radiation is not heat.”
If you say so. You don’t seem to be disagreeing, do you?
For my own amusement, I will explain. Radiation is heat. You are confused about heat transfer. Heat is radiated whether it is received somewhere or radiated to outer space. Heat transfer occurs when matter receives the radiation. Receipt has no effect on transmission. The part you do not understand is that the receiving body will also transmit heat based on its temperature and the net heat transfer will depend on the spectra of each surface (or gas), the surface area (or concentration), and the difference in temperature to the 4th power. The part about the different spectra makes it complex, but not impossible to observe and measure.
> Radiation is heat.
Incorrect.
Revise and resubmit.
“Senator Rennick argues Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle (which describes quantum scale effects), means we cant accurately model the climate (somewhat larger than quantum scale).”
Absolutely correct. Even the the IPCC admitted that prediction of future climate states is impossible.
If you dont like the uncertainty principle, just ignore it. Try and convince others you can predict the future, and see how many will pay you for your efforts.
Only joking – you cant predict the future any better than a 12 year old child, so your chances of finding someone even more stupid than yourself to pay for your fantasy are remote.
Feel free to try.
And you said this *just because*, Mike?
Weepy Wee Willy,
If you say so, Wee Willy, if you say so.
There will be a big drop in Australia’s temperature in three days.
https://i.ibb.co/HChzvpX/ecmwf-T2ma-aus-13.png
Will you be advertising the next rise in temperatures just as fervently?
And you pose a singularly pointless gotcha because . . . ?
Because ren is a cycle nut who keeps trying to find cool events in a warming world, Mike Flynn.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Another snowstorm in the Midwest with several degrees of frost.
https://i.ibb.co/7rnmTbw/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-04-04-181311.png
Aberdeen South Dakota.
https://i.ibb.co/VNYhGvr/Snap-Shot-20230404-183131.jpg
811 inches of snow at the Alta Ski Area in Utah. More snow on the way.
Putins Disaster: The Russian Military Is Destroying Itself in Ukraine
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/04/putins-disaster-the-russian-military-is-destroying-itself-in-ukraine/
linked from: https://instapundit.com/
I think Russia Military is growing.
They might running out of criminals, but it’s pretty easy to make
criminals.
Protestors can insurrectionist. And given less rights than murderers.
gb…I have been hearing from the western media for a year now about how badly the Russians are losing. They are still there but they are solidifying what they went in there to get. The western media regards that as a loss since they are no longer progressing.
Climate change is a natural cycle driven by on made things, but these chemtrails I am seeing in the sky of UK aren’t natural and it looks like geo engineering.
This, but unironically:
https://www.volts.wtf/p/how-to-think-about-solar-radiation#details
wee willy…”Even if greenhouse gas emissions halted entirely right now, we would continue to feel climate change effects for decades due to existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere…”
***
More proselytizing from the climate religion zealots. They have failed to prove a trace gas like CO2 can do anything in the atmosphere so they have decided to claim it does anyway.
Come on, Bordo.
But Religion is boring –
https://climateball.net/but-religion
Leave boring to Pup and gb.
Woeful Wee Willy,
If you choose to be bored, thats a personal decision. Deranged SkyDragon cultists generally blame it on others.
Do you?
“Cargo cults are marked by a number of common characteristics, including a “myth-dream” that is a synthesis of indigenous and foreign elements, the expectation of help from the ancestors, charismatic leaders, and lastly, belief in the appearance of an abundance of goods.” – wiki
The cargo cult of global warming believes in magical climate time before the Industrial Revolution.
And there were Luddites
“Opponents of the introduction of labor-saving machinery. The original Luddites, followers of a legendary Ned Ludd, were British laborers of the early nineteenth century who smashed textile-making machines that threatened their jobs.”
Who evolved into people wanting govts to give them solar panels and wind mills, which one could argue is better than wanting to smash textile-making machines. Wind mills were big thing to pump water out when you living under sea level. Solar panels came from Space exploration.
They continue to be uneducated.
You are usually so incoherent body cares to reply to your comments, gb.
That makes you in a privileged position to talk about cargo cults.
“That makes you in a privileged position to talk about cargo cults.”
But only in the sense of willard’s rules of climateball.
Not really, gb, but –
https://climateball.net/but-climateball/
Congratulations!
Willard says:
”Even if greenhouse gas emissions halted entirely right now, we would continue to feel climate change effects for decades due to existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and warming could accelerate, as we reduce the aerosol pollution that happens to be acting as a partial shield.”
Willard echoes more ridiculous alarm. A few decades of warming forstalled? What are we talking about here Willard? If we end fossil fuel emissions the greenhouse effect will immediately begin to diminish. . . .we may have some continued good weather before it starts to get cold and stormy again and gee it might take a few decades for that to happen.
And aerosols! We don’t know if the net effect of aerosols is positive, negative, or neutral.
The aggravating thing about institutional science is they don’t owe the population anything. No fiduciary or professional duty of any sort for which the population could seek damages for bad advice.
And generally when that’s the case all sorts of ridiculous claims are made. For example how many medicine shows can you find on the internet with some PhD sponsoring it? Some put in little disclaimers but all promote the ”possible” benefit.
When your primary funder wants something and grants you both cash and immunity in providing what they want do you actually believe they are all going to turn down that opportunity?
Gill, Gill,
Figure 4:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/aerosols-and-their-relation-to-global-climate-102215345/
You sure like to say stuff!
Do continue, please.
There is plenty of half baked science in the realm Willard.
We really don’t understand albedo well-enough to actually come to any conclusions about it due to the fact Stefan Boltzmann equations establish that emissivity is the inverse of albedo and as such in accordance with SB equations the TOA when emitting 239w/m2 must be as warm as a blackbody surface that emits 341w/m2.
This is true for all full spectrum reflectors. there are apparently some reflectors that unevenly reflect spectra frequencies but I am only aware of some advertising claims by the sellers of a few specialized white surface paints that claim having a higher emissivity than their albedo factor.
Where you see some of this where little agreement exists is on the emissivity and albedo of water where reflection depends upon the angle as opposed being able to measure it uniformly.
I actually had a conversation with Kevin Trenberth on this and he acknowledged there was scientific disagreement on the matter of emissivity. For example he provided me with reference on ocean emissivity. I read it and noted the author was offering a different emissivity than Trenberth’s figures so I responded noting that to Trenberth. He acknowledged it and said he didn’t agree with the author.
Additionally here we are talking about the fact that aerosols have differing lifetimes in the atmosphere and some like soot increase uptake of solar energy both in the atmosphere and after they leave the atmosphere. I don’t see any of that stuff in the reference you provided.
tim…chem trails are either jet streams (contrails) from aircraft flying around 35,000 feet or they are a particular form of cloud formation that resembles furrows in a ploughed field.
Take a look at this set of cloud formations, particularly the one titled ‘Altocumulus undulatus clouds…’ about halfway down the page. There is even one looks like a flying saucer.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/gallery/2012/aug/23/meteorology-cloud-shapes-in-pictures
Would those look like your contrails if located at a higher altitude?
Another one…amazing stuff. I saw a set similar to that over Vancouver, Canada one evening.
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/16598401.stunning-sky-snaps-cloud-formation-west-oxfordshire/
Here’s another variety taken locally…
https://globalnews.ca/news/7621685/fingerprints-in-the-sky-meet-altocumulus-undulatus/
note…there are times when aircraft contrails persist and new ones are superimposed, After a while they criss-cross.
Metabunk has been debunking this crap for over a decade.
https://www.metabunk.org/tags/chemtrails/
A major snowstorm from Nebraska to Minnesota.
These are very heavy snowfalls. There will be no drought.
https://i.ibb.co/BT81n2v/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-04-04-223205.png
I thought of interesting question related to climate change.
Would the people living in a totalitarian state have better lives
if the entire world was a totalitarian state?
What I mean by a totalitarian state, or example of one, is the North Korea state.
So, would North Koreans or the leader of North Korea [either]
be happier or have better life, if entire world was governed as the North Korea is being governed?
If unaware of North Korean, or more aware of the Soviet Union, you can change North Korea to Soviet Union.
Or Iran, Cuba, Canada, and perhaps the US.
aq…”Given that weightings depend solely on gridded areas, there is no room for opinion. There is no weighter the weights are simply ratios of areas”.
***
Is it too far beyond you to see a uniform sphere as a set of circles? Start with a circle on the x-y plane and rotate the circles into the page till they rotate 360 degrees about the y axis. Now visualize the entire sphere as being made up of circles.
If you can understand that, what you are claiming is that 5 degrees on the circles, as measured from the x-axis, is a different size than any 5 degree arc at other places on the circle.
On a uniform sphere, a 1 x 1 degree square is the same size anywhere on the sphere’s surface. There is no need to use cosine weighting on a real sphere but it seems the rocket scientists at GISS are too stupid to work it out using triple integrals. Or maybe the computer they use to run their model sputters and dies when confronted with a triple integral.
What you don’t get as an alarmist is the use of cosine weighting gives them another excuse to fudge the data. Who is checking on them and when someone bothers to check, like M&M with the hockey stick, alarmists try to brush the cheating under the rug?
They are still claiming the hockey stick is legit even though the errors in it are too horrendous to contemplate. Mann created the hockey stick, and guess who his buddy is who helps him run the uber-alarmist site realclimate? Why, it’s none other than Gavin Schmidt, now the head of GISS.
You are seriously naive, AQ. I have always wanted to visit western Australia and I may have to come down there and give you a 7 day seminar on logical thinking.
A band of with 10 degrees about the equator (ie. 5N to 5S) is literally that – a band.
The “band” of width 10 degrees which runs from 80N to to the pole is a CIRCLE.
You clearly have no concept of how latitude is measured.
https://tinyurl.com/latitude-bands
Look at the diagrams.
How anyone with half a brain could believe that the band 0 to 10N and the “band” 80N to 90N could possible have the same area is beyond me. Either you have no concept of latitude, or you have no concept of area.
The area of the former is 11.4 times the area of the latter.
AG…you are hung up on lines of latitude and longitude.
Think of radial lines from the centre of a sphere, where they meet the surface of the sphere. Start with the Equator. We have two radial lines spreading out till they form 1 degree separatoin along the Equator. Then we measure down 1 degree from each point and run two more radial lines to those points. Now we have a 1 x1 degree square on the surface.
Note that degrees are not a good form of measure since the distance between lines formed by an angle varies with the distance from the vertex. A square area on any surface is the same area anywhere on the surface.
Try it with the North Pole. All we are doing is rotating the Earth by 90 degrees so the Equator runs through the North Pole. Same 1 x 1 degree square. I realize the Earth is slighly oblate but I am using a perfect sphere.
When you start messing with lines of latitude and longitude you have a different game altogether. Surface areas on a real sphere do not depend on artificial lines of latitude and longitude, they depend only on radial lines drawn from the centre of the sphere to where they cut the surface.
Note further, that the real degrees formed by radial lines are dependent only on the separation between the lines. They are not dependent on artificial system like the system of latitudes and longitudes.
Feel free to offer a tiling of a sphere into equal “squares” which can be described by a coordinate system whose scale suggests that equality.
Come on genius – show you are better than every mathematician who has lived.
AQ,
How are you going finding a description of the GHE?
Does it have something to do with spheres, mathematics, tiling, or coordinates?
Or is it that you are just another delusional SkyDragon cultist, with a fanatical and unreasoning belief in something you cannot describe?
Go on, “explain” the “concept” of something you cannot describe, because it doesn’t exist!
Dimwit.
Right here, Mike –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Swoon.
Gordon
Notice how your buddies will never correct you when you are wrong. For deniers, solidarity wins in the face of ignorance.
AQ,
And Gordon is supposed to care because . . .?
You idiot, you can only be gratuitously offensive to people who agree to be offended – generally dimwitted delusional SkyDragon cultists, who believe that science means a consensus of fools, and cant even describe the pillar of their cult beliefs – the “greenhouse effect”.
I choose not to be offended, annoyed, or insulted by dummies like you, and there is precisely nothing you can do about it. Maybe you could try some sly homosexual or masturbatory innuendoes – do you think that might make other dummies think you are clever?
Give it a try, if you like.
[sniggering at reality avoiding nutcase]
Gordon
Case in point …
AQ,
You wrote –
“Gordon
Case in point ”
Well, that certainly doesn’t look like a description of the GHE, does it?
It looks more like a delusional SkyDragon cultist trying to appear clever – for no discernible reason at all – and failing miserably anyway.
Maybe you could “explain” the “case” “in point”, do you think?
You are looking like more of a masturbator than a master baiter.
[laughs at idiot trying to avoid reality]
Mike Flynn,
The point is this –
No U,
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Here is a sphere with 10 degree x 10 degree grid.
https://cdn.britannica.com/63/2063-050-89E52B49.jpg
Very clearly, the 10×10 sectors near the equator are larger than near the poles. The same is true for a 1×1 grid.
1 degree of latitude is always about 40,000 km/360 degrees= 111 km
1 degree of longitude varies from 111 km down to 0 km.
Standing near the south pole, I could easily cover 10 degrees latitude with one step!
That is not correct.
Ten degrees of latitude at the poles is the same distance as ten degrees of latitude at the equator.
The reason area falls at the poles is that the lines of longitude get closer together.
You mean to say that at the poles you could easily cover 10 degrees of LONGITUDE with one step.
I meant to say NEAR the poles, not AT the poles.
Yep! I got sloppy at the last line.
But the overall point stands. Weighting is important and necessary. A 1×1 grid area changes from equator to pole.
tim…”Weighting is important and necessary. A 11 grid area changes from equator to pole”.
***
Only on a system with lines of latitude and longitude. If you calculate surface area on a sphere there is no mention of such nonsense. There is no reason on a real sphere why a surface area at one part of the sphere should be different from an equal area at any other part of the sphere.
I messed up by going with degrees instead of square measure. If the claim had been for a 10 square miles grid, instead of a 1 x 1 degree grid, I’d have been alright. Still, on a real sphere with no lines of longitude, a 1 x 1 degree square area would be the same anywhere on the sphere.
I recall reading the problems they had sailing in the old days. They could get their latitude using the Sun but there was no way to get longitude until they got a really accurate clock.
“Only on a system with lines of latitude and longitude. ”
But that IS the system being used! That is how the satellite data is being presented. You can muse about other system you wish were used instead, but that doesn’t change the need for cosine weighting for the satellite data.
“If the claim had been …”
But it wasn’t. You shouldn’t be claiming people are wrong when you are judging by the unknown thoughts that are in your head.
It is actually sine weightings. The area of the band between latitudes alpha and beta (alpha > beta) in the same hemisphere is
(sin alpha – sin beta) * area of hemisphere.
Cosines give the circumference of the parallels of latitude, which then have to be integrated to give area.
Or … if “A” is the area of a 1×1 degree patch at the equator, then A*cos(theta) is the (approximate) area of a 1×1 degree patch at latitude (theta).
There is more than one way to describe the situation.
I’ve just realised that that actually gives the exact answer, provided the latitudes you plug in are the centre of your square.
So for the square between latitudes 80N and 81N you would need cos80.5. And you would need to compare it to a square between 0.5S and 0.5N.
tim…good point. In his frustrating, AQ leveled all forms of accusations against my competence but he could not explain his issues, or understand mine.
However, you are wrong about being able to cover 10 degrees of latitude at the Poles with one step. You could certainly do that with lines of longitude but not latitude.
I had over-looked the fact that lines of longitude converge at the poles whereas lines of latitude are parallel all the way to the poles. I was thinking strictly in terms of radial lines emanating from the centre of a sphere and spreading out to encompass a surface area on the sphere of 1 x 1 degrees.
The guy at GISS explained it incorrectly. He claimed the problem was the lines of latitude but its the lines of longitude. He called it a flat-Earth problem, obviously meaning a Mercator projection.
When they collect the data, they could easily create a planetary map that shows the surface in equal squares rather than messing with this kind of obfuscated nonsense. Then again, they don’t collect surface data from each square they create it in a climate model based on samples from other areas. If they wanted to, given today’s computer power, create a proper spherical surface with equal areas and superimpose it on a map with lines of longitude and latitude.
Only the satellites scan the surface almost completely and there’s no reason the sats couldn’t use a proper spherical set of parameters rather than condensing it into a poorly thought out system of latitudes and longitudes where one set is parallel and the other converges.
“[he] leveled all forms of accusations against my competence but he could not explain his issues … ”
No one should have to explain — this is basic geometry that any engineer should know.
Your points would also be more calmly addressed by others if you weren’t throwing around your own accusations left and right (naive, alarmist, too far beyond you to see, far too gullible, … ).
PS, you can’t create a planetary map “that shows the surface in equal squares rather than messing with this kind of obfuscated nonsense”. Squares can’t cover a sphere. You would end up with gaps or overlapping regions, both of which create their own problems. You can create various surfaces like a ‘soccer ball’ on various scales, but they you deal with hexagons and pentagons and no easy, standard way to index the regions.
Much easier to stick with standard longitude and latitude and do a simple cosine weighting.
Tim,
All this is just a means of avoiding the inconvenient fact that the Earth has managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years. The surface cooled in spite of the mythical GHE, in spite of the Sun pouring four and a half billion years of sunlight into the Earth. If you disagree, you might be helpful enough to tell me your reasons.
Try and describe the GHE in such a way that it agrees with fact, and you will discover that you cantt. You might as well keep arguing arguing about the irrelevant and inconsequential.
Mike Flynn,
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Most obliged.
Worthless willard, you keep using that same link. And as usual, you don’t understand it.
The presentation starts with the usual blah-blah — Sun warms the surface, and surface emits to atmosphere. That’s nothing more than *It’s the Sun, stupid*. There is no mention of how the atmosphere can warm the surface. It’s just the usual hand-waving and gobbledygook.
Keep linking to that worthless video. It proves you’ve got NOTHING.
Pup,
You got NOTHING.
Get some material.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Are you a contortionist? You have managed to put your foot in your mouth, before shooting yourself in the foot.
Grand effort, laddie!
Did I, Mike?
tim…the engineer in me does know and I relayed the mathematics of dealing with a sphere. It’s not my problem that some geographer decided to make lines of latitude parallel and lines of longitude converge at the poles.
And it’s not my problem that you alarmists don’t know enough about math to understand what I’m saying.
There is NO way of tiling a sphere with any more than eight equal “squares”.
And there is no problem with tiling it with unequal squares and weighting for area.
You are inventing “problems”.
AQ,
This is you “explaining” the GHE, is it, or you just being an irrelevant idiot?
“Weighting”? Squares?
Are you delusional or just retarded?
You can’t even describe the GHE, so you fly off on any passing tangent, by the look of it. Feel free to prove me wrong – your description needs to reflect reality, of course.
Yes, I’m laughing. Now is your chance to shut me up.
Fool.
Mike Flynn,
AQ was making a geometric point.
Cheers.
“And its not my problem that you alarmists dont know enough about math to understand what Im saying.”
That is backwards! I (and others) understood you just fine. You were assuming a ‘square’ 1×1 degree patch that is always ~ 110 x 110 km.
The problem was that YOU didn’t follow that the data is presented using 1×1 degree longitude and latitude; ie that the slice gets narrower toward the poles.
You doubled down on your error and it took multiple posts for you to finally realize the correct interpretation.
tim…”(naive, alarmist, too far beyond you to see, far too gullible, )”.
***
If the shoe fits….
It is hard to take people seriously who claim one set of rules for themselves, but a different set for others.
Tim,
You wrote –
“It is hard to take people seriously who claim one set of rules for themselves, but a different set for others.”
Don’t take him seriously, then. Do you think anybody cares whether you do or not?
Have you figured out a role for the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling? It’s hard to take someone seriously if they can’t even describe something they claim has planet heating abilities.
Mike Flynn,
Bordo may want to be taken seriously.
You obviously do not.
Cheers,
I explained the concept to you half an hour before you wrong your comment I am replying to.
Half an hour AFTER you wrote this concept you replied to my explanation, still attempting to discredit it, despite the fact it is EXACTLY the same explanation provided here which you have accepted.
It seems denial is your reflex reaction.
AQ,
You wrote –
“I explained the concept to you half an hour before you wrong your comment I am replying to.”
Maybe you could rewrite that sentence in English.
By the way, claiming to “explain” a “concept” is pretty stupid. Did someone ask for your “explanation” of a “concept”? I doubt it, but feel free to produce evidence to the contrary, if you wish.
Are you still trying to avoid facing the reality that the Earth is now colder than it was when the surface was molten? Maybe you could “explain” the “concept” that resulted in this cooling, which presumably involves a GHE which you can’t describe – much less “explain”!
Carry on.
Having AQ explain something is like listening to Great Thunberg explain why we should all be riding bicycles and living in tents.
Gordon
It is not my problem that you have never familiarised yourself with technical language. But of course, you are always looking for an out clause after exposing your ignorance.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Gordon
It is not my problem that you have never familiarised yourself with technical language. But of course, you are always looking for an out clause after exposing your ignorance.”
It is not my problem that you make breathtakingly bizarre and unsupported assertions, either. Maybe you could “explain” the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, but I am sure you will look for an out, to disguise your ignorance – and stupidity, for being so transparent in your attempts to avoid facing reality.
Come on, now. Demonstrate that you not a fraud and faker like Michael Mann, or Gavin Schmidt (a strange guy, who claims to be a “climate scientist”, for some unknown reason).
Or just write yourself an out clause, if you prefer.
What are you braying about, Mike?
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
AQ,
You wrote
Gordon
It is not my problem that you have never familiarised yourself with technical language. But of course, you are always looking for an out clause after exposing your ignorance.
It is not my problem that you make breathtakingly bizarre and unsupported assertions, either. Maybe you could explain the role of the GHE in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, but I am sure you will look for an out, to disguise your ignorance and stupidity, for being so transparent in your attempts to avoid facing reality.
Come on, now. Demonstrate that you not a fraud and faker like Michael Mann, or Gavin Schmidt (a strange guy, who claims to be a climate scientist, for some unknown reason).
Or just write yourself an out clause, if you prefer.
Can’t you work things out for yourself, Mike?
If Antonin decides not to play your silly gotcha game, what do you intend to do about it?
Only joking – you have no power to do anything at all!
Gordon,
“The guy at GISS explained it incorrectly. He claimed the problem was the lines of latitude but its the lines of longitude.”
No he didn’t. He said:
"Because a 1º x 1º grid box occupies less area as it moves from the tropics to the pole."
That’s all he said about why lat/long grid box areas are different.
There have been attempts to subdivide the global surface areas in different ways, such as with tripoint areas, or deriving a symmetrical polyhedron. Any choice adds a layer of complexity, and it seems that it is just more convenient to go with the same grid system used in other disciplines.
Greta Thunberg deleted her doomsday prediction. Does that now mean we’re all safe?
Still got super volcanoes and space rocks. And idiot leaders with nuclear weapons.
She deleted it because, like James Hansen in 1988, she was wrong. According to her, by now we should all be dead. How long are alarmists/eco-loonies going to adhere to this propaganda and abject nonsense?
Gordon,
The little autistic doomgoblin has changed her mind, perhaps?
Good for her! Maybe she has become aware of facts that resulted in her changing her view.
Unlike some deranged SkyDragon cultists who will no doubt go to their deathbeds refusing to believe that the Earth somehow managed to cool for four and a half billion years, in spite of CO2, H2O, and sunlight.
Luckily, not a single past or present physical fact has been harmed by the opinions of Greta Thunberg.
Swenson
Greta may change based on evidence but you cannot! Have you found any support for your false narrative that the Earth surface has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years? Roy Spencer blog you are posting to proves you wrong! Evidence means nothing to you does it?
Norman, speaking of “surfaces”, have you found Earth’s “real 255K surface” yet?
No you haven’t, but you will claim you’ve supported your nonsense before. If you had any such support, you’d be linking to it every day. You know how much you love links.
Clint R
You are so dense and dumb! I did not claim there is a real surface that is 255 K. That is Ball4 claim not mine. There is a radiating surface which averages a brightness temperature of 255 K. I have linked you many times to the supporting evidence. Guess what? You ignore the evidence just like Gordon Robertson or Swenson. None of you cult minded idiots know science or accept evidence. Too cult minded to think and reason. The three of you endlessly repeat your cult mantras with no thought.
You appear to be no longer supporting Ball4’s nonsense. Yet, you won’t fully admit that.
Yes, B4 started the nonsense, but I recall you fully supporting him until you realized that neither of you could provide any viable technical reference. I informed you that several different layers of the atmosphere have temperatures of 255K, so that’s probably what you now claim as *support*. But, youre afraid to provide ANY support.
And your continued effort to insult and falsely accuse means youre only an incompetent troll, unable to discuss as a responsible adult.
Most of Earth surface is about .2 billion years old, or less than 1/20th of 4.5 billion years?
I will also note all mythical snowball earths were earlier than .2 billion years ago.
And why do you deny that geothermal heat, warms the ocean?
Hey, maybe she just grew up.
“Luckily, not a single past or present physical fact has been harmed by the opinions of Greta Thunberg.”
Carbon Taxes went up 1 April 2023. There are twits in our government who subscribe fully to the opinions of Saint Greta of the Temple of Climate Doom.
Carbon Taxes and Green Policies matter. Places like Saudi Arabia are watching Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, et al make policies that will choke off their carbon fuels based economy. So Saudi Arabia et al will seek to replace the US dollar as the world reserve currency. They are tired of accepting the toilet paper, that US dollar has become, for real goods. If/When there is a new reserve currency what do you think will happen to US dollar and US economy? If US economy collapses what happens to Canada and Europe?
So yeah, Greta’s stupid opinions do matter because there are a lot of stupid people who believe them. Climate Change Narrative is an extraordinary popular delusion.
Gordon
Please link to her claiming that we would all be dead by now.
If she “has deleted it”, you will have no problems finding it on Wayback Machine.
AQ,
And if he doesn’t, what then? What do you intend to do about it! Nothing at all?
If you believe that someone is wrong, just say so, and produce some support for your dissent. This refusal to produce any support for your slimy innuendos is just another example of delusional SkyDragon cultists saying nothing, and then demanding that others “prove” you are wrong!
Go on, provide a description of the GHE, to prove me wrong when I claim that no GHE description of the GHE exists which agrees with fact. How hard can it be, you gutless wriggling guttersnipe?
Go on, crawl away while I laugh at your attempts to turn your fantasy into fact.
No GHE.
Mike Flynn,
Two things.
First, as a Sky Dragon crank, you are the one dissenting.
Second, https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Worthless willard, you keep using that same link. And as usual, you don’t understand it.
The presentation starts with the usual blah-blah — Sun warms the surface, and surface emits to atmosphere. That’s nothing more than “It’s the Sun, stupid”. There is no mention of how the atmosphere can warm the surface. It’s just the usual hand-waving and gobbledygook.
Keep linking to that worthless video. It proves you’ve got NOTHING.
Pupusa,
You’re just saying STUFF.
That means YOU got nothing.
MORE than TEN years like THAT.
Bring MATERIAL.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Deranged SkyDragon cultists and failed physicist content creators believe science is about experts and consensus.
Richard Feynman said science is belief in the ignorance of experts [and failed physicist content creators?],
Repetitively posting links which you are too coy to give a reason for so doing, just makes you look weirdly obsessed. Your links contain nothing of value – at least nothing you are prepared to state.
You’re a strange object, Wee Willy.
Carry on being diverting.
One of my favorite lines, Mike FLynn:
https://climateball.net/but-my-guru/#feynman
Thanks for reminding me I should work on that page.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Eastern Circulation in the Central Pacific. Will La Nina return?
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/spac/mimictpw_spac_latest.gif
Earlier, AQ wrote –
“There is NO way of tiling a sphere with any more than eight equal “squares”.”
And who cares? Even if it were true?
Of course, AQ will will not provide a definition for “squares”., leaving himself a weasel exit.
For example, on a sphere, an equilateral triangle may have 3 included angles of 90, giving a total internal angle sum of 270! A square may be constructed of 4 such triangles, being a quadrilateral with 4 equal sides, and equal diagonals. Obviously, AQ has a particular definition of a “square” in mind, but is too coy to let anyone know what his secret definition is.
Oh well, talking vague nonsense about tiling spheres allows him to avoid the reality that he cannot even describe the GHE.
I wonder what his next attempt will bring forth?
While you were busy googling that information that you are pretending you always knew, why didn’t you also google “square on a sphere” – the definition is the first thing that comes up.
The only equilateral triangle on a sphere which has an angle sum of 270 degrees is an octant. Four octants which are not joined only at a vertex make a hemisphere, not a square. It has one “side”, no diagonals, and no angles. Googling needs to be accompanied by thinking.
The point was the necessity for an area weighting. For more than eight squares, and without introducing unnecessarily complex shapes, consider that proven.
AQ,
You live in a bizarre fantasy world. What are you babbling about? No googling required.
Here – start at the North Pole. Head South one unit. Head East one unit. Head North one unit.
Three sides, each one unit. Equilateral triangle. Three 90 included angles. Total 270. Four of them sharing a common vertex create a figure with 4 equal sides and equal diagonals. A square, or are you going to redefine it with another name because you don’t like my definition?
If you want to start complying about 2d planes and definitions, then why are you even talking about areas on a sphere and their shapes?
Are you trying to say that a quadrilateral with equal sides and equal diagonals is not a square?
You said “There is NO way of tiling a sphere with any more than eight equal “squares”.”
Maybe you need to look at Newton’s fluxions, if you want another way of doing it. An infinite number of infinitely small squares will do.
Nup. An equilateral triangle also requires equal angles. Your top angle is different from the other two.
AQ,
You idiot SkyDragon cultists just redefine anything to mean anything else, For example, slow cooling is defined as really getting hotter.
Equilateral means equal sides – according to Wikipedia, anyway. “In geometry, an equilateral triangle is a triangle in which all three sides have the same length.”
I you want to redefine it to require equal angles, go for it.
As to your silliness “Your top angle is different from the other two.”, you are displaying your ignorance. Try Google if you dont believe me. Heres the first reference that bobbed up (dont say I dont try to help those less fortunate than myself) – “It is well known that a spherical triangle of 270 degree triangle is constructible on the surface of a sphere; a globe is a good example.”
So how did you work out that the “top angle is different from the other two.”.
Three angles of 90 degrees, 270 degree total. Four such triangles can make a quadrilateral with equal diagonals – a square, unless you want to call it something else.
Maybe you should concentrate on trying to be annoying. You seem to be just as inept at that as trying to understand basic geometry.
Go on, try to annoy me, if you like. You cant, and there is nothing you can do about it, is there?
Carry on.
Your purpose of introducing equilateral triangles was to construct a square. If you insist on going with Wikipedia definitions instead of definitions from mathematical textbooks, their definition of a square is that it has four equal sides AND four equal angles. Four of YOUR triangles do NOT form a square under that definition.
“Equilateral triangle” *also* means straight sides. On a plane, those straight lines. The extension to a spherical surface is great circles.
“Here start at the North Pole. Head South one unit. Head East one unit. Head North one unit.”
The first and last sides are great circles, but not the 2nd side. This is no more a triangle than a piece of pie is a triangle.
Tim
Damn, I can’t believe I didn’t pick up on that.
But of course the same applies to the grid “squares” defined by latitude and longitude.
Which only adds further weight to the fact that a sphere cannot be ‘covered’ (because Gordon and Mike do not understand ’tiled’) by equal-area squares.
So many diversions on so much irrelevance.
Oh well.
First AQ. Wrote – “If you insist on going with Wikipedia definitions instead of definitions from mathematical textbooks, their definition of a square is that it has four equal sides AND four equal angles. ” OK, you haven’t given an example of your “definition from mathematical textbooks” but no matter. You were making assertions about undefined “squares” on a sphere, remember.
Now a “square” on a sphere comprised of four equilateral triangles as I have described satisfies your definition, but I surmise you are going to provide yet another definition when you realise that the one you have provided, supports me, rather than you. No use bleating about included angles – spherical geometry is different to plane geometry.
Second, the wondrously fantasizing Folkerts, who wrote – Equilateral triangle” also means straight sides. On a plane, those straight lines. The extension to a spherical surface is great circles.” Well, no. As even AQ pointed out, lines of latitude are “straight”, on a sphere. So by starting at the North Pole, walking South for 1 unit, East for 1 unit, and North for 1 unit means you arrive at your starting point, after traversing an equilateral triangle. Equal internal angles a# well.
For both of them, here’s a different approach from math.stackexchange –
“Fix a point to be the north pole of your sphere. If one takes four equally spaced meridians, so that adjacent meridians are separated by 90 then the four intersections of the meridians with any parallel (i.e., line of latitude) will define a square, and one can show that every square arises this way. One can see that as the chosen parallel approaches the equator, the side lengths monotonically approach one-quarter the circumference of the sphere. So, if you allow the degenerate square with four 180 angles, that is the solution. If you do not, there is no maximum.”
You will note, a square with four 180 angles. 720.
As to AQ saying “Which only adds further weight to the fact that a sphere cannot be ‘covered’ (because Gordon and Mike do not understand ’tiled’) by equal-area squares.”, I can only say his lack of mathematical knowledge is arguably equal to his lack of knowledge of physics.
Lines of latitude are NOT straight. A straight line is the shortest path between two points. For the surface of a sphere, that is a great circle.
A plane flying ‘straight’ from US to Europe takes a great circle route over the arctic.
ME: The extension to a spherical surface is great circles.
SWENSON: Well, no.
DISCUSSION SWENSON IS QUOTING: Square on a sphere = the 4-sided polygon with equal length sides and equal angles, sides are determined by 4 different great circles.”
A circular sector with an angle of 1 radian is NOT an equilateral triangle on a plane.
Walking 1 unit south; 1 unit east; 1 unit north from the north pole is NOT an equilateral triangle on a sphere.
Ah…AQ has sunk to the level of overlooking the obvious while introducing red-herrings.
A while back I read an article by a Russian that the interior angles of a triangle don’t always sum to 180 degrees. That’s true if the size of the triangle is similar to the size of the sphere. However, the curvature of the Earth is essentially flat on average in any location and a triangle meeting the Russian’s requirement would have to be immense in order for the size of the angles to become an issue.
I am using square measure in that context, where the square is proportional to the curvature of the Earth. At any rate, it doesn’t matter because square area is square area for the purposes of my point.
I hope you are not under the impression that if I lay out an area of 100 km x 100km on a flat area of the Earth that the angle between sides will be significant. They may not be absolutely square but the areas will be identical.
The angle sum is not relevant to the argument. That was something Flynn raised which I was challenging independently. Regardless of how close the internal angle sum is to 180 degrees, it is not possible to even approximately cover a sphere with your squares without introducing a haphazard arrangement. And there is no need to even try, given that weighting by area works perfectly.
AQ,
Ducking and weaving won’t help you. You don’t want to accept fact, that’s your affair.
Feel free to disregard a quote from a specialist mathematician “So, if you allow the degenerate square with four 180 angles, that is the solution. If you do not, there is no maximum.”
Minimum 2 squares to tile a sphere. Maximum? Infinite.
Just for fun, the largest non-degenerate square which can tile a sphere is one with internal angles of 120.
Reality. Not fantasy.
You are obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Who is this “specialist mathematician” you speak of? What papers and/or textbooks has he taught on this particular topic? And the solution to precisely what problem? – please cite the EXACT wording of the problem in full context.
And why did you misrepresent me? “As even AQ pointed out, lines of latitude are straight, on a sphere.” I said precisely the opposite. Lines of longitude are straight. Lines of latitude are not. Pretending Sydney and Perth have the same latitude, the shortest path from Sydney to Perth is NOT along a parallel of latitude. You certainly have serious comprehension issues.
Climate experts hit back at Australian politician’s bizarre theory about gravity’s role in global heating
Rennick met with scorn, derision and plenty of corrections over viral tweet and claim that scientists are cancelling gravity
Rennick’s question “do gases trap convection”, “doesn’t even make sense as a statement.
Rennick’s biography says he has degrees in taxation, commerce and finance
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/climate-experts-hit-back-at-australian-politicians-bizarre-theory-about-gravitys-role-in-global-heating?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
The fact that someone can see through the hoax, even with very little knowledge of science, is very troubling to the cult.
Just think if this person actually understood how much perversion of reality is involved in supporting the hoax:
* Passenger jets fly backwards
* Ice cubes can boil water
* Reality is best viewed with blinders
* Radiative fluxes simply add
* Earth has a “real 255K surface”
* Fluxes can be added, subtracted, averaged and are “conserved”
The list goes on and on.
> Reality is best viewed with blinders
You suck at trolling, Pup:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1467499
Clint R.
You got a lot of straw there.
I have a strong suspicion that senator Rennick is taking advice from this other nutjob https://tinyurl.com/banned-nutjob
I have a strong suspicion that you are a deranged SkyDragon nutjob.
Fair enough?
TM,
Richard Feynman said “Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of the Experts”. A quote from the US National Institutes of Health.
Name one “climate expert” who can calculate averages of past weather observations better than a 12 year old.
There is no GHE – neither you nor anybody else can even describe such a mythical beast.
Trying to make others look stupid won’t turn fantasy into fact. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, in spite of CO2, H2O, sunlight, radiogenic heat, and all the rest. Cooled.
Accept reality.
Thermometers respond to heat, and eight billion people generate a lot of it in the region of thermometers.
Dr Spencer seems to be looking into such things, unlike delusional SkyDragon cults of the fanatic variety.
None of that addresses the topic at hand. Focus!
TM
Dr Spencer seems to be looking into such things, unlike delusional SkyDragon cultists of the fanatic variety. Irrelevant, if you say it is, I suppose.
As to you quoting “Rennicks biography says he has degrees in taxation, commerce and finance”, Gavin Schmidts qualifications are Bachelor of Arts and PhD in applied Mathematics. Michale Mann is a geologist, also a faker, fraud, scofflaw, and deadbeat. Both self proclaimed “climate experts”.
What was the topic at hand, again, or cant you actually describe it?
Like you cant describe the GHE, either?
Swenson, one of these things is not like the others; can you spot the outlier?
“What was the topic at hand, again, or can’t you actually describe it?”
The topic at hand is the gravito-thermal effect.
The reason you frequently get lost in thought is because it’s unfamiliar territory.
Degrees in taxation, commerce and finance have a more relevant degree than a degree in geology or mathematics.
So the outlier is more qualified in the current debate where harm from rising CO2 or modest temperature variation has not been established.
Of course one should add in some others more qualified and experienced on the climate science side like Richard Lindzen and William Happer.
Plus I doubt you can find any efforts at deception from these that would rise to the level of Mike’s Trick.
Bill Hunter you’re an accountant, and a f***ing idiot.
https://ibb.co/VvYJFft
A predictable response from somebody who has absolutely nothing to offer.
#2: Bill Hunter youre an accountant, and a f***ing idiot.
Tyson you are just a gullible child if you think that this isn’t primarily about the movement of affluence and power from the poor to the rich.
maguff…”Rennicks question do gases trap convection, doesnt even make sense as a statement”.
***
It makes perfect sense to anyone who thinks about it. Heat is transferred from the surface to higher altitudes by convection. He is asking if GHGs trap those molecules as the glass does in a real greenhouse.
The answer is obviously no.
Alarmists have peddled the theory that the glass in a greenhouse traps infrared energy. That makes no sense since there is no proof that trapping IR causes any heating. The alarmists have applied that theory to the atmosphere, inferring that CO2 can act like glass and trap IR. Even if the GHGs can trap 7% of surface radiation, it does nothing.
However, the other part of their theory is that the trapped IR is back=radiated to the surface to raise the temperature of the surface above what it is warmed by solar energy. That part makes absolutely no sense.
You have your idea, of what makes sense, backwards.
“It makes perfect sense to anyone who thinks about it.”
So think about it then!
The Earth cools to space via radiation, not convection. If it cooled by convection it wouldn’t have an atmosphere.
TM,
I agree wholeheartedly. As Fourier pointed out a long time ago, during the night the Earth loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of its remnant interior heat.
That no doubt accounts for the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years. If you have an alternative reason, let me know. I change my views if new facts come to light, and I assume any reasonable person does.
On the other hand, GHE believers just reject reality, but provide no alternatives.
Swenson,
So the nigh-time low each night is equal to or lower than the night-time of the night before.
So you got a source that says Fourier actually said that.
I think not.
Maybe look up a weather almanac and see if what you claim is true.
bob, please stop trolling.
Tom Harris is speaking today on Action4Canada Empower Hour
Climate Change and 15 Minute City.
https://action4canada.com/
For this who are new here:
https://action4canada.com/who-we-are/
Basically two freaks.
So, wee willy, you are advocating allowing our children to be exposed to sexual perverts. Is that what you stand for?
How about you other alarmists? Is that what you stand for? Do you think it is OK to have a country pass laws to prevent people from criticizing Islam?
For those of you who are new here:
Willard is a well known troll on Roy Spencer’s website.
Basically a boring freak that seeks to undermine discussion and principles of democratic free speech.
And how exactly does he seek to do that?
See if you can answer without appearing to describe Swenson or Clint.
AQ,
You wrote –
“And how exactly does he seek to do that?
See if you can answer without appearing to describe Swenson or Clint.”
Can’t you work things out for yourself? If he decides not to play your silly gotcha game, what do you intend to do about it?
Only joking – you have no power to do anything at all!
Witless fool.
> Cant you work things out for yourself?
So says Mike Flynn, our in-house Sammich Requester.
Thanks for link, Ken, I was wondering if anyone in Canada is taking action against the perverts in LGBTQ. I am not worried about what they do personally, that is their right in Canada. However, when they start influencing children, that should be of concern to everyone with decency.
The challenge for you, Gordon, is to join the local AC4 chapter and get active in it. You have understanding of the issues, particularly on the climate change narrative.
How Climate Alarmism Killed Real Environmentalism
–Many of the environmental problems confronting the planet have nothing to do with CO2 emissions and, in many cases, are worsened by misguided steps being taken to curb CO2 emissions.–
https://amgreatness.com/2023/04/04/how-climate-alarmism-killed-real-environmentalism/
from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
Well, not sure one can say, “environmental problems confronting the planet” but one could say, environmental problems confronting mankind
and nature world. Or environment problems are things like a train wreck with toxic material. Or air pollution caused improperly burning
coal in Chinese cities. How cities are managed. And host factors badly effecting the local environment. But it’s a human problem rather a planet problem.
Other than being cold, the planet doing fine.
Severe thunderstorms with freezing rainfall in Canada.
https://i.ibb.co/L6xXpTG/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-04-05-195410.png
Tornadoes in the eastern US on a cold front.
https://i.ibb.co/Bcxy6TM/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-04-05-200606.png
test
Why we should cheer that Earth’s population just passed 8 billion
https://fasterplease.substack.com/p/why-we-should-cheer-that-earths-population
from: https://instapundit.com/
–There have been perhaps three major pulses of overpopulationism, or more correctly, malthusianism. The Reverend Thomas Malthus in the 18th Century was the first who warned that human population growth, an exponential, was at risk of outstripping agriculture, whose outputs only grew linearly. His belief that the working classes supposed tendency to procreate was what led to the existence of poverty led some 19th century politicians to oppose charity or poor relief laws as counterproductive as this would only result in greater numbers of these lower orders.
Understandably then, 19th century radicals, including Karl Marx, considered malthusianism a villainy, as it placed blame for class society on the supposed loose sexual morals of the poor rather than on the capitalist system. While those who today fret about overpopulation or overconsumption such as Greta Thunberg or Jane Goodall might be thought of as on the left, or at least green left, the classical left viewed Malthusianism as an ideological enemy.–
I guess I should say I am classical lefty rather than more left of Bernie Sanders. But classical lefty sounds outdated. Maybe classical lefty space cadet.
But the tests show that I am libertarian.
But libertarian party doesn’t represents libertarian values- they are more anti-libertarian, so bit confusing to say I am libertarian.
gb…”so bit confusing to say I am libertarian”.
***
gb…I find it much easier not to identify with either side. Each side has it’s good points and it’s bad points. Take the good from either side and reject the bad.
And, yes, there is good on the Left. I have associated with Left wingers during my life and they were seriously decent people who wished no one harm, including right wingers. I have also associated with right-wingers who were decent people and wished no one harm.
I have also met a few people who were both right and left wingers. They made their money using right-wing principles but lived their lives on the Left. Ironically, I don’t see anything wrong with that if they cause no harm.
When I say left-winger, I am not talking about the current set of idiots who are branded left-wingers but who are simply idiots. One of them, in California, is knocking West Virginia for stopping the brain-washing of elementary school kids about transgenderism. These idiots want to encourage children to decide whether they are male or female in elementary school.
Mental illness is behind such idiocy, not left-wing principles, whatever that means.
–gbso bit confusing to say I am libertarian.
***
gbI find it much easier not to identify with either side. Each side has its good points and its bad points. Take the good from either side and reject the bad. —
Well, politicians might say they have good points, but what do is the bad points. I don’t identify with either side. I simple terms I would favor a monkey which followed public opinion polls- that is about only good point of politicians.
I also want them to say, they aren’t going to start a war. If say it, it doesn’t mean they won’t, but I want the monkey to say it.
12 Ways the Planet Could Truly Be Saved | Bjrn Lomborg | EP 345
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/04/12-ways-the-planet-could-truly-be-saved-bjorn-lomborg-ep-345/
listening for 12, meanwhile:
1 test artificial gravity.
2 Explore moon, quicker.
3 explore Mars.
Still waiting.
4. globalize home schooling.
Waiting:
3 a: Homing schooling includes how to make clean water.
b: basic medical health.
Lomborg’s number 5 was improving public school {not paying teachers more] and basically, what I mean by home schooling- having “tools” to teach a kid on individual level.
I will listen to rest later. Number 1 thru 4 were good ideas.
Parents should already be teaching those concepts to kids outside of school. If they aren’t, the issue lies with them, not the system.
AQ,
And you believe that somebody should value your opinion for what reason?
Because you are clever? Powerful? Anonymous? A deranged SkyDragon cultist with a brain the size of a pea?
Or do you have a completely different reason? Dont by shy or coy, let everyone know why anyone should pay attention to the unsolicited, unsupported opinions of an anonymous nutjob.
The topics is things which could be done [which is cheap and will save our world- or will have high return on dollar invested.
Or small number of things which saves a lot lives. As compared to
200 things which are very costly, probably won’t happen or happen so
far in the future that’s just pointless.
Wealthy parents which are christian aren’t teaching their child their
religion. So, parents should do a lot things, but you might be able to help them do this. So a government or a non-profit or a for profit
could help people, but since so many are poor and dying- it might be
good idea to focus on the most needy.
Not indoctrinating children with religion is a POSITIVE.
AQ,
You wrote “Not indoctrinating children with religion is a POSITIVE.”
In your opinion, presumably. All your opinions plus $5 cash, will no buy a $5 cup of coffee.
Keep opining.
What’s your opinion on the demonstrated fact that nobody has managed to provide a GHE description which accords with fact?
“Not indoctrinating children with religion is a POSITIVE.”
indoctrinate:
: to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs
The goal should be to teach politics, rather than to indoctrinate students in/with a narrow set of political beliefs.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/indoctrinate
I said, educate.
And it seems it would good to educate about other religions and even global warming cargo cult.
But also if believe in global warming, educate about that also- plus also compared to other religions.
So, cargo cult of global warming believe we should stop using fossil fuels, and we should use alternative energy- but maybe not nuclear energy or hydrodams. Instead our faith indicates we shall use solar panels and wind mills to power electrical grids.
We also want to get rid of cows.
Some, global warmer believe in the god Gaia, she is perhaps angry we are using fossil fuels. {Why she made them is mystery- but probably because wants to vex humans, whom she regard as plague upon her].
Got thru #8 which related to land ownership.
And forgot about ocean settlements – which is same as number 8 but
includes ocean real estate.
Of course as I have said, if Mars has mineable water and
other aspects which related to Mars actually being a habitable
planet [Ie can humans live in lower gravity world- related to
testing artificial gravity {My 1} then you will get ocean settlements
[on Earth}. You also get people living in Venus orbit, but that’s also related to My #1.
I didn’t listen until 9 to 12.
Anyhow, the ones from 1 to 8 would be very significant if done,
But does compare to my take:
1 test artificial gravity.
2 Explore moon, quicker.
3 explore Mars.
4. globalize home schooling.
a: Homing schooling includes how to make clean water.
b: basic medical health.
4 is global home schooling rather than just poor and near death,
so helps US, Europe, and etc and cost extending to everyone, is
not much. Or not just about poor, roughly zero cost to them, and
cost something to everyone.
Testing, artificial gravity, about 1 billion dollar- but you have do, so 1 billion, now rather than later. Speeding up lunar exploration- 3 billion. But delay lunar base, save 10 billion, and quickly start crew Mars without first doing lunar base. Make lots of bases on Mars, +20 billion.
Oh, assuming lunar water looks like it’s mineable- ie, companies are investing in mining lunar water and artificial gravity “works fairly well”, put artificial gravity station in Venus orbit- 30 billion dollars. [though depending testing artificial gravity it might require more money-50 or 100 billion- as have make bigger and stronger- like say 1 km radius- but same applies to testing it. We have not tested it at all, but if have test to 1 km radius- one could say Mars exploration is delayed and then you instead do lunar bases, or your space exploration is all about how to make artificial gravity “work”. Also when test artificial gravity it might “prove” Mars is not habitable- saving money on not trying to explore Mars. The moon doesn’t need artificial gravity- most stuff done on Moon can done by people staying on Earth- it’s only 1.5 second light speed delay.
You make space power satellites from Moon- but humans aren’t going to be spacefaring civilization any time soon.
tim…”[GR] Only on a system with lines of latitude and longitude.
[Tim]But that IS the system being used! That is how the satellite data is being presented.
***
Yes Tim, but it’s not the sphere I was talking about. On a real, uniform sphere, a surface area at any point will be the same surface area at any other point.
Furthermore, there is no reason why GISS and others need to use a gridded system based on latitude and longitude. It’s more convenient but it adds a complication that is not worth it, like having to use weighting. Using modern computer models, it’s far easier to ignore lines of latitude and longitude and go strictly with polar coordinates.
I corrected myself later, pointing out that I had failed to account for lines of longitude converging at the Poles, and that I should have used square measure rather than degrees, which are dimensionless unless a specific radius is implied. On a real sphere, using polar coordinates, that is never a problem, it applies only to artificial coordinates like longitudes superimposed on a real sphere.
You took a shot at me about my attitude to those with whom I disagreed. That had not been my practice if someone did not flame me. As I recall, you started the holier-than-thou shots, talking down your nose to me about elliptical orbits, as if you were the authority and I was some uneducated passerby.
AQ is hopeless since he cannot post without taking shots. Much of the time, his entire post is comprised of flames.
How would you describe the boundaries of that region without latitude and longitude? If I found the data for a given region, how would know where it sat on the earth?
And as I have been trying to tell you, there is no way to tile a sphere with more than 8 equal-area quadrilaterals. There will be gaps – how would you account for them?
On a sphere, polar coordinates become SPHERICAL polar coordinates. That is PRECISELY what latitude and longitude are. If you try to apply PLANAR polar coordinates to a sphere, angles do not increase linearly with distance, and your problem with unequal areas becomes even worse.
And you have not explained the issue with weighting. You call it a “complication”, but it is not complicated for computers, and it gives PRECISELY the right answer. Is it a complication simply because you have difficulty with the concept?
And your final sentence applies equally to you.
It applies more so to Swenson and Clint. Why don’t you complain about them? Is it only an issue when shots are taken at YOU?
Ant makes ANOTHER false accusation — It applies more so to Swenson and Clint.
Ant, I don’t insult needlessly or without reason. I prefer to NOT insult. I prefer to only discuss the science. But your cult has NO science. Your cult rejects reality. Your cult has NO respect for honesty. Want to take an honesty quiz?
Do passenger jets fly backwards, yes or no?
I have never claimed “passenger jets fly backwards”.
Their stall speeds would seem to be too large compared to any wind they are likely to fly into.
But smaller planes with much lower stall speeds CAN and HAVE flown backwards RELATIVE TO THE GROUND.
I attack for PRECISELY that reason. And YOU (under your previous moniker) were the first person to attack me when I arrived here, before I had attacked anyone.
AQ,
“I attack for PRECISELY that reason.”
Really? You “attack” because “smaller planes with much lower stall speeds CAN and HAVE flown backwards RELATIVE TO THE GROUND.”
Are you deranged? Do you think your “attack” has any effect on anybody at all?
You are both incompetent and impotent, not to say ignorant and stupid! Maybe you believe that somebody might tremble in their boots at being “attacked” by some powerless SkyDragon troll, but I guarantee you cannot name such a person who is not presently suffering from a severe mental defect.
Have you managed to figure our how the Earth managed to lose its molten surface, and cool to its present temperature? Magic, perhaps? Reverse GHE? Not enough CO2 in the atmosphere, do you think?
Go on, “attack” as hard as you can, while I laugh in your face.
Peabrain.
I certainly hope for your sake that lack of comprehension was only a deliberate point-scoring attempt on your part. If not then it’s time for you to seek help.
AQ,
What form of mental defect leads you to think I care in the slightest about your “hopes”?
Do you suffer from delusions of grandeur – imagining you are wise, powerful, and influential?
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you? Maybe you believe that if you “hope” hard enough, a GHE description will magically appear!
Keep hoping, dummy.
“But smaller planes with much lower stall speeds CAN and HAVE flown backwards RELATIVE TO THE GROUND. ”
Indeed. I’ve done it in a Piper Cub, a Tiger Moth and, on one alarming occasion, a T21 glider.
“Swenson” is referring to my past observation that a passenger jet flying East along the Equator at noon is moving forward at 1000kph relative to the Earth’s surface while travelling backwards at 30,000 kph along the Earth’s orbit.
I’m afraid that “Swenson” lacks the mental flexibility to move beyond a terrestrial frame of reference.
EM,
You wrote –
“Im afraid that “Swenson” lacks the mental flexibility to move beyond a terrestrial frame of reference.”
I suppose you think that I should be concerned by your “fear” for some bizarre reason. Feel free to be as “afraid” as you like. I dont care. Why should I?
So Flynn and Clint now deny that the earth spins. It only gets worse.
But I’m not sure where your speed of 30 000 km/h comes from.
A point on the equator rotates at about 1650 km/h, and the earth rotates around the sun at about 108 000 km/h.
Given the scenario, I assume you mean the former, so I’m not sure about your reference to the earth’s orbit.
All that blah-blah doesnt answer the simple question, Ant:
Do passenger jets fly backwards, yes or no?
Antonio
Sorry, I was using my somewhat antique memory.
It’s all about reference frames and vectors. Using your figures:-
A passenger jet flying East at an airspeed of 1000kph is moving at 1000kph relative to the air around it.
Assuming no wind it is also moving at 1000kph relative to the surface below it.
Since the Earh’s atmosphere is being carried Eastwards at 1600kph the aircraft is moving Eastward at 600+1600= 2200kph.
Relative to the solar system the Earth’s orbital motion is carrying the aircraft Westward at 108,000-2200=986,000kph.
Since the aircraft is pointing to the East while being carried Westwards around the Sun it is moving backwards ( smile emoji ).
aq…”How would you describe the boundaries of that region without latitude and longitude? If I found the data for a given region, how would know where it sat on the earth?”
***
Easy. You use polar coordinates to layout the planet using one point as a reference. You could also superimpose the latitude/longitude grid on it for physical reference.
When you use polar co-ordinates to describe a sphere in math you don’t even have to draw the sphere for reference.
As explained elsewhere, planar polar coordinates do not give a linear scale when applied to a sphere. Spherical polar coordinates ARE latitude and longitude.
AQ,
Presumably, you think has some relevance to your indescribable GHE, but you are too shy to say what it is.
Come on, man up. Don’t be scared – tell everyone what a clever chap you are, and that you are only pretending to be stupid and diversionary because you can’t describe the GHE!
Off you go now.
I like the approach of Nick Stokes and Clive Best. Use icosohedral binning to map the Earth’s surface as a grid of triangles of equal area. This removes the problem of weighting for latitude.
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9181
AQ.
You wrote –
“Why dont you complain about them? Is it only an issue when shots are taken at YOU?”
Ooooooh! Is that a childish display of petulance, or just a really, really, silly, attempt to be annoying?
You also wrote “And you have not explained the issue with weighting.” And why should he? Do you think “weighting” has something to do with a GHE that you strangely cannot even describe in any way that agrees with fact?
Spouting unsupported assertions like “And as I have been trying to tell you, there is no way to tile a sphere with more than 8 equal-area quadrilaterals.” You can try to tell anybody anything – but it may not mean its true. You might “try to tell” somebody that you have a description for the GHE, but you would be lying or completely delusional, because you have not such thing.
Try looking on the internet – do you think it will help?
Youre a fool.
Forgot to post this link earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZhDI_2yXO4&ab_channel=ArtCenter-Howtodraw
And I suppose you believe those are equal-area squares on the sphere. It is ART, nothing more.
“its far easier to ignore lines of latitude and longitude and go strictly with polar coordinates.”
First of all, “polar coordinates” are 2D. There are similar spherical coordinates for 3D surfaces like spheres, but spherical coordinates basically ARE longitude and latitude.
I would be fascinated by what other system you would propose. Geodesic polyhedra would be one option, but that is hardly ‘simpler’ to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_polyhedron
Transverse Mercator works well enough, particularly for latitudes south/north of 60N/S
I like the approach used by Nick Stokes and Clive Best. Use icosohedral binning to map the Earths surface as a grid of triangles of equal area. This removes the problem of weighting for latitude.
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9181
It still has the issue of describing the location of each triangle to the layman. If you want to find the triangle for your part of the globe, what do you look for?
It should not be beyond the wit of the coder to give latitude and longitude coordinates for the centre of each triangle.
aquerty…”Gordon
Please link to her claiming that we would all be dead by now.
If she has deleted it, you will have no problems finding it on Wayback Machine”.
***
I’m sure you’d have found it by now if it was there. Problem is, Google deletes any criticism of eco-weenies like Greta. So, I had to go to Yandex, who are remarkably open-minded compared to reports on Russian media.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-03-14-greta-thunberg-deletes-tweet-world-ending-2023.html
“In June 2018, the Swedish activist tweeted that a top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop fossil fuels over the next five years.
Here’s another beaut from the snotty-nosed rug-rat…
https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/world/greta-thunberg-calls-for-downfall-of-capitalism/
I saw her recently, scolding the rest of us for ruining her future.
This kid has an obvious vitamin deficiency. Would not surprise me in the least if she came out next week claiming to be a man.
The tweet does not say that humanity will be wiped out in 2023.
Jeez, can people not read?
“In June 2018, the Swedish activist tweeted that a top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop fossil fuels over the next five years.”
You quoted this, Gordon. Can you not understand it?
But what has happened here is that Gordon is uncritically parroting a talking-point from some conservative website. This talking point completely mischaracterises the tweet. That’s what these pits of disinformation do.
barry,
You wrote –
“The tweet does not say that humanity will be wiped out in 2023.”
That is why you cant describe the GHE, is it? Or are you just being an irrelevant dill for no reason at all?
Barry
An appearance by Flynn is always an acknowledgement that someone needed saving from their nonsense.
aq…”An appearance by Flynn is always an acknowledgement that someone needed saving from their nonsense”.
***
Who is Flynn? The lads just show up to have a laugh.
Then that would be a valid reason for me to “show up” without you crying about picked on, right? Are people not permitted to have a laugh at your expense? After all, you provide so much comedic material. Viz. the phases of the moon.
AQ,
You are free to comment as you wish, when you wish, and how you wish.
I do.
You can’t describe the GHE, so you might as well try to be to be annoying or gratuitously offensive, but it doesn’t look like yo have the talent.
Keep at it – you might get better.
Indeed I am. I don’t need your permission.
Am I free to attack Gordon as you and he attack me? Should I cease every time he starts bawling?
AQ,
You wrote –
“Indeed I am. I dont need your permission.
Am I free to attack Gordon as you and he attack me? Should I cease every time he starts bawling?”
You are most definitely deranged! Can’t you think for yourself, or are you really as lackin* in self esteem as you pretend?
You said you don’t need my permission, and then you start groveling, seeking my approval.
Grow a pair. Be a man. Stand up for yourself, and make your own decisions! You accept that you are powerless and ineffectual, but trying to get sympathy because you can’t help yourself being an idiot, is likely to generate more laughter than support.
Have you considered taking up trolling? Or do you think it would require more intelligence than you can muster? Maybe between you and the rest of the delusional SkyDragon cultists you could accumulate the IQ of a box of hair.
Only joking – you can’t add IQs any more than you can add unspecified fluxes.
Once again, Barry has managed to flip the quote to suit his narrative. I don’t care what it means, the point is, alarmists are conditioned to believe something drastic will happen if we don’t cut emissions immediately.
It would not be all that bad if Greta wasn’t also one of those paranoids who think the only solution for the future is to destroy western civilization and rob it of its assets to bail out Third World countries.
She’s a nut job, plain and simple, but I’ll bet Barry has a picture of her on his bedroom wall.
“Barry has managed to flip the quote to suit his narrative.”
No, the quote says what it says. It does not say what you said. You got it wrong. Man up.
“I don’t care what it means”
That may explain why you got it wrong.
Thunberg is over the top. You know who cares about her for one second in this forum? You.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Barry
An appearance by Flynn is always an acknowledgement that someone needed saving from their nonsense.”
What a witless attempt to draw attention away from the fact that neither barry not yourself can provide anything at all to contradict the hypothesis that the Earth’s surface was once molten, and has since cooled.
And no, I don’t have to “prove” it, any more than I have to “prove” the existence of gravity. On the other hand, without fools like the pair of you being able to even describe the “greenhouse effect”, such a thing obviously only exists in your fantasies.
You seem reluctant to accept that I am called Swenson, preferring to refer to me as a figment of your imagination, whom you no doubt can’t “prove” even exists! Shades of the incredibly inept and delusional Willard!
You’re an ignorant fool, in denial of fact. You might as well keep trying attention away from your stupidity. Your attempts may succeed with people even more stupid, but that is no great recommendation, is it?
[laughing at pretentious and foolish cultist]
” You seem reluctant to accept that I am called Swenson… ”
*
Flynnson, you are so stupid, or so bold, or both, that you cannot grasp the fact that so many people have been following your unscientific, aggressive, egomaniacal, and above all completely superfluous prose for many years.
It’s so easy to see that there’s no real difference between Mike Flynn’s and Swenson’s stuff!
“No GHE,” “4.5 billion years [since molten state],” “Some think CO2 when put between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter,” and a few other wonderful blooms make this abundantly clear.
Only uneducated or even brainless people would overlook such obvious evidence.
I have not done any analysis of what has been written in this blog behind the alias Amazed, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I saw a resemblance. Perhaps the pseudonym “Flynnamazon” then fits better in this case?
And… it’s also interesting that
– Mike Flynn disappeared just before Amazed walked in (only for a short time, what a shame)
and the
– Amazed, in turn, disappeared just before Swenson started posting his trash.
Binny,
Oh dear, are you annoyed because you can’t turn fiction into fact using your fantasy powers?
You wrote –
“Flynnson, you are so stupid, or so bold, or both, that you cannot grasp the fact that so many people have been following your unscientific, aggressive, egomaniacal, and above all completely superfluous prose for many years.”
So many people, you say. How many, do you think?
Actually, I don’t care. I leave seeking applause and worship to idiot SkyDragon cultists, who believe they can foresee the future, but can’t explain why they believe it.
It’s a good thing you have no power or influence of any sort. Do you think you could possibly perform you self proclaimed mind reading abilities to find a copy of a description of the GHE which agrees with fact, or is that too hard even for you?
If you do not care for any facts I might present, just ignore them. You could always present a contrary view, and provide alternative facts to support it. Only joking, you just whine, and do your best to deny, divert, and confuse.
There is no GHE, dummy. That’s why you can’t even describe it.
Psst, Mike Flynn –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Norman wrote –
“Swenson
Greta may change based on evidence but you cannot! Have you found any support for your false narrative that the Earth surface has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years? Roy Spencer blog you are posting to proves you wrong! Evidence means nothing to you does it?”
Norman, if you dont accept an hypothesis, you are quite at liberty to demonstrate that it is wrong, by reproducible experiment. The process is well known to scientists.
If you wish to believe something other than the Earths surface was originally molten (Hadean Eon), you are free to do so. Archbishop Ussher believed the Earth was created in 4004 BC. Lord Kelvin believed that the Earth could be no more than 40 million years old – and so on.
You can believe in the existence of phlogiston, caloric, the luminiferous ether – whatever you like. I dont need to convince you of anything, do I? You can work it out for yourself.
You cant even describe the GHE that you seem to believe in. That implies you are an anonymous religious fanatic, and quite delusional. Feel free to support any other conclusion.
Dingbat.
Don’t knock Archbishop Ussher.
He counted generations in the Bible to induce the time since the Creation. He got the beginning of the Universe wrong by 13.7 billion years, but he got the beginning of written records spot on.
He is a profound example of what happens when you try to use the bible as a science text. The bible is not a source of science knowledge.
Ussher made his calculation in 1601. At the time science was barely a concept and the Bible was the best historical data available. He did well with what he had.
Otherwise I agree with you. I spent many years teaching people who got their biology, geology and astronomy from the Bible. As one of them said, “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts!”
“the Bible was the best historical data available”
The Bible was just one source of anecdotal information available at the time.
I think the key word is “available”.
The Book of Numbers and other Old Testament genealogical data came originally from the Torah, which might go back as far as Abraham.
There might be some data from the Fertile Crescent, where cuneiform was invented. The only other good source I can think of is the Chinese, who have kept a government bureaucracy running for 3000 years. Neither would have been available to Ussher.
The world consists of more than just Europe.
Swenson
Seems like when you can’t come up with evidence to support your claims you just post nonsense. Look at Hawaii. The islands were molten rock 5 million years ago. They cooled from molten state many years ago. Is the surface still cooling now?
[[Due to the eruption of the Mauna Loa Volcano, measurements from Mauna Loa Observatory were suspended as of Nov. 29. Observations starting in December 2022 are from a site at the Maunakea Observatories, approximately 21 miles north of the Mauna Loa Observatory.]]
March 2023: 421.00 ppm
March 2022: 418.81 ppm
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Looks like it’s flattening.
But they could be measuring it wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHLafd2MU-k
“GREENHOUSE THEORY’S GREATEST WEAKNESS”
Jim Steele
Qualifications?
AQ,
And he should respond because . . . ?
I’m struggling to find the part where I said “you should respond”. Comprehension issues again? But he thanks you for diving in to save him again.
AQ,
I agree you are struggling. You asked a question, unless you have redefined a word followed by a question mark to be “not a question”.
Idiotic SkyDragon cultists often try to appear clever by being obscure, and then whine that they are misunderstood.
By the way, have you managed to provide a description of the GHE, or have you given up due to such a description being non-existent? About as impossible as providing a copy of Gavin Schmidt’s “climate scientist” qualifications (mythical), or Michael (Fraud, Faker, Scofflaw and Deadbeat) Mann’s Nobel Prize (imaginary).
Not doing too well with answers? Gee, maybe you should try a diversion – bang on about irrelevant things like “weighting”, and demonstrate appalling ignorance of non-Euclidean geometry.
Carry on being an idiot troll. No facts will be affected.
Mike Flynn,
Sierra Jim’s best qualification is that he’s playing Climateball like a boss:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/like-a-boss/
2016. Time flies.
“Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalists Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition. He shares his expertise regards climate change, ecology, and environmental stewardship.”
So unqualified in radiative physics then.
AQ,
Would these be some sort of “radiative physics” appearing in the description of the GHE, or the “radiative physics” which so-called “climate scientists” like Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann etc., are totally unqualified in?
Which sort of “radiative physics” was involved in the four and a half billion years of the Earth’s cooling, do you think?
You don’t to seem to know what you are talking about. Maybe you mean “radiation physics”, and its underlying theoretical basis? Maybe all you can do is parrot sciency sounding jargon – things like “forcing”, “back radiation”, “global surface temperature”, “positive feedback” – and all the rest of the nonsense.
Troll away.
Rules out Michael Mann then.
Swenson,
“Which sort of radiative physics was involved in the four and a half billion years of the Earths cooling, do you think?”
So what was the temperature of the Earth before 4 1/2 billion years ago, you know it’s older than that, don’t you?
The surface of the Earth cooled from its molten state, due to the collision with another planet sized body by radiating away the heat.
That kind of radiative physics.
Until the surface was nearly completely frozen over with glaciers nearly to the equator on two or maybe three occasions.
From which it has had periods of warming or cooling on various time frames.
Even you say it warms during the day and cools at night, contradicting another claim of yours that it has only cooled.
Alas, the “argument from authority ” is only valid when the source is actually an authority on the subject under discussion.
Rules out Michael Mann then.
https://www.youtube.com/@jimsteele9246/videos
Thanks for the link. I learned a lot about how ocean temperatures flow.
Imagine knowing nothing about a subject, for which expert opinion is diverse, and ‘learning’ about it by reading only one extreme end of the spectrum of opinion, an outlier opinion.
Of course that is choice some make, to feed one’s own biases.
Does his argument make sense? If it does then that is his qualification.
His arguments do not make sense. That is a disqualification.
IYHO of course.
For example. His description of the behaviour of energy absorbed by the sea surface from DWLWR is in error. It does not all radiate immediately. Some transfers by conduction warming the air above the surface film and the water below.
He is also mistaken about the mechanism by which DWLWR affects the temperature of the bulk ocean .There is a small amount of direct warming of the surface film. The larger effect is that because the surface film becomes slightly warmer than the water below, the film acts as a barrier slowing heat flow from ocean to atmosphere and raising the equilibrium ocean temperature.
Jim Steele?
Oh, that is the guy who claims that not climate change is responsible for coral bleaching, but… sea level falling!
Ha ha ha haaah.
Sea level falling at the Great Barrier Reef? That is really the very best.
Let us look at some PSMSL tide gauges located in the near of it.
Here are the trends for the satellite era (PSMSL id, first resp. last reporting year, name, lat, long, trend without resp. with vertical land movement correction (VLM) ):
0953 | 1960 | 2020 | CAIRNS____________ | -16.92 | 145.78 | 33.57 | 18.53
1397 | 1976 | 2018 | PAPEETE-B_________ | -17.53 | -149.57 | 6.96 | 9.03
1629 | 1985 | 2020 | MOURILYAN_HARBOUR_ | -17.58 | 146.08 | 33.96 | 35.00
0637 | 1959 | 2022 | TOWNSVILLE_I______ | -19.25 | 146.83 | 44.45 | 14.42
1492 | 1992 | 2022 | CAPE_FERGUSON_____ | -19.28 | 147.06 | 43.62 | 42.73
1569 | 1983 | 2018 | SHUTE_HARBOUR_2___ | -20.28 | 148.78 | 33.88 | 18.34
0564 | 1960 | 2020 | MACKAY____________ | -21.10 | 149.23 | 43.08 | 13.62
1246 | 1969 | 2020 | HAY_POINT_________ | -21.28 | 149.30 | 40.96 | 26.06
1760 | 1993 | 2022 | ROSSLYN_BAY_______ | -23.16 | 150.79 | 43.39 | 43.76
2072 | 1986 | 2020 | PORT_ALMA_________ | -23.58 | 150.87 | 35.72 | 25.80
0825 | 1978 | 2020 | GLADSTONE_________ | -23.85 | 151.31 | 44.00 | 24.87
We see that most gauges have a VLM trend being lower than that without VLM: this means that the portion of the Australian coast shows subsidence. Means not the sea level falls, but the land.
Typical nonsense.
1397 | 1976 | 2018 | PAPEETE-B_________ | -17.53 | -149.57 | 6.96 | 9.03
This is a mistake of course. Shouldn’t belong to the list.
Texas A&M University – Atmospheric Sciences
https://atmo.tamu.edu/about/faculty-statement-climate-change/index.html
1) We are in a 40-60 year warming trend.
2) Any human contribution to recent warming is transitory, as is any warming from natural factors, such as solar variability, unforced variability, or volcanic activity during this period.
3) The most likely scenario for the future is that a cooling trend will follow. Some evidence exists that this current warming trend has already peaked.
Sources?
Anecdotes are not data.
Start with UAH data at top.
didn’t think so.
Reality can be a bitch, huh?
Clint R
Are you the only one who still doesn’t know that UAH LT (though only in revision 6.0) is an absolute outlier?
I’m sorry for you…
Have you ever compared all these time series? I think no.
Yes Bin, making false accusations is indeed trolling. That’s what you do so well.
Your cult has flunked both science and personal integrity. But your failed attempts to pervert reality are always fun.
TM,
You quoted –
“Our best estimate is that humans are responsible for most or all of this warming.”
Seems fair to me. No GHE necessary.
I note that your quote does not mention the GHE, CO2, or H2O.
Did you intentionally choose that quote to support me?
“2) Our best estimate is that humans are responsible for most or all of this warming. Natural factors, such as solar variability, unforced variability, or volcanic activity, have likely had little cumulative effect over this period.”
Our best estimate is that natural variability is responsible for most or all of this warming. Evidence is needed to state otherwise and there is none. As you stated, anecdote doesn’t cut it.
“Our best estimate is…”
Source?
Who’s we?
That’s the accumulated knowledge from watching countless Youtube presentations and reading hundreds of papers on the subject.
You’ve read hundreds of papers and yet you can’t provide one source?
https://www.scirp.org/html/3217.html
Why do you keep citing non-luckwarmers, Gill?
The entire topic global warming is based upon proxies of temperature records.
For instance we are in what is call the Holocene interglacial period- and record of past glaciation period and interglacial period.
Things like the Holocene was not as warm as past interglacial periods in which sea levels rose meters higher than present sea levels and during glaciation periods there were colder periods than the present global temperature. This evidence past human settlement well below current sea level. Evidence of ice sheet no evidence found of ice sheets before our present Ice Age.
You offer our own theory and evidence or cite some one else. I can point to someone who it can explain by changing amounts atmosphere if want to believe that.
But I think the Little Ice Age is generally accepted and I don’t think our atmosphere has change much since that time.
Akasofu is one of the major authorities for many. Especially people like Robertson never stop to appeal to his authority.
I found in a first reading interesting things (page 1214-15).
*
1. ” The linear trend of the recovery from the LIA can also be seen in sea level changes (Jevreje[v]a et al.)
Figure 2(c) shows the global sea level from 1800.
{ tinyurl.com/3zujxeeh }
It is clear that the sea level began to increase in about 1850
and continued rising almost linearly to the present. ”
*
Firstly, Jewrejeva’s evaluation of tide gauges is highly questionable, and was subject to many criticisms. Especially her anomaly construction based of such a simplistic method as the so-called ‘first difference’ makes professionals’ hair stand on end.
Moreover, the first really reliable tide gauges were Brest (France, 1807), Swinoujscie (Poland, 1811), Sheerness (UK, 1832), Cuxhaven (Germany, 1843), Maassluis (Netherlands, 1848), San Francisco (US, 1854), Warnemuende (Germany, 1855), New York (US, 1856), etc.
45 of the 50 oldest tide gauges (starts between 1807 and 1887) were in Europe, most of them in Sweden and Germany.
This gives a clear indication of how ‘reliable’ any global sea level assessment will be when starting around 1800, let alone in 1700!
That is the reason why most recent evaluation no longer process data anterior to 1900.
**
2. ” There is no accurate Arctic Ocean data until satellite observations became available in the 1970s. The only long-term observation of sea ice is available from the Norwegian Sea. Figure 2(d) shows changes in the southern edge of sea ice in the Norwegian Sea.
It has been receding from about 1800 to the present at almost the
same rate (Vinje). In the lower part, satellite data are shown. ”
*
Interesting!
What about reading
Observed sea ice extent in the Russian Arctic, 19332006
Andrew R. Mahoney, Roger G. Barry, Vasily Smolyanitsky, Florence Fetterer (2008)
https://tinyurl.com/nhk6n3wa
or simply looking at the HadISST1 ICE data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ebdqPl_tmxazXAMchHEU87zVvvPdonef/view
**
After reading just a page of Akasofu’s prose, I find that he is as happy to use unreliable data analysis as he is to leave it out – depending on whether it fits his narrative.
That does not motivate very much to read further.
*
HadISST1 ICE source:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/data/download.html
Bindidon it makes sense in Akasofu’s view that significant sealevel rise began in the mid-19th century as this is the acknowledged end of the LIA.
Up until then the preponderance of evidence suggested sealevel was falling due to glacial increases. The preponderance of evidence also shows that glacial decreases were greatest in the latter half of the 19th century slowing in the early 20th century then accelerating again. If the pattern continues glacial decreases are apt to slow over the next few decades. Many glaciers already show that explaining the massive decrease in alarming studies of shrinking glaciers in all parts of the world. Instead the focus has narrowed to a few more behemoth glaciers like West Antartica and the largest glacier in Greenland that simply by its mass is more resistant to change. If that proves out to be true is hard to say as there probably isn’t any reliable data on these glaciers in the 19th century to gain an understanding of natural variation patterns.
then of course you throw in some Greenland glaciers that in the 21st century retreated far enough to uncover Viking farms 800 to 1200 years old showing these Glaciers to be within the ranges of normal climate variation.
https://climateball.net/but-this-odd-place/#greenland
Willard says:
”Why do you keep citing non-luckwarmers, Gill?”
Akasofu clearly acknowledges warming is occurring Willard. He also isn’t denying human interference in the climate.
Akasofu just makes the elementary observation that to understand the human interference in climate you first must understand how climate changes naturally. In addition he supports the view using the same science that CAGW scientists have proposed. . . .hundreds of years of feedback, and clear and abundant empirical evidence of significant global cooling during the LIA.
When he wrote this mainstream science was politically aligned with Al Gore’s inconvenient truth and the attempts of that film to make a lot of science go away in claiming no significant climate change for thousands of years. That claim is no longer made as it never had any basis. When was the last time you heard a so-called credible source make that claim? I haven’t heard it for at least 10 years.
Gill, Gill,
Even Sky Dragon cranks admit that warming is occuring.
That’s the GW part.
Please.
who said there was no warming occurring? I mean sky dragon cranks, cargo cultists, and mainstream science are hand in hand believing warming is happening.
Here’s some evidence. Sorry about the presentation, but the data is sound.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
The problem with the natural variation hypothesis is that all the natural variations are small and together would cause slow cooling.
The two artificial variations, GHGs and land use generate a predicted warming which matches observations.
No offense, but I prefer IPCC AR6.
Which part of IPCC AR6 do you prefer? The executive summary or the main body of the work?
Not as concise. AR6 covers the ground better, but not in a single simple graphic.
AR6, Chapter 3, titled Human Influence on the Climate System, is required reading for anyone [Ken] making the extraordinary claim that “natural variability is responsible for most or all of this warming.”
Can Ken provide references disproving any of the research in chapter 3?
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
”Can Ken provide references disproving any of the research in chapter 3?”
Obviously you don’t understand how science works. Science can’t disprove the claim God Exists. Nor any similar such claim.
God is not natural variability, Gill.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Willard says:
God is not natural variability, Gill.
———————–
How do you know Willard?
The problem with your theory here on natural variation resulting in cooling falls flat on its face with the first claim on deforestation.
The claim is that deforestation results in a lighter surface and thus reflects more light.
a) per Stefan Boltzmann equations the reflection of light has no effect on an equilibrium temperature.
b) there are more impacts from deforestation, the largest being if we accept CO2 as a warming influence, deforestation greatly diminishes CO2 uptake. Sustainably harvested forests don’t necessarily have a great impact as older trees are removed that reduces trees dying and rotting on the forest floor but as we can see from tree rings growth accelerates as a tree gets larger thus carbon uptake accelerates. Some arguments are made but not scientifically supported that mature forests are carbon neutral. That of course is unfounded as the great oil reserves at least in major part comes from the sequestration of carbon uptaken by by ancient forests. Did physics and chemistry change some time in the near past and that is no longer the case?
You can’t just start waving your arms and dismissing natural climate change. The challenge here is to actually do the science to establish the right of the plutocracy to use regulation to make it more difficult for the least fortunate by allowing the elite to both profit while the poor suffer.
Climate change needs to proven to be from CO2 first and just saying it is by fiat does not provide justification for allowing the use of carbon just because you are rich or well enough off that you feel an increase in carbon prices is something you personally can afford.
This kind of draconian oppression seems to always rise in affluent societies. Democracy has its limits and such democracy needs to be held to spend their money to improve science, fire the institutions advocating shortcuts for their own benefits, improve the civil service and bring sanity back.
I would make it simpler, all climate projection have been wrong and IPCC, no one can predict the future global temperature.
What could be the reason other than unpredictable natural variability.
So all they can do is provide “projections” rather than prediction.
No can say how much warming is from CO2. And CO2 increase in theory
water vapor. How much from CO2 and how much from H20?
If anyone knew this there would just one projection- host of them and all wrong.
Indeed gbaikie. Certified Public Accountants are prohibited from predicting in their public attestation role. They are allowed to project, if and only if such projections are accompanied with disclaimers.
Science doesn’t know where the line is. Neither do CPAs. It all subjective and varies wildly depending upon the plethora of motivations, especially pecuniary interests, of the individual.
“per Stefan Boltzmann equations the reflection of light has no effect on an equilibrium temperature.”
*facepalm*
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is based on blackbodies, which neither reflect nor transmit light. This law does not even consider reflection and transmission.
Yes, the albedo of an object makes a difference to its equilibrium temperature. A black surface in the sun will be warmer than a white surface of the same material in the sun, for example, because the white surface reflects much of the sunlight striking it.
Not only is this so in physics, it’s part of our everyday experience.
What a daft comment you made, Bill.
“3) On our current trajectory, the increase in global average temperature this century will exceed the Paris Agreements goal of staying well below 3.6F.”
The rationale for Paris Agreement goal has never made any sense. Humans flourish when climate is warmer. There is anecdotal evidence from history that civilizations rise when climate warms and fall when climate cools.
ken…”The rationale for Paris Agreement goal has never made any sense”.
***
That’s because it’s not about global warming or climate change, it’s about the UN’s lifelong mission to get money from wealthy countries and transfer it to poorer countries. Ideally, they’d want to be the top dog, running the show.
Mayans – drought from excessive logging is the leading theory.
Drought is a leading cause of civilizational collapse. Akkadians experienced 300 years of drought when the ME warmed several thousand years ago.
It is not that the climate changes, it is the things affected by a changing climate that cause the collapse. Hot temperatures didn’t kill of the Akkadian civilization, but the mega-droughts that came as a result is what immediately caused the collapse.
“Continued increases of atmospheric and oceanic temperatures present the risk of serious challenges to human society and ecosystems. It is difficult to quantify such challenges, except to say that the potential magnitudes of impacts increase rapidly as the magnitude of global warming increases.”
Evidence is required to support extraoridnary claims like this.
The geological and historical data show the earth has been warmer for most of the past ten thousand years than it is now. There were only serious challenges to human society and ecosystems when the climate dramatically cooled as it did at the start of the little ice age. An example is the famine of 1315 – 1317 where Europe lost a third of its population.
Global warming is mostly about higher global water vapor.
One could start with a question- and if can’t answer it, you know nothing. Where on Earth would you get the highest increase in global water vapor.
Is it uniform. Has been uniform. Has been more somewhere and will continue to have more in future.
Anyhow California drought is over, and no one predicted it.
“The geological and historical data show the earth has been warmer for most of the past ten thousand years than it is now.”
Untrue. There is no reputable source for this. It is possible the globe was warmer just after the climb out of the last glacial period 9000 years ago, but since then it likely has been cooler than present most if not all of the time. The globe was warmer in the previous interglacial 120,000 years ago.
The biggest climate change human civilization witnessed was the drying of the Sahara Desert.
It seems the biggest climate change we could ever witness again, it the greening of the Sahara desert, again.
Though humans might spend hundreds of billion of dollars to make the Sahara desert green, again.
And could be a good investment to make happen.
Remind me to advise anyone planning to attend Texas A&M University Atmospheric Sciences, to find a better university.
Whatever it takes to separate the wheat from chaff.
Texas A&M University Atmospheric Sciences should be closed for not teaching scientific method.
It seems that my post has struck a nerve; it hit a vein.
Good old dad used to say: If you can’t run with the big dogs you’d better stay on the porch.
Tyson gives a hip hip hooray for plutocracy.
Reject ESG.
ESG stands for Environmental, Social, and Governance, and it refers to a set of criteria that companies use to measure and report on their performance in areas such as sustainability, ethical behavior, and corporate governance.
Criteria set by whom and measured by what?
Ayuh. It means banks are not lending to oil companies and are thereby distorting the economy, causing inflation, and ignoring fiduciary duties.
The ‘woke”green’ policies are destroying the value of the dollar. The countries who have accepted US dollar as global reserve currency are looking to use a currency that isn’t being devalued so rapidly by stupid policies. When (not if) the US dollar is replaced, there will be trillions of worthless dollars flowing back to USA. There will be a sovereign debt crisis.
80% of countries are considering to use BRICS as reserve currency including Saudi Arabia and Mexico. Who can blame them? There is no incentive to trade hard commodeties and goods for currency for currency when US government is printing trillions.
Therefore reject ESG before the US currency is forced to collapse because of it.
Sounds like you “reject ESG” based on your politics. Can you even list one criterion of ESG?
You are one of those people who blows out the candle and then sits there cursing the dark.
“Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing refers to a set of standards for a companys behavior used by socially conscious investors to screen potential investments.”
“Environmental criteria consider how a company safeguards the environment, including corporate policies addressing climate change, for example.”
“Social criteria examine how it manages relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, and the communities where it operates.”
“Governance deals with a companys leadership, executive pay, audits, internal controls, and shareholder rights.”
We can stop here. we know climate change is about fairy dust and unicorns. When a company focuses on Climate change claptrap we know its ignorning its fiduciary responsibilities.
Shareholder rights is all about corporate fiduciary responsibility.
ESG is a socialist construct that has nothing to do with rights and freedoms and everything to do with trying to force others to conform to your socialist agenda that you cannot force through into law in any place that still actually abides by democratic principles.
An example is a company like say Air BnB refusing service to the parents of someone whose political opinion the Air BnB management disagrees with. This isn’t about democratic governance. Its about managing relationships they don’t like instead of engaging in fairness in the provision of service to anyone. ‘Othering’ on the basis of political opinion is socialism at its worst.
> This isnt about democratic governance.
You must be confused once again, Kennui.
Why are you ranting against corporations?
How ESG works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVUEUJxXxEM&ab_channel=FoxNews
How Freedom Fighters still brown nose corporations even after they realize they’re anti-democratic:
https://youtu.be/Y888wVY5hzw
How ESG works part II:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/did-esg-help-sink-svb-progressive-climate-bank-bailout-federal-reserve-treasury-biden-insurance-9db64b0b
ESG at work part III
https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/features/could-western-investors-esg-strategies-keep-the-lights-off-in-africa/
Reject ESG.
ESG at work part IV … what happens when government gets infected with ESG radicals.
Steven Guilbeault recently tweeted: “Inflation can be tough on Canadians but we can’t neglect the climate crisis. Future generations will bear the cost of inaction”
He apparently deleted the tweet once he realized how negligent he is regarding his role as MP and Minister of Environment. Its malfeasance.
The fact is that Steven Guilbeault is a radical.
He is a true believer and thinks that everything is justified in the name of fighting climate change.
If your family has to get screwed over financially, it doesnt matter to him so long as Canada is taking climate action.
Hes willing to destroy tons of jobs, alienate entire provinces and regions, enrich the energy sectors of hostile foreign powers, and ruin Canadas economic prospects, all to fulfill his radical ideological vision and impose that vision on the rest of us.
This ‘imposing of his vision on the rest of us’ is the naked face of ESG.
If I had a rocket launcher some son of bitch would die.
Ken,
In the USA, more people are killed with hammers than assault rifles and rocket launchers combined.
Just a hint.
Mike Flynn,
There are less people named “Mike Flynn” than people not named “Mike Flynn.”
Just a hint.
Ken, again with the politics and the culture wars!
I couldn’t give two flying f***s about Air BnB.
I look at ESG from an Engineer’s point of view.
The Engineer’s Code of Ethics includes principles that encourage engineers to prioritize the health, safety, and welfare of the public, as well as the protection of the environment. In this way, the Engineers’ Code of Ethics is closely aligned with the ESG framework, as both aim to promote responsible and sustainable business practices.
However I know from experience that engineers experience conflict between the requirements of the employer on the one hand and their responsibility to society on the other.
The ESG framework levels the playing field so that all projects are evaluated based on the same criteria. Whether my project is in Brazil or West Texas I have the reasonable expectation that I will not be outbid by a competitor who cuts corners in his waste handling facilities for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment
Has been very effective in some notable cases, like the ending of Apartheid in South Africa.
“The Engineers Code of Ethics includes principles that encourage engineers to prioritize the health, safety, and welfare of the public, as well as the protection of the environment. In this way, the Engineers Code of Ethics is closely aligned with the ESG framework, as both aim to promote responsible and sustainable business practices.”
This is how ESG is sold: the alleged aim is to promote responsible and sustainable business practices.
Except it isn’t working that way. Its not responsible or sustainable to deny coal fired electricity to people who have not enough access to light up an electric light bulb.
Its not responsible or sustainable to say that there is climate change due to combustion of fossil fuels despite the lack of evidence and then deny services such as banking to business that can’t operate without fossil fuels.
Its not responsible or sustainable to distort an economy on the basis of ESG principles when it undermines the economy to the point of economic collapse.
Its not responsible or sustainable to take away access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels without there being a viable (key word viable) alternative. ‘Green’ is not viable; in fact ‘Green’ energy is more detrimental to the environment than any fossil fuel industry. Even hydro is not viable unless you have the geography.
“Its not responsible or sustainable to say that there is climate change due to combustion of fossil fuels despite the lack of evidence ”
C’mon Ken, you can’t possibly still be denying that there is strong evidence?
“Green is not viable; in fact Green energy is more detrimental to the environment than any fossil fuel industry.”
And where could you possibly have gotten that ridiculous idea?
Newscorp.
Coal and oil: friends of the environment?
“Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can accumulate in fish to levels of concern for human health and the health of fish-eating wildlife. Mercury contamination of fish is the primary reason for issuing fish consumption advisories, which exist in every State in the Nation. Much of the mercury in the environment originates from combustion of COAL”
https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/mercury#:~:text=Mercury%20is%20emitted%20by%20natural,%2C%20industrial%20uses%2C%20and%20mining.
“Most of the sulfur dioxide released into the environment comes from electric utilities, especially those that burn coal. Some other sources of sulfur dioxide include petroleum refineries, cement manufacturing, paper pulp manufacturing, and metal smelting and processing facilities. Locomotives, large ships, and some non-road diesel equipment currently burn high-sulfur fuel and release sulfur dioxide into the air. In nature, volcanic eruptions can release sulfur dioxide into the air.”
“Short-term exposure to high levels of sulfur dioxide can be life-threatening. Generally, exposures can cause a burning sensation in the nose and throat. Also, exposure can cause difficulty breathing, including changes in the body’s ability to take a breath or breathe deeply, or take in as much air per breath. Long-term exposure to sulfur dioxide can cause changes in lung function and aggravate existing heart disease.
Sulfur dioxide dissolves easily in water to form sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is a major component of acid rain. Acid rain can damage forests and crops, change the acidity of soils, and make lakes and streams acidic and unsuitable for fish. Sulfur dioxide also contributes to the decay of building materials and paints, including monuments and statues.
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/sulfurdioxide.htm#:~:text=Most%20of%20the%20sulfur%20dioxide,metal%20smelting%20and%20processing%20facilities.
Yes TM, your pathetic quotes did seem like you were slitting your wrists.
No harm done, I hope. Your cult’s meltdown is just starting. Hang in there.
Hey, Pup.
Here’s you with NOTHING:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/comet-ison-time-lapse-video-take-2/
You didn’t told us you liked astrology!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I missed the discussions earlier about Jim Steele’s “GREENHOUSE THEORY’S GREATEST WEAKNESS”
Unfortunately he makes the same mistake as many. His version of the “theory” has the same gap. Sun warms Earth’s surface, and the emitted infrared warms the atmosphere. That’s all true. It’s the Sun, stupid.
But, the missing gap is how does CO2 in the atmosphere then warm the surface?
The answer is, or course, it can’t. CO2’s 15μ photons have less energy than those emitted at the spectrum peak from an ice cube.
That’s why this is so much fun.
> the missing gap is how does CO2 in the atmosphere then warm the surface?
No it doesn’t, Pupmaster Troll, and no it isn’t.
Will this absolute idiocy finally stop one day?
Like H2O, CO2 does not ‘warm the atmosphere’.
These gases help reduce IR emissions from the Earth’s surface into space. And compared to H2O, the contribution of CO2 is still anything but high.
But Clint R doesn’t believe it, of course, as he’s ‘convinced’ that CO2 is more likely to magically transform atmospheric heat into infrared radiation and hence contributes to global cooling instead.
As we know, Clint R ‘knows’.
*
Hint
CO2 indeed contributes to cooling: in the mesosphere and the thermosphere.
A model estimate of cooling in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere due to the CO 2 Increase over the last 3-4 decades
Akmaev, Fomichev (2000)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252661005_A_model_estimate_of_cooling_in_the_mesosphere_and_lower_thermosphere_due_to_the_CO_2_Increase_over_the_last_3-4_decades
OMG! I have overlooked: it’s model-based.
Vade retro, Satanas!
Oops?!
” Like H2O, CO2 does not ‘warm the atmosphere’. ”
should read
Like H2O, CO2 does not ‘warm the surface’.
Its not that simple Bindidon.
CO2 has only one weak capability to warm the surface and only to equilibrium.
Water has a much more capable of way of doing the same thing. But water also has a chemical phase change occurring that isn’t necessarily limited to the rules of thermodynamics.
In fact even mainstream science ascribes to the viewpoint that water is absolutely necessary for any substantial warming. Connecting CO2 to increases in water vapor therefore is critical to the theory.
There is even some science that demonstrates that CO2 can have effects on the amount of water vapor.
As a result the majority of scientists believe CO2 can cause some temperature rise but among them there is virtually no agreement by how much. Those that band around the mid point of the modeling exercise do so entirely politically and do so ignorantly because the only reason to is to advocate for action.
And I say ignorantly I mean there is practically no group of people more isolated from what matters as are physicists.
> Connecting CO2 to increases in water vapor therefore is critical to the theory.
Gill, Gill,
Put water in a kettle.
Find a way for the kettle to gain energy.
Watch and observe.
Please.
All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesnt seem to apply at night, does it? Or over the past four and half billion years, or during winter or during a solar eclipse . . .
Fourier was right – during the night the surface loses all the heat of they, plus a little of its remnant heat.
All the idiot GHE believers here can do is accuse me of being someone else – a fat lot of good that will do them!
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Witless Wee Willy,
Thanks for asking, donkey.
All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesnt seem to apply at night, does it? Or over the past four and half billion years, or during winter or during a solar eclipse . . .
Fourier was right during the night the surface loses all the heat of they, plus a little of its remnant heat.
All the idiot GHE believers here can do is accuse me of being someone else a fat lot of good that will do them!
What are you braying about, Mike?
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Cheers.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Glad you asked. donkey,
All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesn’t seem to apply at night, does it? Or over the past four and half billion years, or during winter or during a solar eclipse . . .
Fourier was right during the night the surface loses all the heat of they, plus a little of its remnant heat.
All the idiot GHE believers here can do is accuse me of being someone else a fat lot of good that will do them!
” All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesn’t seem to apply at night, does it? ”
*
As usual, Flynnson is screwing the blog by posting his stupid crap again. Slowly but surely he manages to beat every onanist.
So, according to the ‘genius’ Flynnson, the Earth doesn’t emit IR at night, which puts the poor GHE gases H2O, CO2 and a few others out of work until sunrise, doesn’t it?
Aha.
Let’s take a quick look at the SURFRAD stations in the US which continuously observe downwelling and upwelling solar and IR.
1. Fort Peck, Montana
https://i.postimg.cc/YCPR4g67/SURFRAD-Fort-Peck-MT-upwelling-IR-050423.png
2. Goodwin Creek, Mississippi
https://i.postimg.cc/sXhYqDNR/SURFRAD-Godwin-Creek-MS-upwelling-IR-050423.png
We can clearly see that the IR upwelling does by no means drop to zero at night.
*
{ Perhaps the ‘ingenious’ Flynnson recently discovered that GHE gas molecules are all sleeping at night? Who knows? }
*
Unfortunately, there are no SURFRAD stations in the Tropics, let alone at the Poles, which would give us interesting comparisons with these US stations located between 30N and 50N.
*
And let’s not forget the lesson of this ‘scientifically oh so perfectly trained teacher’:
” Earth surface has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years. ”
To be honest, I’m literally ‘Amazed’.
*
Fourier was a real genius and a great science man – unlike the dumb Flynnson.
Unfortunately, he did not have the necessary measuring instruments.
Bindidon, FYI, there are some other active stations with current data at high latitudes:
https://bsrn.awi.de/nc/stations/maps/
since you like working with data, you might try thar for Point Barrow, Alaska or Ny-lesund, Spitsbergen:
https://bsrn.awi.de/fileadmin/user_upload/bsrn.awi.de/_processed_/0/e/csm_BSRN-Station-Arctic_4b32510b79.png
E. Swanson
I didn’t watch this thread’s corner.
Thanks for the reply.
Until now I didn’t process any SURFRAD data: I just posted their plots.
This here
https://bsrn.awi.de/nc/stations/maps/
I never saw before. Sounds interesting.
Hunter boy
” CO2 has only one weak capability to warm the surface and only to equilibrium.
Water has a much more capable of way of doing the same thing. ”
*
Again you show the typical behavior of Pseudoskeptics: all are unable to read because they merely scan documents for the presence of what they discredit or the absence of what they want to see.
If you would have read my comment instead of blindly searching for keys in it, you would have seen:
” And compared to H2O, the contribution of CO2 is still anything but high. ”
*
If you had saved yourself your redundant answer, you would have saved me the work of reading and answering it.
So what was the point of your post Bindidon? You didn’t appear to be refuting anything.
“CO2s 15μ photons have less energy ”
Go ahead and walk through this CO2 laser beam, Clint:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Carbon_Dioxide_Laser_At_The_Laser_Effects_Test_Facility.jpg/600px-Carbon_Dioxide_Laser_At_The_Laser_Effects_Test_Facility.jpg
Its photons are too low in energy to hurt you!
Troll Nate, this is another example of why you’re braindead. This has been explained to you numerous times, but you can’t understand it.
There are NO lasers in the sky.
Maybe that’s simple enough for you?
“There are NO lasers in the sky.”
Indeed so, as the CO2 emitted photons in the laser dramatically illustrated, the fact that
“CO2s 15μ photons have less energy”
did not stop them from being abs.orbed by a surface, adding to the internal energy of that surface, and thus warming it.
Oh well. You are wrong once again.
Correct Nate, there are no lasers in the sky. Hopefully you will remember that, rather than making a fool of yourself, again.
But that’s not likely, huh?
bill h…”Which part of IPCC AR6 do you prefer? The executive summary or the main body of the work?”
***
There’s no difference, Bill. The Summary is released before the main body and before the main body is released, it is amended to fit the Summary. Those who write the main body reports can complain but it generally falls on deaf ears.
That’s why the IPCC is corrupt. The Summary is written by 50 politically-appointed Lead Authors who have the power to amend the main report.
Above the Lead Author category is the Coordinating Lead Author position and we saw that power abused in the Climategate email scandal. One of them, Phil Jones of Had-crut, bragged that he and a fellow CLA (Kevin) would see to it that certain papers from skeptics would not reach the review stage. One of those papers was co-authored by John Christy of UAH.
C’mon, Bordo.
You still can’t get your “but Emails” Bingo square straight.
Phil wasn’t referring to any of JohnC’s papers.
Twas another contrarian duo.
Yes corruption is pervasive in molding science opinions to conform to a political consensus. But useful information is left in there for careful readers willing to wade through all the information and put it in context by reading the underlying studies as well.
Might as well repeat myself.
All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesnt seem to apply at night, does it? Or over the past four and half billion years, or during winter or during a solar eclipse . . .
Fourier was right during the night the surface loses all the heat of they, plus a little of its remnant heat.
All the idiot GHE believers here can do is accuse me of being someone else a fat lot of good that will do them!
Mike Flynn,
We already been over that silly talking point:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/22/science-uncertainty-and-advocacy/#comment-713525
Wandering Wee Willy,
What are you braying about, you donkey?
Maybe somebody cares about what you “already been over”, but you can’t name him, can you?
Just in case somebody missed me repeating myself, here it is again –
All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesnt seem to apply at night, does it? Or over the past four and half billion years, or during winter or during a solar eclipse . . .
Fourier was right during the night the surface loses all the heat of they, plus a little of its remnant heat.
All the idiot GHE believers here can do is accuse me of being someone else a fat lot of good that will do them!
Keep calling me Mike Flynn if you like. It makes you look delusional and desperate, but who cares? Not you, obviously.
Mike, Mike,
Why would anyone accuse of being anyone else than Mike Flynn?
We all know you are Mike Flynn.
As for your eternal sammich –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Enjoy.
Wandering Wee Willy,
What are you braying about, you donkey?
Maybe somebody cares about what you “already been over”, but you can’t name him, can you?
Just in case somebody missed me repeating myself, here it is again
All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesnt seem to apply at night, does it? Or over the past four and half billion years, or during winter or during a solar eclipse . . .
Fourier was right during the night the surface loses all the heat of they, plus a little of its remnant heat.
All the idiot GHE believers here can do is accuse me of being someone else a fat lot of good that will do them!
Keep calling me Mike Flynn if you like. It makes you look delusional and desperate, but who cares? Not you, obviously.
Theoretically there is someone somewhere in the world who looks just like another, has all the same red-herring obsessions, uses identical catch-phrases, has the same tendency to incessantly repeat these catch-phrases, has an equal mastery of strawmen, and has the same inability to learn.
So yeah, there is a tiny but non-negligible chance that he is not Mike Flynn, but is his doppelganger.
Notwithstanding the same business hours, Nate!
Leave it to Willard to fully investigate the issue down to an analysis of business hours in the desperate attempt to sling an ad hominem that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the topic of the debate. Boy I bet you come up with a whole passel of conspiracy theories using that type of investigative technique. The total inapplicability of your efforts suggests you are also an Area 51 nutcase.
Gill, Gill,
Twas MarkB’s.
Don’t you remember anything?
Please.
wee willy…”Ive been wondering which of CE or WUWT is the better place for Mike to play his cute little game of rejecting elementary physics…”
***
1)you lack the background to recognize elementary physics.
2)Whoever Mike is, he likely would not have to deal with the same set of alarmist idiots at WUWT.
Come on, Bordo.
You still are putting words in my mouth.
And Mike Flynn is the beloved Sky Dragon crank we all know and love.
Just in case the dumb Flynnson missed me repeating myself, here it is again.
*
” All this nonsense about CO2 stopping energy from being radiated to space from the surface doesn’t seem to apply at night, does it? ”
*
As usual, Flynnson is screwing the blog by posting his stupid crap again. Slowly but surely he manages to beat every onanist.
So, according to the ‘genius’ Flynnson, the Earth doesn’t emit IR at night, which puts the poor GHE gases H2O, CO2 and a few others out of work until sunrise, doesn’t it?
Aha.
Let’s take a quick look at the SURFRAD stations in the US which continuously observe downwelling and upwelling solar and IR.
1. Fort Peck, Montana
https://i.postimg.cc/YCPR4g67/SURFRAD-Fort-Peck-MT-upwelling-IR-050423.png
2. Goodwin Creek, Mississippi
https://i.postimg.cc/sXhYqDNR/SURFRAD-Godwin-Creek-MS-upwelling-IR-050423.png
We can clearly see that the IR upwelling does by no means drop to zero at night.
*
{ Perhaps the ‘ingenious’ Flynnson recently discovered that GHE gas molecules are all sleeping at night? Who knows? }
*
Unfortunately, there are no SURFRAD stations in the Tropics, let alone at the Poles, which would give us interesting comparisons with these US stations located between 30N and 50N.
*
And let’s not forget the lesson of this ‘scientifically oh so perfectly trained teacher’:
” Earth surface has continued to cool for 4.5 billion years. ”
To be honest, I’m literally ‘Amazed’.
*
Fourier was a real genius and a great science man – unlike the dumb Flynnson.
Unfortunately, he did not have the necessary measuring instruments.
Starship Could Launch Monday According To FAA Notice
By
Russ Niles –
Published: April 5, 2023 Updated: April 6, 2023
17
“The FAA has let it slip that next Monday (April 10) is the target date for the launch of SpaceXs Super Heavy rocket but paperwork might delay it. According to Reuters, a planning notice issued Tuesday says Monday is the primary expected date for the first launch of the 394-foot behemoth. Tuesday and Wednesday are also possibilities. ”
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/starship-could-launch-monday-according-to-faa-notice/
Weather:
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/starship-could-launch-monday-according-to-faa-notice/
Monday windy and cloudy- it seems forecast favors Wednesday
Galactic radiation is increasing again.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Solar wind
speed: 412.8 km/sec
density: 4.41 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 33
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 137 sfu
Updated 06 Apr 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
NOTE: Due to a temporary technical malfunction at the source, daily values of TCI will not be available for the rest of this week.
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -0.1% Below Average
48-hr change: +0.4%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Not going spotless, have spot coming to nearside
medium size coronal hole near equator
probably take a week or so before getting active, again.
Hasn’t been a good time to go to Mars- and probably won’t for years, but could send cargo for crew.
Solar wind
speed: 468.5 km/sec
density: 2.67 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 49
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 136 sfu
Updated 09 Apr 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
NOTE: Due to a temporary technical malfunction at the source, daily values of TCI are not available this week.
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.0% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.9%
“The black blob is a sunspot. It is the likely source of several jets and plumes of hot plasma flying over the sun’s southeastern limb during the past 24 hours. The sunspot will turn to face Earth this week.”
So, not going to go spotless:)
I am on look out for spots near equator, “black blob” is, but I more interested spot in process of forming near equator and don’t know how old “black blob” is- or possible it could fade before it arrives to our nearside- or some small chance for spotless.
It’s getting close to mid April, and thought it pick up by then. I guess I will see how wrong I was in next few days.
Or new spots forming on near side in couple of days- and closer to equator.
Since Kennyi can’t buy a clue, let’s hammer the point home:
https://www.theverge.com/23643837/founders-fund-peter-thiel-svb-silicon-valley-bank-esg
If any Freedom Fighter tries to sell you that 10y notes are woke, figuratively reach for your wallet.
It must suck to be a boring troll with no remaining credibility.
SVB was the 10th largest bank in USA. It was in no way a ‘smaller bank’.
When Yellen says that a similar bank in Wisconsin would not have depositors gauranteed that sends the message that our banking system is operating on ESG principles deciding who is a ‘good’ customer and who is not. US banking system is on life support. and its all because of stupid ‘woke’ policies that ESG espouses.
Which part of “SVB itself lobbied for this” you do not get, dummy?
SVB counted as a regional bank:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/feds-barr-sees-need-for-stronger-regulation-of-regional-banks-after-svb-182255016.html
More than one third of SVB investements were in failed green energy companies that went bankrupt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vRPxHB9Kfc&ab_channel=TomNelson
It must suck having to rely on Newscorp to get your financial advices, Kennui.
Here’s something a little more serious on ESG:
https://youtu.be/WDOUYT77Jlc?t=1190
An underappreciated benefit of ESG for those who customize indices is that they are not forced to block a whole investing sector like energy, but focus on those with that meet the clients’ requirements.
If you have some money, you might also appreciate how to generate tax harvesting alpha.
Go ‘Woke’ go broke.
Fill your boots.
Im getting attention from our sockiest sock puppet, with his ineffective flak. That means Im over the target.
Makes my day!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
binny…”These gases help reduce IR emissions from the Earths surface into space”.
***
So what does that do? Cooling at the surface has already taken place by the time the IR leaves the surface, The IR represents the difference in kinetic energy of electrons in surface atoms, which represents heat in the surface. Capturing 7% of surface emissions might warm the CO2 a fraction of a degree C but that warming is instantly swamped through collisions with nitrogen and oxygen molecules that out-number the CO2 molecules by 2500 to one.
Gordon,
Bindidion refuses to accept that slower cooling is still a drop, not a rise, in temperature.
Coastal regions with more H2O in the air, cool more slowly than arid desert regions, at night.
The diurnal range is also not as great.
All have cooled since they were molten, obviously.
SkyDragon cultists have some odd ideas. That is their right, just as Pastafarians profess belief in their deity, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Belief is one thing, fact is another.
Heres an official description of the FSM –
“The Flying Spaghetti Monster is depicted as a tangle of spaghetti with many Noodly Appendages, flanked by two delicious meatballs, and with a pair of googly eyes upon stalks. Such a depiction is merely a guess, of course, as the FSM is understandably invisible to all known forms of scientific detection.”
The GHE has no description at all, and is likewise invisible to all known forms of scientific detection. Even more mysterious than the FSM.
AAs usual, the stupid pseudo-skeptics Robertson and Flynnson are so wrapped up in themselves and their ignorant boasts that they couldn’t even properly read what I wrote.
maguff…”AR6, Chapter 3, titled Human Influence on the Climate System, is required reading for anyone…”
***
The fact that you read that nonsense marks you as an idiot. The fact that you believe it makes you an even bigger idiot.
The fact that you post it here marks you as a jerk. The IPCC is the body who allowed Coordinating Lead Author Phil Jones to block a paper from John Christy of UAH simply because he is a skeptic and they didn’t like what he had to say.
You would be welcomed by the brain-dead over at realclimate or skepticalscience. Then again, your not smart enough to impress them over there and you certainly are not smart enough to impress anyone here.
I wasn’t going to read it. But Gordon gave inspiration to reead, but it appeared to just crap.
I don’t care how confident some idiots who have been constantly wrong are.
gb…I liken reading an IPCC report to reading a travel brochure. In the latter, they paint a glossy picture in your mind of traveling and hide all the warts. Same with the IPCC reports, mainly bs alleged to be fact.
I liken it to people saying solar panels and wind mills are cheaper than coal electrical power.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-632695
Gordon Robertson, the fact that you believe that the earth’s shadow is what causes the phases of the moon marks you as an idiot.
The fact that you post such nonsense here marks you as a gullible idiot.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
barry…”[Bill per Stefan Boltzmann equations the reflection of light has no effect on an equilibrium temperature.
[Barry}*facepalm*
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is based on blackbodies, which neither reflect nor transmit light. This law does not even consider reflection and transmission”.
***
Why the facepalm Barry? S-B was originally not based on a blackbody, it was based on Tyndall’s experiment in which he electrically heated a platinum filament wire between about 500C and 1500C. That’s hot, but it’s not in the blackbody range, nor does a glowing filament have the theoretical properties of the blackbody. Therefore, S-B is valid only between those temperatures. It is also valid only for hotter bodies radiating to cooler environments, not in the opposite direct as some seem to think.
Stefan had already worked out a theoretical T^4 relationship and Tyndall’s experiment confirmed the ratio he needed between radiation around 500C and 1500C.
Check this out….
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03199.pdf
“It is well known that the laws of thermal radiation, the laws of Planck, Stefan-Boltzmann and Wien, in their classic form, are not exact in describing thermal phenomena. These deviations appear even under ideal physical conditions designed in metrology labs, in contrast to realistic physical systems, e.g. [1]. They always exist because any radiating body or cavity (emitter) has a finite size and a shape. The finite size effects are usually neglected in the textbook derivations of thermal radiation laws [2, 3], and their magnitude is assumed to be well below experimental precisions [4, 5]. However, in this paper we show that a deviation, several orders of magnitude larger at present metrological conditions, first conjectured by H. Weyl [6] in his theory of thermal radiation [7] and derived by V.P. Maslov in new statistical physics [8, 9], is measured in experiments”.
***
Note here that they seem to be trying to emulate blackbodies, but when Stefan derived the T^4 relationship, it was specific to temperatures between 500C and 1500C. They had no means of modeling blackbodies other than the glowing platinum filament.
Read what you quoted Bill saying. Hopefully that will get you back to the point.
You need to understand that the Stefan Boltzmann equation for a gray body is q = ε σ T4 A
Since amount absorbed must equal amount emitted for equilibrium all you have to realize that means ε σ T4 A (absorbed)= ε σ T4 A (emitted). So T4 never changes the only factor that changes between blackbody emissions and graybody emissions is the ”ε” variable which gives you different ”q’s” for different emissivities of the same temperature.
and you can thank Nate for coming up with the reference for that:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
The Stefan Boltzmann law (or constant) only applies to blackbodies. Yes, you can extend the equation to account for non-blackbodies, but this is not the S/B law itself.
But none of that really matters. What matters is that you said reflection plays no part in determining equilibrium temperature, and that is completely wrong, which the reference provided by Nate, and which I’ve provided in the past, demonstrates by including the emissivity ε in the equation for greybodies.
The fact that you said the S/B ‘equation’ proves this earned a facepalm.
And when you’re off-point, can you at least not be wrong?
“While the typical situation envisioned here is the radiation from a hot object to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not limited to that case. If the surroundings are at a higher temperature (TC > T) then you will obtain a negative answer, implying net radiative transfer to the object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
You have to be careful barry, that equation with the two fluxes is NOT the S/B Law. The equation is a perversion of the Law. The equation has no useful purpose, hence people call it “bogus”.
Here’s the actual S/B Law, in equation form:
S = εσT^4, with typical units for S of “W/m^2”.
When two fluxes meet in air there is no way to simply add/subtract them. If you can’t simply add photons, then you can’t simply add fluxes. If you BELIEVE you can simply add photons, then add two 15μ photons for us. What’s your answer?
You have a bucket and two hoses, each providing one gallon per minute.
The fact that the combined flow is 2 gallons per minute does not mean you have to add water molecules together.
You don’t have to add water molecules to add flow, same goes for photons, you don’t have to add photons to add fluxes.
Another thing Clint R found on the interwebs that he doesn’t understand.
We already know you don’t understand any of this bob. You’re braindead.
Maybe you should stop trying to look at things through your toilet paper tube?
“When two fluxes meet in air”
They don’t. They pass through each other.
You have some crazy ideas, Clint.
Clint R,
Do you understand that photons do not interact with each other?
Fluxes add, but you don’t understand basic physics.
barry and bob have been studying! That’s good. Now, let’s see if they can apply what they’ve learned.
Photons and fluxes do not simply add. So the idea that two 315W/m^2 fluxes arriving a surface will result in the surface emitting 630W/m^2 is invalid.
Do barry and bob agree?
(Watch the denial, distortions, and evasions. That’s why this is so much fun.)
Turning on 1 bar of a radiant heater immediately makes your skin warm.
Turning on a 2nd bar of a radiant heater immediately makes your skin even warmer.
I guess you think that this doesn’t happen, and that radiant heaters with more than one bar is an advertising gimmick.
In the real world turning on the second bar adds another, equal flux of radiative energy to your skin. The rays don’t bounce off. They are added to the rays hitting your skin from the first bar.
You can do this experiment in 10 seconds with a radiant heater.
And everyone reading this knows full well that this is true, and that you are wrong.
Yes, barry. Five days late in your response should definitely be enough time that Clint R has moved on, so you will probably be able to slip in a last word unnoticed.
“Five days late in your response” and DREMT is our resident expert at this technique!
But somehow for him its just fine.
…five days late in your response should definitely be enough time that Clint R has moved on, so you will probably be able to slip in a last word unnoticed.
“The equation is a perversion of the Law. The equation has no useful purpose, hence people call it bogus.”
Yes, such ‘bogus’ equations are found in many physics and engineering textbooks and online courses, according to Clint.
They are considered to be ‘bogus’ because they are ‘not useful’ to the Sky-Dragon-Slayer narrative.
And he wonders why his posts have no credibility.
Such nonsense is not found in anything of value. It is a conjured up equation that provides no useful information. Math is NOT physics. This bogus equation is in the category of the plates nonsense.
Add two 15μ photons for us, troll Nate.
If you can’t do that, you’ve got NOTHING.
“Add two 15μ photons for us, troll Nate.”
Two 15μ photons hitting a blackbody surface add their total energy to the surface, regardless of its temperature. Twice as much as energy as one 15μ photon would.
If you disagree give us an actual science reason.
We know you won’t have one, and will just toss ad-homs. Because you are just here to troll.
FIrst, the photons have to be absorbed.
Next, the frequency of the photons MUST increase the mean vibration frequency of the absorbing object to raise its temperature.
Even then, photons do NOT simply add.
Just as radiative fluxes do NOT simply add.
Make no mistakes Nate — YOU are one of the trolls here. You have a long history of insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Did I mention you don’t understand ANY of the relevant physics?
“FIrst, the photons have to be absorbed.”
Done. As I noted it is a blackbody. And Kirchoff’s law says so.
“Next, the frequency of the photons MUST increase the mean vibration frequency of the absorbing object to raise its temperature.”
Nah. That aint physics.
As shown with the CO2 laser example, its emitted photons have a much lower vibration frequency than Clint’s body. And even Clint seemed to realize that those photons would be abs.orbed by his body and would burn him badly.
“Even then, photons do NOT simply add.”
Nah, that aint physics either, just made-up nonsense. See laser example. Clearly its photons energy is getting summed and thus burning Clint’s body. This will be true for any sources of photons.
You got it ALL wrong again, troll Nate. At least you’re consistent.
* No black body was mentioned. My comments dealt with reality.
* Kirchhoff is spelled with two “h”, not one. And his Law does NOT require photons to be absorbed. His law indicates that absorbed photons will match emitted photons, i.e. have the same wavelength. Again, photons with the same wavelength will NOT raise the object’s temperature. You don’t understand ANY of this.
* The temperature of an object is determined by its mean vibrational frequency. That IS physics. You don’t understand ANY of this.
* CO2 lasers are not a part of the discussion. Your desperation is obvious. Even a laser is NOT an example of photons simply adding. You don’t understand any of this.
“Two 15μ photons hitting a blackbody surface add their total energy to the surface”
so yes a blackbody was mentioned.
“* Kirchhoff is spelled with two h, not one. And his Law does NOT require photons to be absorbed. His law indicates that absorbed photons will match emitted photons, i.e. have the same wavelength. Again, photons with the same wavelength will NOT raise the objects temperature. You dont understand ANY of this.”
Well you might be right about the spelling, but not the rest.
As I said, for a blackbody, the 15 micron photons hitting it must be abs*orbed, because a blackbody emits perfectly at all wavelengths, and by Kirch(h)offs’ law it must then abs.orb perfectly at all wavelengths.
“The temperature of an object is determined by its mean vibrational frequency. That IS physics. You dont understand ANY of this.”
Not what you said. You said “the frequency of the photons MUST increase the mean vibration frequency of the absorbing object to raise its temperature.”
Which definitely AINT physics. But feel free to find such physics from a real source and show it to us.
“* CO2 lasers are not a part of the discussion'”
The frequency of CO2 laser photons are much much lower than the mean frequency for IR emitted by your body.
Yet they WOULD RAISE THE TEMPERATURE and burn the sh*t of your skin. Thus you understood not to walk through it.
This ability of CO2 lasers thus FALSIFIES your faux physics claims that “the frequency of the photons MUST increase the mean vibration frequency of the absor.bing object to raise its temperature.”
So naturally you want to avoid discussing CO2 lasers, loser.
Oh, is Clint R talking about CO2 lasers? He started a new thread on that subject, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471055
Why is DREMT in my thread?
…he started a new thread on that subject, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471055
It’s hard to delve into a post so full of wrong, but you may as well learn that the Stefan-Boltzmann law only applies to blackbodies.
This is why I facepalmed when Bill said that “per Stefan Boltzmann equations the reflection of light has no effect on an equilibrium temperature.”
In the REAL world, the S/B equation includes emissivity, ε.
A “black body” is an imaginary concept.
Physics can be very confusing if one only goes by things on the Internet they don’t understand.
The original S/B Law can be written as
q = σ T4 A
That is a mathematical expression of the stated law, that “the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T.”
And of course you can add a function for emissivity to the equation, which Bill seems to be entirely unaware of when he states:
“per Stefan Boltzmann equations the reflection of light has no effect on an equilibrium temperature”
So is Bill right or is he wrong, Clint?
It’s hard to comment on a quote taken out of context, barry. But “…the reflection of light has no effect on an equilibrium temperature” is true.
Have you taken the “honesty quiz” yet?
“Note here that they seem to be trying to emulate blackbodies, but when Stefan derived the T^4 relationship, it was specific to temperatures between 500C and 1500C. ”
Gordon weirdly thinks that nothing has progressed in this area beyond what we knew in the 1890s.
In the intervening century the SB law was tested over a wide range of T, even down into cryogenic temperatures.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Stefan-Boltzmann-law
“Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.“
That’s the SB law. A lot of people try to pretend that the SB law is the equation where there’s a term for the hot body and a term for the cool body, or a term for the hot body and a term for the cooler surroundings. However, that’s not the SB law. It doesn’t really have a name, but some people here have referred to it as the radiative heat transfer equation, or RHTE. The RHTE seems to lead people to all sorts of crazy conclusions.
“It doesnt really have a name, but some people here have referred to it as the radiative heat transfer equation, or RHTE. The RHTE seems to lead people to all sorts of crazy conclusions.”
Unhappy with how heat transfer works in the world? Just make fun of the terminology. Or pretend it doesnt exist!
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Nate thanks for bringing up that reference as it supports what I have been saying.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
”For objects other than ideal black bodies (‘gray bodies’) the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be expressed as
q = ε σ T4 A ”
Here you have the calculation for the emission/absor-p-tion rates for gray bodies and from this one formula (you can derive
1) emission rate of a gray body
2) absor-p-tion rate of a gray body
3) equilibrium of that gray body being T4 where emission equals abor-p-tion.
Perform this calculation for the earth system and you will find the mean temperature of TOA which is 278.7K emitting 240w/m2. Now since according to mainstream greenhouse effect science what is entrained in the convection system the no GHG surface effect of this makes a higher emissivity surface 278.7K also. . . not the 255K claimed by mainstream science who applies the blackbody formula without the emissivity factor to arrive at a different T4.
This leads me to believe that science in ignoring or pretending ignorant of the formulas above chose a figure that would exaggerate the effect of CO2 by a factor of 3. Perhaps this was a necessary conclusion to take sunlight variation out of the equation such now it needs 9 to 1 versus 3 to 1 to work its magic.
Now I am not claiming all this to be fact but its a scenario as an auditor that requires solid evidence to eliminate. And this does not require a widespread conspiracy it just requires a small nugget planted by a scientific reference way back in the 1970’s that became a religious icon the questioning of meant virtual exile from the feeding trough as it is clear none of this has been elucidated upon now for approximately 50 years.
If you can find something that clearly defeats that scenario I would be greatly interested in it.
“Perform this calculation for the earth system and you will find the mean temperature of TOA which is 278.7K emitting 240w/m2.”
Show us the details of how you get that number, Bill, so we can audit it.
A couple of issues. The IR window from 8-14 microns, for a clear sky, is mostly direct from the surface, which on average is 288 K, and has on average a high emissivity
“The emissivity of most natural Earth surfaces is a unitless quantity and ranges between approximately 0.6 and 1.0, but surfaces with emissivities less than 0.85 are typically restricted to deserts and semi-arid areas. Vegetation, water and ice have high emissivities above 0.95 in the thermal infrared wavelength range.”
For a cloudy sky the emissions come from cloud tops which are colder than 288K.
Outside the window, the TOA spectrum has deep valleys due to CO2 and water vapor.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fred-Ortenberg/publication/291164378/figure/fig2/AS:648594344390664@1531648350772/Spectrum-of-Earth-Thermal-IR-radiance-recorded-from-space-a-Desert-Sahara.png
So in those valleys, the emission is drastically reduced at the TOA, but I believe that the emissivity of the atmosphere in these valleys can also be considered to be very high. That means that the T needs to be very low. And that would make sense because those emissions come from high altitude.
“Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
And some of us are able to deduce that when two such surfaces at different temperatures are parallel, close together and facing each other, that the net flow of radiant heat from the hotter to the cooler will simply be the DIFFERENCE in their SB emissions.
And sure enough experiments confirm this deduction.
While others want to pretend that some other unexplainable thing happens instead.
Troll Nate, “net flow of radiant heat” is NOT a valid concept.
Validity does not apply to concepts but to claims, Puppourri, especially to make an argument.
Something you obviously know NOTHING about.
Besides:
https://engineeringlibrary.org/reference/radiant-heat-transfer-doe-handbook
Read more, troll less.
You suck at trolling anyway.
I missed this, And sure enough experiments confirm this deduction.
Troll Nate, you are making up crap….again.
Pupperoni adds another NOTHING burger.
I’m getting attention from the worthless willard, with his ineffective flak. That means I’m over the target.
Makes my day….
Yes, Pup. You’re trolling.
Thanks for your confession.
Pathetic, hated troll, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham still forgets the magic words.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Im getting attention from the worthless willard, with his ineffective flak. That means Im over the target.
Makes my day.”
Clint admits what we have all suspected.
He seeks attention. As a troll, he gets satisfying negative attention.
Troll Nate, when you’re finished with your false accusations, try this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1470118
“Two black bodies that radiate toward each other have a net heat flux between them. The net flow rate of heat between them is given by an adaptation of Equation 2-12.”
Q˙=σ A (T1^4−T2^4)”
From this source:
https://engineeringlibrary.org/reference/radiant-heat-transfer-doe-handbook
and many others.
Oh well.
Neutral readers can clearly see that Clint’s method of argument is to just shamelessly deny basic physics.
Not sure why he thinks that is even an argument.
Troll Nate, you won’t find that bogus equation in a reputable physics book. You will only find it on questionable Internet sites.
The sites are not questionable, except by science denying sky-dragon-slayers such as yourself, who offer no alternative sources that agree with their fictional physics.
Here is 2nd one.
https://physics.info/radiation/
A third one.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
They all agree.
Same equation here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
and here:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/14-7-radiation/
It is standard.
We can go on citing physics sources for this ‘bogus’ equation, Clint, but you can’t cite any reputable sources for your claims.
And that’s just one of the reasons why we know you’re making this up.
Not one single reference for your claims that:
Warm objects can’t absorb radiation from cooler ones
Fluxes incident on a surface are not additive
These claims of yours are truly what is bogus. That’s why you can’t substantiate them after multiple requests over more than 2 years.
“They had no means of modeling blackbodies other than the glowing platinum filament.”
There *have* been advances in science in the past 150 year. More measurements made. Over wider temperature ranges. With other materials. The means that scientist had 150 years ago are not all that we have to go on today.
"The RHTE seems to lead people to all sorts of crazy conclusions…"
…like with the Green Plate Effect. Some people misuse the RHTE by holding Q constant and then calculating what the temperatures of the plates would be with that amount of heat flow between them. However, heat flow tends towards zero wherever possible…and with the GPE, it’s perfectly possible. What should be done is to use the RHTE to calculate that with the plates at the same temperature, heat flow between the plates has gone to zero, as it should (wherever it can). Then we get to the correct 244 K…244 K solution.
They also seem to want to put the "temperature" of space into the RHTE! As we’ve established already, space is the absence of surroundings, and so it should not be going into the RHTE at all. Some people want to put it in there as if it’s some sort of extremely low temperature "surroundings"…and that’s just completely wrong. Space is mostly just a huge vacuum, a void, a complete lack of "surroundings".
They also don’t take into account that with the blue and green plate temperatures going into the RHTE already, the fact that the green plate radiates into space according to its temperature and emissivity is already included in the calculations! The emissions from the green plate into space are included in the fact that there is a term for the green plate in the blue and green heat flow calculation. It’s a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero, that it will be emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the other side.
At 244 K…244 K, you have heat flow at zero between the two plates, as it should be, and overall 400 W input into the two-plate system, and 400 W output from it. Everything is in balance. That’s that.
“As weve established already, space is the absence of surroundings …”
Well, no. There are surroundings in space. Tiny bits of gas for billions of light years is not ‘nothing’.
And then there is the simple fact that microwave radiation can be measured from space, and that radiation corresponds to 2.7 K. It really doesn’t matter what it comes from. You can call space ;the absence of surroundings’ if you want, but it still experimentally produces 2.7 K blackbody radiation. It would be “wrong” to say that your THEORY about space cancels EXPERIMENTS that measure microwaves. Experiment always wins.
"You can call space ‘the absence of surroundings’ if you want…"
…OK Tim, thanks…I will. That’s what it is, after all. Especially from the point of view of whether you should incorporate it into the RHTE or not. It makes absolutely no sense to include it in the RHTE, because it’s not like it’s "extremely low temperature surroundings". Of course, your religion needs it to be, so you will protest…but that’s of no concern to reality.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] As weve established already, space is the absence of surroundings
Yes, exactly. No contradiction there, obviously.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] As weve established already, space is the absence of surroundings
When people (like Tim) try to dismiss arguments as “just semantics” they’re trying to imply the point is some trivial issue over the definition of words. That’s clearly not the case here. No matter what words you highlight.
“In the simplest terms, a concept is a name or label that regards or treats an abstraction as if it had concrete or material existence, such as a person, a place, or a thing. It may represent a natural object that exists in the real world like a tree, an animal, a stone, etc. It may also name an artificial (man-made) object like a chair, computer, house, etc. Abstract ideas and knowledge domains such as freedom, equality, science, happiness, etc., are also symbolized by concepts. It is important to realize that a concept is merely a symbol, a representation of the abstraction. The word is not to be mistaken for the thing. For example, the word “moon” (a concept) is not the large, bright, shape-changing object up in the sky, but only represents that celestial object. Concepts are created (named) to describe, explain and capture reality as it is known and understood.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
You never really have anything to offer on the physics, do you, Little Willy?
[MIGHTY TIM] The green plate is losing energy. Since everything beyond the green plate is space, then the energy is going to space.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The green plate cannot heat space.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics.
You can’t heat a vacuum. That’s not “just semantics”. It’s not some trivial point about the meaning of words. It’s a fundamental physical fact…and it’s a huge part of what debunks the GPE.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more
[MIGHTY TIM] When people (like Tim) try to dismiss arguments as just semantics
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Even putting aside the semantics of heating space, your scenario doesnt balance.
It does balance. There is 400 W/m^2 input into the 2 plate system, and 400 W/m^2 leaving it. 200 W/m^2 leaves to the right of the green plate, and 200 W/m^2 leaves to the left of the blue plate.
“You cant heat a vacuum. Thats not ‘just semantics’. Its not some trivial point about the meaning of words. Its a fundamental physical fact”
We’re promoting our feelings to ‘fundamental physical facts’ now?
In the old times, that required evidence, a legit source, etc.
Couple of questions come to mind:
-Where does the heat that the JWST emits to space go?
– Why does space send blackbody radiation @ 3 K back to us?
-Does space really have nothing in it?
” It makes absolutely no sense to include it in the RHTE, because its not like its “extremely low temperature surroundings”. ”
The occurrence of Arguments from Incredulity is definitely increasing.
More feelings converted erroneously into unsupported, completely made up ‘facts’.
I especially like the ‘it’s not like’.
So let’s go with actual facts.
-As noted by Tim space has a background blackbody radiation @ 3K.
-Any object in space receives that radiant flux from space.
-If the object is a blackbody, it will abs.orb that radiant flux, by Kirchoff’s Law.
So it actually makes a whole lot of sense to include it in the RHTE.
And all observations are JUST LIKE the object is in 3 K surroundings.
…does balance. There is 400 W/m^2 input into the 2 plate system, and 400 W/m^2 leaving it. 200 W/m^2 leaves to the right of the green plate, and 200 W/m^2 leaves to the left of the blue plate.
We point out the glaring flaws in their logic and physics, again and again, and each time they pretend no one ever told them any of it, and just repeat the same illogic over and over.
“There is 400 W/m^2 input into the 2 plate system, and 400 W/m^2 leaving it. 200 W/m^2 leaves to the right of the green plate, and 200 W/m^2 leaves to the left of the blue plate.”
The First Law of Thermodynamics, (1LOT) must be satisfied for each body.
Reminder of 1LOT. deltaU = Q – W.
There is no work here. There is NET heat input to a body Q, and internal energy of that body U.
So deltaU = deltaQ.
The flaw is obvious. The GP is emitting deltaQ = -200 J/m^2 of heat flux each second to the right, and receiving NO NET heat flux from the left.
Thus 1LOT requires that deltaU for the GP is negative its internal energy U must = -200 J/m^2 each second, IOW its temperature must decrease.
Similarly the BP is receiving 400 J/m^2 of heat from the sun each second, and emitting 200 J/m^2 each second to the left to space. And NO NET heat flux to the right.
Thus deltaQ for BP is positive 200 J/m^2 each second, its internal energy must increase by 200 J/m^2 each second, IOW its T must increase.
This decrease of GP temperature and increase of BP temperature will continue until an energy balance is achieved, and 1LOT satisfied for each plate.
If anyone tries to claim 1LOT only needs to be satisfied for the system, and not for each separate body, they need to show evidence from a real source to back up this extraordinary claim.
…balance. There is 400 W/m^2 input into the 2 plate system, and 400 W/m^2 leaving it. 200 W/m^2 leaves to the right of the green plate, and 200 W/m^2 leaves to the left of the blue plate.
> If anyone tries to claim 1LOT only needs to be satisfied for the system, and not for each separate body, they need to show evidence from a real source to back up this extraordinary claim.
Exactly, Nate.
Oh, interesting quote…is that what Nate’s saying? Sorry, I don’t read his comments. Little Willy, have you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little “1LoT calculations” need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
The First Law of Thermodynamics applies universally.
Some here are inventing a new rule that it applies only to ‘systems’ whatever that means.
It can be violated for certain bodies if they are part of a ‘system’ whatever that means.
Gee it would be great if they could show us where this new vague rule comes from?
But they never ever back up their Arguments by Assertion.
…Little Willy, have you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little “1LoT calculations” need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
And I would simply point out that in the real physics solution, with 267 W/m^2 leaving from the BP side and 133 W/m^2 leaving from the GP side, this ALSO balances for the system as a whole, but with very different temperatures.
So the ‘1LOT applies only to the system’ rule does not provide a unique solution. In fact there are an infinite number of solutions which could satisfy it.
There is no physics or common sense reason to settle on the equal temps ‘solution’, which was, after all, really just a guess.
…Willy, have you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little “1LoT calculations” need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
Vagueness is a trolls best friend, so let’s try to un-vague the word ‘system’.
“A thermodynamic system is a body of matter and/or radiation, considered as separate from its surroundings, and studied using the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamic systems may be isolated, closed, or open. An isolated system exchanges no matter or energy with its surroundings, whereas a closed system does not exchange matter but may exchange heat and experience and exert forces. An open system can interact with its surroundings by exchanging both matter and energy. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system
Is the GP or the BP a body of matter considered as separate from its surroundings?
Of course.
…have you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little “1LoT calculations” need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
Now they will evade facts and reality by playing the ‘covering of eyes and plugging their ears and loudly saying La La La I can’t hear you’ game.
Its what they do.
…you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little “1LoT calculations” need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
I’ll also note that elsewhere people brought up a Joe Postma article, where he invoked 1LOT
“We utilize the First Law of Thermodynamics for this:
dU = Q = m Cp dT
The d means change and we want the change to be zero, which means unchanging temperature dT = 0, which means thermal equilibrium.”
But he pointed out that he was using it before without mentioning it explicitly because most people get it:
” We already used this for the results above, without explaining it, as I know that most of you implicitly understand this equation and its universal presence.”
He continues:
“Could introducing the second plate in this scenario result in a higher temperature for the first plate? If the first plate did achieve a higher temperature, then it would have to emit more than F / 2 to the hemisphere facing the source. However, because the plate is thin, then it also would emit this to the second plate. To conserve energy, then the second plate would have to emit less than F / 2 to the hemisphere facing away from the sourcebut how could the second plate possibly emit less than F / 2 when it in fact receives more than F / 2? Do you see how the logic breaks down when you invent backradiation heating? Very neat!”
I simply want to point out how he is again using 1LOT here (without mentioning it) when he says:
“but how could the second plate possibly emit less than F / 2 when it in fact receives more than F / 2”
Except he is applying it to the INDIVIDUAL GREEN PLATE.
Thus he is saying “I know that most of you implicitly understand” that 1LOT applies to the individual plates also!
So lets apply that logic again to the GP in the TEAM’s scenario:
“The GP is emitting deltaQ = -200 J/m^2 of heat flux each second to the right, and receiving NO NET heat flux from the left.”
IOW, How can the GP possibly emit F/2 when in fact it receives 0?
JPs identical logic, which is 1LOT being applied to the GP.
Do you see how the logic breaks down?
…ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little “1LoT calculations” need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
Nate says:
”but how could the second plate possibly emit less than F / 2 when it in fact receives more than F / 2”
Nate you will need to provide some heat transfer equations to your gish gallop. That will get you straightened out.
Bill, you need to catch up on the discussion before posting…
Do you think 1LOT (conservation of energy) applies to the individual Blue and Green plates, or not?
Joe Postma quote says that it does.
Bill, have you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little "1LoT calculations" need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?
Note that I’m not asking if 1LoT should apply to each body, I’m asking if you’ve ever seen any member of Team GPE support their silly idea of how 1LoT should be applied to each body?
Yep Nate just rattled off some disparate facts and then draws an illogical conclusion.
Of course its very difficult to see that without some basic heat transfer equations. So he relies on a gish gallop to make his point.
Every engineer who proposes a building energy or powered device design must provide the calculations to the Underwriters Laboratory if they wish to certify their designs.
Of course academia sees themselves above that. . . .they are perfectly happy to rely on the gish gallop.
“then draws an illogical conclusion”
Illogical how? Why?
I note dispute of the facts.
I note no disputing of the facts by Bill.
Does Bill think an isolated plate can emit 200 W/m2 without replacement, and NOT cool?
Nate says:
I note no disputing of the facts by Bill.
Does Bill think an isolated plate can emit 200 W/m2 without replacement, and NOT cool?
——————————-
without replacement? yes it will cool if its emitting a net of 200watts toward a cooler target. But it won’t cool if its emitting that toward a warmer target.
Why is this so very difficult for you to understand?
The GP is emitting 200 to space without replacement according to DREMT and Joe Postma.
Does it cool?
Come on Nate. Both DREMT and Postma understand energy transfer equations. . . .something you obviously don’t. Reference to where they claim an object can emit 200watts/m2 continuously without an energy source. I figure you can’t figure out what they are actually saying.
Here Bill,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1470400
And my response is
“The First Law of Thermodynamics, (1LOT) must be satisfied for each body.”
And the this is denied.
“Have you ever seen Nate or any of the others produce any support for their repeated assertion that their little 1LoT calculations need to balance for each separate body, rather than the system as a whole?”
Oh dear, Bill…is he starting with his misrepresentations again? That’s just one of the many, many reasons I stopped responding to him.
Oh he’s reading my posts? Does he deny that he is denying that 1LOT applies to each body?
And if he now accepts that 1LOT applies to each body, Great!
But then he is stuck with no logical explanation for this:
“The sky-dragon-slayer argument seems to be that the GPs emission on the source side is blocked by the BP (cancelled by the BPs emissions), so it cant lose energy on that side. So it only can emit from one side.
Therefore the GP emits 200 on one side only.
Left unexplained is how it replaces the emitted 200, since the 200 it received from the BP has already been cancelled!”
So he need to decide which logical failure he prefers.
…dear, Bill…is he starting with his misrepresentations again? That’s just one of the many, many reasons I stopped responding to him.
Bill, is he pretending not to read my posts, while reading my posts, again?
He is quite childish isn’t he?
In case anyone doubts the extreme illogic of the claims being made by these guys, here it is in Joe Postmas own words:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471841
…Bill…is he starting with his misrepresentations again? That’s just one of the many, many reasons I stopped responding to him.
“Billis he starting with his misrepresentations again? ”
Nah. Hard to do that with direct quotes.
…is he starting with his misrepresentations again? That’s just one of the many, many reasons I stopped responding to him.
Hunter says:
Nate you will need to provide some heat transfer equations to your gish gallop. That will get you straightened out.
Nate says:
Bill, you need to catch up on the discussion before posting
——————–
A reference, or not, to your heat transfer equations would explain all.
A commenter to JP
“Okay got it (I think). Is this right: the (green) plate emits F on both sides. But the emission toward the source is cancels with the F abs.orbed from the source. Then the emission of F toward space balances the F absorbed from the source.”
JP:
“Right”
So Joe Postma acknowledges CANCELLATION of ‘F abs.orbed from the source’ by ’emission toward the source’.
The he seems ok with UNCANCELLING it: “Then the emission of F toward space balances the F absorbed from the source”
Nope!
Bill, you should recognize this: it is straightforward double counting. Accounting fraud!
JP also talks about this in terms of the RHTE, which expresses this cancellation effect into a single equation:
JP: “It is like the heat flow equation, where heat is the net difference between emissions:
Q = s * (T1^4 T2^4)
Only the difference between emission is heat: this does not mean that the cooler body is not emitting, but that its emission is ‘negated’ by the stronger emission from the warmer body”
Indeed so, according to this equation, if the two plates have equal T, then there is complete cancellation, and ZERO Net energy transfer.
So Joe Postma acknowledges CANCELLATION of F abs.orbed from the source by emission toward the source.
The he seems ok with UNCANCELLING it: Then the emission of F toward space balances the F absorbed from the source
Nope!
————————————-
According to your mathematical extrapolation the green plate should not have gotten to a temperature sufficient to emit F from two sides.
In Postma’s scenario the greenplate is only losing F to space.
The idea of a equilibrium isn’t specified as being for an insulated surface it just raises a question of what it takes to get to equilibrium. Here we have different physics on the surface of the earth and in space. because air transports energy both by the movement of molecules, collisions, diffusion, and convection.
But you are extrapolating from an idealist perspective of the world that naturally arises from the math. You are treating it like a banking operations where all transactions are transparent. You can deposit a dollar in a bank and get a dollar back without any loss.
Now to be clear I am agnostic on this argument as this is a bit like auditing a computer. The first bank fraud I was exposed to was in my orientation training as a recent accounting graduate in a film that wanted to be sure we didn’t overlook really small stuff.
This bank had a program that paid interest and where you should get back say $1.10 at the end of the year (these were higher interest years) the bank was actually paying back $1.099 and the crook was transferring the $.001 to his own account using the computer for cover.
Well the same issue is at play in the real world also. The green plate does not exactly perfectly transmit energy a plate without absorbing energy.
It has a coefficient of conduction that is a form of resistance. It isn’t considered to be ‘insulating’ because insulation is an earth based notion of heat traveling through something such like glass in a gaseous environment (guarded shield).
Insulation is a standard not some indication of a physics outcome that can be translated from environment to environment willy nilly via a guy that believes the world operates from one standard.
On earth its the insulation value slowing energy traveling through air by two means that establishes the standard.
It is widely acknowledged that the air is the insulation not the glass. And you want to assign an insulation value R=2 to a single pane of glass in space. Does that make any sense? . . . .Maybe. In space its only one means of energy movement on earth its multiple means.
Like I said I don’t know the standards for insulation in space. I assume aerospace thermal engineers do. One has to wonder if Postma actually knows or if he deduced it incorrectly.
I am skeptical of both Postma’s and your take on this and want to see the how the standard is set for a space environment. But I am not dying to see it because it seems pretty irrelevant to the greenhouse effect as the only relevance it seems to have is in differences of a insulated surface without an atmosphere to an insulated surface with an atmosphere. Nowhere in the discussion except in the ridiculous 3rd grader radiation model does it arise anywhere in atmospheric physics except as some kind of ghost haunting the place, a ghost experiments can’t even apparently exorcise. We apparently need a priest to do the job.
I have no doubt the answer is out there somewhere in an aerospace study. So while we argue on different sides of the matter it might be easy to find out if any insulation value as you claim exists in space.
Fact is the slight variations seen in some of the greenhouse tests leave some space for different outcomes in space. Your argument that a vacuum gap is more insulating than an air gap doesn’t work because the vacuum gap is only more insulating against the travel of energy through air, which remains on both sides of the insulating unit. So yes vacuum gaps are more insulating on earth, in the atmosphere, than gaps filled with air. But you can’t extrapolate that slowing of heat transfer to space willy nilly. . . .I would think OBVIOUSLY!
The fact you can’t see the flaws in your own logic speak loudly to me that you have no idea what your are talking about. And the fact you can’t refer me to any literature on the matter confirms it.
“ccording to your mathematical…yada yada yada”
. The F input from BP to GP is cancelled by output F from GP to BP.
Net input to GP is 0.
The GP emits F on its other side without being replaced by any input.
The issue is simple accounting fraud.
As an auditor you should be able to easily understand..
But you completely ignore the issue and go off on a gish gallop to who knows where, Bill.
“Your argument that a vacuum gap is more insulating than an air gap doesn’t work because the vacuum gap is only more insulating against the travel of energy through air, which remains on both sides of the insulating unit. So yes vacuum gaps are more insulating on earth, in the atmosphere, than gaps filled with air. But you can’t extrapolate that slowing of heat transfer to space willy nilly. . . .I would think OBVIOUSLY!“
Exactly, Bill. Not sure what Nate is waffling on about now as obviously I don’t even read let alone respond to his comments, but you nailed it the other day when you mentioned how radiative insulation functioned via the reflectivity of the material. So, in the vacuum of space, reflectivity would be what matters as far as insulation goes. The plates in the GPE thought experiment are perfectly conducting blackbody plates. Zero reflectivity! So, that’s that.
The GP is emitting energy without being replaced. That just won’t work because it is a violation of conservation of energy.
All else is an attempt to distract from this key issue and makes clear that people have no answers.
…the plates in the GPE thought experiment are perfectly conducting blackbody plates. Zero reflectivity! So, that’s that.
Nate wants to do math and claim a conservation of energy violation.
But he didn’t address any point I made.
Here below is a response to Barry criticizing his mathematical conclusions and why they fall short of proof.
This applies equally to Nates argument.
Bottom line is why does the Stefan Boltzmann emissivity factor allow for a temperature of say 16.5C and an emission rate of 40watts with an emissivity factor of 0.1. . . .is this something relating to the ghostly nature of backradiation that can’t warm things already at equilibrium with the only power source.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1472884
Other things that suggest that backradiation doesn’t even exist is the fact that until mirrors, fancy elements, an electronic wizardary was employed an IR detector could not detect any photons from a colder source. . . .they had to ice down the detectors. With all the tricks they now use everybody thinks photons are being detected but they may be detecting photong being lost from the sensor vs photons gained.
Spooky effects at a distance.
Bill doesnt address the basic issue of energy conservation at all, goes off on tangents to nowhere, then whines about being ignored!
DREMT, in deep denial, gets fed obviously flawed logic from a con-man, can’t think for himself, and believes it anyway!
Who cares about conservation of energy? Not you guys!
“The GP is emitting energy without being replaced. ”
This is a violation of energy conservation, a fundamental requirement.
This a result of the sky-dragon-slayer, Postma/DREMT solution to the GPE, Bill.
Try to focus on that key issue, and address it.
If you can’t, then you can’t, then their solution is bogus. Nothing else matters.
“Nate wants to do math and claim a conservation of energy violation.”
Oh, is that what he’s doing? Presumably he’s echoing what barry is saying in the sub-thread below this one, and knowing Nate, he’s probably just repeating himself over and over again, desperately trying to get the last word. barry doesn’t even understand the basics, as he asked below, about the BP on its own:
“How does a blackbody surface irraditated [sic] at 400 W/m2 fail to be 290 K?”
Oh dear. They’re not having a very good debate, this time.
Facts are irrelevant, thats how delusional thinking works.
…oh dear. They’re not having a very good debate, this time.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1470991
TEAM Sky-dragon-slayer just aint honest.
…dear. They’re not having a very good debate, this time.
And they are weirdly confused about who decides if their argument is convincing.
…they’re not having a very good debate, this time.
Nate says:
”Bill doesnt address the basic issue of energy conservation at all, goes off on tangents to nowhere, then whines about being ignored!
The GP is emitting energy without being replaced.
This is a violation of energy conservation, a fundamental requirement.
This a result of the sky-dragon-slayer, Postma/DREMT solution to the GPE, Bill.
Try to focus on that key issue, and address it.
If you cant, then you cant, then their solution is bogus. Nothing else matters.”
I address the issue here Nate. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1473042
In short the very fact that GP is emitting to space and there is a time element in the travel time of energy the GP has nothing to emit until it receives it from the BP.
Thus the GP doesn’t stay at equilibrium with each photon it emits to space and the BP instantly replenishes that equilibrium because the flow is 400w/m2 not zero. Zero is just a picture of a static situation and your math is lacking facts.
This is why science calls this some kind of quasi-equilibrium where a flow of energy is occurring and objects are one temperature.
Only if you ‘perfectly’ insulate the GP can a steady equilibrium be achieved. And of course perfection is impossible so at a minimum a steady equilibrium is just a case where leakage is very low.
These are dynamic processes and uneducated or poorly educated scientists should not apply. . . .like uneducated accountants, engineers, doctors, et al.
“Thus the GP doesnt stay at equilibrium with each photon it emits to space and the BP instantly replenishes that equilibrium because the flow is 400w/m2 not zero.”
One photon at a time is not gonna work, Bill. Think it through.
You will never get enough energy transferred from BP to GP to replace the 200 W/m2 emitted by the GP to space that way. A slight drop in T results in a slight heat transfer according to the RHTE, the one mentioned by JP.
Only when the T difference Between the plates becomes significant will you get enough heat flow to replace the outgoing energy.
That is why 1LOT is used to find the required Temps.
When you mention quasi equilibrium, what you are getting at is a steady-state situation.
In this problem the steady state has a steady flow of 400 W/m2 of heat into, thru, and out of the system. Some goes out thru BP and some thru GP.
In order to have that steady heat flow thru the system there is a required steady T difference between the plates, according to Q = sigma(Tb^4 -Tg^4), the RHTE. Note that JP quotes this.
The Q has to be large enough to replace what is exiting the GP, which works out to be 133.3 W/m2. And 267 W/m2 exits the BP.
…they’re really not having a very good debate, this time.
The accounting problem that DREMT has ackowledged but ignored, simply goes away when you drop the erroneous assumption that the plates need to be at the same temperature.
There is no science nor common sense reason for the plates to be at the same temperature. Really not sure where they got this idea.
It leads to all sorts of crazy results. The plates emit energy without replacement. And heat flow is discontinuous through the system.
Such heat flow interruptus doensnt actually happen in nature.
In reality there needs to be a steady T gradient when there is a steady flow of heat through a system, and Bill knows from his experience with windows, that this is the case.
There is no political message connected to this basic fact about heat.
…they’re really, really not having a very good debate, this time.
Nate where is the accounting problem?
The BP loses 400w/m2 to the GP and the GP loses 400w/m2 to space.
Accounting is done any way that you want to do it. You need to account for things by the substance of the transaction. Thats why the application of mathematics in physics is entirely dependent upon experiments.
Yes you have all kinds of mathematical arguments why a 16.5C plate can warm a 10C plate instead the 10C plate must make the 16.5C plate hotter. Greenhouse experiments show that doesn’t happen when the 16.5C plate is only receiving 400w/m2 from the source.
There seem to be some logical reasons why that happens. When a surface is exposed to 400w/m2 it causes that surface to vibrate and with thermally conductive materials like metals, glass, and stone that vibration moves very quickly through the material like an earthquake vibrating at a fault moves through the earth’s crust and rocks areas up to hundreds of miles away.
So the object could in space when not exposed to free convective air to add another cooling mode could warm to the 16.5C and find itself emitting 400w/m2 to space and nothing back to the plate. You get your panties all in a twist over the thought of the plate needing to cool to half that level to get net radiation from the source to the first surface. I get that. Thats why the experiment must be conducted with near blackbody materials to see if your thought experiment is correct or if there is a sufficient transport of heat through the object to not obstruct the movement of energy. Your argument just declares that to be a fact and like Bernie Madoff you make up an accounting for your listeners based upon what he thought must be true.
It is funny how that works. Bernie really thought his investment strategy would work and it was just a temporary glitch that he had to get beyond. You would make a fine Bernie Madoff imagining innumerable ways to account for stuff to fit your world view.
Accountants though must go down to each transaction and find out if its true. So what accountants do is dissemble the entire web of transactions using empirical evidence to see the true substance of the transactions.
So your cries of accounting fraud ring completely hollow without the experiment showing that indeed blackbodies in a radiation field in space perform as you claim when all factors like view factors and such are considered.
In accounting this can be very difficult sometimes where the illusion of transactions are manufactured, receipts, obligations, etc. A thought experiment is entirely manufactured except for the precepts that have been tested as factual.
“Nate where is the accounting problem?”
Its been explained a half dozen times. Even DREMT sees it.
“The BP loses 400w/m2 to the GP and the GP loses 400w/m2 to space.”
For the umpteenth time, the GP is an isolated body. It is emitting energy as it should based on its T to space.
That energy is not being replaced, as discussed. As a result it should Cool, but the slayers insist that it doesn’t.
You must be wearing blinders if you cant see this is a problem.
Or politically you need suck up to slayers.
“So your cries of accounting fraud ring completely hollow without the experiment showing that indeed blackbodies in a radiation field in space perform as you claim when all factors like view factors and such are considered.”
Bill the whole centuries long exercise of developing the laws of physics becomes pointless, if you can’t apply those laws to anything, which is what you are suggesting.
They are laws because they have been experimentally tested in many situations. The SB law: tested. The 1LOT: tested. The RHTE: tested.
If you still require an experiment go ahead and do it. The rest of us can be confident that the laws of physics work.
“The BP loses 400w/m2 to the GP and the GP loses 400w/m2 to space.”
Close…the BP loses 200 W/m^2 to the GP and the GP loses 200 W/m^2 to space…the other 200 W/m^2 is lost to space from the Sun-facing side of the BP…but you seem to have the right idea. I assume Nate is still making the exact same argument over and over again. Oh well.
“Closethe BP loses 200 W/m^2 to the GP and the GP loses 200 W/m^2 to spacethe other 200 W/m^2 is lost to space from the Sun-facing side of the BPbut you seem to have the right idea.”
I see DREMT is simply repeating the same false claims over and over and over, without ever addressing the key issue:
How does the GP lose 200 W/m^2 to space, while that energy never gets replaced?
Never mind that the BP has a problem. It is receiving 400 W/m^2 of heat input from the source and is only emitting 200 W/m^2 of heat output.
Why is that? On the space side it emits Q = 200 W/m^2. On it its other side ALL AGREE that it is emitting Q = 0 to the GP.
…I assume Nate is still making the exact same argument over and over again. Oh well.
“BP loses 200 W/m^2 to the GP.”
As we know, it was argued that the GP could not ‘lose energy’ in the direction of the BP because every vector of flux from GP is met by an equal flux from the BP.
With identical temps, the situation is perfectly symmetric.
Then the BP cannot lose energy to the GP either.
More failed logic from JP that is gobbled up by gullible followers.
…assume Nate is still making the exact same argument over and over again. Oh well.
Nate will never admit he is wrong. We can continue to parade evidence in front of him, multi-compartment boxes, greenhouses, whatever and he refuses to consider the issues those pose.
Further he won’t do his own experiment and show how these shells will warm something inside of the them in accordance with the math he has laid out here.
Nope he is a hopeless cause. He will argue and argue while never ever providing any evidence until he is the last man.
Then rather than admitting he is wrong he will quietly slip out of here and stick his head in the sand.
Bill cannot muster the brain power to understand very simple failed logic. He appears to have lost all auditing skills and can no longer detect obvious accounting fraud.
He refuses to believe the validity of basic laws of physics, such as conservation of energy, demands completely unnecessary experiments.
He is intent on evading honest fact-based debate, and focusses on trolling.
“Nope he is a hopeless cause. He will argue and argue while never ever providing any evidence until he is the last man.
Then rather than admitting he is wrong he will quietly slip out of here and stick his head in the sand.”
Yes, indeed. Everyone who has ever experienced debating Nate for long periods of time has said the same things about him. Kristian, Chic, you, me…he’s just utterly relentless. Do you realize that he has written well over 70 comments on this one thread alone? I haven’t read them, but I did a quick count of the comments under his name just out of a sort of morbid curiosity, since I keep seeing his name coming up so many times. I assume most of them are about or addressed to me. Can you imagine being that obsessive that you write over 70 comments to someone who is no longer responding to you!?
I’m afraid he has some rather serious problems.
They cannot win on the facts or simple logic, so they try their hardest to make it all about the messenger.
…I’m afraid he has some rather serious problems.
Yep some people think science is hear tell. Never experiments, never asks for proof.
Hunter troll, echoing grammie pups denial, repeatedly asks Nate:
This and his earlier comment demand that Nate do experiments, while ignoring all my experimental results, such as the easily replicated Glass Plate version of grammie pups “244-together-244-separated” crap. Hunter didn’t understand how double pane windows work and perhaps still doesn’t.
Swanson already described the results of his "glass plate" experiment as akin to removing a cooling device from a CPU – thus, nothing to do with the GPE, which is supposedly a demonstration of back-radiation warming/insulation. Double pane windows do not function via back-radiation, and have absolutely nothing in common with the GPE besides the vague similarity that both involve flat plates/panes.
A swing and a miss from Captain Enraged.
Nate says:
They cannot win on the facts or simple logic
———————–
Obviously if you have to leap to logic to support a basic heat transfer problem you have a huge problem.
Obviously experiments have been done in aerospace design. The question is why you don’t need to know if any exist that support your logic.
Bill thinks the loss of any debate on this forum can be dodged by demanding an experiment.
So go test the free energy from nothing concept experimentally, and if works you’ll get lots of investors from Joe Postmas blog.
My CPU comments were an attempt to put a little sense of reality into grammie’s head:
I did not claim that the example was identical to the GPE, though grammie pups’ warped brain seems to think it so.
Nate says:
Bill thinks the loss of any debate on this forum can be dodged by demanding an experiment.
————————–
Only if science is used as the measure Nate.
…a swing and a miss from Captain Enraged.
Other messengers getting the blame for DREMTs failures to make any convincing argument over 5 years.
Bill demands the experiment that Swanson already did and Bill already ignored. Bill demands an experiment whose theory is tested regularly with multi-layer-insulation (MLI) in space, such as on the JWST.
And yes MLI also works even for blackbody surfaces with emissivity = 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
“The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
Nobody on the sky-dragon-slayer-accounting-fraud-peddling team has ever rebutted this article.
So there is no evidence that Bill cares at all about experiments.
…swing and a miss from Captain Enraged.
“I dont respond to Nate, or even read his comments”
Sure thing.
…and a miss from Captain Enraged.
Sure, DREMT is obviously perfectly happy to be physically wrong on the GPE as DREMT has meticulously explained over a period of about 5 years.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (“plates pressed together”) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
…a miss from Captain Enraged.
"…but another transfer of energy…in EMR BP to GP does occur after the switch"
There is a transfer of energy from BP to GP, via conduction, before the switch, and a transfer of energy from BP to GP, via EMR, after the switch. So, there’s a transfer of energy from BP to GP before the switch, and a transfer of energy from BP to GP after the switch. The transfer of energy from BP to GP is therefore not an additional transfer of energy occurring only in config. B. The "back-radiation" transfer from GP to BP, on the other hand, only occurs in config. B. It does not occur in config. A. That is the only difference, in transfers, between the two configurations.
“So, theres a transfer of energy from BP to GP before the switch, and a transfer of energy from BP to GP after the switch”
Yep, but not at the same rate.
Immediately after the separation, the transfer rate drops to near 0, because radiation is much less effective at transferring heat than conduction, and the temperature difference which drives radiative heat transfer is initially near 0.
It is baffling why people keep failing to account for these plain facts.
…that is the only difference, in transfers, between the two configurations.
Deniers deny. And everybody can see it happening.
…is the only difference, in transfers, between the two configurations.
Nate says:
transfer from the GP to the BP being returned from the BP to the GP
An extra imaginary arrow drawn on a cartoon? That aint physics.
——————————-
Nate spends all day promoting a ‘thought experiment’ then denies anybody else the dispensation of dreaming up whatever they want.
You are right Nate all thought experiments aren’t physics. . . .including yours.
My comment was misplaced, it was meant to go in the sub-thread below this one. For anyone reading through from up here wondering what configurations I was suddenly referring to, they should start with this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1476574
“denies anybody else the dispensation of dreaming up whatever they want.”
‘Dreaming up’ is exactly what DREMT was doing, and I won’t deny him that right.
But I can point out that it is not from any known science.
…for anyone reading through from up here wondering what configurations I was suddenly referring to, they should start with this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1476574
Nate says:
Dreaming up is exactly what DREMT was doing, and I wont deny him that right.
But I can point out that it is not from any known science.
——————————–
I agree.
And if what he was modifying was from any known science he would be wrong to do that too. But it appears that what he is modifying was contrary to known science. . . .and instead is correcting it to known science.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
“like with the Green Plate Effect. Some people misuse the RHTE by holding Q constant ”
I don’t know what iteration of this idea you are imagining, but typically the heat IS held constant. A “blue plate” in vacuum receives a constant Q (like 400 W/s) and each side radiates (like 200 W/m^2 ) to surroundings that are close to 0 K.
Then an unpowered “green plate” is placed close to – but not touching – one side of the blue plate. Suppose the green plate is 244 K to start with. As you say, heat flow TO green from blue is zero. But heat from FROM green to space is not zero, so green cools, because it has a net heat loss.
Similarly, BLUE still has the constant 400 W/m^2 in, but is losing 200 W/m^2 from one side only, so it WARMS.
Balance is NOT achieved when Green loses 200 but gains zero; nor when blue gains 400 but loses 200.
All delightfully wrong, Tim. Green cannot heat space! Nothing can. It’s just a void, a vacuum. That’s where you all go wrong, and that’s why you’ll never get the right answer with the GPE. You think of there "having to be" this temperature gradient from the "hot Sun" to "cold space" and through the plates…it’s a complete fairy tale. It’s not correct, certainly not from the point of view of this thought experiment, to even think of space as having a temperature at all.
“Green cannot heat space! ”
Why not? The green plate is losing energy. Since everything beyond the green plate is “space”, then the energy is going “to space”.
Even putting aside the semantics of ‘heating space’, your scenario doesn’t balance. In your scenario:
* the Green Plate is receiving 0 W/m^2 from the Blue plate, and emitting 200 W/m^2 from the other side.
* the Blue Plate is receiving 400 W/m^2, losing 0 W/m^2 to the Green Plate, and emitting 200 W/m^2 from the other side.
Folkerts, there is NO evidence you understand any of this.
The green plate is receiving 200 W/m^2, NOT 0 W/am^2!
You obviously have NO experience with radiative physics. You just make crap up. You made up the bogus math that leads to ice cubes being able to boil water. Your cult has no grasp of physics, rejects reality, and is dishonest.
Take the honesty quiz. I predict you wont pass.
Do passenger jets fly backwards, yes or no?
Pup, Pup,
That line is for EM.
Keep your pet lines in line.
Tim, it has absolutely nothing to do with "semantics". Nobody is denying that the green plate radiates to space…but that fact is incorporated into the RHTE between the blue and green plates. As I said up-thread:
"The emissions from the green plate into space are included in the fact that there is a term for the green plate in the blue and green heat flow calculation. It’s a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero, that it will be emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the other side.
At 244 K…244 K, you have heat flow at zero between the two plates, as it should be, and overall 400 W input into the two-plate system, and 400 W output from it. Everything is in balance. That’s that."
The green plate cannot heat space. You can’t "heat up" a vacuum. The green plate is just radiating out into a vacuum based on its temperature and emissivity. Simply put, there is no reason for the blue plate not to warm the green plate until it’s at the same temperature as the blue plate. You just believe that there has to be this temperature gradient from the Sun, through the plates, and out to "cold space"…but you shouldn’t be thinking of space as being "cold". When you stop thinking that, your whole narrative collapses.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] it has absolutely nothing to do with “semantics”.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Some people misuse the RHTE by holding Q constant
Yes, exactly. No contradiction there, obviously.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Some people misuse the RHTE by holding Q constant
When people (like Tim) try to dismiss arguments as “just semantics” they’re trying to imply the point is some trivial issue over the definition of words. That’s clearly not the case here. No matter what words you highlight.
“the meaning of a word is its use in the language”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#MeanUse
I’m not arguing about the meaning of words.
Folkerts has refused the honesty quiz.
The conclusion is obvious.
The fraud will continue.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Im not arguing about the meaning of words.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Some people misuse the RHTE by holding Q constant
You like to arrange quotes together as if there were a contradiction, when there is none.
[MIGHTY TIM] The green plate is losing energy. Since everything beyond the green plate is “space”, then the energy is going “to space”.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The green plate cannot heat space.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics.
You can’t heat a vacuum. That’s not “just semantics”. It’s not some trivial point about the meaning of words. It’s a fundamental physical fact…and it’s a huge part of what debunks the GPE.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights a little more –
[MIGHTY TIM] When people (like Tim) try to dismiss arguments as just semantics
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Even putting aside the semantics of heating space, your scenario doesnt balance.
Willard, please stop trolling. You’re just not that proficient at it.
Mike Flynn,
Every time Mighty Tim reminds him to balance his plates properly, Gaslighting Graham gaslights him.
This time it was by projecting his own semantic arguments.
Thank you for helping me make my point across.
Do continue.
No object in the universe, nor theoretical blackbodies, emits at 0 W/m2. Any surface emitting 0 W/m2 of energy would be colder than any object in the universe.
This silly notion infers that as more energy is directed at a surface, that surface consequently emits LESS energy.
DREMT, in your conception, if you touch the inward side of the green plate your fingertips would freeze solid in an instant, while the back of your hand would be warmed by the blue plate.
Surely you can see that your 0 W/m2 notion is arrant nonsense?
I might have mixed up Tim’s statements with yours in the last post, DREMT. Feel free to correct it.
I’ll quote you on this, though.
“Simply put, there is no reason for the blue plate not to warm the green plate until it’s at the same temperature as the blue plate.”
Yes there definitely is.
The blue plate is receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun
The green plate is receiving 200 W/m2 from the blue plate
How can GP possibly heat up to the same temp as BP when it is receiving half the energy?
Yes, barry, you definitely mixed up Tim’s statements with mine. I did not say anything about an object emitting 0 W/m^2.
We’ve done the GPE dance a dozen times already. Let’s try something different. Let’s see if you can answer my line of questioning.
Firstly: do you agree that, where possible, heat flow tends towards zero?
“Firstly: do you agree that, where possible, heat flow tends towards zero?”
Just to point out, this is a feeling, not physics.
It is completely vague, unsupported, and therefore meaningless.
In any situation where constant heat is flowing into a multi-part system, there must be a means for heat loss through (ie between the parts) and out of that system, in order to reach a steady state temperature.
Anybody suggesting the heat flow through the system goes to zero in that situation, is simply making up a non-existent and nonsensical rule.
What some people are confusing the GPE with is a closed system not being heated from the outside.
THEN, heat flow between the parts tends to zero, and the T of the parts equalize. The system reaches equilibrium.
The GPE does not qualify. It is a system being externally heated by the sun.
Heat flow never goes to zero in the GPE system.
“you have heat flow at zero between the two plates … ” and yet you also have 200 W/m^2 leaving the green plate. If that energy is not coming from the blue plate, where is it coming from?
barry, when the plates are in exact contact, they have the same temperature. Why would a slight separation, with no losses and in perfect conditions, be any different?
You get so confused with radiative physics. Remember how hard it was for you to understand ARRIVING fluxes? You kept trying to figure in view factors, like an idiot.
Have you taken the “honesty quiz” yet?
“barry, when the plates are in exact contact, they have the same temperature. Why would a slight separation, with no losses and in perfect conditions, be any different?”
Really? we’re going with incredulity as an argument? Thats a new one!
“with no losses and in perfect conditions, be any different?”
is of course vague and meaningless. A troll’s best friend.
The reality is that with plates in contact there is heat flow Into one side, in between them, and then out the other side.
Out of contact there still needs to be heat flow in-between them, else the blue plate with heat flow IN but none OUT will heat up indefinitely!
Riddle me this, Pup –
Take two cottages at temperature constant, and put them right next to one another so that they become a semi-detached house. They become warmer.
Why is that?
??
Poor troll Nate understands NONE of this.
In radiative physics, energy can flow between two objects with the same temperature. But “heat” does not flow between objects with the same temperature.
With the plates in contact, energy flows from blue to green, maintaining both plates at the same temperature, with ideal conditions and no losses.
With the plates slightly apart, energy flows from blue to green, maintaining both plates at the same temperature, with ideal conditions and no losses.
Tim, I already explained twice:
“The emissions from the green plate into space are included in the fact that there is a term for the green plate in the blue and green heat flow calculation. It’s a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero, that it will be emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the other side.”
That’s three times now. This is the problem with discussing the GPE. Team GPE ain’t honest. They receive an explanation. They then ignore most of the explanation, quote maybe a few words from one sentence, then repeat their request for an explanation. They just, basically, don’t listen. They cannot accept what is being explained to them, so they do whatever they can to reject it out of hand.
I will wait to see if barry responds to my question.
Gaslighting Graham gets caught a silly semantic game about the notion of space and the interpretation of the heat transfer equation. Then he gets caught denying that he played that sill semantic game. Then he gets caught projecting that silly semantic game onto Mighty Tim.
Now we’re into another villainous Sky Dragon crank monologue.
Here is where we ought to be:
[MIGHTY TIM] In your scenario: the Green Plate is receiving 0 W/m^2 from the Blue plate, and emitting 200 W/m^2 from the other side; the Blue Plate is receiving 400 W/m^2, losing 0 W/m^2 to the Green Plate, and emitting 200 W/m^2 from the other side.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] The emissions from the green plate into space are included in the fact that there is a term for the green plate in the blue and green heat flow calculation. Its a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero, that it will be emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the other side.
Readers might wonder how things balance out.
To be a Sky Dragon crank should be a balancing act.
Clint R already pointed out that Tim is completely incorrect in his statements. The green plate does not receive 0 W/m^2 from the blue. It receives 200 W/m^2 from the blue.
“But ‘heat’ does not flow between objects with the same temperature.”
Yep, that agrees with physics.
“In radiative physics, energy can flow between two objects with the same temperature.”
That aint physics.
Again 1LOT is delta-U = Q – W. There is not other ‘energy’ term other than heat or work.
Thermally radiated flux aint WORK, then it must be HEAT. There is no other option.
If you disagree please show us a legitimate source for that. It needs to identify what this mysterious other energy is. And show us an example.
And now Gaslighting Graham tops it off with his renowned handwaving.
As long as they can get the last word, any goes for Sky Dragon cranks such as Gaslighting Graham.
This is the problem with discussing the GPE. Team sky-dragon-slayer aint honest.
They receive an explanation for why their arguments are flawed and dont agree with either physics or logic. They receive facts from real sources that disagree with their claims.
They then ignore this, then repeat their illogical claims, and repeatedly express their incredulity, as if nobody found a flaw and everyone is just as incredulous as they are.
Nor do they ever provide any legitimate sources that back up their assertions.
No handwaving. Tim was incorrect to say the green receives 0 W/m^2 from the blue. Simple as that.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] No handwaving.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Pup already pointed out that Mighty Tim is completely incorrect in his statements.
Correct, and there is no contradiction there.
“Clint R already pointed out that Tim is completely incorrect in his statements. The green plate does not receive 0 W/m^2 from the blue. It receives 200 W/m^2 from the blue.”
False, this has been explained and ignored repeatedly. It receives NO NET heat or any other energy from the BP.
All agree that BP sends 200 W/m^2 to the GP.
But then some conveniently forget that the GP is sending 200 W/m^2 back to the BP, and that by Kirchoffs law it must be abs.orbed by the BP.
Thus the NET heat (or energy) received by the GP from the BP is zero.
The NET heat (or energy) received by the BP from the GP is zero.
Sorry no magic, no sleight of hand, no mysterious new form of energy accepted, only valid physics.
“the use of gestures and insubstantial language meant to impress or convince”
Tim was wrong, Little Willy. The GP receives 200 W/m^2 from the BP, not 0 W/m^2. The GP cannot heat space. You cannot heat a vacuum. The GP just radiates 200 W/m^2 to space due to its temperature and emissivity. The narrative that there has to be some sort of temperature gradient from the hot Sun, through the plates, and out to cold space is completely false. It is more appropriate to think of space as having no temperature, than it is to think of it as being extremely cold surroundings.
Again, I dont know why this needs to be said, but repeating false, debunked, fake science, does not magically convert it into correct, real, valid science.
They can repeat their denials of basic physics and failed logic as often or as loudly as they want, it will not change anything.
But I encourage them to claim the not-so-prestigious Last Wording Consolation Prize.
Perhaps that will soothe their pain.
They simply have to repeat any of their false claims again.
So go right ahead.
I patiently await a response from barry or Tim. Obviously readers will be well aware that I don’t respond to Nate, or even read his comments, so I’m not sure why I keep seeing his name popping up so much in this thread. Little Willy is merely a minor irritant whose comments such as "another villainous Sky Dragon crank monologue" reveal his extreme bias. He genuinely seems to think of people who don’t agree there’s a Greenhouse Effect as "villains". Ridiculous.
Troll Nate, your lack of understanding makes this most entertaining.
You now prove you don’t understand either 1LoT or 2LoT!
1LoT refers to both “heat” and “work”, being forms of energy transfer. But 1LoT does NOT preclude there being other forms of energy, such as electromagnetic, for example.
Thanks for the fun!
You still have not solved a simple riddle, Pup –
Take two cottages at temperature constant, and put them right next to one another so that they become a semi-detached house. They become warmer.
Why is that?
Irritant, cease.
> “you have heat flow at zero between the two plates” and yet you also have 200 W/m^2 leaving the green plate. If that energy is not coming from the blue plate, where is it coming from?
Exactly, Tim.
Gaslighting Graham has little more than pure, unadulterated gaslighting.
…and I explained that already, three times now. I await a response from Tim (otherwise I’ll have to assume that he concedes the point).
Clint sez “1LoT refers to both ‘heat’ and ‘work’, being forms of energy transfer.”
As I said.
“But 1LoT does NOT preclude there being other forms of energy, such as electromagnetic, for example.”
It does. Any non-heat EM sources such as energy delivered to a resistor from a power supply or battery are considered WORK.
Thermally emitted radiation is electromagnetic, but it is not work, it is simply results from a body being warm, so it must be Q, heat in transfer from one body to another.
All physics sources agree. What I assert is easily fact checked.
You guys only declare made-up physics, with nothing at all to back it up.
Thanks for the comedy!
“so Im not sure why I keep seeing his name popping up so much in this thread. ”
Some people erroneously think they are in charge of threads and who is allowed to post in them.
Again, if see fake science, no matter who posts it, I respond and point out why it is flawed, and correct it.
No one is obligated to respond to me. But if they don’t respond to the facts and science in my posts, then that is a good indicator that they have no sensible answers.
DREMT, I made a point I hoped you would address. I think it succinctly guts your proposal that GP and BP are the same temperature.
The blue plate is receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun
The green plate is receiving 200 W/m2 from the blue plate
How can GP possibly heat up to the same temp as BP when it is receiving half the energy?
What say you?
…and I made a point I hoped you would address, barry. Instead, you’re insisting on re-asking a question that you always ask, and that I have gone to enormous lengths to explain to you, previously. You’re just going to pretend I’ve never explained it to you before, right? Like I’ve never mentioned that the 400 W/m^2 to the BP comes from a point source Sun, whereas the 200 W/m^2 to the GP comes from an infinite parallel plate, and the difference that makes? No? Not ringing any bells? It won’t matter if I explain it to you again, for the umpteenth time. You people refuse to even try to understand. That’s why I wanted to try something different, this time.
So, I ask you again…do you agree that, where possible, heat flow tends towards zero?
“comes from a point source Sun”
And??
Always there is a flimsy excuse…words lacking logic.
“Like I’ve never mentioned that the 400 W/m^2 to the BP comes from a point source Sun, whereas the 200 W/m^2 to the GP comes from an infinite parallel plate, and the difference that makes?”
In case you needed a reminder, barry, here again is the argument for why this matters:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/05/19/green-plate-analyzed-and-demolished/
Now, I really will be wanting you to answer that question of mine…
After all this time people are still deferring to the faux authority of the con-man Joe Postma.
Even 5 years later, they have been unable to find any legitimate sources to corroborate his fake physics.
…now, I really will be wanting you to answer that question of mine…
And even JP, con-man though he is, admits that 1LOT applies to the individual plates!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471393
…I really will be wanting you to answer that question of mine…
I will simply note that DREMTs ‘answer’ to Barry was not an answer, but a deferral to the authority of a con-man, Joe Postma, who made a very illogical argument.
Reading the comments we can see that several people are confused by his logic, poke lots of holes in it, and then they seem to disappear when he gets annoyed with them.
…really will be wanting you to answer that question of mine…
DREMT,
“Like Ive never mentioned that the 400 W/m^2 to the BP comes from a point source Sun, whereas the 200 W/m^2 to the GP comes from an infinite parallel plate, and the difference that makes? No? Not ringing any bells?”
Yes it does ring bells, and I remember find it completely unconvincing.
We are agreed that BP receives 400 W/m2 from the sun. Doesn’t matter whether from another plate or a pin-point, that is the energy received by BP.
We are agreed that BP emits 200 W/m2 from one side, and 200 W/m2 from the other.
Thus, GP receives 200 W/m2 from BP.
BP received 4– W/m2 from the sun.
What difference does it make if the energy source is a plate or a pinpoint? There is still no way for GP to become as warm as BP, because it is receiving half the energy.
If you explained further than this, you’re going to have to remind me, and I hope we stick with the discussion.
barry, you’re not paying any attention. I linked to an article which contains a detailed account of the argument. Purely, I might add, to save me the effort of going through it again myself. Scroll up. Click on the link. Read. I’m not interested if you find it “convincing” or not. Your question has been re-answered, for the umpteenth time, so that’s that.
Now, please answer my question, and try not to wait another 24 hours before you do so.
“Im not interested if you find it convincing or not.”
And conveniently, it is someone elses argument, he doesnt feel the need to defend it.
Indeed ‘winning’ for the poster has nothing to do with making a convincing, logical, or factual argument, it is just about bullying people and scoring imaginary points.
…now, please answer my question, and try not to wait another 24 hours before you do so.
“We are agreed that BP receives 400 W/m2 from the sun. Doesnt matter whether from another plate or a pin-point, that is the energy received by BP.
We are agreed that BP emits 200 W/m2 from one side, and 200 W/m2 from the other.
Thus, GP receives 200 W/m2 from BP.
BP received 400 W/m2 from the sun.
What difference does it make if the energy source is a plate or a pinpoint? There is still no way for GP to become as warm as BP, because it is receiving half the energy.”
You make perfect sense, Barry.
The sky-dragon-slayer ‘argument’ seems to be that the GPs emission on the source side is blocked by the BP (cancelled by the BPs emissions), so it can’t ‘lose energy’ on that side. So it only can emit from one side.
Therefore the GP emits 200 on one side only.
Left unexplained is how it replaces the emitted 200, since the 200 it received from the BP has already been cancelled!
Also why this blocking (cancelling) effect doesnt apply also to BP being blocked on one side by the GP, so that the BP would also only be emitting on one side only @ 400, is left unexplained.
Its all quite illogical. But the followers of JP eat it up anyway.
OK, barry, I’m feeling generous, so I’ll even quote the relevant passages for you from the linked article:
"A – Distant Point Source
With a point object as the source, then the view factor of the source relative to the plate is negligible, i.e., the point source occupies almost no or basically no angular view factor as viewed from the plate. Why is this important? It is important because it means that thermal radiation emitted from the plate on the side of the source can emit to open space, that there are no opposing vectors of input radiation from the source except for the infinitesimal vector pointed directly toward the source; being infinitesimal, it may therefore be ignored.
The result is that, for the equilibrium state of the plate, we must consider than it can emit freely to the entirety of both hemispheres of either side of the plate’s view. Thus, if we consider that the plate is very thin in terms of its thermal conductivity, so that both sides of the plate emit the same energy, then for a given input flux F from the source either side of the plate emits F/2, and then you may compute the resulting temperature via the usual way with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law: T = (F / 2 / σ)1/4
B – Plane Parallel Source
In this scenario we consider the plate and source as extending “infinitely”, or at least being very close together, such that the view factor of the source occupies the entire hemisphere of view from the first plate. How is this different? This results in every single vector of emission from the plate being met with an opposing vector of input from the source. That is, the plate cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the source. Whereas with the point source the plate may emit to empty black space all around the infinitesimal point source, with the plane parallel source the plate now cannot emit to empty space because that space is now occupied by input from the source.
Thus, now to conserve energy the plate must emit all energy only on the side facing away from the source, since there is empty space on this hemisphere. And so, given an input F from the source, now the plate must emit F on the side facing away from the source, resulting in a higher temperature with no division by two of F of T = (F / σ)1/4."
So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate. It’s just that with the blue plate, on the side facing the point source Sun, it emits to space along every direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions without receiving anything back. There is only that one direction, perpendicular to the plate and directly pointing at the Sun, along which it is receiving all of its energy. So it cannot lose energy in that direction only, because that is the direction from which it is gaining all of its energy. It can lose energy in every single other direction though on the source facing side, and obviously also along every single other direction on its other side, facing the green plate. The blue plate loses energy to the green plate, the green plate gains all of its energy from the blue.
So the blue plate, essentially, has two "losing sides". It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.
The green plate, on the other hand, has only one "losing side", the side facing space. On the side facing the blue plate, it is gaining its energy along every single possible direction, since the blue plate fills the green plate’s entire field of view on that side. Remember, a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Thus, with only one "losing side", you divide by one for the green plate. The 200 W/m^2 input remains 200 W/m^2 output…
…and that’s all there is to it.
Now, I really will have to insist that you please answer my question.
“Its a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero,”
Well that’s your problem, that’s not a given, the green plate is never emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate, and also heat flow never goes to zero.
bob drops by with more utterly unsupported drivel.
You can’t handle it when you are shown to be wrong.
The green plate never sends 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate, it only starts with 200 and sends half back and half away to space.
It goes up a little when steady state is reached but never to 200.
I’ll let you try a crack at the math, you can even find an on line calculator to help you.
Being shown to be wrong would be a novelty that I welcome, bob. Hasn’t happened so far. I refer you to the issue settlers I’ve written above, and await a response from barry, the only person I’m interested in talking to on this sub-thread. That’s that.
” This results in every single vector of emission from the plate being met with an opposing vector of input from the source. That is, the plate cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the source. ”
Ok so the emission of the GP toward the BP is met with ‘an opposing vector of input from the source’ which is the BP.
IOW they CANCEL out. That means 0 Net input from the source. Fine.
Then the point of logical failure occurs here:
“Thus, now to conserve energy the (Green) plate must emit all energy only on the side facing away from the source (BP), since there is empty space on this hemisphere. And so, given an input F from the source, now the plate must emit F on the side facing away from the source”
No! The input from the source F has already been CANCELLED.
But now it has magically been resurrected! It is an Easter miracle!
Oh darn. Its just Joe Postma being an idiot and committing accounting fraud. He is double counting!
DREMT,
“In this scenario we consider the plate and source as extending ‘infinitely’, or at least being very close together, such that the view factor of the source occupies the entire hemisphere of view from the first plate. How is this different? This results in every single vector of emission from the plate being met with an opposing vector of input from the source. That is, the plate cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the source.”
1) This corroborates that you think the GP emits 0 W/m2 towards the BP
2) It is completely unphysical. GP must shed energy from both sides, being a blackbody. There is no mechanism to prevent it. The author provides none, and no physics text will ever provide one
3) This does not explain how GP can warm up to be as hot as BP despite getting half the energy. What – is the BP a perfect mirror on the side facing GP? Then it is not a blackbody, and it is not shedding F/2 towards GP.
So what does the author think happens between the two plates? Nothing. They simply remove the activity between the plates and treat them as if they were pressed into one thin plate.
The GP is transparent and non-conductive in the author’s mind. Or, to put it more simply, they’ve made it disappear.
That’s not just unconvincing, it’s a rejection of physics.
“do you agree that, where possible, heat flow tends towards zero?”
I don’t understand what you’re asking. Is this about entropy?
Heat is measured in a transfer of energy. Zero transfer is an equilibrium state. If you’re asking if heat flow tends towards equilibrium the answer is yes. However, many systems have a steady state heat flow, where the flow itself doesn’t change (on average). These states are possible because heat flow tends to equilibrate.
You’re going to have to rephrase the question for me.
barry says:
1) This corroborates that you think the GP emits 0 W/m2 towards the BP
————————-
STRAWMAN ALERT! No Barry when are you going to get this straight? It doesn’t matter what the GP emits!!! What matters is how much energy the GP loses to the BP and that is the number that is zero.
I will ignore the rest of your gish gallop as none of it is relevant if no energy is lost by the GP to the BP. For the BP to be warmed by the green plate it must be a recipient of a net positive radiation from the GP.
But why are we talking about this Nate says the GPE is completely different issue than the GHE and that talking about it is sewing confusion and obfuscating.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471879
Nate says:
Ok so the emission of the GP toward the BP is met with an opposing vector of input from the source which is the BP.
IOW they CANCEL out. That means 0 Net input from the source. Fine.
Then the point of logical failure occurs here:
No! The input from the source F has already been CANCELLED.
But now it has magically been resurrected! It is an Easter miracle!
———————————
Nate is willfully mixing up the thought experiments like the GPE with the GHE in the atmosphere on Earth, which is an entirely different problem.
This allows him to sew confusion, and obfuscate, and if so, he should be ignored.
No, barry. As I said:
“Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate…”
…now read on. I went to some lengths to explain it to you completely, in my 10:52 AM comment, but I cannot understand it for you.
Does heat flow between two objects tend towards zero, wherever possible, barry? It’s a simple enough question. The answer is yes, by the way. Hot objects tend to warm cool objects until they’re at the same temperature, wherever possible…and yes, there’s always a heat source present somewhere. If there were no heat source present, the objects would be at or near 0 K!
Now that Barry has responded,
“Does heat flow between two objects tend towards zero, wherever possible, Barry? Its a simple enough question.”
Yes, whenever possible, however in the GPE it’s not possible, so it doesn’t.
Bill reverts back to his childish playground mode: ‘I know you are but what am I”, and remains ever confused about whats being discussed.
DREMT has shown a Joe Postma quote that contains a dramatic self-goal. He pretends a cancelled flux from the Blue plate to the Green plate is somehow still there!
Here is his JP answer to a commenter:
“The emission on the source-side (of GP) is negated by input”
The commenter then notes the logical problem this creates
“Its possible that the plane/point source distinction is throwing me off, but this still doesnt make sense to me. I agree that the sourceward side of the (green) plate will ‘cancel out’ with the incoming flux, but in this case wed say that both the incoming and outgoing fluxes are being canceled not just the outgoing. So if we assume F coming in and F going out on the sourceward side (of GP), then both Fs cancel and there is no net flux on the sourceward side. But then we have the problem of there being a flux of F on the nighttime side of the (green) plate. Where does that energy come from?”
He is correct.
Can DREMT or Bill or anyone explain this?
bob, it’s really quite sad when some people can’t get it through their heads that I only wish to talk to barry on this sub-thread. Why are you still responding?
Its a good thing to have aspirations…
I’ll let this commenter to the JP article, answer DREMTs question.
“Here is a way to see Q is NOT necessarily 0 between any two objects in steady state. Take two blocks of copper and connect them with a wire. Supply a constant heating power S to block 1 (e.g. with a resistor), and remove a constant heat flow S from block 2 (e.g. with a thermoelectric cooler).
Eventually each block will reach a steady state temperature. But is the heat flow between them zero? No! Obviously heat will flow between them through the wire the amount of heat is exactly S.”
…it’s really quite sad when some people can’t get it through their heads that I only wish to talk to barry on this sub-thread. Why are you still responding?
When one posts really idiotic wrong things, and people respond and debunk those claims, it would be nice to have a built in excuse to ignore those debunkings.
It would be nice…
…really quite sad when some people can’t get it through their heads that I only wish to talk to barry on this sub-thread. Why are you still responding?
That’s what I thought, when found out and shown to be wrong, some people just refuse to talk about it.
…quite sad when some people can’t get it through their heads that I only wish to talk to barry on this sub-thread. Why are you still responding?
He and Joe Postma agree that people who poke holes in their logic are annoying and need to be shut down.
Thats how I got banned from JPs blog.
…sad when some people can’t get it through their heads that I only wish to talk to barry on this sub-thread. Why are you still responding?
DREMT,
In all the language that the author is using, GP does not emit to BP. Nor does the author anywhere state that GP emits to BP. If you think they do, please quote it. I’ll quote to demonstrate:
“…the point source occupies almost no or basically no angular view factor as viewed from the plate. Why is this important? It is important because it means that thermal radiation emitted from the plate on the side of the source can emit to open space, that there are no opposing vectors of input radiation from the source except for the infinitesimal vector pointed directly toward the source; being infinitesimal, it may therefore be ignored…
…we consider the plate and source as extending ‘infinitely’, or at least being very close together, such that the view factor of the source occupies the entire hemisphere of view from the first plate. How is this different? This results in every single vector of emission from the plate being met with an opposing vector of input from the source. That is, the plate cannot lose energy in the entire hemisphere of potential emission facing the source. Whereas with the point source the plate may emit to empty black space all around the infinitesimal point source, with the plane parallel source the plate now cannot emit to empty space because that space is now occupied by input from the source…
…to conserve energy the plate must emit all energy only on the side facing away from the source…”
This kind of language is repeated over and over.
And the math proves the point – In the author’s conception GP must emit F/2 from the side facing away from the BP. F/2 is the the total energy GP receives, therefore it cannot be emitting F/2 towards BP, or the FLoT is broken. Energy cannot be created.
And the author says it themselves – F/2 is being emitted from the BP to space and the GP to space, and there is no accounting of any kind for emissions between them. The another simply vanishes that part of the equation, and does it quite openly, by saying the 2 plates are the same as 1 plate.
“…No energy is lost between the two plates, and the energy lost to space is emitted from the first plate on the hemisphere facing the point source, and from the second plate on the hemisphere facing away from the point source. Thus, you should be able to see in your minds eye that this scenario actually reduces to the single-plate case, where the gap between the plates is merely an infinitesimal slice of space where the second plate becomes the new outer surface of the first plate.”
Whatever the author thinks is going on between the 2 plates, the obvious ploy is to scrub it entirely – nothing to see here, folks.
And still neither the author nor you has explained how it can possibly be that GP becomes as warm as BP when it receives half the energy that BP does. This is simply not addressed, and I would raise the same objection to the author.
Ok, in the comments Postma says:
“The surface still emits thermal EM… it is just that this emission does not equate to loss of energy because there is incoming energy from all direction vectors of emission.”
Having settled that, the issue is that Postma has created energy and broken the First Law of Thermo.
GP cannot emit all the energy it receives on one side (towards space), and then emit more energy on the other side. Where has this extra energy come from?
barry insists that Postma is saying something that I know for a fact he isn’t saying.
Again, barry:
“”Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate…”
…now read on. I went to some lengths to explain it to you completely, in my 10:52 AM comment, but I cannot understand it for you.”
Here is the comment, again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
Now, barry, since we know that heat flow between two objects goes to zero wherever possible, perhaps you could explain why you think it is not possible in the idealized scenario of the Green Plate Effect, where you have perfectly conducting infinitely large parallel blackbody plates in full view of each other, in vacuum?
DREMT,
You should have read the comment I made immediately following the one you did.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1472392
Postma’s issue is that he has broken the FLoT.
You say: “since we know that heat flow between two objects goes to zero wherever possible, perhaps you could explain why you think it is not possible in the idealized scenario of the Green Plate Effect, where you have perfectly conducting infinitely large parallel blackbody plates in full view of each other, in vacuum?”
The two plates can never be in thermal equilibrium while the sun shines. As I said in my reply to your original question, there are many instances in the universe of a steady-state system. Our Earth is full of them. That’s why we have a higher average temperature at the surface than 10 kilometers high up in the atmosphere, for example. The GPE is a steady state system once the 2-plate system reaches thermal equilibrium with the input from the sun.
Postma is simply wrong. BP receives twice the energy that GP does. There is no way that GP can warm up to the same temperature. You haven’t answered this, and neither has Postma. I read all the comments to make sure.
You can’t explain how GP gets as warm as BP while receiving half the energy that BP does.
Postma doesn’t explain where he gets the extra energy from for the GP to emit a total of F from both sides, when it only receives F/2 from BP.
Both of you are creating energy, violating FLoT.
No, barry, Postma has not violated 1LoT by creating energy. There is 400 W/m^2 input to the plates, and 400 W/m^2 leaving the plates, 200 W/m^2 leaving to the left of the BP and 200 W/m^2 leaving to the right of the GP. If he had created energy anywhere, there would have to be more energy leaving than there was coming in…
“The two plates can never be in thermal equilibrium while the sun shines.”
Why not?
“As I said in my reply to your original question, there are many instances in the universe of a steady-state system. Our Earth is full of them. That’s why we have a higher average temperature at the surface than 10 kilometers high up in the atmosphere, for example”
Sure, I’m not suggesting otherwise. The GPE, on the other hand, is an idealized thought experiment with two perfectly conducting parallel plates in a vacuum that are treated as being infinite in size wrt each other such that there are no losses. There is no reason for the two plates not to come to the same temperature.
“Postma is simply wrong. BP receives twice the energy that GP does. There is no way that GP can warm up to the same temperature. You haven’t answered this, and neither has Postma. I read all the comments to make sure. You can’t explain how GP gets as warm as BP while receiving half the energy that BP does.”
It’s all been explained, barry. I just can’t understand it for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
“Its all been explained, barry. I just cant understand it for you:”
Yeah it has been all explained, with a glaring accounting fraud:
“And so, given an input F from the source, now the plate must emit F on the side facing away from the source”
No! The input F from the source was already cancelled by the emission of F from the GP back to the source.
The GP is emitting energy to space that is NEVER being replaced by the source!
As Barry notes, “Both of you are creating energy, violating FLoT.”
Some people here are simply too far down the rabbit hole to see that this is an obvious problem.
“There is no reason for the two plates not to come to the same temperature.”
Other than the fact that, as JP admits, no energy gets transferred between the plates!
JP: ‘It is like the heat flow equation, where heat is the net difference between emissions:
Q = s * (T1^4 – T2^4)
Only the difference between emission is heat: this does not mean that the cooler body is not emitting, but that its emission is ‘negated’ by the stronger emission from the warmer body
Indeed so, according to this equation, if the two plates have equal T, then there is complete cancellation, and ZERO Net energy (heat0 transfer.
If so then GP is clearly emitting energy without replacement, and must cool down.
Thus there needs to be a temperature difference, and a nonzero heat flow between the plates in order to remove the heat input to the system.
Heat-flowus-interuptus is unphysical.
…it’s all been explained, barry. I just can’t understand it for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
What happens in the mind of those who are fed obviously flawed logic by their authority figures, but they belive it anyway?
Do they lose the ability to think independently? Do they think everyone in the world who has knowledge of this subject must be lying to them?
It reminds of the people who are told by their cult leaders that the world would end on a specific date and time, and when it doesnt, they continue to believe.
It is a great mystery.
…all been explained, barry. I just can’t understand it for you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
DREMT,
“There is 400 W/m^2 input to the plates”
There is only 200 W/m2 input to the GP.
Postma says it himself when he says:
“for a given input flux F from the source either side of the plate emits F/2”
Input from sun to BP is 400 W/m2
BP emits 200 W/m2 from each side
Input to GP from GP is 200 W/m2
If GP is receiving 200 W/m2, where does the extra energy come from for it to emit 2 x 200 W/m2 from each side, same as BP?
“There is no reason for the two plates not to come to the same temperature”
Of course there is. GP is being shaded from the sun by BP. BP only gives half of the energy to GP that it receives from the sun. Postma tells us this.
“for a given input flux F from the source either side of the plate emits F/2”
This is 100% clear.
BP gets F
GP gets F/2
There’s no way that GP can be the same temp as BP when it gets half the energy. I don’t understand how you can’t see this.
My point was clear, barry. There is 400 W/m^2 input to the plates, from the Sun, and there is 400 W/m^2 leaving the plates, to space. 200 W/m^2 leaves to the left of the BP, and 200 W/m^2 leaves to the right of the GP. If Postma were creating energy, there would have to be more energy leaving than there is coming in…but there isn’t. So, unless you’re saying that Postma is “destroying” energy somewhere else along the way, then Postma is not “creating energy”.
Once again, try reading through this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
Let’s start from the section that you refuse to quote from or even look at, apparently, the part where I explain things in my own words:
“So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate.”
Take the side of the BP, facing the Sun. Presumably you are aware that there is virtually an entire hemisphere of directions of emissions that miss the Sun completely. There is only one direction, pointing at the Sun, perpendicular to the plate, which actually “hits” the Sun. Now, the BP is gaining all of its energy from the Sun, along that pathway. So, the plate cannot lose energy in that one direction facing the Sun. Right? Not that it doesn’t emit, or that the emission is blocked, or anything like that…it’s just the plate can’t lose energy along the very pathway from which it is gaining its energy! To do so, it would have to be heating the Sun! Presumably you are happy to agree, that the Sun heats the BP, and the BP does not heat the Sun. Now, follow the rest of what I said. It’s really not that difficult to understand.
I’m reminded of what I said earlier:
“It won’t matter if I explain it to you again, for the umpteenth time. You people refuse to even try to understand. That’s why I wanted to try something different, this time.”
I go to the ends of the Earth to try and explain it, and it’s not like it’s the first time you’ve ever heard it…but you still act like you haven’t heard it before. Very tedious, barry.
Nate,
“Left unexplained is how it replaces the emitted 200, since the 200 it received from the BP has already been cancelled!
Also why this blocking (cancelling) effect doesnt apply also to BP being blocked on one side by the GP, so that the BP would also only be emitting on one side only @ 400, is left unexplained.”
Yes, I edited out a sentence from a post yesterday that made the same argument. If F/2 from GP is cancelled towards BP, then F/2 from BP to GP must also be cancelled. Therefore, according to Postma’s reasoning, BP must emit 400 W/m2 towards the sun.
The problem with Postma’s reasoning is that he starts with a derived 1st Law heat flow equation and immediately states that there must be equilibrium between the 2 plates. Instead of making dT a variable, as it should be, he makes it a constant (zero).
I guess his thinking must be that because heat flow tends to zero, therefore it IS zero within the 2 plate system.
It’s circular reasoning. He makes his conclusion his premise.
Everything else flows from that premise, and when he is challenged in the comments, his reply is to look away from the criticism and to look at the heat flow equation. An equation where it is preordained that the plates are the same temperature.
barry, your problem is that it isn’t just a question of simple “accounting”. It’s thermodynamics. Nobody said it was going to be straightforward.
You think I can’t see it from your POV!? I get what you’re saying….completely. I just disagree with you. I’m not convinced that you get what I’m saying though, or that you even begin to try to want to understand.
DREMT,
Restating Postma’s argument does not contend with my rebuttal one scintilla.
I understand what Postma is doing.
“We utilize the First Law of Thermodynamics for this:
dU = Q = m Cp dT
The ‘d’ means “change” and we want the change to be zero, which means unchanging temperature dT = 0, which means thermal equilibrium.”
His premise is that the plates are the same temperature even before he starts his argument.
He seems to think that because because heat flow tends towards zero, that therefore it MUST BE zero between the two plates.
My challenge attacks this premise. Simply repeating what Postma says won’t respond to my challenge, because he does not himself investigate his premise.
“a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy”
This does not answer the question. It avoids it, because it is rooted in the premise being challenged.
The question is the simplest, most direct way of skewering the flaw in Postma’s thesis.
How does GP warm up to the same temp as BP when it only receives half the energy that BP does?
You need to answer that without presuming that the plates are the same temperature to begin with, which Postma insist his readers take for granted.
Lest there be any doubt Postma premises his reasoning on the plates being the same temperature, he gives another equation in the comments:
“Here’s the heat flow equation for plane parallel geometry:
Q = sT1^4 sT2^4
At equilibrium Q = 0, and the emissions are thus equal: sT1^4 = sT2^4”
https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/05/19/green-plate-analyzed-and-demolished/#comment-72354
His premise is wrong. There is no reason for the plates to be the same temperature, or at least no physical reason given.
The view factors he refers to are irrelevant to my challenge of his premise and certainly don’t answer the question.
You seem scared to quote from, or apparently even to read through, my version of Postma’s argument in my own words. Is it because I make it so easy to understand that there’s no way for you to obfuscate your way out? Perhaps you just mentally block it out, rather than try to deal with it, or even look at it.
You mention that Postma makes a premise that heat flow tends towards zero. You guys make the premise that heat flow will be fixed at a certain value from Sun, through the plates, and out to the “cold of space”, treating space as though it were some sort of extremely low temperature “surroundings”, rather than what it actually is – the absence of surroundings. It’s a vacuum! From the point of view of this thought experiment, it should be treated as having no temperature. That then sinks your entire narrative.
As to who is repeating themselves, I’d say we’re pretty even on that front. You keep saying that I’m not answering your question, I maintain that I answered it from the beginning. Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
In fact, that comment fully deals with all your complaints and queries, if only you would take the time to try and understand it.
DREMT,
I read what you wrote. There are all sorts of problems with it, but rather than writes reams of point by point rebuttals I have elected to go with the most direct, simplest rebuttal. None of what you wrote challenges it. I’ll quote you:
“So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit.”
You’re saying there is a nett balanced energy exchange between the 2 plates. This is you starting with the same premise as Postma, when I am challenging that premise. This is you not responding to my question but merely repeating Postma’s premise.
“It’s just that with the blue plate, on the side facing the point source Sun, it emits to space along every direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions without receiving anything back.”
So you’re saying that the GP emits to the BP, and then receives its own emission “back.” So now GP is heating itself?
I presumed you would not be saying something so daft, but now I have to ask, as there is nothing else that comes this close to answering my question. Is this where the extra energy is supposedly coming from?
“So the blue plate, essentially, has two “losing sides”. It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.
The green plate, on the other hand, has only one “losing side”, the side facing space. On the side facing the blue plate, it is gaining its energy along every single possible direction, since the blue plate fills the green plates entire field of view on that side. Remember, a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Thus, with only one “losing side”, you divide by one for the green plate. The 200 W/m^2 input remains 200 W/m^2 output”
If GP is the same temp as BP, then it emits 200 W/m2 from each side.
View factor is irrelevant to this understanding. It’s simply the S/B law.
So if GP is receiving 200 W/m2 from BP, and sending 200 W/m2 in BP’s direction, then this is an equilibrium state. This satisfies Postma’s premise.
Unfortunately, the GP is also sending 200 W/m2 spacewards. Where did this extra 200 W/m2 come from?
Analogy:
Every second you give me $1, and I give you $1.
Our transaction is ‘negated’. Nett zero transfer. Equilibrium.
But every second I’m also giving $1 to the guy behind me.
All the money I’m getting, I’m getting from you. Where is the extra dollar per second coming from?
There’s no loss from me to you, because you keep giving me a dollar back. But we are both ’emitting’ – our exchange keeps happening. So how can I emit a dollar a second to another guy at the same time when you have all the money?
Your answers always create energy that isn’t there. You say there is no energy “loss” from GP to BP, but you also confirm that energy is being emitted from GP in that direction.
And if GP is emitting more than 200 W/m2 in total, as it must be under Postma’s scenario, and it only receives 200 W/m2 from the BP, where is the extra energy coming from?
Please be specific. Please explain how GP gets 400 W/m2 delivered to it, which is what is required for it to be the same temp as BP.
Perhaps introducing temperatures will simplify.
Blackbody BP is radiating at 400 W/m2, which by S/B law equates to a temperature of 16.7 C.
If GP is also 16.7C, then it must likewise be radiating 400 W/m2 total.
But it only receives 200 W/m2 total from BP, the only source of heat to GP.
Where is the extra 200 W/m2 coming from to heat the GP up to 16.7C?
barry quotes me: “It’s just that with the blue plate, on the side facing the point source Sun, it emits to space along every direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions without receiving anything back.”
then says:
“So you’re saying that the GP emits to the BP, and then receives its own emission “back.” So now GP is heating itself?”
barry…where are you getting that from? In fact, I go on to say:
“There is only that one direction, perpendicular to the plate and directly pointing at the Sun, along which it is receiving all of its energy. So it cannot lose energy in that direction only, because that is the direction from which it is gaining all of its energy. It can lose energy in every single other direction though on the source facing side, and obviously also along every single other direction on its other side, facing the green plate. The blue plate loses energy to the green plate, the green plate gains all of its energy from the blue.
So the blue plate, essentially, has two "losing sides". It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.”
Which I think explains what I actually mean perfectly clearly. Then, carry on reading:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
By the way, the temperatures of the two plates in Postma’s solution are actually both 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2 each. They are not both 290 K, emitting 400 W/m^2 each, as you seem to be suggesting in your second comment. Sheesh. You really need to pay more attention, barry.
bobdroege says:
You cant handle it when you are shown to be wrong.
———————————
Doing the math in accordance with your beliefs is proof of anything Bob.
If you can point to a scientific law that prohibits DREMTs and Postma’s points of view or an experiment that establishes that, that would be different.
I get both points. And there is a peculiarity about radiation I haven’t seen any law address or any experiment in space done carefully enough to establish which viewpoint is correct.
That peculiarity is Stefan-Boltzmann emissivity factor that allows an object to warm to an equilibrium even when reflecting light and warming to that temperature while emitting less. Thats very peculiar if we were to accept your viewpoint while DREMT’s and Postma’s point of view doesn’t seem to add much to that peculiarity.
There is that discussion of a photon not being there unless somebody is there to observe it. Its akin to that philosophical question of does a tree falling in a forest make a sound if nobody is there to hear it. While philosophers wrestle over that point. . . .it seems Schroeder’s cat kind of makes it somewhat a reality for photons. . . .warming without actual capture of a photon.
An experiment is in order, a well designed and documented experiment. Something run for a long period of time that allows for very slow warming that results for shiny objects from reflection but doesn’t head off the warming. It seems it must work from some kind of chain reaction.
I think its curious and one either needs to see the operation in action and record its results are be left in the dark about it.
I have seen plenty of contrary examples but each can be explained by the loss of heat via convection and involves surfaces oriented to allow convection. e.g. it doesn’t work for down facing surfaces so reflective insulation on a ceiling doesn’t help your room stay warm and because of that standards were invoked in the 1970’s to prevent sellers from making claims about it being insulation that could do that.
barry quotes me:
“So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit.”
then invents:
“You’re saying there is a nett balanced energy exchange between the 2 plates. This is you starting with the same premise as Postma, when I am challenging that premise. This is you not responding to my question but merely repeating Postma’s premise.”
No, barry. It’s me saying that “the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit.”
Why must you put words in my mouth? Not only should you continue trying to understand the comment I keep linking to, you also should re-read:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1472797
DREMT,
You’re still not answering the question.
“By the way, the temperatures of the two plates in Postma’s solution are actually both 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2 each.”
This is terribly wrong.
If the BP by itself receives 400 W/m2 from the sun, then it must radiate at 400 W/m2 to achieve equilibrium with the source – it does this by radiating 200 W/m2 from both sides, which is twice the area being irradiated by 400 W/m2 from the source.
I’m fairly sure you would agree with this – it should be self-evident.
So for Postma to be right, introducing the GP would then lower the temperature of the BP.
Sorry, DREMT, Postma and you don’t make any sense. How does a blackbody surface irraditated at 400 W/m2 fail to be 290 K?
“If the BP by itself receives 400 W/m2 from the sun, then it must radiate at 400 W/m2 to achieve equilibrium with the source – it does this by radiating 200 W/m2 from both sides, which is twice the area being irradiated by 400 W/m2 from the source.”
No, barry. The BP by itself emits 200 W/m^2 at a temperature of 244 K. In both Eli’s solution, and Postma’s. Look it up. In Eli’s solution, adding the GP causes the BP to rise in temperature to 262 K, emitting 267.7 W/m^2, and the GP is at 220 K, emitting 133.3 W/m^2.
In Postma’s solution, both the BP and GP are at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2.
You don’t even understand the basics…
…and I have answered your question. Stop repeating yourself.
“If you can point to a scientific law that prohibits DREMTs and Postmas points of view”
Exactly Bill, That’s why we specifically point to Conservation of Energy, otherwise known as the First Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT).
It is straightforwardly being violated. The BP source delivers F to the GP, and the GP emits F back to the source.
Thus, as JP agrees, 0 net energy is transferred from the source to the GP.
And yet they insist that the GP also emits F to space. But obviously it cannot be doing that without replacement of that energy from the source.
So this is a straightforward violation of a scientific law, 1LOT.
DREMT will try to distract and deny, but never explains this problem away.
Ah yes, I see where I went wrong. 290K is what the temp would be if the plate only emitted to one side. The area difference affects the temp as well as the rate of emission. 244K it is.
I read over all your replies, and in not one of them have you explained how GP gets the full 400 W/m2 delivered to it in order to be as warm as BP. You’ve affirmed that BP gives GP 200 W/m2, but you haven’t once said where the extra 200 W/m2 comes from to heat GP up to the same temp as BP.
“barry, your problem is that it isn’t just a question of simple ‘accounting’. Its thermodynamics. Nobody said it was going to be straightforward.”
This is as close as you got to even acknowledging there was a deficit that needed to be accounted for. So please don’t tell me you’ve answered the question when you’ve actually just dismissed it out of hand.
This question has nothing to do with what GP loses, and everything to do with what it receives. GP requires the same energy input as BP to rise to the same temperature. BP gets 400 W/m2 and so must GP. But GP is getting all its energy from BP, which is radiating to GP at 200 W/m2. Where dows the extra 200 W/m2 come from?
The response that GP doesn’t lose energy to the BP misses the point.
The response that you’ve explained it before (when you haven’t) avoids the point.
But you’re 12 posts down without attempting an answer, so it’s too much to hope by now. Probably because Postma never answers this question either.
The problem with Postma’s thesis is that the plates being the same temperature is a premise rather than a derived result. He never explains or questions this premise, and from this flawed assumption everything else flows.
Except for an answer on how the GP gets as warm as the BP when it only gets half the energy.
Your question was answered, fully, quite a while ago, barry. Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
Now, you might not understand the answer, and you might not ever accept the answer, but please stop trying to pretend you have not received an answer. Will you ever get round to answering any of my questions, or responding to the points I raised that you ignored? Probably not.
Oh well. Until next time, when you will pretend again that none of this was ever said.
Barry’s right with his several posts above.
gramie pups, however, is delusional to think his version of physics is correct. Here’s just one example apparently taken from Joe the Postman:
WRONG! Where are grammie’s numerous earlier rants about view angles? The Sun’s view angle from the BP is very small and the emissions fill the rest of the view. The BP can’t “heat” the Sun, but it can radiate to deep space in all other directions. Of course, the net energy flow goes into the BP, because the BP’s emission temperature is far below that of the Sun.
The same is true for the GP, which receives half the emissions from the BP but emits only half of that from each side, so the net energy transfer is from the BP to the GP and then to deep space. The GP can not be at the same temperature as the BP because that would require an IR input of 400 watts to a 1.0 m^2 plate when we know less than that can be sourced from the BP side which emits 200 watts per 1.0 m^2 plate initially. As Barry and others have pointed out, time and time again, where’s that 400 watts per 1.0 m^2 plate come from so that the GP’s temperature is 244k?
"WRONG! Where are grammie’s numerous earlier rants about view angles? The Sun’s view angle from the BP is very small and the emissions fill the rest of the view. The BP can’t “heat” the Sun, but it can radiate to deep space in all other directions. Of course, the net energy flow goes into the BP, because the BP’s emission temperature is far below that of the Sun."
Swanson shrieks "WRONG!" and then proceeds to write a paragraph in agreement with what I said. Swanson cannot follow a discussion. We already know this.
In his next paragraph he repeats barry’s question, that I’ve already answered several times over. Here again is the answer:
So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate. It’s just that with the blue plate, on the side facing the point source Sun, it emits to space along every direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions without receiving anything back. There is only that one direction, perpendicular to the plate and directly pointing at the Sun, along which it is receiving all of its energy. So it cannot lose energy in that direction only, because that is the direction from which it is gaining all of its energy. It can lose energy in every single other direction though on the source facing side, and obviously also along every single other direction on its other side, facing the green plate. The blue plate loses energy to the green plate, the green plate gains all of its energy from the blue.
So the blue plate, essentially, has two "losing sides". It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.
The green plate, on the other hand, has only one "losing side", the side facing space. On the side facing the blue plate, it is gaining its energy along every single possible direction, since the blue plate fills the green plate’s entire field of view on that side. Remember, a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Thus, with only one "losing side", you divide by one for the green plate. The 200 W/m^2 input remains 200 W/m^2 output…
…and that’s all there is to it.
Nate says:
Exactly Bill, Thats why we specifically point to Conservation of Energy, otherwise known as the First Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT).
Thus, as JP agrees, 0 net energy is transferred from the source to the GP.
And yet they insist that the GP also emits F to space. But obviously it cannot be doing that without replacement of that energy from the source.
So this is a straightforward violation of a scientific law, 1LOT.
————————-
That is incorrect Nate and here is why. You have acknowledged that there is zero net energy being transferred from the source to the plate and you ask how then can the GP also emit energy to space.
The answer is incredibly simple. There is zero transfer from the BP to the GP because of equilibrium, but the instant the GP emits a photon to space there is no longer an equilibrium proving without a doubt that radiation is faster than your brain.
Thus there is no violation of the 1LOT you just imagine it to be so because your brain is mired in mud and you completely missed the lack of equilibrium occurring faster than your brain synapses operate.
“barry, your problem is that it isnt just a question of simple accounting. Its thermodynamics. Nobody said it was going to be straightforward.”
Finally DREMT admits there is an accounting problem.
The accounting problem is otherwise known as the creating energy from nothing problem, and it is a straightforwardly not allowed in physics.
Otherwise we get perpetual motion machines. But maybe DREMT can be sold one of those.
So now that problem is settled we can take a macro view of the situation.
Insulation is a system that ‘slows’ the rate of natural heat movement from place to place.
In the GPE experiment we have radiation across a vacuum and conduction through a plate. From the coefficients of conduction and heat loss equations we know most metals conduct heat over short distances at a very rapid rate to obtain a slowing of 50% representative of the 3rd grader radiation model thats a very large temp difference. Thus there is no slowing (significant anyway) of heat transfer and thus no insulation. . . .proving once again to the world the perils of thought experiments.
“The answer is incredibly simple. There is zero transfer from the BP to the GP because of equilibrium, but the instant the GP emits a photon to space there is no longer an equilibrium”
Exactly Bill. It is a mistake to assume equilibrium as JP and DREMT do.
Equilibrium requires equal temps and 0 heat transfer.
Thus we need unequal temps to satisfy 1lot here.
We require the BP to warm and the GP to cool until a steady state is reached. And that happens when the BP is emitting 266.7 and GP 133.3 W/m2.
Then the NET transfer from BP to GP is 266.7-133.3 = 133.3 W/m2 and this is C exactly what the GP emits to space.
That gives T of 262 K and 220 K for the BP and GP.
grammie pups insists that:
Again and again, grammie pups repeatedly asserts his ignorance of physics. It’s well proven that both plates emit from their respective surfaces and between the two, energy is also transferred in both directions. But the net flow of energy is from the hot plate to the cooler one. You and Joe the Postman have not provided any physical mechanism to support your assertion above, which is your only reason to deny the GPE.
“It’s well proven that both plates emit from their respective surfaces…”
…and I haven’t suggested otherwise. Learn to read, and follow a discussion.
Nate says:
”The answer is incredibly simple. There is zero transfer from the BP to the GP because of equilibrium, but the instant the GP emits a photon to space there is no longer an equilibrium – Exactly Bill.
It is a mistake to assume equilibrium as JP and DREMT do.”
No its not. It is often referred to as equilibrium and often it is pulled back and perhaps more accurately called a quasi-equilibrium.
As much as you want to reduce it to a static diagram you have to somehow have a way of showing the flow of energy. A photon by photon train of energy could mean an incredibly small pulse of going one photon under equilibrium 50% of the time and full up equilibrium 50% of the time. How would you express that on your 3rd grader radiation model after correcting for one half of a photon?
400watts/m2 – 3.313E-34w/m2. I can’t even get Excel to give me the decimal to go with 399watts/m2.
“No its not. It is often referred to as equilibrium and often it is pulled back and perhaps more accurately called a quasi-equilibrium.”
You were correct the first time. Now you dont want to be correct if we agree and you and Postma disagree?
It is mistake to assume equilibrium as Postma does, with T equal and Q = 0 , because, as you discovered, we require a heat flow between the plates and then out of this system, to satisfy 1LOT.
DREMT,
No, you’ve never answered the question. You’ve never even acknowledged it.
You haven’t said whether you agree there is an energy deficit to GP or not, much less explained how there isn’t one.
If you think there isn’t a deficit, then explain how GP gets 400 W/m2 to heat up to the same temperature as BP. We know that
GP gets 200 W/m2 from BP, so where is the rest coming from?
Not once have you dealt with this. Neither has Postma. You just keep repeating or paraphrasing his thesis. But his thesis is premised on the two plates being the same temperature. You won’t find any answers from him about how they get to be that way.
If you won’t question this premise then you will never answer the question.
And the next time you tell you’ve answered this question, be assured that you have not even come close.
Nate says:
Thus the GP doesnt stay at equilibrium with each photon it emits to space and the BP instantly replenishes that equilibrium because the flow is 400w/m2 not zero.
One photon at a time is not gonna work, Bill. Think it through.
——————————————
Well certainly across the entire plate its more than one photon at a time, but I am talking here one molecule at a time.
Nate says:
You will never get enough energy transferred from BP to GP to replace the 200 W/m2 emitted by the GP to space that way. A slight drop in T results in a slight heat transfer according to the RHTE, the one mentioned by JP.
Only when the T difference Between the plates becomes significant will you get enough heat flow to replace the outgoing energy.
That is why 1LOT is used to find the required Temps.
When you mention quasi equilibrium, what you are getting at is a steady-state situation.
In this problem the steady state has a steady flow of 400 W/m2 of heat into, thru, and out of the system. Some goes out thru BP and some thru GP.
In order to have that steady heat flow thru the system there is a required steady T difference between the plates, according to Q = sigma(Tb^4 -Tg^4), the RHTE. Note that JP quotes this.
The Q has to be large enough to replace what is exiting the GP, which works out to be 133.3 W/m2. And 267 W/m2 exits the BP.
—————————————
Well you are making a lot of assumptions about the fate of backradiation. As we know photons can be reflected. And the passage of vibrational energy is much quicker through a thin plate than via emitting photons.
Thus right off you are making a claim of a slowing of net radiation received by a heated body that isn’t cooling itself by giving up heat.
And as I have been saying its the outcome of a real experiment, carefully conducted that will determine the outcome. and in conducting such an experiment you need strong controls over emissivity or otherwise you will have reflection of photons, gaps between plates than will reduce energy being received by the GP for flat plates and square distance issues with concentrically larger spherical shells, and careful accounting of energy entering a leaving the system. . . .all issues overlooked by Swanson in his experiment.
For example lamp black which is kind of the standard actually reflects about 5% of light. https://www.omega.co.uk/literature/transactions/volume1/emissivitya.html
So you can go on and on yappering about what you think is happening but the rate of flow is so fast there isn’t really any way to measure it. Like a film with every other frame being transparent move the film through a projector at 1000frames per second and your movie is going to play at 500 frames per second you simply assume that the thermopile you are using is processing a signal as fast as the signal in front of you.
Thought experiments generally suck. Its like an auditor going into an assignment and never gathering any evidence and just going yep process looks convincing!
Bill,
“Well you are making a lot of assumptions about the fate of backradiation. As we know photons can be reflected.”
The GPE is done with blackbodies, so no radiation is reflected.
You seem to have a problem with this. Blackbody physics are done to put a radiative/heat flow problem in its simplest state and make it easier to derive principles.
This is and has been absolutely standard for more than a hundred years. The fact that real bodies are not perfectly black only adds an emissivity factor to the equation, it doesn’t change the principles one bit.
A blackbody absorbs all radiation incident on it. It doesn’t matter what the temperature of the source is, that is its function.
IRL a surface absorbs radiation according to its optical properties, not according to its temperature. This is a concept many ‘skeptics’ here reject.
grammie pups pontificates again:
grammie’s repeated claim is pure nonsense. The GP gains energy from the BP and the BP gains energy from the BP, since each radiates toward the other with the same view angles. Given black body surfaces, the energy from each plate is absorbed by the other. The only difference is that the heated BP emits more energy toward the GP than the GP emits toward the BP in return, so there’s a net transfer of energy from the BP to the GP. The obvious result of this thought experiment is that the GP exhibits a lower temperature than the BP.
grammid is on the “losing side” in the debate, yet he keeps on denying the truth, throwing up ever more absurd attempts to continue with his lost cause.
DREMT,
“Will you ever get round to answering any of my questions, or responding to the points I raised that you ignored?”
Ignored? let’s see.
Yes, heat flow tends towards equilibrium. Answered that ages ago upthread.
Your key point that GP doesn’t “lose energy” towards BP is irrelevant to my query about how GP gets 400 W/m2 delivered to it to be the same temp as BP.
The view factor difference between point sources and plates does not respond to my query one tiny bit. You keep talking about losses/emissions, I keep asking where GP gains 400 W/m2 from to heat up to the same temp as BP.
That’s all you have to do – show me how GP is getting 400 W/m2 delivered to it when BP only emits 200 W/m2 to it.
If your answer doesn’t start with,
“The extra 200 W/m2 comes from…”
or
“There is no deficit because GP gets 400 W/m2 in this way…”
or
“The GP only gets 200 W/m2, but is the same temperature as the BP because…”
Then you are not only not answering the question, you are avoiding it. As you have all along.
barry says:
April 13, 2023 at 9:06 PM
Bill,
Well you are making a lot of assumptions about the fate of backradiation. As we know photons can be reflected.
The GPE is done with blackbodies, so no radiation is reflected.
————–
All that tells me Barry is there is no experiment as there are no blackbodies.
One would think you believe that the process of becoming a real scientist is to go to trained parrot school. Oops thats the wrong school! Thats the political science major.
Bill,
You didn’t say anything of any substance there.
The S/B equation is derived from blackbodies. The sigma in that equation is a constant expressing the rate of emission of a blackbody at a given temperature, an empirical measurement. This is the BASIS for any radiative transfer equation that also includes different emissivities. In fact, the value for the emissivity of an object is expressed as a ratio of a blackbody.
If you have a problem with blackbody theory then you must doubt the S/B equation and the entire field of radiative transfer.
Of course my comment that I keep linking to answers the question, barry. The fact is that you don’t need 400 W/m^2 from the BP to warm the GP to 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. You only need 200 W/m^2 from the BP, because the GP only has one “losing side”, the side facing space. Whereas you do need 400 W/m^2 from the Sun to warm the BP to 244 K, because the BP has two “losing sides”. What I’m pointing out here is that my comment does answer your question, not that you necessarily understand or accept the answer, but it answers it. I deal with what you see as the problem in it. Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
…and my answer is not based on the premise that the plates must come to the same temperature. It is based only on the premise that a plate cannot lose energy in the direction from which it is gaining its energy. Like with the BP, it gains its energy only in the one direction perpendicular to the plate, directly from the Sun. It cannot lose energy in that direction, otherwise it would have to be “heating” the Sun! It does lose energy in the entire hemisphere of directions on the source-facing side, besides that one direction, however, because it is not gaining energy from space.
Finally, there are questions I asked and points I raised that you have still not responded to. You probably never will. That’s just the way it works with you guys.
Swanson pontificates and declares victory:
“The GP gains energy from the BP and the BP gains energy from the BP…”
…yet he apparently has no clue about directionality of energy flow. The GP gains its energy from the BP and the BP loses energy to the GP. The GPs temperature is set and maintained by the BP!
“All that tells me Barry is there is no experiment as there are no blackbodies.
One would think you believe that the process of becoming a real scientist is to go to trained parrot school. Oops thats the wrong school! Thats the political science major.”
Nice try at a Hail Mary, but there are plenty of experiments on NEARLY black bodies that differ negligibly from the predictions for a true blackbody.
These are bodies that emit 99.7 % of the radiation as blackbodies would (in theory) and abs.orb 99.7 % of what a blackbody abs.orbs.
The differences in results for the temperatures of the plates in a GPE experiment with these real world parameters can be found, and are negligibly different from those predicted for a true blackbody.
So as usual, desperate Bill offers up another nothingburger.
“You only need 200 W/m^2 from the BP, because the GP only has one losing side, the side facing space. ”
Repeating illogic doesnt magically turn it into logic.
DREMT seems to realize that there is an accounting problem, but ignores it, with the faint hope that somehow, some way, it won’t matter.
Here’s the problem, in JPs own words.
“Ive said this before but it bears repeating it seems: no energy is LOST on the source-facing side, because at equilibrium any vector of emission is met with a vector of input (for plane parallel view factor).
Heres the heat flow equation for plane parallel geometry:
Q = sT1^4 sT2^4
At equilibrium Q = 0, and the emissions are thus equal: sT1^4 = sT2^4
But the plate has a temperature, and so it emits sT2^4 on the other side, conserving the input of sT1^4.”
So first, he simply ASSUMES, without any science rationale, that the plates need to be at the same temperature.
Then he clearly finds that the emitted flux of the GP toward the BP is EQUAL to the incoming flux from the BP to the GP. They CANCEL!
And that is why the net heat (energy) transfer is Q = 0.
But THEN he says the GP is still emitting to space, because it has his assumed temperature, BUT the INPUT flux from the BP is SOMEHOW no longer cancelled.
It has been resurrected!
This is the accounting fraud.
But later, before making his critics disappear, JP appears frustrated with their poking this same hole in his logic, he tells them:
“The source supplies F, and that F shows up on the other side of the plate, therefore energy is conserved. Trivial, when you simply use the math”
“So theres the result. You see the math. You see how energy is conserved. Thats it. Stop there. All the answers are there and theres no more math to do.”
IOW He tells them to basically just ignore the problem between the plates!
The fundamental problem is that he has ASSUMED without a good reason, from the start, that the plates have equal temperatures.
And that is what leads to the conservation of energy problem.
While physics doesnt assume, and just SOLVES for the temperatures of the plates, which turn out to be different.
And then you see the math and you see that energy is conserved for the system and for each plate.
…the GPs temperature is set and maintained by the BP!
grammie pups is having so much fun spreading lies that can’t admit that he’s wrong. Either that or he is a pathological liar, perhaps trying to qualify as a politician or priest promoting a bronze age religion. When cornered, he just ignores the challenge. So he writes:
This reply is a response to my basic point that the BP also receives energy from the GP. The GP’s temperature is “set” as the result of the IR energy flowing into and out of it at steady state. As Barry and Nate both point out, the GP’s temperature can not settle at the same temperature as the BP, since a 1.0 m^2 GP can not emit 400 watts total, as the GP can’t receive 400 watts from the BP.
Same old story, different version, same old lies.
Swanson is reduced to insults and false accusations. Guess that means he concedes the point.
Yeah, grammie pups, I concede that you don’t have a serious reply based on physics. Have you done the Glass Plate Experiment yet? No? Don’t you want to PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT that all this GPE stuff is wrong? What are you waiting for, smart ass?
I’m happy that there’s no GPE. Always will be. Shriek with passionate fury for the rest of your life, Swanson. Rain down your eternal hatred on those who just happen to think differently to you all you like. It won’t make any difference.
No GPE.
Nate says:
”You only need 200 W/m^2 from the BP, because the GP only has one losing side, the side facing space.”
Repeating illogic doesnt magically turn it into logic.
—————————–
thats correct.
But logic must be built on sound tested principles. Its not logic if it isn’t. Its like science fiction. Often science fiction turns out to be somewhat true, often it doesn’t. Here we are arguing about who are favorite science fiction author is, nothing more.
“Im happy that theres no GPE. Always will be.”
DREMT debated with a moron, himself, and declared himself the winner.
Everyone outside the Moron Cult is still bothered by energy being created from nothing.
Actually the whole GPE argument is pretty meaningless. We have a GHE how it works is the point in contention because only by knowing how it works can we predict future warming.
We look at strategies to insulate the James Webb satellite and the insulation theories of the spinners doesn’t even seem to be considered. . . .going straight to rare metal reflectors as the primary method. But is that because of the rare earth metal lobby?
Corruption is so very deeply embedded everywhere via power seeking. In one system its money in another its just plain physical power.
Science is the greatest thing in the world because it is used to determine how much freedom we should have. And here we have thought experiments, ”manufactured science” making those determinations. This is a simple experiment if carefully constructed. Its unimaginable that not a single proponent can point to an experiment to show what is so. Instead it has been thrown into a political orientation where one side gets inculcated and the other forced to give up freedoms.
Obviously if climate change is natural there would be no political foundation for action.
I recognize a huge uncertainty here in the most basic levels of the science. The spinners have to be right to wield the power they desire to wield. I would think they above all would demand proof. . . .unless of course they have been too well trained as a parrot.
grammie pups writes his usual conclusion: “No GPE.”.
That makes him happy, since he doesn’t have to provide any sort of proof for his repeated empty assertions, he just reverts to his usual MO of ignoring the evidence.
Have you done the Glass Plate Experiment yet? I know it can tough to use a spray can to paint something a solid color, but even a moron like you could do it. If you can’t handle the effort maybe you could get Hunter troll to do it, since he appears to think some sort of proof is necessary. Turn your computer off for a few days and do it.
OK, Swanson.
Hunter wrote:
But Hunter troll, the Sun Shield doesn’t use “rare earth materials”:
Swanson, you can go now. You’ve done your bit. You usually explode into the argument very, very late on, spew some venomous hatred towards me and add very little to the debate that hasn’t been said by others already, whilst failing to follow what’s been said, generally. You’ve done all those things, now. So, you can go. No need for you to hang around unnecessarily.
“Actually the whole GPE argument is pretty meaningless.”
Auditor Bill is unable or unwilling to account for the obvious accounting fraud and failed logic perpetrated by his sky-dragon-slayer friends with their version of the GPE.
Thus he tries to change the subject.
Here’s a question for him. Why is the sun able to transfer heat to the BP?
Is it perhaps because the sun is hotter than the BP?
Yes, we have a Hot Sun transferring heat to a warm BP, that makes sense and satisfies 2LOT.
We also have a warm GP transferring heat to the very cold space. That also makes sense and satisfies 2LOT.
In both cases, there is a T difference driving the heat energy transfer.
The slayers want us to believe that the BP though at the same T as the GP, can still somehow transfer 200 W/m^2 to it.
That makes no sense, and fails 2LOT.
Nate says:
”Auditor Bill is unable or unwilling to account for the obvious accounting fraud and failed logic perpetrated by his sky-dragon-slayer friends with their version of the GPE.
Thus he tries to change the subject.”
Accounting fraud. I can claim to have purchased a piece of land even make a receipt as evidence for you. However, before accounting for it you might want to verify I own the land.
Of course if you think that is unnecessary I think I know of a bridge you might be really interested in.
p.s. seems to me proving what you say would be as easy as getting a basketball and suspending it inside of a glass IR opaque globe using some strong threads to suspend it. That and a few thermopiles should demonstrate to you how idiotic your idea is.
Oh shoot we have already seen several such experiments in greenhouses, multi-compartment boxes and you still believe it works.
Even evidence doesn’t dissuade you and all you do is keep spewing.
So I guess if you did the experiment you still wouldn’t believe your own eyes either.
DREMT,
Congratulations on finally answering the question. No, you hadn’t answered it before, because you hadn’t acknowledged that GP was only getting 200 W/m2 and no energy from anywhere else.
So let’s see the answer.
“The fact is that you don’t need 400 W/m^2 from the BP to warm the GP to 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. You only need 200 W/m^2 from the BP, because the GP only has one “losing side”, the side facing space. Whereas you do need 400 W/m^2 from the Sun to warm the BP to 244 K, because the BP has two “losing sides”.”
We agree that GP emits from the side facing the BP. Postma says the same in the comments.
If GP is emitting any energy at all towards BP, then its emission to space must be less than 200 W/m2.
GP is only getting 200 W/m2, so that HAS to be the case.
The trick you and Postma keep relying on is using the equilibrium between the two plates to say that the GP doesn’t “lose energy” towards the BP, but you then treat that as if GP doesn’t emit anything towards BP.
When called on it you say, yes yes, of course GP emits.
But you don’t explain how GP can emit anything at all towards BP when the total of the energy it receives from BP is emitted to space.
So when you say that GP only has “one losing side,” you are basically admitting that GP is not emitting to the other side.
And when you say, “of course GP emits from both sides,” you can’t explain how GP emits the total of its received energy to space while emitting yet more from the other side.
I repeated the circular argument here so you can understand how it looks to me. The math you and Postma provide says that GP can’t be emitting from the inwards facing side. There is no energy left to do so.
I perfectly understand what Postma is arguing. That’s why I know the flaw starts as soon as he preordains that the plates must be at the same temperature.
Remember, this is not a result he arrived at by deduction. It is his starting premise, and it is the root of all the energy accounting problems in his thesis.
I’ll distil those points down into a question for you.
This is going to make you squirm. You’re going to have to deal with the GP side that is emitting but not “losing energy.”
What is the rate at which the GP side facing the BP is emitting? You’ve said it IS emitting, so is it 200 W/m2 or something else?
"Congratulations on finally answering the question. No, you hadn’t answered it before, because you hadn’t acknowledged that GP was only getting 200 W/m2 and no energy from anywhere else."
I had answered the question already, barry. Everything I said to you in my last comment, you could have already got from the post I have repeatedly linked to. So that’s a false accusation, right from the off. Here is the explanation for you again:
"So, basically, the key is that a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Note that he’s acknowledging completely that both sides of the blue plate emit, and both sides of the green plate emit. There is nothing happening to block any emission from either side of either plate. It’s just that with the blue plate, on the side facing the point source Sun, it emits to space along every direction in the entire hemisphere of possible directions without receiving anything back. There is only that one direction, perpendicular to the plate and directly pointing at the Sun, along which it is receiving all of its energy. So it cannot lose energy in that direction only, because that is the direction from which it is gaining all of its energy. It can lose energy in every single other direction though on the source facing side, and obviously also along every single other direction on its other side, facing the green plate. The blue plate loses energy to the green plate, the green plate gains all of its energy from the blue.
So the blue plate, essentially, has two "losing sides". It loses energy on the side facing the source (in all directions bar one), and on the side facing the green plate (in all directions). So you split the input flux by two for the blue plate. The 400 W/m^2 input becomes 200 W/m^2 output.
The green plate, on the other hand, has only one "losing side", the side facing space. On the side facing the blue plate, it is gaining its energy along every single possible direction, since the blue plate fills the green plate’s entire field of view on that side. Remember, a plate can only lose energy in a direction from which it is not gaining its energy. Thus, with only one "losing side", you divide by one for the green plate. The 200 W/m^2 input remains 200 W/m^2 output…
…and that’s all there is to it."
Note once again that my explanation is not based on the premise that the plates must come to the same temperature. It is based only on the premise that a plate cannot lose energy in the direction from which it is gaining its energy.
"What is the rate at which the GP side facing the BP is emitting? You’ve said it IS emitting, so is it 200 W/m2 or something else?"
The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2, barry. That naturally means both sides of the plate are emitting 200 W/m^2.
Now barry, a question for you. From one of my previous comments (and a point that you always ignore):
"…with the BP, it gains its energy only in the one direction perpendicular to the plate, directly from the Sun. It cannot lose energy in that direction, otherwise it would have to be “heating” the Sun! It does lose energy in the entire hemisphere of directions on the source-facing side, besides that one direction, however, because it is not gaining energy from space."
Do you think the BP can "heat" the Sun in that direction, or not? I put "heat" in scare quotes because I realize you will probably reject that term, so you can substitute in "insulate" or "result in the Sun having a higher temperature" or whatever you feel the need to put in there.
If you answer "no", then the obvious follow up question is: "Why do you think the BP cannot warm/insulate the Sun if you think the GP can warm/insulate the BP?"
If you answer "yes", then I guess all I can do is laugh.
barry says:
This is the BASIS for any radiative transfer equation that also includes different emissivities. In fact, the value for the emissivity of an object is expressed as a ratio of a blackbody.
If you have a problem with blackbody theory then you must doubt the S/B equation and the entire field of radiative transfer.
—————————-
You haven’t provided a validated source of what part of blackbody theory I disagree with Barry.
Typically people who make such vague claims do so because they are angry and have no idea about what they are talking about.
If you can’t come up with anything specific well try to pull your head out of your arse at least.
DREMT,
“The GP is emitting 200 W/m^2, barry. That naturally means both sides of the plate are emitting 200 W/m^2.”
You’ve made a mistake.
With just the BP alone, it is receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun. The emitting surface area is twice the area being irradiated, so it emits half the received energy from one face and half from the other. And this is also what Postma says.
“…for a given input flux F from the source, either side of the plate emits F/2”
GP is emitting a total of 400 W/m2 if both sides are emitting at 200 W/m2.
That makes perfect sense if the plates are the same temperature. At the same temperature their total emissions must be equal.
Of course, we still have to figure out where GP gets 400 W/m2 from.
But you’ve just before told me it only gets 200 W/m2.
There is no way GP can be emitting more than the total of 200 W/m2 that it receives.
If it is emitting 200 W/m2 from each face, that is twice the amount of the energy that is irradiating the GP from BP.
Even if there is no nett loss between GP and BP, there is still an extra 200 W/m2 to account for.
1LoT remains broken.
DREMT,
“Do you think the BP can “heat” the Sun in that direction, or not? I put “heat” in scare quotes because I realize you will probably reject that term, so you can substitute in “insulate” or “result in the Sun having a higher temperature” or whatever you feel the need to put in there.”
As Postma’s theoretical sun has no surface area BP can’t irradiate it. The point source sun is unaffected by BP.
Bill,
“You havent provided a validated source of what part of blackbody theory I disagree with Barry.”
Yes, you weren’t terribly clear. Just some mumbled issue with blackbodies.
“All that tells me Barry is there is no experiment as there are no blackbodies.”
Some implication that without experimentation blackbody theory science isn’t enough.
Do you even know what you were saying?
With Bill it’s:
Ignore what you say and go off on a tangent.
Ignore the accounting fraud and go off on gish gallop.
Ignore energy conservation and demand experimental proof.
With DREMT it’s:
Ignore what you say and repeat the nonsense talking points.
Ignore what you ask and repeat the failed logic.
Ignore the failure of the logic and repeat the failed logic.
They know they can’t win in an honest debate.
"You’ve made a mistake.
With just the BP alone, it is receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun. The emitting surface area is twice the area being irradiated, so it emits half the received energy from one face and half from the other. And this is also what Postma says."
No mistake, barry. What Postma says, and what I’ve been at pains to try and explain to you, is that you divide the 400 W/m^2 received by the BP from the Sun by 2 because it can "lose" energy from both of its sides. It has two "losing sides". It then emits 200 W/m^2. Whereas the GP, receiving 200 W/m^2, has only one "losing side", the side facing space. So you divide the 200 W/m^2 by one. It then emits 200 W/m^2. You need to distinguish between energy emitted from a plate, and energy "lost".
When emitting to another object, the plate enters into a "transaction" with that object. For the emitted energy to be "lost" from the plate, the plate has to be "heating" that object. So, for the BPs emissions on the source facing side to be "lost" from the plate in that one single direction perpendicular to the plate, the BP would have to be "heating" the Sun. For the GPs emissions on the BP facing side to be "lost" from the plate in every single possible direction, the GP would have to be "heating" the BP.
When emitting to space, the emitted energy is, of course, "lost".
So, directionality of energy flow is important. As we can see, the Sun "heats" the BP, and the BP "heats" the GP. That is to say, the Sun "loses" energy to the BP, and the BP "loses" energy to the GP.
The GP doesn’t "heat" the BP, just as the BP doesn’t "heat" the Sun.
Your answer to my question was a complete dodge, by the way, barry. The Sun is treated as a point source to the BP, but Postma is (again) at pains to point out, emissions in the one direction directly perpendicular to the BP do "hit" the Sun. So, do they warm/insulate it? I repeat the question to you…and don’t respond again that it cannot be irradiated by the BP, because I’ve just confirmed that it can.
“Whereas the GP, receiving 200 W/m^2, has only one “losing side””
While completely ignoring the fact that the 200 W/m^2 it receives is immediately returned to sender, with its own 200 W/m^2 emission!
“and both sides of the green plate emit.”
IOW the GP has no side in which it can GAIN energy.
Only losing energy, it must cool down.
Undoubtedly DREMT will simply repeat this accounting fraud again and again and again, ignoring its ill-logic.
DREMT,
“No mistake, barry. What Postma says, and what I’ve been at pains to try and explain to you, is that you divide the 400 W/m^2 received by the BP from the Sun by 2 because it can “lose” energy from both of its sides. It has two “losing sides”. It then emits 200 W/m^2.”
Yep, BP emits a total of 400 W/m2, 200 W/m2 from each side. As it must to be in equilibrium with the input.
“Whereas the GP, receiving 200 W/m^2, has only one “losing side”, the side facing space. So you divide the 200 W/m^2 by one. It then emits 200 W/m^2. You need to distinguish between energy emitted from a plate, and energy “lost”.
Your math and what you describe are in contradiction.
You tell me the answer upthread that of course GP is emitting 200 W/m2 in both directions. And now your math has it only emitting from one side.
We can undercut this contradiction by starting with Postma’s premise.
Per the S/B law temperature and the rate of emission are proportional.
There is no distinction between emission and loss for the blackbody temperature of the GP. As the premise is that both plates are the same temperature, then we know for certain that GP must be emitting a total of 400 W/m2, 200 W/m2 from each side. Because that is what BP is emitting at the same temperature.
But GP is only receiving 200 W/m2 on one side.
There is no view factor you can point to, no amount of “no loss” verbiage that can account for the fact that the total energy input to GP is half the input to BP. They cannot possibly be the same temperature.
“Your answer to my question was a complete dodge, by the way, barry.”
It was the correct answer. What Postma said was:
“With a point object as the source, then the view factor of the source relative to the plate is negligible, i.e., the point source occupies almost no or basically no angular view factor as viewed from the plate. Why is this important? It is important because it means that thermal radiation emitted from the plate on the side of the source can emit to open space, that there are no opposing vectors of input radiation from the source except for the infinitesimal vector pointed directly toward the source; being infinitesimal, it may therefore be ignored.”
If you’d asked about our own sun I’d say what you already know I would. The sun, at 0.99 emissivity, absorbs nearly all incident radiation that falls on it. Warmer bodies absorb radiation from colder bodies, sensationally, but as long as the colder bodies do not become any colder in the process the 2LoT is not broken by this ordinary transfer of radiative energy.
While the sun receives some energy back from the planets, the temperature difference between ours and another without planets would be infinitesimal, considering the distance, temperatures of the planets and miniscule view factors.
Postma has led you to believe that “no loss” is meaningful. All it means is that both inward faces are emitting energy at the same rate. Those emissions don’t disappear, they are just in equilibrium – nett zero flow.
And his presumption that they are the same temperature is the precise cause of the accounting deficit.
Because OF COURSE GP is going to be cooler than BP, because BP is sending AWAY from GP half the energy that it is getting from the sun. BP is blocking the sunlight and sending half of it back out to space as IR.
This should be totally obvious to anyone who has ever stood in the shade. It’s amazing you don’t see it.
“BP emits a total of 400 W/m2, 200 W/m2 from each side.”
That’s clumsily put by me – GP emits from each side half of what it would emit if it only emitted from one side.
Put another way, a meter square thin blackbody emits 400 watts total, 200 Watts out of each side.
But I reckon you got what I mean.
barry says:
Some implication that without experimentation blackbody theory science isnt enough.
Do you even know what you were saying?
———————————-
No Barry. I understand blackbody theory. I am just discussing the extrapolation of this theory.
Blackbody theory, and a theory it is is well founded non-experimental theory. i.e. if the body absorbs all the radiation it will reemit all it absorbed back at the source. This was deduced by S&B out of measuring what was emitted by various bodies. It emits what it absorbs. Kirschhoff’s law compliant. The calculated the energy and applied the emissivity factor for the non-blackbodies they were testing. And on the basis of you emit what you receive it also concluded via the emissivity factor that non-blackbodies also warm to the same temperature despite NOT absorbing the radiation they just warm more slowly. Emissivity = albedo for non-transparent bodies. So why wouldn’t a blackbody plate passing radiation by conduction warm up to the same temperature as one that doesn’t absorb it?
As I said you can do math but the math of absor-p-tion isn’t the math of how much something warms and that was shown in blackbody theory.
So I am just complaining about using math here in an unscientifically established way. Postma’s heat is not ‘lost’ on the warm side is likewise not completely convincing as we also extrapolate that the reason cooling is reduced by the BP
barry, I fully and completely grokked your argument over five years ago, now. That’s how I know it’s wrong. You’re not telling me anything new. In fact, you’re just repeating yourself over and over again. My explanation, which I have linked to or quoted so many times now that it must be getting close to double figures, refutes your argument. My argument refutes your argument, yet all we are doing here is just repeating our arguments to each other over and over again, until one of us gets the last word. Completely pointless, as always. Just "doing the GPE dance", as I predicted we would way, way, way, way, way up-thread.
You’re still dodging my question. The emissions from the BP, in that one direction perpendicular to the BP, "hit" the Sun. So why doesn’t the BP "heat" or "insulate" the Sun, or "cause it to come to a higher temperature", if you believe the GP can do that to the BP? The correct answer is that the BP can’t "lose energy" in that direction, because that is the direction from which the BP is gaining its energy. The energy flow simply isn’t in the direction BP -> Sun, the energy flow is in the other direction, Sun -> BP! You people simply don’t care about things like that at all, though. You just don’t take it into consideration.
The GP emits towards the BP, but in the "transaction" entered into between BP and GP, the BP is supplying the energy to the GP. The GPs temperature is set and maintained by emissions from the BP. The BP "loses" energy to the GP, and the GP "gains" energy from the BP. The GP does not "lose" energy to the BP! In the same way that the BP does not "lose" energy to the Sun… …since that would require the BP "heating" the Sun!
How could the addition of the GP possibly result in the BP coming to a higher temperature if the GP cannot heat the BP directly, and it also cannot insulate the BP (all plates are perfectly conducting blackbodies; no thermal resistance, no reflectivity)?
Eli’s original solution refutes DREMT’s position on the GPE. DREMT has never been physically correct commenting on the GPE.
grammie pups wrote another batch of nonsense:
Yes, grammie, you’ve been repeating these same old claims for years, completely ignoring any evidence which refutes them. No doubt, the energy flows from the Sun to the BP on one side and from the other side, the net flow is from the BP to the GP. But that doesn’t mean that energy radiated by the GP is NOT ABSORBED by the BP. Your latest attempt to ignore reality is:
In other words, you are again just asserting something about physics for which you have no basis in fact. It’s pure BS, an absolute denial of known physics. Both Nate and Barry have repeatedly shown you why this “premise” is bogus, but you plow onward, oblivious to the obvious problems in your world view. I’ve presented experimental results which refute your claims, which you also ignored, the last one so simple that even you could replicate it.
If you had a job or some position of authority for which your assertions were important, you would find that you would be called to defend them and would suffer the consequences if you could not provide convincing proof.
Swanson, you were dismissed a while ago. Why are you still commenting?
DREMT,
I’ve answered your question – sun absorbs radiation from all sources, so yes, a Sun with planets around it is warmer than a sun with planets not around it.
How does this dodge your question?
“The energy flow simply isnt in the direction BP -> Sun, the energy flow is in the other direction, Sun -> BP! You people simply dont care about things like that at all, though. You just dont take it into consideration.”
This is you mixing up energy and heat. They are not the same thing, and energy does indeed flow both ways, while heat only flows one direction (or not at all).
This is the perennial mistake ‘skeptics’ make. As Gordon says over and over, right about something for once, EM radiation is not heat.
But you and other SkyDragon slayers keep treating radiation and heat as if they are the same thing.
If you truly grokked what I’ve been saying you would know that the GP, receiving only half the energy of BP, couldn’t possibly be as warm as BP.
If it is emitting all the 200 W/m2 energy it receives out of one side, then the inside surface must be colder than space, as it is not emitting any W/m2 at all.
But wait, it is actually emitting 200 W/m2 as well! But how is it emitting 2 X 200 W/m2 when it only receives 200 W/m2?
Round and round you go, hopping from the GP emitting 200 W/m2, to 2 X 200 W/m2, to emitting all the energy on one face, to emitting energy on both sides…
Postma’s math requires GP only to be emitting from one face. It gets 200 W/m2 from BP, and all that energy is beamed to space from GP, because “no loss.”
But as soon as you point out that GP has to emit to both sides, why then there is an extra 200 W/m2 available for the GP inside face to emit. Of course! That’s the preordained equilibrium between the 2 plates!
But now GP is emitting 2 X 200 W/m2 again, but only getting 200 W/m2.
Perhaps you have actually tricked your own mind into believing Postma’s model doesn’t have accounting problems, and you don’t realize that claiming “no loss” to make one side of GP action vanish entirely is schtick rather than science.
The true answer to the GPE is that GP gets 200 W/m2 BP, and emits 100 W/m2 out of each side, just as BP receives 400 W/m2 and emits 200 W/m2 from both sides. But this means energy out of the 2-plate system is less than energy in.
So both plates must get warmer until they emit a total of 400 W/m2.
2LoT is not violated because the GP does not get cooler while BP gets warmer. Heat is not being transferred from cold to hot. Both plates warm up. So where is the extra energy coming from?
There is no extra energy. Watts is a RATE of energy, and by introducing the GP we have slowed the RATE at which BP loses energy. Both plates are blackbodies, so they absorb all energy and emit all energy.
BP must increase its rate of energy emission to compensate for the extra energy it is absorbing from GP.
2nd Law of Thermo is not busted because GP is LOSING no heat to BP. GP is ALSO warming up, because now BP is radiating more to it.
They both heat up until the 2-plate system is again in equilibrium with the 400 W/m2 input.
This answer has no accounting errors, no invented physics, and does not break the 2LoT.
It also satisfies the obvious position that GP must be cooler than BP because GP is shielded from the sun and receives less energy than BP does.
barry says:
The true answer to the GPE is that GP gets 200 W/m2 BP, and emits 100 W/m2 out of each side, just as BP receives 400 W/m2 and emits 200 W/m2 from both sides. But this means energy out of the 2-plate system is less than energy in.
———————————–
We realize that is your claim.
But we are still waiting for proof of your claim.
grammie pups posts another laugh, ending with:
The pursuit of Truth, maybe? I have an unusual dislike of liars. Besides you can’t stop me from pointing out how idiotic you-all are.
Bill,
What do you mean by proof? Do you need me to set up two infinite plates in space and record the results?
Tell me where you think the GPE fails standard physics in any way.
Meanwhile, you might reflect that any surface receiving constant energy must warm if its loss of energy is slowed. That’s why people put on sweaters when it’s cold. The sweater generates no heat, it simply slows the rate at which heat is lost.
Same with the GPE.
So what’s the issue?
barry repeats himself yet again, utterly certain that he’s right. He tries to lecture me on the difference between heat and energy, whilst in the same breath telling me that the BP does make the Sun warmer! Oh, the irony. No, barry, it is your little gang on here that always likes to mix up heat and energy. You need the energy the Sun receives to be heat, in order for it to warm. Or, you need to insulate the Sun. Which you won’t be able to do with a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate. Same story with the BP and GP.
As you think the Sun is warmed by the BP, barry, then you need to recalculate Eli’s solution to the plates to account for the higher flux the Sun will then emit to the plates.
“Round and round you go, hopping from the GP emitting 200 W/m2, to 2 X 200 W/m2, to emitting all the energy on one face, to emitting energy on both sides…“
No, barry. You are trying to imply that I keep changing my story. I do not. Your problem is you simply don’t understand, and you don’t even try to. I have been completely consistent in my argument throughout:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1473672
“barry repeats himself yet again, utterly certain that hes right.”
Illogic is not logical.
400 is not equal to 200.
0 is not equal to 200.
Energy is not created from nothing.
All things that non-delusional people can be certain are true.
By the way, barry…I mentioned that the GP enters into a “transaction” with the BP…if the result of that “transaction” were that the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP towards the BP was returned from the BP back to the GP, then your little “accounting problem” would evaporate completely. All your caterwauling about the energy not balancing for the GP would be resolved.
DREMT,
“barry… tries to lecture me on the difference between heat and energy, whilst in the same breath telling me that the BP does make the Sun warmer!”
Analogous to how a sweater makes you warmer. Does putting on a sweater that is colder than your skin break the 2LoT when your skin gets warmer?
Is the sweater warming you up? That’s what you would say to get your child to wear it.
“No, barry, it is your little gang on here that always likes to mix up heat and energy. You need the energy the Sun receives to be heat, in order for it to warm.”
No, heat would be what is transferred if the plate or planet got COLDER while the sun received its energy. That’s the DEFINITION of heat. Unless the Sun gains heat at the expense of plates/planets, then heat is definitely NOT what is not being transferred.
You and your gang really need to understand the meaning of heat. It is a transfer process where the body gaining energy does so at the expense of the source. Radiation is NOT heat.
“Or, you need to insulate the Sun. Which you won’t be able to do with a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate. Same story with the BP and GP.”
Insulating works ok as an analogy. Plates and planets slow the rate at which sun loses heat.
“As you think the Sun is warmed by the BP, barry…”
You can say that colloquially, but not formally, because no heat is being transferred.
“…then you need to recalculate Eli’s solution to the plates to account for the higher flux the Sun will then emit to the plates.”
Sure, if you want to make the calculations more complex. It doesn’t change the principle one tiny bit.
Or you could re-read Postma’s article where he says that that there is action going on, but because it’s so infinitesimal we can ignore it for simplicity’s sake. Do we want to deal with 400 W/m2, or 400.0000000001 W/m2?
“By the way, barry… I mentioned that the GP enters into a ‘transaction’ with the BP…”
Is this where they both absorb each other’s energy? Something tells me you put scare quotes around transaction for a reason.
“…if the result of that ‘transaction’ were that the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP towards the BP was returned from the BP back to the GP, then your little ‘accounting problem’ would evaporate completely.”
A perfectly conducting BP that emits freely towards the sun returns all 200 W/m2 to the GP?
Nope, BP absorbs 200 W/m2 extra and emits another 100 W/m2 from each side.
So now the 2-plate system is emitting the equivalent of 500 W/m2. More than it receives. 1LoT violation.
Worse, now the GP must get hotter because it is receiving 300 W/m2 from BP. In Postma’s conception this means that it must be emitting 300 W/m2 to space. So now the 2-plate system is emitting the equivalent of 600 W/m2.
But if we take your premise on fully, Postma would require all 400 W/m2 coming from BP to GP to be emitted spacewards by GP. That’s what his GP does, emits ALL energy from BP to space, because the inwards facing fluxes are “negated”, right?
That’s still 600 W/m2 equivalent being emitted by a 2-plate system that receives only 400 W/m2
No, creating more energy that isn’t there definitely does not solve the accounting problem.
The accounting problem happens for one reason only – Postma makes the plates the same temperature. You’ll never get an energy balance that is physical with that presumption.
DREMT,
It’s time we addressed the elephant in the room – the reason Postma makes the plates the same temperature.
GP and BP are blackbodies. Blackbodies absorb all radiation incident on them.
Do you understand that BP absorbs all the radiation being emitted towards it by GP?
If not, why not?
“Analogous to how a sweater makes you warmer. Does putting on a sweater that is colder than your skin break the 2LoT when your skin gets warmer?”
A sweater insulates. A perfectly-conducting blackbody plate in a vacuum has no properties of insulation, barry. No thermal resistance, no reflectivity.
“No, heat would be what is transferred if the plate or planet got COLDER while the sun received its energy. That’s the DEFINITION of heat. Unless the Sun gains heat at the expense of plates/planets, then heat is definitely NOT what is not being transferred. You and your gang really need to understand the meaning of heat. It is a transfer process where the body gaining energy does so at the expense of the source. Radiation is NOT heat.”
So, with the plates pressed together at 244 K…244 K, and then separated the plates becoming 262 K…220 K according to Eli’s solution, then according to your own definition of heat, the GP is transferring heat to the BP. Cold is transferring heat to hot, in contradiction of 2LoT.
“Sure, if you want to make the calculations more complex. It doesn’t change the principle one tiny bit. Or you could re-read Postma’s article where he says that that there is action going on, but because it’s so infinitesimal we can ignore it for simplicity’s sake. Do we want to deal with 400 W/m2, or 400.0000000001 W/m2?”
I mostly just want to laugh at you for thinking that the BP can warm the Sun, or that planets make the Sun warmer…but at the same time, I will correct you here. Postma is referring to the fact that the direction perpendicular to the plate is only one direction out of an entire hemisphere of potential directions, and in that sense it’s infinitesimal. It’s infinitesimal when it comes to deciding to split the 400 W/m^2 to the BP by two rather than 1.9999999999999.
“No, creating more energy that isn’t there definitely does not solve the accounting problem”
It wouldn’t be creating more energy that isn’t there. If the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP to the BP was returned from the GP to the BP, your little “accounting problem” would be solved completely. It’s such a simple and obvious solution to your problem that I had assumed you would have worked it out already…perhaps I overestimated you.
Whoops, that should have said, “If the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP to the BP was returned from the BP to the GP…”
“Do you understand that BP absorbs all the radiation being emitted towards it by GP?
If not, why not?”
Even though there are now at least two questions I have asked you that you have not answered, I will once again be the better man and attempt to answer your questions. I understand that a blackbody absorbs all radiation it receives, by definition. I also understand that a blackbody should not be used as an excuse to violate the laws of physics, however. Whether you consider the radiation from the GP to be absorbed by the BP and then immediately reemitted, without affecting the temperature, or whether you consider it to simply be reflected due to Clint R’s much-discussed “wavelength mismatch”, I’m not sure. I don’t claim to know the fate of individual photons. All I know is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.
“should not be used as an excuse to violate the laws of physics, however.”
OMG
So sez the repeat offender!
Who does it 2 sentences later…
“whether you consider it to simply be reflected due to Clint Rs much-discussed wavelength mismatch, Im not sure.”
which immediately contradicts his assurances that
” I understand that a blackbody absorbs all radiation it receives, by definition. “
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1475130
…all I know is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.
“Whether you consider the radiation from the GP to be absorbed by the BP and then immediately reemitted, without affecting the temperature, or”
which illustrates the principle at work here:
They don’t care how or why, or if the mechanism is logical or not, obeys the laws of physics, or not, they just ‘know’ that the plates need to end up at the same temperature…because, that is their belief.
…I know is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.
And the more they repeat this principle, the clearer it becomes that no science, facts or logic are required for the maintenance of this belief.
…know is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.
which makes it clear that is a religious belief…
…is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.
And makes clear that sky-dragon-slayers are a lot like a cult, whose beliefs are not falsifiable and cannot be questioned…
…that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.
Test
DREMT,
When you split the plates GP doesn’t get colder because it’s giving heat to BP. It gets colder because it’s getting less energy from BP. It’s why we stand in the shade on a sunny day.
Pressed together this perfect emitter provided no resistance to BP energy loss, but split apart it now sends energy back to BP.
Conduction and radiation operate under the same laws of thermodynamics but by different mechanisms for transferring heat. You don’t seem to understand that. Postma considers 2 plates pressed together as a fine analogy for their radiative configuration.
Radiation is not heat. Keep repeating that when you think that by GP sending radiation to BP it is also heating it up. It’s only slowing the rate of heat loss. The sun is providing a constant rate of energy, and this is what heats the BP up. Remove the sun the instant before you introduce the GP, and the BP won’t get warmer, it will just cool more slowly than if the GP wasn’t there. That’s all ‘back radiation’ can do without a power source maintaining an energy flow.
DREMT,
“I will correct you here. Postma is referring to the fact that the direction perpendicular to the plate is only one direction out of an entire hemisphere of potential directions”
I’m well aware that Postma’s idea is solely about vector relationships, and not about radiative transfer from plate to Sun, which presumably he thinks impossible. He seems to think that by cancelling vectors radiation is also cancelled. ‘Negated’ as he puts it.
“If the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP to the BP was returned from the BP to the GP, your little ‘accounting problem’ would be solved completely.”
I just went through why that is manifestly not the case. You’re welcome to scroll up. To start with, BP can’t emit the 200 w/m2 it receives from GP back to GP, because half that energy is heading out the sunward side of BP. And that is hardly the only problem.
“Whether you consider the radiation from the GP to be absorbed by the BP and then immediately reemitted, without affecting the temperature, or whether you consider it to simply be reflected due to Clint R’s much-discussed “wavelength mismatch”, I’m not sure. I don’t claim to know the fate of individual photons. All I know is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.”
Stop equating radiation and heat. They are not the same.
The sun is hotter than the BP, the BP is hotter than the GP. The flow of heat is hot to cold throughout. This is a steady state system.
You keep thinking 2LoT is broken by GP radiating energy to BP, resulting in BP having a warmer temperature. This is no more the case than my skin getting warmer by putting on a sweater that is colder than my skin. The slowing of the loss of heat is what causes the warmth. The sweater does not transfer its heat to my skin. The GP does not transfer its heat to BP. The sun provides all the heat and energy for this transaction, and, just as you can with conduction and convection, you can rearrange the internal dynamics of a system to get different temperature results through the system. I close a window, I change the dynamics of the system. I put on different clothes, I change the dynamics of the system. I replace the heatsink on my CPU with one identical in size but better conducting material – I’ve changed the dynamics of the system. I coat the black wall behind the 3 bars in my radiant heater with chrome – I’ve changed the way the energy flows.
All these cases result in different temperatures within the system, even if the energy being pumped into these systems remains constant. Same with the GPE. You seem comfortable with convection and conduction slowing the rate of heat loss from a body, but for some reason you’ve decided radiation can’t do that.
All objects that emit radiation also absorb radiation. The ability to do so does not depend on the temperatures of the source and the body, it has everything to do with the optical properties of the surface/gas. That’s why they are called blackbodies, whitebodies and greybodies. It is the properties of a surface, not its temperature, that determines what radiation it will absorb.
What are the 2 questions you asked that I didn’t answer?
barry, this is how our conversation went:
"[BARRY] No, heat would be what is transferred if the plate or planet got COLDER while the sun received its energy. That’s the DEFINITION of heat. Unless the Sun gains heat at the expense of plates/planets, then heat is definitely NOT what is not being transferred. You and your gang really need to understand the meaning of heat. It is a transfer process where the body gaining energy does so at the expense of the source. Radiation is NOT heat.”
[DREMT] So, with the plates pressed together at 244 K…244 K, and then separated the plates becoming 262 K…220 K according to Eli’s solution, then according to your own definition of heat, the GP is transferring heat to the BP. Cold is transferring heat to hot, in contradiction of 2LoT."
You can’t wriggle out of it now, barry. You’ve made it as clear as you possibly could that the warming of the BP is at the expense of the GP. That’s all that’s changing! The heat source (Sun) is a constant throughout. What is happening, according to Eli’s solution, is that the BP gets warmer at the expense of the GP. You said it yourself:
"…but split apart it now sends energy back to BP"
..and that energy is treated as heat in Eli’s solution, by your own definition! As clear a violation of 2LoT as there possibly could be.
You’ve just conceded the argument, barry.
Team GPE is bust.
The laws of physics need to be upheld. You believed that your solution was strictly adhering to 1LoT, but it did so at the expense of violating 2LoT. With no 2LoT violation, the energy emitted from the GP towards the BP will not increase the temperature of the BP. Thus we know that this energy must be returned from the BP towards the GP, which just happens to also satisfy 1LoT.
So your solution was "incomplete thermodynamics".
"You seem comfortable with convection and conduction slowing the rate of heat loss from a body, but for some reason you’ve decided radiation can’t do that."
On the contrary, barry. Radiation can do that…but radiative insulation functions via reflectivity.
“The laws of physics need to be upheld.”
Yes.
Then why do they immediately suggest a violation of the laws of physics is what happens?
“Thus we know that this energy must be returned from the BP towards the GP”
Kirchhoffs law: a perfect emitter is a perfect abs.orber.
“You keep thinking 2LoT is broken by GP radiating energy to BP, resulting in BP having a warmer temperature. This is no more the case than my skin getting warmer by putting on a sweater that is colder than my skin. The slowing of the loss of heat is what causes the warmth. The sweater does not transfer its heat to my skin.”
Yep Barry, when they have an erroneous notion so deeply stuck in a crevasse in their head (back radiation is a 2LOT violation), then they just TUNE OUT whatever you say that contradicts this notion.
https://tenor.com/en-GB/view/saw-game-over-gif-5416896
Yes it is again game over because DREMT pretends to debate, but actually just ignores what his opponents say as they debunk his nonsense claims.
That, as they say, is that. No response from barry means the discussion is over (I expect he will respond later tonight after I’m asleep, but there’s nothing he can say now, anyway).
Wrong DREMT 8:46 am, ….and that energy is treated as 1LOT energy transfer in Eli’s solution, by any definition! As clear in accord of 2LoT producing entropy as there possibly could be.
Eli’s original solution refutes DREMT’s position on the GPE. DREMT has never been physically correct commenting on the GPE.
DREMT is publicly busted on this blog yet again by many more physically informed commenters.
Ball4 blurts out some nonsense in a deliberate attempt to irritate.
Being called out as DREMT is for obviously being physically wrong on the GPE is indeed irritating. Especially when the correct solution to the GPE has been available for over 5 years AND that solution is known to the irritated DREMT.
Oh, I’m not irritated. The more physically informed commenters are aware that Ball4’s comments are attempts to irritate, though. It’s called "trolling".
Ah, more name calling debate by DREMT. I see the attempts at irritating DREMT really have been successful despite DREMT’s failed attempt at diversion.
I will predict the DREMT irritation will continue to be evidenced by DREMT’s name calling which will continue due to lack of any successful DREMT ability to win the debate on the GPE physics.
I called you no names, except your screen name, Ball4. On the other hand, I’ve been repeatedly called names throughout this discussion, by several. I accused you of "trolling", which is not name-calling, it’s an accurate description of what you’re attempting to do. Your next comment will no doubt be an even better example of it than the last.
“It’s called “trolling”.” is not debate with any basic atm. physics, DREMT, & neither is:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471671
This kind of repeatedly failed debate just shows DREMT really is irritated and not able to defend in DREMT comments with basic atm. physics as in eqn.s Eli used long ago.
…and so, my prediction was proven correct.
DREMT,
I see. So when I close the door on a Wintry night the door is giving up its heat to the rest of the room in violation of the 2nd Law.
GP has not spontaneously given its heat to BP. Half its energy supply has disappeared. It gets cold because of that. To then say that this means it has transferred its heat to the BP is to say that the door has given up its heat to the room.
We can change the configuration of any number of thermal systems to achieve the same result without breaking the 2nd Law. We can make it two plates pressed together in a heated room and then move one to seal a window, making the room and other plate warmer while the plate in the window gets colder. I can move the heatsink on my CPU away from the CPU and the CPU gets hotter while the heatsink gets cooler. I can take a bright white T-shirt off and get warmer from the sun while the T-shirt cools next to me. Did the T-shirt give up its heat to me?
The conductive situation you advanced is just the same as the GP not being there at all, thermally speaking. Credit for the inventiveness of the challenge, but if you have to change the system to get the answer you want you’ve already lost the point.
What are the two questions I didn’t answer?
Wriggly barry bashes some silly straw men, then says:
"The conductive situation you advanced is just the same as the GP not being there at all, thermally speaking. Credit for the inventiveness of the challenge, but if you have to change the system to get the answer you want you’ve already lost the point."
The change to the system in having the plates pushed together is irrelevant, barry. The fact is, when the plates separate, you think they would progress from a state where they are both at 244 K…244 K to a state where they are at 262 K…220 K. This all happens with radiation as the only means of energy transfer. The only thing that changes on separation is, as you wrote of the GP:
"…but split apart it now sends energy back to BP"
So there you have it. The BP is gaining in temperature at the expense of the GP, due to a transfer of what must be heat, by your own earlier definition. That’s a 2LoT violation. You’ve been condemned by your own words, barry, and you won’t be wriggling your way out of this one.
"What are the two questions I didn’t answer?"
Scroll up, read through, and find them.
DREMT,
“The fact is, when the plates separate, you think they would progress from a state where they are both at 244 K… 244 K to a state where they are at 262 K… 220 K. This all happens with radiation as the only means of energy transfer.”
No, this starts with conduction being the means of transfer.
Once the plates are split the method of transfer is radiative only and GP is now getting half the energy. That’s the reason GP cools, not because it is spontaneously sending heat to BP.
With conduction the GP provided no resistance to BP heat loss, as you attested. With radiation it does. BP warms up. Simple.
I can bring the door from within the warm room to seal it, or I can bring the door from the cold outside to seal the room. In the first case the door will cool while the room warms, in the second case the door warms while the room warms.
This is the same as starting the GPE with 2 plates stuck together, or starting the GPE with the GP absent (or perpendicular). Same result, no laws broken.
I think I understand why GHE critics have a problem with radiation being a resistor to heat loss, but not convection and conduction.
With convective and conductive insulation no energy is going back towards the warmer source. Actually, when I put on a sweater it gets warmer and does radiate more towards my skin, contributing to the convective insulation. But as this is an everyday occurrence critics can wave away the radiative transfer in their minds and content themselves that while a colder object does make a warm object warmer, the direction of flow is only convective and therefore one-way.
But with radiation the transfer is in 2-way, continuously, between hotter and colder objects.
This has been the issue from the beginning – a refusal to come to terms with the basics of radiation of energy. That’s why Clint strives to come up with reasons why a hotter object can’t absorb energy from a colder one. That’s why Postma speaks of vectors cancelling instead of emissions, and why you put ‘transaction’ in quotation marks and make a remark about being unaware of the fate of individual photons. All this so you guys never have to admit that radiation is exchanged between objects of different temperature. Because to do so would seriously rupture everything you say.
“All I know is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.”
I like this comment. It’s the most straightforward comment I’ve seen on the tropic from critics. I can even sympathise with it. But you are equating radiation with heat. And you’re neglecting the sun.
A lot of this is semantics. My sweater makes me warm on a cold day. You have no problem with me saying that, even though I’ve just said a colder object made a warm object warmer.
The longer barry’s comments get, the less he seems to say.
This time, the only thing worth responding to is:
“Once the plates are split the method of transfer is radiative only and GP is now getting half the energy. That’s the reason GP cools, not because it is spontaneously sending heat to BP.“
This is straightforwardly false. The GP does not get “half the energy” when the plates split. Pressed together, the BP is still emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the Sun. So it cannot be providing any more energy to the GP pressed together than it is when separated. You said it yourself, what changes when the plates split is that the GP now emits back to the BP. By your own definition, that transfer must be a heat transfer. You can’t take that back, or try to switch focus to something else. I’m not going to let you.
What will you try next?
DREMT,
“This is straightforwardly false. The GP does not get “half the energy” when the plates split. Pressed together, the BP is still emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the Sun. So it cannot be providing any more energy to the GP pressed together than it is when separated.”
With BP on its own it is getting 400 W/m2 from the sun.
Split BP and now the 2nd plate is being shielded from the sun by the other half of BP, and gets only 200 W/m2.
What is the difference between this and 2 perfectly conducting plates pressed together other than semantic? There is no difference. BP gets 400 W/m2 energy, so does BP+GP, because they are no different than a single plate other than in words.
Remember when you were saying that split apart the GP is the same temperature as BP and I was saying that therefore the GP had to be getting 400 W/m2 from somewhere to be the same temperature?
The door in the heated room is getting the same energy that the rest of the room does. When it is moved to seal the room it is now getting the heat from the room but also the cold from outside. The door gets colder while the room heats up.
If you can explain how this scenario doesn’t break the 2LoT, then you can understand why GP slowing BP energy loss doesn’t break 2LoT.
“You said it yourself, what changes when the plates split is that the GP now emits back to the BP. By your own definition, that transfer must be a heat transfer.”
When I keep telling you that radiation is not heat, how do you figure I’ve defined it that a transfer of radiation is a transfer of heat?
DREMT, you don’t realize it but you are constantly equating radiation with heat.
A transfer of heat occurs according to the NET transfer of radiation. If you want to use radiative transfer as a proxy for heat transfer, then you account for the NET transfer of energy.
You are currently ignoring the transfer of energy from BP to GP. You are currently only looking in one direction.
The NET transfer of energy is always from BP to GP at every stage. Always. Without exception. Heat is only ever going from hot to cold.
“With BP on its own it is getting 400 W/m2 from the sun.
Split BP and now the 2nd plate is being shielded from the sun by the other half of BP, and gets only 200 W/m2.”
Your claim was that on separation, “GP is now getting half the energy” it did before. This claim is false.
Pressed together, the GP is “shielded from the Sun” by the BP. Separated, the GP is “shielded from the Sun by the BP”. Pressed together, the BP is still emitting 200 W/m^2 to the Sun. So it does not have any more energy to give the GP when pressed together than it does when separated. You’re in denial, barry.
You said:
"No, heat would be what is transferred if the plate or planet got COLDER while the sun received its energy. That’s the DEFINITION of heat. Unless the Sun gains heat at the expense of plates/planets, then heat is definitely NOT what is not being transferred. You and your gang really need to understand the meaning of heat. It is a transfer process where the body gaining energy does so at the expense of the source. Radiation is NOT heat.”
You also said, of the GP.
"…but split apart it now sends energy back to BP"
That transfer, by your own definition, must be a transfer of heat from cold to hot. On splitting apart the plates, the BP gains energy at the expense of the GP, via radiative transfer, according to Eli’s solution. That is heat transfer, via radiation, from cold to hot. 2LoT violation.
What will you try next?
:That transfer, by your own definition, must be a transfer of heat from cold to hot.”
Nope. As Barry repeatedly stated, the heat is ALWAYS being transferred from hot to cold.
There is a reality distortion field surrounding DREMT. Or he just doesnt listen to what people say, and then makes it up.
“On splitting apart the plates, the BP gains energy at the expense of the GP, via radiative transfer, according to Elis solution. That is heat transfer, via radiation, from cold to hot. 2LoT violation.”
Nope, nobody, not Eli, not physics, not climate science, not Barry, is saying that.
That is a sky-dragon-slayer STRAWMAN.
The heat transfer is from hot to cold always, but larger or smaller depending on the T difference, as the RHTE tells us.
The one used by JP.
The din continues. The problem is the disconnect between mathematically determining how much an object will warm in a radiation field when some of the energy is reflected.
Apparently reflection has no effect on this and it warms like it was absorbing all the radiation. . . .it just warms a lot more slowly.
So we can’t rule out a slow warming of the GP using a very small differential in wattage passing through the object via a resistance that does nothing but increase as the object warms.
That issue is real in other electromagnetic energy transfers like the wires in your home or in you mobile phone. The resistance is converted to heat.
Couple that with the fact NASA was required to let the James Webb telescope to cool for several months to remove most of the last one ninth of a watt of solar input to the telescope instruments demonstrates that the effect the spinners are depending on to keep the GP cold has to be tested. It has to be tested for days if not months to see if the warming hasn’t merely approached zero as opposed to actually hitting zero.
Swanson tested this situation but his experiment ended when the plates were still slightly warming.
So I can recognize the math they are using but an extrapolation from limited experiments that is 100% dependent upon the GP not warming hasn’t been established in science.
James Webb uses the math of reflection to vastly reduce the wattage coming through the reflective shields but ultimately says themselves thats not enough so an active system has to be employed to cast of those minimal watts to keep those minimal watts from building up toward an equilibrium with the source.
So thats a very significant issue that needs ruling out. Is it true that NASA is incorrect in saying passive systems are inadequate to keep the James Webb Telescope cool? Is what they meant instead was that by applying an active system to remove most of the last ninth of a watt was just more cost effective?
The way they write the description suggests the former more than the latter.
So this should be a lesson in at least needing to do a controlled experiment. But we can’t rule out that it has already been done and the moron spinners in here are such fringy scientists perhaps all they need is more education.
Science is science because for a long time science wasn’t science. today we seem to be backtracking on the science revolution and forgoing doing the confirming experiments unless we need to actually build something that works based on the science. thats called an experiment. The spinners with their 3rd grader radiation model expects that a greenhouse will warm due to the radiation and not just warm a few degrees but will double its temperature based on their 3rd grader radiation model. And they just wave their hands when Vaughn Pratt or RW Woods does an experiment to demonstrate they are wrong.
DREMT,
If you could explain any thermal difference between BP by itself and the 2 plates pressed together then you would have a point. But the two conditions are thermally identical. BP+GP is in exactly the same thermal state as BP. Splitting in either condition is also exactly the same thermally.
A difference between radiation and conduction is that radiation can be transferred between two bodies of the same temperature. Conduction absolutely requires that the objects be different temperatures. There is no conduction going on at all in the BO+GP set up.
So when the plates are split there is a new vector of energy directed back towards BP.
Split BP in half and now it gets 200 W/m2 redirected to it. The new plate cools.
Split BP+GP in half and now BP gets 200 W/m2 redirected to it. GP cools.
barry, the only thing changing when the plates separate is that there is now an emission of 200 W/m^2 from the GP back to the BP. According to Eli’s solution, this transfer of energy results in the GP decreasing in temperature and the BP increasing in temperature. That then would have to be a transfer of heat, by your own definition, since the BP is warming at the expense of the GP.
To remove any further confusion about “conduction vs radiation” or “splitting the plates”, have instead the Sun and BP come to equilibrium alone. Now introduce a GP that is already also at 244 K emitting 200 W/m^2 and place it next to the BP. Again, the only thing different when the GP is introduced is that there is now an emission of 200 W/m^2 from the GP back to the BP. According to Eli’s solution, this transfer of energy results in the GP decreasing in temperature and the BP increasing in temperature. That then would have to be a transfer of heat, by your own definition, since the BP is warming at the expense of the GP.
Note that in both cases we are isolating the “back-radiation” transfer as being the only difference introduced, and it supposedly results in a warming of the BP at the expense of the GP. I am not sure how to make it any clearer to you that this is a 2LoT violation.
DREMT,
“the only thing changing when the plates separate is that there is now an emission of 200 W/m^2 from the GP back to the BP. According to Elis solution, this transfer of energy results in the GP decreasing in temperature and the BP increasing in temperature. That then would have to be a transfer of heat, by your own definition, since the BP is warming at the expense of the GP.”
If GP is now emitting twice as much energy as it is receiving it will drop in temperature.
But BP is also emitting more energy to GP.
What direction is the flow of heat when one object gives more energy than it receives from another?
“Now introduce a GP that is already also at 244 K emitting 200 W/m^2 and place it next to the BP. Again, the only thing different when the GP is introduced is that there is now an emission of 200 W/m^2 from the GP back to the BP. According to Elis solution, this transfer of energy results in the GP decreasing in temperature and the BP increasing in temperature. That then would have to be a transfer of heat, by your own definition, since the BP is warming at the expense of the GP.”
I’ll number the replies to this so we can pinpoint the disagreement.
1) There should be no thermal/radiative difference between the 2 identical plates if they are the same temperature. Before we bring them near each other, a GP emitting 200 W/m2 from each side must be getting the same input as BP – 400 W/m2.
True or false?
2) When we place the GP next to the BP, BP is the only source of energy for GP, and therefore GP is now only getting energy at a rate of 200 watts for every square meter. It is now getting half the energy it was before.
True or false?
3) If GP gets less energy, it must cool down.
True or false?
It will be interesting to see where the point of disagreement is.
Apparently reflection has no effect on this and it warms like it was absorbing all the radiation. . . .it just warms a lot more slowly.
Spinners need to take this into full account if losing energy without it being absorbed does not prevent the object from warming an equilibrium and there is no negative feedback from cooling by convection that says a lot about energy reflected back to the energy source.
Couple that with the fact NASA was required to let the James Webb telescope to cool for several months to remove most of the last one ninth of a watt of solar input to the telescope instruments demonstrates that the effect the spinners are depending on to keep the GP cold has to be tested in an extended time experiment to clearly allow the plates to stabilize their temperatures in a vacuum.
“If GP is now emitting twice as much energy as it is receiving it will drop in temperature…”
…but where is the difference, barry? The GP, when the plates are separated (or GP added at 244 K) is emitting 200 W/m^2. So from the side facing space it is emitting 200 W/m^2 and from the side facing the BP it is emitting 200 W/m^2. Previously, when the plates were pressed together (or before the GP was added) the GP was still emitting 200 W/m^2 to space (or the BP on its own was emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the right). So where is the difference now?
The difference is in the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP back to the BP. That is what is different in both cases (upon splitting the plates, or on addition of the GP at 244 K). So if the GP were to drop in temperature, as you suggest, that drop in temperature must be due to the “back-radiation” transfer from GP to BP. This is what I meant when I said we have isolated the “back-radiation” transfer as being responsible for both the drop in temperature of the GP and the rise in temperature of the BP. We know it is responsible because it is the only thing different in the two pictures – before and after the plates are split (or GP added).
We have isolated the “back-radiation” transfer as being responsible for raising the temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP, and thus that must be a transfer of heat from cold to hot. A 2LoT violation.
I’m going to come back to the questions I asked you after I’ve replies to your latest post.
“We have isolated the ‘back-radiation’ transfer as being responsible for raising the temperature of the BP…”
Back radiation + the incoming energy from the Sun. If you ignore that the system is getting continual energy at a steady rate then obviously 2LoT is violated.
“…at the expense of the GP”
No.
GP is simply getting colder because you started with one condition then changed to another where it MUST get colder. To then argue that it’s getting colder is because it just spontaneously gave that energy to BP is completely false.
I think the following statements are all true, and evidently so. You tell me where you disagree.
1) There should be no thermal/radiative difference between the 2 identical plates if they are the same temperature before we bring them in vicinity. GP emitting 200 W/m2 from each side must be getting the same input as BP 400 W/m2.
True or false?
2) When we place the GP next to the BP, BP is the only source of energy for GP, and therefore GP is now only getting energy at a rate of 200 watts for every square meter. It is now getting half the energy it was before.
True or false?
3) If GP gets less energy, it must cool down.
True or false?
Bill,
“Apparently reflection has no effect on this…”
We are dealing with blackbodies only.
My patience has limits, barry. I will not be answering your questions as I do not wish to deviate from the point I’m making which you are squiggling and wriggling and worming your way out of with every breath in your body. The energy from the Sun is a constant throughout. The only difference between state A and state B is the “back-radiation” transfer from GP to BP. State A has both plates at 244 K. State B has the BP at 262 K and the GP at 220 K. Thus we know that the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible for the BP increasing in temperature and the GP decreasing in temperature. That is thus a heat transfer, as the BP is increasing in temperature at the expense of the GP. A heat transfer from cold to hot violates 2LoT.
“We have isolated the back-radiation transfer as being responsible for raising the temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP, and thus that must be a transfer of heat from cold to hot. A 2LoT violation.”
NOT isolated because the source of heat, the sun, is ignored.
This is a desperate effort to manufacture a 2LOT violation where there is none.
The heat gained by the BP is always from the sun. The change with the addition of the GP is only a change in its rate of heat LOSS to space.
When the 2 plate system has reached a steady state, Eli finds temperatures are:
Tsun > Tbp = 262K
Tbp > Tgp = 220K
Tgp > Tspace ~ 0.
and the flow of heat is:
SUN to BP = 400 W/m^2
BP to space = 266.7 W/m^2,
BP to GP, = 133.3 W/m^2
and GP to space = 133 W/m^2
As anyone can plainly see, the heat flows are always from the warmer body to the colder body, thus this solution satisfies 2LOT.
There is energy balance for each plate and the combo of both plates, thus the T are steady and 1LOT is satisfied.
It satisfies Kirchhoffs law since the plates both abs.orb and emit perfectly.
It also satisfies the SB law and the RHTE (the one quoted by JP).
I challenge anyone here to find a legitimate 2LOT violation or violation of any law of physics with this solution.
slight correction:
and GP to space = 133.3 W/m^2
We can contrast that with the JP solution to the GPE.
When the 2 plate system has reached a steady state, JP finds temperatures are:
Tsun > Tbp = 244 K
Tbp = Tgp = 244 K
Tgp > Tspace ~ 0.
and the flow of heat is:
SUN to BP = 400 W/m^2
BP to space = 200 W/m^2,
BP to GP, = 0 W/m^2
and GP to space = 200 W/m^2
There is a clear 1LOT violation with both the GP and the BP.
If OTOH, they want to claim that 200 W/m^2 is, somehow, still being transferred from the BP to the GP, then this would be a violation of Kirchhoffs Law and the RHTE, and, in fact, 2LOT.
DREMT is still wrong 3:54 am writing: “That is thus a heat transfer”
No. EMR is NOT heat. That is an energy transfer. The GPE system is in a vacuum.
Refer to Eli’s eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct solution.
I didn’t just write “that is thus a heat transfer”, though, did I, Ball4. I actually explained fully why it is a heat transfer, and I have gone to some considerable lengths to make sure that it’s understood perfectly clearly. I’m happy that I’ve succeeded in doing so, to the rational, and all that remains now is the dishonest, impotent squawkings of people like you. The debate is settled – no GPE.
DREMT actually explained fully why it is a heat transfer wrongly because EMR is NOT heat and EMR is the only energy transfer process between the sun, BP, and GP in the vacuum of the GPE.
DREMT remains fully wrong. Refer to Eli’s 1LOT eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct GPE solution.
Ball4, just saying “EMR is not heat” over and over again is not an argument. EMR might not necessarily be heat but heat transfer can occur via a transfer of EMR. If not, how could the Sun heat the Earth!? I am not saying every transfer of EMR is a transfer of heat, I am saying that this particular instance is.
According to Eli’s solution, we go from plates pressed together at 244 K…244 K to plates separated at 262 K…220 K and the only difference after separation is the “back-radiation” transfer from GP to BP. Thus we know that this transfer alone must supposedly be responsible for the BP warming at the expense of the GP.
I applied barry’s definition of heat to the situation and the result is that the “back-radiation” transfer is actually a transfer of heat from cold to hot. A clear violation of 2LoT.
DREMT 11:12 am now writes that in “this particular instance” (the GPE) EMR IS heat.
No. EMR is NEVER heat.
DREMT remains fully wrong. Refer to Eli’s 1LOT eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the described process.
NB for DREMT: “plates pressed together” means Eli’s 1 plate solution.
Readers will note how Ball4 just shamelessly and deliberately misrepresented what I said. He just disgraced himself again.
NB for DREMT: “back radiation” is always EMR. EMR is NEVER heat.
So DREMT does remain fully wrong. Refer to Eli’s 1LOT eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
Ball4, having not denied his obvious misrepresentations, now proceeds to troll me some more. Why are these people so obsessed with me?
DREMT is irritated again; shown by name calling when DREMT is proven wrong.
There was absolutely no name-calling whatsoever, Ball4.
I made DREMT take back his name calling at 12:03pm! Sad to say DREMT is still wrong since DREMT’s 11:12 pm so called “back-radiation transfer” really is EMR which is NOT heat as DREMT wrongly claims.
Refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (“plates pressed together”) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
Ball4, how many times are you going to repeat yourself?
“I applied barrys definition of heat”
Whatever that is! Whats wrong with the physics definition?
Some here are trying their best to make the problem all about personal semantics, rather than what the laws of physics say actually happens with radiative heat transfer.
As correctly stated by JP, and as used by Eli, the RHTE always gives heat flow from the hot object to the cold object, and never the other way around.
The term in the RHTE with the cold bodies temperature is the SB emission of the cold body that hits the hot body, and can be described as a ‘back radiation’.
Whether one uses that terminology or not doesnt change the results of the equation!
So, we rediscover what we know 5 years ago, that from the physics perspective there is nothing wrong with Eli’s original solution to the GPE!
DREMT and the sky-dragon-slayers continue to deny ordinary physics, and peddle an illogical non-physical solution to this problem, and a false narrative that ‘back radiation’ is a 2LOT violation.
Additional comment that shows that my position hasn’t changed. I’m still perfectly happy that there’s no GPE, as meticulously explained over a period of quite some time.
Sure, DREMT is obviously perfectly happy to always be physically wrong on the GPE as DREMT has meticulously explained over a period of about 5 years.
Readers should actually refer to Elis 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
…comment that shows that my position hasn’t changed. I’m still perfectly happy that there’s no GPE, as meticulously explained over a period of quite some time.
DREMT,
I believe I’m responding to your points – repeatedly – and you are ignoring several of mine.
There is a door leaning against the wall of a heated room. Same temp as the room. It then gets moved to seal the room. Door gets colder, room gets warmer.
Did the door give its heat up to the room, then, violating 2nd law? Nope, you know it did not. That door got colder because one side of it is now losing energy at a faster rate than before.
This doesn’t break the 2nd Law because the door was moved and it started losing energy at a faster rate.
When you move the GP it then loses energy at a faster rate than before, or gets less energy, depending on which of your change-the-configuration scenarios you go with.
It also now sends energy back to BP, which warms up.
Why does this not break 2LoT?
Because radiation isn’t heat.
Heat is the NET transfer of energy between two objects. At no time is the NET transfer positive from GP to BP.
You only think it is because you are only looking in one direction – as if radiation is heat – instead of accounting for the whole energy flow, which is always Sun –> BP –> GP.
The door is not getting colder because it spontaneously gave its heat up to the room.
The GP is not getting colder because it spontaneously gave its heat up to the BP.
Radiation is not heat, but you continually treat it as if it is.
“All I know is that the radiation from the GP cannot warm the BP, or result in it coming to a higher temperature.”
Yes, you only see this bit in isolation. This is what demonstrates that you see radiation as being heat. Radiation flows two ways but you ignore the consequence of that truth.
That’s why you don’t acknowledge the NET radiative flow between GP and BP, which is always from hot to cold.
That’s why you won’t answer the three questions. You would have to agree with all three of them.
That’s why you are rejecting that GP MUST become cooler when you change the set-up as you have been doing.
And that’s why you keep returning to that one isolated part of the radiative energy flow and say it is heat flow.
The GP is no more spontaneously giving up its heat to BP than the door is spontaneously giving up its heat to the room. We just changed the energy balance on those two items by moving them to a new position. Both get colder, both “make” the the warm object warmer. Neither breaks 2LoT.
This is the giveaway from your last post.
“The only difference between state A and state B is the “back-radiation” transfer from GP to BP.”
See, that’s the only thing you look at, when the other obvious difference is that you change the energy balance for GP with each of your scenarios.
Pressed together and the same temperature, both plates are getting the full 400 W/m2, as if they were one plate. Apart they don’t.
If you don’t agree with that, then you must agree that GP now emits 200 W/m2 in each direction where it wasn’t before, and therefore is emitting energy at a faster rate.
If we go with the scenario that the GP is preheated to 244 K before coming next to BP, then the GP WAS getting the same energy input as BP, but now is only getting half that from BP.
In every case the other difference is that GP MUST cool due to the change in scenario.
But you are myopically fixated on the radiation between GP and BP, so of course you think there is no other change when you move the GP around.
“When you move the GP it then loses energy at a faster rate than before…”
…to the BP, as part of the “back-radiation” transfer. That’s all that has changed, barry. You’ll say, “oh, but it’s also emitting to space”…yeah, but it did so before. The only change is the “back-radiation” transfer. That’s how we know it is supposedly responsible for the increase in temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP. Which is how we know it’s a heat transfer from cold to hot, which as we know is a 2LoT violation.
“…the other obvious difference is that you change the energy balance for GP with each of your scenarios…”
…only through the addition of the “back-radiation” transfer. See above.
“Pressed together and the same temperature, both plates are getting the full 400 W/m2, as if they were one plate. Apart they don’t.”
Pressed together, the BP is still emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the Sun-facing side. So it has no more energy to pass onto the GP via conduction than it has via radiation when the plates are separated. I’ve told you this, what, three times now?
“If you don’t agree with that, then you must agree that GP now emits 200 W/m2 in each direction where it wasn’t before, and therefore is emitting energy at a faster rate.”
See the start of this comment, again, barry.
Now, I think the rest of your comments involves a lot of false accusations about how I’m supposedly confusing radiation with heat or only looking at the flows in one direction, and other nonsense which I don’t need to dignify with a response. So no, I don’t agree that I’m ignoring your points, barry, and you are certainly not dealing with mine. I just don’t want to be constantly falsely accused. The only honest response to what I’m saying is “yes, you’re right, DREMT, it’s a 2LoT violation”.
“Now, I think the rest of your comments involves a lot of false accusations about how Im supposedly confusing radiation with heat ”
Not a false accusation at all. You do exactly that right here, DREMT:
“The only change is the ‘back-radiation’ transfer. Thats how we know it is supposedly responsible for the increase in temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP. Which is how we know its a heat transfer from cold to hot, which as we know is a 2LoT violation.”
Because ‘back radiation’ ISNT HEAT because it is not a NET transfer of thermal energy between objects, as Barry, and PHYSICS have repeatedly made abundantly clear.
Only HEAT transfer from cold to hot would be a 2LOT violation. Which obviously is not what is happening here.
The SUN is providing all the heat to the BP.
“Pressed together, the BP is still emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the Sun-facing side. So it has no more energy to pass onto the GP via conduction than it has via radiation when the plates are separated.”
Yes, passes 200 W/m^2 of heat to the GP via conduction and the GP passes the 200 W/m^2 of heat on to space via radiation.
This is a CONTINUOUS flow of heat.
Upon separation, there is now an abrupt DROP in heat flow to the GP.
According to the RHTE and Joe Postma, it goes to 0.
Thus the BP now has more heat input than output. It must heat up. But all the heat (internal energy) it gains has come from the SUN!
And the GP with more heat output than input, must cool down, until a new steady heat flow situation is reached.
…the only honest response to what I’m saying is “yes, you’re right, DREMT, it’s a 2LoT violation”.
DREMT,
All I know is that when you close a door on a heated room on a Wintery night the door can’t get colder while the room gets warmer. That would be a violation of the 2LoT, because the door is giving its heat to the room.
Right?
“When you move the GP it then loses energy at a faster rate than before…”
“…to the BP, as part of the ‘back-radiation’ transfer. Thats all that has changed, barry.”
No, again, more than one thing is happening. The GP is losing energy at a faster rate because moving it to the new configuration made that happen. That’s why it is getting colder. That’s not a 2LoT violation any more than closing the door is.
Yes, the extra energy sent by GP to BP ’causes’ it to warm up BECAUSE BP is now losing energy at a slower rate than it is acquiring it.
And this is precisely the moment when you think that radiation is heat.
Radiation isn’t heat.
I don’t know how many time you need to hear that. Directing radiative energy at a target is not a flow of heat. The flow of heat is the NET transfer of energy.
How do you not get that obvious standard of radiative physics? Why don’t you make a comment about the NET flow of energy representing heat? Does it miss your brain? Is it too hard? Do you disagree?
I preheat a sweater to the same temp as my skin. It’s cold out so I put it on. I get warmer, the sweater gets colder.
Has the sweater transferred its heat to me? Of course not. And you know it.
You can work it out for convection, but you can’t work it out for radiation because you think radiation is heat.
"No, again, more than one thing is happening. The GP is losing energy at a faster rate because moving it to the new configuration made that happen. That’s why it is getting colder. That’s not a 2LoT violation any more than closing the door is."
That’s pure sophistry, barry. The only difference between the new configuration and the old configuration is the "back-radiation" transfer. That’s how we know it’s responsible for the BP warming at the expense of the GP.
"Yes, the extra energy sent by GP to BP ’causes’ it to warm up BECAUSE BP is now losing energy at a slower rate than it is acquiring it.
And this is precisely the moment when you think that radiation is heat.
Radiation isn’t heat.
I don’t know how many time you need to hear that. Directing radiative energy at a target is not a flow of heat. The flow of heat is the NET transfer of energy."
I don’t know how many times you need to hear this, barry, but I’m more aware than you are that radiation isn’t heat. You are the one, by your own definition of heat, treating the "back-radiation" transfer as heat! The only thing changing between the old configuration and the new configuration is the "back-radiation" transfer. So we know that, ultimately, the "back-radiation" transfer is responsible for the BP supposedly warming at the expense of the GP. That’s a 2LoT violation. Time for you to man up, and admit it.
So Eli actually shows it is known that, ultimately, the EMR transfer responsible for the BP NOT warming at the expense of the GP (as DREMT wrongly comments) would be a 2LoT violation since there is no entropy produced in such a process. Time for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about this for over 5 years.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (“plates pressed together”) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
As usual, grammie clone’s argument comes down to this:
Ball4 or barry…my argument is premised on the idea that the only difference between configuration A (plates together, 244 K…244 K) and configuration B (plates initially separated, so still at that moment 244 K…244 K) is the "back-radiation" transfer from the GP to the BP. This "back-radiation" transfer must then be responsible for the following rise in temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP that Eli’s solution predicts, which is thus a heat transfer from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.
I think everything follows from the premise. So, if you want to refute my argument, attack the premise. To do so, find another transfer of energy besides the "back-radiation" transfer that happens in the switch from config. A to config. B. Otherwise, please stop trolling.
Ah, Swanson’s here as well. OK, he can look too.
To make it absolutely crystal clear what I’m asking for, to refute my argument, please find a transfer of energy that is not present in config. A that is there in config. B, besides the "back-radiation" transfer.
“To do so, find another transfer of energy besides the “back-radiation” transfer that happens in the switch from config. A to config. B. Otherwise, please stop trolling.”
Sure. From the left in Eli’s figure, the sun irradiates the BP (“plates pressed together”) and 3K (rounded) space irradiates the BP (“plates pressed together”) from the right.
In the switch from config. A to config. B., at equilibrium find the added GP radiation now irradiates the BP from the right with added +delta EMR replacing that of 3K EMR from space. The 3K radiation from space now irradiates the GP (where it previously irradiated the BP) from the right in addition to the BP irradiating the GP from the left & thus entropy is produced in the switch.
Space is now irradiating the GP as before along with the BP EMR on the GP from the right that was not present in config. A. Thus find a transfer of EMR energy that is not present in config. A that is there in config. B, besides the “back-radiation” transfer (absent typo.s).
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (“plates pressed together”) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
Again, time for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about GPE for over 5 years.
All the waffle aside, this is what you are suggesting is also an "additional" transfer of energy:
"the BP EMR on the GP from the right that was not present in config. A."
Presumably you mean the transfer of energy from the BP to the GP. To assert that this was not present in config. A is to assert that there was no transfer of energy from the BP to the GP via conduction, in config. A. That’s false…and so your rebuttal fails.
“I dont know how many times you need to hear this, barry, but Im more aware than you are that radiation isnt heat.”
OK. Good that DREMT knows that the radiation from cold to hot isn’t heat. Thus he knows this doesnt qualify as a 2LOT violation!
“You are the one, by your own definition of heat, treating the ‘back-radiation’ transfer as heat!”
“Thats a 2LoT violation. Time for you to man up, and admit it.”
Yeah Barry, the 2LOT violation is happening only because of what YOU, allegedly uttered, one time, awhile back!
Apparently, DREMT thinks that laws of physics are broken by mere utterances..
Desperate times call for increasing silliness!
“So, if you want to refute my argument, attack the premise. To do so, find another transfer of energy besides the “back-radiation” transfer that happens in the switch from config. A to config. B.”
Some people are so fixated one thing, they miss all else going on around it.
As has been thoroughly explained, the SUN is supplying the heat to the BP. When the GP is separated, the heat flow from the BP on that side changes from 200 W/m^2
to 0.
As even Joe Postma agrees!
“Heres the heat flow equation for plane parallel geometry:
Q = sT1^4 sT2^4
At equilibrium Q = 0, and the emissions are thus equal: sT1^4 = sT2^4”
The BP is receiving 400 W/m^2 of heat but only emitting 200 W/m^2 of heat.
It must warm. The heat making it warm is obviously coming from the SUN.
Well, I think I’ve made my case. As nobody can point to a transfer of energy that wasn’t present in config. A that is present in config. B besides the "back-radiation" transfer, we can safely conclude that the "back-radiation" transfer must be responsible for the rise in temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP. After all, the energy from the Sun is a constant throughout, so it cannot be that which is responsible.
“To do so, find another transfer of energy besides the “back-radiation” transfer that happens in the switch from config. A to config. B. Otherwise, please stop trolling.”
“I think Ive made my case.”
No, DREMT 10:54 am, you haven’t. DREMT remains truly confused as well as wrong about the GPE.
I’ve already pointed to a transfer of energy that wasn’t present in config. A that is present in config. B besides the EMR “back-radiation” transfer thru vacuum find which is “another” EMR from BP to GP in Config. B that wasn’t present in Config. A.
The conduction of energy thru the BP is already! present in BOTH Config. A and B thus the EMR BP to GP then is “another” transfer of energy to use DREMT’s own word only in Config. B.
Thus, as Eli showed DREMT over 5 years ago, can safely conclude that the EMR “back-radiation” transfer must be responsible in part for the rise in temperature of the BP with the find of “another” transfer of energy BP to GP besides the EMR “back-radiation” GP to BP transfer that happens in the switch from config. A to config. B.
Yet again, time for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about GPE for over 5 years.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (“plates pressed together”) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
“After all, the energy from the Sun is a constant throughout, so it cannot be that which is responsible.”
Yep. I see he read my post.
Hmm, I wonder, does heat output from the BP also matter?
Yep, as discussed, the heat output, Q, of the BP to the GP, goes to 0 upon separation.
And as Barry mentioned:
“BECAUSE BP is now losing energy at a slower rate than it is acquiring it.”
But these simple facts are ignored, because those are the rules of the game.
Ball4, I already pointed out how your rebuttal failed.
To assert that the transfer of energy from the BP to the GP was not present in config. A is to assert that there was no transfer of energy from the BP to the GP via conduction, in config. A. Thats false…and so your rebuttal fails.
You also seem to believe that when the BP and the GP are pushed together, the GP just disappears completely, so that there’s only the BP! Then you make out like I’m the one that’s confused…
The only honest response to this discussion is that there is no real evidence for a 2LOT violation happening in the Eli solution to the GPE.
But obviously some have decided that honest debate is not in their best interest.
Unfortunately for DREMT 2:20 pm, I asserted the transfer of energy from the BP to the GP WAS present in config. A which is to assert that there WAS transfer of energy from the BP to the GP via conduction in config. A. DREMT 2:20 pm is shown to be wrong yet again.
Remember DREMT was asking for a transfer of energy NOT present in config. A so the conduction being present in config. A is irrelevant.
Yet again, time for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE for over 5 years now.
Readers should actually refer to Elis 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (“plates pressed together”) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
barry, swanson, and nate. Eli doesn’t ‘show’ anything at all.
He does a thought experiment. . . .the realm of conmanship not science.
And there is no 1LOT violation in a thought experiment.
The answer is in where the heat ends up and at what rate it gets there. And without an experiment you can’t mathematically extrapolate where it ends up or at what rate it gets there.
Ball4 caves in and admits that there is a transfer of energy from the BP to the GP in config. A, so Ball4 now agrees with everyone else that the only transfer of energy not in config. A that is in config. B is the “back-radiation” transfer from the GP to the BP. So now he must logically agree that the “back-radiation” transfer is responsible for the supposed rise in temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP, which makes it a transfer of heat from cold to hot, a 2LoT violation.
Since we know that cannot happen, then the BP will not rise in temperature at the expense of the GP when the plates separate. That means they will remain at the same temperature, and the energy “back-radiated” from the GP to the BP must be returned from the BP to the GP, meaning that the energy “back-radiated” from the GP to the BP was ultimately not “lost” from the GP, as I earlier explained. No 1LoT violations anywhere. So, upholding 2LoT means that 1LoT is also not violated.
1LoT is also conserved overall for the 2-plate system as at 244 K…244 K, you have 400 entering the 2-plate system from the Sun, and 400 in total leaving it – 200 leaving from the left of the BP, and 200 leaving from the right of the GP. With everything in balance, Postma/Clint R/DREMT’s solution is complete. I must now take a bow, and with tears of gratitude towards the cheering, hysterical crowd, exit the stage as the reluctant victor of this long, long argument. Winning’s hard, but someone’s got to do it.
“barry, swanson, and nate. Eli doesnt show anything at all.”
Bill, if anybody wants to they can verify the Eli solution. And Swanson did that. You are welcome to verify it.
Science does thought experiments and modeling all the time because they are useful to understanding nature, as well as for deciding if a proposed solution to a problem is feasible.
Einstein was famous for his thought experiments. They helped him develop relativity and quantum theory.
The rule was they had to obey the known laws of physics, especially the big ones like Conservation of Energy.
If a proposed solution doesnt obey Conservation of Energy, we know its wrong.
Thats how we KNOW FOR SURE that the DREMT-POSTMA solution is wrong, because it creates energy from nothing, a violation of the law of Conservation of Energy.
“So now he must logically agree that the back-radiation transfer is responsible for the supposed rise in temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP, which makes it a transfer of heat from cold to hot, a 2LoT violation.”
False. Again, a poster is shamelessly ignoring whats going on that doesnt fit his narrative.
Such as the large drop in HEAT LOSS from the BP, that obviously MUST accompany a change from conduction in metal to radiation through vacuum.
Lets imagine the metal of the initial BP is copper (cond. 400 W/mK) and 2 mm thick. Heat flow of 200 W/m^2 by conduction through this plate means
Q = 200 W/m^2 = 400 W/(mK)*(dT/dx). dx = 2 mm = 2*10^-3 m
This gives dT/dx = 0.5 and dT = 0.001 K across the plate.
Now maintain this tiny T difference upon plate separation into 2 1 mm thick plates and the RHTE now applies as Joe Postma agrees.
Q = sigma(Tbp^4 – Tgp^4) = 5.67e-8*(244.001^4-244^4)
=.003 W/M^2
So the heat loss from the blue plate to the GP went from 200 W/m^2 to .003 W/m^2 upon plate separation.
There is no logic to ignoring this sudden drop in heat loss, and claiming that this is somehow a 2LOT violation.
…and here’s the diagram to show what I explained in my last comment:
https://postImg.cc/HrxkJyBB
As you can see, the arrows are colour-coded. It shows the “back-radiation” transfer from the GP to the BP being returned from the BP to the GP, so as not to violate 2LoT. That’s the green arrow pointing from the right of the BP back to the GP, at the bottom of the diagram. Everything thus balances – no 1LoT violations!
” transfer from the GP to the BP being returned from the BP to the GP”
An extra imaginary arrow drawn on a cartoon? That aint physics.
The physics is the RHTE, as JP agrees, that makes absolutely clear that the NET radiated energy, Q = 0 between the plates if they are at the same temperature.
DREMT 1:18 am, of course BP conduction exists in Config. A & B so it is NOT “another” energy transfer found in the switch to “find another transfer of energy besides the “back-radiation” transfer that happens in the switch from config. A to config. B. Otherwise, please stop trolling.”
The added EMR thru the vacuum of space from BP to GP after the switch IS found as “another transfer of energy besides the “back-radiation” transfer that happens in the switch from config. A to config. B. Otherwise, please stop trolling.”
“the BP will not rise in temperature at the expense of the GP when the plates separate.” is wrong as a clear violation of 2LOT for a real process as no entropy is produced in DREMT’s wrongly imagined process.
So DREMT 1:18 am remains wrong.
Yet again, time for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE for over 5 years now & counting.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (“plates pressed together”) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
As usual, Ball4 is just trolling. Ultimately, he agreed at 8:51 PM yesterday that there is a transfer of energy from BP to GP in config. A. He can’t take that back, now…so any further responses from him along these lines will have to be met with: “Ball4, please stop trolling”.
But the conductive transfer of energy from BP to GP in config. A. is not “ANOTHER” transfer of energy from BP to GP in the switch from config. A to B. The BP conduction exists in both configurations.
DREMT can’t take that back. The EMR from BP to GP after the switch IS “another” energy transfer so qualifies.
Thus DREMT 1:18 am, 9:12 am will remain wrong.
Yet again, time for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE for over 5 years now & counting.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (“plates pressed together”) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
"Ball4, please stop trolling".
DREMT 9:27 am has no possible further physics debate thus concedes defeat. Thx.
Not in the least, Ball4. You unwittingly conceded the entire argument yesterday, at 8:51 PM. I’m most grateful for the win. You going on to claim that there is conductive transfer from the BP to the GP after the plates are separated is just an added bonus that I think will have amused any readers following, no end. Thx.
Funny, DREMT wrongly doesn’t understand there is no claim that conduction from BP to GP occurs after the switch. But another transfer of energy besides the “back-radiation” EMR transfer that happens in the switch from config. A to config. B in EMR BP to GP does occur after the switch.
Conduction in the BP exists before AND after the switch so it is not ANOTHER transfer of energy.
Yet again, time for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE for over 5 years now & counting.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
"…but another transfer of energy…in EMR BP to GP does occur after the switch"
There is a transfer of energy from BP to GP, via conduction, before the switch, and a transfer of energy from BP to GP, via EMR, after the switch. So, there’s a transfer of energy from BP to GP before the switch, and a transfer of energy from BP to GP after the switch. The transfer of energy from BP to GP is therefore not an additional transfer of energy occurring only in config. B. The "back-radiation" transfer from GP to BP, on the other hand, only occurs in config. B. It does not occur in config. A. That is the only difference, in transfers, between the two configurations.
Funny yet again, obviously busted DREMT doesn’t realize energy conduction in BP occurs before AND after the switch so the BP to GP EMR after the switch is the only “another” energy transfer after the switch.
Yet again, time for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE for over 5 years now & counting.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
“It shows the back-radiation transfer from the GP to the BP being returned from the BP to the GP”
So some think that the BP emits 400 W/m2. Though the SB law is clear that it is 200 W/m2.
Or they think it emits as blackbody but also reflects like a mirror, violating making Kirchhoffs law.
We’ve entered the fact free zone of silliness!
"energy conduction in BP occurs before AND after the switch…"
There’s Ball4’s "trick". We’re not talking about "energy conduction in BP". We’re talking about "energy conduction between BP and GP".
Ball4’s been busted, but I predict he’ll continue to troll. It’s what he does. I tolerate it to provide readers an insight into the depths these people will sink to.
Eventually though, he’ll just have to be repeatedly asked to stop trolling. He would just never stop, otherwise.
Wrong again DREMT, we are talking about: “To do so, find another transfer of energy besides the “back-radiation” transfer that happens in the switch from config. A to config. B.”
EMR BP to GP is the only “another” transfer of energy found besides the “back-radiation” transfer that happens in the switch from config. A to config. B.
Yet again, time for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE for over 5 years now & counting.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
Ball4’s "trick" exposed, he continues to troll. He probably delights in the misery he causes others.
It is only a misery to DREMT in being busted on wrong physics & continually wrong on the GPE for over 5 years & counting.
Yet again, time for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
…"trick" exposed, he continues to troll. He probably delights in the misery he causes others.
DREMT 12:47 pm has no possible further physics debate thus again concedes defeat. Thx.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Everyone has pointed out the change in energy balance to GP when the system is reconfigured, DREMT.
It’s just that you refuse to see it.
Your position is simple to understand. Splitting the plates causes back radiation from GP to BP. If we’re saying BP gets warmer and GP cooler then that means heat has been transferred from cooling GP to warming BP, because the only thing that has changed is the new radiation vector GP to BP.
However, GP was getting the equivalent of 400 W/m2 when pressed up to BP. That’s the only possible way it could be the same temperature as BP.
But wait! If GP was insulated on the side pressed up against BP and emitting 200 W/m2 to space, that means it would be the same temperature.
So where is it getting the energy from if its insulated against BP? Conductive insulation isn’t the answer.
No, GP MUST be getting the equivalent of 400 W/m2 to be at the same temp as BP in this configuration. And that’s why GPBP can be treated exactly the same as BP, and splitting GPBP is the same as splitting BP on its own. Both plates were getting 400 W/m2, and then GP is only getting 200 W/m2.
GP gets colder because of a physical change in the system and a new process, not because it spontaneously decides to break 2LoT.
If you want to insist that there is heat going from GP to BP, Clausius has this covered.
“This principle on which the whole following development is based is: heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another associated change simultaneously happens.”
Your whole argument relies on changing the set-up, cutting off half the energy supply to GP, and then pretending the only change is that back radiation happens.
"However, GP was getting the equivalent of 400 W/m2 when pressed up to BP. That’s the only possible way it could be the same temperature as BP."
Whoops! barry is creating energy from nothing. 1LoT violation. The BP is emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the Sun-facing side, so it is not possible for it to be giving to the GP "the equivalent of 400 W/m^2" when the plates are pressed together.
barry’s entire thesis fails again, in a mistake that he has made (I think, now) four times in a row!
"If you want to insist that there is heat going from GP to BP, Clausius has this covered.
“This principle on which the whole following development is based is: heat can never pass from a cooler to a warmer body, unless another associated change simultaneously happens.”"
Oh, barry! The change (separating the plates) happens before the 2LoT violation. The 2LoT violation is what happens after the plates are separated, when the BP supposedly increases in temperature at the expense of the GP due to the "back-radiation" transfer. So no, there is not another associated change simultaneously happening! You people will literally try anything, no matter how stupid…
…and if you are really worried about this conduction vs. radiation thing, like I already explained…don’t separate the plates. Start with just the BP, wait until it’s at 244 K, then introduce a GP which is already at 244 K. Once again, the BP is supposed to spontaneously warm to 262 K and the GP to cool to 220 K, and it’s the "back-radiation" transfer that’s solely responsible for this! So that’s a transfer of heat from cold to hot. 2LoT violation.
“so it is not possible for it to be giving to the GP “the equivalent of 400 W/m^2”
True. It is only getting 200 W/m^2 of heat by conduction from the BP.
But his whole thesis does not fail.
Because immediately after plate separation the GP is receiving a NET heat flow of ZERO from the BP, as all agree.
200 before, 0 after. That is a huge change. The GP must cool, and the BP must warm.
…and if you are really worried about this conduction vs. radiation thing, like I already explained…don’t separate the plates. Start with just the BP, wait until it’s at 244 K, then introduce a GP which is already at 244 K. Once again, the BP is supposed to spontaneously warm to 262 K and the GP to cool to 220 K, and it’s the "back-radiation" transfer that’s solely responsible for this! So that’s a transfer of heat from cold to hot. 2LoT violation.
Looks like Gaslighting Graham was kinda busy today!
Let’s help him out:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1477284
Yes, good idea. Let’s move the discussion down-thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1477238
If people really must continue, then do so down there. This current thread has got far too long.
“Start with just the BP, wait until its at 244 K, then introduce a GP which is already at 244 K. Once again, the BP is supposed to spontaneously warm to 262 K and the GP to cool to 220 K, and its the “back-radiation” transfer thats solely responsible for this! So thats a transfer of heat from cold to hot. 2LoT violation.”
We can start with the BP and the GP side by side both in the sunshine and reaching the same T = 244 K.
Then we can move the GP behind the BP, so that it is now in the shade.
With the GP now in the shade, some people weirdly suggest that it won’t cool.
This is an easy experiment to try at home. Sit around a fire pit on a cool night getting warm with friends or family.
Then move yourself BEHIND one of the others, so that you are in the shade of the radiant heat from the fire.
Do you get cooler?
…if people really must continue, then do so down there. This current thread has got far too long.
Nate says:
—————————-
Of course you would. The human body makes a good insulator.
black body plates don’t.
Nate,
If BP gets 400 W/2 and then you split it, in what way is this thermally different to GPBP pressed together getting 400 W/m2?
It’s exactly the same condition before and after. The only difference is semantic, it seems to me.
And the instant you split the plates GP is emitting 200 W/m2 from each side, exactly the same as BP, which is definitely getting 400 W/m2.
There are a bunch of problems with the conductive set-up, not least of which there is no conduction going on at all. Conduction requires a temperature gradient to exist in the first place.
“Conduction is the process by which heat is transferred from the hotter end to the colder end of an object.”
So we already start with a fallacy when we speak of conduction between the 2 plates that we don’t have when we speak of radiation between the 2 plates.
If you have an object the same temperature all over, the whole object is getting equal amounts of energy to every part of it.
Put a 200 W/m2 sun either said of GPBP and now you have both objects getting a total of 400 W/m2 delivered, because they pass the energy each gets to the other.
If all 400 W/m2 is on one side but you have the exact same thermal distribution over the two compressed plates….
Barry,
Here is how I see it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1476949
On the sun side of the BP, you have an input of 400 and output of 200, so 200 NET heat is gained and is the heat flow through the BP to its other side, where it emits 200.
But for the GP, it gets 200 from the BP and emits 200 on that side for a NET heat gain of 0.
If it is emitting 200 heat on its other side, we agree it has to be cooling.
“Of course you would. The human body makes a good insulator”
Of course, Bill. The body is still warmer than the air and emitting.
But do you agree that moving the GP from direct sun to the shade behind another plate, it would not cool?
We have the GP in the sun, receiving direct sunlight of 400 W/m^2 and emitting 200 W/m^2 from both sides, and at T = 244 K
And in the shade, behind the BP it is receiving only 200 W/m^2 and all agree that it would be emitting equally from both sides.
But it doesnt cool? That make sense to you?
Uh oh! Trouble in paradise…seems barry is asking some difficult questions of his Team GPE comrade…
Nate,
Ok, let’s make BP behave like GP. It gets 400 to one side and outputs 400 to the other.
That makes it transparent, doesn’t it? And therefore won’t have a temperature (or won’t be different from background temp). It’s as if it isn’t there.
But let’s imagine the 200 W/m2 doesn’t pass unhindered through GP with conduction. It’s only getting 200 in your vision, so how is it that it is 244 K?
(DREMT, Nate and I having a dispute over a point makes us honest, not troubled. Your tribe never argue with each other because winning is more important than understanding. Furthermore, Nate and I can admit when someone else points out that we’re wrong. That’s a another thing your tribe is too intellectually dishonest to do)
Those are some nice false accusations, barry. You’ve kept them coming throughout the debate!
“Ok, lets make BP behave like GP. It gets 400 to one side and outputs 400 to the other.
That makes it transparent, doesnt it? And therefore wont have a temperature (or wont be different from background temp). Its as if it isnt there.”
I agree that makes no sense. Neither plate behaves like that.
“But lets imagine the 200 W/m2 doesnt pass unhindered through GP with conduction. Its only getting 200 in your vision, so how is it that it is 244 K?”
It isnt going to be 244 K.
DREMT and JP already agreed that it emits from both sides, like the BP. So whatever it gets from the BP is split in two and emitted from both its sides.
So if it was getting 200, it would need to be emitting 100 from each side. So its Temp would have to be 205 K.
Of course in the Eli solution it gets 266.6 from the BP and emits 133.3 from each side.
…you’ve kept them coming throughout the debate!
And Eli’s solution doesnt need to discard several laws of physics in order to preserve the only one deemed to matter, the 2LOT, as the slayers scenario does.
…kept them coming throughout the debate!
Nate DREMTs and Postmas position doesn’t discard 1LOT. You just have the wrong object warming and they have the right object warming.
Barry says:
”(DREMT, Nate and I having a dispute over a point makes us honest, not troubled. Your tribe never argue with each other because winning is more important than understanding. Furthermore, Nate and I can admit when someone else points out that were wrong. Thats a another thing your tribe is too intellectually dishonest to do)”
Barry doesn’t pay any attention.
1) I have argued with DREMT on this and have not ”endorsed” his and Postma’s conclusions. I have instead stated that an experiment is needed to provide certainty.
2) a vacuum is ‘not’ an insulator and that is contrary to Nate’s claim.
Thus if SB is correct that despite albedo and object will warm to equilibrium in a radiant field to the temperature they specified with their law an object in a radiant field will warm to 16.5C if it is receiving 400w/m2.
You guys can dream up all sorts of ways to say a surface will not emit 400w/m2 contrary to SB by claiming 1) it will lose energy around the sun and/or 2)it will lose energy away from the sun . . . .but I merely want to hear more than bullshit arguments.
DREMT is correct your debate with Nate is out of the natural uncertainty that exists when a fact isn’t established in true science.
I was buying into all that before I noted that your entire position is both inconsistent with but born of what happens to objects where two modes of cooling are available such as ‘window technology’ Window technology operates by cutting the heat transmission by providing a dead air space in which a vacuum would operate slightly more efficiently than say argon which operates slightly more efficiently than air by being ‘less or non-conductive’ than air which itself is very poorly conductive. Thus 1/8″ air gaps in dead air spaces perform very poorly because heat conducts between the panes of glass but an 1/8″ vacuum gap would perform well because of no conductivity.
In outerspace all this technology literally flies out the window.
yet it seems Nate can’t see that.
There are other problems at work. We had to assume infinite plates to eliminate loss of transmissability between plates. But you can’t heat an infinite plate with a point source as the source would need to be at infinite distance and infinite power.
There are also other problems at work here regarding your shells. you want to cool the inner shell (more distant shell) while arguing in other thread the inner shell will be the hottest via the greenhouse effect. In this thread you want to argue that the alleged 200 watts sent back to the BP will warm the BP rather than the GP.
There are a lot of questions very poorly answered in climate science and that is why there are a lot of skeptics.
Hunter posts another long rant again, including:
Hunter still doesn’t understand the GPE model. There are two plates, the BP receiving 400w/m^2 ON ONE SIDE while emitting thermal IR radiation from TWO SIDES for a result of ~200w/m^2 being emitted on each side. That 200w/m^2 is where Cult Leader grammie’s “244k-244k” numbers come from.
Hunter troll is hopelessly confused. He is still stuck on insulated glass panels, which typically have a space between of about 1/2 inch, mentioning 1/8 inch spacing as a poor insulator WRT a vacuum, which would be true but irrelevant. He completely misses the point I was trying to make about grammie’s claims about “plates together” vs. “plates separated” that both situations would have the same temperature.
BTW, there are now new vacuum insulated window panels available, which would provide an even greater temperature difference than I found with my glass plate experiments.
Bill,
It’s not been clear to me that you have disagreed with DREMT, but I’ll take your word for it. Maybe I missed the post. In which case I retract the statement.
“In this thread you want to argue that the alleged 200 watts sent back to the BP will warm the BP rather than the GP.”
They both warm as a result of the radiative interaction between them slowing the rate of heat loss from the system.
“Nate DREMTs and Postmas position doesnt discard 1LOT.”
Ok Bill with no science to back it up, you register your support for sky-dragon-slayers.
No surprise.
Yes, barry, Bill and I are not in straightforward agreement on the GPE. Bill is an independent thinker and has his own thoughts on the issue. He’s been clear that he doesn’t endorse Postma’s/Clint R’s/my take on the GPE. This is partly why I said your accusations were false. I’ve also disputed facets of the moon issue with Clint R and Gordon before. So, it’s not true that “our tribe” never argue amongst ourselves. It’s also not true that we’re looking for a “win” rather than understanding. I might use the language of “win” or “lose” from time to time but it’s more just out of frustration when I see people refusing to concede points. Or when I’m talking to trolls. My interest is in getting to the truth…
“Hes been clear that he doesnt endorse Postmas/Clint Rs/my take on the GPE. ”
Obviously not.
“Its also not true that were looking for a win rather than understanding. ”
OMG.
If understanding was the goal, then you would try to address Barry’s rebuttals rather than repeatedly ignoring them, and simply repeating the rebutted claims.
If understanding was the goal, you wouldn’t sacrifice established laws of physics, such as Kirchhofs Law, and 1LOT as applied to individual objects.
Bill is so torn between his desire to support the sky-dragon-slayers and troll the rest of us, and his desire to follow the facts and logic, and that he contradicts himself in the very same post:
“2) a vacuum is not an insulator and that is contrary to Nates claim.”
” Thus 1/8″ air gaps in dead air spaces perform very poorly because heat conducts between the panes of glass but an 1/8″ VACUUM GAP WOULD PERFORM WELL because of no conductivity.”
DREMT could demonstrate that he is all about understanding by addressing Barry’s quite straightforward rebuttal of his scenario.
“GP is thus getting 200 W/m2 from blackbody BP.
But DREMT has BP delivering 400 W/m2 to GP. Where has the extra 200 W/m2 come from?
If the GP radiation bounces off the BP, then BP emissivity is 0.
BP is now a mirror and a blackbody at the same time.
This breaks physics.”
…and as to your claim that “furthermore, Nate and I can admit when someone else points out that we’re wrong.”
I’m afraid I can’t recall any evidence that’s true. Maybe in your case, barry, but certainly not in Nate’s case. In fact, when I read that, I had to laugh out loud.
“My interest is in getting to the truth”
But he does his best to AVOID getting at the truth, and is unable to address BARRYs rebuttals, by trying to make it all about the messenger.
…in fact, when I read that, I had to laugh out loud.
Nate says:
Bill is so torn between his desire to support the sky-dragon-slayers and troll the rest of us, and his desire to follow the facts and logic, and that he contradicts himself in the very same post:
”2) a vacuum is not an insulator and that is contrary to Nates claim.”
” Thus 1/8″ air gaps in dead air spaces perform very poorly because heat conducts between the panes of glass but an 1/8″ VACUUM GAP WOULD PERFORM WELL because of no conductivity.”
——————————
Nate is so confused. A vacuum is only an insulator in a gaseous environment where heat is being transferred by the movement of gas molecules. There are no gases transporting heat in the GPE so its not an insulator in the GPE.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter posts another long rant again, including:
an object in a radiant field will warm to 16.5C if it is receiving 400w/m2.
You guys can dream up all sorts of ways to say a surface will not emit 400w/m2 contrary to SB
——————————-
We aren’t doing anything you aren’t doing Swanson. Thats why I said an experiment is needed to establish the facts.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
Hunter still doesnt understand the GPE model. There are two plates, the BP receiving 400w/m^2 ON ONE SIDE while emitting thermal IR radiation from TWO SIDES for a result of ~200w/m^2 being emitted on each side. That 200w/m^2 is where Cult Leader grammies 244k-244k numbers come from.
—————————
That description begs the question. This is your claim you dreamt up.
I can agree that it is likely an object that can actually ‘lose energy’ in two directions will adopt a temperature whereby a mean 200w/m2 is radiated to space in two directions (with an infinitessimally small point of light as the heat source). Of course for a point source that takes up a small percentage of the sky there would be a slight shift of temperature due to the portion of the sky taken up so it might actually warm to 244K instead of the more exact 243.7K that would be 50% of 400w/m2 radiation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
Hunter troll is hopelessly confused. He is still stuck on insulated glass panels, which typically have a space between of about 1/2 inch, mentioning 1/8 inch spacing as a poor insulator WRT a vacuum, which would be true but irrelevant. He completely misses the point I was trying to make about grammies claims about plates together vs. plates separated that both situations would have the same temperature.
BTW, there are now new vacuum insulated window panels available, which would provide an even greater temperature difference than I found with my glass plate experiments.
———————
Here all you are doing is showing your ignorance. What the vacuum is limiting is the transport of heat by air molecule motions.
Eliminating the convection cuts the heat loss in half. Eliminate the conduction and you get the other half and have zero heat loss by half but the two glass panels aren’t doing anything unless you especially treat them with reflective coatings.
But obviously you are oblivious to this and extrapolate this effect to your model of how you believe electromagnetic radiation works.
Hunter troll wrote:
That’s why I did several “experiments’. If you don’t like my results, do your own experiments.
After admitting that he was wrong to waste time mentioning a surface emitting 400 w/m^2, Hunter continues:
The energy transfer across an insulated glass panel may be only half that of a solid pane, but that transfer is mostly from thermal IR radiation between the two glass panes. Of course, adding Low-e coating would reduce the IR transfer. But that wasn’t the point of my Glass Plate demo, which was to show the effect of reducing the convection HT across the gap. For vacuum insulated glass panels without a Low-e coating, only IR transfer (and edge effects) would remain and the result would be rather like Eli’s Green Plate Effect. In either situation the temperature of the black painted side facing the Sun will be higher than the opposite side, so there’s none of gammie’s “244-244” crap, QED.
"A vacuum is only an insulator in a gaseous environment where heat is being transferred by the movement of gas molecules. There are no gases transporting heat in the GPE so its not an insulator in the GPE…"
…bingo.
Bill expresses perfectly sound reasoning here:
” Window technology operates by cutting the heat transmission by providing a dead air space in which a vacuum would operate slightly more efficiently than say argon which operates slightly more efficiently than air by being less or non-conductive than air which itself is very poorly conductive. Thus 1/8″ air gaps in dead air spaces perform very poorly because heat conducts between the panes of glass but an 1/8″ vacuum gap would perform well because of no conductivity.”
But then logic and reasoning go out the window when he states:
“A vacuum is only an insulator in a gaseous environment where heat is being transferred by the movement of gas molecules. There are no gases transporting heat in the GPE so its not an insulator in the GPE.”
To claim that the presence or absence of air molecules OUTSIDE the gap would somehow alter the heat transmission INSIDE the gap, is not sound reasoning, and lacks logic.
"…vacuum is only an insulator in a gaseous environment where heat is being transferred by the movement of gas molecules. There are no gases transporting heat in the GPE so its not an insulator in the GPE…"
…bingo.
More like:
Bonkers! And DREMTs on board.
"…is only an insulator in a gaseous environment where heat is being transferred by the movement of gas molecules. There are no gases transporting heat in the GPE so its not an insulator in the GPE…"
…bingo.
Another easy win for Mighty Tim against our Sky Dragon cranks.
Another biased, false summary from a pathetic, hated troll.
Another gaslighting gesture by Gaslighting Graham.
Another worthless comment from a pathetic, hated troll.
Another worthless comment from the most pathetic, hated troll.
Yes, thanks for your confession.
Another gaslighting gesture by Gaslighting Graham.
Pathetic, hated troll, please stop trolling.
Gaslighting Graham still forgets the magic words.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop being a useless idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for canceling the effect of Gaslighting Graham’s magic words.
Is there something you’d like to discuss?
Willard, please stop being a useless idiot.
These are not the magic words, Mike.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“You cant heat a vacuum. Thats not just semantics. ”
“Nobody is denying that the green plate radiates to space”
The green plate still sends its heat to space, and what happens to it after that is OF NO RELEVANCE to the T of the plates.
Oh well, it is thus JUST semantics.
And Barry,
His proposed ‘solution’ to the now admitted ‘little accounting problem’:
“It wouldnt be creating more energy that isnt there. If the 200 W/m^2 emitted from the GP to the BP was returned from the GP to the BP, your little ‘accounting problem’ would be solved completely.”
makes no logical sense.
Does he mean ‘was returned from the BP to the GP’?
If so, this is again contradicts his understanding of how BB abs.orb all radiation.
It is all bafflingly silly.
It’s not all that baffling since if DREMT admits losing on the GPE physics then that means admitting losing on DREMT’s position on the GHE which MUST not ever be the case for DREMT (et. al. of his sophistry screenname) comments.
So this blog will continue to witness more, not soon ending, & obviously wrong atm. 1LOT and 2LOT physics from DREMT.
Oh, not in the least, Ball4. The GHE has been debunked nine ways to Sunday by now. Even if the GPE didn’t involve an obvious 2LoT violation (which as barry has unwittingly explained, it does) the GHE would still be debunked. That will never change, I’m afraid. You can have the last word on this sub-thread, if you like.
The GPE eqn.s show how the GHE is successful with basic physics for beginners like DREMT who have an agenda when commenting the Green Plate Effect & GHE violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics when they do not as both produce entropy.
"…who have an agenda…"
False accusation. Sorry, would have let you have the last word, but you slipped in a false accusation, which I won’t tolerate. I won’t tolerate false accusations, misrepresentations, or insults. The "beginner" remark was kind of an insult, too.
Try again for that last word.
DREMT reminds blog readers 3:50 pm that DREMT is irritated at not yet being able to supply correct 1LOT eqn.s solving the GPE as did non-beginner Eli over 5 yr.s ago. Pity.
False accusation. Try again.
DREMT reminds blog readers 1:06 pm that DREMT remains irritated at not yet being able to supply correct 1LOT eqn.s solving the GPE as did non-beginner Eli over 5 yr.s ago. Pity.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Last word on the thread, which indicates that nothing has changed, and that I’m still, as always, completely happy that there’s no Green Plate Effect.
“which indicates that nothing has changed”
Because sky dragon slayers continue to ignore or deny the basic physics of heat transfer, and pretend that nobody pointed out flaws in their logic.
That aint winning, thats trolling.
Nor is repeating the same false, debunked claims over and over, as they will now undoubtedly now do.
So go ahead and claim the not-so-prestigious Last Wording consolation prize.
Last word on the thread, which indicates that nothing has changed, and that I’m still, as always, completely happy that there’s no Green Plate Effect.
Worse than that, Nate –
Sky Dragon cranks cannot even abide by the rules of algebra.
Little Willy is confused about something, again.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights a little more.
You made a comment at 12:58 PM. Elaborate on exactly what you mean. Or I’ll continue to assume that you’re just confused, which is a pretty safe assumption with you.
Gaslighting Graham handwaves handsomely.
As usual, Little Willy refuses to cooperate in any way.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Yeah,
There’s no green plate effect, that’s why they line kilns with bricks.
And that’s why the oven on the GC has a bunch of thermal wool, otherwise the heater would blow the fuse, and you could not operate the instrument on a 120 volt circuit.
“There’s no green plate effect”
I’m glad you agree. Thank you.
Yeah, no sarcasm in my post neither.
Sure bob, thanks. You can go.
Sure DR EMPTY
Was this your last word
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471013
or was this
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1470832
I’ll wait for you to admit you are wrong on something, then I’ll take another break.
You can go.
Nope, I am going to stay until you admit you are wrong.
OK…I thought maybe you weren’t that petty and obnoxious…I was wrong about that. You are.
So when DREMT shamelessly claims victory after badly losing yet another debate, he knows that he is ‘that petty and obnoxious’?
…I thought maybe you weren’t that petty and obnoxious…I was wrong about that. You are.
Another cold front with rain and snow in California.
https://i.ibb.co/XS4SF8J/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-04-07-095022.png
You folks like to debate each other. Here is a fact that I find very interesting. I do not have a crystal ball, but I agree with most experts that China will continue to build coal-fired power plants and endanger miners with ever deeper and more dangerous coal mines. Other countries will continue to want a more comfortable life and consume more fossil fuel. Solar and wind will continue to be too expensive for these third world countries. The producer states under the leadership of OPEC will maintain production in the face of any potential reduction in demand by simply lowering the price. Natural gas is massively abundant on earth, easy to obtain, not too difficult to transport, and just too good to pass up. Climate Change will happen, and those of us who live longer enough will find out which predictions are the most accurate. Let that sink in!
“Solar and wind will continue to be too expensive for these third world countries.”
Is this a valid premise?
Solar and wind are often outcompeting coal and nuclear in the developed world, where we already have extensive energy infrastructure.
Then why wouldnt they do well in the third world, where in some cases, there is little energy infrastructure, ie an extensive power grid nor pipeline nor transport networks, none of which S&W require.
There is no place that solar and wind are outcompeting coal and nuclear, not when you consider the project from start to finish and don’t include the government subsidies. Everywhere solar and wind is being pushed (Australia, Germany, California) the price of electricity is skyrocketing.
In California, there has been unseen costs such as fires caused by infrastructure that isn’t being maintained because of government demands that the electricity rates don’t reflect the actual cost.
> There is no place that solar and wind are outcompeting coal and nuclear
Keep repeating this falsity, Kennui:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/30/us-coal-more-expensive-than-renewable-energy-study
It might one day be true!
Wee Willy Wanker,
“. . . said Michelle Solomon, a policy analyst at Energy Innovation, which undertook the analysis.”
Oooooh! An “analyst”! Probably an “expert” too!
It seems the majority of the world is treating her opinion with the disdain they consider it so richly deserves. The US must be remarkably stupid, wasting all that money, producing at least 80% of its power grid energy from non-wind or solar sources.
Dream on, laddie.
Why doesn’t china reduce coal use by 10% by using solar panels to make electricity.
Because it first needs to get to speed with the Western world, gb.
Can’t you do better than to ask stupid questions?
They might in the future. Emission rates were flat 2021 to 2022, but mainly because of COVID and the industrial sector. They’re still building coal powered energy plants. On the other hand, solar power in China is one of the world’s most accelerated sectors.
https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022
https://www.iea.org/reports/an-energy-sector-roadmap-to-carbon-neutrality-in-china/executive-summary
https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-needs-more-diverse-solar-panel-supply-chains-to-ensure-a-secure-transition-to-net-zero-emissions
“Because it first needs to get to speed with the Western world, gb.”
So, you disagree with:
“Coal is unequivocally more expensive than wind and solar resources, its just no longer cost competitive with renewables”
Or you not going to get to speed, using expensive coal and China coal
is very expensive- And how is importing coal [which is expensive] getting up to speed.
If reduced coal by 10% by using solar energy- you reduce import demand and lower it’s price.
And since China building new coal powerplants, you reduce amount new builds, rather replace coal plants with solar power.
Or waste less money in the short term. And you will have more coal left over in future- new power plants may not be used for expected lifetimes, when one later decides to use solar panels.
It’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, gb.
Here’s world coal consumption:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/coal-demand-asia-decarbonize-emissions/
By your logic, coal should be increasing.
Is it?
No, it’s flat.
So yeah, solar and wind is outcompeting coal.
And they’ll continue to do so because they’re cheaper, and we like cheap things.
Not unlike your cheap Socrates act.
So go on.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Because it first needs to get to speed with the Western world, gb.
Cant you do better than to ask stupid questions?”
Why do you think that China “needs to catch up” with anyone? Do you spend your time with your head up your ass (pardon the Americanism)?
Countries are different – they don’t “need to” do anything. They just are what they are, and do what they do – regardless of your worthless opinions. Accept reality if you want, reject it if you like. It makes no difference.
You can even believe in a non-existent GHE if you choose.
–So yeah, solar and wind is outcompeting coal.
And theyll continue to do so because theyre cheaper, and we like cheap things.–
No, it was natural gas, dummy.
Try again, genius –
https://www.iea.org/news/natural-gas-markets-remain-tight-as-uncertainty-persists-around-chinese-lng-demand-and-further-supply-cuts-by-russia
“In California, there has been unseen costs such as fires caused by infrastructure that isnt being maintained because of government demands that the electricity rates dont reflect the actual cost.”
Off topic.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
See Table 1b Levelized cost of electricity generated by different types of NEW power plants, construction starting today, BEFORE TAX BREAKS.
The key item is Total LCOE/LCOS Cost/MWh
Coal $83
Nuclear $88
Solar $36.5
Onshore Wind $40
Oh Yeah, hail to the cheap fossil fuels.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1322094/weekly-us-central-appalachian-coal-price/#:~:text=At%20the%20end%20of%202021,U.S.%20dollars%20per%20metric%20ton.
You have to look at the whole system including infrastructure. Electric cars are for rich people — even in the USA and Europe. Power grids that are not well maintained and regulated (by voltage) probably are not well adapted to solar panel input. Stand-alone system off the grid would be only for rich people.
> I agree with most experts that China
https://climateball.net/but-china/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earth’s surface is warmer than Moon’s on average +68 oC.
–
It happens so not because of Earth’s thin atmosphere very insignificant greenhouse effect.
–
Earth’s surface is warmer than Moon’s on average +68 oC, because of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
GHE causes a reduction in direct thermal radiation to space by some 342 Wm-2. That makes Earth Surface 15C on average instead of -18C it would be in the absense of GH gases.
Wow troll Ken! Even your cult doesn’t claim such nonsense.
Kennui’s getting attention from our sockiest sock puppet, with his ineffective trolling. That means he’s over the target for once.
Makes his day, no doubt.
Truth doesn’t come from cults. Source of my claim is: https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/
Ken believes Earth would be emitting 240 + 342 = 582W/m^2 is there were no CO2. That would mean Earth would have a temperature much warmer than it is now!
Like the blind squirrel that occasionally finds a nut, Ken has stumbled onto some reality.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Actually, without CO2 earth would still be emitting 240 Wm-2 just like it does now. The reduction in direct thermal radiation to space would be 312 Wm-2. Earth would be cooler.
Ken, the fact that you’re braindead is why you make such an obviously illogical comment like that.
You’re basically saying that Earth would emit the same with or without CO2, yet CO2 causes warming.
THAT is what braindead looks like.
Ken,
Doesn’t seem to stop the surface cooling at night, or over the last four and a half billion years, does it?
Removing all the CO2 and H2O from air doesn’t change its temperature at all.
Only delusional SkyDragons use silly terms like Wm-2 to establish temperatures.
Try and describe the GHE, if you wish. You will find you can’t.
Mike Flynn,
Are you still asking for your silly sammich?
Here you go –
https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Doesnt seem to stop the surface cooling at night, or over the last four and a half billion years, does it?
Removing all the CO2 and H2O from air doesnt change its temperature at all.
Only delusional SkyDragons use silly terms like Wm-2 to establish temperatures.
Try and describe the GHE, if you wish. You will find you cant.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Doesnt seem”
Who cares about what things seem to you?
You even deny being Mike Flynn!
Carry on, buffoon.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Doesn’t seem to stop the surface cooling at night, or over the last four and a half billion years, does it?
Removing all the CO2 and H2O from air doesn’t change its temperature at all.
Only delusional SkyDragons use silly terms like Wm-2 to establish temperatures.
Try and describe the GHE, if you wish. You will find you can’t.
Good boy.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Doesn’t seem to stop the surface cooling at night, or over the last four and a half billion years, does it?
Removing all the CO2 and H2O from air doesn’t change its temperature at all.
Only delusional SkyDragons use silly terms like Wm-2 to establish temperatures.
Try and describe the GHE, if you wish. You will find you can’t.
Maybe you could try disagreeing with something I say, but you would have a hard time succeeding, wouldnt you?
Copy-paste your comment again, Mike.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Doesn’t seem to stop the surface cooling at night, or over the last four and a half billion years, does it?
Removing all the CO2 and H2O from air doesnt change its temperature at all.
Only delusional SkyDragons use silly terms like Wm-2 to establish temperatures.
Try and describe the GHE, if you wish. You will find you can’t.
Maybe you could try disagreeing with something I say, but you would have a hard time succeeding, wouldn’t you?
Again!
If Moon had 24 hour day, like Earth, it’s surface would be significantly warmer.
But if measure lunar surface at 1 meter depth, it’s average temperature would be significantly higher than it’s surface.
And 24 hour day, the 1 meter depth would not be much warmer.
And Earth global temperature depends upon average temperature of
the entire ocean [which is about 3.5 C].
And more directly the average ocean surface temperature which is about 17 C is global air temperature because it’s 70% of the planet
surface and warmer ocean surface, increase average global land surface,
And finally, the ocean surface temperature varies less 1 C per night and day cycle, as compare land surface temperature which can vary more the 20 C.
So if Earth spin was faster, it would lessen the night temperature on land, but would little effect upon ocean surface temperature. And Earth spin was slower, land would much wider night and day temperature- but ocean surface temperature controls global air temperature.
As ‘we’ all know, (1) the Moon revolves around Earth, (2) Earth revolves around the Sun, and (3) Earth revolves around its inner axis :-{)
Which two of the three are used to explain the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
What is the greenhouse effect?
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/19/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
“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.”
“Remove carbon dioxide, and the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse.”
If Earth was at Mars distance from the Sun, it would remove CO2 by freezing it out of atmosphere and Earth would still have greenhouse effect.
And we might get the mythical Snowball Earth, though probably more likely it would be a Slushball Earth.
We are in icehouse climate so cold that recently we global CO2 levels at about 180 ppm. If was 5 C colder, we would have even lower CO2 levels. And Earth at Mars distance would average somewhere around 20 C colder than Last Glacial period.
One might ask, since last glaciation period was the coldest known time on Earth, could next one be even colder.
Why isn’t CO2 frozen out of the Martian atmosphere?
Of course is snows a lot on Mars, particularly in polar region, but why doesn’t it all freeze out is the question?
Because Mars is not cold enough.
If talking Earth at elevation similar to Mars to pressure, Earth at Mars distance would be much colder. That given as Earth right now is about that cold, but if issue sea level pressure and Earth being 1 atm, Earth polar regions at Mars distance would a lot colder than they are now.
Currently, the tropics [40% of Earth surface gets more sunlight than
60% of the world, at mars distance 60% of Earth would less sunlight- or tropics get higher percentage. And all of Earth would a lot dimmer than Germany in winter.
In terms solar energy for grid electrical power, Mars is better than our present Earth, Earth at Mars distance would a lot worst than compared to Earth at Earth distance. Earth at best in terms average in best areas on Earth is about 6 kw hours per day- at Mars distance
best would less than 1 kw hour, and Germany plants probably could not grow even in a warm greenhouse [if without artificial light]. Ceres would get more sunlight- or possible plants could at Ceres distance.
The darkness is probably not as bad as Venus rocky surface, but twice as good as Venus dimness is not very bright.
Mars currently has 210 ppm of water vapor.
Earth at Mars distance would have a lot more vapor, though maybe not in the polar regions of Earth.
Earth currently has about 40,000 ppm of water vapor and rest world
is about 5000 ppm or less than 1%.
Earth at Mars distance would have less 10,000 ppm [or less 1%] in the tropics, but rest of Earth could have average around 500 ppm.
Or presently parts of Antarctica are almost as dry as Mars [it’s rocky deserts]- and at Mars distance all of Antarctica could be drier the Mars. And a lot colder than anywhere on Mars at at time.
And the dense air surface air would feel very cold- walrus and penguins could have no chance of surviving, not even during summer {assuming they had something to eat].
Anyhow, Earth would still have a greenhouse effect at Mars distance.
On the Moon, CO2 would freeze out, and it’s thought possible there are billions of tonnes of CO2 frozen out.
The amount frozen CO2 in lunar polar region is one many factors which will part of whether lunar water is mineable.
There number of reasons, such as if you split water you get O2 and H2, and costs a lot energy to make LH2, and doesn’t take much energy
to make LOX.
But if you got CO2, you combine it with H2 and make Liquid Methane.
It does take much energy to liquefy methane and Methane has higher boil off temperature.
One could say a problem rocket fuel depot was fixation on problems with storing LH2 due it low temperature boil off temperature.
But it’s only recently where liquid methane has been used in rocket engines.
spa,
Because in direct sunlight, the atmosphere reaches temperatures well in excess of CO2’s freezing point, I suppose.
Or were you just posing a gotcha, and knew the answer all the time?
However, even at below freezing, CO2 sublimes, and possesses a comparatively high vapor pressure. Ice likewise sublimes, even when frozen.
Other methods are needed to remove CO2 and H2O totally from air. I guess you know that, but many SkyDragon cultists wouldn’t.
Anderson
Your ridiculous behavior towards me does not motivate at all to reply to your comment. I happen to feel comfortable enough today.
*
As you can see, the lack of a relevant answer to your question tells us a lot about the level of science shown by some.
*
I’m no specialist in physics nor in chemistry. Thus I have to rely on information outside (Wiki, science fora – what you could have done without needing help).
Concerning Mars’ atmospheric composition, three things appeared interesting compared to Earth:
– gravity
Because of its lighter weight (10% of Earth’s weight), gravity on Mars is only 40% of Earth’s (Venus: 90 %). Mars’ density is 3.93 g/cm^3, Venus’ 5.24, Earth’s 5.51.
– magnetism
Mars manifestly has lost its so-called magnetosphere long time ago; thus, it has no protection shield against solar wind.
– volcanism
Mars’ low density (10 % of Earth’s) lets think of basalt-dominated eruptions, to which mostly CO2 is associated.
*
Accordingly, the Martian atmosphere is extremely thin compared to the Earth’s atmosphere and will continue to become thinner.
This is partly due to the lack of gravity on Mars, which cannot accommodate light elements, and partly to solar winds eroding the upper layers of the atmosphere.
Since water vapor is much lighter than CO2, I assume it escaped from the atmosphere (like all other light gases) when Mars was still hot enough to prevent it from reprecipitating in water form.
CO2 seems (still) heavy enough to resist. But this gas is also doomed to escape with certainty.
An interesting experiment would be if we could remove all CO2 from Earth’s atmosphere. Earth’s temperature would immediately increase, as removing all CO2 removes radiative “windows” to space.
Nope, removing CO2 enlarges the windows and allows IR to escape less impeded.
This lowers the temperature at the surface.
This in turn would lower the amount of WV in the atmosphere – the primary greenhouse gas.
Some ‘skeptics’ have this weird idea that the planet can only lose radiation to space via greenhouse gases. No, if you remove GHGs, or the entire atmosphere, the surface radiation goes directly to space without being absorbed and re-emitted by atmospheric gases.
barry…”Nope, removing CO2 enlarges the windows and allows IR to escape less impeded.
This lowers the temperature at the surface”.
***
How does that work?
When the surface emits radiation, it cools. That is, it loses heat. By the time the CO2 absorbs that radiation, the surface has already cooled. How can it cool more simply because CO2 absorbs 7% of the surface radiation?
How can the surface detect that part of its radiation will be absorbs by CO2, and hold some heat back?. Newton did not think that. He though the rate of radiation of a surface was determined only by the difference in temperature between the surface and its environment. CO2 makes up only 0.04% of that environment.
Carbon Dioxide (and all of the rest of the greenhouse gases) reduce direct thermal radiation to space. If you take out CO2 there is less absor*tion of radiation so it goes directly to space. Since the radiation is not absorbed by any greenhouse gas its not emitted back to the surface and the surface cools.
Wrong again, Ken.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1470432
“When the surface emits radiation, it cools. That is, it loses heat. By the time the CO2 absorbs that radiation, the surface has already cooled. How can it cool more simply because CO2 absorbs 7% of the surface radiation?”
So lets see if the oven is on with the door open for awhile, and then I close the oven door, the heat that would have escaped ends up being absor.bed by the door. But the oven has already cooled, so how can the oven end up getting warmer with the door closed?
Nate the hot air would spill out the oven door to be replaced with cold air. Why is this so complicated for you?
Explain to me again. If I have a flat surface floor with insulated walls and a ceiling of IR opaque glass and sunlight transmitting 1200w/m2 to the surface. How warm would the floor get?
“Nate the hot air would spill out the oven door to be replaced with cold air. Why is this so complicated for you?”
Professional point misser Bill, misses one again.
The oven is simply another example of insulation at work, which debunks Gordon’s claims. Not complicated.
“When the surface emits radiation, it cools. That is, it loses heat. By the time the CO2 absorbs that radiation, the surface has already cooled. How can it cool(sic warm) more simply because CO2 absorbs 7% of the surface radiation?
How can the surface detect that part of its radiation will be absorbs by CO2, and hold some heat back?. ”
Which boils down to ‘Insulation doesnt work’
“Explain to me again. If I have a flat surface floor with insulated walls and a ceiling of IR opaque glass and sunlight transmitting 1200w/m2 to the surface. How warm would the floor get?”
Quite warm, based on my experience. Greenhouses work, esle they wouldnt be built. They make the ground and the plants warmer than the outside, another example that debunks the Gordon narrative.
If you think it won’t get warmer, explain.
Nate says:
”Nate the hot air would spill out the oven door to be replaced with cold air. Why is this so complicated for you?”
Professional point misser Bill, misses one again.
The oven is simply another example of insulation at work, which debunks Gordons claims. Not complicated.
———————-
How can it cool more simply because CO2 absorbs 7% of the surface radiation? Its already cooled Nate. Thats Gordon’s point. You are just waving your arms at his statement. I see no equations proving him wrong arising from you. Science is quantitative Nate its not up to Gordon to produce your equations or up to Gordon to produce an equation. Gordon is logically responding to your logic and you lack any quantified science to respond to him so you wave your arms instead. What does that prove?
————
———–
———–
Nate says:
”Explain to me again. If I have a flat surface floor with insulated walls and a ceiling of IR opaque glass and sunlight transmitting 1200w/m2 to the surface. How warm would the floor get?”
Quite warm, based on my experience. Greenhouses work, esle they wouldnt be built. They make the ground and the plants warmer than the outside, another example that debunks the Gordon narrative.
————————-
We know the air gets warmer because convection is restricted. The floor doesn’t get warmer. And we know that by experiment. What hasn’t been established is the restriction of convection in the atmosphere that is in anyway modifiable by greenhouse gases.
We see a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded and still the exact science of how it is supposed to be working isn’t yet published. Supporters of Manabe celebrate finally the recognition that models have been adequate to predict the future. One has to be really naive to believe that.
Ken says:
”Carbon Dioxide (and all of the rest of the greenhouse gases) reduce direct thermal radiation to space. If you take out CO2 there is less absor*tion of radiation so it goes directly to space. Since the radiation is not absorbed by any greenhouse gas its not emitted back to the surface and the surface cools.”
emitting net energy back to the surface Ken would be a violation of the SB law and the 2nd LOT.
One cannot connect the output back to the input in electromagnetics to produce an amplifier. EOS.
Ignorant folks in here apparently believe you can do that. The insulation argument doesn’t have an legs because you cannot do that with insulation either unless the object is less than at equilibrium with its power input.
One thing that could do it would be cloud reflection. One can increase light with reflection or magnification.
So the most logical answer to why the surface is warmer than its supposed equilibrium is due to variation in cloud reflection of energy back to the surface. But one cannot put together a good argument on that without 1) better measuring cloud variability; or 2) having the funds available to do the research to determine what cloud reflectivity is for IR.
I have seen some similar efforts by individual scientists to suggest that light is reflected off GHGs it doesn’t get legs (i.e. money for research, publication, and media) because then CO2 would not be the control knob.
Just yet another example of authoritarianism at work in the media to keep the riff-raff/deplorables in line.
Hunter troll wanders around with 3 posts, finally drifting into one of his usual political based anti-science conclusions. Before he gets to that point, he writes:
Gill has a big problem with that since the “energy” involved is thermal IR radiation, not visible light. Clouds are good absorbers of that IR radiation, not reflectors. Again we find Hunter doesn’t understand the basic physics.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter troll wanders around with 3 posts, finally drifting into one of his usual political based anti-science conclusions. Before he gets to that point, he writes:
the most logical answer to why the surface is warmer than its supposed equilibrium is due to variation in cloud reflection of energy back to the surface.
Gill has a big problem with that since the energy involved is thermal IR radiation, not visible light. Clouds are good absorbers of that IR radiation, not reflectors. Again we find Hunter doesnt understand the basic physics.No Swanson you are the troll.
———————————–
I am afraid Swanson science says you are the troll.
https://tinyurl.com/5avfzb3w
This paper establishes for infrared the emissivity of clouds. Emissivity is the inverse of albedo.
the paper suggests that clouds reflectivity is about half of IR in the midlatitudes and about 1/3rd in the tropics.
So yes clouds do absorb some IR but it depends upon what you want to call ”good”.
“We know the air gets warmer because convection is restricted. The floor doesnt get warmer. And we know that by experiment.”
Why would the ground be colder than the air above it when the air was heated by the ground, you idiot!
SHow us such a dubious ‘experiment’. In greenhouses, the ground temperature is warmer than the often frozen ground temperature outside them, thus plants will start growing in them before they would outside.
Hunter troll’s reference doesn’t give the results which Hunter thinks it does. The “effective emissivity” 9i.e., calculated) for mid-latitude downward range is 50-56% and the tropical downward range is 57-69%. Both sets of data have a large standard deviation. The paper says nothing about the reflection component of the IR radiation.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter trolls reference doesnt give the results which Hunter thinks it does. The effective emissivity 9i.e., calculated) for mid-latitude downward range is 50-56% and the tropical downward range is 57-69%. Both sets of data have a large standard deviation. The paper says nothing about the reflection component of the IR radiation.
———————————
We agree it says nothing about a huge amount of IR radiation directed at clouds. All we do know is that water, ice, and clouds diverts an order of magnitude more surface radiation than CO2 does making the CO2 control knob theory exceedingly weak as per Lord Monckton. You can whine and moan about Monckton’s criticisms but when you lack any empirically-based atmospheric equations to criticize Monckton well anything goes.
Hunter troll replies with another diversion. The effects of clouds isn’t part of the effect of WV, it’s a different part of the equation. What ever Monckton wrote (he has been prolific), for which you haven’t provided a reference, one must be aware that atmospheric water vapor, cloud aerosol and ice only have an effect below the tropopause. CO2’s effects appear thru the entire atmospheric column.
E. Swanson says:
”What ever Monckton wrote (he has been prolific), for which you havent provided a reference, one must be aware that atmospheric water vapor, cloud aerosol and ice only have an effect below the tropopause. CO2s effects appear thru the entire atmospheric column.”
Gee Swanson the surface is below the tropopause. Didn’t you know that? Or have you lost your mind?
Hunter troll wrote an obvious fact:
Did you have something to say, or is that just another troll?
Swanson you were trying to dismiss what Monckton wrote because you claimed all the effects he was talking about were below the tropopause. I just pointed out the greenhouse effect is below the tropopause.
Hunter troll thinks that:
No, troll guy. The GHG effects of H2O occurs below the Stratosphere. The GHG effects of CO2 extend thru the entire atmosphere. I have no clue what Monckton wrote, since you’ve given no reference that I can read.
Swanson above the tropopause the GHE is alleged to cause ”Cooling” thats not exactly a process of trapping heat in the stratosphere.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/32/1/1520-0469_1975_032_0003_teodtc_2_0_co_2.xml
Hunter, Manabe and Weatherald (1975) were analyzing the effects of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere, writing:
.
Changing the temperature in these two portions of the atmosphere is not as simple as your comment about “trapping heat” implies. The temperature of the tropopause can increase, even as the temperature lapse rate of the stratosphere above becomes less steeply positive. The net effect at the surface is a temperature increase.
barry perverts the issue by removing Earth’s atmosphere instead of just removing CO2. He has to pervert reality to keep the hoax going. It’s like the time he tried to pervert *arriving* fluxes by dwelling on view factors.
I think he’s ready for the honesty quiz:
barry, do passenger jets fly backwards, yes or no?
“barry perverts the issue by removing Earths atmosphere instead of just removing CO2.”
Is this a deliberate lie or just bead reading comprehension? I said the same was the case under BOTH conditions. There is no “instead,” liar.
There comes a point where repeated ‘misunderstandings’ of what people say has to be put down to dishonesty. You passed that point years ago and continue to prove the rule.
christos…it would be easy to remove water vapour and CO2 from a greenhouse and see if it cools. I am willing to bet the difference in temperature would be insignificant.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/thermal/2-does-heat-move-differently-in-space.html
Witless Wee Willy,
Unfortunately, your authority contradicts itself.
In one place “Radiation is the primary way that heat travels in space.”. In another, “In space, heat travels only by radiation.”
You should read before you post.
As to “On Earth, heat travels by conduction, convection and radiation.” 19th century concepts were fine in the 19th century. Stick with them if you don’t want to face the reality of quantum physics.
Another example – “In space, heat can only exist where the heat waves are traveling.” Heat waves? Isn’t “heat” supposed to travel by radiation – either partially or completely, according to your “authority” – which doesn’t seem at all sure!
You are indulging in an appeal to ignorance at best, stupidity at worst. You might consider lifting your game.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here is the first claim:
(C1) Radiation is the primary way that heat travels in space.
(C2) In space, heat travels only by radiation.
Why are you playing dumb about the word “primary”?
Thank you for sucking so much at silly semantic games.
Witless Wee Willy,
Unfortunately, your authority contradicts itself.
In one place Radiation is the primary way that heat travels in space.. In another, In space, heat travels only by radiation.
You should read before you post.
As to On Earth, heat travels by conduction, convection and radiation. 19th century concepts were fine in the 19th century. Stick with them if you dont want to face the reality of quantum physics.
Another example In space, heat can only exist where the heat waves are traveling. Heat waves? Isnt heat supposed to travel by radiation either partially or completely, according to your authority which doesnt seem at all sure!
You are indulging in an appeal to ignorance at best, stupidity at worst. You might consider lifting your game.
Carry on.
Good boy.
Witless Wee Willy,
Unfortunately, your authority contradicts itself.
In one place “Radiation is the primary way that heat travels in space..” In another, “In space, heat travels only by radiation”.
You should read before you post.
As to “On Earth, heat travels by conduction, convection and radiation.”, 19th century concepts were fine in the 19th century. Stick with them if you dont want to face the reality of quantum physics.
Another example “In space, heat can only exist where the heat waves are traveling”. Heat waves? Isn’t heat supposed to travel by radiation either partially or completely, according to your authority which doesn’t seem at all sure!
You are indulging in an appeal to ignorance at best, stupidity at worst. You might consider lifting your game.
Carry on.
Very good, boy.
Again?
Witless Wee Willy,
Unfortunately, your authority contradicts itself.
In one place “Radiation is the primary way that heat travels in space.” In another, “In space, heat travels only by radiation”.
You should read before you post.
As to “On Earth, heat travels by conduction, convection and radiation.”, 19th century concepts were fine in the 19th century. Stick with them if you dont want to face the reality of quantum physics.
Another example “In space, heat can only exist where the heat waves are traveling”. Heat waves? Isn’t heat supposed to travel by radiation either partially or completely, according to your authority which doesn’t seem at all sure!
You are indulging in an appeal to ignorance at best, stupidity at worst. You might consider lifting your game.
Carry on.
Good boy!
Again?
Witless Wee Willy,
Unfortunately, your authority contradicts itself.
In one place “Radiation is the primary way that heat travels in space.” In another, “In space, heat travels only by radiation”.
You should read before you post.
As to “On Earth, heat travels by conduction, convection and radiation.”, 19th century concepts were fine in the 19th century. Stick with them if you dont want to face the reality of quantum physics.
Another example “In space, heat can only exist where the heat waves are traveling”. Heat waves? Isnt heat supposed to travel by radiation either partially or completely, according to your authority which doesn’t seem at all sure!
You are indulging in an appeal to ignorance at best, stupidity at worst. You might consider lifting your game.
Carry on.
Who is a good boy?
That is you, Mike Flynn.
Again!
“On Earth, heat travels by conduction, convection and radiation. 19th century concepts were fine in the 19th century. Stick with them if you dont want to face the reality of quantum physics.”
Tee hee hee…
You are right to laugh at that physically unclear passage Willard clipped. That site tells us their definition for the term heat is: “The simple answer is that heat is energy.”
What the anonymous(?) NW authors really mean in the passage Willard found and clipped is then clear using their own defn. for heat:
Does energy travel differently in space than on Earth?
Absolutely. On Earth, energy travels by conduction, convection and radiation. In space conduction and convection are almost entirely nonexistent.
Radiation is the primary way that energy travels in space.
That means that energy is not spread out through the medium it travels through as on Earth. On Earth on a sunny day, the energy radiating from the Sun warms the molecules of the atmosphere, and they warm other molecules and they warm others in turn. That conduction is what keeps the Earth warm at night when we aren’t receiving direct Sun rays. It also means that even when we are standing in shadow, the air around us has some warmth. On Earth, energy also travels in large density-driven convection loops that spread out the warmth. In space, energy can only exist where the energy waves are traveling. This is one reason why there is a huge temperature difference between Sun and shadow in space.
wee willy…”Radiation is the primary way that heat travels in space”.
***
So, you are claiming that electromagnetic radiation, which consists of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field is heat? Then why does electromagnetic radiation emitted by ice not warm us on a cold winter’s day? And why is it that a body with no independent heat source gets colder as it radiates EM?
That means, as water near the freezing point emits radiation, it should eventually cool and freeze.
C’mon, Bordo.
We’ve been over that already.
It’s a quote. A quote.
You know what’s a quote?
It works like that:
Source: https://www.nasa.gov/analogs/nsrl/why-space-radiation-matters
So you have a simple task – notice the quote.
You can do it.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted –
“Space radiation is different from the kinds of radiation we experience here on Earth.”
I might point out that the sunlight we experience here on Earth, travels though some 300,000,000 km of “space”, but if NASA consider that radiation travelling through space is not “space radiation”, thats OK, I suppose.
However, NASA says on the one hand “Space radiation is comprised of atoms in which electrons have been stripped away as the atom accelerated in interstellar space to speeds approaching the speed of light eventually, only the nucleus of the atom remains.”,
and also “Space radiation is made up of three kinds of radiation: particles trapped in the Earths magnetic field; particles shot into space during solar flares (solar particle events); and galactic cosmic rays, . . .”
So which is it, atoms without electrons, or “three kinds of radiation”. Elsewhere, NASA says radiation is “Radiation is a form of energy that is emitted or transmitted in the form of rays, electromagnetic waves, and/or particles.”
Ooooooh! Rays! Scary! X-rays! Gamma rays! How scary must they be?
Whats wrong with electromagnetic radiation, say? Or photons? Maybe you should appeal to the authority of someone who knows was they are talking about, and can express themselves clearly.
Delusional SkyDragons love this NASA nonsense, obviously. Weird redefinitions, scary science sounding words like “back radiation”, “downwelling long wave radaition”, “forcings”, “tipping points” and all the rest!
Good for gullible dimwits like you, not so good for anyone who wants to understand reality.
Keep it up!
Bordo,
Another quote for you to consider –
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/np-2014-03-001-jsc-orion_radiation_handout.pdf
Mike Flynn,
Still play dumb?
There are several forms of ionizing radiation in space. Ionizing radiation deposits energy onto the atoms and molecules with which it interacts, causing electrons to be lost. The resulting ions, or charged particles, give this form of radiation its name.
One form of ionizing radiation is galactic cosmic radiation. This type of radiation is thought to come from supernovae, or exploding stars. While this radiation is low intensity, the particles associated with galactic cosmic radiation have a high level of energy and cannot be shielded with current spacecraft design technologies.
Weird Wee Willy,
You quoted
Space radiation is different from the kinds of radiation we experience here on Earth.
I might point out that the sunlight we experience here on Earth, travels though some 300,000,000 km of space, but if NASA consider that radiation travelling through space is not space radiation, thats OK, I suppose.
However, NASA says on the one hand Space radiation is comprised of atoms in which electrons have been stripped away as the atom accelerated in interstellar space to speeds approaching the speed of light eventually, only the nucleus of the atom remains.,
and also Space radiation is made up of three kinds of radiation: particles trapped in the Earths magnetic field; particles shot into space during solar flares (solar particle events); and galactic cosmic rays, . . .
So which is it, atoms without electrons, or three kinds of radiation. Elsewhere, NASA says radiation is Radiation is a form of energy that is emitted or transmitted in the form of rays, electromagnetic waves, and/or particles.
Ooooooh! Rays! Scary! X-rays! Gamma rays! How scary must they be?
Whats wrong with electromagnetic radiation, say? Or photons? Maybe you should appeal to the authority of someone who knows was they are talking about, and can express themselves clearly.
Delusional SkyDragons love this NASA nonsense, obviously. Weird redefinitions, scary science sounding words like back radiation, downwelling long wave radaition, forcings, tipping points and all the rest!
Good for gullible dimwits like you, not so good for anyone who wants to understand reality.
You can try to claim that ionizing radiation doesn’t exist on Earth, if you like.
Keep it up!
Mike, Mike,
It should be hard –
https://physicsworld.com/a/keeping-buildings-cool-by-sending-heat-into-outer-space/
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard’s contribution to science, earlier –
“Pup, Pup,
That line is for EM.
Keep your pet lines in line.”
Is Willard stupid, suffering from a severe mental defect, retarded, or just another delusional SkyDragon cultist?
If I didn’t know I would be wasting my time trying to get a sensible answer from Wee Willy, I’d ask him.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Here is you:
“Unfortunately, your authority contradicts itself.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1470285
Looks like you are having a hard time not trying to pretend you’re responding to my comments in the hope to have a sensible answer.
Try to be consistent in the span of a few minutes.
Cheers.
Willards contribution to science, earlier
Pup, Pup,
That line is for EM.
Keep your pet lines in line.
Is Willard stupid, suffering from a severe mental defect, retarded, or just another delusional SkyDragon cultist?
If I didnt know I would be wasting my time trying to get a sensible answer from Wee Willy, Id ask him.
Mike Flynn’s best contribution so far:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1469831
He has been repeating himself for more than ten years on this website.
Silly buffoon!
Willards contribution to science, earlier
“Pup, Pup,
That line is for EM.
Keep your pet lines in line.”
Is Willard stupid, suffering from a severe mental defect, retarded, or just another delusional SkyDragon cultist?
If I didn’t know I would be wasting my time trying to get a sensible answer from Wee Willy, I’d ask him.
Mike Flynn’s contribution:
What a donkey!
Willards contribution to science, earlier
Pup, Pup,
That line is for EM.
Keep your pet lines in line.
Is Willard stupid, suffering from a severe mental defect, retarded, or just another delusional SkyDragon cultist?
If I didnt know I would be wasting my time trying to get a sensible answer from Wee Willy, Id ask him.
Another scientific contribution by Mike Flynn –
Has he discovered the greenhouse effect all by himself?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Whacky Wee Willy,
Coastal regions with more H2O in the air, cool more slowly than arid desert regions, at night.
Maybe you could describe how the non-existent GHE cools the two, and why?
You idiot, you cant even describe the GHE, let alone claim it is responsible for nighttime cooling, can you?
Another scientific contribution from Mike –
Dumb and dumber!
Weepy Wee Willy,
From your NASA authority –
“In space, heat can only exist where the heat waves are traveling.”
As you say, dumb and dumber.
Mike, Mike,
And your opinion is supposed to be, what? Important? Meaningful?
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
From your NASA authority
“In space, heat can only exist where the heat waves are traveling.”
As you say, dumb and dumber.
Mike Flynn might as well repeats himself.
What a buffoon!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
barry…”The original S/B Law can be written as
q = σ T4 A
That is a mathematical expression of the stated law, that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black bodys thermodynamic temperature T.”
***
You are confusing S, with S-B and Planck’s Law.
S = Stefan. He came up with the original relationship which was simply I = sigma.T^4. where I is radiation intensity from a surface. There was no mention of emissivity, area, or blackbodies.
Boltzmann was a student of Stefan and both came up with
I = e.sigma.A. T^4.
I recall that sigma was different for Stefan than for the S-B equation since Stefan had only radiation intensity and temperature to worry about. Still no relationship to blackbodies. I think you are confusing S-B with Planck due to claims that Planck can be derived from S-B.
Planck’s equation is related to blackbodies due to the extremely wide frequency/wavelength bandwidth. There is no mention of frequency/wavelength. in S-B.
You are making S-B something it is not. It was derived initially by Stefan, who used an experiment by Tyndall, who heated a platinum filament electrically till it emitted visible light. Tyndall noted the colour related to each temperature and a third party scientist converted those colours to equivalent colour temperatures.
There was never an attempt to employ the entire EM spectrum as did Planck and that is reflected in S-B where there is no mention whatsoever of frequency or bandwidth. The fact that S-B can be derived from Planck is entirely coincidental.
Neither is there mention of S-B applying to a radiation transfer from a colder atmosphere to a heated filament in the range 500C to 1500C. The equation being offered here…
q = e.sigma (T^4h – T^4c).A is bogus.
If you expand it, you get q = e.sigma. A.T^4h – e.sigma.A.T^4c
That makes absolutely no sense. For one, there are no indices on e,sigma, or A, to related them to the surface Th and Tc. For another, q, which appears to be surface radiation, is claimed to be the difference between radiation from a hot surface minus radiation from a cold surface.
Absolutely ridiculous. This is obviously a poor attempt to apply Newton’s Law of Cooling to two radiating bodies.
“The StefanBoltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
“The thermal energy radiated by a blackbody radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
“This law states that the energy radiated from a black body is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature. A black body is one which absorbs and emits radiation at all frequencies, with characteristic continuous emission spectra. ”
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/intranet/pendulum/stefan/
“The StefanBoltzmann law, also known as Stefan’s law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body in unit time (known variously as the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T”
http://www.wright.edu/~guy.vandegrift/climateblog/smallfiles01/Stefan.pdf
I can go on and on like this, citing physics texts, university courses and other physics-based sites.
As originally stated the law applied to blackbodies. Later derivations include emissivity.
You may be mixing up the Stefan Boltzmann constant (sigma) with the law. Included in the law is Planck’s constant.
This is another good page describing both the constant and the law.
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/Stefan-Boltzmann-constant
Which also contains the same standard as the other sources:
“The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma (σ), is a physical constant expressing the relationship between the heat radiation emitted by a black body and its absolute temperature. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, σ has a value of 5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per square meter per kelvin to the fourth (W / (m2 x K4).
σ represents the constant of proportionality between these two variables. The law itself only applies to black bodies, which are theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation. In practice, such bodies do not exist.
However, the Stefan-Boltzmann law and constant are still useful to study radiation phenomena, such as in Planck's radiation law, and to establish the relationship between an object's temperature and the heat radiated by it.”
ken…re Happer’s paper…
[from Christos]”Earths surface is warmer than Moons on average +68 oC.
It happens so not because of Earths thin atmosphere very insignificant greenhouse effect.
Earths surface is warmer than Moons on average +68 oC, because of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon!”
***
Although I have changed my opinion on Happer, and now regard him positively, I think the explanation of Christos is far more important than Happer’s argument about trace gases.
The so-called greenhouse effect has far more to do with the position of the Earth relative to the Sun, the tilt of the Earth’s axis, the fact that the tilt does not vary it’s orientation in its orbit, and the fact the Earth rotates at its current rate.
Happer talks little about the effect of the Arctic and Antarctic having little or not sunlight during the year, a direct effect produced by the Earth’s axial tilt. Ice cools the oceans, helping to mediate global temps.
I have yet to see him go into the effect of convection which involves N2/O2, making up 99% of the atmosphere. Those gases can absorb surface heat directly, transporting it high into the atmosphere where it is dissipated naturally. R. W. Wood thought that a better explanation for the so-called greenhouse effect, but in his brief paper, he did not take it far enough to explore what happens to the heat retained by N2/O2.
It is ludicrous to think those gases transfer all their heat to a trace gas for emission to space.
You’re wrong. Have a look and pay particular attention to H2O effect: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
Ken,
From your link –
“In conclusion, the combination of one dimensional radiative- convective models and observations such as TOA intensities are invaluable for furthering our understanding of how increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will affect the Earths climate.”
Obviously, it is impossible to understand how increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will affect the Earths climate.
The authors are obviously confused, and manage to avoid even defining what they mean by “the Earths climate”. Not surprising, as climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, so averaging the statistics of every weather observation on the face of the Earth is completely meaningless.
The paper is nonsensical and worthless. If you disagree, you might like like to give your reasons.
ken…you just told me I am wrong, then referred me to a paper. Are you incapable of explaining why I am wrong in your on words?
I don’t care about trace gases. The Ideal Gas Law tells us their contribution of heat per unit mass is negligible. That goes for their absorp-tion factor as well. I have taken the time to lay out my reasoning, using the IGL and I have received no replies to that effect. All I have received are snide remarks about my competence in science and whether or not I have studied engineering.
Flames don’t affect me in the least, I have too much experience on the Net to take them seriously.
It is your business if you want to use Happer as a sole authority figure. However, I would appreciate your arguments if you showed the slightest interest in explaining Happer from your own POV.
When I participated in a reverse engineering forum for some time, we received many queries about cracking certain programs. Our interest was not about helping people crack programs it was in learning and teaching reverse engineering, so we ignored such requests or told the applicant to go away and study the program and report back when he demonstrated an interest in learning reverse engineering.
I feel the same way about science. I will never take a shot at anyone who is trying to learn physics, no matter how dumb their explanations might be. I reserve my shots for people who take shots at me without even trying to explain their theories on physics.
I was not going to respond to Happer’s article because last time I responded in detail and you did not even give me the courtesy of a reply. However, Swenson took the time to respond so I’ll address some quotes.
Besides, you have a nerve referring me to a document filled with advanced math which you have no hope of understanding. Let’s face it Ken, you are a Happer groupie who cannot even begin to understand what he is writing about.
1)”Greenhouse warming of Earths surface and lower atmosphere is driven by radiative forcing, the difference between the flux of thermal radiant energy from a black surface through a hypothetical, transparent atmosphere, and the flux through an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, particulates and clouds, but with the same surface temperature [3, 4]”.
There is no such thing as thermal radiant energy. I don’t care how brilliant Happer may be in his own area of physics, this statement reveals a gross misunderstanding of electromagnetic radiation and its relationship to heat. The energy radiated is electromagentic energy and there is absolutely no thermal content in it. Even using that phrase as an indication of the source of the radiation is wrong, for the simple reason that the energy comes from electrons in atoms and the energy lost during the conversion of kinetic energy (heat) to EM has nothing to do with heat as an energy form.
Let’s face it, when EM is radiated from a surface, any heat related to it has been lost while the EM is being produced.
The energy that is lost as electrons drop from a higher energy level to a lower energy level can be classified as heat loss but the energy emitted is electromagnetic, not heat. The loss of heat is simply a byproduct of the action. So, the radiated EM is it’s own particular energy with its own properties, which are unrelated to heat.The EM can be converted back to heat but calling it thermal energy is bs.
Furthermore, radiative forcing is a Mickey Mouse term invented by climate modelers and it is based on the math they use in differential equations required for model programs. Happer can define it any way he wants, in this case as ‘the difference between the flux of thermal radiant energy from a black surface through a hypothetical, transparent atmosphere, and the flux through an atmosphere with greenhouse gases…’.
That may mean something to him but it is total bs to me. That’s the one thing I don’t like about Happer, his insistence on going along with alarmist-based radiation theory. He obviously has not read Lindzen on the GHE.
2)”This work downloaded over 1/3 million vibrational lines from the most recent HITRAN database to calculate the per-molecule forcings”.
Where is Happer’s proof that the Hitran database has anything that is true with regard to the atmosphere? There is no evidence whatsoever that radiative forcings exist since that would require a proof that CO2 acts in the atmosphere as Happer claims.
3)In the chapter on Greenhouse Gas Lines, he is offering sheer theory. There is not a shred of scientific evidence to back them in the current atmosphere with trace gases like CO2. In fact, he appears to be using a climate model.
It is plain from his references to quantum theory that he is generalizing. For instance, he talks about molecules emitting photons and I have outlined my objections to molecules being regarded as magical black boxes that emit radiation. Unless he can explain his theory at the atomic level using electron theory, he does not understand the theory. He is simply spitting out words.
Gordon,
Sometimes it is not a single electron that can emit a photon.
In the case of CO2, a double bond consisting of 4 electrons, which are all the same and you can’t tell them apart, you can have energy levels of those 4 electrons, those 4 electrons can change energy levels by emitting or absorbing photons.
There are also energy levels associated with all 8 electrons composing both double bonds, and those 8 electrons can emit photons.
That’s how chemists identify molecules, by the photons they emit.
It’s beyond your level of study of chemistry.s
And by the way,
“Even using that phrase as an indication of the source of the radiation is wrong, for the simple reason that the energy comes from electrons in atoms and the energy lost during the conversion of kinetic energy (heat) to EM has nothing to do with heat as an energy form.”
This is incorrect, the kinetic energy lies with the nuclei, not the electrons.
bob…”In the case of CO2, a double bond consisting of 4 electrons, which are all the same and you cant tell them apart…”
***
You are claiming this is beyond me….
Take the CO2 molecule apart and you still have the same electrons in oxygen and carbon. only they are called valence, or outer-shell electrons. It doesn’t matter if the valence electrons get shared in the CO2 molecule, they are still outer-shell electrons from C and O. As such, they can also transition.
All electrons in all elements are capable of transitions and emitting/absorbing photons. Electrons in bond can transition as well.
***
“…the kinetic energy lies with the nuclei, not the electrons”.
You are claiming that an electron with mass that moves in an orbit (has velocity) has no kinetic energy. The only KE the nucleus would have, in a solid, it a tiny amount due to vibration.
Gordon,
Yeah, I said you don’t understand this and your post confirms it.
We are not talking about electronic transition when talking about how CO2 absorbs infrared, we have been trying to tell you that for years.
You know the nucleus of a CO2 molecules has a mass 22,000 times the mass of an electron, so the kinetic energy of an electron in an atom can be ignored when calculating the kinetic energy of the atom.
Gordon Robertson a.k.a. Swenson,
Messrs Dunning and Kruger salute you and thank you for your contribution.
Bordo lives around South Vancouver while Mike Flynn may be in the Greater Adelaide Area.
Gill is his evil twin, however.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1458077
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2023-0-08-deg-c/#comment-1458141
Coincidence? https://ibb.co/WVTH2F8
https://media.giphy.com/media/5TshWoSaDgI4E/giphy.gif
Once again, maguff finds himself incapable of a scientific reply. Without an authority figure, he is powerless.
What’s your “scientific reply” to the question:
Why do you believe that it is the earth’s shadow that causes the phases of the moon?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-632695
gordo continues to expound on his bogus ideas about the atmosphere, concluding:
Old Gordo refuses to define exactly how the convection process “dissipates (heat) naturally”. It’s well known that at altitudes above the tropopause, there’s no longer any convection, so the only way to cool that air is via emissions of thermal IR radiation to the void of deep space.
His denial is deep and wide, ignoring the fact that Wijngaarden and Happer (2020) discuss the physics. Gordo never learns, he just rants away, regurgitating his same old BS, as if doing so will change the physics.
swannie…”Old Gordo refuses to define exactly how the convection process dissipates (heat) naturally”.
***
The question is, how much does it have to be cooled to effectively cool the surface? Let’s say surface air is at 15C and air at top of troposphere is -50C and at a fraction of the air pressure of the surface. How far does the surface air have to rise in order to dissipate its 15C temperature?
And why does it cool, since nitrogen/oxygen, making up 99% of the air, apparently doesn’t radiate? It is apparent that the 15C air at STP is continually expanding into colder and thinner air. Just the expansion by itself will dissipate heat due to the Ideal Gas Law and collisions with cooler molecules will further dissipate it.
None of this natural cooling requires radiation.
The point missed by the GHE and AGW theories, including the theorized energy budget, is the immensity of the Earth’s surface that requires heating during the time the Sun has to shine on each region. Those theories also miss the immensity of the atmosphere and its ability to absorb and dissipate heat naturally. And we haven’t mentioned the oceans yet.
I am guessing that something has been egregiously missed in the simplified energy budget theory, which presumed all heat induced by the Sun must be dissipated to space in equal amounts. The mistake made is obvious, focusing solely on radiation theory.
I have never been happy with the notion that trace gases in the atmosphere are solely responsible for dissipating surface heat. Makes no sense. N2/O2 must play a role in proportion to their concentration.
Gordo continues to prove he doesn’tunderstand thermodynamics and heat transfer as he writes:
Of course, the rising air expands and cools, but, that air also gains gravitational potential energy, rather like water above a waterfall compared with water below the waterfall. When the air sinks, that potential energy is converted back to “heat” as the air warms. In the atmosphere, convection lifts water vapor too, the rain falling above the waterfall provides the flow of potential energy which can be used to turn a turbine to make electricity.
Your “dissipation” can not mean that the energy vanishes, it must go somewhere, a fact which you ignore. At the top of the convection loops in the Troposphere, the rising air is warmer than the surrounding cool air, thus mixing the two results in the cooler air becoming warmer. Without GHG emissions to space from all portions of the atmosphere, the cooler air would eventually warm to the same temperature as the rising air and convection would cease.
Swannie,
You wrote –
“Without GHG emissions to space from all portions of the atmosphere, the cooler air would eventually warm to the same temperature as the rising air and convection would cease.”
Learn some physics. Ed Lorenz (meteorologist and mathematician), responsible for the Lorenz equations, initially attempted to model convection in a fluid such as the atmosphere.
You might care to look at his work.
A naturally isothermal column of air is an impossibility. It is both hotter and denser closer to the surface, getting progressively cooler and less dense as the as it approaches outer space. No mention of silly things like GHGs.
As Feynman points out “It is not an isothermal atmosphere.”, when referring to the Earth’s. Once again, the composition does not change this fact.
No GHE. All gases can be heated by absorbing infrared radiation, and all gases cool by emitting infrared radiation. As does all matter. Look it up, if you don’t believe me.
Mike Flynn,
Dick also said –
Cheers.
Writhing Wee Willy,
What has your comment to do with GHGs or the fact that Feynman stated that the atmosphere is not isothermal?
Maybe you simply live in some fantasy, detached from reality.
swannie…”Your dissipation can not mean that the energy vanishes, it must go somewhere….”
***
What it really means is that you fail at thermodynamics. If heat is lost, it is lost. You cannot save it and inject it back into falling air. That would be a new heat created by a different process.
The process I described takes heat from the surface, transfers it to air in contact with the surface, transports it high into the atmosphere, and loses it en route.
You fail to understand that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, or in this case, air molecules. Heat is also directly proportional to pressure in this situation. As the air thins out by expanding into thinner air, which gets naturally thinner with altitude, the processes of thinning out the number of air molecules naturally decreases the amount of heat (thermal energy).
Of course, you have already flunked Thermodynamics 101 by claiming heat can be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot. I would think anyone with such a lack of understanding of thermodynamics would refrain from opening his responses by claiming I don’t understand thermodynamics.
Mike Flynn,
You ask:
> What has your comment to do with GHGs or the fact that Feynman stated that the atmosphere is not isothermal?
You tell me, it’s the sentence right after the one you quoted.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Gordo replies to my comment with another round of his confusion about thermodynamics, for example writing:
.
No, Gordo, the air rising in the atmosphere is generally warmer than the surrounding parcels, i.e., it has more internal energy. That’s one reason it rises as it is less dense. As the rising air mixes with the surrounding cooler air, the result is a mixture which now has a temperature (and heat content) above that of the original surrounding air. Without some means to cool the air, that process would continue, the result being a much warmer tropopause. That means is thermal IR radiation to deep space.
Of course, you throw in a reference to your unfounded claims that Thermal IR radiation can’t transfer energy from a cooler surface to a warmer one. Have you come up with a physics based explanation for the warming of the Blue plate in my GPE demo yet? You’ve had several years to do so by now, where’s the beef?
swannie…”As the rising air mixes with the surrounding cooler air, the result is a mixture which now has a temperature (and heat content) above that of the original surrounding air. Without some means to cool the air, that process would continue, the result being a much warmer tropopause. That means is thermal IR radiation to deep space”.
***
You fail to grasp the simplicity of the IGL -> PV = nRT.
As altitude increases, P (pressure) decreases since n decreases (number of molecules). V = volume remains fairly constant as does the gas constant, R. That means T must decrease naturally with altitude as pressure drops.
Essentially, temperature is proportional to pressure with a constant gas volume. Since temperature is a measure of heat, it means heat decreases with decreasing pressure and increasing altitude.
There is nothing in the IGL that claims heat must be converted to another form of energy, it simply disappears.
Gordon writes: “T must decrease naturally with altitude as pressure drops.”
No. Right in our own standard atm. temperature remains constant at 216.5K as altitude increases and pressure drops! So rookie Gordon has been misinformed once again.
In fact, temperature is then found to rise as pressure drops with altitude! Rookie Gordon has a lot to learn yet about the measured physics of our atmosphere.
The eqn. of state of an ideal gas is just that & says nothing about the balance of energy into, and out of, each atm. layer which Gordon “fails to grasp”.
Swanson you can’t just assume that the green plate is warming the blue plate. And in fact thats not the case. SB equations establish that as impossible because zero energy is lost from the green plate to the blue plate. However as we have pointed out and is a part of mainstream science explanations of how an uninsulated plate warmed by light on the lit side will reduce the light received by one half of the amount received initially in accordance with SB law.
A. So an uninsulated plate in an atmosphere will only warm to half its equilibrium temperature because it loses half the heat received out its backside.
B. A heavily insulated plate subjected to a light will warm to close its equilibrium temperature and in accordance with SB law will not warm any further. If you add insulation behind it its really not going to do anything because it doesn’t manufacture new energy.
The blue plate in an atmosphere by itself will perform like A. or B.
C. If you add an uninsulated green plate behind the an insulated blue plate in an atmosphere it will act be warmed by the energy source (not the green plate) because the green plate will cause the blue plate to lose more energy out one side than the other in what you might interpolate between perfectly insulated and partially insulated. This might work also in a vacuum but your experiment was too easily explained by view factors and had too little documentation to determine what the blue plate equilibrium was.
The greenhouse effect espoused by mainstream science extrapolates that via insulation you can warm an object to greater than its equilibrium value. However, this is not covered by Stefan and Boltzmann law or their equations.
Nobody can seem to point to any classic physics that establishes such an extension to thermodynamic laws. Everybody and his brother claiming so doesn’t make it so. We seem to have everybody and his brother seemingly believing a man can be made a woman also. Actually with the advancement of science the latter seems more plausible. That might be achievable but it seems a long way off to get all those organs and hormonal glands just right and who knows what else you might need to change.
As one man who underwent surgery to become a woman says after becoming a PhD to help people with issues that might lead one in that direction says: ”this is all cosmetic phoney baloney plastic banana stuff” and suckers buy into it.
Bill, after blue plate alone temperature equilibrium, Eli years ago showed adding the green plate into the blue plate system raises the BP temperature using the 1LOT. No energy was “lost” as Bill writes.
Use the 1LOT for Bill’s A,B,C and report back.
Gordo wandered again:
For High Altitude Balloons used in research, the balloon’s volume increases as it rises. The same is true for parcels of air rising due to convection. Check out the launch video of a balloon with what appears to be a long “tail” below, which is actually going to inflate, becoming a nearly spherical balloon as it rises.
As P decreases and V increases, the temperature might not cool as much as you suggest. Anyway, the First Law tells us that the thermal energy doesn’t disappear, as the air cools, the energy must be conserved.
Ball4, Swanson, please stop trolling.
Ball4 says:
Bill, after blue plate alone temperature equilibrium, Eli years ago showed adding the green plate into the blue plate system raises the BP temperature using the 1LOT. No energy was lost as Bill writes.
Use the 1LOT for Bills A,B,C and report back.
—————————-
Ball 4 you have to go back and read it again. There are two surfaces cooling in the GPE this fact means the blue plate is not getting as warm as say the surface of a planet without an atmosphere would under a given flux. In fact alone in space the blue plate would be roughly half the temperature that the surface of a planet would get to. Adding a green plate simply means the blue plate more easily cools to space surrounding the point of light so it warms to more than half the temperature a planet surface would warm to without an atmosphere and the greenplate warms some to pass through the remainder.
Keep adding plates and the blue plate would warm to the point that it is as warm as a planet surface would be if that surface does not have an atmosphere.
that all is just basic thermodynamics and can be established using heat transfer equations. The important thing to note here is you can add an unlimited number of greenplates and the blue plate will not exceed its equilibrium temperature with its light source (as modified by the square distance rule).
It also explains why all the spinners in here are wrong about how they think the greenhouse effect works. It even explains why Vaughn Pratt and RW Woods experiments fail to detect a significant surface greenhouse effect. What you have been told by mainstream science is all bogus. You have to actually read Joe Postma to begin to understand the issue because Joe does.
Mainstream science in 1964 came up with a different theory in Manabe and Wetherald, expounded upon in 1975. This is the current theory and it is very different. But its actually worse. It didn’t convince Dr. Roger Revelle. So they continue to rely on deception. As its a lot easier to treat you folks like a mushroom farm, keep you in the dark, and feed you shit.
Any revelation on this matter might stand to increase skepticism than reduce it and that could have huge funding consequences for institutions of higher learning, especially the State sponsored ones that depend upon tax revenues. Thats all that is going on here along with not actually knowing what causes the greenhouse effect, which does exist and must have an explanation.
If you actually want to sound like an energy scientists you have to read M&W very carefully. It doesn’t rely on any established science though, but it also doesn’t out and out violate SB equations as does how y’all think the theory works.
Use the 1LOT for Bill’s A,B,C and report back, with no hand wavium.
Eli correctly used the 1LOT for the GPE years ago so Bill has a guide.
“Ball 4 you have to go back and read it again. There are two surfaces cooling in the GPE this fact means the blue plate is not getting as warm as say the surface of a planet without an atmosphere would under a given flux. ”
Bill is willfully mixing up the thought experiments like the GPE with the GHE in the atmosphere on Earth, which is an entirely different problem.
This allows him to sew confusion, and obfuscate, and if so, he should be ignored.
Nate says:
”Bill is willfully mixing up the thought experiments like the GPE with the GHE in the atmosphere on Earth, which is an entirely different problem. This allows him to sew confusion, and obfuscate, and if so, he should be ignored. ”
—————————
Occasionally Nate seems to go on a jag and say something at least partially true. The GPE is completely irrelevant to the earth’s GHE. Can we finally put this issue to rest?
Hear that Swanson and Ball4? Nate thinks all you are doing is obfuscating and sewing confusion.
“The GPE is completely irrelevant to the earths GHE. ”
And yet YOU brought it up in this discussion of Earths GHE, Bill!
“Swanson you cant just assume that the green plate is warming the blue plate.”
We agree the GPE is simply a obfuscation.
I agree that your use of the GPE by mixing it up with all other problems is pure obfuscation.
The GPE, all on its own gets you and your sky-dragon-slayer friends into logical pickles.
Thus it is getting at the deep misconceptions that some of you still have, as I already mentioned, about a passive object acting as an insulator for a heated object, and thus enabling it to warm.
The GPE was designed to explain why the enhanced GHE doesn’t violate
the 2nd Law of Thermo. That’s all the GPE was about.
For the second Law to be broken, heat (Q) would have to flow from the cold object to the warmer one.
At no time in the GPE or the GHE does this happen, because at no time does the Green Plate lose any heat. It gains heat.
This is perfectly consistent with Clausius’ statement of the 2nd Law, that a warmer object cannot gain heat at the expense of a cooler object.
All the energy in the GPE (and GHE) comes from the sun, and all that happens is that the introduction of the GP alters the rate at which energy flows through the system.
Energy is a conserved quantity, temperature is not. Always worth mentioning in this discussion.
Nate says:
I agree that your use of the GPE by mixing it up with all other problems is pure obfuscation.
———————–
Correction Nate! You said GPE was an entirely different problem than the GHE. and I agree with you. I was merely trying to explain why.
Nate says:
”The GPE, all on its own gets you and your sky-dragon-slayer friends into logical pickles.”
———————–
It doesn’t get me in any pickle I explained why the GPE performs the way it does. That was because the GPE blue plate has two entire uninsulated sides.
It doesn’t apply to the GHE because the earth’s surface has only one uninsulated side.
the only logical pickle around here is people who don’t recognize that and stupidly offer up the GPE as evidence for the GHE.
The engineering toolbox show that by using Stefan Boltzmann equations only an object warms up under a view factor flux from the sun to radiate back exactly what the solar flux radiates at the earth and that electromagnetically when that equality is reached there is no further warming. A mean 342w/m2 electromagnetically is only capable of warming the surface to a mean 278.7K
Do the calculations as at that point the surface will be radiating 342K back.
M&W blames convection effects to create additional warming (not your 3rd grader radiation model) so you guys are completely on the wrong page and are too stupid to know it. Its ridiculous blaming CO2 for cooling the upper atmosphere and thus causing the surface to warm. that isn’t even logical. Here we have the heat being sent to space by CO2, resulting in a cooler upper atmosphere, causing the surface to warm. One would think you guys believe that 2 minus 1 equals 3.
barry says:
The GPE was designed to explain why the enhanced GHE doesnt violate
the 2nd Law of Thermo. Thats all the GPE was about.
———————–
No the GPE doesn’t violate any laws, its just fine. Its only stupid people that think the green plate is what is heating the blue plate and thus their thought experiment is contrary to the 2LOT.
Yeah, Bill, that’s just a problem people have with the semantics. It is fine to say that the BP gets warmer once the GP is introduced into the system. If people colloquially say that the BP is warmed by the GP, then that’s not wrong. But anyone who disallows the use of the term “heat” in any but the classic thermo sense is going to start spraying chips.
” I explained why the GPE performs the way it does”
Where? SHow us.
“The engineering toolbox show that by using Stefan Boltzmann equations only an object warms up under a view factor flux from the sun to radiate back exactly what the solar flux radiates at the earth and that electromagnetically when that equality is reached there is no further warming. A mean 342w/m2 electromagnetically is only capable of warming the surface to a mean 278.7K”
It seems you forget that the Earth has an albedo that reflects about 100 W/m^2 out of the 342 W/m^2.
Well according to Stefan Boltzmann Nate, a molecule that reflects 30% of the radiation must get 30% warmer to emit the 242watts.
?? And?
Either do the calclation right or don’t bother.
UAH March 2023 Global data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/04/uah-global.jpeg
UAH March 2023 Tropical data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/04/uah-tropics.jpeg
Thanks Richard. Any idea why the average took of around 2013 and has not returned to near the baseline following the 2016 EN? Alarmist will claim it’s anthropogenic but I cannot see AGW warming behaving like that.
How would AGW behave differently to what we see?
https://youtu.be/PJL6iR2J9pg?list=PLPpxywbRVVF2sZ5aX_BiI2RpUFcI8ir7J
TM, are you just now learning that CO2 absorbs infrared? That’s good.
Now, you need to learn that the 15μ photon emitted by CO2 can NOT warm Earth’s 288K surface.
Physics is physics and learning is good. Keep it going.
To my stalker: It’s ok, you don’t have to like or comment on my post. I know you’re watching.
You can’t hide from reality TM, as you’re learning.
Pup responding to Tyson must mean that Tyson is on the mark.
TM got caught again.
The cult just can’t escape from reality. Reality always wins.
Pupuccinella,
You obviously have NO experience with riddles. You just make stuff up. You made up bogus quizzes that leads Dragon Cranks to troll this website day after day. Your clique has no grasp of physics, algebra, and geometry.
Riddle me this –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1470741
I bet you won’t succeed.
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Pupuccinella,
You obviously have NO experience with riddles.”
You obviously have no connection with reality.
Mike Flynn,
You are obviously braying.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The Air Force data became the starting point for the HITRAN database. HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular a b s o r p t i o n database.
The first edition of the database only contained information on the seven most absorbing molecules in the terrestrial atmosphere. Fortunately, HITRAN was open and distributed freely so it was soon used in a vast array of applications that rapidly expanded the database in terms of spectral coverage, number of molecules, and more types of parameters.
The HITRAN database is officially released on a quadrennial basis. With each edition, a review article is published describing the modifications and expansion of the database. Users are strongly encouraged to use the most recent edition of the database.
There exists a high-temperature version of HITRAN called HITEMP4. This database was created for high temperature applications where the number of transitions required for simulations becomes extremely large. Examples of applications include combustion processes, exhausts from aircraft, and astronomical objects.
You might point out that most of the entries are calculated and only a few are experimentally confirmed.
AW,
It doesnt matter really, does it?
You cant even describe the GHE in any way which agrees with facts.
Until you can do that, you are nothing more than a delusional SkyDragon cultist. Have you figured out why the surface cools at night? not enough CO2, perhaps? Make sure that your GHE description explains four and a half billion years of planetary cooling as well as that which occurs each night.
You really are a gullible and ignorant cult follower, arent you?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Here you go –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Keep asking for your silly sammich, silly buffoon!
Wee Willy Wanker,
It doesnt matter really, does it?
You can’t even describe the GHE in any way which agrees with facts.
Until you can do that, you are nothing more than a delusional SkyDragon cultist. Have you figured out why the surface cools at night? not enough CO2, perhaps? Make sure that your GHE description explains four and a half billion years of planetary cooling as well as that which occurs each night.
You really are a gullible and ignorant cult follower, aren’t you?
Linking to nonsense which doesn’t describe the GHE (again, and again, and . . .) just makes you look like a compulsive obsessive gullible and ignorant cult follower.
Carry on.
Mike,
At night the Sun is down under.
Or were you just posing a gotcha, and knew the answer all the time?
Cheers.
Wriggling Wee Willy,
“You cant even describe the GHE in any way which agrees with facts.”
Not a question at all. A statement of fact.
Is your stupid statement “At night the Sun is down under.” supposed to have some meaning?
Some relevance to the GHE perhaps? I don’t think so, but you might be stupid enough to try to convince somebody smarter than you are.
Mike,
Here you go –
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
Keep asking for your silly sammich, silly buffoon!
your mental age (8?) is showing from your silly comments. Do your parents know you are on the Internet unsupervised?
CO2 absor*tion spectrum is saturated. Adding CO2 does not turn up the thermostat.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
Ken, Your “saturation” argument has been put to bed years ago.
If you read the conclusions from your reference, they wrote:
Swannie,
Much as I hate to rain on anyone’s parade (irony, of course), there is no “climate sensitivity”.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. No sensitivity to any chemical compound at all. Just numbers.
Ken,
Figure 4, page 13, says “Doubling the standard concentration of CO2 (from 400 to 800 ppm) would cause a forcing increase (the area between the black and red lines) of ∆F {i} = 3.0 W m−2, as shown in Table 2.”
That’s not insignificant, no?
Ken,
Also note that Table 5, page 32, shows that Manabe and Wetherald got it right more than 50 years ago.
TM,
You are singularly dimwitted. If you dont realise that missile rocket engines emit wavelengths much shorter than those absorbed or emitted by CO2, then you are more ignorant than i thought. I suppose you think that the radiation from a radiant heater glowing even slightly in the visible spectrum cannot warm you because of the CO2 between you ant it?
Accept reality dummy. You havent a clue what you are talking about. Maybe you are besotted with the idea that Gavin Schmidt (self proclaimed and totally unqualified “climate scientist”) was not suffering from delusional psychosis when he co-authored a paper titled “CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth’s Temperature”.
Ho, ho, ho!
Dumb and dumber.
You sound more unhinged than usual.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
In the southern hemisphere, the merger of the stratospheric polar vortex with the troposphere is already visible.
https://i.ibb.co/ky9h0wG/zu-sh.gif
In the cult’s ongoing effort to pervert both science and reality, they continue to use a CO2 laser as “proof” that CO2 photons can warm Earth’s 288K surface. They point out that a CO2 laser can “melt steel”, so CO2 must be able to warm Earth.
They don’t understand 2LoT. The don’t understand concepts like “organized energy” or “lowered entropy”. But fortunately we can use a simple analogy.
A rock on the ground can not break a window. Undisturbed, the rock will stay there forever. But a kid can pick up the rock and throw it through a window. What’s the difference?
The kid brings a mechanism and energy into the “system”. He has hands, arms, and the energy and know-how to throw the rock. In thermo, it would be said the kid has “lowered the entropy”.
Rocks do not throw themselves, just as CO2 photons from the atmosphere cannot raise Earth’s temperature. There are no CO2 lasers in the sky.
Let the denial, distortions, evasions, and troll tactics begin.
“There are no CO2 lasers in the sky”.
***
By the same token,there are no heat amplifiers in the sky. It is not possible to increase the temperature of the atmosphere through positive feedback, that cannot operate without an amplifier.
How anyone can compare a laser, which requires a complex interaction of CO2 with nitrogen, with each gas having concentrations of 10% to 20%, and which are excited by an external power supply, with Co2 in the atmosphere, is the question.
As with alleged positive feedback, there is no power supply in the sky to excite the nitrogen and Co2 molecules into emitting laser-based IR.
It must be a burden to have a brain like an alarmist, condemned to live in a world of fantasy and stupidity.
> there are no heat amplifiers in the sky.
Take a hint from a fellow Sky Dragon crank, Bordo:
C’mon.
Wee Willy Stupid,
Ill repeat for the sake of your stupidity – coastal regions with more H2O in the air, cool more slowly than arid desert regions, at night.
You can redefine the word “cool to mean “getting hotter” if you like.
It wont change a single fact. Do you think stupidity is a sign of cleverness?
If you do, you are even more stupid than I thought!
No “heat amplifiers” in the sky. No description of the GHE anywhere at all!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
If you want to play silly semantic games, the expression to define would be “cool more slowly.”
Cheers.
Witless Wee Willy,
You may attempt to redefine any sort of “cooling” you like – slow or fast – to mean an increase in temperature, if you like.
If you consider cooling of any description to involve “heat amplifiers”, you are simply delusional or quite retarded!
Your “silly semantic games” are as worthless as your “riddles”, “offers”, or any of the other nonsense you prattle on about – trying to avoid the reality that nobody can even describe the mysterious non-existent “greenhouse effect”,
Keep wriggling and squirming – your SkyDragon cult beliefs don’t seem to be winning too many converts these days.
Such is life.
Mike, Mike,
Perhaps you’d prefer:
You’ll never guess who wrote this.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Whoever wrote “In the absence of the most important GHG, H2O, the surface cools more quickly. Conversely, it attains higher daytime temperatures. Simple observation, supported by physics.” is speaking nothing but the truth.
The same thing has been written by many people, in various forms.
Myself, for example.
You obviously have the attention span of a retarded gnat. I wrote but a few minutes ago “coastal regions with more H2O in the air, cool more slowly than arid desert regions, at night.”
If somebody else writes the same thing, why should I care who it is? Professor John Tyndall, any meteorologist, Richard Feynman? Does it change a single fact?
You’re off with the fairies again, I suspect.
Carry on regardless,
Mike Flynn,
It is indeed you who wrote this.
Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/#comment-221981
Vintage 2016.
The whole exchange with Mighty Tim is quite something.
As if you understood the greenhouse effect all along.
So ‘organized energy’ is the new hand wavy excuse, then?
But that was no where to be found in your previous fake physics rule:
“the frequency of the photons MUST increase the mean vibration frequency of the absor.bing object to raise its temperature.”
So you need to add a caveat to the ‘rule’. Something like
‘if the photons are organized, this rule does not apply’
Troll Nate, your comment would be unnecessary, if you understood 2LoT.
From Clausius (emphasis mine):
It goes without saying that the *change* must be the right fit. Not any change will work.
This is way over your head, so anything you say will be stupid. That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R,
It’s axiomatic because heat is defined that way.
You don’t understand any of this/
Your rule has nothing to do with 2LOT. It is a fake rule and obviously it fails to work.
A blackbody emits radiation perfectly at all frequencies, and by Kirchhoffs law it abs*orbs all frequencies equally, regardless of the T of the source.
Apparently in the ‘skeptic’ handbook of physics, blackbodies absorb all incident radiation unless the blackbody is warmer than the source of radiation.
Thing is, this caveat appears nowhere else in the body of physics literature. ‘Skeptics’ just made it up.
Because they keep forgetting that radiation isn’t heat. They think they are the same thing.
True Barry, and notice no rebuttal is given.
Nope, just the “please stop trolling” meme. Irony.
barry, please stop trolling.
Thought I’d move this down here since it’s worth of a separate discussion.
maguff…”At certain wavelengths carbon dioxide and water vapor block radiation so, the new missiles couldnt see very far if they used a wavelength that CO2 absorbs”.
***
This is nonsense, and the accompanying video is about climate alarm, not missile detection systems. They are claiming that CO2 can block the IR from exhausts on aircraft and the missile, being heat-seeking, would not be able to see the aircraft.
If that was true, no IR detector could operate in the atmosphere. When Roy pointed his IR detector at the sky to get a temperature, if CO2 was absorbing the IR, the detector would see nothing.
Night vision goggles would be useless, since the CO2 would absorb any IR given off by living bodies.
Also, at the temperature of jet fighter exhausts, the IR emitted would be at much higher IR frequencies in the IR band than CO2 could absorb.
I would ask you to think before posting such nonsense, Maguff, but I might as well be talking to a wall.
At best, CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs only 7% of surface radiation and the surface is ice cold compared to the exhaust on a jet fighter. Atmospheric CO2 at 0.04% couldn’t see the exhaust IR.
If anything, your video proves the opposite, that CO2 is ineffective at blocking surface IR.
From my earlier post vis-a-vis USAF research:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
Tyson, please stop trolling.
bobdroege the idiot wrote –
“Sometimes it is not a single electron that can emit a photon.
In the case of CO2, a double bond consisting of 4 electrons, which are all the same and you cant tell them apart, you can have energy levels of those 4 electrons, those 4 electrons can change energy levels by emitting or absorbing photons.”
Read it and weep with laughter. An idiot pretending he understands.
Ask the idiot how the velocity of a CO2 molecule increases when it absorbs “heat”, or how it slows down when it “cools”, and like most delusional SkyDragon cultists, hell change the subject – probably resorting to foul language and obscenities (if past history is anything to go by).
Swenson,
You didn’t post anything that proves anything I posted is wrong.
When at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.
bob, please stop trolling.
Recently, wee willy posted a link to Northwestern University, in the Chicago area of Illinois USA. They claim to be one of the leading research universities in the States.
At this page they define heat and electromagnetic energy and, as pointed out by Swenson, they claim heat moves through space in waves.
https://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/thermal/2-does-heat-move-differently-in-space.html
“The simple answer is that heat is energy.
Heat travels in waves like other forms of energy, and can change the matter it touches. It can heat it up-which starts molecules moving or it can cause chemical reactions like burning to occur”.
Later they define electromagnetic energy as…
“Electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy. The light that we see is a type of electromagnetic radiation. However it is only a very small part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Sound, another form of energy, is not part of this spectrum. Electromagnetic radiation is different from sound in that it can travel in space and does not need a medium like air or water to travel through”.
Note that EM does not require a medium to travel through. On the other hand, it is well established that heat cannot move through space since it does require a medium. Heat, as energy, requires atoms. and even in our atmosphere, where there is significant air, heat will not move through it efficiently since air is a poor conductor of heat. The molecules are too far apart to conduct it.
We have a conundrum here. Heat is described as being an energy and EM is described as being an energy. Are they the same energy? Can’t be. EM is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and has no mass. Heat, on the other hand cannot exist with mass since it is dependent on the atoms in mass.
Still, Northwestern claims heat moves through space in wave that have no mass. In essence, they are claiming EM is heat. Furthermore, they claimed that only solar IR heats us on Earth, whereas it is well-established the UV will not only heat skin, it will burn it.
This is the state of science these days where universities cannot tell the difference between electromagnetic energy and heat, resulting in them claiming heat moves through space in waves.
Sir,
This is an Arby’s:
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Radiation
Never buy solar panels – they don’t work for Sky Dragon cranks!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You quoted –
“Generally, thermal radiation and infrared waves are referred to simply as “heat”.”
By those who choose to do so, yes.
I suppose people could believe that “thermal radiation” and “infrared radiation” are different, or is the writer confused?
However, he recovers, and goes on to write “Objects emit thermal radiation because they’re at a temperature that isn’t perfectly cold (absolute zero Kelvin). “, and goes on to mention the Sun (at 5600 K or so) emits enough “thermal radiation” to heat the Earth’s surface. Most 12 year old children are aware of this.
Presumably, by “solar panels”, you are referring to photovoltaic panels. Of course, you would be extremely stupid to expect that these would generate any electricity at all from exposure to infrared radiation, regardless of its intensity. Einstein received a Nobel Prize in 1921 for explaining why, in relation to the closely related photoelectric effect.
Nor will you get much joy from UV. If the UV photons are too energetic, electrons are ejected from the conduction band, and become unavailable.
You really live in a fantasy world disconnected from reality, don’t you?
swenson…from [wee willy]…Generally, thermal radiation and infrared waves are referred to simply as heat.
***
I must have missed that, I was laughing too hard.
‘Thermal radiation’ is an oxymoron, more moronic than oxi. As infrared energy, it still can’t be called heat even though seriously confused alarmists insist there is no difference.
IR/EM is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and as such has no mass. Heat requires mass, without it, as in a vacuum, heat cannot exist. Perhaps the people wee willy uses as an authority figure might be good enough to explain how radiation can be referred to as heat.
> Thermal radiation is an oxymoron
🤦
Yep, the spinners have a whole repertoire of insane ideas. Heat without mass, mass without dimensions (Lorb). Perhaps willard can tell us how heat is stored in 7.34767309 10^22 kilograms in an object without any dimensions.
There is no heat stored in any material object Bill. Yet material objects have a heat capacity! Can Bill explain why that is so?
It would appear that neither Flynnson or Gordo have heard about solar thermal collector panels.
They are often used to heat water but they can also be used to heat air. They are basically a metal panel inside a box with glass on the side facing the Sun and insulation behind. The metal surface is usually treated to produce low emissivity in the solar end of the spectrum and high emissivity in the thermal IR portion, the result being called a selective absorber. The technology was developed more than 40 years ago. I have 5 of them mounted on my house.
You have that wrong Swanson.
Solar collectors are best if they are black meaning it has high emissivity for all frequencies.
Much of the add on stuff such as insulation below the collectors and glazing above marginally increases the efficiencies of the collectors so you have to look very closely at their benefits vs extra costs. The primary benefit of glazing is they tend to look better on your roof. So if you want to spend for that then it makes a lot more sense.
If you have natural gas heating then a tankless heater saves a ton and makes solar panels less attractive unless you are trying to heat a pool.
Hunter troll pontificated:
Solar collectors with selective coatings appear black to the eye, but act as reflectors in the thermal IR range of emissions. The theory is the same as the use of low-e glass in double pane windows.
Here are some examples:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31267.pdf
https://alanod.com/en/industries/solar/absorbent-surfaces
wee willy…what do solar panels have to do with heat? The panels use photovoltaic cells to convert EM to electrical current. The other type you see in the desert concentrates EM onto a smaller surface and the EM is converted to heat. The heat is then converted to electrical current.
There is not heat ‘flowing’ from the Sun to Earth to accomplish this. Heat in the Sun is converted to EM which is later converted back to heat at the Earth. The idea that heat flows through space as rays or waves is an anachronism dating back to the 19th century when scientists thought heat flowed through air and space as heat rays.
It is both surprising and annoying to learn that modern scientists are still trying to apply that age-old theory. And using it to foist an equally archaic theory that a trace gas is responsible for warming the planet 1C in the past 170 years.
> what do solar panels have to do with heat?
🤦
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Recently, Bordo tried to misunderstand:
https://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/thermal/2-does-heat-move-differently-in-space.html
He succeeded, as any good Sky Dragon crank would.
THE END.
Wasteful Wee Willy,
Not “heat waves in space” again! There is no matter in the universe which is not both absorbing photons, and emitting photons. Your “authority” is both contradictory and ignorant.
Here’s a fact for you – gamma radiation (which is definitely not infrared) heats matter with which it interacts! So much for dummies who claim that “thermal radiation” is just another name for “infrared radiation”.
Keep those idiotic “appeals to authority” coming. Maybe you could appeal to the authority of a “presidential distinguished professor” named Michael Mann, self styled world famous climatologist, and known faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat.
He’d know all about physics, wouldn’t he?
Jeez, you are delusional, even for a deranged SkyDragon cultist, aren’t you?
Mike Flynn,
Keep braying –
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/if-heat-cannot-travel-through-a-vacuum-why-does-the-sun-feel-hot.html
Kids can get it, so can Sky Dragon cranks like you.
Don’t waste another decade of trolling with your silly semantic games.
Weird Wee Willy,
Keep wiggling. At least your source claims to be a Harry Potter fan. That’s something.
What has any of that got to do with your original appeal about “heat waves”? No “heat waves” in space.
You’re just lurching from stupidity to idiocy – guided by delusion. Maybe you could consider renting a brain – any old diseased piece of rubbish would be an improvement.
So off you go, laddie. Keep pretending you can describe the “greenhouse effect”. Maybe the brain dead retard you rented the brain from, might believe you.
Nobody else is likely to.
Mike, Mike,
Keep spamming –
https://www.snexplores.org/article/how-chill-object-sending-its-heat-space
Cheers.
wee willy…”In space, heat can only exist where the heat waves are traveling”.
***
Wee Willy, read my lips, there is no such thing as a heat wave in space. There are waves of EM, but EM is not heat and has no properties of heat.
If you insist on quoting authority figures, at least ensure they know what they are talking about.
C’mon, Bordo.
Radiations don’t change properties just because you happen not to understand how properties work exactly.
That’s just between you and your two neurons.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
barry and ken…both of you made similar statements so I’ll quote Ken…
“Carbon Dioxide (and all of the rest of the greenhouse gases) reduce direct thermal radiation to space. If you take out CO2 there is less absor*tion of radiation so it goes directly to space. Since the radiation is not absorbed by any greenhouse gas its not emitted back to the surface and the surface cools”.
***
Would either one of you try to explain how a small amount of trapped IR can affect surface cooling?
This is an old theory dating back to the days when it was believed the glass in a greenhouse trapped IR and somehow caused the greenhouse to warm. R. W. Wood, an expert on gases like CO2, thought that was wrong and performed an experiment to prove it was a lack of convection in a greenhouse that caused the higher temperatures.
Ken is claiming further that back-radiated IR warms the surface. That’s a contravention of the 2nd law and if the back-radiated IR is in a cycle of surface to GHGs and back, it is perpetual motion.
In anything I have read from Happer, I don’t recall him claiming that back-radiated IR from GHGs at a lower temperature than the surface can raise surface temperature beyond the temperature it is heated by solar energy.
Picture worth a thousand words:
https://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig2-11.jpg
Ken, there are at least 3 major violations of science in the diagram. For a good learning experience, can you find the violations?
No I can’t. Further, the diagram forms a basis for my understanding of how the GHE works. I doubt you can find any legitimate violations either. Clint’s version of science doesn’t count.
1) Radiative flux does NOT balance.
2) Theyve reduced absorbed solar to 161 W/m^2. Completely bogus.
3) Theyve got the atmosphere bringing more flux to the surface than Sun!!!
1. Energy budget must always balance else temperature of the system goes up (or down).
2. My understanding is 161 Wm-2 is measured.
3. Yes the atmosphere brings more flux to the surface than the sun.
Not true at the equator where sun angle of incidence is direct. Very true at the poles where angle of incidence is large. Its called GHE. As the paper says earth surface would be -17C without GHE.
1. Flux is NOT the same as energy. Flux is NOT conserved. Energy is conserved. You don’t understand ANY of this.
2. You don’t have any understanding, Ken. You have your false beliefs, unsupported by science or reality.
3. WRONG. The atmosphere does NOT bring more flux to surface that Sun. You don’t understand ANY of this.
1) Radiative flux does NOT balance in the picture so each sec per m^2 thermodynamic internal energy is rising in the picture so no science violation thus Clint R is wrong since top post shows measured temperatures really are rising in satellite era.
2) 161 remaining incoming sunlight at surface is net of: SW absorbed in air+SW reflected to space by clouds+SW reflected to space from L&O, so no violation of science Clint R is wrong again.
3) Sun spans only a few degrees of horizon to horizon where atm. spans 180 (hemisphere), no violation of science so Clint R is wrong yet again.
Three swings & 3 misses by Clint resulting in scientifically inept Clint R being humorously laughed out of the box by the more astute spectators.
Ball4, you’re just in time for the “honesty quiz”.
Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
Clint R, you have been shown reliable video of passenger jets flying backwards.
So Clint R, do passenger jets fly backwards, yes or no?
Wrong answer, Ball4.
But don’t worry, not one of your cult has been able to answer the simple question honestly.
That’s why we know it’s a cult.
Clint, yes or no?
You can’t honestly answer the simple question, Ball4.
That’s why you have to resort to troll tactics.
Yes or No??
“Picture worth a thousand words:
https://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig2-11.jpg”
–
Does the picture show what is happening at what exactly time of the day?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You should go in business building energy amplifiers with that picture
https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-lightning/2022/
ken…”Picture worth a thousand words:”
***
That’s an appeal to authority, in this case, a proven corrupt authority.
You have not even tried to explain how an alleged back-radiation of 342 w/m^2 from a colder source gets absorbed by a warmer surface. So, how do you explain this egregious violation of the 2nd law?
Furthermore, since the source of the heat is the surface, the diagram suggests heat can be recycled from surface to atmosphere and back so as to increase the heat in the source. That is called perpetual motion.
Gordon yet again forgets EMR is NOT heat.
Radiation from all-sky to surface & absorbed has dQ/T always positive so complies with 2LOT. No perpetual motion, the sun will eventually stop driving the system & it will stop.
Energy budget described here: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/CONTED/cl-intro.html
As the water vapour/methane/carbon dioxide molecules absorb the longwave radiation, they heat up, and in turn re-radiate long wave radiation in all directions. Some is lost to space, but some of it also gets radiated back to the surface, again warming it.
Nope. Theyre STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature at the Earth’s surface would reach only -17°C, approximately 33°C colder than it actually is!
Nope. Theyre STILL comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere.
Sky Dragon cranks do not always whine about imaginary spheres, but when they do they also whine about flat earths.
“Energy budget described here: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/CONTED/cl-intro.html”
–
And it says:
“For any balanced budget, what comes in must equal what goes out. In the case of planets orbiting the Sun, this means that the absorbed fraction of the incoming solar radiation must equal the outgoing emitted radiation. Otherwise, the planet will either get hotter or cooler. Balancing the global energy budget is a fundamental aspect of the climate system.”
–
“what comes in must equal what goes out”
No one argues that!
“Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature at the Earth’s surface would reach only -17oC, approximately 33oC colder than it actually is!”
–
Well, we know Earth’s average surface temperature Tmean =288K.
–
Approximately 33oC colder… HOW ?
The atm. window would be completely open to deep space.
Happer says essentially same thing here in this paper-for-laymen to explain the Wijngaarden Happer paper posted earlier: https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/
Exactly. The absor*tion spectrum is saturated; doubling CO2 won’t cause much change in the energy budget.
Saturation is NOT a factor, Ken. With, or without, saturation, CO2 can NOT warm Earth’s 288K surface.
… while sunshine and atm. shine through added CO2 ppm CAN warm Earth’s near surface atm. as demonstrated in the lab and in the wild.
“Saturation is NOT a factor, Ken. With, or without, saturation, CO2 can NOT warm Earths 288K surface.”
CO2 isn’t warming the earth surface; its reducing direct thermal radiation to space therby raising the equilibrium point of thermal energy in the earth atmosphere. The sum total of GHE is experienced by us as 288K.
CO2 isnt warming earth surface and the average temp is 288K. The rest of your comment is just the usual cult blah-blah.
ken…”CO2 isnt warming the earth surface; its reducing direct thermal radiation to space therby raising the equilibrium point of thermal energy in the earth atmosphere”.
***
What good does intercepting IR do? It has no effect on the surface since the surface cools at the same time the IR is emitted. Therefore, by the time GHGs absorb IR, the surface has already cooled.
> What good does intercepting IR do?
Without it you could not be here to ask your stupid questions.
Isnt that good enough for you?
And Willard is in here claiming that its bad he is here.
Ken (and grammie clone), The analysis presented in the Wijngaarden/Happer (2020) paper modeled the effects of increasing CO2 concentration from 400ppmv to 800 ppmv. They did not model a doubling from an estimated pre-industrial concentration of ~275 ppmv to 550 ppmv, again a doubling, but from a lower initial point. They also specified a fixed lapse rate from the US Standard Atmosphere, another model, with clear sky conditions. There was no consideration of the effects of clouds or the differences between their modeled atmosphere and that of the tropics or polar winter.
That the absorp_tion spectrum is “saturated” at the surface (the result of pressure broadening of the spectral lines) does not apply higher up in the atmosphere where the pressure is lower. I think their model may include this effect.
Yes, a fixed lapse rate means the atm. temperature profile does not change which is not the case in the wild.
ken…reading through Happer’s paper again, I find it to be far too theoretical. He appeals to the authority of people like Schwarzschild, who proved himself an idiot while interpreting Einstein’s math for relativity. Schwarzschild is incapable of thinking for himself.
Happer is actually playing into the hands of alarmists by promoting the effect of GHGs. He claims, without proof, that without GHGs Earth would be too cold for life.
That statement is plain stupid. It would be easy to remove WV from a greenhouse and prove him wrong. A greenhouse with low humidify would warm just the same. In fact, you could remove all CO2 and the temperature would not change significantly.
” I find it to be far too theoretical. ”
Gordon admits that science he doesnt understand can be ignored and assumed to be wrong.
At least he’s honest about his ignorance and anti-science bias.
Happer is just doing what science always does.
He references ‘the theory’ to another resource paper who simply references it to the IPCC.
Dr. Curry does it, Roy probably would do it. If you read Michael Crichton’s ”State of Fear” you will see that all scientists do this. If there is an accepted paper and you want to make a point about it you simply reference it. In science even if you aren’t completely convinced and want to publish something thats what you do.
The morons in here just do the stupid extrapolation they always do as to what that means. There is a greenhouse effect it just may not work the way the IPCC wants it to work. So if you want to play in the sandbox you better have a reference to a publication that says how it works before you do your paper.
“Happer is just doing what science always does.
He references the theory to another resource paper who simply references it to the IPCC.’
False.
Happer, a skeptic, has the atmospheric physics expertise to fully understand how the GHE works, and why AGW is real and causes GW. How much GW is what he questions.
Bill lacks this expertise, is insecure about that, and thus must diminish or dismiss it altogether, in others.
You are a total idiot Nate. OBVIOUSLY, to anybody but a moron, if you disagree on how much it is going to warm you don’t agree on how it works.
Gill is just doing what Dragon cranks always do.
He frowns judgmentally and waves his arms really fast.
Then he epilogues on how kids are *still* running on his lawn.
Willard that would only apply to dragon cranks that are proposing something yet unestablished quantitatively by science.
Skeptics aren’t saying anything stupid they are just saying they aren’t convinced by smoke and mirrors and/or a dog and pony show.
Dragon cranks are limited to a realm of people making claims about the world that aren’t supported by clear quantitative science.
Anyone with eyes can see when the children are stampeding the grass into the ground. Willard just objects to calling that out because he is one of the children.
Gill,
Dragon cranks have yet to offer anything quantitative,
They have no model of a non-spinning Moon, let alone one physics-based.
They have no model of what could replace the greenhouse effect.
They cannot even balance the energy in and out of two metal plates.
They only have tricks that break communication.
Pure, immature trolling.
Look at you. In one comment you pretend to be luckwarm. In the other you white knight dragon cranks.
For how many years have you been doing this?
Once again Willard runs with the children trampling the grass into the ground. Old Grumpy Hunter has to shout out them to get off the lawn.
As to moon rotation model. . . .we have repeatedly pointed to the rotation on an external axis model. But you guys apparently believe such a thing is impossible. . . .living in your flat earth universe.
I saw the same lack of understanding with the New York Attack.
Armchair scientists claiming their bunsen burner produced a flame much hotter than burning JP4 yet wasn’t hot enough to melt steel.
The building on fire was essentially a giant garbage fire that was trapping heat much faster than it could escape. The temperature went up far more than a bunsen burner in a lab and steel beams melted.
Thermal energy accumulates if you add energy faster than it can dissipate. There is a point of equilibrium where energy in equals energy out. That is what is happening with the GHE as is shown in the diagram in the first post in this discussion.
The problem with your lack of understanding is CO2 does NOT provide more thermal energy.
You’re right in that CO2 doesn’t provide thermal energy; CO2 just traps IR energy
When CO2 traps thermal energy the equilibrium point in the energy bduget goes up. The whole GH gas debate is about how much the energy budget goes up.
And that’s just one of the flaws in the GHE nonsense. It doesn’t matter how much energy is *trapped*, when the energy is in the form of 15μ photons. Trillions and trillions of such photons can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
Now, start talking about CO2 lasers — thats when it really gets fun.
Laser works by putting energy into LED. It raises the energy state almost instantaneously from zero to one state where it emits light.
Light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation
CO2 absor*tion and emission works on the same principle. The major difference is emissivity of CO2 means it takes about a second to go from zero to one state; much slower than LED. Much harder to hook up CO2 to a battery as is an LED.
Lasers work like LEDs?
Lasers work the same as CO2?
I think you win the award for “braindead” today, Ken. Maybe even all month.
Thanks for so much fun.
“when the energy is in the form of 15μ photons. Trillions and trillions of such photons can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.”
Experiments shining trillions of such photons on a surface such as Clint’s body, and getting the sh*t burned out of it, prove the stupidity of Clint and his declaration.
An no surfaces have the magical ability to decide to abs.orb 15μ photons only from lasers, and reflect 15μ photons from other sources.
Oh well!
Troll Nate, rocks do not throw themselves and ice cubes cannot boil water.
You can’t understand any of this. Like Ken, you probably don’t know the difference between a laser and an LED.
Oh well.
and you can’t create an amplifier by connecting the output to the input.
Its true that I cannot understand why anyone, other than a moron, could imagine that surfaces ‘know’ which 15μ photons to abs.orb (ones from lasers) and which 15μ photons to reflect (ones from CO2 in the atmosphere).
Some people are so far down the rabbit hole that logic can no longer reach them.
Nate says:
Its true that I cannot understand why anyone, other than a moron, could imagine that surfaces know which 15μ photons to abs.orb (ones from lasers) and which 15μ photons to reflect (ones from CO2 in the atmosphere).
————————
Usually its the case that surface’s don’t know anything and moron’s believe they know more than they do. Like when somebody can’t express what they think they know about physics in a detailed blueprint via established equations.
Bill clearly can’t back up Clint’s weird notions either. So he tries to change the subject.
Not true Nate. Clint is properly using the Stefan Boltzmann equations to arrive at his claim that you can’t boil water with icecubes. We are all sitting here wondering what equations you use to claim you can.
No Bill, Clint R never used any such equations or they were incorrect. Dr. Spencer’s years ago experiments with added ice in reality are the source for proving Clint R is wrong.
Reality always wins.
the 3rd grader radiation model fails and it required Vaughn Pratt to come in here and tell you so. But of course now I suppose you think Vaughn Pratt doesn’t know what he is talking about.
“Not true Nate. Clint is properly using the Stefan Boltzmann equations to arrive at his claim that you cant boil water with icecubes.”
Bill is again (shocker) confused about what Clint said:
This is Clint’s statement, Bill.
“when the energy is in the form of 15μ photons. Trillions and trillions of such photons can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.”
It is proven FALSE.
And you didnt backed it up, you just tried to pretend he said something else.
The point was you don’t prove that Clint was wrong by magnifying the energy.
ken…”hat is what is happening with the GHE as is shown in the diagram in the first post in this discussion”.
***
In the diagram, it is alleged that 384 w/m^2 from a colder atmosphere is transferring heat from cold to hot, by its own means. Meantime it shows only 161 w/m^2 solar coming in.
How is it possible for trace gases in the atmosphere to return 2x as much energy to the surface as incoming solar?
How is it possible for the surface to radiate 2.5x the amount of energy as incoming solar at 161 w/m^2?
Can you not see they are confusing electromagnetic energy with thermal energy and the energies have nothing in common?
Thermal radiation is an oxymoron.
“How is it possible for trace gases in the atmosphere to return 2x as much energy to the surface as incoming solar?”
They radiate it integrated over horizon to horizon all-sky.
“Would either one of you try to explain how a small amount of trapped IR can affect surface cooling?”
Having answered this question scores of times, Gordon, it’s clear you’re not interested in a good faith argument.
barry, your *answers* merely indicate you dont have a clue about the science.
I bet you remain confused about view factor.
Not at all. I was pleased to read in DREMT’s cite of Postma, who got this bit right:
“The most important concept in radiative transfer is something called view factors.”
I wouldn’t call it the MOST important, but it is vital to understanding why radiation from any number of ice cubes cannot boil water, as I keep telling you.
barry, please stop trolling.
Gordon:
“Heat in the Sun is converted to EM which is later converted back to heat at the Earth.”
–
Agreed!
–
Also, not the entire not reflected portion of the incident solar flux is converted back to heat when INTERACTING with planet surface.
–
Part of it is converted straight-forward into IR outgoing radiative energy, by omitting the “converting into HEAT” phase.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> Heat in the Sun
Where?
“> Heat in the Sun
Where?”
–
I would rather say WHY?
Surely no one knows.
–
Why should we bother, anyway…
–
I propose start discussing here the substances’ specific heat capacity: cp (cal/gr*oC)
–
WHY, different substances have different specific heat capacity – it is measured for the same mass, isn’t it?
Why the same mass different substances should have different cp?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> I would rather say WHY
You said –
“Heat in the Sun”
So the question is WHERE?
Where the heat in the sun is?
–
No one knows where it is… We only know the solar flux at earth’s orbit is So = 1.370 W/m2.
–
Why object with a lower specific heat gets warmer in the sun?
https://youtu.be/OGLZpmaR9D4
christos…”Part of it is converted straight-forward into IR outgoing radiative energy, by omitting the converting into HEAT phase”.
***
Do you have an explanation?
Part of the incoming solar spectrum (about 50%) is IR. Maybe it gets reflected. The material in the surface will only absorb frequencies natural to that element.
Gordon:
“Do you have an explanation?”
–
I think it happens so because when interacting with solar energy, atoms emit IR faster, than they interact with other atoms conducting το them the received solar energy.
When received by atoms a part of solar energy is instantly transformed and emitted as IR outgoing energy, that part of solar energy should not be considered as transformed into HEAT yet.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
When received by atoms a part of solar energy is instantly transformed and emitted as IR outgoing energy, that part of solar energy should not be considered as ever transformed into HEAT.
christos…”When received by atoms a part of solar energy is instantly transformed and emitted as IR outgoing energy, that part of solar energy should not be considered as transformed into HEAT yet”.
***
That’s a good point. I don’t know enough about this but it seems to me the absorp-tion/emission is done over millions of atoms at the same time. Therefore the average may be of concern. In other words, the average kinetic energy may be a factor. As you know, temperature is not an exact value, it is an average. The mercury in a mercury thermometer averages different kinetic energies in a range to arrive at a level on the thermometer scale..
Quantum theory is fairly uncertain. Much of it is based on mathematics and theory. Ultimately, any instrument will average the kinetic energy.
Also, it will depend on the depth of the surface. Maybe atoms right on the surface will react as you claim. However, atoms a fewer layers deep will react differently. They will conduct the heat quickly to atoms at even deeper levels.
Gordon:
“However, atoms a fewer layers deep will react differently. They will conduct the heat quickly to atoms at even deeper levels.”
–
Agreed!
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
swannie…”Have you come up with a physics based explanation for the warming of the Blue plate in my GPE demo yet? Youve had several years to do so by now, wheres the beef?”
***
I have offered my explanation at least a dozen times.
Your BP is in a vacuum and is heated externally. As it heats, it begins radiating IR, and it will reach a Tmax based on an equilibrium between heat in and heat dissipated via radiation of IR.
That Tmax is not its maximum possible temperature, however. If you had surrounded the BP with a metal shield to prevent IR radiation from the outset, the BP would have reached a maximum temperature of Tmax+.
When you raise the GP into the vicinity of the BP. you are accomplishing the same thing. You are causing the BP to rise in temperature from T max toward Tmax+.
I have presumed, based on the word plate, that you are using metal plates. EM/IR shielding is made of metal (Faraday shield). Of course, the shield will eventually warm and begin radiating by itself.
The problem is far more complex than it appears.
Gordo suddenly agrees the Green plate of my GPE demo acts like an IR radiation shield and thus warms from the emissions produced by the Blue plate. He seems to suggest that this shielding effect would raise the temperature of the Blue plate to a higher temperature than the original temperature before the Green plate was hoisted into position.
But, Gordo, isn’t that what happened? Or must the Blue plate be completely enclosed and thus unable to receive the energy from the external source for this to happen, what then? But, that was a different experimental setup and has no bearing on the discussion, now that Gordo has agreed that the Green plate’s presence warmed the Blue plate. As expected, he still hasn’t provided a physics based explanation.
Gordon still hasn’t provided a physics based explanation since Gordon is such a rookie in thermodynamics and especially a rookie in atm. radiation physics. After many years (decades?) Gordon demonstrates no progress advancing in any understanding of such science.
swannie…”Gordo suddenly agrees the Green plate of my GPE demo acts like an IR radiation shield and thus warms from the emissions produced by the Blue plate. He seems to suggest that this shielding effect would raise the temperature of the Blue plate to a higher temperature than the original temperature before the Green plate was hoisted into position”.
***
Realizing he has painted himself into a corner, Swannie tries to wiggle out. He is accompanied by his equally obtuse alarmist, Ball4. Both think heat can be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body.
I notice Swannie has avoided mentioning his original claim that radiation from the colder GP raises the temperature of the BP. Neither Swannie nor B4 can understand that the BP was heated to an intermediate temperature which is an average between heat in and heat dissipated by radiation. Naturally, when the heat dissipated is cut in half by the GP, the BP’s temperature will rise further.
This is a simple problem that Swannie Laurel and B4 Hardy cannot seem to work out.
“heat can be transferred…heat dissipated by radiation.”
Thermodynamics rookie Gordon still needs to understand EMR is NOT heat.
Gordo returns to repeat his old nonsense yet again:
Still no physics to explain how “heat” being “dissipated” from the Blue plate might be reduced by the presence of the Green plate. In the vacuum environment, thermal energy can only be removed via IR radiation. That process is a function of the body’s temperature, as everybody (except Gordo) knows, so adding the Green plate can’t cut (or block) that pathway. As the Blue plate’s temperature does actually increase, that implies that the Blue plate is emitting more thermal IR energy, for which the only possible source is the Green plate.
Gordo can’t accept the facts or the physics which explains them, since doing so would blow up his shtick.
Gordo insists on repeating his mantra to The Master Clausius:
His whole argument citing the 2nd Law, etc, is founded on this quote. His answer to the question about the Thermal IR emissions from the GP toward the BP is that it’s blocked or dissipated or even disappears, all of which is a clear violation of the First Law of Thermo. He fails to understand that the Clausius’ statement does not mention Thermal IR radiation, even as he repeatedly points out that IR radiation is not “heat” in his list of definitions.
If Gordo were consistent in his pontificating, he would be forced to agree that the IR emitted by the GP and then absorbed by the BP can’t be a violation of the 2nd Law, since the IR radiation is a form of energy, not “heat” as Gordo defines it.
Whatever the case Swanson. You do realize that when a warm object hits up a cool object with radiation it also is reduced by said radiation. Since this is as instantaneous as it gets exactly when does the warming of the warm object occur in your view?
Hunter, What does your comment have to do with Gordo’s incessant rants over many years claiming that the GPE and the Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd Law? Remember, Gordo’s comments claiming that the energy from the Green plate is “ignored” or “vanishes”, which is a violation of the First Law. BTW, the First Law is number one because it’s more important than the Second Law. And, neither he nor you have presented a case based on physics that the GHE results in a Perpetual Motion of the Second Kind.
The warming of the warmer object is consistent with the change in enthalpy & the mass of the object. Dr. Spencer confirmed this by experiment years ago and confirmed his experiment with calculation.
Swanson obviously you remain unaware that science has moved on. Even Nate says your GPE is irrelevant to the GHE. And I am not going to wade through all of Gordon’s comments as he seems to manage to respond just fine on his own. The only problem in here are people claiming stuff they can’t even provide established physics equations for. . . .and thats you.
Its amazing how you can review Vaughn Pratt’s and RW Woods experiments and not observe the surface doesn’t warm from blocking IR. You went to a lot of trouble to show how insulation can slow move an uninsulated plate to warm, but I have acknowledged many times in here a window unit in a house will adopt the mid-point temperature between two environments. And if you provide that window or wall some insulation the window unit will continue to occupy the mid point temperature. If the insulation becomes robust enough the unit facing the warm side will approach the source temperature and the cold side will approach the sink temperature.
If you read up on the James Webb telescope you can read about all the methods used to insulate it to get the telescope to approach absolute zero. For the 3rd graders in here that would be the cold side of the insulation.
Hunter troll, I provided calculations for my GPE years ago.
Hunter wrote
No Hunter, glass is an insulator, thus there is a slight difference in temperature between the inside of the glass and the outside. Hunter continues:>blockquote>
provide that window or wall some insulation the window unit will continue to occupy the mid point temperature.
No, with double pane glass, the insulation value increases and the temperature difference between the inside and outside surfaces is even larger, the more so with low-e glass coating. And, as we well know, the James Webb telescope is insulated from the direct radiation from the Sun by using multi-layer reflective insulation.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter troll, I provided calculations for my GPE years ago.
——————–
You only provide some calculations. And the GPE doesn’t support your claim that a window can warm a room to a higher temperature than its equilibrium.
—————————-
—————————-
Hunter wrote
a window unit in a house will adopt the mid-point temperature between two environments.
No Hunter, glass is an insulator, thus there is a slight difference in temperature between the inside of the glass and the outside. Hunter continues:>blockquote>
provide that window or wall some insulation the window unit will continue to occupy the mid point temperature.
No, with double pane glass, the insulation value increases and the temperature difference between the inside and outside surfaces is even larger, the more so with low-e glass coating. And, as we well know, the James Webb telescope is insulated from the direct radiation from the Sun by using multi-layer reflective insulation.
—————————
Nothing you are saying there is in conflict with my statement. The window unit will adopt naturally the midpoint temperature between the inside and the outside. If the window has insulation the mid point will be the mean temperature of the window or wall.
And yes that can vary some if conditions other than temperature are different between the inside and the outside, such as strong winds or rain hitting the outside of the window. Perhaps even humidity affects it a tiny bit but with the crude IR detector I used it was very difficult to see a difference in mild conditions. And of course with reflection you can reduce the rate of warming but you don’t change the equilibrium temperature that the shiny object warms to. And that is according to SB equations. So basically what you guys say is backradiation is like an emissivity factor of .5 when it gets to a certain temperature. But now the object doesn’t continue to warm.
Fine, I haven’t taken a position on the matter because I haven’t seen an adequate experiment. All I am doing is arguing why an experiment is needed.
ken…”Picture worth a thousand words:
https://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig2-11.jpg
”
***
Can you stifle your ego long enough to let me walk you through this diagram? I am not asking you to accept anything I say, just to note your objections, if any, and write them up in a rebuttal post.
Does it not seem a bit odd to you that incoming solar at the surface is only 161 w/m^2 yet the outgoing IR is 398 w/m^2? Out of that 398 w/m^2 a full 342 w/m^2 is returned by GHGs from a colder part of the atmosphere.
To restate this point, which is very important, incoming solar is ‘THE’ only real source of heat. The rest are products of this heat. How can the IR energy produced by solar energy exceed it by a factor of 2.5?
Can you not see what they are doing? They are recycling heat produced by solar energy to create an outgoing value that exceeds incoming energy by 2.5 to 1. I don’t care what your physics may be, that is not allowed. It is perpetual motion, the creation of energy out of nothing. It also contradicts the 2nd law by moving heat from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that created it.
It does not add up, 161 in and 398 out??? They are obviously adding the 348 w/m^2 allegedly returned by GHGs to the 161 w/m^2 of incoming solar to get 503 w/m^2 incoming. So, they need to balance that by adding 84w/m^2 latent heat from evapouration plus 20 w/m^2 sensible heat. Now we have 398 + 104 = 502 w/m^2 outgoing.
They claim that creates an imbalance of 0.6 w/m^2 incoming.
Seriously, Ken, can you not even begin to see the travesty in that contrived bs?
1)Let’s start with the 1378 w/m^2 that allegedly appears from the Sun at TOA. Your diagram shows only 340 w/m^2 so what happened to the other 1038 w/m^2? They had to dissipate it somehow otherwise they’d never be able to balance it using outgoing IR plus incoming IR from GHGs.
IF IT HAS BEEN DISSIPATED THEN SOMETHING IN THE ATMOSPHERE HAS WARMED!!!!
Still, they have diminished it from 1378 to 161, meaning the atmosphere and surface have magically lost nearly 88% of incoming solar.
2)look at the sensible heat, which is obviously the actual heat convected from the surface. It is only 20 w/m^2. That means over the entire planetary surface, convection dissipates only about 4% of surface heat. They can’t even bring themselves to call it thermal. They call IR up and IR down thermal when it has nothing to do with heat yet real heat convected from the surface is not deemed worthy of being called heat.
They have the cheek to claim that evapouration dissipates 84 w/m^2 as latent heat. They fail to grasp that latent heat is the solar heat required to convert water to vapour. There is no change of temperature during that phase yet they claim one.
Latent heat is heat lost at the surface as water in converted to vapour. Later, when the vapour rises and condenses, the heat is returned, but that heat warms the atmosphere. That’s how deserts form. Warm moist air rises and condenses, leaving warm dry air that sweeps down over desert areas.
3)what I really want to know is how the surface can radiate 398 w/m^2 of IR (2.5 times the amount of incoming solar) and have trace gases return 348 w/m^2 (2x the amount of incoming solar).
This is called an energy budget but the only energy of interest is thermal energy, aka heat. Radiated and back-radiated IR are of little or no interest, it is only the effect they have dissipating or adding heat that is of interest.
The original energy budget graph was created by Kiehle-Trenberth. I see nothing on your graph that credits them, therefore this graph is stolen, and likely amended to suit. In the original paper accompanying the graph. K-T admitted they had not measured any of these value but they had estimated them.
Whoever made this graph is very weak in his understanding of thermodynamics, particularly the 2nd law.
“To restate this point, which is very important, incoming solar is ‘THE’ only real source of heat.”
Gordon 7:03 pm! No. To restate this point, again & again for Gordon to learn, which is very important, incoming solar 161 EMR is NOT heat.
“It is perpetual motion”
No perpetual motion, Gordon, the process will stop when the sun EMR eventually stops driving the process. Seriously can you not even begin to see the travesty in rookie Gordon not learning this basic atm. physics?
1)Let’s start with the 1378 w/m^2 Gordon writing allegedly appears from the Sun at TOA when the 1378 is actually measured by precision instrumentation. The diagram only shows 340 after accounting for the disc intercepting the incident sunshine is actually a rotating sphere. There is no magic loss of 88% SW that’s just a rookie mistake by Gordon.
2) Rookie Gordon fails to understand the water cycle & up drafts = down drafts which is another rookie mistake. Rookie Gordon should learn what the cycle means in “water cycle”.
3) Gordon writes: “Radiated and back-radiated IR are of little or no interest, it is only the effect they have dissipating or adding heat that is of interest.”
No Gordon, again, EMR is NOT heat.
Gordon, in reading this graph, is very weak in Gordon’s understanding of thermodynamics, particularly the 2nd law. The graph shows dQ/T always positive so is in compliance with 2LOT. And 1LOT as energy is shown being conserved for each sec. & m^2.
b4 must be impaired, he is seriously incoherent.
“No perpetual motion, Gordon, the process will stop when the sun EMR eventually stops driving the process”.
***
B4 does not understand that EM/IR leaving the surface, being absorbed by GHGs in a cooler area of the atmosphere, and radiating the IR back to the surface, to increase surface temperature is not allowed. It’s a recycling of heat to allegedly make the planet warmer. That’s why I call it perpetual motion.
_________
“The diagram only shows 340 after accounting for the disc intercepting the incident sunshine is actually a rotating sphere. There is no magic loss of 88% SW thats just a rookie mistake by Gordon”.
***
B4 thinks you can pull out a calculator and accurately calculate the average solar input of a rotating planet. He doesn’t get it that the planet’s surface is not a smooth sphere and varies in surface altitude up to 30,000 feet. He doesn’t get it that the Earth’s N-S axis is tilted some 23 degrees to the Earth-Sun orbital plane and that the Earth moves on an elliptical path around the Sun.
He doesn’t get it that the oceans make up 70% of the planet and have a very different dynamic re absorbing, retaining and transporting heat. The planet has been seriously affected the past few years due to the action of a small ocean oscillation, La Nina. B4 would rather ignore such action, right in front of his nose, and go with a budget scratched out on a lunch bag by people ignorant of basic thermodynamics.
B4 lives in a simple world and he enjoys associating with other simpletons who are climate alarmists.
__________
“No Gordon, again, EMR is NOT heat”.
***
I see, So, B4 and his fellow alarmists are only interested in averaging EM, which has nothing to do with heat. But they forget that global warming/climate change is about heat and not EM per se. When it’s convenient, they simply substitute EM for heat and make ludicrous claims.
________
“Gordon, in reading this graph, is very weak in Gordons understanding of thermodynamics, particularly the 2nd law. The graph shows dQ/T always positive so is in compliance with 2LOT”.
***
B4 confuses the 2nd law with entropy, which serves only to give the direction and degree of a process with regard to heat transfer. The 2nd law, as stated by Clausius, before he developed the theory of entropy, stated in words…’heat can never, by its own means, be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body’.
Therefore, according to Clausius, it is not possible for heat to be transferred from GHGs in a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface, particularly, not a surface that produced the IR that warmed the GHGs in the first place.
B4 is not even a good troll.
“heat can be transferred…heat dissipated by radiation.”
Rookie Gordon still needs to understand EMR is NOT heat.
“… radiating the IR back to the surface, to increase surface temperature is not allowed.”
dQ/dt is positive in such a process so complies with 2LOT.
“It’s a recycling of heat… it is not possible for heat to be transferred..”
Gordon, again, EMR is NOT heat.
“you can pull out a calculator and accurately calculate the average solar input of a rotating planet.”
Can do so within reason except by a rookie such as Gordon, but there is no need since there are now precision instruments measuring such, including actual surface elevation, axis tilted over the elliptical orbital path annual periods.
Oceans, land, and air temperatures are also measured by precision instrumentation, Gordon.
Gordon continues to make a lot of rookie mistakes and doesn’t understand Clausius’ 2LOT: Entropy always increases in any real process.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Your diagram shows only 340 w/m^2 so what happened to the other 1038 w/m^2?”
Its 1378 Wm-2 when the sun is directly overhead. Its 0 Wm-2 at night. Its near zero at the poles too. so 340 Wm-2 is average on the entire surface of the earth at any given moment in time.
“They claim that creates an imbalance of 0.6 w/m^2 incoming.”
The ocean is absorbing the 0.6 Wm-2. That is why it is slowly warming.
“Does it not seem a bit odd to you that incoming solar at the surface is only 161 w/m^2 yet the outgoing IR is 398 w/m^2? Out of that 398 w/m^2 a full 342 w/m^2 is returned by GHGs from a colder part of the atmosphere.”
Try heating a pot of water. If heat energy only goes up then water would have to lose all that heat energy before it got sucked down again by convection process. Atmosphere works the same way. See Hadley cells.
ken….[GR]Does it not seem a bit odd to you that incoming solar at the surface is only 161 w/m^2 yet the outgoing IR is 398 w/m^2? Out of that 398 w/m^2 a full 342 w/m^2 is returned by GHGs from a colder part of the atmosphere.
[Ken]Try heating a pot of water. If heat energy only goes up then water would have to lose all that heat energy before it got sucked down again by convection process. Atmosphere works the same way. See Hadley cells.
***
That does not answer my question. The Sun inputs 161 w/m^2 at the surface and the Earth outputs 384 w/m^2 at the same surface. How is that possible?
Looking at your heat analogy, if I input 1500 watts from a stove ring to a pot of water the ring, glowing red, is apparently around 600C. The water itself cannot exceed 100C, nor can the vapor produced. So, you are inputting 1500 watts and outputting less. According to your diagram, the Earth is emitting more power than the Sun in inputting.
In fact it is illegally circulating power. It outputs 394 w/m^2 and recycles it as 342 w/m^2 back to the surface. The resultant output after this pseudoscience is 239 w/m^2 to TOA. That’s 78 more watts out than is going in.
“That’s 78 more watts out than is going in.”
No. That statement is yet another rookie mistake by Gordon.
The graph shows 240 in & 239 out, rounded. The imbalance shown being absorbed by L&O & air will eventually bring the 239 out up to 240 out with near surface and TLT temperature increases as the top graph demonstrates is in process.
I wish you’d stop trying to defend trash science. It clear shows 161 solar going in to the surface. The amount absorbed by the atmosphere, another hypothetical value, doesn’t count since the balance is indicated as being between surface and space, not the atmosphere and space.
There is clearly 161 solar warming the surface and 398 + 84 + 20 = 502 leaving the surface.
But, I guess when you have blinders on as an alarmist you see what you want to see.
I wish a rookie commenter such as Gordon would, over time, learn more about fundamentals in thermodynamics and atm. radiation to stop making such obvious rookie mistakes as I have pointed out. For example, there is 84+20 returning to the surface from the water cycle and downdrafts & EMR is NOT heat.
Incorrect Ball4. The 84 and 20 are ‘net’ departures of energy. Latent heat from evaporation is the 84 which is dumped as radiation at the levels of condensation. And the 20 is the difference in energy between convective heat leaving the surface and the cooler air that replaces it. You should read the paper supporting these figures before just making something up in response.
The paper (and others) explain the water cycle Bill. Does Bill know what cycle means in this context? +84 up from surface as LH and -84 down to surface upon condensation & observe the sign convention. READ the paper.
A better paper for showing & explaining to Bill the water cycle and sensible heat cycle explicitly is L’Ecuyer et. al. 2015 Fig. 4.
Ball4 the same amount of water that goes up comes down Ball4 but before coming back down the latent heat of vaporization extracted from the surface is released into the atmosphere. The 84 represents the watts/m2 that went up and didn’t come back down.
” … didnt come back down.”
Bill writes the 84 LH released in the atm. is somehow unique absorbed-in-atm. radiation that is only ever emitted by the atm. away from the surface and never toward the earthen L&O surface.
Also, Bill must mean the condensed LH liquid (known as rain) never transfers any atm. thermal energy to the surface.
Fortunately, observations prove Bill is wrong, there really is 84 LH measured as coming back down to surface in form of rain and EMR included in the global energy budgets & which is why they call it the “water cycle“.
Can you balance a checkbook Ball4.
The 84 ”net” LH upgoing includes what comes back down. You need to read Trenberth’s budget discussion in his paper supporting his budget diagrams to be informed on this topic.
And even if Trenberth doesn’t note the upwelling LH as a ‘net’ figure, there is no budget line item for rainfall and so that is what leads to the idea you have no idea of how to balance a checkbook or make a budget.
Bill, of all people, asks “Can you balance a checkbook Ball4.”
OMG
Bill 2:57 pm, you show a lack of understanding of the paper you mention. The 84 is up LH energy absorbed in atm. The 84 LH shown is NOT net of down energy emitted by atm.
The net energy into and out of atm. over the water cycle is zero over multiannual periods which is why they call it a cycle!
Read the paper.
Funny then how Kevin Trenberth’s budgets balance without accounting for the ‘water cycle’. Do you even know how to read a budget?
ken…”Its 1378 Wm-2 when the sun is directly overhead. Its 0 Wm-2 at night. Its near zero at the poles too. so 340 Wm-2 is average on the entire surface of the earth at any given moment in time”.
***
What they have done is taken a complex problem and simplified it to a stupid level. They have simply divided the TOA power by 4 and claimed it as an average for the entire planet.
There is simply no way to ‘calculate’ an average solar input or an average IR output. And, no effort has been put into calculating how much heat is retained and for how long.
It is absolutely absurd to claim only 20 w/m^2 for convection from the surface (sensible heat). Th meaning i clear, they have no respect for the complexity of the system and base all their calculations on radiation.
It is painfully obvious, that based on this diagram, the Earth would cool fairly rapidly due to losses exceeding solar input. The GHG back-radiation of 342 w/m^2 is a bogus value that contributes no heat to the system and it should be removed.
At one time I had some respect for Trenberth but I now regard him as much of a clown as other alarmists. He plainly has no understanding of basic thermodynamics.
Bordo,
Perhaps you should preface all your comments with what you said to Christos:
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
christos…”what comes in must equal what goes out
No one argues that!”
***
I am questioning many accepted claims about science. I don’t think Earth meets the requirements that energy in must equal energy out. The Earth is able to absorb and store heat and over the millennia Earth must have warmed slowly. Therefore it’s average temperature is much higher than it should be.
Given the brief period each day that the Sun can warm a portion of the surface, the heat produced is just enough to maintain the present 15C average. A good part of the heat added can easily be dissipated internally to maintain the 15C average and that means not much heat has to be dissipated to space.
It’s the same with the conservation of energy law. It has been associated with the 1st law of thermodynamics, which is only about heat and work. Heat and work do have a relationship (equivalence) and in such a system energy is conserved. That does not mean the same is true for all energy.
For example, heat can dissipate without changing into another form of energy.
8:10 pm: “… the heat produced is just enough to maintain the present 15C average.”
Oops, rookie Gordon doesn’t realize the top post graph demonstrates Gordon is wrong in the satellite era.
A large part of the problem is that you think your questions are valid refutation of the science. Yes, its quite possible the entire picture of the energy budget is wrong wrong wrong but so far you haven’t provided any proof that it is so.
Like Einstein said, it takes only one scientist to prove a hypothesis wrong.
I haven’t found a better explanation of what is going on in the atmosphere. Besides which, the diagram makes sense and agrees with the foundations of my own background of study in the sciences.
Ken, you don’t understand science. You don’t even understand your cult nonsense.
Have you learned the difference between a laser and an LED, yet?
Example is “What they have done is taken a complex problem and simplified it to a stupid level. They have simply divided the TOA power by 4 and claimed it as an average for the entire planet.”
Proof would constitute a calculation of an ‘average’ other than the 240 Wm-2 average provided. A calculation we can all check and determine if you’ve made any errors.
Ken, you can’t “average” radiative flux. Flux relation to temperature is nonlinear.
You won’t understand that.
The part that shocks me is that the energy budget diagram is new to some of you here who claim to know something about climate. There are dozens of versions on the internet and they have been around for a long time. Do you not read anything about which you pontificate?
Do you UNDERSTAND anything about which you pontificate?
Wednesday, April 5, 2023
Global Warming Greenhouse Theorys Greatest Weakness
https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-greenhouse-theorys-greatest-weakness.html
linked from: https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Quite long, somewhat interesting,…
but let’s skip the comments:
–E. Swanson:
I think your presentation leaves out much of importance.
… –
Reply:
“Dear E Swanson, it is quite odd that you would expect me to explain the whole universe in a 20 minute video and that you would suggest I have a “lot to learn” because I didnt mention the Isthmus of Panama , and blah blah blah. …”
Anyhow while reading:
“Similarly, salinity gradients in the ocean trap heat in subsurface layers maintaining warmer ocean temperatures from the tropics to the arctic. ”
And thought there it is again, but later goes more length about-
To keep it short, I agree the ocean does act somewhat like a solar pond.
Also says:
“Unfortunately, click-bait media rarely informs the public that CO2 also has a strong cooling effect increasing emissions in the stratosphere and mesosphere. Satellites observe that the stratosphere is cooling twice as fast as the lower atmosphere is warming. ”
Which as I said, before I don’t believe in.
But it seems worth the read.
ENSO anomalies for week Apr 2-8
1.2 … +2.7
3 … +0.2
3.4 … 0.0
4 … +0.3
(Yes Flynn, I know you’re not interested. I know you think there is no point. Are you going to pretend to speak for everyone else again?)
It’s The Science – Climate deniers get expelled from National Science Teaching Association conference
The National Science Teaching Association (NSTA) held its National Conference in Atlanta last month, and because climate deniers jump at every opportunity to embarrass themselves, they invaded the conference and, like unruly and immature students, got thrown out within minutes.
According to a post on Anthony Watts’s boomer climate denial blog, CO2 Coalition members “were evicted from their paid and agreed to exhibit just minutes after the show opened.”
The CO2 Coalition Executive Director wasn’t quite as eager to publicize his shame, though, and published an article promoting the Coalition’s “report” but neglecting to mention his embarrassing failure a few days earlier.
What happens when the organizers do everything to deny freedom of speech and refuse to hear the ‘deniers’ while promulgating a climate change narrative that has no basis in science.
Thats correct! There isn’t a single one in here who can establish how it works. Just like all their other efforts to suppress speech, what is a woman, Hunter’s laptop, covid masks, vaccines prevent infection this one will eventually fall too.
I thought ingesting/injecting bleach killed the virus?
I thought sharpies could be used to change the path of a hurricane.
Things are changing now…
Some people will believe anything. . . .like with passive insulation you can exceed a thermodynamic equilibrium.
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
Things are changing now
Fox News and one of its former hosts, Lou Dobbs, have settled a defamation suit with a Venezuelan businessman whom the network linked to voting-system fraud in the 2020 election. The parties did not disclose the terms of the settlement.
———————
Hmmm, not even a retraction? Seems to me one would have to be a moron to believe that saying somebody cheated using a machine to hide the cheating is a condemnation of the machine.
Likewise its why we have a 2nd Amendment to keep the morons that believe that kind of nonsense at bay.
“Fox canceled Dobbs’s show in February of 2021.”
CENSORSHIP!!!1!
Bill
And the person who was/is trying to take advantage of those people is Herr Trumpler.
Antonin, Trump knows machines don’t cheat.
Who cheat are those who operate the machines. And that is how you prevent the machines from cheating having the ability to operate and test the machine randomly.
Election security is a business that needs complete transparency on who is voting, how often, how the vote is secured, and how the ballots are counted.
Only transparency increases confidence in the outcome.
Quite right, Gill:
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/03/953012128/this-was-a-scam-in-recorded-call-trump-pushed-official-to-overturn-georgia-vote
Donald asked Brad to cheat for him.
It did not work.
You mean your partisanship mode of interpreting what Trump said. The problem for you is he didn’t say that and of course its a lie to claim he did because the call was recorded.
I realize democrats have Trump Derangement syndrome in large part because of the ”Lock her up” chant. But in the case of the laws regarding classified information it is clear Hillary broke a law that they routinely imprison lower level employees for.
Not the same case with Trump where we have folks making up laws nobody has ever been imprisoned for and changing the plain meaning of words.
Bill
I don’t recall saying anything about machines. Please address the two Trump issues I DID raise.
I didn’t see two issues.
This unfortunate episode at the NSTA’s conference demonstrates once again that climate deniers are not only aggressively pushing harmful disinformation on social media but are also continuing to spread lies in person.
TM, I don’t know anyone that “denies” climate. I do see people here that deny reality.
Are you ready for your “honesty quiz”?
Do passenger jets fly backward?
Pup, I don’t know anyone that says passenger jets fly “backward.”
I do see one sock puppet who keeps repeating that tired line.
Riddle me this –
Take two cottages at temperature constant, and put them right next to one another so that they become a semi-detached house. They become warmer.
Why is that?
Willard
Note how he refuses to state what reference frame ‘backwards’ is relative to. He KNOWS that the person who made the comment was NOT saying that jets were moving backwards relative to the earth. So he muddies the waters by not mentioning that clarification, then he lumps his dishonest version of the comment on absolutely EVERYONE, trying to pretend that we all believe that jets fly backwards relative to the earth.
They don’t come much more dishonest than him. Except for the orange criminal of course.
Exactly, AQ.
Furthermore, Pup has started to use *passenger planes* after I showed him planes that literally did what he thought impossible, eg
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150415-the-plane-that-can-fly-backwards
Did he thank me? No. He simply ignored it.
Taming trolls is a thankless task.
Ken says that climate change has no basis in science.
That implies that climate change denial does have scientific basis.
Please give me three textbooks that I should use to teach climate change denial.
Here are my three to counter them: https://ibb.co/xYMs9c9
Any text Chemistry 101. Any text Physics 101. Any text Mathematics 101.
Then use those tools to look at the data.
The data does not support the AGW narrative. As seen in the data at the top of this page, there is not a climate crisis.
Ken wrote:
Ken apparently isn’t aware that there are other measures of changing climate besides the UAH LT satellite data, for which there are several reasons for critique. The RSS version derived from the same satellite data, the TLT, exhibits a steeper trend line, for reasons which are likely to be correct. And, these satellite “temperature” calculations do not apply to the surface, especially in the Arctic, where sea-ice extent and permafrost are both known to be declining.
Ken,
So you can’t even name one textbook that supports your position with data.
Therefore you can’t complain when your authority figures get kicked out of the National Science Teaching Association’s (NSTA) conference for spreading propaganda.
Note that in 2018 the NSTA wrote:
Quote:
If there is something very slightly wrong in our definition of the theories, then the full mathematical rigor may convert these errors into ridiculous conclusions.
Richard Feynman
“then the full mathematical rigor may convert these errors into ridiculous conclusions.”
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 blackbodys temperature.
Planet does not have a blackbody temperature, because planet has not a uniform temperature, and because planet is not a blackbody.
******
When based on the blackbody-planet theory, it was wrongly calculated:
“The earth’s surface uniformly absorbs 240 W/mfrom the sun. ”
–
Also it was very much wrongly concluded:
“Without greenhouse effect, Earths surface would be some 33C (59F) cooler.
*****
–
No, the Earth does not uniformly absorb 240 W/m from the sun. Earth is a planet. A planet is irradiated from one direction only, and a planet rotates.
–
No, without greenhouse effect, Earths surface would NOT be some 33C (59F) cooler.
–
Because there is not a 33C (59F) greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
–
When solar irradiated, a planet surface does not absorb the entire not reflected portion of 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.
–
***
The real subject matter is the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1.362 W/m from one direction.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The real subject matter is the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1.362 W/m from one direction.”
It works with fast spinning space rocks.
The model is an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
Ideal thermally conductive And Ideal blackbody.
People seems to think it’s just ideal blackbody or what color
of whether reflective or not. But main thing is thermally conductive
and fast spinning small space rock is quite thermally conductive.
Also model indicates earth could only absorb 340 watt and it absorbs
240 watt. Compared to planets [not fast spinning space rocks] Earth absorbs a lot.
Which should cause one wonder, why does Earth absorb so much of the sunlight- compared to Venus, Mars, or the Moon.
It’s spin has something to do with, as does axis tilt- but I think
it’s mainly the transparent ocean.
The only purpose of model, is ask why does it not match the model- or
no one imagine their is a planet which is close to Ideal thermally conductive blackbody- it would be a magical object.
And Earth appears to be close to a magical object.
I tell people to model Venus at Earth distance.
I sometimes mention the idea of what Earth would be like
if completely covered with a ocean- clue it absorbs more energy.
And also what if Mars was completely covered in H20 snow.
If you get a close enough answer to these three, you pass the test.
You could try this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123859563/evidence-based-climate-science
First you tell me to expect Chemistry, Physics and Math. Then you link to a book which is a collection of essays by 15 different authors, one of which is Christopher Monckton of Benchley! I counted 11 mentions of the word “Climategate.”
You’ve got to be kidding!
You have a problem with Monckton? Go ahead and tell me where he is wrong. You don’t like the other 14 authors each of which demonstrably knows more about climate as you?
I don’t care what others say about Monckton; ad hominem is nothing but a way to avoid the truth. Judge the ideas on their merits.
Where are the Chem, Phys and Math you said were the basis for your arguments against the science of climate change?
This is a good one:
https://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Skepticism-Busy-People-ebook/dp/B07H57WVYJ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1538663092&sr=1-1&keywords=global+warming+skepticism+for+busy+people
Third:
https://www.amazon.ca/Climate-Change-Facts-Jennifer-Marohasy/dp/192598494X
You’re not a serious person are you?
How about quoting from IPCC:
“Its components
The climate system, as defined in this Report, is an interactive
system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere, the
hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the land surface and the biosphere,
forced or influenced by various external forcing mechanisms, the
most important of which is the Sun (see Figure 1.1). Also the
direct effect of human activities on the climate system is consid-
ered an external forcing.
The atmosphere is the most unstable and rapidly changing
part of the system.
,,,,”
“The hydrosphere is the component comprising all liquid
surface and subterranean water, both fresh water, including
rivers, lakes and aquifers, and saline water of the oceans and
seas. Fresh water runoff from the land returning to the oceans
in rivers influences the oceans composition and circulation.
The oceans cover approximately 70% of the Earths surface.
They store and transport a large amount of energy and dissolve
and store great quantities of carbon dioxide. Their circulation,
driven by the wind and by density contrasts caused by salinity
and thermal gradients (the so-called thermohaline circulation),
is much slower than the atmospheric circulation. Mainly due to
the large thermal inertia of the oceans, they damp vast and
strong temperature changes and function as a regulator of the
Earths climate and as a source of natural climate variability, in
particular on the longer time-scales.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-01.pdf
I don’t disagree with any of this. Though chopped off a fair amount of what it said about atmosphere {you can read it, go to link} and
didn’t copy any regarding cryosphere
Though I thought this bit was significant:
“…its large thermal inertia and, especially,
its critical role in driving deep ocean water circulation.”
The infamous “energy” budget indicates Earth’s surface only absorbs 161 W/m^2 from Sun. That is a blatant perversion of science. 161 W/m^2 is about half the flux from an ice cube!
The cult gets the “161” figure by dividing solar, then reducing it farther by trickery.
Fortunately, we have a simple analogy to explain the deception.
It would be possible to process a raw chicken into a sphere. With the spherical chicken on a spit, it could be irradiated with flux so that it receives 2400 W/m^2 at one surface. The spherical chicken rotates on the spit, constantly receiving 2400 W/m^2 on one side, just as rotating Earth constantly receives solar on one side. 2400 W/m^2 corresponds to a temperature of 130C, 357F, for an emissivity of 1. The chicken would cook just fine, after a time.
Now, using cult science, the 2400 W/m^2 is the “same” as 600 W/m^2 on four different sides of the spherical chicken. But, 600 W/m^2 corresponds to a temperature of only 48C, 118F. The chicken would never cook.
You can’t divide flux. It changes everything. The cult rejects science and reality.
Let the denials, perversions, and troll tactics begin.
Where do you get those 322 W/m^2 (161 x 2) ice cubes?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Ice at freezing point emits about 315W/m^2.
161 W/m^2 is about half of 315 W/m^2 — 161 W/m^2 is about half the flux from an ice cube!
How much energy does that make on an infinite surface, Pup?
I bet you can’t respond.
Willard,
My refrigerator only makes puny 112 W/m^2 ice cubes.
“The cult gets the 161 figure by dividing solar, then reducing it farther by trickery.”
It’s sort of an argument against using solar panels on Earth.
It’s amount solar energy reaching what could say is a global average
square meter of Earth surface per year- 161 watts per second.
Though as recall, I have seen different guesses, such as 163 watts per second.
But in terms 161 watts, that is 161 watt hours per hour and per day:
161 times 24 = 3.864 kw hour per day and if solar panel are 15% efficient, 3.864 x .15 = .579.6 kw hours electrical power per day per square meter.
Now, if outside of the tropics, you want point solar panel at angle in order to get more sunlight. You can motorize it, so panel tracks the path of the sunlight during the day, but in terms of add costs and most of trillions of dollar the governments have wasted solar power, don’t track the sunlight- instead they in fixed position.
Now the polar regions are bad place collect solar energy, but since the sun circle entire sky, you have to pretty stupid, if using solar panels and not to have solar panels tracking the sun during the arctic summer [though of course in winter there is no sunlight to track].
Anyhow if outside tropics and having panels at fixed angle or tracking the sun you improve the amount sunlight the square meter area gets in comparison to the amount the level ground surface gets.
But in terms solar panels fixed at angle [most common with harvesting solar energy] in sunny California, one gets about 6 kw hour per day
and in Germany or UK it is about 2 kw hour average per day per year of course in summer more northern regions get higher average of sunlight per day- or winter as guess might about 1 kw hour per day [or less] and summer might be 4 kw hour [or more] in summer.
Now, there are reasonable reasons why you don’t track the sun when harvesting solar energy on Earth, and this called peak solar hours- you get the most amount of sunlight when the sun is highest in the sky, and this is roughly 3 hours before and after noon. If spend more
money and tracked the sun for 12 hours global average daylight, you would not get much additional energy from the sunlight in those 6 hours.
Whereas in polar regions, you not ever getting “peak hours” but in summer you get as much as 24 hours of non peak hours- and it’s just too silly to have sunlight and have solar panels pointing the opposite direction of the sunlight.
Anyhow back to global climate, the ground surface is mostly not tilted at correct angle and direction to most sunlight.
But roughly you say the transparent ocean, is [sort of]. When sun is high in sky, the ocean warms to deeper depth, and sun is lower, ocean warmed at shallower depth.
Having a clue of how stupid the cargo cult is, the 161 watt number
probably applies to a level land surface. Whereas the ocean acts more
like solar panel- facing right direction and at correct angle.
And since stupid cargo cult missing the importance of low average temperature of ocean [3.5 C] and instead is roughly measuring global ocean surface temperature {about 17 C] they would wrong as usual.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
163.3 watts of sunlight absorbed by the surface.
Of course ocean water is 70% of the surface.
One might ask which surface absorbs more, ocean or land surfaces.
I think it’s very obvious that ocean surface absorbs more than
land surface.
There is lot of reasons but I can limit it, to what everyone says
and known to everyone.
But curious any one imagines the opposite [due to being uneducated
dingbats].
Now, what support such idiocy, is land surfaces get hotter, so mindless morons can imagine if surface is hotter, it must absorb more energy. So that seems “strongest argument” for such an argument.
They also might claim the ocean cheats because 80% of tropical zone is ocean. Or ocean might comparable to land if land had same advantage of having 80% of tropics being land area instead of being ocean. And/or not have so much land in northern Hemisphere in large areas of northern frigid conditions which lack sunlight and having large amount land of Antarctica. Or god knows what.
But for cult believers, they should know that 2.5 meter of ocean water hold as much heat as entire atmosphere- thereby understand magnitude of how much heat atmosphere absorbs. Whereas land surface absorbs a small amount of heat. And land surface can get to 60 C, because the land is dry. But inches below a land surface can much cooler.
One also look at the Moon, Moon has days [100 hours] of intense sunlight. The lunar surface is far better insulator than any ground surface on Earth and asborbs far less sunlight than Earth land surface- but lunar surface reaches 120 C.
Or if moon had atmosphere which could absorb a significant amount of heat, it would have greenhouse effect.
Anyhow if average square meter of ocean absorbs more than average square meter of Land and tropic gets more sunlight than 60% of the rest of Earth, and 80% of tropics is ocean.
One see than more than 80% of sunlight reaching Earth surface, passes
passes thru the top 1 mm of ocean surface water.
Therefore Earth has two greenhouse effects, the ocean and the atmosphere.
” The infamous ‘energy’ budget indicates Earths surface only absorbs 161 W/m^2 from Sun. That is a blatant perversion of science. 161 W/m^2 is about half the flux from an ice cube! ”
*
Is it possible to be dumber than Clint R? I’m not sure.
Let’s compare the ice cube emission with Eath’s solar absorp~tion.
*
On the one hand, an ice cube emits 315 W/m^2.
The surface of an ice cube of 2 cm edge length is 24 cm^2, i.e. 0.0024 m^2.
Thus it emits 0.0024 m^2 * 315 W/m^2, i.e. 0.756 W.
[1] The LW energy emitted during a day by a (of course continuously cooled) ice cube then would amount to giant 18.144 Wh.
*
On the other hand, Earth has a surface of 510,100,000 km.
Means 5.101E14 m^2.
Thus it absorbs 5.101E14 m^2 * 161 W/m^2 = 8.21261E16 W, i.e. 82.1261 PW (a PW is a PetaWatt, i.e. 10^6 GigaWatt).
[2] The energy absorbed from Sun’s SW radiation during a day by our good old Earth then would amount to tiny 1971.0264 PWh.
*
What we have to compare of course is NOT the ice cube’s average emission flux per m^2 with Earth’s absorp~tion flux per m^2, but the energy emitted during a given period by the ice cube with that absorbed during the same period by Earth.
While the energy generated by the ice cube would just suffice to light a very small lamp, the Earth absorbs about as much solar energy as is produced by ~80 billion 1GW nuclear plants.
*
Clint R’s 360 degree denial cult seems to move into a blind alley, doesn’t it?
Bin, you are STILL making the same mistake. You can’t learn.
Radiative flux is NOT the same as energy. More ice means more energy, yes, but more ice does NOT mean higher temperature. You’re unable to grasp the difference between flux and energy.
But, thanks for that long, incompetent rant. That’s why this is so much fun.
Also Bin, since you are also confused about the moon issue —
Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
Here comes Bindiclown with ice powered light bulbs, that’s a new one to me.
Nobel prize assuredl.
Here comes Eboy who never saw an igloo of his life.
Your point? Are you suggesting the ice in igloos warms you?
C’mon, Bordo.
Not that silly semantic game again.
binny…”While the energy generated by the ice cube would just suffice to light a very small lamp…”
***
You have deteriorated from a straight idiot to a complete raving moron. The energy generated by ice is electromagnetic energy and it is of absolutely no use unless it can be absorbed by something and converted to useful energy like heat or electrical current.
When was the last time you heard of an ice powered battery? Ice serves to deplete the energy in a battery as anyone in cold regions is aware.
That’s why I am constantly complaining about electromagnetic energy being stated in watts/metre squared. A watt is a measure of work done per unit time, and ice, with an alleged EM power output of 300+ w/m^2, could never do 300 watts worth of work over a period of time.
Robertson
” You have deteriorated from a straight idiot to a complete raving moron. ”
Says the guy who of course understood as much what I wrote as did the others.
You are much more than the complete raving moron: you are and keep this blog’s most incompetent boaster, who is not even able to follow a simple comaprison.
And, as usual, it is visible that you were not able to read my comment till end, because you stop reading as soon as you see something mentally disturbing you, e.g. ‘ice cubes’.
I did nothing else than to avoid comparing the flux emitted by an ice cube versus the flux absorbed by Earth, what is sheer nonsense, typical for trolls like you – and of course Clint R, the dachshund Eben etc.
No one having a brain compares radiant fluxes like did stupidly Clint R, because what matters is the energy resulting from the fluxes.
My comment did nothing else than to calculate the ridiculous energy provided by an ice cube with the giant energy received by Earth from the Sun.
What is the sense of comparing emitted 315 W/m^2 with absorbed 161 W/m^2 when the surface absorbing the lower flux is 0.2112E+018 (0.2112 billions of billions) times greater that emitting the higher flux?
*
The Pseudoskeptics on this blog are all so incredibly ignorant and incompetent with regard to energy balances that I wonder how the dachshund Eben can admit the existence of the lunar spin!
Bin, you have become another worthless troll, just like your hero worthless willard.
You’re STILL confusing flux with energy. And, you don’t even understand that thermal energy doesn’t add like you believe it does. Obviously you’ve never studied thermodynamics, let alone entropy.
If Earths surface ACTUALLY only received 161 W/m^2 solar, the surface would be frozen. Your cult doesn’t understand that you can’t average flux. You’re so ignorant you’re not even using ice cubes to boil water, you using half the flux!!!
I’m not sure you can get any dumber, but please keep trying. It’s fun to watch.
Sure, every now and then Clint R stumbles onto something right since if Earth’s surface ACTUALLY received energy of only 161 joules each sec. for each m^2, then the surface would be frozen.
Since the surface is NOT all frozen, we know the surface receives more energy. When instruments measured the amount of that energy as of 2015, it is known Earth’s surface ACTUALLY received 527 joules each sec. for each m^2 of surface in the satellite era period.
About 0.45 joules per sec. per m^2 of that energy as of 2015 was taken up & was not emitted by the surface.
As of 2021, about 0.77 joules per sec. per m^2 of that energy was taken up by Earth’s L&O surface in the satellite data era & was not emitted by the surface in the period (mid-2005 to mid-2019) as the temperature anomaly chart in the top post confirms.
” Youre STILL confusing flux with energy. ”
Troll Clint R still did not understand what I wrote.
Doesn’t matter.
Wrong Bin, I understood what you spewed better than you did. And, it doesn’t work that way.
You STILL believe more energy always means higher temperature. Try adding more ice to a system sometime. No matter how much ice you add, the system will NEVER get above the temperature of the ice.
I predict you won’t understand this, as usual.
Unfortunately for Clint R, experiments reported on this blog show as more ice was added the temperature of the system monitored with thermometer increased above the temperature of the ice.
Experimental reality always wins & beats Clint R assertions to the contrary.
Troll4 slips in a day late trying to pervert reality. But, he got caught.
The reason he does this is because he’s an anonymous troll with NOTHING.
Average day/night temperature of the Moon is -23C, well below the freezing point of water. No atmosphere to speak of and gets the full blast of the sun on half its surface most of the time. This equates to the Moon getting around 210 W/m2 from the sun, averaged over the whole surface.
Earth reflects about 30% of solar radiation, Moon reflects about 12%.
So, yeah, I have no trouble believing the Earth gets 161 W/m2 at surface, averaged over the whole globe (day/night) and accounting for albedo.
Roy did a post on how much rotation affects surface temperature – a bit but not much. So it is the presence of an atmosphere that keeps Earth’s surface warmer on average than the Moon’s.
Because people’s minds wander, I’m going to re-state that this is averaged over the day/night surface, so if you’re thinking only about what the temperature is with the sun shining, you’re well missing the point.
barry, flux does NOT average. You’ll get bogus results. You’ll end up believing the sky is warming Earth, not Sun.
Seriously, some people, with no science background, will believe that. They’re called “braindead cult idiots”. Every heard of them?
Whatever you believe, when you factor day and night you get a different amount of radiation hitting the Earth in one day than if you only count 24 hours of direct, overhead sunlight, as if it is midday for a whole day.
If you want to work out how much energy is received by the entire surface of the Earth over a year, then you’ll get a bogus result if you only count daylight hours.
If you don’t want to work out the daily or annual energy balance like this, then don’t do science. Go to the beach.
None of that blah-blah justifies perverting reality to fit your religious beliefs. Sky is NOT providing more warmth to Earth than Sun. Youre STILL trying to boil water with ice cubes.
That aint science.
Sky is transferring zero heat to Earth. It is slowing the rate at which heat escapes the ground to space.
Also, the sky has a unity view factor over the Earth, whereas an ice cube does not have unity view factor in any circumstance.
View factors, Clint. Learn about them.
Troll barry, view factors have NOTHING to do with an arriving flux. You still haven’t learned that view factors only are a way of calculating what flux will arrive. You’re trying to adjust after adjustments have been made!
You know NOTHING about the physics here, and can’t learn. I can predict you’ll make the same mistake again!
Prove me wrong.
ken…I am reposting an earlier post from Ken because it demonstrates how one faulty conclusion can lead to another, which is offered as proof of the greenhouse effect.
***
“I saw the same lack of understanding with the New York Attack.
Armchair scientists claiming their bunsen burner produced a flame much hotter than burning JP4 yet wasnt hot enough to melt steel.
The building on fire was essentially a giant garbage fire that was trapping heat much faster than it could escape. The temperature went up far more than a bunsen burner in a lab and steel beams melted.
Thermal energy accumulates if you add energy faster than it can dissipate. There is a point of equilibrium where energy in equals energy out. That is what is happening with the GHE as is shown in the diagram in the first post in this discussion”.
***
There was no evidence that the collision of the aircraft or the ensuing fire caused steel to melt. The collapse of the buildings had nothing to do with ‘accumulating heat’, the problem was a faulty design in which load-bearing walls were built of steel that was inadequate for the job.
An aircraft flying at 500 MPH that collides with an object in a fraction of a second, carries a tremendous impact. The force of the impact alone was enough to weaken the structure at the elevation it struck. It’s almost as if the terrorists knew that. Both planes crashed high in the structures where steel was much weaker than on lower floors.
The steel at the level of the impacts was much thinner than the steel supporting the lowest floors. The thickness of the upper floor support beams was only 1/4 inch whereas the thickness of lower floor was 4 inches. At 1/4 inch, the steel would turn cherry red and bend at roughly 600C, but there was not proof it melted.
The collapse had nothing to do with the accumulation of heat and I have included a link at the end of this post where the collapse is simulated.
_____________
Having misinterpreted the cause of the collapse, Ken goes on to state…”Thermal energy accumulates if you add energy faster than it can dissipate. There is a point of equilibrium where energy in equals energy out. That is what is happening with the GHE as is shown in the diagram in the first post in this discussion”.
***
Again, you have claimed it is the amount of energy added when, in fact, it is the temperature and quantity of the ‘thermal’ energy added.
This is simply not true. For one, heat does not accumulate. It’s not a substance you can keep adding to an object and have it build in quantity. The destructive power of heat, as far as melting is concerned is entirely related to the temperature of the heat source. You could hold a 1500 watt hair dryer on a steel beam while sealing off all forms of dissipation, and the steel wont heat to the point of glowing cherry red, never mind melting.
Alarmist guru, Raymond Pierrehumbert, once claimed that under certain conditions, Earth’s temperature could rise to several million degrees C. That’s ridiculous, not only for his misunderstanding of heat and how it is produced, it’s ridiculous because at such a high temperature Earth would melt and break up.
Any source of heat is based on the energy level of atoms, their energy controlled by the variable energy levels of electrons. Electrons respond to an external heat source based on the temperature of the heat source. Electrons can handle any quantity of heat supplied by a low temperature source by simply rejecting more heat than they need to maintain that orbital energy level. In other words, a lower temperature source will cause them to rise to a higher energy level but no further heat added at that temperature will cause them to reach a higher level.
If you keep increasing the temperature of the source, the electrons will move to higher energy levels and if the temperature gets too high, they will jump right out of the atomic orbitals causing the material to break up. However, the energy required to cause electrons to do that depends entirely on the temperature of the source.
In other words, for heat to keep accumulating, as you put it, the temperature must be high enough. Also, it’s true that the temperature of a body is related to the heat in versus heat dissipated. However, there is an upper limit the temperature can reach and that depends on the temperature of the heat applied and the atomic structure of the body being heated.
Here’s the link to the Trade Tower crash…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LFZA0Rx1gg&ab_channel=DiscoveryUK
I used to particpate in firefighter practice where a hole is melted in a steel plate using oil soaked wood.
You don’t have any common dog sense.
Hey, Ken…a grate in a fireplace is made of steel or cast iron and it withstands any heat from wood or coal without even getting red or buckling.
Save your firemen fairy tales for kids with impressionable minds. Your understanding of heat is slim to none, a fact which applies to even some scientists, especially alarmists.
I have noted that you cannot reply with scientific proofs, you tend to resort to ad homs and insults.
I have noted that the same applies to almost everyone here. You are no exception, yet you whine when you cop it back.
I have never whined about anyone flaming me or ad homing me. I complain mainly about ad homs or insults accompanied by zero scientific input.
C’mon, Bordo.
Incredulity does not count as scientific output.
Heat go out of stove fast enough. It is designed to do that.
Ken – I used to particpate in firefighter practice where a hole is melted in a steel plate using oil soaked wood vs Google
Google – No wood fire burns hot enough to melt iron.
Computer, what is a blacksmith?
Google vs real life. Real life wins every time. Seen it with mine own eyes.
“You could hold a 1500 watt hair dryer on a steel beam while sealing off all forms of dissipation, and the steel wont heat to the point of glowing cherry red, never mind melting.”
FYI the coils inside the hair dryer are certainly red hot. Sealing off dissipation could result in the steel getting hotter. Why not red hot?
Heat guns (just a better hair dryer) produces T up to 1200 F. That is in the red-hot zone.
“Youll also want to consider the heat gun’s temperature range, which can go as high as 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit.”
“Between 1000 degrees Fahrenheit and 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, steel turns an increasingly brighter shade of red. “
Nate the limit is obviously 1200F the more you heat with it the harder it is to insulate. Concentration of heat is required to exceed the 1200. A smaller coil, focus, magnification. When using a flame of a given temperature in a furnace, the primary means of safety has nothing to do with insulation instead it is the square distance law of increasing the number of square meters of the enclosure. All that insulation does is allow for equilibrium to be reached based upon all factors. No insulation and the ”best” you can do is half the temperature of an equal sized receptor. . . .not the relationship to size and square meters. Rather than blabbering away in an endless gish gallop. . . .learn to use heat transfer equations. You look up to a lot of people that don’t do any of this stuff for a living.
Gill, Gill,
Cranks say stuff. That stuff gets refuted. Cranks post more stuff.
The cycle of life is complete.
Here is how to transform an hair dryer into a soldiering unit:
https://youtu.be/LH4X4Wvqyqo
Cranks have no curiosity. They have no brain plasticity, no openness to new information. That turns them into angry reactionaries.
So what Willard?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1472276
Are you really that stupid or are you just in full on obfuscation mode?
I guess there are places in the world where people can’t afford $15 dollars for a cheap soldering iron with a proper tip. No one in his/her right mind would use a tip like the one in your video on a circuit board.
So what indeed, Gill.
At least until a crank brings guns in a public place and starts shooting.
nate…”Why not red hot?
***
Because the heater element is designed to glow red. It’s generally tungsten and to get heat off it you need to heat the coil till it glows red. It glows red because it is very thin metal.
However, temperature is related to the current through the tungsten and transfer of the heat produced depends on the temperature and the area of the object to be heated. In the beam of steel I used, it is simply not possible with a given tungsten filament to transfer enough heat to melt the steel.
On the other hand, it you took a small piece of aluminum foil, you could likely melt it.
With Tyndall’s experiment that led to Stefan’s T^4 relationship, he electrically heated a tungsten filament till it glowed various colours as the current was increased. The temperatures ranged from about 500C to 1500C. However, the filament was far too small to transfer enough heat to a steel beam to melt it.
ken…”The part that shocks me is that the energy budget diagram is new to some of you here who claim to know something about climate”.
***
There is nothing new about it, we skeptics have been dismissing it since Keihl-Trenberth produced the original paper circa 1997. The paper at the link below is a revision.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130725213937/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/EarthsGlobalEnergyBudget.pdf
It was rubbish then and it is rubbish now. What surprises me is that you, who uses Happer as a primary authority figure, would produce this crap as evidence. Trenberth is a notorious alarmists who has intervened in peer review.
Surely Happer does not approve of such junk science.
This paper is sheer alarmist, pseudo-science and it surprises me more that someone like you, who supports Happer, would fall for this crap.
Bordo asks –
“When was the last time you heard of an ice powered battery?”
In 2015:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI20Gbn9jc8
Wee willy…could you edit these posts so we don’t have to wade through climate change propaganda to get to the point. I found no evidence of batteries that are based on the energy alleged to be generated by ice.
Come on, Bordo.
Just take the L.
You just had a brain fart.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
How To Melt Iron With Nothing But Wood, Leather, and Clay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgVdZ35MqR4
You forgot to mention there is a fire involved, and a bellows to pump oxygen into it. Without the extra O2, there is no melting.
Ever heard of an oxy-acetylene rig? Acetylene as a gas does not get very hot, but when mixed with oxygen, it gets super-hot. That’s what is heating your thin metal rod in the fire. I did not see metal melting in your video.
> there is a fire involved
Good grief, Bordo.
You are getting ridiculouser and ridiculouser.
your statement…
“How To Melt Iron With Nothing But Wood, Leather, and Clay”
No mention of fire, or added oxygen.
C’mon, Bordo.
It’s the title of the video.
It does not mention folks wearing weird clothing either.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I just have to repeat this idiocy from Ball4…
“[GR] radiating the IR back to the surface, to increase surface temperature is not allowed.
[B4]dQ/dt is positive in such a process so complies with 2LOT.
***
Clausius clearly stated that entropy = integral dq/T, is positive when heat is transferred hot to cold in a process that is not reversible. For a reversible process, entropy is zero.
So, B4, is heat being transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface via back-radiation? Clausius tells us that is not allowed but you not only state entropy incorrectly as dq/T, which is a differential quantity, an instantaneous transfer of heat from hot to cold, you claim entropy is positive for a heat transfer from cold to hot.
***
[GR]Its a recycling of heat it is not possible for heat to be transferred..
[B4}Gordon, again, EMR is NOT heat.
***
B4 insists on repeating himself, like a parrot. He thinks I am talking about EM above, but I am talking about a cycle, in which alarmists insist heat can be cycled from surface to atmosphere and back, so as to raise the surface to a temperature higher than it is heated by solar energy.
B4 also fails to grasp that the heat associated with radiated IR is lost at the surface as IR is produced. If some of that radiation is intercepted by GHGs, it can be converted to a new heat. However, alarmists think that process can be repeated, by the heated GHGs converting the heat back to IR, where it is lost again, and have that IR be absorbed by a hotter surface and produce new heat in the surface.
It is simply too difficult to comprehend that anyone could be so obtuse as to think that possible. However, some alarmists like B4 are so imbued with a desire to please their authority figure masters, they will believe anything.
“So, B4, is heat being transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface via back-radiation?”
Gordon 9:30 pm, you still need to understand EMR is NOT heat.
Entropy is positive for radiated energy transfer from cold to hot because dQ is positive and thus so is the integral dQ/T. For an imaginary reversible process integral dQ over the path is zero thus delta entropy is zero.
More astute commenters (and paper authors) than a rookie such as Gordon know by observations EMR can be cycled from surface to atmosphere and atmosphere to surface increasing the thermodynamic internal energy of the surface higher than solar SW EMR alone since the earthen atm. window is only partly open.
Amazingly Gordon still incorrectly writes: “the heat associated with radiated IR”
No Gordon, again, please understand EMR is NOT heat.
NB for Gordon: Notice Clausius used the term “heat” herein & not EMR: “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.” EMR is NOT heat.
b4…”Entropy is positive for radiated energy transfer from cold to hot because dQ is positive and thus so is the integral dQ/T. For an imaginary reversible process integral dQ over the path is zero thus delta entropy is zero”.
***
This has to go down as one of your most stupid claims. When he defined entropy, Clausius explained that entropy is positive for an irreversible process. If the process is reversible, entropy is zero. The inference is that entropy cannot be negative since that would describe heat being transferred cold to hot by its own means.
You have just claimed, for all the world to witness, that positive entropy describes a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
Furthermore, you have given a sign to an infinitesimal differential. How can a change of an infinitesimal value have a sign? It can’t. A differential is not a number, it is more a concept describing something so small there is no measure for it. Therefore, claiming a differential quantity has a sign is absurd.
Clausius explained the sign with entropy and heat, it is simply an arbitrary direction for the heat transfer. He chose +ve to describe a heat transfer from hot to cold. You seem to think it means cold to hot.
Then you outdo yourself…
“More astute commenters (and paper authors) than a rookie such as Gordon know by observations EMR can be cycled from surface to atmosphere and atmosphere to surface increasing the thermodynamic internal energy of the surface higher than solar SW EMR alone since the earthen atm. window is only partly open”.
***
Substitute ‘stupid’ for ‘astute’ and you’ve got it. Only an idiot would claim that heat can be recycled surface to atmosphere and back to increase the temperature of the surface. At least now e have you on record as claiming that stupidity.
Of course, you use the acronym EMR, thinking there is something special about EM that can bypass the 2nd law. You trip over yourself trying to avoid using the word heat, you infer that heat is a mysterious ‘thermodynamic internal energy’. In the end, however, you are claiming, in my lingo, that a recycling of EM increases the heat in the surface.
Once again, words like internal an kinetic are descriptors. Neither describe the energy involved. Clausius did describe the meaning of internal energy and it is his definition that is the ‘U’ in the 1st law. He defined internal energy as internal heat + the internal work of vibrating atoms. Of course, they don’t increase their vibration for no reason, they require heat to motivate them.
So, the surface emits IR and cools. About 7% of the emitted IR is absorbed by CO2 and that slightly warms the CO2. Then it radiates isotropically sending only a portion of the radiated EM back to the surface.
Besides the 2nd law, B4, have you ever heard of losses? When the surface radiates 100% IR, it immediately cools. At the same time, it loses heat directly to the atmosphere via conduction to air molecules in contact with the surface. Yet you claim those losses can be made up by 7% of the radiated surface IR returned after further losses.
The emitted IR loses intensity rapidly due to the inverse square law and what is left over of 7% of the emitted IR is absorbed by CO2. Out of that 7% only a portion is emitted back to the surface and it goes through the same inverse square law losses before reaching the surface.
Losses, losses, losses….
What is left after the cycle? Considering the surface has already cooled massively wrt to the 93% not absorbed by CO2,even if the 2nd law is not valid, how can the returned IR possibly make up the losses incurred during the cycle?
You are claiming that returned IR can raise the temperature of the same surface that started the cycle in the first place. Are you stark, raving mad?
Gordon 3:04 pm, is stark raving incorrect. Universe entropy being positive describes a transfer of energy from cold to hot.
Yet again Gordon: EMR is NOT heat. Deal with that.
Gordon writes that heat can be recycled surface to atmosphere and back to increase the temperature of the surface which is wrong since Gordon does not realize EMR is NOT heat.
Correctly: Energy can be transferred surface to atmosphere and atm. to surface to increase the temperature of the surface over what the T surface would be if the earthen atm. window was fully open.
Again, NB for Gordon: Notice Clausius used the term “heat” herein & NOT EMR: “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.” because Clausius (unlike Gordon) knew EMR is NOT heat.
b4…”Gordon 3:04 pm, is stark raving incorrect. Universe entropy being positive describes a transfer of energy from cold to hot”.
***
This is like taking candy from a baby. Universal entropy is simply a theoretical extension of local entropy. The formula for entropy, as given by Clausius is…
S = integral dQ/T
Since he specified T as a constant, it becomes…
S = 1/T. integral dq
That is, entropy is a measure of heat and nothing else.
To hammer this home, Clausius developed the concept of entropy to offer a mathematical explanation of the 2nd law.
Entropy is the sum of infinitesimal values of heat = q divided by the absolute temperature at which the changes took place.
Clausius also specified that heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body. Therefore, entropy must be a measure of the heat transferred from a hotter body to a colder body.
Universal entropy is a concept in which heat is transferred from hotter bodies to colder bodies. Again, Clausius specified that a +ve entropy signifies an irreversible process and that means processes that lose heat irreversibly to space.
You clearly don’t understand any of this yet you keep putting your foot in your mouth. You are a new kind of troll, a masochistic troll. You come here to troll and get yourself beaten up intellectually.
Gordon,
“That is, entropy is a measure of heat and nothing else.”
No it’s not, entropy is a measure of heat that can do no work.
You can’t even be bothered to learn basic thermodynamic concepts.
If you were a proper student of thermodynamics you would know there are several equivalent statements of the second law, namely you should look up the Lord Kelvin statement, or the Planck statement.
Or maybe it is actually the Kelvin-Planck statement.
Maybe something you should consider instead of babbling incoherently.
Gordon, the thermodynamics rookie, writes at 5:43 pm: “specified T as a constant”
Gordon, over any real thermodynamic process beginning to end (especially for ideal gases and ideal solid plates on this blog), T is only constant over the process when there is an infinite thermal energy reservoir which does not exist here on Earth with which to experiment. Thus, cannot ever take T out from under the integral in a blog relevant real process. This is basically the same mistake DREMT has been making for years in the GPE when separating the GP from the BP and wrongly claiming their T can be taken as constant.
In some ways, entropy is a virus that has escaped from the laboratory and infected many people who are not accomplished scientists, especially commenters like Gordon & DREMT. Increased use of the term “entropy” by people who have little understanding of what entropy means is a good thing though. When any term becomes part of everyday speech and writing, then it loses its mystery, however the problem is less astute (or less accomplished in the field) commenters such as Gordon & DREMT then write as if they understand entropy when they obviously do not.
Gordo presents his usual proof by insult, writing:
And, again as usual, he insists that the IR radiation in the GPE situation experiences a decline in intensity due to the inverse square law, whereas the appropriate model is the energy flowing between two parallel plates, in which the inverse square law does not apply.
But how is the IR radiation flowing in a reversible process? Don’t the losses you describe preclude the occurrence of a Perpetual Motion of the Second Kind? In the GPE model, for 1 m^2 plates, a 400 watt/m^2 radiance on one side of the Blue plate results in 400 Watts entering the plate, which then radiates 200 Watts on each side. Initially, the Green plate receives 200 watts, then re-radiates 100 Watts per side. But, the Blue plate then receives that 100 watts, thus it’s temperature must increase to balance the energy flow. But, the Green plate’s temperature can never match that of the Blue plate.
This “cycle” as you call it is self limiting, it’s not perpetual motion. Any associated losses, such as due to emissivities less than black body, and the steady state temperatures are reduced. There’s no energy created, only energy re-directed from IR radiation to heating the Blue plate, the temperature of which is just a variable in the overall process. If the Blue plate were a boiler, there would be more steam available for use, but only because the losses due to radiation are reduced. The output of a thermodynamic process can never exceed the rate of energy supplied.
Sorry to say, YOU are the lunar-tic here.
swannie…”he insists that the IR radiation in the GPE situation experiences a decline in intensity due to the inverse square law, whereas the appropriate model is the energy flowing between two parallel plates, in which the inverse square law does not apply”.
***
Poor old Swannie, can’t quite grasp the difference between theory and reality. I have described several times an actual experiment where I held my hand close to a 1500 watt electric stove ring and felt a combination of direct and radiant heating but felt nothing 4 feet away from either form of heat transfer. Yet Swannie claims that does not count because there are no parallel plates involved.
Swannie, why do you have a penchant for creating pseudo-scientific theories to suit your oddball observation of science?
***
“But how is the IR radiation flowing in a reversible process?”
***
Once again, Swannie tries to slip one past the unaware. Just about very process is irreversible, for the simple reason that energy, like heat is lost and cannot be recovered. Only controlled conditions can produce a reversible process where ‘controlled’ means the process is conducted so slowly that no significant changes take place wrt internal energy.
For example, a frictionless piston is very slowly pushed into a cylinder filled with gas. If the process is slow enough, the pressure, temperature, and volume have time to adjust and since there is no friction, no heat is lost. If the piston is later withdrawn just as slowly, the system returns to its initial conditions without heat loss.
The instant heat is lost, the system is irreversible. It’s not clear that heat transfer via radiation fits this definition.
A meaning that can be read into your statement, knowing you, is your presumption that heat is transferred in both direction via radiation. It can’t. the 2nd law forbids it and so does quantum theory.
Besides, there is no transfer of heat physically between bodies of different temperatures. All you have is two bodies radiating isotropically. The object is not to transfer heat but to dissipate it from either body. It so happens that the radiation form a hotter body, if intercepted by a cooler body, can be absorbed and cause the cooler body to warm. However, the heat produced is local and not the same heat from the radiating body.
The reverse is not true, a hotter body will not absorb the radiation from a cooler body. Quantum theory makes that clear. Electrons that absorb EM are at higher energy levels in a hotter body than in a cooler body and ignore the EM/IR from the cooler body.
When both bodies are in thermal equilibrium, it has been postulated that there may be an insignificant exchange of heat so to speak. That is due to an averaging of temperatures close to equilibrium. However, as the temperature differential increases the heat transfer, again, so to speak, becomes uni-directional, hot to cold.
I don’t think you can claim such an equilibrium condition in your experiment due to the significant warming you reported.
Gordo repeats his usual mantra again, writing:
This is simply another round of empty assertion without any supporting physics. You can’t provide any support for your claims, such as the hotter body will ignore the thermal IR from the cooler body.
Lastly, you mumble something about “equilibrium condition” in my experiment, when none of my experiments were about “thermal equilibrium”, that is to say, both bodies have the same temperature. I think you intend to refer to “steady state conditions”, which is where the rate of energy flowing thru the experiment has stabilized at some point such that the temperatures have stopped changing. What I did produced two different systems, first one with one plate and then a second one with two plates in the energy flowing from the fixed heat source to the surroundings of the bell jar. The steady state temperatures of the two systems are different, as expected from theory.
Overall, I think you’ve just given another demonstration of your failure to understand thermodynamic systems.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Weather vs Climate.
I don’t think global climate is sum of global weather.
And agree that more than 90% of “global warming” is warming our cold ocean which has average temperature of about 3.5 C.
And I think global warming is a long process of warming the ocean- not 17 years or 30 years but more than 60 years.
But global temperature bouncing up and down every month and years of cooling or warming is weather.
In terms global climate, we are in rather cool interglacial period, sea levels did not rise as much as past interglacial period, nor did the average temperature of ocean warm much. And we in latter part of Holocene, with lower sea levels and cooler ocean- and in a drier part of the Holocene interglacial period. Or global climate has been gradually cooling for about 5000 years, and we have recovered from cold period called the Little Ice Age, but have not recovered from the thousands of years of cooling.
Now, alarmists have been saying and are saying, we going to get a meter or two of sea level rise within decades or centuries. And 1 meter rise in sea level could argued as recovery from the thousands of years of cooling.
But it seems we could get 1 meter rise in sea levels from volcanic activity- and seems volcanic activity [rather anything to do CO2 levels] could realistically cause more 1 meter rise in sea levels- but it’s not global warming.
And it seems it seems one could volcanic activity not in polar region but rather in the tropics which quickly lower global air temperature by 1 C. One might call it global cooling, but it’s not really global cooling, but measured air temperature could drop and might stay cool for a year of two.
One might call it weather effect, but I would call it, a volcanic effect, but global weather effects could lengthen or shorten the cooling effect from this large volcanic eruption in the tropics- it could less than 1/2 year, or could linger a few years.
Some point to rather active and large volcanic eruptions and grand solar min during the little ice age as something related to causing
the global cooling, but I am not sure what caused this cooling period.
Perhaps, these factors were “the finishing touches” of the thousands of years of cooling, or was going to cold without solar grand min and massive eruptions, but they added to it.
gb…”I dont think global climate is sum of global weather.”
***
The point is, climate is an intangible
(def’n) intangible…unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence.
I regard a global average temperature as another intangible.
Oddly enough, so is energy. We can see the result, we simply have no idea what drives the force that causes the action.
In order to describe climate, some have offered the definition of an average of daily weather. But how do we measure daily weather…with a two a day temperature reading??? I don’t see anyone carefully documenting the actual weather, they are more likely to note the effect of daily weather.
“intangible”
So what? Science has rested on thousands of such intangibles and developed appliances that work as a result.
If an average is an intangible that renders the experiment invalid, we can kiss half of science goodbye.
Don’t get on a plane – its safety features were designed with fluid dynamics. That’s about as intangible as you can get, if you think an average renders science suspect.
barry, please stop trolling.
Artificial unintelligence and global warming
–By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Despite the dire Terminator warnings from Elon Musk, Jordan Peterson and others about the dangers of artificial intelligence, the world has little to fear from it in its present sorry state. I asked ChatGPT the following question:–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/10/artificial-unintelligence-and-global-warming/
I think AI would similar to allowing/making dogs talk- though if dogs could talk, they would be more interesting than AI {they would know more and be more intelligent- it seems dogs could provide a different non human point of view].
But it seems one should careful about making dogs so they can talk-
or we could just imagine we understand dogs and likely a lot we can’t even imagine.
Considering how foolish people can be [which main problem with AI]
being a bit cautious, seems like a good idea,
Too true. The problem with AI is the requirement of human intelligence to program it. Most humans have a limited amount of intelligence due to their conditioning, which tends to override the natural intelligence available to them.
It’s just a matter of time till the AI used to control vehicles like Teslas begins to mess up and kill people. When it does, they will likely put the blame on those killed for acting inappropriately.
Just like the logic behind global warming/climate change, they will claim, as they do with climate models, that the model/AI is infallible and that the victim was to blame.
I have worked with programs, electronics, and computers far too long, and seen them screw up so many times, often for no obvious reason, to have faith in AI.
Anyone who has worked with a computer and suddenly found it unresponsive to the mouse or keyboard, requiring a reboot, will know what I mean.
Maybe Mark B became over time a bit sad of having to permanently look at Flynnson’s stoopid trash.
Here is the commenting stat he used to post.
Swenson: 129
Nate: 99
Gordon Robertson: 87
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 83
Clint R: 72
Antonin Qwerty: 69
gbaikie: 60
Ken: 56
Bill Hunter: 53
TYSON MCGUFFIN: 43
barry: 42
Bindidon: 35
RLH: 23
Ball4: 23
Richard M: 18
bobdroege: 18
Tim Folkerts: 16
Ireneusz Palmowski: 15
E. Swanson: 14
Entropic man: 14
Tim S: 5
Eben: 5
stephen p. anderson: 4
bdgwx: 4
Norman: 3
Antonin Querty: 3
skeptikal: 2
Bellman: 2
Walter: 1
Robert Mitchell: 1
lewis guignard: 1
Galaxie500: 1
Interesting that you would try to cover for the worthless willard, Bin.
Birds of a feather, as they say….
My ratio to tame th trolls of this website was less that 1 to 4.
In fact it was almost 1 to 5.
You are getting sloppy, sock puppet.
Hmm.
I think Willard helps me focus on the simple stuff.
Anyone else feel any taming effect.
> helps me focus
Oh I wish.
Interesting!
I didn’t see that.
There is a flaw in the shell script; no wonder, it was a 10 minute quick shot.
The reason: behind Willard’s pseudo there is a link which is expanded during the download of the thread; thus, any commenter appearing on the blog in the same way won’t appear on the list.
But, of course, the paranoid troll Clint R was 100 % sure I had intended to hide Willard off the stat.
Bin, did you notice that incompetent people always have an excuse?
I have noticed that you always have an excuse for every warm year.
Yeah Ant, like warm years are warm because some years are colder.
See if you can wrap your peabrain around that.
Did you ever answer the simple question:
Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
Your cult has been unable to honestly answer. I bet you cant either.
Prove me wrong.
Real videos and real experiments prove Clint R wrong.
Reality wins & beats Clint R.
Youre doing it again, Ball4. Youre sniffing my butt a day later.
What a life you lead!
This should sound a little bit better:
Willard: 172
Swenson: 129
Nate: 106
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 90
Gordon Robertson: 87
Clint R: 74
Antonin Qwerty: 69
gbaikie: 64
Bill Hunter: 59
Ken: 56
TYSON MCGUFFIN: 43
barry: 42
Bindidon: 38
Ball4: 27
RLH: 23
bobdroege: 21
Richard M: 18
E. Swanson: 17
Tim Folkerts: 16
Ireneusz Palmowski: 15
Christos Vournas: 15
Entropic man: 14
Tim S: 5
Eben: 5
stephen p. anderson: 4
bdgwx: 4
Andrea Weinberg: 4
Norman: 3
Antonin Querty: 3
skeptikal: 2
Bellman: 2
Walter: 1
Tim Wells: 1
Robert Mitchell: 1
lewis guignard: 1
Galaxie500: 1
See Bin, reality always wins.
No, it wasn’t reality that won out here, but rather an engineer’s experience and willingness to admit and correct his mistakes, kinda behavior you have 0.0% of.
Wrong Bin. Reality won because you had to correct your effort to denigrate Skeptics.
But, I’m glad you see you claim to be an engineer. Even a sanitation engineer (janitor) should be able to honestly answer the simple question:
Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
You can’t honestly answer, and we know why….
Clint R can’t answer his own question yes or no. Thus no one else will need to do so.
Ball4, you’ve already answered for your cult. They cant deny your answer, without betraying their false beliefs.
I just keep asking to rub it in!
Thats why this is so much fun.
binny was a railway engineer. The kind who wears striped overalls and a striped hat and has his elbow leaning out the locomotive’s window as he tries to look cool. He gets a charge out of operating his horn as he approaches a level crossing, especially at 3 in the morning when the neighbourhood is asleep.
” Reality won because you had to correct your effort to denigrate Skeptics. ”
Wrong again!
I never denigrate real Skeptics.
I discredit Pseudo-Skeptics: those who polemically discredit and denigrate science because they are unable to scientifically contradict it.
And you belong to the latter, as does Robertson (and a few others).
Wrong-o Bin-o. I dont discredit REAL science, just your cult nonsense, like the belief that passenger jets fly backward, or ice cubes can boil water.
To Clint R’s discredit, there are reliable real videos of passenger jets flying backwards and Dr. Spencer’s real experiments showing how added ice cubes can boil water.
Reality wins & beats Clint R.
You got caught again, Ball4. Sniffing my butt, a day late.
Weird….
objection…I counted at least 94 comments from Gordon Robertson.
At least we have found something Binny can do fairly well, count the number of posts of each poster.
” objection… I counted at least 94 comments from Gordon Robertson. ”
Once more we find a comment in which the arrogant and ignorant liar Robertson shows how dumb he is:
Time: 01:25 GMT+2
Willard: 173
Swenson: 129
Nate: 111
Gordon Robertson: 98
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 96
Clint R: 79
…
*
At least we have found something Binny can do fairly well, count the number of posts of each poster.
Look e.g. at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217
where we see that this poor pseudo-engineer isn’t even able to correctly compare NOAA anomalies constructed out of the reference period 1901-2000 to UAH anomalies constructed out of the reference period 1991-2020.
*
I remember a thread a few years ago where he talked about a so-called ‘re-warming’ of UAH temperatures in 1997-98 (the big El Nino).
He said so simply because, in his egomaniacal view, all anomalies below the baseline should show cold and those above it should show warmth.
So ‘true warming’ could only occur when the trendline crosses the baseline!
I then tried to explain to him that anomalies are always relative and therefore do not say ‘cold’ or ‘warm’, but rather ‘colder’ or ‘warmer than a mean’.
At that time, I recalculated the UAH anomalies with respect to their previous reference period (1979-1998):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10oHl_Kv8tOaDMHXc298msslLS3RV0sEx/view
to show him that according to his ‘theory’ the true warming in UAH history now started suddenly in… 1988, ten years earlier than using the then current reference period 1981-2010.
*
And such an arrogant twat dares to write on this blog he would know more about anomalies than I.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
> heat does not accumulate
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00339-018-2040-4
You do realize that a 420w laser is usually a small dot of light. Not close to a square meter.
In fact if the dot is 1/4″ in diameter and the laser is 100% efficient the heat it would apply to that spot would approach 4,000K and would be able to melt tungsten which has a melting point of about 3700K. Carbon steel by comparison is only about 1800K
You do realize that you did not counter anything, Gill.
I beg to differ. Bill zeroed right in on the crux of the problem, unlike the people in your article, who used a model and a whole lot of inference.
And what problem would that be, Bordo?
Go ahead. Try to spell out something for a change.
Your level of obfuscation Willard is at the 3rd grade level.
Let me get this straight, Gill –
Are you disputing that heat accumulates?
By no means Willard. Heat can accumulate up to the point it is as warm as the power source adjusted by way of the various laws regarding view factors and the inverse square law. Basic science suggests says this in computing the base for the GHE as they compute the base mean temperature for the GHE using that method and then fail to provide any science supporting the the current temperature.
What is it they use? Oh yes they include all the energy absorbed by the atmosphere and assume what you just said. The question is where is the concentric IR opaque model globe system envisioned by the parroting tools in this forum that provides the basis for what you believe?
Seems to me such technology has been available for about 3 hundred years and is one helluva alot cheaper than a super computer.
Why do you suppose nobody responds to skeptics with that?
Can you give an explanation? Certainly until you do I strongly suspect skeptics will continue to exist.
wee willy…what is accumulating? Go on, wee willy, you are the scientific expert, explain it to us.
You cherry picked my comment, and in doing so you ignored my argument that heat does not accumulate indefinitely if you cut off all forms of dissipation. I claimed it depends on the temperature, but I did not claim that temperature is a measure of heat accumulation.
I claimed heat is not a substance that can accumulate and that we have no idea what it is, or any energy, for that fact.
Heat is a word we use to describe the energy associated with the kinetic energy of atoms. Kinetic, as in kinetic energy, simply means the energy is in motion, it tells us nothing about the energy itself.
If we add energy to atoms to increase their kinetic energy, what is it we are adding? No one knows. So, how do we know it is accumulating and how do we know what effect it has on the atoms to cause their KE to increase?
So, what is accumulating?
Note that the article you provided is about modelling. They obviously have no idea whether heat can accumulate either. If you bombard metal with consecutive quanta of energy, provided the power is high enough, something happens, maybe even melting. However, is heat accumulating, or is it the instantaneous, on-going bombardment that is the factor?
Bordo reads:
“Heat accumulation occurs when the time between successive heat inputs on the same spot is too short for the processed material to cool down to the initial temperature”
Bordo asks:
“what is accumulating?”
🤦
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The outdoors THERMOMETER doesn’t measure the outdoors air temperature!
–
The outdoors thermometers measure the outdoors TEMPERATURE, so we knew what to put on to get dressed accordingly to the outdoors temperature.
–
The outdoors thermometers give us some very valuable information about the outdoors thermal conditions (is outside the house cold or it is warm).
By experience we know what to put on according to the outdoors measured temperature.
–
The outdoors thermometers do not measure the actual air temperature. It is impossible for an outdoor thermometer to measure the outdoors air temperature.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
Not sure what you are trying to say with “The outdoors thermometers do not measure the actual air temperature. It is impossible for an outdoor thermometer to measure the outdoors air temperature.”
Why do you make this statement? What logic is it based upon? Why do you think outdoor thermometers can’t measure outdoor air temperature?
Thank you, Norman, for your respond.
–
Indoors the enclosed air is in thermal equilibrium with surrounding it walls. Thus the indoors temperature thermometer measures we rightly consider as the air temperature too.
–
When thermometer measures outdoors temperature, the outdoors air temperature is not in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.
–
Thus it is impossible to measure the outdoors air temperature with thermometer.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
Not sure why you think you can’t measure a temperature of something that is not in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.
The temperature can change but the reading is still the temperature of the air around the thermometer (provided it is not receiving energy from the sun…in the shade). I do not agree at all with your statement and I do not know how you came up with it.
Norman:
“the reading is still the temperature of the air around the thermometer (provided it is not receiving energy from the sunin the shade).”
–
Air is a thin medium, also air is known to be a good insulator. Even in the shade thermometer is subjected to the surroundings solar energy reflection or/and the surroundings IR energy emission.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
When indoors thermometer (in a room) we remove the air from the room, the readings on thermometer will not change.
Solar wind
speed: 475.4 km/sec
density: 8.71 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 92
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 140 sfu
Updated 11 Apr 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.74×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.8% Elevated
48-hr change: +0.8%
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Other than neutron count, sun getting
more active.
There is very small spot, 3274 see if will grow or fade.
Solar wind
speed: 395.6 km/sec
density: 2.70 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 127
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 154 sfu
Updated 13 Apr 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 21.14×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.0% Elevated
Solar wind
speed: 349.2 km/sec
density: 3.74 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 153
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 160 sfu
Updated 14 Apr 2023
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.96×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +1.0% Elevated
Spots {such 3280] near equator are growing
Solar wind
speed: 353.7 km/sec
density: 6.09 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 153
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 171 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 20.96×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +0.3% Elevated
48-hr change: -0.7%
3280 grew more, and going to farside in couple days,
3282 came from farside it’s about as big as 3280,
and will have time to grow [or not]. Both near equator
and biggest spots- 3282 northern and 3280 southern hemisphere.
Further from equator and southern, 3281 and 3279 recently came
from farside.
Will northern or southern grow more?
Or I watched 3280 [southern] grow from “nothing” to big- in few days is it a southern thing, near equator thing, or what?
Solar wind
speed: 586.5 km/sec
density: 0.51 protons/cm3
Sunspot number: 162
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 167 sfu
It’s going according to plan
gbaikie…”I tell people to model Venus at Earth distance”.
***
Venus is sitting brightly in the western sky each evening after dark (about 8:30), in the Vancouver area. Wonder if you can see it down your way. Mars is in the SW sky at same time.
I am not sure, I saw them, probably not.
And I would have to get out of town to see much.
At least it’s warm out now, it probably won’t get back to
the freezing temperatures until next winter- but, it could rain some more.
Bullshit Gordon,
Sometimes Venus rises first and shines best, in the morning.
It’s both the morning star and the evening star.
I am not star gazer, I googled:
is Venus a morning star or evening star
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2013/09/venus-cycles
–Is Venus always either a morning star or an evening star during certain times of the year?
Published: Monday, September 23, 2013
“Unfortunately, Venus path through the sky is a bit more complicated than that. ”
…
“Venus will pass between the Sun and Earth in January and then quickly rise into view before dawn. It will remain the morning star until next September. After passing on the far side of the Sun, it will return to view after sunset as an evening star in December 2014 and stay there until the following summer. The pattern repeats itself every 583.92 days (approximately 19 months). This is Venus synodic period, or the time it takes for the planet to return to the same alignment relative to Earth. ”
“synodic period” is important as that’s related to Earth’s launch window to Venus.
So I go here:
http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/EV.htm
And from Earth simple hohmann to Venus is:
2013.7860 10 13
Earth launch Sept 13 2013 and
arrives:
2014.1859 3 7 or March 7 2014
Next window:
2015.3847 5 18
So, I before Venus disappears as evening star,
you launch to Venus
Now go the other way
http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/VE.htm
2013.8660 11 12 and next:
2015.4646 6 17
As view on Earth, you launch 1 month after.
And pass one another, weird
Neat, trivia.
Oh, tonite I did see Venus and Mars.
Venus was bright and Mars small and orange.
More unbelievable, brazen antiscience from the arrogant ignoramus Robertson
” Time dilation is not used in GPS. There is no instrument that can measure time dilation. If time could dilate, all of our clocks would be wrong and the Earths rotational speed would need to change since time is based on it. ”
*
A better proof that Robertson is unwilling to accurately read scientific documents we couldn’t find.
To date, he still hasn’t been able to grasp that time dilation cannot take place on the surface of the Earth itself.
Rather, this term encompasses different measurements of time
– at different distances from a large mass
-or
– at extreme speed differences.
*
Here are two documents whose lecture clearly explain why there is no way for GPS to work without considering special / general relativity and the Sagnac effect, written by Neil Ashby, a person who knows a bit more than Robertson.
One is for people having some understanding of the matter:
RELATIVITY AND THE GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (2002)
http://webs.ftmc.uam.es/juancarlos.cuevas/Teaching/GPS_relativity.pdf
and the other one is for really mathy guys and dolls:
Relativistic Effects in the Global Positioning System (1995)
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6074806
This article was published within the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Real engineers, unlike the ‘ingénieur d'opérette’ nicknamed Robertson.
*
But he will never read such papers. Simply because he is a 360 degree contrarian denier, who exclusively picks up his pseudoscience out of contrarian blogs.
Typical examples for (of course all unproven) denials of time dilation and associated things:
1. The Sagnac Effect: Does it Contradict Relativity?
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/SagnacRel/SagnacandRel.html
2. If you want to know the time… ”
https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3327
and the very best of all:
3. Top 4 Reasons Why GPS Doesnt Need Einsteins Relativity
https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/top-4-reasons-why-gps-doesnt-need-einstein-s-relativity-895cabc6e619
*
These are very likely the typical sources that Robertson credulously follows and considers an authority on the subject.
*
An interesting detail: as his pseudo was ‘Mike Flynn’, Flynnson tried about 5 years ago to explain Robertson that time dilation really exists, but Robertson’s reaction was a bit too harsh for him.
Recently, under his current ‘Swenson’ pseudo, Flynnson tried again but once more immediately gave up.
I’ll search on the blog for these comments when I have some idle time to do.
quote by Gordon kenThe part that shocks me is that the energy budget diagram is new to some of you here who claim to know something about climate.
***
There is nothing new about it, we skeptics have been dismissing it since Keihl-Trenberth produced the original paper circa 1997. The paper at the link below is a revision.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130725213937/http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/EarthsGlobalEnergyBudget.pdf
It was rubbish then and it is rubbish now. What surprises me is that you, who uses Happer as a primary authority figure, would produce this crap as evidence. Trenberth is a notorious alarmists who has intervened in peer review.
Surely Happer does not approve of such junk science.
This paper is sheer alarmist, pseudo-science and it surprises me more that someone like you, who supports Happer, would fall for this crap.
Unquote
Please see page three of amicus brief by Happer Koonin and Lindzen:
https://sealevel.info/Happer-Koonin-Lindzen.pdf
test
Please see page three of amicus brief by Happer Koonin and Lindzen.
https://sealevel.info/Happer-Koonin-Lindzen.pdf
The energy budget picture is on page 3.
Not sure why I can’t post all this in one post.
No one does. I can try to post something one day and be foiled, and then post the exact same text a day later, having closed and re-opened the browser and it works fine. Roy can’t fix it, so we have to live with it.
Things to try – close and re-open browser. Turn device on and off. Clear cache. sometimes one or all of these things work. Sometimes you just have to roll your eyes.
Diagram is on PDF page number 9.
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.
… but oxygen and nitrogen do not… absorb or emit in IR bands as “efficiently” as GHGs do or even “very well”.
Here is a screenshot of the energy balance/budget:
https://i.postimg.cc/Y0Bwb5P7/Happer-Koonin-Lindzen-Energy-balance-2018.png
Fortunately, this interest in Earth’s “energy balance” continues. It provides us with an ongoing “learning opportunity”. This “energy balance” nonsense is one of the major flaws with the entire GHE fraudulent “science”. It ranks right up there with the nonsense of comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere — absolute perversion of REAL science, akin to alchemy and astrology.
There are several versions of the fraudulent “energy balance”, so for this discussion this version will be used:
https://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig2-11.jpg
The versions only differ by the estimate values anyway. The fraudulent “science” is the same.
The fraud starts with trying to “balance” radiative fluxes. Radiative fluxes do NOT “balance”. Radiative fluxes have the same units, and that confuses those that don’t understand radiative physics. Just because two things have the same units does NOT mean they are the same. A simple analogy is units of “dozens”.
A dozen elephants is not the same as a dozen pencils. A dozen elephants added to a systems does NOT “balance” with a dozen pencils leaving the system. The “dozens” are NOT the same. It’s the same with fluxes. Solar flux has a completely different spectrum than the infrared flux emitted by Earth’s surface. They are NOT the same. They can NOT be added/subtracted/averaged.
Whenever you see a graphic attempting to “balance” radiative fluxes, know that it is fraud.
Pup, Pup,
An energy balance model balances energy. Energy can be expressed using various units. All these units are convertible. If they are not, science breaks down.
Do you want to break science, Pup?
Do not worry, That is just a figure of speech. You cannot break science. You are just a silly sock puppet.
” A dozen elephants is not the same as a dozen pencils. A dozen elephants added to a systems does NOT balance with a dozen pencils leaving the system. The dozens are NOT the same. ”
As usual, some more silly stuff like the ball on a string, passengers flying backwards (you never got the irony), etc etc.
You deliberately discredit and denigrate all what you don’t understand, using utterly clueless comparisons and making yourself appear to be exactly the brain-dead cult moron that you think others are.
*
How about doing real science instead of playing endless polemics and doing an experiment with a SW bulb and a LW-IR bulb facing a sphere and measuring the total energy radiating the sphere with SW alone, IR alone and both together?
Why are you always talking about fluxes? Their result is… energy; that’s what finally matters.
*
But I’m joking, of course: you’ll never do this experiment.
All you can do is discredit and denigrate other people’s experiments – exclusively on this blog, of course, because you never would dare write your nonsense anywhere else).
“They are NOT the same. They can NOT be added/subtracted/averaged.”
Weird.
Multiple energy inputs and outputs can be summed to find the NET energy gained or lost by the Earth.
If you divide all these by the same number (Earth’s surface Area), then nothing changes except the units.
Not sure why anyone has trouble with these rather basic facts.
This is a nothingburger.
Nothing but troll responses from the cult, as usual.
But Bindidon claims he wants an “experiment”. Let’s see if he really does:
A plate with emissivity of 1 is perfectly insulated on the back and edges. The front of the plate is impacted with flux. First, a single flux of 1000 W/m^2 impacts the plate, resulting in a plate temperature of 364K, 91D, 196F. Later, a single flux of 400 W/m^2 impacts the plate, resulting in a plate temperature of 290K, 17C, 62F.
What is the plate temperature if both fluxes impact the plate at the same time?
a) 396K
b) 364K
c) 333K
d) 327K
There you are Bin, I don’t expect you can answer correctly. Prove me wrong.
The correct answer is that “You deliberately discredit and denigrate all what you dont understand, using utterly clueless comparisons and making yourself appear to be exactly the brain-dead cult moron that you think others are”.
Incorrect answer, Ken. That’s the kind of answer a troll would give.
Trolling ain’t science.
Quite true.
Troll Clint R
I never have participated in these plate discussions because like me, no one of you Pseudo-Skeptics has sufficient knowledge to do.
That makes the discussion meaningless.
Ask another who is willing to answer, and do the experiment I proposed upthread: telling us its result would be your very first meaningful contribution on this blog.
Until now you only produced utterly boring trash at the ‘ball-on-a-string’ level, and… dumb insults.
Bin, I could have easily used an imaginary sphere instead of a plate but you STILL would be unable to answer. You don’t know anything about the science here. You’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an ignorant troll.
You can’t even honestly answer the simple question:
Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
Piece of cake.
If one flux of 1000 W/m^2 (for example from sunlight) impacts a surface and as second flux of 400 W/m^2 (also from sunlight) simultaneously impacts that surface, then the total flux impacting the surface is 1400 W/m^2 and the temperature of the impacted surface would settle in at 396 K.
Okay, let’s play that game, Fraudkerts.
If the 1000 W/m^2 is from solar and the 400 W/m^2 is from the atmosphere, then what’s your answer?
I imagine you will attempt to change the rules again. Prove me wrong.
The rules are the same. The answer is the same. A total of 1400 W/m^2 still impacts the surface, and the temperature is still 396 K.
396K is WAY over the boiling point of water. Obviously you don’t understand any of this.
Your nonsense means ice cubes can boil water. If not, just add more ice.
Clint asks a question, gets an answer, can’t tell us why its wrong, nor what is the ‘right’ answer.
Pointless ‘experiment’.
I notice that with just the single 1000 W/m^2 from sunlight, what we get on a normal bright sunny day, the result was 196F!
That didnt seem to bother Clint. Why not?
I’m not bothered by reality, troll Nate.
It’s your cult that can’t stand reality.
“I imagine you will attempt to change the rules again. Prove me wrong.”
Nope. But you clearly want to change the rules.
“Your nonsense means ice cubes can boil water. If not, just add more ice.”
Nope. You are changing the rules. All ice in the world won’t ‘impact a surface’ with any more than ~ 315 W/m^2. ‘My science’ is quite clear about this.
You apparently think that multiple ice cubes EMITTING 315 W/m^2 FROM the ICE surfaces can PROVIDE more than 315 W/m^2 TO some OTHER surface. That is not how the rules work.
“396K is WAY over the boiling point of water. ”
Yeah. And it was just as hot with 1400 W/m^2 of sunlight. If 1400 W/m^2 of energy gets absorbed every second by a surface, then 1400 W/m^2 is absorbed. It doesn’t matter if if comes from IR or the sun or a laser (or even an electric heater inside the object. The surface will STILL emit 1400 W/m^2 and must still be 396 K.
And just to clarify the rules, your answers are only valid if the loss from the surface is only via radiation (no evaporation, convection, etc). So I am ALSO using your rules about only radiative losses. Your object about how the ‘real world’ behaves is breaking your own rules but including real-world losses like convection.
Folkerts, I had to sort through a lot of your troll tactics to find your mistake:
If 1400 W/m^2 of energy gets absorbed every second by a surface, then 1400 W/m^2 is absorbed.
You’re confusing “Joules” with “W/m^2”, but that’s not your BIG mistake. Your BIG mistake is the first word, “If”. 1000 W/m^2 solar and 400 W/m^2 from atmosphere arrive at a surface, which is NOT likely to be absorbed?
That’s one of the reasons ice cubes can not boil water.
In the future, if you want help with physics, please eliminate the troll tactics — no false accusations or misrepresentations. You don’t want to get sent to your room, like some have been.
Clint wonders “1000 W/m^2 solar and 400 W/m^2 from atmosphere arrive at a surface, which is NOT likely to be absorbed?”
You set up the scenario with “emissivity of 1”. Ie a blackbody which perfectly emits and absorbs radiation.
In such a scenario, if 1000 W/m^2 solar and 400 W/m^2 from atmosphere arrive at a surface, both will — by your assumed conditions — be perfectly absorbed.
Fraudkerts, you’re misrepresenting me, again.
I said emissivity of 1, NOT an imaginary black body.
You’ve been warned once. Any more troll tactics and you go to your room.
You will never guess how we call an object with an emissivity of 1, Pupman.
Tim Folkerts says:
The rules are the same. The answer is the same. A total of 1400 W/m^2 still impacts the surface, and the temperature is still 396 K.
—————–
Source please. You are a so-called physics expert, if so you should know physics isn’t just a ‘made up’ science. So as an expert I am sure you can refer me to the science study that establishes this claim. If not then did your physics training only include the classes on how to be really good at being a parrot?
Tim Folkerts says:
If one flux of 1000 W/m^2 (for example from sunlight) impacts a surface and as second flux of 400 W/m^2 (also from sunlight) simultaneously impacts that surface, then the total flux impacting the surface is 1400 W/m^2 and the temperature of the impacted surface would settle in at 396 K.
——————————
We should call that Folkert’s Law. A new law where one can connect the output of an amplifier to the input and get an increase in signal.
Folkert this should win you a Nobel Prize. Forget Manabe he had it all wrong! It was much simpler than Manabe’s contortions that was only accepted as correct because of models predicting warming and it warmed. Dang if we only had you commenting on this in 1964!
Tim Folkerts says:
If one flux of 1000 W/m^2 (for example from sunlight) impacts a surface and as second flux of 400 W/m^2 (also from sunlight) simultaneously impacts that surface, then the total flux impacting the surface is 1400 W/m^2 and the temperature of the impacted surface would settle in at 396 K.
——————————
We should call that Folkert’s Law. A new law where one can connect the output of an amplifier to the input and get an increase in signal.
Forget Manabe he had it all wrong! It was much simpler than Manabe’s ideas where it required models predicting warming and it warmed. If we only had you commenting on this in 1964!
Does Bill think the fluxes won’t add? Why?
“We should call that Folkerts Law. A new law where one can connect the output of an amplifier to the input and get an increase in signal.”
No. The analogy would be ‘where one can use two separate amplifiers to get an increased signal.’
I honestly can’t fathom people who insist that adding multiple beams of sunlight will not make a surface hotter than a single beam of sunlight.
Paging Mr. Hendrix
Will Mr. Hendrix please pick up line 2.
Play the Star Spangled Banner for us please.
Folkerts, can you fathom someone attempting to pervert physics?
For example, claiming fluxes simply add as two incoming (F each) results in 2F being emitted?
Now, THAT is perversion. It would lead to ice cubes boiling water.
Why would someone attempt such nonsense?
> I honestly cant fathom people who insist that adding multiple beams of sunlight will not make a surface hotter than a single beam of sunlight.
Dragon cranks got to do what they got to do.
Whats the physics definition of a ‘beam’?
Clint:
“Whenever you see a graphic attempting to balance radiative fluxes, know that it is fraud.”
–
Yes, it is fraud!
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You don’t sound like any Mechanical Engineer I have ever met.
Please, explain, what do you mean by saying that?
Every Mechanical Engineer I know is familiar with the control volume approach to analyzing heat transfer problems.
Once the control volume is defined you can apply the applicable conservation principle to derive the applicable equations.
For heat transfer problems, the control volume approach involves studying the flow of heat energy across the boundaries of the control volume. This is done by considering the heat flux, at each boundary of the control volume. By applying the conservation of energy to the control volume, we can then derive an energy balance equation, which relates the rate of change of internal energy within the control volume to the net rate of heat transfer across its boundaries.
No Mechanical Engineer I know ever said that balancing radiative fluxes is a fraud!
Rufus, CV lives several time zones away and may not answer you until tomorrow. I don’t want to answer for him, as he can handle that quite well on his own.
I will just mention that Earth’s control volume is defined by TOA. Also, internal energy is not even considered in the cult’s “energy balance”. In fact, energy is not even considered. They are trying to balance flux, which does not balance as it is NOT a conserved quantity. Radiative physics and thermodynamics are ignored in the GHE nonsense.
I’m happy to let CV finish, when he returns.
Refutation of False Science:
“For heat transfer problems, the control volume approach involves studying the flow of heat energy across the boundaries of the control volume. This is done by considering the heat flux, at each boundary of the control volume. By applying the conservation of energy to the control volume, we can then derive an energy balance equation, which relates the rate of change of internal energy within the control volume to the net rate of heat transfer across its boundaries.”
–
***
Thank you, Refutation of False Science, for your very much valuable explanation.
What you say is exactly what I am doing when deriving to the planet mean surface temperature NEW EQUATION (Tmean).
–
What I do in my research is to consider the planets’ surfaces energy transition boundaries in their entirety for every planetary surface.
–
A planet surface interacts with incident solar flux as a whole (IN TOTAL), and not in average surface, as it is very much wrongly asserted by the current scientific consensus.
–
By doing so a planet responds to the incoming solar energy AS A WHOLE, planet responds to the incoming solar energy with all its major characteristic features, or, in other words, planet responds with the entire “set” of the planetary surface qualities.
–
–
The Planet Effective Temperature Equation
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]∕ ⁴ (K)
is incomplete because it is based only on two parameters:
1. On the average solar flux S (W/m) on the top of a planets atmosphere and
2. The planets average Albedo “a”.
The planet’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature equation has to include all the planet surface major properties and all the characteristic parameters.
3. The planet’s axial spin N (rotations/day).
4. The thermal property of the surface (the average specific heat cp).
5. The planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φ ( the spherical shape and the surface roughness coefficient).
Altogether these parameters are combined in the Planet’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature New Equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) (1)
Consequently, the planet mean surface temperature Tmean is based on Stefan-Boltzmann emission law,
and on precise estimation by planet surface the total amount of emitted energy:
πr^2*Φ*S*(1-a) (W)
and on the different for each planet the energy emission distribution (the temperatures distribution) over surface area – resulting in the very POWERFUL
the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
( …on the way the energy emission is distributed over the entire planetary surface the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon. )
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Refutation of False Science:
“No Mechanical Engineer I know ever said that balancing radiative fluxes is a fraud!”
–
Well, it should not be addressed to me though. Here it is what I have said:
Whenever you see a graphic attempting to balance radiative fluxes, know that it is fraud.
See, Refutation of False Science, I never said “that balancing radiative fluxes is a fraud!”
–
What I said is: “a graphic attempting to balance radiative fluxes, is fraud.
–
a graphic is fraud… a graphic attempting balance radiative fluxes by averaging them over the entire planet surface is fraud.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas,
you agree, then, that radiative fluxes do indeed balance for a closed system at equilibrium: Energy In = Energy Out.
You object to presenting the same information in graphic form; why?
“You object to presenting the same information in graphic form; why?
–
The above mentioned graphic form appears to very much wrongly describing the real processes.
–
Please present a graphic form. if possible, to show the solar flux/planet surface interaction in its entirety, in TOTAL, not by averaging, because to do the averaging is utterly unacceptable and it is very much wrong.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
you do agree, then, that radiative fluxes do indeed balance for a closed system at equilibrium: Energy In = Energy Out.
No, please, you first,
Do you agree, then, the above mentioned graphic form appears to very much wrongly describing the real processes?
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I have my answer.
Thank you.
“A dozen elephants is not the same as a dozen pencils. ”
True. But a dozen meters is a dozen meters. A dozen joules is a dozen joule. A dozen tons is a dozen tons.
The appropriate analogy would be that a dozen tons of elephants balances a dozen tons of pencils. They are the same weight
The same is true with fluxes. A dozen joules of sunlight is the same energy as a dozen joules of IR.
Fraud Folkerts, a dozen of the same is the same as another dozen of the same. That’s NOT the point.
You can’t even troll good.
Did you ever find your valid technical reference that two fluxes simply add, as per your bogus example?
No, of course you didn’t. Two fluxes don’t simply add.
You’re not much on science. How are you on basic honesty?
Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
I would say you can’t answer honestly. Prove me wrong.
Every valid technical reference says that fluxes arriving at a surface add.
Can you find one that says otherwise?
Fluxes do not add. The results of fluxes on the matter may add.
–
The matter is not a passive receiver to the arriving flux. The matter interacts with the arriving flux.
–
When flux gets interacting with matter, matter is already emitting IR outgoing radiative energy.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sorry Folkerts, my physics books say no such thing. Any valid physics book would say no such thing. Such nonsense violates the Laws of Thermodynamics.
But, that’s WAY over your head.
You can’t even deal with the simple question:
Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
Pupman, Pupman,
Take the gun of your garden hose. Point it toward your face. Open it.
Tell us how that works for you.
“my physics books say no such thing.”
Ha He hee hee haw. Of course he wont ever reference any single book or online source.
“Such nonsense violates the Laws of Thermodynamics.”
Where does Thermodynamics say two sources of EM energy can’t add?
No wonder you can’t attempt an answer to the simple problem, troll Nate.
You can’t even state it correctly.
No wonder you cannot do the water hose experiment, Pupman.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There is some evidence that for the Pseudo-Skeptics, not only William Happer and Steven E. Koonin but also Richard S. Lindzen must be ‘braindead cult idiots’ who ‘believe’ in the GHE :-{)
The three you mentioned can answer the simple question honestly, Bin:
Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
You can NOT answer honestly.
That’s the difference between you braindead cult idiots and scientists.
Plane fly backward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAmbwyGkNJQ&ab_channel=IslandPacket
Thank you very much, Ken.
That’s exactly the sort of response pseudo-skeptical troll Clint R most deserves.
Ken and Bin don’t know the difference between a fighter jet and a passenger jet. Things like “vectored thrust” are WAY over their heads.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Pup is not in reading mode –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1472181
Our sockiest sock puppet is in trolling mode.
Worthless willard, thats dishonest. It all started with passenger jets.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-641925
You and your cult MUST pervert reality to keep your hoax alive.
Pupman,
Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-738607
There’s NOTHING relevant about the airplane being a passenger jet for the point you can’t even spell out.
If I wanted to build a passenger plane that could fly backwards, I could build it using existing technology.
I cannot conceive of any situation where flying a passenger plane backwards would make the cost worth the benefit.
Your question, and the manner in which you make it, simply supports the statement You deliberately discredit and denigrate all what you dont understand, using utterly clueless comparisons and making yourself appear to be exactly the brain-dead cult moron that you think others are.
Get lost.
This simple question really has you flummoxed, huh troll Ken?
Have you considered getting a responsible adult to help you answer it?
Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
Hey, Pupman –
Tell us about the when you worked in the GPS industry.
It’s been a while.
Ha!
Right Clint. this comes to mind:
The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so. Ronald Reagan.
That’s nice you call them Liberals- ie, people who favor free speech and etc.
In Reagan’s day they were mostly liberals. Today they are teaming up with the fascists. Perhaps they think they are good guys just trying to do the right thing.
Bindidon says:
”There is some evidence that for the Pseudo-Skeptics, not only William Happer and Steven E. Koonin but also Richard S. Lindzen must be braindead cult idiots who believe in the GHE :-{)”
Bindidon proves that an appeal to authority is all he has and he can’t even translate English reliably.
1) Fact is Bindidon there is a greenhouse effect (GHE). I am not hearing anybody denying it. The question is how it works AND more importantly how it varies. . . .except you can’t get to the vary part without knowing how it works.
On that point alone Bindidon’s argument fails totally.
I also believe that we all agree that more CO2 will absorb more both more incoming and more outgoing energy. And since that is the underpinning basis (at least for the outgoing energy) we all agree that is where any feedbacks are beginning to be added up.
the question of course is: is everybody on that last page?
Or do the models magically transport that absorbed energy to the surface and start there? Does anybody know for sure?
“I also believe that we all agree that more CO2 will absorb more both more incoming and more outgoing energy.”
Or sideways.
But can’t agree that about 80% of sunlight reaching Earth surface is
absorbed by ocean water?
CO2 is very small part of the atmosphere and matters is what warms 99.9 % atmosphere which isn’t CO2.
Or said differently, it only matter at all if CO2 warms the rest of Atmosphere [and how and where it does it].
The cargo cult of global warming doesn’t have theory or even an agreed upon dogma.
The committee which could not imagine what could cause 33 C increase in global temperature, decided it was all cause by greenhouse gases.
Or claimed greenhouse gases caused 33 C or the average of 15 C would be 33 C colder without greenhouse gases warming it to 15 C.
Of course, that back in the 20th century which is now claimed to have average global surface air temperature of about 14 C.
But I digress, but others of cult claim CO2 causes the 33 C of warming.
It seems that since committee gave up or died, no one can how much say 300 ppm of CO2 or 421 ppm warms Earth.
Or rather than either, the cargo cult seems concerned about before the industrial revolution, the number is not clear, nor in this time clear, but could be 260 ppm or 280 ppm. But guess, 260 ppm, how much warming is from CO2 when it’s 260 ppm as measured from that holy mountain somewhere in Hawaii?
“I also believe that we all agree that more CO2 will absorb more both more incoming and more outgoing energy.”
Yes. The question is how much. The current 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 absorbs about 30 Wm-2. Doubling CO2 concentration to 800 ppm will result in additional reduction of direct thermal radiation to space of 3Wm-2. The spectrum is pretty much saturated
“And since that is the underpinning basis (at least for the outgoing energy) we all agree that is where any feedbacks are beginning to be added up.”
There are already 342 Wm-2 of reduction of direct thermal radiation to space due to GHG. If there is a feedback effect then an additional 3Wm-2 from doubling CO2 isn’t going to trigger much more of a feedback response than already exists. This concept of runaway positive feedback leading to a climate crisis is pure bunkum.
Ken believes: There are already 342 Wm-2 of reduction of direct thermal radiation to space due to GHG.
Ken, your cult claims that Earth only gets 240 W/m^2 from Sun. So youre claiming GHG *trap* even more thermal radiation than is solar supplied!
Where do you get 342W/m2 ?
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/earth-as-a-system/energy_budget_image
Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-738218
Our sockiest sock puppet the same silly tactic as the ice cube.
Hence our Dragon cranks got NOTHING.
The reason the cult can’t answer the simple question, Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no? is because they know it destroys their cult beliefs. Their model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” results in a jet always facing the same distant star as it circumnavigates Earth. Of course, typical jets don’t fly like that. Hence, they can’t honestly answer the simple question.
If they answer “yes”, they reveal their devotion to a false religion. If they answer “no”, they will be excommunicated.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Do passenger jets keep up with the rotation of the Earth?
If yes, they don’t fly backwards.
If no, they do fly backwards.
Compare the speed of the surface of the Earth at the equator with the typical speed of a passenger jet.
Figure that out and all will be revealed.
bob, you’ve said some strange things in the past, but you’re getting worse.
Time to see your doc again, maybe?
Clint R
You are correct on the jet issue. It is time for all posters to let this one go. It has been thought about and resolved.
The passenger jet does not fly backwards (maybe a special designed military jet can but that is another issue).
The jet is moving at the same speed as the Earth’s rotation when on runway and not moving on its own.
This side issue needs to be over with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjPDqWskGv4
> It has been thought about and resolved.
It has actually been thought about and resolved by EM:
Teh Pupman fell on the first swing.
Since then he’s trolling.
Norman, there’s a hint of reality in your comment. Your cult won’t like that.
I don’t know who started this Moon issue, but it’s a good issue. The cult is completely wrong, and it’s easy to show. They have nothing, and must knowingly pervert or deny reality. Now they can’t even answer the simple question. They run from reality.
That’s why this is so much fun.
> I dont know who started this Moon issue
Vintage 2017-12:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/l-a-wildfires-creating-spectacular-smoke-plume/#comment-277793
I didn’t start the moon issue. Just stating a fact.
Do negative facts exist?
I did not start the moon issue.
How can Gaslighting Graham know that he did not start the Moon Dragon crank thing if he does not know who did?
A commenter by the name of g.e.r.a.n. started the moon issue.
Are you sure it wasn’t J Halp-less?
It was g.e.r.a.n.
DREMT, do you know about what year this issue started here?
Of course Newton was likely the first to start it. At least he was the first to prove Moon does not spin. My guess as to why he didn’t make a big deal about it in his work is because he figured it didn’t affect anything. It really doesn’t matter if Moon is spinning or not.
Little did Newton realize it matters greatly to a cult.
Wasn’t “g.e.r.a.n.” one of Pupman’s sock puppet?
It was towards the end of 2017, I think.
Yep, the reaction to the moon issue was, like with most things discussed here, entirely disproportionate. There was a frenzy of ridicule and hatred that went on for months.
Over the years the number of commenters that eventually expressed agreement with the "Non-Spinners" at some point or other went well into the double figures, though.
Thanks DREMT. I was able to find the discussion, December 2017. It was VERY interesting. Some of the Spinners then, remain today, as do their lame arguments. They haven’t learned a thing.
Hey Pupman –
Do you recall when Joe told you to stop your Moon bullshit?
I do.
They never learn, Clint. I think they might have learning disabilities, in some cases.
Hey Pup,
Here it is:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-63901
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Like a little kid, willard is impressed with people that use profanity, like bob.
He might grow out of it someday___
Pupman,
Gaslighting Graham gets hard on Joe.
Please be kind to him.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R,
I see you didn’t answer my question, nor refute any thing I posted.
bob, you must have missed my new “troll policy”. Go back and look it up. You’ve obviously got nothing better to do.
Still an inadequate response.
You want me to do something, 50 bucks.
Your question, and the manner in which you make it, simply supports the statement You deliberately discredit and denigrate all what you dont understand, using utterly clueless comparisons and making yourself appear to be exactly the brain-dead cult moron that you think others are.
Get lost.
Ken, I see you down here muttering to yourself. Maybe you’ve got time to answer the simple question:
Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
I am not aware of any passenger jets that are designed to fly backward. I can’t conceive of any reason for a passenger jet to fly backwards. I haven’t seen one fly backwards. So the obvious answer is that based on my observations they probably don’t fly backwards. It doesn’t mean that a passenger jet can’t be designed to fly backwards. There are no laws of physics being solved by your question even as the answer is no.
Now go away troll. You don’t contribute anything of value here.
Suppose jets are designed to fly in the inverse direction we are used to until now.
Would they *really* fly backward?
I’d say they move forward.
Ken, you actually answered honestly!
But, since that roils your cult nonsense, you may want to take it back.
Your cult has NO science to support lunar spin. They rely on centuries old mis-interpretations and made-up nonsense like “tidal locking”. In addition, they must ignore basic facts like the ball-on-a-string.
So, I expect you to be rejecting your own honesty, soon.
A jet flies 100 m above the ocean. The nose always points straight toward the same star; the wings stay level and the nose is horizontal with the ground. Ie the plane is flying in a perfectly straight line.
* After 1 km, the plane is 100m + 0.08 m above the ocean (because that is how much the earth curves below it). The nose is tipped ever so lightly above the horizon.
* After 10 km it is 100 + 7.8 m above the ground and climbing slowly.
* After 100 km it is 100 + 780 m above the ground and climbing faster.
* After 20,000 km (maybe it is a Star Wars X-Wing), it is 14,600 km above the ground and vectoring off into space.
Is this X-Wing rotating on its axis as it flies straight forward along a perfectly straight line?
No.
OK, so a passenger jet flying beside this x-wing will slowly change orientation relative to the X-wing. Surely of them must be rotating on its axis to accomplish this.
No.
But maybe you can change reality by making up more nonsense.
Give it a try.
Hello Nate,
“The experiment with the ceramic IR heater pointed downward at a bowl of water is an experimental test of your claim that additional DWIR should result in cooling. The experiment showed clear warming..”
Did the ceramic heater not have a temperature higher than that if the water?
Try again, with something colder than the water and let me know if you get heating.. free energy for all…
The stupidity of net zero CO2 by some governmental date of 2050 or whatever.
Could “it” be done? Some say it can’t be done. I think it could be done, but government is preventing from being done.
The path could be simple, just make a lot more nuclear reactors.
But they would have to be built quickly.
There are ways governments might allow nuclear reactors quickly- roughly speaking, you mass produce them- like you build cars.
But governments have “always” wanted to make cars or washing machines
and failed miserably. Or governments would have allow cars or nuclear powerplants to be built, to “do it”.
This very similar to NASA trying to build rockets, it’s latest effort is called SLS- a failure in all respects, other than as a job program. Not a good job program in terms of making the people working
happy, but in terms of the amount corruption and tax payer dollars tossed at it, and after decades of delay, it did have successful test launch. Or the time and money it was promised it would take, didn’t happen.
So, net zero by a govt date of 2050, might happen by 2150 and they may redefine net zone so they claim it’s done when 2150 AD approaches. But it wild success in terms of giving the government a lot money to spend. But government might cancel it before 2100 because it’s a losing political issue. Was winning in that tens of trillion of dollars with all kinds of governmental corruption and all of rice bowls kept full- but products lacking.
As general rule, politicians promising to do anything in 20 years is
just lying- and everyone knows, but it’s a game.
No govt has ever lower CO2 levels, and shipping manufacturing to China, have increased global CO2 emission.
The only apparent thing “fought for” was to oppose stuff which would lower CO2.
If you really wanted to control CO2, you would keep activity which made a lot CO2, within your country- so politician could in theory
control it. But instead politicians decided domestically burn wood- which is worse than coal. By calling sustainable or biofuels
If thought Solar panels were good idea, you make solar panels in our
country- where again, in theory politicians could control it. But in US, lawsuits are significant factor- and politician tend pass laws
protecting against such lawsuit, like they did with Covid “vaccinates”.
Now wars cause a lot CO2 emission and actual pollution, and politicians have to support military industrial complex- it seem that is only industry that US Congress has to keep.
How do you feel about business doing an end run around government by way of forcing ESG policies? Net-Zero is a scam that has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with destroying Western civilization.
Net-Zero is sedition consisting of the worst subversion of science and reason ever purposely conducted against free people.
Hmm.
Well, Nazi Germany wasn’t free people.
Iran is not free people.
One could even say that it is an aspiration of USA is to have free people- and in that measure, then there really has been no free people in world, now, or ever in history of humankind.
Or USA has been the most free people, known in history. And the Left
hates America. And loved the Soviet Union and loves China {unless they ever lived under the rule of Soviet Union or China}.
So, strange as it might seem, we living in the best of times- but
it could end up being a rather short time in our long history.
And Net-Zero is rocket ride towards ending anything close to having free people anywhere in the world.
“And Net-Zero is rocket ride towards ending anything close to having free people anywhere in the world.”
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html
You don’t have a choice. Your access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels is being taken away without an adequate substitute. Your Rights and Freedoms are severely impacted. How is this a ‘rocket ride toward having free people anywhere’?
Here is Fallen Angels by Niven Pournelle Flynn. Its a sci fi dystopia. Reeling under a new ice age, the lunatic fringe of the environmental movement controls the US government.
https://www.amazon.ca/FALLEN-ANGELS-LARRY-NIVEN/dp/0743471814
The story line is so like Net Zero it could have been a prophecy.
“How do you feel about business doing an end run around government”
Real free-market conservatives would welcome that.
until they find themselves at the short end of the stick. That’s why we have given government the fiduciary duty to keep the playing field level.
Kennui is long on private profits and public liabilities.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Just started this one- appears to be ex-lefty woman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fa-kXNljkw
That worked, how about this one:
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/chinese-population-smaller-than-stated-and-shrinking-fast-by-yi-fuxian-2022-07
La Nina over, neutral conditions, but significant warming has already begun.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Nino34+Tglb_2015-2023.pdf
Sea surface at record temps.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
El Nino and its warming effects to come.
> I said emissivity of 1, NOT an imaginary black body.
Pupman will never guess how we call an object with an emissivity of 1.
Poor worthless willard doesn’t understand the difference between an object with emissivity of 1, and a “black body”.
He doesn’t understand ANY science.
That’s is one of the reasons this is so much fun.
Poor Pupman,
Stuck with making stuff up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
So Pup once again got NOTHING but a silly semantic game he is bound to lose.
Poor braindead worthless willard finds something else on the Internet he can’t understand.
The very first sentence, from his link:
A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.
And watch, he won’t be able to understand that, or understand why it’s different than just an emissivity of 1.
It’s always fun to watch him flounder, but it’s also a waste of my time. And, I’ve already wasted enough time with him for today.
Poor Pupman,
He CANNOT understand that no REAL object has an emissivity of 1.
Perhaps he missed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
Watch him squirm again.
As usual, you’re off on a tangent.
I never said anything about the object being real.
Do you understand the difference between an object with emissivity of 1, and a “black body”?
That’s the issue, before your distractions.
(I won’t respond to troll tactics.)
[PUPMAN] I never said anything about the object being real.
[ALSO PUPMAN] I said emissivity of 1, NOT an imaginary black body.
[WIKI] By definition, a black body in thermal equilibrium has an emissivity ε = 1.
Our Pupman got NOTHING.
As usual, you’re off on a tangent.
Do you understand the difference between an object with emissivity of 1, and a “black body”?
Pup, Pup,
Which part of BY DEFINITION you do not get?
You make me right again, worthless willard.
You don’t understand the difference between an object with emissivity of 1, and a “black body”. And you can’t learn.
I bet you will keep trolling on this subject, determined to show your immaturity and ignorance.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Pup, Pup,
You have NOTHING but a silly semantic game you are losing.
WHATEVER has an emissivity of 1 is a black body.
By definition.
Deal with it.
Such a big difference between “absorbs all radiation” and “absorbs 100% of radiation”!
Its just leftist trolling with the intent of deliberate obfuscation of any serious discussion about climate.
Pupman is on your side, Kennui.
Most cranks here are.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Cry-mat cli-ses is upon us
https://youtu.be/1qu4mA8fef4
The green rush is on
The number of job ads for “sustainability” roles nearly doubled to more than 1,000 during the year to February 2021, versus the previous 12 months, according to global finance recruitment specialist eFinancialCareers. Positions range from junior-level analysts to new director-level roles such as head of sustainability or climate change.
Green recruitment specialist Acre said its hires in finance had increased by more than a quarter year-on-year every year since 2017. The most senior posts now offer pay packages of well over 750,000 pounds ($1 million), up around three-fold over the period.
LinkedIn data shows a steady increase in the number of finance jobs listed as requiring at least one “green skill,” such as pollution prevention or ecosystem management, particularly in the United States.
“Working in sustainability, it used to feel like you were trying to knock down walls,” said NatWest’s head of climate change James Close, a former director of climate change at the World Bank.
“Now they are pulling us in from the streets through the front door.”
Banks, asset managers and private equity firms have been ramping up their climate teams in the past year, pushing salaries up by 30-50%, said Jon Williams, partner in sustainability and climate change at PwC UK.
Some of the more established environmental experts who have moved across to finance say the rewards are not just financial. For example, quantitative analyst Velez, who moved to Lombard Odier last year, is building a tool that links assets to near real-time environmental and geospatial data tracking hurricane risk and pollution.
Finance firms across the board told Reuters they were expanding scientific and sustainability teams. Asset manager Schroders said it has more than 10 staff with scientific backgrounds in its insurance-linked securities team, including people with PhDs in climatology. Its sustainable investing team has grown by four people to 22 in the last year and is planning further expansion.
Britain’s biggest domestic bank Lloyds has more than doubled the number of staff with core sustainability roles in a year, to over 40, while Zurich Insurance said it had expanded its team researching the modeling of wind, flood, cyber and climate risks, to seven from one in five years.
What, if anything, do these Sustainability employees add to the bottom line?
Reject ESG
If you have to ask, you’ll never know.
I’ll never know till I see the bottom line.
Buy stocks, Kennui.
Sold mine. Not a good time to be in the market due to ESG governments and companies.
Timing markets is for losers, Kennui.
Or for winners, but they need to stop getting their brains destroyed by Newscorp crap.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
California permanent drought update
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/15/us/tulare-lake-california-flood-climate/index.html
Remember:
The farmers and ranchers, as well as the State of California, went to great lengths to drain the lake over decades. Well, it looks like they lost the bet that their re-engineering of nature would work. If the sea-level rises a few more feet from AGW, the entire Central Valley of California might be in trouble when there’s a really big snow year.
I don’t see anybody ordering a Word salad
There is no evidence that sea level will rise more than 6 inches this century. Your remark is therfore climate alarmism. You should be charged with fraud and malfeasance.
How about Tarred and Feathered
For all contrarians who still do not get that evidence is in the past, not the future, yes.
But it got buried with Atlantis.
Come on now, be nice! This is a science group, not a Trumpian love fest or a White Christian Nationalist militia gathering. If there really were a moderator on the site, such threatening remarks would get you banned. And our fake moderator would also be dumped as well for identity theft.
Swanson, there are some of us that want to only stick with the science, but that means clinging to reality. And, you know how a cult hates reality. Realists are constantly attacked by the cult.
If you want more moderation here, start with yourself. Stop re-naming others, insulting, and falsely accusing.
Set a good example, for a change.
“For all contrarians who still do not get that evidence is in the past, not the future, yes.”
For all alarmists (and associated boring trolls) who do not get that climate model projection is not evidence, the trends of the past will continue into the future, Yes.
Counter revolutionary cranks such as Kennui might never get that evidence comes from the past whereas projections lie in the future. Not that they know what backtesting means. In any event, for demo reason these squares go hand in hand:
https://climateball.net/but-evidences
https://climateball.net/but-modulz
Ken
” There is no evidence that sea level will rise more than 6 inches this century. ”
*
Where did you get that from, Ken?
I compare since years different sea level data evaluations made by different research groups with my own (layman) job:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12euF2AcLVUdKqYxrGEebGISen2A4CZfo/view
All people telling you on various blogs about sea level trends (especially: Burton’s sealevel.info) show you ONLY trends starting at the beginning of the gauges’ lifetime, and often enough based on data not accounting for vertical land movement (glacial isostatic rebound, subsidence) because such people don’t know where and how to obtain such GPS-based land movement corrections.
*
But when you compute, for these different evaluations, the consecutive trends from 1900-2015 till 1995-2015, you see this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1unX9nvORdkmSipb22DfldIGRT-U3n5BE/view
Even the most accurate evaluation known to me (that by Sören Dangendorf & alii) starts with just below 1.5 mm/year for 1900-2015, and ends with just below 3 mm/year for 1995-2015, e.t. nearly the same trend estimate as that provided for the same period by NOAA’s satellite altimetry.
*
If sea level data would show a linear behavior over time, the trend graph above would consist of lines flat all the time like for the period 1900-1950, and not of curves with increasing curvature since 1950.
We would then have a sea level increase of nearly 10 inches till 2100.
Taking the curvature into consideration leads to doubling the estimate.
So, Ken: If I were you, I wouldn’t write things like that
” Your remark is therefore climate alarmism. You should be charged with fraud and malfeasance. ”
and hope that the estimate is exaggerated instead.
6 inches is a lot closer to 10 inches than a ‘few feet’ suggested by Eben.
A few feet is therefore unsubstantiated pig in the poke.
Tide gauge stations of 100 years record located on land that is not rising or sinking, have data that shows global sea level is rising 1.8 mm per year. That amounts to about 6 inches by 2100.
“Tide gauge stations of 100 years record located on land that is not rising or sinking, have data that shows global sea level is rising 1.8 mm per year. That amounts to about 6 inches by 2100.”
I don’t know where you get your information from, Ken, but it is just not correct.
The average of global tide gauges shows accelerating rise, that matches the satellite data when they overlap.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21265-6
https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/
Fox News is where Kennui fills his brain with angry reactance.
Nate says:
”The average of global tide gauges shows accelerating rise, that matches the satellite data when they overlap.”
Yes for a short period of time it has. It seems in time with ocean current changes. Definitely it accelerates and decelerates. There was a comparable lack of ice in the Arctic in the summer of 1944. By the 1950’s it had recovered. That low level of ice was noted by Arctic traders throughout the 1930’s and 1940’s. Throw in a little bit of LIA recovery and who knows how much is anthropogenic.
grammie clone wrote:
The anti-GPE-No-Spin cult is stuck on “the losing side” and can’t admit their errors of scientific fact. Rather like the Trumpian cult’s denial of his election loss, it’s become us vs. them other guys, over and over again.
Swanson makes clear that it’s all political for him.
Perhaps grammie would not have objected if I had pointed to Fox News as a bunch of liars instead of the Trumpian cult of the Winning Election (with a dash of “Q” thrown in).
Of course, it’s now several days later, grammie pups is still beating the same old dead horse, expecting that it will be magically resurrected in time to run the next Kentucky Derby with Mitch O’Connell as jockey. As one might expect, grammie pups would still be stuck on “the losing side”.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, Swanson. I have no interest in politics whatsoever.
And so Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Incorrect.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham is just playing dumb. After more that five years of trolling this website, that stopped being plausible a long time ago.
Let us put it this way – Gaslighting Graham does not always fail to know what ES is talking about, but when he does he can recognize it is about politics.
When Swanson responded, on the 19th April, it was three days after his initial comment that I replied to with "Swanson makes clear that it’s all political for him". He said:
"Of course, it’s now several days later, grammie pups is still beating the same old dead horse…"
It’s been three days (now four). That could be the "several days later" that he’s referring to. I’ve been in a pointless back and forth with Little Willy over the last three/four days in response to his original comment. Is that what he’s referring to with "beating the same old dead horse"? I don’t know…since what Little Willy and I have been talking about really has very little to do with Swanson’s original comment. So, it’s not clear what he’s talking about. The initial paragraph of his 19th April response is:
"Perhaps grammie would not have objected if I had pointed to Fox News as a bunch of liars instead of the Trumpian cult of the Winning Election (with a dash of “Q” thrown in)."
I’m aware that the point is political, since it mentions Trump again, and Fox News, but no, I have no idea what he’s talking about as in I have no idea what point he’s trying to make to me, personally. Not having any real interest in American politics, and very little interest in politics even in the UK, he might as well be speaking another language.
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb once more.
Not playing dumb, Little Willy. When it comes to politics, I really do know very little about it. Feel free to fill me in on what you think Swanson’s April 19th reply was all about.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham is incapable to get that ES did not respond to what he himself tried to peddle, which was plainly false anyway.
It should be obvious that it is not all political to ES, which means that Gaslighting Graham was gently gaslighting once more.
"Perhaps Gaslighting Graham is incapable to get that ES did not respond to what he himself tried to peddle, which was plainly false anyway."
I’ll try to parse this as best as I can…
"Perhaps [DREMT] is not able to get that [Swanson] didn’t respond to what [DREMT] himself tried to peddle, which was plainly false anyway".
Is that right?
If so, what exactly did I try to "peddle", which was plainly false anyway? How and why did Swanson not respond to it? Seemed like he responded to what I said to him, so…
"It should be obvious that it is not all political to ES"
Why should that be "obvious"?
I’ll parse Gaslighting Graham’s latest comment the best as I can:
“I [Gaslighting Graham] will try to play dumb as well as I can.”
When Little Willy is asked to clarify anything about what he’s said, he will always accuse his opponent of "playing dumb". This is so he can avoid the difficult questions, and leave his original statements as vague and difficult to understand as he intended. Thus, to anyone skimming through the discussion, it will seem like Little Willy said something that his opponent was unable to counter, when in fact it was actually just that his opponent was unable to understand. He has all sorts of little tricks like this up his sleeve.
grammie pups claims that he’s not interested in politics. To be sure, US politics may be beyond his area of geographical concern, but one would think that he might have figured out that AGW is a global problem and any effort to address the situation would require honest political discourse. Since he claims ignorance of all areas of politics, he may have missed the facts which have shown that some organizations and individuals have intentionally spread disinformation and outright lies about the scientific background supporting the case for action. Large corporations, like Exxon, funded political disinformation campaigns for several decades when their scientists knew the scientific facts. Rather like FOX News and their repeated on air support for Trump’s claims that he won the 2020 election, while knowing it was all BS. That just cost them some big bucks and there are still a few more court cases in the works.
One such effort involves claims that adding CO2 to the atmosphere can’t “heat” the surface or the lower atmosphere because doing so would violate the 2nd Law using the same unsupported assertions that grammie pups keeps throwing up on this site. As I recall, Eli’s original presentation of the GPE was a reply to these assertions.
I had heard before that there were accusations that some of the "luke warmer" arguments were disinformation spread by various organisations but not that any of the "anti-GHE" arguments were. After all, there’s been considerable effort from both "sides" of the "mainstream" debate to silence, denigrate and demonise those that question the GHE, for quite some time now. I can’t see any evidence that there’s been anyone actively supporting us. In fact, that idea seems faintly ridiculous…
Gaslighting Graham makes clear it’s all political for him.
The petty politics of last wordism.
Little Willy is one of the worst “last worder” trolls on the internet. I have to work really hard to hold up that mirror to him and all those like him.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
He can get the last word any time he likes.
But he only has a very specific magic formula.
He should have bewared his wishes.
See? One of the worst “last worder” trolls on the internet. If I didn’t ask him to please stop trolling, he would just keep responding indefinitely, even though he has absolutely nothing worthwhile to contribute.
Gaslighting Graham still forgets the magic words.
And he’s gently gaslighting again – without that behavioral trick, Gaslighting Graham would never let go.
Little Willy continues to prove me right.
Gaslighting Graham still refuses to use the magic words.
Getting the last word is so important to him that he’s willing to prove me right.
Let’s see just how long he will go on proving me right.
Let’s see how long Gaslighting Graham is willing to prove me right.
Little Willy, just keep ranting at the mirror.
Gaslighting Graham keeps gaslighting the mirror.
Little Willy is furiously committed to saying nothing relevant or coherent, repeatedly.
Gaslighting Graham is furiously committed to gaslighting, forever and ever.
Not in the least, Little Willy. I despise gaslighting, and the people that do it, such as yourself.
Gaslighting Graham despises gaslighting, and the people that do it, such as himself.
Maybe I should just commit suicide, huh?
Maybe Gaslighting Graham should be kinder to himself and start PSTing?
Little Willy shows his true colours.
grammie pups claims not to be interested in politics, so one might expect that he wouldn’t know what’s been going on in U.S. politics for more than 30 years. Or, maybe he’s just having fun again, pretending to be ignorant.
This example is likely before his time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition
Swanson apparently didn’t read, or maybe didn’t want to process, my last comment. I’ll repeat it to him:
“I had heard before that there were accusations that some of the "luke warmer" arguments were disinformation spread by various organisations but not that any of the "anti-GHE" arguments were. After all, there’s been considerable effort from both "sides" of the "mainstream" debate to silence, denigrate and demonise those that question the GHE, for quite some time now. I can’t see any evidence that there’s been anyone actively supporting us. In fact, that idea seems faintly ridiculous…”
Gaslighting Graham soldiers on, showing his true colours along the way.
Little Willy adds nothing of any value again.
Gaslighting Graham adds nothing of any value again.
I was trying to talk to Swanson, actually. You’re just getting in the way, as you tend to do.
Perhaps our Actually Guy also forgets that ES was responding to Pup and that he interjected his usual trolling?
That’s one mistake among many. Also note:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Swanson makes clear that its all political for him.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I was trying to talk to Swanson, actually.
Make that two mistakes.
Swanson was trolling his intellectual and moral superior, Clint R, so I thought I’d drop in to put Swanson in his place. Swanson happens to be on the list of people who Little Willy likes to shlurp up to, so here we are.
Gaslighting Graham was trolling ES with his false accusation, an accusation which is ironic since Pup is just another proto-fascist on this website.
Doubly ironic perhaps, for Gaslighting Graham might be some kind of weird equivalent of a Bernie Bro.
Who says the accusation is false?
"Rather like the Trumpian cult’s denial of his election loss, it’s become us vs. them other guys, over and over again".
Seems pretty much like it’s all become political for Swanson. Why even say something like that?
Gaslighting Graham returns to playing dumb.
Little Willy can’t justify his false accusation that I made a false accusation, so resorts to his usual tricks.
Gaslighting Graham fumbles over another modality.
This time it’s “can’t.”
Little Willy vomits up some of his usual rubbish, rather than doing anything to provide evidence for his claims.
Gaslighting Graham makes another outrageous claim, but worded in a way that shifts the burden of proof. Climate deniers deny all the time, expecting everybody else to work for them.
Let’s hope he does not do that to his wife.
You accused me of making a false accusation, and the burden of proof is entirely on you to support that claim.
And so Gaslighting Graham returns to playing dumb.
You can’t (or won’t) substantiate your claim. Thus, most readers will ignore it. Fine with me.
Gaslighting Graham silently corrects his modality.
Is that a retraction?
Is that another way for you to divert attention from your failure to substantiate your claim?
Gaslighting Graham keeps doing what he’s doing. A fantastic, extended dishonesty display to really disgust the readers.
He should stop. He knows how. He can’t.
No reply from Swanson, I note.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Fully explain exactly how I’m "gaslighting", or withdraw your false accusation.
Gaslighting Graham does not always sealion, but when he does it’s right after he argues by assertion.
No explanation was forthcoming, so the false accusation is withdrawn.
Gaslighting Graham is right –
No explanation is never forthcoming from him.
A delicious double-negative mistake from a failure at language.
Moar gaslighting from Gaslighting Graham.
As if he was always explaining himself…
🤦
You made a mistake, Little Willy. You wrote “never” when you should have said “ever”. It’s OK for you just to admit you were wrong.
Gaslighting Graham Goes Full Grammar Nazi.
Can you admit you were wrong? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you acknowledge even the slightest mistake. Which is surprising since you so frequently make mistakes both slight and major.
Gentle Graham gently gaslights once more.
So that’s a "no".
More gentle gaslighting by Gaslighting Graham.
Really seems like you can’t even admit you made a trivial, simple, minor grammatical mistake.
Really seems that Gaslighting Graham’s main mode here is gaslighting.
Just admit you made a trivial grammatical error. Who cares, right? Just take the L. You just had a brain fart.
Gaslighting Graham will never admit he is gaslighting to have his way.
You made a (very minor) mistake. Yes or no?
When will Gaslighting Graham admit that he gaslights to get his way?
You are gaslighting me by repeating the false accusation that I gaslight so frequently (and even trying to associate it with my name), that I begin to question whether or not I psychologically manipulate others. Your obvious aim is to make me doubt myself, or at the very least to get readers to dismiss me as manipulative, in the hope that they then dismiss my arguments.
In other words, at best your name-calling and relentless false accusations are ad hominem, at worst you are guilty of what you falsely accuse me of.
Now, please answer my question.
So that is a *no*.
That didn’t really work as yours wasn’t a “yes” or “no” question, but never mind. Another little mistake you made for you to never acknowledge.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Its OK for you just to admit you were wrong.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] So thats a “no”.
That’s correct, Little Willy, and where on Earth is the contradiction? I’m trying to tell you it’s OK for you to admit you were wrong, but you seem to make clear that you are unable to admit you are wrong. That’s a personality flaw that you have, which makes it a complete waste of anybody’s time to ever discuss anything with you.
Now that he gets caught going full grammar nazi on what was his own usage, Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
The grammatical mistake was you using “never” instead of “ever”. I made no such mistake, but if I had, I would have acknowledged it, unlike you.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] That didnt really work as yours wasnt a yes or no question
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM, WHEN BEING SHOWN THAT HIS OWN QESTION DID NOT REALLY WORK AS A YES NO QUESTION] Thats correct
Oh, I now see where you went wrong for the third time this discussion. No, my question to you was "can you admit you were wrong?", which is a "yes" or "no" question. My "that’s correct" was simply to acknowledge that both of those statements that you quoted at 9:07 AM were mine, and that there was no contradiction between them. I had no idea what you were getting at by quoting those two statements until now.
Your fourth mistake: missing out the "u" in "question": "QESTION".
Willard proves Godwin’s Law yet again.
Actually, Gill, Gaslighting Graham just did, for as you may well know, the Godwin Law is about the fastest way to get a response on the Intertubes,
Can Little Willy admit his four mistakes?
Will Gaslighitng Graham ever admit that his linguistic analysis sucks?
"QESTION" is a misspelling. Presumably just a typo. Surely you can admit that one, at least!?
Maybe Gaslighting Graham should ponder on if all questions end with a question mark.
Willard says:
Actually, Gill, Gaslighting Graham just did,
———————
Willard gives a great demonstration of the relativist morality he lives by. . . .which is actually zero.
"Maybe Gaslighting Graham should ponder on if all questions end with a question mark."
The question I asked on April 17, 2023 at 11:55 AM was "can you admit you were wrong?", which ended with a question mark. It was a "yes" or "no" question, which you dodged, so I took your answer as being a "no" on April 17, 2023 at 2:27 PM. That worked, you see.
Whereas the question you asked on April 18, 2023 at 9:44 AM was "when will Gaslighting Graham admit that he gaslights to get his way?", which also ended with a question mark. It was not a "yes" or "no" question, which was why Little Willy’s follow-up response of "so that is a *no*" on April 18, 2023 at 12:54 PM did not work.
Has Gaslighting Graham really asked a question?
Yes. I really asked you if you can admit that you’re wrong…because it really seems like you can’t admit when you’re wrong, and I was curious to see if you would acknowledge that.
Your fifth mistake occurred on April 20, 2023 at 10:47 AM, when you wrote "Gaslighitng" instead of "Gaslighting".
Does every sentence ending with a question mark deserve an answer?
Are gaslighters like Gaslgihiting Graham entitled to a response?
Does Gasilighting Graham not recall when I told him I wouldn’t address him ever again?
Little Willy has never provided any evidence for his accusations or even any reasoning to explain in what way I’m supposedly “gaslighting”. He’s just trolling again, full of blind hatred for those that dare to think differently to him.
Gaslighting Graham keeps making outrageous claims and expects room service for his trolling efforts. More than expectations, in fact – demands.
Just take the latest gaslighting episode. He interjects with a silly accusation toward ES. Then he just can’t let go. Instead of admitting that no, he did not really literally mean that ES was only playing Climateball for politics’s sake and was just trolling, he has to play dumb and gaslight and lulz.
No memory of what’s being said or done in an exchange. Presumably stuck in his email or RSS notifications. Addicted to his stupid phone.
Worse, he has to pretend that we’re on speaking terms. About a silly issue that escapes his meager grasp of pragmatics. Started with an accusation that he ought to know is false:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190926
Gaslighting Graham has trapped himself into a really weird way to seek connection. In any event, the tears of the world are a constant quantity. For each one who begins to weep somewhere else another stops. The same is true of the laugh.
I’ve made no “claims” other than perhaps that you cannot admit you are wrong. There’s plenty of evidence that you cannot do so on this thread alone, and in every discussion you’re involved in at this website. You link to a comment from two years ago where you claim:
“I admit to have made many mistakes”
I’m not sure where, though! Where did you actually admit to making these mistakes? What were the mistakes? If you really admitted to the mistakes that actually mattered, you would have had to pretty much bin that entire article. In fact, that the article still exists in its current form and that you continue to link to it is just more evidence that you cannot admit you’re wrong.
I think Swanson is just playing Climateball for politics sake…and so are you. So are most of the trolls here…
…and if we’re not on speaking terms, stop speaking to me.
The gaslighting goes on:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I don’t think Ive ever seen you acknowledge even the slightest mistake.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Ive made no “claims” other than perhaps that you cannot admit you are wrong.
And I just proved him wrong.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham does not think. In that case, his claim is vacuously true.
Isn’t "not acknowledging you’ve made a mistake" the same thing as "you cannot admit you are wrong"?
You’ll certainly have proved me wrong if you can link to an example of one of the mistakes you made on that thread, along with you admitting to it at the time.
Has Gaslighting Graham ever studied quantifiers?
Did Gaslighting Graham really meant that he never seen me admit even the slightest mistake, or was he just being facetious to compel me to play his little game and force me to break my promise not to address him ever again?
No link.
I’m sure Little Willy has admitted to some minor mistake, somewhere along the line, though. He must have done. So this:
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen you acknowledge even the slightest mistake.”
is probably wrong. Let’s change it:
“You very rarely acknowledge even the slightest mistake”.
Which is odd, considering he makes so many.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I dont think Ive ever seen you acknowledge even the slightest mistake.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Youll certainly have proved me wrong if you can link to an example of one of the mistakes you made on that thread
It’d be a mistake if it wasn’t intentional gaslighting.
Little Willy makes mistake number six: leaving out an important part of the quote.
“You’ll certainly have proved me wrong if you can link to an example of one of the mistakes you made on that thread, along with you admitting to it at the time.”
Gaslighting Graham still plays dumb about quantifiers.
Besides revealing he has not clicked on the link, or that he did and he’s just gaslighting once again.
You say, in the linked comment:
“I admit to have made many mistakes.”
Past tense. I was looking for proof this was correct. A link to you actually admitting one of the mistakes as it happened. Otherwise, anyone could just claim that they “admit to have made many mistakes” without actually having done so at the time.
Like I said, though…I’m sure you must have admitted a mistake at some point in your life. So, I’ve already taken back what I said.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once more.
All this to get his way.
The saddest part is that he’s trapped in a contraption of his own making:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-191034
Will he continue to try to get his way?
Probly.
Like I said, though…I’m sure you must have admitted a mistake at some point. So, I’ve already taken back what I said.
And so Gaslighting Graham sucks at linguistic analysis, just like he sucks at geometry and he sucks at algebra.
But mistakes matter a lot to him.
A lot a lot a lot.
Ah, so you must mean "not at all". Thanks for the compliment.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
Compare and contrast:
(C1) I don’t think I’ve ever seen you acknowledge even the slightest mistake.
(C2) I’m sure you must have admitted a mistake at some point.
How is C2 a retraction of C1?
It’s not.
Little Willy doesn’t accept the acknowledgment that what I said was wrong and that I changed it to a more accurate statement:
“You very rarely acknowledge even the slightest mistake”.
There’s absolutely nothing you can do or say to him that he’ll accept, if you’re on his hit list. He has to argue with you.
Gaslighting Graham can’t even adknowledge that his whole struggle session was more than silly.
It’s all political for him.
Little Willy could have just acknowledged his six mistakes in this thread. Actually, seven now: “adknowledge”.
However, that would require some integrity.
Gaslighting Graham could have acknowledged that he was merely trolling ES and he would not be stuck with a silly struggle session for which he has no real skillz.
No struggling here, just enjoying your ongoing dishonesty display for the benefit of readers. You really make yourself look so absolutely terrible. All I have to do is continue to respond to you. Easy!
And of course Gaslighting Graham ignores what “struggle session” means.
Yep. I couldn’t give a shit what it means.
It appears Gaslighting Graham could not give a shit of anything, except perhaps getting the last word here.
He knows how to do that. It’d be easy.
But he won’t.
No, perfectly happy to let you make yourself look as abysmal as possible. Please continue. This old argument winner just sits back and enjoys the show as a lesser man humiliates himself for the blog’s entertainment. What a glorious win.
We must imagine Gaslighting Graham perfectly happy “to work really hard.”
"It appears Gaslighting Graham could not give a shit of anything"
Oh, and it should have been "could not give a shit about anything". Yet another mistake from a guy who prides himself on his language skills yet can’t even string a sentence together properly.
When caught in his own internal contradictions, Gaslighting Graham goes full Grammar Nazi once again. It took time. He missed a lot.
As if that will help him get away with his pragmatic infelicities.
No internal contradictions or pragmatic infelicities here. Thanks anyway.
Two delicious examples pragmatic infelicities rolled into one. Mere denial in an argument. Setting himself as judge and jury.
Yes, you have set yourself as judge and jury. Very funny. More please!
Gaslighting Graham vomits up some of his usual rubbish, rather than doing anything to provide evidence for his claims.
What claims? More please!
Gaslighting Graham sardonically gaslights once more.
More false accusations of gaslighting please!
Another infelicity by Gaslighting Graham, his favorite one: relying on the ad nauseam.
Oh, I’m just relying on you to keep doing what you’re doing. A fantastic, extended dishonesty display to really disgust the readers. Please continue.
Gaslighting Graham found another way to divert attention from his failure to substantiate his claims.
Gaslighting Graham keeps doing what he’s doing. A fantastic, extended dishonesty display to really disgust the readers.
He should stop. He knows how. He can’t.
Another mistake from Little Willy.
No real reply from Gaslighting Graham, I note.
Yet another mistake from Little Willy.
No real reply from Gaslighting Graham, thus he gently gaslights again.
So many mistakes from Little Willy. So few acknowledged.
Gaslighting Graham got all the answers an honest person would need.
I hadn’t asked a question, so that’s rather unusual.
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb once again.
Incorrect.
They banned state employees from using the terms climate change, global warming, or sustainability in Florida.
Let’s check and see how that’s working out for them…
Hillsboro Beach: https://youtu.be/_w0YglKV3aI
Miami Beach: https://youtu.be/jCIiK3mKUug
Charles Darwin would approve.
TM, there are numerous opinions about how high/low sea levels have been in Florida, in history. Ive seen estimates that Miami was covered in hundreds of feet of ocean, only a few thousands of years ago.
Put your money where your mouth is, Pupman –
Start an insurance biz over there.
If you are right, you will make a killing.
Estimated sea-level rise net migrants (in-migrants minus out-migrants)
It is likely that many communities will deploy a wide variety of adaptation measures including sea walls, beach and marsh nourishment, pumps, or elevate homes and roads to protect both people and property, iow, emphasize adaptation.
Estimates of adaptive infrastructure costs range to upwards of US$1.1 trillion in the U.S.
However, the deployment of adaptation measures is driven by wealth for both cities and individuals. The wealthy will adapt; the less well off will migrate.
People like the troll Clint R always refer to ‘just a few thousand years ago’ and never think of the big difference between then and now:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/World-population-1750-2015-and-un-projection-until-2100.png/1024px-World-population-1750-2015-and-un-projection-until-2100.png
Is it really so difficult to understand that thousands of years ago, we were a few 100 million people around the Mediterranean sea, and in Florida, probably no more than a few thousands?
Florida back then: few inhabitants per 100 km^2, no buildings, no industry, no technical infrastructure that we all depend on.
And how is it today, troll Clint R?
Sea levels in the Pleistocene varied between 100 feet above, and 400 feet below present-day levels at peak glaciation, a relatively recent 20,000 years ago. Florida’s present-day configuration constitutes only about 0.001% of its geological history.
The Anthropocene threatens to re-configure Florida’s coastline on an even faster timeline.
Yeah Bin, I imagine it was hard to build buildings, industry, and infrastructure when there was a hundred feet of water over their heads.
“What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” Sherwood Rowland.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1995/rowland/biographical/
AW,
I see your Sherwood Rowland and raise you Knutson and Tuleya:
“If we had observations of the future, we obviously would trust them more than models, but unfortunately… observations of the future are not available at this time.”
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please take a long walk off a short pier.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Just saying, a long walk off a short pier may cure that inferiority complex.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Fine, I’m only tryna to help! Good talk.
#2
Tyson, please stop trolling.
“Is it really so difficult to understand that thousands of years ago, we were a few 100 million people around the Mediterranean sea, and in Florida, probably no more than a few thousands?”
Then there was this crustal displacement catastrophe resulting in Noah’s flood. And it went down to 8 people.
I wonder if the fluid between the crust and the core is heating up and expanding. There has to be some explanation for why tide gauge says 1.8 mm per year and satellite says 3.6 mm per year.
Yes there is explanation, it’s all about who collects and compiles the data, The tide gauges are manned by old timers very proud of their job, they cannot be bought off and corrupted.
The satellites on the other hand are controlled by climate shysters and climate whores who know what result is expected of them.
I guess I am being naive that people would deliberately corrupt data on the basis of malfeaseance.
I’m still looking for a technical/scientific explanation.
I guess cranks can’t get out of the Bingo:
https://climateball.net/but-data
Ken must be a Creationist, writing:
Ever heard of the Black Sea Flood?. Here’s an earlier version.
Ayuh. God created the world. He did it in 6 phases as described in Genesis. If you think about it, that process makes sense.
The part where me and the’creationists’ part ways is the bit where it is claimed the creation took 6 days or 6 x 24 hour periods. Stuff and nonsense.
Ken, as you attempt to “create” your own personal version of the Bible, how do you deal with:
Genisis:
1:5 …And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:8 …And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
1:31 …And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Clearly defining a “day” as having “evening” and “morning” kinda makes it hard to pervert the meaning, huh? Do “phases” have evenings and mornings?
So now you are a Dead Sea scrolls scholar, Pup?
–Why seven days in a week?
While months, years and days can be directly related to astronomical events like the rotation of the Earth around its axis or a complete orbit of the Sun, a week is a curious 23% of a lunar month. Nevertheless, it has been used for millennia from China to India, the Middle East and Europe.
Our use of the seven-day week can be traced back to the astronomically gifted Babylonians and the decree of King Sargon I of Akkad around 2300 BCE. They venerated the number seven, and before telescopes the key celestial bodies numbered seven (the Sun, the Moon and the five planets visible to the naked eye).
The seven-day week is also closely linked to Judaism and the story of Genesis, with God resting on the seventh day.–
https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/why-12-months-year-seven-days-week-or-60-minutes-hour
It seems people like the heavens or Space.
Seven is holy
And with Torah, it’s a day off. If you are free, you can take a day off.
Animals don’t take a day off. Though Jews think their animals should get a day off- or don’t require their animal to do work.
But also aspect is that work 6 of 7 days. God worked for 6 days and rested 1 day [or He enjoyed his creation on the 7th day].
Taking every 1/7th off or celebrating the holy day is one of the 10 commandant. Of course it assume do stuff other 6 days. Doesn’t require 6 days, but 6 days in a row is the limit whether one “self employed” or working for others to gain some kind of payment.
A slaves would also only required to work for 6 days in row, if you followed the 10 commandant.
As recall some kind of Babylonian type guy, also said to give 10 rules to follow.
I wonder if I can find it.
Hmm, maybe I confusing it with “The Code of Hammurabi”- or I just didn’t find it. The code of Hammurabi seems favor people who can swim in river. Anyhow, as recall it was a short list of reasonable laws, but the Code of Hammurabi doesn’t really fit that- there are hundreds of them. But it is Babylonian.
https://youtu.be/iOV_xzpQmmI
I could watch this sh!t all day long.
I’m almost tempted to feel bad for these people, no joke. It’s an illness.
The thing they have in common is that they all say or imply … “I believe … “. and that doesn’t need facts or reason or logic,. and it is impervious to argument of any kind.
Yes TM, political groupings can become cults. Just look at what has gone on here. The devoted have tried to claim passenger jets fly backward.
Thats only one example….
Trump is the conspiracy-theorist-in-chief; he broke into politics by pushing conspiracy theories. His constant promotion of outlandish lies throughout his presidency gave his fans permission to dive headlong into conspiracy theories themselves.
QAnon has also broken out of the United States, spreading to Canada, Europe, and Japan. It has absorbed dozens of lesser conspiracy theories making it hard for the average news consumer to understand just what QAnon followers actually believe. Is it that the cabal is run by lizards from another planet? Or that John F. Kennedy Jr. faked his death and is Q himself? Is it one or the other?
Q and the conspiracy theorists who support him have promised believers that a sort of utopia awaits them, if only Trump would be given free rein to deal with his enemies. The cabal has been hoarding disease cures, so even the terminally ill will be healed once Trump launches the Storm. Since the cabal causes all wars, world peace would reign once its leaders are arrested. And because the cabal controls the financial system, a post-cabal world would mean an end to credit card and student loan debt.
It’s a symptom of the world we live in, a product of unchecked social media platforms, a crumbling education system, rampant political polarization, and the crumbling of offline communities. Q’s followers have responded to modern life by retreating into a violent fantasy that exists parallel to the real world.
AW,
Yes, the achievement of the 21st century is that now stupidity is available for all to see and quantify.
Provided madness is transparent, we can sleep tight.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please take a long walk off a short pier.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Just saying, a long walk off a short pier may cure that inferiority complex.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Fine, I’m only tryna to help! Good talk.
Fine, I’m only tryna to help! Good talk.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Ken and Eben
Is it so difficult to understand this picture?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1unX9nvORdkmSipb22DfldIGRT-U3n5BE/view
Can’t you two read the values on the y-axis?
The average trend of the considered gauges for the period 1900-2015 is around 1.5 mm/year, and that for 1995-2015 is near 3.0 mm/year.
What you mean with 1.8 mm/yr for tide gauges is the average trend
– (1) of their respective LIFETIME: e.g. for Brest in France for 1807-2022
and
– (2) calculated without a GPS-based correction of the vertical land motion (VLM) around the gauges.
*
If you want to accurately compare sea level trends originating from different sources, you have to ensure that the trends were computed
– with respect to the same period;
– relative to the land movements with respect to the sea.
Otherwise, you will make the same fundamental mistake as the incompetent poster nicknamed ‘Gordon Robertson’ who recently managed to compare NOAA anomalies wrt 1901-2000 to UAH anomalies wrt 1991-2020. No real engineed should be dumb enough to do that.
*
I generated today, out of the currently 1544 available PSMSL tide gauges, the trends for 452 of them having data for the reference period 1993-2013, AND having in their near a SONEL GPS station giving the land velocity around them.
When I discard the VLM velocity data, the average trends are, in mm/year:
– for their lifetime: 1.9 – i.e. quite near to these 1.8 mm/year seen everywhere
– for 1993-2013: 2.7
*
Here is the trend list for these 452 gauges with VLM correction:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LyQfV9vrLjGh3oA3AW3vDTU2WqJECkos/view
*
The average trends, in mm/year
– for their lifetime: 2.3
– for 1993-2013: 3.1
*
And this last trend for tide gauges: 3.1 mm/year is what you must use when comparing gauge data to satellite data, e.g. NOAA’s:
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_gbl_free_txj1j2_90.csv
The trend of this sat altimetry time series for the period 1993-2013: 2.6 mm/year.
*
Now, any one can claim that since 2013, the sea level trends might have lowered – for whichever reason. But:
– the 1993-2022 tide gauge trends of 373 of the 452 above having data till December 2022: 3.2 mm/year.
– the 1993-2022 tide gauge trend of the sat altimetry data: 3.1 mm/year.
{ No idea where the 3.6 mm/year come from; I can only speak about what I download from NOAA’s altimetry site. }
*
Thus, any one can claim:
” The satellites on the other hand are controlled by climate shysters and climate whores who know what result is expected of them. ”
But then s/he should download all the data, process it, and present her/his results right here on the blog.
¡Basta ya!
Missing from your graphs is the wide variation from year to year.
It is the wide variation in trying to measure the changes that amount to the thickness of a few sheets of paper that require at least 75 years of data to smooth out the bumps.
So we can agree the lifetime trend is 1.8 or 1.9.
The 1.8 comes from stations that don’t have a VLM trend either up or down, as derived from either from GPS or Survey Control. You have to discard data from any station that has VLM changes.
Where I cannot agree is when you cherry pick data from 1993 to 2022 and claim there is acceleration. There should be at least 75 years worth of data to make any claim of sustained trends.
The 3.6mm Satellite data comes from NOAA and is based on approximately 20 years of observations.
I should add that the trend in 1930s was similar to the 1993 to 2022 trend. One more reason for basing sea level data on long periods.
Ken
When I read your absolutely incompetent reply, I very first think of asking you why you criticize people like Robertson and Clint R.
What you write is of exactly the same superficial vein shared by all people feeling the need to comment even what they don’t understand.
*
1. ” Missing from your graphs is the wide variation from year to year. ”
This sentence shows that you still did not manage to understand the trend sequence graph above:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1unX9nvORdkmSipb22DfldIGRT-U3n5BE/view
This graph has NOTHING to do with all the graphs showing gauge data: it is not its role. Its role is solely to show how trends for time series vary over time.
*
A graph showing variations, even within the averaging of hundreds of stations, looks like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13lywnK9Run1A9L9AW64r6JXqZAMprIsI/view
Aaah! Not enough ‘wide’ variations, Ken?
What about this?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hTSbVzqfzrv_5MfAunxMoMI_lxDoeHj7/view
It’s the same as the graph above, except that my evaluation now is the raw, unsmoothed data – as opposed to Dangendorf’s and Foster’s.
More variations? Why not:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JskcKvPALG65LUj4aZEM-Wn3sqW2vJG7/view
Here you see the (unsmoothed) variations becoming less and less ‘wide’ because we move step-wise from a single Swedish station up to the whole Sweden, then Northern Europe, the North Atlantic and finally… the Globe.
2. ” … that require at least 75 years of data to smooth out the bumps. ”
This smoothing out has NOTHING to do with how long the data is, but only with
– the number of units averaged;
– the degree of smoothing provided by the low pass filter you use to correctly evaluate how your data really behaves.
*
3. ” You have to discard data from any station that has VLM changes. ”
What’s that for a nonsense, Ken? About 90 % of the stations are located at land which either shows rebound or subsidence.
Don’t you see that you perfectly replicate the ‘keep it simple’ pseudo-arguments a la Robertson or Clint R concerning the lunar spin?
*
4. ” Where I cannot agree is when you cherry pick data from 1993 to 2022 and claim there is acceleration. There should be at least 75 years worth of data to make any claim of sustained trends. ”
Where did I ‘cherry-pick data from 1993 to 2022′, Ken?
Here is the trend sequence in mm/year, for five year distant consecutive periods, computed out of my data since January 1900:
1900-2015: 1.5 mm/year
1905-2015: 1.5
1910-2015: 1.5
1915-2015: 1.5
1920-2015: 1.5
1925-2015: 1.5
1930-2015: 1.5
1935-2015: 1.4
1940-2015: 1.4
1945-2015: 1.5
1950-2015: 1.5
1955-2015: 1.6
1960-2015: 1.8
1965-2015: 1.9
1970-2015: 2.0
1975-2015: 2.2
1980-2015: 2.3
1985-2015: 2.4
1990-2015: 2.6
1995-2015: 2.8
All what is shown here is that the trend increases over time since much longer time than since the satellite era’s begin, as intentionally manipulating people endlessly insinuate.
*
I’m over 70, live 400 km away from any ocean, and thus don’t need to care about sea levels, let alone about their possible acceleration.
I simply like to download data and process it as good as I can: exactly what you are 100 % unable to do.
*
And for the umpteenth time, I repeat what one of my former university professors told me decades ago:
” Who is unable to scientifically contradict soon will start to polemically discredit. ”
Once more, I see he was ‘plain right’.
*
Think what you want.
Bin, that’s why you constantly attempt to discredit others — you can’t scientifically contradict them.
We’ve known that all along…
As usual: Clint R’s cheap ball-on-a-string polemics, without any science.
What are your trivial words compared to technical evaluations you never would be able to understand, let alone replicate?
Well Bindo, weve been asking for your model of OMWAR. But, all we get is your usual denial and trolling.
Wheres your model of OMWAR?
Put up or shut up.
I’m over 60, live on the coast where relative sea level is dropping in a house 80 meters above the high tide line.
What? Me? Worry?
The problem isn’t the sea level rise. The problem is the climate change narrative.
My coastal town has posted a document. Campbell River Sea Level Rise Action Plan. The document makes the extraordinary claim that there will be 1 meter sea level rise by 2100.
Meanwhile the NOAA compilation of the local tide gauge shows Relative Sea Level is actually dropping a whopping 1.66 mm per year. Obviously land is rising faster than the global sea level is rising.
We’d need 12 mm per year to get to 1 meter and that only if the land stops rising. Not going to happen.
The City solution to the non-existent problem is to spend millions to protect land that is already prone to flooding using the excuse of climate change.
Multiply the effect of ‘green’ policies across Canada and we have inflation due to printing money to fund those unneeded dikes.
So yeah, it matters even if you are 70 and live 400 km from the sea. You’re going to know it when the US has a sovereign debt crisis because it went broke due to being woke about non-existent climate change.
Meanwhile I am learning about sea level rise so I can fight back. I might have it wrong but I’m not as profoundly wrong as my City government is.
Sorry, Ken
Your sentence
” Meanwhile the NOAA compilation of the local tide gauge shows Relative Sea Level is actually dropping a whopping 1.66 mm per year. Obviously land is rising faster than the global sea level is rising. ”
shows that your opinion about your own understanding
” Meanwhile I am learning about sea level rise so I can fight back. ”
is still wrong.
You still didn’t understand that GPS land velocities measured in the near of gauges have to be added to the sea level change which the gauges measure.
If a GPS sensor measures an uplift velocity of 10 mm/year in the near of a gauge measuring a sea level trend of -8 mm/year, then the result is +2 mm/year.
Conversely, if a landscape shows a subsidence of -10 mm/year around a gauge showing no trend, this negative downlift velocity must be added to the gauge’s trend as well, and the gauge contributes then with -10 mm/year to the average trend of the local ocean basin around it.
“If a GPS sensor measures an uplift velocity of 10 mm/year in the near of a gauge measuring a sea level trend of -8 mm/year, then the result is +2 mm/year.”
In your example, my understanding is the relative sea level is dropping 8 mm per year even as actual sea level is rising 2mm. No need to build a dike.
No one asked you to build a dike where there is no need for.
All I wanted to show is that
– your comparison ‘1.8 mm/yr for gauges vs. 3.6 mm/yr for altimetry’ is nonsensical and flawed because you compare trends computed for considerably different periods, and that
– I made no trend cherry-picking at all.
C’est tout.
The problem is my City is building dikes despite the tide gauge showing relative sea level is dropping.
Ken (cntnd)
Here is my comparison of the average sea levels for CONUS’ East coast which is subject to subsidence at most places:
https://tinyurl.com/bddxk9e9
You can see that without GPS downlift correction (the red plot), the average sea level trend is clearly higher (1 mm/year in the data for 1900-2021, what is a lot for such a long coast).
*
When NOAA shows on its sea level web site
https://tinyurl.com/bd88kbfp
for Furuogrund in Sweden (end of the Bothnian Gulf)
https://i.postimg.cc/DzkVmh1M/Furuogrund.png
a trend of -7.95 mm/year, then this is the trend for the raw PSMSL sea level data for 1916-now
https://psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/203.php
computed without the correction for glacial isostatic rebound measured by the GPS station in the near of the gauge.
On this page by NOAA see the link to ‘difference between historical and new sea level trends and confidence intervals. This is why I am pushing for longer term data and why I think a 30 year interval is cherry picking.
https://tinyurl.com/bd88kbfp
Bin you are comparing apples to oranges. We didn’t have satellite data before 1979 so sea level rise was far more inaccurate especially to a scientist that bought Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, With Michael Mann and others standing shoulder to shoulder with Gore.
Fact was there was a tremendous amount of warming (virtually as much as recently) from 1920-1940 and it doesn’t even make a blip in the data so clearly your historic figures are wrong.
Most people are well aware of how data is getting tweaked. The old saying fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Hunter boy
” Fact was there was a tremendous amount of warming (virtually as much as recently) from 1920-1940 and it doesnt even make a blip in the data… ”
*
Here is apart from your absolute ignorance re. sea levels, a hint how ignorant you are re. temperatures as well:
https://tinyurl.com/2p9n5me5
In Paul Clark’s raw data we can read
(a)
#Selected data from 1921
#Selected data up to 1940
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0117318 per year
(b)
#Selected data from 1981
#Selected data up to 2000
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0182003 per year
*
Trends in C/decade for
1921-1940: 0.12
versus
1981-2000: 0.18
*
Yes, polemicist Hunter boy: 1981-2000 shows a slope 50% higher than does 1921-1940.
And your claim about ‘a blip’ clearly reveals how uninformed and dishonest you behave.
Bindidon says:
”Here is apart from your absolute ignorance re. sea levels, a hint how ignorant you are re. temperatures as well:
In Paul Clarks raw data we can read. . . .
And your claim about a blip clearly reveals how uninformed and dishonest you behave.”
————————–
Sure thats after an army of scientists following the guidance of the Al Gore post the 2000 date you mention and a 17 year pause set in. A religious army set off searching out and tossing out suspected high temperatures submitted by the station managers of the day started making adjustments that showed up on ha-d-cr-t3 but wasn’t enough so now we have modeled data to adjust it further to your link. Compare yours to this:
trends.https://tinyurl.com/5psfsjza
Do you have any idea what your kind is doing to the confidence of Americans in their government? You guys have no sense at all.
A lot of 10’s lining up with the 3 recent weak La Nina’s
10th warmest year.
10th lowest in 43 years arctic sea ice extent.
10 years of the latest pause by the end if the year if not sooner.
10 cm of snow this AM. This time of year we almost never get snow.
Yes, this year has seen some unusual snow fall. The impacts will continue in California for some months (years?). Ask John Christy, he’s from Fresno, AIUI.
Ocean waters off California are colder than they have been for 20 years.
I take that back as that was old news. For April 17 the waters off California are colder than they have been for the entire record I have access to from NOAA.
You mean like this weather news?
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/cb/sst5km/
Meanwhile the Eastern US got almost no snow. A weird year.
Why Did The Earth Totally Freeze For 100 Million Years?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vntVVcazJD4
A pathetic tale of Earth’s mythical Snowball global climates.
At one point is says the tropics would have been as cold as Antarctica.
In winter? or Summer? Or average?
And in talking about tropics, it’s talking about summer and winter.
So, apparently, clueless of what summer and winter, are.
But after lots wandering, lamenting about having any evident, it grinds to it’s end.
And seems to think, snowball earth is an informal term.
Earth has greenhouse global climates, icehouse global climates, and snowball global climates, which are clearly defined scientific terms- though we continue to lack any evident of Earth ever having a snowball global climate.
But one could say small areas of tropics [high elevations] are “about” as cold as some times and some places as Antarctica.
And since the tropics does has ice caps, presently. It seems possible
to have something like an ice sheet in the tropics. But would not say anything about Earth global climate.
In icehouse or even greenhouse global climate, geologic factors could cause an ice sheet in the tropics. But the tropics is not going to have a winter.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0138342
Stopping Storms From Creating Dangerous Urban Geysers
During intense rainstorms, residents of urban areas rely on stormwater sewers to keep streets and homes from flooding. But in some cases, air pockets in sewers combine with fast-moving water to produce waterspouts that can reach dozens of feet high and last for several minutes. These so-called storm geysers can flood the surrounding area, cause damage to nearby structures, injure bystanders, and compromise drainage pipes.
Perhaps the biggest cause of storm geysers is poor city planning. With extreme weather events becoming more common due to climate change, cities can often find themselves unprepared for massive amounts of rain. Growing cities are especially vulnerable. Small cities have small drainage pipes, but new streets and neighborhoods result in added runoff, and those small pipes may not be able to handle the increased volume.
Intense flooding creates geysers from sewers in Chicago: https://youtu.be/jWsFbQL8V7Y
Sewer geyser tosses car in flash Montreal storm: https://youtu.be/Oqb4jZu47Kc
“With extreme weather events becoming more common due to climate change”
Evidence of extreme weather events becoming more common is needed.
Cite your data sources please.
Anything I can find shows no trend to support your narrative.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/after-hurricane-ian-no-trend-in-florida-landfalls-global-activity-trending-down/
We both know that you will not read my sources so why should I waste my time?
Regardless, I would have thought that you’d at least be familiar with what’s happening in your own sandbox.
https://ibb.co/s3JnV5F
See the last line. There is a lack of data. Not just in Northern Canada, but most of Canada.
Nothing in your link that supports a narrative of extreme weather events becoming more common. More rain does not equate to extreme weather events; it only means less drought.
Try to keep up:
You wrote: “Anything I can find shows no trend to support your narrative.”
To which I reply that:
1) Canada’s Changing Climate Report 2019 (slide) shows that you are wrong.
2) The Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium at the University of Victoria shows that you are wrong.
3) The World Weather Attribution initiative on Extreme Event Attribution shows that you are wrong.
Just to name 3 sources.
You will not find these data unless you open the aperture in your search.
Tyson, please stop trolling.
Today was a good day for journalistic standards. Fox news paid out $787 million to Dominion Voting Systems for airing falsehoods about the company that the hosts and producers presenting Fox shows knew were false.
More than 60 court cases, a slew of Republican 2020 election overseers, top conservative news media honchos, and the Trump administration’s DoJ and cyber security division all agreed that the election fraud claims were empty. Now Fox is forced to come clean.
So that just leaves MAGA true believers and a few cranks.
How can the claims be empty Barry? They haven’t spent 6 years investigating it in search of a crime.
I can barely comprehend you, Bill. No doubt some inside joke.
But to pick up on the theme, Trump had been saying the election would be rigged for months before it actually happened, especially if he lost, and when he lost his fans went all in looking for a crime. There were hundreds of different claims and they all went belly-up on examination.
Those fact of those numerous failures never seemed to make a dent in believing in something that time and again was demonstrated to be without evidence.
Not even the news that conservative media didn’t believe it, and ended up paying for lying about it, will shift the needle one tiny hair for true believers. Facts don’t matter to them.
Indeed Barry. The democrats were rapidly passing new laws stripping away the controls that ensure elections are conducted fairly. Why was it the democrats rather than the republicans doing that?
What do the Democrats have to do with Fox being caught lying about election fixing, 60 failed court cases (most of which were decided by Republican appointed judges and 12 by judges appointed by Trump), and Republican election officials, Trump-appointed DoJ, FBI and cyber security division saying there was no fraud?
I’ll repeat what I said:
“The fact of those numerous failures never seemed to make a dent in believing in something that time and again was demonstrated to be without evidence.”
That’s clearly about you.
Sorry barry, to disappoint you a bit with the following statements which I translated partly from French and partly from German newspapers.
*
The blog’s scanner got disturbed once more, so I made a pdf out of the comment:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fe69HJN63Gp6Z7iaoy7dEjHzBCYLV7HD/view
*
By the way: as you can see above, these Trumpistas are really incredibly dumb.
Not one of the Rep lawmakers would ever believe what the average Trumpista gullibly sucks!
I saw that segment air, Bindidon. It’s the most jaded take on the affair.
That this is the best result for Fox – paying out nearly $1 billion over the lawsuit and acknowledging that it aired falsehoods – is not a ‘win’ for them. It’s damage control.
In fact, they could have settled earlier and avoided all the embarrassment of having their dirty laundry exposed to the public, and having their own internal communications make the case for Dominion. Sure it would have been better to have it turned out in court in even more painful detail, but to say this is a win for Fox is a bit silly.
The political prisoners without trial or bail since election is pretty good proof.
Hunter boy
” … so clearly your historic figures are wrong. ”
*
As usual, only polemic and insinuation instead of intelligent contradiction.
You are a paranoid boy whose claims and suspicions that people are doing something wrong are 100% based on “gut feeling” and nothing else.
*
What I did was to present tide gauge data collected by the
Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL)
https://psmsl.org/
from over 1500 tide gauges located in 226 countries.
*
What they write about themselves:
” The PSMSL is based at and supported by the UK’s National Oceanography Centre, but have no ongoing external source of funding. ”
Of course you won’t believe it. No wonder: after all, you are gullible enough to believe that Biden’s election in 2020 was a fraud.
I’m 100 % sure that you suspect these PSMSL people to manipulate the data they collect and make available to the public:
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
*
The very best is that you are as incompetent as Robertson, Clint R, Flynnson and a few others, and would NEVER be able to replicate the job I did with my sea level evaluations since 2018.
All you are able to is to deny it, exactly as you deny scientific work made by so many people in any other discipline – as soon as their results don’t match your superficial and egomaniacal narrative. See e.g. the lunar spin.
*
No, you 100 % incompetent Hunter boy: I didn’t compare apples with oranges.
Let alone did that the group around Sören Dangendorf, whose data I downloaded already five years ago.
This comparison below is an apple-to-apple comparison, Hunter boy, you don’t understand anything of it, you probably wouldn’t know where to find its data sources; so you can discredit and denigrate it as long as you want.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xkdM6bd47s2WWraL2I6p2Nmz3g70JzNL/view
*
A final remark
While commentator Ken expresses understandable doubts about this sea-level rise hysteria that many people propagate, he is and remains an honest man.
You, Hunter Boy, are something like Ken’s polar opposite: you’re fundamentally dishonest.
Bindo, continuing to live in denial isn’t healthy.
You need to come up with a viable model of OMWAR, or just accept defeat.
Where’s your model of OMWAR?
Put up or shut up.
What is OMWAR?
Ken, to be asking such a question, this late in the discussion, reveals how utterly ignorant you are. Like a typical cult idiot, you swallow the nonsense from your cult. But, you don’t question your cult, do you?
For you Spinners to claim Moon spins, you need to have a model of Orbital Motion Without Axial Spin, OMWAR. You don’t! You have NOTHING, except your cult beliefs.
The simple ball-on-a-string is the model of OMWAR. That simple model demonstrates Moon is NOT spinning. Your cult does not like that model, but they have NOTHING to replace it with. It’s hard to replace reality.
That explains why there was no result on the google search. They’re obviously supressing the truth.
Well google has been accused of that.
But what I find interesting is how people with no knowledge of a subject will look it up on the Internet, and then decide that they are experts!
And what I see often is they will look until they find something that agrees with their beliefs, and use it to support their beliefs. That’s why they can never learn.
Ken
Yes, we are utterly ignorant of the TRUE SCIENCE.
” For you Spinners to claim Moon spins, you need to have a model of Orbital Motion Without Axial Spin, OMWAR. You don’t! ”
The question remains of course whether or not a genius like Clint R is able to discover the nonsense within his own words.
Why would someone who understands that ALL orbiting celestial bodies MUST rotate – even those which seemingly don’t – ever need a model that describes orbital motion without axial rotation i.e. just doesn’t include what s/he understands?
Bindo, do you STILL not have a model of OMWAR?
Maybe you just make up some excuse, like there is no such thing.
That’s probably why you hate the simple ball-on-a-string so much, huh?
Hey Pup,
Do the PDE.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.”
It’s no surprise to some of us that Fox News has been revealed to be exactly what we already knew it was – a sewer of lies, misinformation and propaganda. It’s also, sadly, no surprise that Fox’s business model, that a sizable segment of the population want a channel that will reliably lie to them, is spot on.
Staple Street acquired a roughly 76% stake in Dominion in 2018 for $38.8 million. Its share of the settlement, assuming it had made no additional equity investments since 2018, would be $598.5 million, or 1,542% more than it paid for its stake in the company.
Staple Street may have more paydays ahead. Dominion still has pending suits against other conservative media outlets NewsMax and One America News Network, as well as former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and lawyer Sydney Powell, who both falsely claimed Dominion’s voting machines were rigged.
As for Fox, another, larger, voting machine company, Smartmatic, also has a suit pending, and there are also shareholder suits yet to be heard.
https://youtu.be/VVxYOQS6ggk
It may be the peculiar nature of Americans to make history and to have fun in the making.
If you’re keeping score:
Dominion is suing:
– Fox News settled.
– NewsMax pending.
– OANN pending.
– Sidney Powell pending.
– Rudy Giuliani pending.
– Mike Lindell pending.
– Patrick Byrne pending.
Smartmatic is suing:
– Fox News pending.
– NewsMax pending.
– OANN pending.
– Sidney Powell pending.
– Rudy Giuliani pending.
– Jeanine Pirro pending.
– Maria Bartiromo pending.
– Lou Dobbs pending.
Fox News dumps MAGA Blowhard Dan Bongino.
The Trump-boosting pundit has long been a proponent of election denialism.
The stop-the-steal insanity from the 2020 US federal election just keeps on being entertaining.
Mike Lindell, the My Pillow guy offered $5 million to anyone who could disprove his claim that China interfered with the electoral count.
An IT security analyst who was also a Trump supporter took on the challenge, got given Lindell’s files and found there was nothing that remotely supported the claim, and that most of the documents were gibberish or had nothing to do with elections. Lindell had purchased the lot from a guy who has previously been convicted of fraud. The issue went to arbitration per the agreement Lindell set up, and yesterday found in this guy’s favour.
Lindell should pay $5 million, but he didn’t like the arbitration call so now he wants to take the matter to court.
“The panel reviewed each file and sided with Zeidmans analysis.
‘Based on the foregoing analysis, Mr. Zeidman performed under the contract,’ the arbitrators wrote. ‘He proved the data Lindell LLC provided, and represented reflected information from the November 2020 election, unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data.’ ”
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/mike-lindell-ordered-to-pay-5-million-to-man-who-debunked-his-election-fraud-claims/
barry says:
”Lindell should pay $5 million, but he didnt like the arbitration call so now he wants to take the matter to court.”
If the democrats gave up on their claim that the lack of evidence proves a claim wrong they would have to concede all their positions.
Where is the experiment demonstrating election fraud Bill? Without an experiment what have you got?
Nate there always is election fraud. The question is how much.
How would I ever know?
Nobody has investigated it.
All I know is the democrats did a lot of damage to the controls that help ensure reliable elections. There should be an in depth investigation to determine How much damage was done.
So we are in agreement there needs to be testing. Write your Congressman and tell him that.
So lacking an experiment, or data, youve got nothing. This is purely ‘dreamed up’.
Changing the subject to Democrats again, Bill? You’re obsessed, mate.
Lack of evidence doesn’t prove a claim wrong, by the way. It just means the claim is unfounded. Some people live in a world of unfounded claims, like those who are into astrology and leprechauns and such, and it’s usually not a problem. But when unfounded claims are the basis for, say, a riot at a Capitol Building to prevent a change of government, or responsible for serious defamation, or for provoking people to threaten harm and commit harm, or for generally undermining a nation’s democracy, then it’s a good idea to address them.
And this is what is entertaining.
Lindell bragged he would love a chance to go to court so he can finally make his election fraud claims public and have them proven.
What was entertaining about that a year ago was that when he was sued for defamation, he tried to have the case dismissed.
As a foreigner it’s 100 times better than reality TV. I’m sorry for the locals who have to live through it, though.
barry says:
Changing the subject to Democrats again, Bill? Youre obsessed, mate.
Lack of evidence doesnt prove a claim wrong, by the way. It just means the claim is unfounded.
———————————————-
I agree. Thus since the challenge was: ”anyone who could disprove his claim that China interfered with the electoral count.” apparently now you agree that the guy didn’t prove anything.
Like claims of seeing a flying saucer.
How does one prove somebody didn’t see a flying saucer?
“since the challenge was: ‘anyone who could disprove his claim that China interfered with the electoral count.’ apparently now you agree that the guy didnt prove anything.”
The guy did indeed disprove Lindell’s claim, by revealing that the data it was based on was not even about the 2020 election.
What the guy didn’t do was disprove China rigged the election.
That was an unfounded claim in the first place, as he discovered.
I’d better fill you in Bill, as it’s pretty obvious you haven’t read anything about, including the article I linked here.
Mike Lindell said he had the evidence that China rigged the 202 election. He offered $5 million bucks to anyone who could prove him wrong, and offered to give the data that claim was based on to anyone who was interested in taking up the bet. They also had to turn up to the 3-day convention.
The guy wasn’t interested, because he was a Trump supporter. Then friends kept telling him to go for the $5 million – he’s a top analyst in the right field.
But he was still reluctant because he thought it would be a waste of time with Lindell fronting such a big risk. Obviously Lindell had a solid case, he thought.
After some more prodding he went because he thought the people at the event might be interesting, and if he didn’t prove it wrong then he could at least verify that this crime had been committed.
He unlocked the files, transformed secured documents, and to his surprise discovered that none of it was specifically about the 2020 election.
Disproving Lindell’s claim that he had solid evidence China rigged the election.
Of the three people on the tribunal panel, one was picked by the guy, one by Lindell and one indepently picked.
The finding in the guy’s favour was unanimous.
I hope Lindell persuades a court to take up a case that has already been arbitrated,
Well since you guys are such well established strawmen builders you will need to provide the proof, starting with your proof of the challenge verbatim was simply proving that: ”solid evidence China rigged the election.” was without a single iota of merit.
How can the loss of a $5 million challenge be a strawman, Bill?
“A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.[4]”
Nate says:
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponents proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., stand up a straw man) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument.
————————-
Thats why I asked Barry to produce support that the ‘challenge’ was to show that Lindell’s challenge was to prove that his evidence Lindell proved wasn’t ”solid” as opposed to proving China didn’t violate election laws.
that by your definition is substituting one set of goal posts for the other, which by Barry’s lack of reply and your feeling you need to step in seems to be something he isn’t prepared to do. Did you anticipate that?
Bill,
I give you Mike Lindell himself stating the challenge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuUOlvQ-ee0
“There’s a five million dollar prize for anybody that can prove the election data that I have from the 2020 election is false.”
The arbitration panel:
“As part of the Cyber Symposium, Lindell LLC also announced a contest called the ‘Prove Mike Wrong Challenge’ (‘the Contest’). The announcement said that the participants “have one goal. Find proof that this cyber data is not valid data from the November Election. For the people who find the evidence, 5 million is their reward.” ”
https://tinyurl.com/msxy2zcz
Unanimously found in the guy’s favour.
So you’re still flapping your jaws without having done a lick of reading to inform yourself, secure in your wilful ignorance that you have some kind of standing to rebut the issue.
Back to my point: it’s fun to see bullshit artists get called. This time I’m not talking about you.
When I get time, I like to go back and catch the trolls trolling. I just found another good example.
The cult got caught trying to pervert reality, claiming that passenger jets fly backward. Ant arrives, after I have been gone for a day, to try to save their bacon.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1472109
Ant claims that I need to specify a “reference frame” for “backward”. Maybe he’s never heard of “forward”?
That’s why this is so much fun.
grammie clone continues to have “so much fun” displaying his ignorance of dynamics. One can’t properly quantify motions, such as velocity and angular momentum, without specifying a coordinate system, one which must be an inertial reference frame for the equations of motion to work. Same old story, different day.
That’s a lot of blah-blah just to admit you don’t understand the difference between “forward” and “backward”, Swanson.
But, I accept your admission.
Heres another example of how the trolls work.
Nate comments about 12 hours after I have left. He attempts to misrepresent me and pervert science. Then barry shows up about 2 days later to make false accusations. Neither of these two trolls has a clue about radiative physics, Kirchhoffs Laws, or 2LoT. Their only interest was to attack me after I had left. They were hoping I wouldnt see them.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471545
But, reality always wins.
You should see what’s been happening up-thread, Clint:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1476877
I have never seen a group of people so relentless. The discussion has been going on for about two weeks! Nate must have written over a hundred comments now even though he knows I no longer read or respond to them…barry can’t stop replying, and Ball4 has been disgracing himself, as usual. Even Swanson has been showing up occasionally to hurl abuse and add nothing that hasn’t already been said by others.
I’ve missed all that, DREMT. Thanks for the heads-up.
It shows the fervent dedication developed in cults. Like with the Moon issue, they can’t let the plates issue go. They’ve lost both, so now they’re in kamikaze mode — all is lost, no longer any need for dignity or decorum.
Dang, I hate to gloat….
C’mon, Pup.
The only thing you hate is to do the PDE.
I rather liked Barry’s comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1477182
Gaslighting Graham keeps his best gaslighting for Barry.
They like to work together in teams, trying to wear their opponent down with repetition and sheer weight of numbers, keeping the sophistry coming from all angles. Their number one aim is, of course, to get the last word.
Sophistry?
you mean
“-the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.”
Like the one where you ‘dreamed up’ (as Bill aptly put it) an extra 200 W/m^2 being emitted by the BP, and even drew an extra arrow for it?
That was ‘dreamed up’ to evade the accounting fraud and 1LOT violation that Joe Postma ‘dreamed up’.
Both of those would be excellent examples of sophistry.
Nate, you believe there is an “extra” arrow?
Look up “standing wave”.
Oh sorry, I forgot you don’t do science…
Nate the arrow was dreamed up to modify a ‘dream’ idea. Seems perfectly correct. Something wrong with dreams? Seems the only thing being offered here are premise dreams manipulated by mathematics.
Like in how 2 sheep plus 2 unicorns equals 4 animals. Math is perfect but what are we supposed to take from the ‘sum’?
“Seems perfectly correct. ”
Bill, your response is predictable.
You demand experiments to confirm that the law of conservation of energy applies.
But need no experiments in order to believe the ‘dreamed up’ excuse for their failure to satisfy conservation of energy.
Nate says:
Bill, your response is predictable.
You demand experiments to confirm that the law of conservation of energy applies.
But need no experiments in order to believe the dreamed up excuse for their failure to satisfy conservation of energy.
———————–
Nate you haven’t shown that 1LOT applies. Your argument is nothing but an extrapolation from an unproven theory. . . .essentially a case of doubling down on something not established by experimentation. So yes an experiment is required by anybody who wants funds to do something with the idea.
You can file this among the many extrapolations you go on and on about around here.
“Nate you havent shown that 1LOT applies. ”
I don’t need to. It’s universal applicability was established by physics 150 y ago. And has passed every experimental test over that period.
Oh you weren’t aware? That’s not my problem to fix.
“Nate the arrow was dreamed up to modify a dream idea.”
So?
The ‘dream’ idea is designed to have elements that satisfy the laws of physics. Then its solution could be verified by experiment, as Swanson did.
Again you are free to go out and verify it yourself!
The extra arrow has no physical basis. It violates several laws of physics, and common sense.
For it to be valid, the BP would need to emit 400 W/m^2, which is MORE than the SB law allows.
Or the BP would need to be simultaneously a perfect blackbody and a perfect mirror, which fails common sense, and Kirchhoff’s law.
Thus no experiment will ever verify it.
But again, feel free to try.
“So yes an experiment is required by anybody who wants funds to do something with the idea.”
Some experiments:
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-does-not-happen-proof-no-2/
Only contrarian experiments are deemed valid?
“I have never seen a group of people so relentless.”
He forgot to mention DREMT in that group.
He’s gotten so desperate in his silliness that he’s adding imaginary extra radiation arrows to the radiation emitted by the plates.
He suggests that the BP is now somehow emitting 400 W/m^2 toward the GP, even the SB law requires it to be emitting 200 W/m^2.
Laws of physics, who needs em! Not DREMT.
As a brief summary of the long discussion up-thread, we can isolate that the “back-radiation” transfer in the Green Plate Effect is supposedly responsible for the Blue Plate (BP) rising in temperature at the expense of the Green Plate (GP) when the plates go from a situation where they are pressed together, at 244 K…244 K (configuration A) to a situation where they are separated, still at 244 K…244 K (configuration B). After separation, and due to the addition of this “back-radiation” transfer only, the plates supposedly progress spontaneously to 262 K…220 K. So, we know that this “back-radiation” transfer must represent a heat transfer from cold to hot, in violation of 2LoT.
Since that cannot happen, on separation the plates must remain at 244 K…244 K. The “back-radiation” transfer from GP to BP still occurs, however, and so this must go somewhere. Since it cannot increase the temperature of the BP, it must be returned from the BP, back to the GP. This is shown by the additional green arrow, at the bottom of the following diagram:
https://postimg.cc/HrxkJyBB
Note that the diagram is colour-coded. The red arrow is emitted by the Sun, the blue arrows emitted by the BP, and the green arrows emitted by the GP.
“we know that this “back-radiation” transfer must represent a heat transfer from cold to hot, in violation of 2LoT.”
No. DREMT still hasn’t learned EMR is NOT heat.
“on separation the plates must remain at 244 K…244 K.”
No. That is a violation of 2LOT as entropy is not produced in that real process.
Time again for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
I didn’t say that EMR was heat.
I’m glad your diagram has the arrows color-coded, DREMT. When the cult idiots try to claim the energy doesn’t balance it shows they’re either color-blind, braindead, or both.
DREMT 7:29 am writes that EMR was heat then is forced to back track & claim 7:50 am not to have written EMR was heat.
Time again for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
Yes, Clint R…as we can see, they’re forced to resort to shameless misrepresentations…
DREMT 8:45 am has no possible further physics debate thus concedes defeat. Thx.
“Note that the diagram is colour-coded. The red arrow is emitted by the Sun, the blue arrows emitted by the BP, and the green arrows emitted by the GP”
Looks like someone has found the ultimate green energy solution to the AGW problem
Whenever lacking a source of renewable energy, just draw in a GREEN ARROW.
No physics to back it up required!
“After separation, and due to the addition of this back-radiation transfer only, the plates supposedly progress spontaneously to 262 K220 K. So, we know that this back-radiation transfer must represent a heat transfer from cold to hot, in violation of 2LoT.”
I will simply and ‘relentlessly’ point out that this is not a 2LOT violation. All that is happening is ordinary radiant heat transfer from the hotter to the cooler object, as has been explained and ignored many times.
Upon plate separation, the BP can only transfer heat by radiation to the GP.
The so-called ‘back-radiation’ is simply the mechanism by which radiant heat transfer satisfies the RHTE. The very one quoted by Joe Postma, who agrees that the heat transfer drops to zero.
If anyone thinks they can show that the RHTE should not apply, and the heat transfer between BP and GP should not drop to 0 upon plate separation, they are welcome to provide the evidence.
They havent so far.
And I would simply note that, if anyone making these claims feels put upon or ‘ganged up on’, no one is forcing them to continue to post.
They have a choice to simply stop pushing the argument on and on, down to new threads, etc, by relentlessly repeating these false claims.
Ball4 goes into full-on troll mode again.
Nate says:
Upon plate separation, the BP can only transfer heat by radiation to the GP.
The so-called back-radiation is simply the mechanism by which radiant heat transfer satisfies the RHTE. The very one quoted by Joe Postma, who agrees that the heat transfer drops to zero.
————————–
Thats an extrapolation. back radiation isn’t necessarily a real phenomena. You are only mathematically extrapolating what a blackbody GP is capable of warming to in a radiation field of 400w/m2 (view factor 1.0) and your answer is not compatible with Stefan and Boltzmann.
Instead you try to subvert Stefan and Boltzmann by extrapolating about the unestablished concept of ‘backradiation’.
So in fact you just simply beg the question.
This references doesn’t in any way aid your case:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Hunter wrote:
E. Swanson says:
”Please take note of the back radiation from the cooler body to the warmer one in the equation. Thats the same basic concept as that of the GPE. The energy from the surroundings is absorbed by the hot body, which offsets the heat loss due to the hot bodys temperature. That is identical physics to the net energy flowing from the BP thru the GP to deep space.
————————–
No its not the same physics Swanson. The energy going to space is going from a hot object to a cold object. You have no scientific basis for your claim as it is 100% a mathematical extrapolation on the premise that the GP actually loses energy to the hot plate. I understand your claim that 2LOT only may apply to a ‘net’ exchange of energy, but 2LOT does not have an appendices explaining that so all it is is an extrapolation from an ‘assumed’ premise. . . .like 2 sheep + 2 unicorns = 2 real animals. In that case there also is no law of science that a unicorn cannot exist but it is still inappropriate to assume they do exist.
“Thats an extrapolation. back radiation isnt necessarily a real phenomena. You are only mathematically extrapolating what a blackbody GP”
Bill, that’s a fancy way of saying:
‘I have no answers so I’m going to switch to bullshitting mode.’
Kindly f*ck off now.
In any case, the key point is the radiant heat transfer satisfies the RHTE, as even Joe Postma agrees.
By the RHTE, the BP transfers 0 heat to the GP.
The GP emits 200 W/M^2 of heat to space by the SB law (or the RHTE)
That loss of energy is not being replaced, and yet the plate is not cooling according to these guys.
So that is quite obviously, not possible.
“You have no scientific basis for your claim as it is 100% a mathematical extrapolation on the premise that the GP actually loses energy to the hot plate”
Exactly! Their problem is that the GP cannot “lose” energy to the BP. That would violate 2LoT, as it would involve a hot object warming at the expense of a cooler object. So, we have that green arrow being returned from BP to GP. Then their imagined 1LoT violation vanishes.
“Exactly! Their problem is that the GP cannot lose energy to the BP.”
For the umpteenth time, it doesnt.
The flow of heat from the BP to the GP drops to 0, as ALL AGREE must happen.
The BP warms, because it still has heat input from the sun, and the GP cools because it is still emitting heat to space, as a consequence.
” So, we have that green arrow being returned from BP to GP. Then their imagined 1LoT violation vanishes.”
Except that the added green arrow has no physical basis.
It would require either:
-the BP to emit 400 W/m^2, which is more than the SB law allows,
OR
-the BP to simultaneously be both a perfect blackbody and a perfect mirror, which fails common sense, and Kirchhoffs law.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, such as this obvious attempt to cheat.
Hunter troll wrote:
To add to Nate’s comments, please try to understand that your reference says nothing about energy going to space, just that the net energy transfer is going from the hotter body to the colder surrounding “bodies”. Part of this process is the “back radiation” from the colder to the hotter body, which is a violation of the 2nd Law according to GPE deniers on this blog such (as grammie pups and clone), and therefore can not occur.
But, it does happen, according to both science and engineering experience, thus the equations in the reference. You take no exception to the use as given in the reference, so you appear to be seriously confused. If you think your reference presents bad physics, please say so.
You appear also confused about the GPE. The issue in question is the energy transfer between the BP and GP, particularly the “back radiation” from the GP to the BP. That physics is the same as that in your reference if one understands that the GP is part of “the cold surroundings” for the BP.
"Part of this process is the “back radiation” from the colder to the hotter body, which is a violation of the 2nd Law according to GPE deniers on this blog such (as grammie pups and clone), and therefore can not occur.
But, it does happen, according to both science and engineering experience, thus the equations in the reference"
It’s obviously a 2LoT violation if the "back-radiation" transfer results in a warming of the BP at the expense of the GP, because then the transfer would have to be acting as a transfer of heat. When you go from plates together at 244 K…244 K to plates separated at 244 K..244 K, the only energy transfer that is now being added to the mix is the "back-radiation" transfer. That transfer was not there when the plates are pressed together, but it is there when the plates are separated. Following separation, according to Eli’s solution, the plates go to 262 K…220 K. That would then have to be the "back-radiation" transfer that’s responsible for that.
It’s as simple as that. People can try to dress it up in whatever fancy semantics they like to avoid admitting the obvious. It’s still a 2LoT violation.
“Its obviously a 2LoT violation if the “back-radiation” transfer results in a warming of the BP at the expense of the GP”
Sure, if you ignore the plain facts that have been shown to you many times by many people, and real sources.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter troll wrote:
No its not the same physics Swanson. The energy going to space is going from a hot object to a cold object.
To add to Nates comments, please try to understand that your reference says nothing about energy going to space, just that the net energy transfer is going from the hotter body to the colder surrounding bodies. Part of this process is the back radiation from the colder to the hotter body, which is a violation of the 2nd Law according to GPE deniers on this blog such (as grammie pups and clone), and therefore can not occur.”
————————-
You are correct that the SB Law does not say anything about energy going to space. Thats why your conclusion is an extrapolation. You are just making up science as you go. SB Law tells us that a blackbody exposed to 16.5C radiation source will warm to 16.5C. How else can we determine what temperature a surface would warm too?
Hunter wrote:
Not so, Hunter troll! The equation quoted from your reference calculates the rate of energy transferred between two bodies, given the already known temperatures of each. Or, the inverse situation may be calculated, which is, given the known rate of energy loss via radiation, what’s the temperature of the body. Your postulated 2 body situation might apply if the receiving body did not lose energy via any other pathway. In the GPE case, the GP is losing energy to space and therefore can not exhibit the same temperature as the BP.
DREMT wrongly comments: “.. then the transfer would have to be acting as a transfer of heat.“
DREMT still hasn’t understood EMR is NOT heat.
DREMT also wrongly claims: “That would then have to be the “back-radiation” transfer that’s responsible for that.”
No, there is another energy transfer thru the vacuum not there before. This all shows more astute readers that DREMT has been wrong on the GPE for over 5 years now.
Time again for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
I didn’t say that EMR is heat, and there is a transfer of energy from BP to GP via conduction before separation and via EMR after separation. So the transfer of energy from BP to GP is not another energy transfer that was not there before.
“I didnt say that EMR is heat”
Good, now show us your understanding of its implications.
“there is a transfer of energy from BP to GP via conduction before separation”
Yep.
“and via EMR after separation.”
No, immediately after, the NET EMR transfer goes to 0. Because as JP showed, and YOU AGREED, the HEAT transfer (Q) to the GP, as given by the RHTE, which is obviously the NET EMR, goes to 0, after separation.
Thus the steady input of heat from the SUN, and the reduced heat LOSS, results in the BP warming.
There is no NET transfer of energy from the GP to the BP, just a NET reduction in heat loss.
…so the transfer of energy from BP to GP is not another energy transfer that was not there before.
Wrong again DREMT 3:39 pm, the transfer of energy from BP to GP IS another transfer of energy besides the “back-radiation” transfer that happens in the switch from config. A to config. B.
No, I’m not wrong…as explained.
Wrong again since DREMT’s explanation was pointed out to be obviously wrong & DREMT offered no further defense.
There is a transfer of energy from BP to GP via conduction before separation and via EMR after separation. So the transfer of energy from BP to GP is not another energy transfer that was not there before.
The only transfer of energy that was not there before is the “back-radiation” transfer.
Wrong again DREMT 4:39 pm, as pointed out previously, obviously conductive energy transfer is there in the BP before the switch AND in the BP after the switch so conductive energy transfer is not “another” transfer of energy added after the switch.
The radiative energy transfer from BP to GP IS “another” added transfer of energy after the switch besides the “back-radiation” from GP to BP.
DREMT’s premise is, and was, falsified. Totally. Eli’s eqn.s are still correct.
4:31 pm …
There’s Ball4’s “trick” again…switch to talking about “conductive energy transfer in the BP” rather than “between the BP and GP”, as if that’s going to fool anybody.
Once again:
There is a transfer of energy from BP to GP via conduction before separation and via EMR after separation. So the transfer of energy from BP to GP is not another energy transfer that was not there before.
The only transfer of energy that was not there before is the “back-radiation” transfer.
“The only transfer of energy that was not there before is the back-radiation transfer.”
Yet as DREMT knows very well, the only NET transfer of energy occurs between the SUN and the BP and from BP to GP.
Oh well, the ‘truth seeker’ evades the truth again.
…the only transfer of energy that was not there before is the “back-radiation” transfer.
DREMT 1:16 am sweeps the conductive energy transfer in the sunshine illuminated plate under the rug.
Actually there is a transfer of energy via conduction before separation AND energy transfer via conduction in the sunshine illuminated plate after separation along with “another” transfer of energy via EMR thru the vacuum BP to GP after separation in addition to the “back-radiation” (DREMT term) GP to BP.
DREMT’s premise still is, and was, falsified. Totally. Eli’s eqn.s are still correct.
Thus DREMT, by his own admission, is forced to agree with Eli’s GPE solution.
Your "trick" fools no-one, Ball4.
See? No correct defense by DREMT can be offered
DREMT, by his own admission, is forced to agree with Eli’s GPE solution.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479199
“Nate comments about 12 hours after I have left.”
OMG. Negative-attention seekers are very impatient!
They can’t seem to imagine that people have other IRL things going on.
BTW, DREMT regularly adds his 2 cents to moss-covered week-old threads.
Nate, you don’t have any “other IRL things going on” in your life. You troll here all day, every day.
Riddle me this, Pupman –
Start with the BP and the GP side by side both in the sunshine and reaching the same T = 244 K. Then we can move the GP behind the BP, so that it is now in the shade. With the GP now in the shade, some people weirdly suggest that it won’t cool.
This is an easy experiment to try at home. Sit around a fire pit on a cool night getting warm with Sky Dragon cranks friends. Then move yourself BEHIND one of the others, so that you are in the shade of the radiant heat from the fire.
Do you get cooler?
Thanks for proving you don’t understand ANY of this, troll willard.
Pupman has no response, I note.
Does the person in front of you get warmer, because you moved behind them?
Is a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate in a vacuum really analogous to a person sitting in the outside air?
Gaslighting Graham, who has no answer, goes into full-on troll mode again.
“Is a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate in a vacuum really analogous to a person sitting in the outside air?”
No of course, numerically not the same. But radiant heat is the source in both.
The ‘being cooler in the shade’ part, not in direct view of the heat source, is perfectly analogous.
And numerically, for the plates, we know we have direct exposure to 400 W/m^2 radiant heat flux in sun, vs 200 W/m^2 in the shade.
Your notion that things are not cooler in the shade fails the common sense test.
“Does the person in front of you get warmer, because you moved behind them?”
On a cool night, yes of course.
You got all the answers an honest person would need, Little Willy.
So many mistakes from Gaslighting Graham. So few acknowledged.
Little Willy, the analogy is fatally flawed. To even remotely relate to the GPE, the person in front of you would have to get warmer, just because you moved behind them…and not due to your own body heat!
That’s not to mention the fact that a perfectly-conducting blackbody plate in a vacuum is not analogous to a person sitting in the outside air.
It’s really quite sad when some Dragon Crank can’t get it through their head that I only wish to talk to Pupman on this sub-thread.
Why is Gaslighting Graham still responding?
Well, this is the first time you’ve mentioned that you only wanted to talk to Clint R. So how would I have known?
“Ant claims that I need to specify a “reference frame” for “backward”.“
Yes, funny how there are still so many people “lost in reference frames” even though they do not resolve the moon issue.
FORWARD
forward adverb (DIRECTION)
towards the direction that is in front of you
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/forward
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Happy Earth Day 2023.
From the Annual State of the Global Climate report by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) released yesterday: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=11593
1) Drought, floods and heatwaves affect large parts of the world, and the costs are rising.
2) Global mean temperatures for the past 8 years have been the highest on record.
3) Sea level and ocean heat are at record levels – and this trend will continue for many centuries.
4) Antarctic sea ice falls to lowest extent on record.
5) Europe shatters records for glacier melt.
The report also puts a spotlight on ecosystems and the environment and shows how climate change is affecting recurring events in nature, such as when trees blossom, or birds migrate.
The WMO report follows the release of the State of the Climate in Europe report by the EUs Copernicus Climate Change Service.
Documenting the total f&%kery taking place.
Gosh TM, if WMO had just checked in with Dr. Spencer they would know Earth has been in a 40-50 year warming trend.
Obviously, they’re just now catching up.
Pupman, you don’t have any IRL thing going on.
You troll here all day, every single day.
Top 10 most frequent commenters.
Willard: 172
Swenson: 129
Nate: 106
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 90
Gordon Robertson: 87
Clint R: 74
Antonin Qwerty: 69
gbaikie: 64
Bill Hunter: 59
Ken: 56
Sky Dragon Troll Circle Jerk
Gaslighting Graham – 307
Pupman – 145
Gill – 132
Mike Flynn – 130
Bordo – 101
815, so almost 40% of the comments.
For the sake of completeness:
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 307
Willard: 287
Nate: 206
Clint R: 143
Bill Hunter: 132
Swenson: 129
barry: 104
Gordon Robertson: 101
Ken: 100
gbaikie: 83
Ball4: 71
Antonin Qwerty: 71
TYSON MCGUFFIN: 63
Bindidon: 61
E. Swanson: 45
bobdroege: 31
Tim Folkerts: 26
Christos Vournas: 25
RLH: 23
Richard M: 18
Ireneusz Palmowski: 15
Entropic man: 14
Eben: 10
Andrea Weinberg: 9
Norman: 6
Tim S: 5
Refutation of False Science: 5
stephen p. anderson: 4
bdgwx: 4
Antonin Querty: 3
skeptikal: 2
Bellman: 2
Walter: 1
Tim Wells: 1
Robert Mitchell: 1
PhilJ: 1
lewis guignard: 1
Galaxie500: 1
E. Swansn: 1
angech: 1
At least a hundred of mine are just PSTs or having to repeat the last sentence of previous comments due to troll activity. In fact, I’d go as far as to say probably half of them are. I’d put my actual number of real comments at nearer to Clint R’s total.
All Skeptics and realists owe DREMT a big “thank you”. He does a great job of countering the trolls. For some reason, they have overrun this blog, but people like DREMT, Robertson, Swenson, Hunter, and several others, are able to easily handle the deluge of cult crap.
Reality always wins.
Our circle jerk of Sky Dragon cranks like to work together, trying to wear their opponent down with repetition and sheer weight of numbers, keeping the sophistry coming from all angles.
Their number one aim is, of course, to get the last word.
Little Willy, just keep ranting at the mirror.
Gaslighting Graham’s real comments are less than zero.
Well DREMT shouldn’t be charged with moderating posts in his officially sanctioned capacity of trying to keep the board civil and bringing to the attention of the trolls that they are engaging in rude behavior that isn’t welcomed anywhere on the internet.
Gill is reduced to insults and false accusations.
Guess that means he concedes the point.
What point!? You hadn’t made one.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
“bringing to the attention of the trolls that they are engaging in rude behavior that isnt welcomed anywhere on the internet.”
C’mon Bill, you know very well he never calls out the trolling or rude behavior from his own tribe, which is considerable.
If he is a troll cop, he is like the Irish (or Italian) cop from way back that allowed the Irish (or Italian) mob to do their crimes, while busting all others.
IOW he is corrupt, and you are an enabler.
No, Little Willy. I do not.
Gaslighting Graham’s gaslighting goes on.
I never started!
Graham is correct for once –
Pupman actually started the gaslighting.
Graham simply turned it into an art form.
More personal abuse from Little Willy.
I never started!
A false accusation of gaslighting is personal abuse. So yes, you started. At 4:49 PM yesterday. Or was it 2:21 PM yesterday? Either way…you started already.
I have explained enough times how Gaslighting Graham gaslights by now. If Dragon cranks still do not get it, that’s on them.
Not sure if you have ever explained it?
2) Global mean temperatures for the past 8 years have been the highest on record.
No. Only if you ignore anything but thermometer records.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/validity-of-marcott-et-al-part-ii/
3) Sea level and ocean heat are at record levels and this trend will continue for many centuries.
No
Previous interglacial enjoyed sea level that was several meters higher than now.
Do you see the cooling yet ???
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2019-0-47-deg-c/#comment-361247
DREMT,
“Start with just the BP, wait until its at 244 K, then introduce a GP which is already at 244 K…”
When you heated up the GP to 244K prior to bringing it to the system, how much radiative energy was it getting to arrive at that temperature?
barry asks: “When you heated up the GP to 244K prior to bringing it to the system, how much radiative energy was it getting to arrive at that temperature?”
barry, that’s just another distracting question. It has nothing to do with understanding the issue. The issue has ALWAYS involved 400 W/m^2 incoming. So, you’re just contributing nothing except distraction, just as you were doing with “view factors”. You can’t understand the issue, so you must throw crap against the wall.
What will you try next?
“barry, thats just another distracting question.”
It would be a rather self-serving double standard to permit yourself the power to change the original model to make a point, but not permit even queries about that change.
You’re deflecting, DREMT. Query continues below.
Ah Clint, I didn’t notice it was you who butted in. Most of what I said still applies.
So before you introduced the GP into the setup you preheated it to 244K with 400 W/m2 of energy.
When you bring it to the BP it’s now only getting 200 @/m2 of eneegy.
It gets colder because of that.
Depends on whether the source is an infinite parallel plate, or a point source. If you still don’t understand why, return to:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
and read through the entire discussion again.
No, you said you’ve brought the GP to 244 K before bringing it in the vicinity of the BP. There is no 2nd plate.
How much energy was GP getting to make it 244 K? It’s important to know the starting conditions before we move on.
It depends on the source of the energy, barry, as I just said.
False.
As all agreed, both plates are emitting from both sides, regardless of the so-called view factors.
But there is 400 W/m^2 input to the BP and only 200 W/m^2 input to the GP.
Quite straigntforwardly, they cannot be at the same temperature.
Unless one CHEATS, and draws in an extra arrow of input to the GP that has no physical basis.
barry see:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1477862
Nate brings up the “view factors”. Their next distraction, I guess.
And he STILL can’t understand DREMT’s diagram…
https://postimg.cc/HrxkJyBB
even though I gave him the hint. He’s a keyboard wizard, but doesn’t know how to use his keyboard!
What will he try next?
Pup,
You know NOTHING about any of this.
Riddle me this instead –
How many watts per square does an infinite plate receive?
Worthless willard is so incompetent he can’t even get the units right — “How many watts per square does an infinite plate receive?”
And obviously he doesn’t understand that the same flux would be the same flux.
That’s why there’s no value in responding to most of his immature nonsense.
Pupman is so dishonest he won’t admit that there’s NOTHING that makes sense in Gaslighting Graham’s setup.
Little Willy, that the plates are treated as being infinite in size in relation to each other is a part of Eli’s conditions for his thought experiment. Don’t try to put that on me.
"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"
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM READS] 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.
And then Gaslighting Graham goes on to do exactly that since how many years now?
I haven’t, that’s the point. I’ve stuck to the conditions as he set them. You were the one trying to make some point about an infinitely large plate. Well, that’s what you’ve got to work with. So, get used to it.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I’ve stuck to the conditions as Eli set them.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] It’s a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero.
The second one is not a complete quote, now is it, Little Willy? If you can’t represent me correctly, please don’t bother representing me at all.
When caught, Gaslighting Graham squirms.
Gaslighting Graham squirms a lot.
I’ve not squirmed at all, Little Willy. To complete the quote:
"It’s a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero, that it will be emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the other side."
Presumably you are suggesting that this is changing the conditions of the thought experiment as Eli set it. Now is your opportunity to explain how. If you respond with anything but a detailed explanation of how I’ve changed the conditions of the thought experiment by what is quoted there, then I and everyone reading will see through you for the fraud that you are.
Presumably Gaslighting Graham plays dumb over the meaning of his own “given.”
…and there we have it. I and everyone reading sees through you for the fraud that you are.
Is Gaslighting Graham silently conceding that there’s nothing given behind is “given”?
If the GP is emitting 200 W/m^2, then that means it’s emitting 200 W/m^2 on the side facing the BP, and 200 W/m^2 on the side facing space. That’s a "given", as in "it should go without saying". No change to the GPE conditions.
“Blathering about the shape of the plates, how many sides they have, their thickness, their composition, how close they are to each other, etc [e.g. V I E W F A C T O R S] are attempts (successful Eli might add) at distraction from the basic physics that the example provides.”
This: "It’s a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero, that it will be emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the other side."
has nothing to do with view factors. You’re changing the subject without first conceding your mistake.
Graham does not always acknowledge that his “given” was actually an inference nobody but him and a few Sky Dragon cranks make, but when he does it’s after a silly extortion trick:
“If you respond with anything but a detailed explanation of how Ive changed the conditions of the thought experiment by what is quoted there”
He himself gave us a detailed explanation below:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1477953
You just show, repeatedly, your complete lack of understanding, Little Willy.
This: If the GP is emitting 200 W/m^2, then that means it’s emitting 200 W/m^2 on the side facing the BP, and 200 W/m^2 on the side facing space. That’s a "given", as in "it should go without saying".
is not just some "inference nobody but [me] and a few Sky Dragon cranks make". It’s common knowledge.
You’re clueless.
Gaslighting Graham’s spaghetti writing can only fool himself. Here’s the full paragraph:
Either Graham added something in the premises, or he has a different inference engine than just about everyone else. I suspect he has a twisted conception of symmetry. This may be biased with my experience of his lack of reciprocation skillz.
In that 11:12 am case, the GP is emitting 400; DREMT is clueless.
DREMT is definitely humorously twisted and has been for over 5 years.
No, Ball4, it is emitting 200 W/m^2.
Then its not at equilibrium in GPE; DREMT is so clueless.
Actually, it is at equilibrium when emitting 200 W/m^2 at 244 K.
No that’s wrong DREMT since no eqn.s & that is a violation of 2LOT as entropy is not created in the process, you are so clueless.
Time again for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
It’s at equilibrium at 244 K, Ball4. The BP is also at 244 K, so heat flow between the plates is at zero according to the radiative heat transfer equation (RHTE), with view factors equal to 1. That’s equilibrium.
Wrong by 2LOT, DREMT 5:04pm. Why is it DREMT never shows the GPE system equilibrium eqn.s? Obviously because DTREMT is clueless & still doesn’t understand EMR is not heat.
Time again for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE.
Readers should actually refer to Elis 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
You’re wrong and I’m right, but never mind.
“Nate brings up the view factors. Their next distraction, I guess.”
Clint is confused. View factors are DREMTs go-to red herring distraction.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471790
“And he STILL cant understand DREMTs diagram”
The extra Green Energy arrow has no physical basis. It is just an attempt to cover up the accounting fraud, with another fraud.
Clint is free to try to explain it with real physics….
but who am I kidding…we know he can’t, so he won’t even try.
Nate says, “Clint is free to try to explain it with real physics.”
Sure, I can explain it Nate, but I can’t understand it for you.
You have a history of NOT wanting to understand. You have a history of trolling, with no regard for science or reality. Do you want to change your ways?
Take the honesty quiz. If you can answer both questions honestly, I will explain the green arrows to you.
1) Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
2) Are view factors needed for ARRIVING fluxes, yes or no?
I believe you can’t answer honestly because you’re a braindead cult idiot posing as an ignorant troll.
Prove me wrong.
[PUPMAN] Prove me wrong.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Sure, Pupman got that wrong.
Clint R only got wrong that it was me that introduced view factors, not Team GPE. What he’s asking Nate to do is answer the two questions honestly, in order to prove him wrong. So, as usual, you’re mixing up comments from two different contexts in order to try and score some cheap point.
Pupman not only got the provenance of the view factors wrong, but he did not acknowledge his mistake.
But more importantly Pupman recognized that appealing V I E W F A C T O R S was a distraction.
Graham can’t acknowledge that.
He also won’t fight Pupman over this.
On the contrary, I’m happy to ignore view factors altogether if it helps people focus.
lol
I don’t see why that’s funny. If it’s just a distraction for people, then ignore it. You can still understand why Eli’s solution is wrong without fully comprehending the view factor element.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1477973
Ha ha ha. As predicted he can’t explain it, tosses insults and distractors.
An extra 200 W/m^2 from the BP? Gotta come from somewhere.
Is it emitted by the BP? Not if the SB law applies. It does.
Or is it because a blackbody is simultaneously a perfect emitter and a perfect reflector?
Tee hee hee…
Nate proves me right, again.
Being right never gets old.
[PUPMAN] Prove me wrong.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] Sure, Pupman got that wrong.
[PUPMAN] Nate proves me right, again.
By the way, just thought I’d point out about the plates diagram…if you pay close attention to it, it says underneath:
"Screen Shot 2018-01-20 at 5.05.51 AM"
In other words, this is nothing new. These ideas have been around since the very beginning of the Green Plate Effect discussion.
> [Pupman] is confused. View factors are [Gaslighting Graham]s go-to red herring distraction.
Exactly, Nate.
When will Gaslighting Graham correct Pupman’s obvious mistake?
Sure, Clint R got that wrong. It was actually me that introduced view factors to the discussion, not Team GPE. Team GPE seems to think it makes absolutely no difference that the view factors between a point source Sun and the BP are completely different to the view factors between two infinite parallel plates. I’ve tried my best to explain why it makes a difference, but ultimately it’s not really what they’re interested in. They’re just looking for gotchas and points to score.
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] I’ve stuck to the conditions as Eli set them.
[ALSO GASLIGHTING GRAHAM] It was actually me that introduced view factors to the discussion
Eli doesn’t get to decide if view factors are a part of a discussion on radiative transfer. I’m afraid they are always a part of a discussion on radiative transfer. That should be one of those "goes without saying" things.
[ELI] 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.
[GRAHAM] Eli doesn’t get to decide if view factors are a part of a discussion on radiative transfer. I’m afraid they are always a part of a discussion on radiative transfer. That should be one of those “goes without saying” things.
You believe there’s a contradiction. Those more educated than you will understand that there isn’t.
Perhaps one day Graham will be able to distinguish a contradiction from an inconsistency.
On the 2017-10-05, Eli poasted a really simple thought experiment:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Eli’s thought experiment was simply meant to illustrate that fact, not to go full parsomatics over V I E W F A C T O R S.
View factors. On an infinite plate.
Sky Dragon cranks should think about that once in a while.
Yes, it’s been thought about a lot, Little Willy. So much so that infinite parallel plates are a textbook example where view factors are equal to one.
Infinity allows physicists to dismiss irrelevant details. View factors is one such detail.
Eli’s thought experiment was a mere accounting exercise.
Ah, but the plates are only treated as being infinite in size in relation to each other. Whereas the Sun, in Eli’s thought experiment, is not treated as being infinite in size. Thus there is a difference in view factors between the Sun and the BP, and the view factors between the plates. Eli seemed to want to gloss over this.
Besides, even if you treat it as a simple accounting exercise, you still have to remember to abide by the laws of physics. 2LoT, for example. Eli’s solution rejects 2LoT in favour of an apparent devotion to 1LoT. However, once you process the solution without violating 2LoT, 1LoT is also taken care of. See the diagram linked to by Clint R, at 7:28 AM.
[ELI] 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.
[GRAHAM] the plates are only treated as being infinite in size in relation to each other. Whereas the Sun, in Elis thought experiment, is not treated as being infinite in size.
You’re always desperately searching for contradictions and gotchas that simply aren’t there.
Whereas, even if Eli were to assert that view factors are just a distraction from his point, rather than being an essential part of discussing radiative transfer (and even if we took that seriously), there’s still the second paragraph of my last comment.
I personally find the view factor part of the explanation is necessary for understanding the overall solution to the GPE…but for those that don’t agree with that, there is still a valid argument against Eli’s solution anyway.
Graham is squirming again.
And once again he conflates inconsistency with contradiction.
Where did Eli mention the size of the Sun?
He didn’t mention the size of the Sun. Whereas he did mention that the plates are infinite in size. That’s another oversight on his part. If the Sun was meant to be treated as an infinite parallel plate source, the solution would actually be different to either of the current solutions being offered (Team GPE’s or our alternative).
It seems more safe to assume that the Sun was not meant to also be infinite in size, given that Eli’s solution with just the BP was what it was. Also considering that he drew it as a Sun in his diagrams, rather than as another plate, and also considering that the flux arriving at the BP was only 400 W/m^2.
[ELI] 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.
[GRAHAM] Eli doesn’t get to decide if view factors are a part of a discussion on radiative transfer.
[PUPMAN] Viewfactors are a distraction.
[GRAHAM] OK.
Can’t win, can I? Whatever I say, whatever I do…you have a problem with it. Say view factors aren’t a distraction, but a vital part of understanding radiative transfer? That’s wrong, for some reason. Say that if view factors are seen by some as a distraction, then those people can just ignore it? That’s also wrong, for some other reason.
Graham is squirming again.
Two last questions.
When were V I E W F A C T O R S introduced?
What did Pupman say about them at first?
“between a point source Sun and the BP are completely different to the view factors between two infinite parallel plates. Ive tried my best to explain why it makes a difference”
Not very well, since no one is convinced. You have to understand VF to explain VF.
The sun being a point source means that most of its flux doesnt hit the BP. But so what? We know that 400 W/m^2 of its flux hits the BP, and thats a heat GAIN, and thats all we need to know.
And most of the BP emitted flux doesnt hit the sun, but so what? All we care about is that it is emitted somewhere and is a heat LOSS.
Now in the case of the GP side of the BP, we know that all of the BP emitted flux hits the GP, and all of the GP emitted flux hits the BP, and since both are blackbodies, those fluxes are abs.orbed.
So if the BP and GP are each emitting and receiving the same 200 W/m^2, then they cancel, and Net energy (heat) transfer is 0.
So the VF don’t tell us anything we don’t already know.
They are not capable of performing miracles, like creating a new flow of energy from the BP to the GP, that doesnt exist.
No, Little Willy, I’m not squirming at all. I don’t see why your questions are relevant, so I’m going to ignore them.
Exactly, Nate.
Whatever it was that Nate said (I don’t bother reading his comments any more) it’s highly unlikely that Little Willy understood it.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
No, I am expressing my opinion, Little Willy.
Entitled to your opinion DREMT, but not the GPE physical facts.
Time again for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
Great, now I’m being trolled by two people instead of just one.
DREMT just needs to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
…now I’m being trolled by two people instead of just one.
Clint,
“Nate brings up the ‘view factors’. Their next distraction, I guess.”
No, DREMT’s argument is premised on view factors mattering, which he brought here himself.
We’ve covered this, barry. Scroll up. Check out discussions that are occurring with people other than yourself.
The difference is DREMT “explains” but Nate “distracts”.
[GRAHAM] What about V I E W F A C T O R S?
[ELI] View factors are a distraction.
[Nate] Exactly.
[GRAHAM] Who died and made Eli King of his own thought experiment?
[PUPMAN] View factors are a distraction.
[GRAHAM] OK.
[PUPMAN] Graham explains, Nate distracts.
So beautiful.
People can just read the discussion for themselves, Little Willy. No need for your false summaries.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Not in the least, no.
Graham’s wrong and I’m right, but nevermind.
What, about me gaslighting? No, I’m definitely not gaslighting.
Let’s thank Gaslighting Graham for continuing.
More, please.
Sure, OK.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478414
Quite.
“It depends on the source of the energy, barry, as I just said.”
Very well, prior to introducing the GP to the BP, as you asked me to imaginer, you preheated it to 244K. Let’s say it was being heated by a point source.
How much energy was it getting to be heated to 244 K?
400 W/m^2…and then when you bring in the heated GP, it’s only getting 200 W/m^2 from the BP. Then you will say, "that’s why it cools".
Let’s look at how it cools. On the side facing space, when introduced to the BP, it can "lose" energy no problem. On the side facing towards the point source, before introduction, it can "lose" energy in the vast majority of directions, which point towards empty space. On the side facing the BP, after introduction, it can only "see" the BP, so it can only "lose" energy if you consider that the BP increases in temperature at the expense of the GP.
Before introduction, it was emitting mostly to empty space on that source-facing side. After introduction, it’s emitting to entirely the BP on that BP-facing side. The other side of the GP was always emitting 200 W/m^2 to space, either way. So that’s a constant throughout, both before and after introduction. Thus, the "back-radiation" transfer GP to BP is again the difference.
The “back-radiation” transfer GP to BP is actually NOT the only difference upon separation, there is also another one, BP to GP radiative transfer in the vacuum. DREMT is so clueless.
Time again for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE.
We’re actually not talking about separation of the plates here, Ball4. You really are having a bad night. Oh well.
GP only enters in AFTER plate separation DREMT, very humorous DREMT mistake.
Time again for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
barry and myself were not talking about separating the plates, Ball4. Perhaps go and have a lie down, somewhere. You appear to be overheating.
DREMT won’t actually admit commenting: “then when you bring in the heated GP”
Take a few days off from your keyboard DREMT, consult a degreed thermodynamics expert, & learn where DREMT makes such basic physics mistakes like 2LOT violations & writing EMR is heat in solving the GPE eqn.s.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
You are making yourself and your Team look quite ridiculous, Ball4. Please continue.
See? DREMT won’t actually admit commenting: “then when you bring in the heated GP”
DREMT really does need take a few days off and study thermodynamics with an expert. Then, if pass, find Eli is correct.
Thank you for continuing. More, please.
“Before introduction, it was emitting mostly to empty space on that source-facing side. After introduction, its emitting to entirely the BP on that BP-facing side.”
Why do we care where it is emitted to? All that matters is that the energy is leaving the GP.
That energy is cancelled by the incoming BP flux.
That is why the NET TRANSFER to the GP is Q = 0, as ALL AGREE.
And that is why the energy lost from the GP to space is not being replaced!
For anyone constrained by facts and reality.
…you for continuing. More, please.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478185
Sure, OK.
barry says:
”How much energy was it getting to be heated to 244 K?”
201w/m2
DREMT,
“400 W/m^2… and then when you bring in the heated GP, it’s only getting 200 W/m^2 from the BP. Then you will say, “that’s why it cools”. ”
Yes, you understand.
Your (Postma’s) argument is that GP can’t “lose” energy to BP side once introduced to the system.
But the scare quotes (yours) is the fudge. GP is indeed shedding energy to BP side. It is indeed losing this energy. Radiative fluxes do not interact, they pass right through each other. BP does not prevent emissions from GP by some vector cancellation.
BP must absorb GP radiation – by definition, it is a blackbody.
With the physics right you can then balance the energy without creating new energy.
Your problem is that you start with a false belief and try to make everything work with semantics.
BP must absorb GP radiation. By definition – BP is a blackbody.
And you are, yet again, equating radiation with heat.
“On the side facing the BP, after introduction, it can only “see” the BP, so it can only “lose” energy if you consider that the BP increases in temperature at the expense of the GP.”
The semantic fudge leads to all sorts of other problems.
If GP is not losing any energy BP side, how can it have this non-existent energy returned to it?
Your answer I’m sure will be that it is not losing energy because BP is returning it all back to GP (as well as emitting its own 200 W/m2).
So now BP is a perfect IR mirror instead of a blackbody. This is a contradiction, as BP would not then be able to emit 200 W/m2 to GP. Kirchoff’s law: emissivity = absorp.tivity. Only blackbodies are perfect emitters.
Your model contravenes physics.
“BP does not prevent emissions from GP by some vector cancellation.”
Nor was I, or Postma, ever suggesting such a thing.
“Your answer I’m sure will be that it is not losing energy because BP is returning it all back to GP (as well as emitting its own 200 W/m2).”
Exactly. Now you’re getting it. Why is it returning it? It must. If not, it would be a 2LoT violation for the “back-radiation” transfer to result in the BP increasing in temperature at the expense of the GP.
“So now BP is a perfect IR mirror instead of a blackbody”.
You cannot use blackbodies as an excuse to violate 2LoT.
“Your model contravenes physics.”
No, yours does. It violates 2LoT.
You have accepted that your model is unphysical.
But for some reason you think this is an appropriate rebuttal to what you believe is unphysical.
That’s not how it works, DREMT.
BP absorbs energy from GP, as it must being a blackbody.
All objects absorb and emit IR, regardless of their temperature compared to the source. The GPE is just a clean and simple model that relies on this well-established phenomenon.
The introduction of the GP adds radiation to that already being received by BP. It now is gaining energy at a faster rate than it is losing it. It must heat up to compensate.
Radiation is not heat. Temperature is not heat. Temperature is not radiation.
If heat is the NET flow of radiative energy between 2 objects, then the flow of heat between the 2 plates is always from the hotter object to the cooler one.
At no time is the NET flow of energy from GP to BP, it is always BP to GP.
Because radiation is not heat, but NET radiation determines the flow of heat, the flow of heat is always BP to GP.
Your problem is that you only count the radiation in one direction when you figure GP is transferring heat to BP.
It isn’t. It is only transferring radiation to BP (and BP is transferring MORE radiation to GP, or an equal amount for the instant the plates are the same temp).
GP no more transfers ‘heat’ to BP than my sweater transfers heat to my skin.
GP no more transfers ‘heat’ to BP than a door transfers its heat to a room when you close it on a Wintery night.
“You have accepted that your model is unphysical”.
False.
“Your problem is that you only count the radiation in one direction when you figure GP is transferring heat to BP.”
No, I do not, barry. I consider all the energy flows in the situation both when the plates are pressed together, at 244 K…244 K, and then separated, at 244 K…244 K, and find that the only additional energy flow in the latter case is the “back-radiation” transfer from GP to BP. Thus I know that the only energy flow responsible for the spontaneous development of the plates to 262 K…220 K that Eli’s solution predicts is the “back-radiation” transfer, and thus it must be a heat transfer from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.
You are only looking at the additional energy flow, as I said. You are ignoring the rest when you determine that heat is being transferred from GP to BP. You’ve just verified what I said.
If you take on the rest you see that BP is emitting a greater yield of energy to GP. In the physics-based world the BP emits even more energy to GP once the plates are split, so the flow of heat, being the NET energy flow between the plates, is definitely BP to GP.
Every time you claim a heat transfer from GP to BP you summarily ignore the radiative transfer from BP to GP.
Radiation is not heat.
But you think that because the new vector of radiation to BP results in it getting warmer, that what has been transferred from GP to BP is heat.
My sweater does not transfer heat to me, either. Just like the GP in proper physics, it gets warmer when I put it on, and slows the heat loss from my skin.
If my sweater is heated to skin temperature before I put it on, it will cool from the Wintery air, but warm my skin.
2LoT is not broken.
But you can’t work it out for radiation, because you think radiation is heat.
‘Heat’ flow in radiation is determined by the NET flow of radiation.
Something you haven’t once shown you understand. A point you keep avpiding, in fact.
DREMT,
You’ve been polite for days. I appreciate that.
barry, you sure like to keep those false accusations coming. Yet, you’ve agreed that the only additional transfer of energy is the “back-radiation” transfer. The logic is pretty straightforward. If the plates are freshly separated at 244 K…244 K, and now the only additional transfer is the “back-radiation” transfer…and the plates now spontaneously progress to 262 K…220 K, then the “back-radiation” transfer must be responsible for that change. You can try to dress it up with all the semantics you want, it won’t change the facts…
…and a sweater insulates. A perfectly conducting blackbody plate, in a vacuum, does not.
“You’ve been polite for days. I appreciate that.”
Likewise. Aside from the false accusations you often repeat, I generally prefer to talk to you than most of the others. You can see how much I get trolled, and how much abuse I receive from them. Overall, we can have a good, civil discussion. Let’s make sure we keep that up.
“Why is it returning it? It must. If not, it would be a 2LoT violation for the back-radiation transfer to result in the BP increasing in temperature at the expense of the GP.”
One needs to violate two laws of physics in order to adhere to another one?
And the TEAM thinks thats a win?
Eli’s solution avoids any such contradictions.
…let’s make sure we keep that up.
“and a sweater insulates. A perfectly conducting blackbody plate, in a vacuum, does not.”
Uhhh. Insulation reduces heat transfer regardless of whether by radiation, conduction or convection. In general all three are involved.
As ALL AGREE heat transfer upon plate separation is dramatically reduced. That is what insulation does.
So to claim that the blackbody plates in vacuum are not insulating is yet another unsupported assertion.
Barry, in an honest debate DREMT would need to actually address your crystal clear rebuttals of his argument, but he never actually does.
He simply repeats the same rebutted argument over and over.
Polite or not, it is pure obfuscation.
…make sure we keep that up.
[BARRY] You’ve been polite for days. I appreciate that.
[GRAHAM] barry, you sure like to keep those false accusations coming.
If you look at the time stamps, you’ll see that was a cross-post. Unfortunate timing. No, barry suggesting that I’ve been polite is not what I meant by a false accusation.
DREMT,
“and the plates now spontaneously progress”
I’m glad you included the word spontaneous. It is a key understanding about the 2nd Law, and a point Clausius made and implied in his various descriptions of it.
The GP doesn’t spontaneously start sending radiative energy back to BP, nor does it spontaneously decide to cool. These are both a result of rearranging the system.
Even then, the heat flow remains BP to GP.
It’s the same with sweaters and doors. In the examples I’ve listed many times, physically changing the system results in the warmer object heating up while the object causing this gets colder.
I think the reason you can accept this with the door and the sweater is that you can liken the slowing of heat loss to a newly constricted path for heat to escape, and this is, nominally, a one-way process.
And the reason you can’t accept the same for radiation is that the slowing of heat loss in our example isn’t a kind of restriction, but a two-way process. And in that two-way process you see a violation of 2LoT, because the cause of the slowing of loss of heat is a radiation vector.
I believe you said or implied upthread somewhere that there is no such thing as radiative insulation, which (IIRC) would corroborate this.
As I keep saying (and soon will stop because we are just repeating ourselves) radiation is not heat. That single vector is not a heat vector. The flow of heat is determined by the NET flow of radiation.
You still haven’t laid out any kind of response to the notion that heat is determined not by a single vector of radiation but by the NET exchange, as often cited in the various links to physics courses and other sites here. Such as:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-2/pages/1-6-mechanisms-of-heat-transfer
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/black_body_radiation.htm
https://help.solidworks.com/2019/english/SolidWorks/cworks/c_radiation_exchange_between_surfaces.htm
The following page includes the same point about heat flow being determined by the NET flow of radiation, and there is even a calculator there to plug numbers into.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
I think our point of disagreement now boils down to this. My understanding is that heat flow is determined by the NET flow of radiation at any given time. You see heat flow in our discussion as the consequence of a single radiation vector.
I can find plenty of physics resources endorsing my understanding of radiative heat transfer, but I can’t find any supporting your view.
“I believe you said or implied upthread somewhere that there is no such thing as radiative insulation, which (IIRC) would corroborate this.”
No, I never said that. There is most definitely such a thing as radiative insulation. However, it functions via reflectivity:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[1] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
The only other point to address, I believe:
“You still haven’t laid out any kind of response to the notion that heat is determined not by a single vector of radiation but by the NET exchange, as often cited in the various links to physics courses and other sites here.”
I consider that I have, in fact, addressed this from the beginning. Or, at least, the beginning of talking about how Eli’s solution violates 2LoT. Rather than repeat myself again, I will just link to the most recent reiteration:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478334
I think that covers it. It is the fact that this “single vector of radiation” is ultimately responsible for the BP warming at the expense of the GP that is the problem, barry. It shouldn’t be responsible…but in Eli’s solution, it is!
No, DREMT, you have never acknowledged, addressed or dealt with the fact that heat transfer is determined by the NET flow of radiation between objects, and the post you just cited did not mention this at all, just repeated your fixation on the single vector.
Do you agree or disagree that heat flow is determined by the NET exchange of radiation between objects?
Your misstatement of Eli’s solution is just you projecting your own take onto his. So let’s quote him relevantly:
“If you just have a warm body sitting in space, it will cool by radiation.
If you have a warm body and a colder one near it, it will cool a little bit slower because of interchange of radiative energy btw the two The net interchange of heat will be from the warmer to the cooler. But in both cases the body(s) will cool down to the background temperature of the universe, like a few C
However, and here is what folk miss, if you have a heat source, like the sun, heating the warm body at a constant rate while it cools by radiation, the warm body will become hotter if there is a colder body near it because of the interchange of radiative energy between them.”
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?showComment=1507766848773#c3040983878004588319
Eli sees the whole system operating, not just a single vector, and correctly sees the heat flow determined by the NET exchange of energy.
Radiative insulation slows the rate of radiative transfer into or out of a system.
https://tinyurl.com/ywbpfmvc
GP is an inefficient insulator, but it does what a reflector does to keep the radiant heat from escaping a house.
Nate its idiotic to say that 1LOT is violated. The model supported by DREMT and Postma has all the emitted radiation going to space. Your model has the radiating hot plate heating rather than the cold plate.
400w/m2 is radiating at the GP that means 400w/m2 either has to go to space or heat up the BP by a colder GP. The latter is a violation of 2LOT. The former has the GP radiating 400w/m2 to space thus no violation of either 1LOT or 2LOT.
Bill,
“400w/m2 is radiating at the GP”
How is 400 W/m2 being radiated at the GP when 200 W/m2 is being radiated away from it?
The extra 200 W/m2 is the violation of 1LoT.
Object receives 400 W/m2 on one surface and must radiate equivalent energy to balance incoming. As the object is a 2-sided plate, the emitting area is twice the irradiated area, therefore it emits 200 W/m2 from each side.
GP is thus getting 200 W/m2 from blackbody BP.
But DREMT has BP delivering 400 W/m2 to GP. Where has the extra 200 W/m2 come from?
If the GP radiation bounces off the BP, then BP emissivity is 0.
BP is now a mirror and a blackbody at the same time.
This breaks physics.
If the BP absorbs GP radiation and then re-emits it, BP is now radiating a total of 600 W/m2 while receiving 400 W/m2 from the sun, so it must be hotter than when it was radiating a total of 400 W/m2. GP has made BP hotter.
DREMT does not know if BP is reflecting or absorbing GP radiation. Obviously it’s not being transmitted. He has suggested that there might be a 4th process (unknown to physics) that is responsible for returning GP radiation back to GP.
Bill,
Dunno if you’ve seen the original post that inspires all this discussion. Here it is.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
You’re not listening, barry. That final paragraph again:
“It is the fact that this “single vector of radiation” is ultimately responsible for the BP warming at the expense of the GP that is the problem, barry. It shouldn’t be responsible…but in Eli’s solution, it is!”
I’m agreeing with you that heat transfer should be the net flow of energy, but pointing out that with Eli’s solution, when we look at the entire system before and after separation we can isolate that the only transfer of energy responsible for the increase in temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP is the “back radiation” transfer. That’s why it’s a problem, barry!
You also completely ignored what I said about radiative insulation…you link to a radiant barrier, which is a great example of insulation that functions via the reflectivity of the material, thus confirming what I (and Wikipedia) said, then try to pretend the GP functions the same way. If the GP was reflective, I would have no problem with the BP warming…
No, DREMT 2:10 am is still wrong, after separation there is another radiative transfer of energy also responsible for the increase in temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP over the expense of space besides the “back radiation” transfer GP to BP which is the EMR from the BP to the GP thru the vacuum.
DREMT’s 244K…244K solution violates 2LOT as entropy is not produced in the process whereas Eli’s solution does not violate 2LOT since entropy is produced in Eli’s correct solution process.
DREMT just mistakenly continues to use EMR as heat when correctly EMR is NOT heat.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478129
“It is the fact that this ‘single vector of radiation’ is ultimately responsible for the BP warming at the expense of the GP that is the problem, barry. It shouldnt be responsiblebut in Elis solution, it is!”
Actually the SUN’s heat input is ultimately responsible for the BP warming.
And the ‘single vector of radiation’ is simply what the SB law requires, and part-and-parcel of the RHTE that simply describes the radiative heat transfer between the plates, which is from obviously always from hot to cold.
If DREMT wants to deny that the ‘single vector of radiation’ is possible then he is also denying the RHTE is valid here.
And according to even Joe Postma, the RHTE is valid here. And it gives a result that upon plate separation, the heat transfer Q = 0.
Which DREMT has agreed must be the case!
So his stance is ultimately contradictory and makes no sense.
Currently there is no response from barry, so hopefully he is now satisfied that I have addressed all his concerns in this sub-thread.
barry says:
Bill,
400w/m2 is radiating at the GP
How is 400 W/m2 being radiated at the GP when 200 W/m2 is being radiated away from it?
The extra 200 W/m2 is the violation of 1LoT.
——————————
My understanding Barry is the BP is 16.5c that means its radiating 400w/m2 toward the GP. It may indeed be radiating 400w/m2 at its source as well but its not losing any energy in that direction.
Where you are messing up is you are extrapolating that the energy is lost. All we know about this ‘cold energy’ is that it slows the ‘rate’ of warming. But we have no knowledge as to whether it limits the total amount of warming.
We obtain the idea that it does from atmospheric physics where you have another mode of cooling at work.
We also know from Stefan Boltzmann that if we adjust the ‘ε’ of the equation q = ε σ T4 A for emissivity (albedo equals 1/ε)
that a non-blackbody warms to its blackbody equilibrium temperature even though it reflects light. (there are some ‘claimed exceptions’ for materials that don’t reflect full spectrum light and where the spectrum is significantly altered by the square distance law e.g. weakened by extreme distance).
All DREMT and Postma are claiming is there is zero cooling in the direction of the source. You argue there is then inconsistently note and agree there is a net input to the cold object.
Then you mathematically extrapolate that 200w/m2 going to space plus 200w/m2 going back to the source disposes of all the excess radiation.
Well yes DREMT and Postma recognize that. But your math is only close to correct and isn’t actually correct.
There is a resistance related to heat traveling through an object. 400w/m2 in on side, with only 199.99999watts/m2 emitting toward space from the GP (depending on the plates thickness and material per conductive heat transfer rules) and .00001w/m2 warming the plate beyond the half way mark.
And of course as the outgoing wattage on the backside of the plate goes up so does the wattage retained by the resistance. . . .like amperage going through a wire.
So for a thin steel plate it might take a month to warm and in the meantime the BP will be like those bricks in the middle of a room not passing energy, not generating resistance, just at equilibrium. The process only stops when 400w/m2 is backradiated to the source and you now have net zero input.
So basically all DREMT and Postma are claiming is that you haven’t done your homework on this yet.
this is an easy concept for an electrical engineer. . . .probably not for an astronomer or academic who sits in a classroom teaching new students what they learned in the classroom. . . .but hey salt the mine they work in with a few billion and you can actually afford a glee club.
And as I have said, extrapolation doesn’t prove anything. Your extrapolation and ignorance of the resistance merely shows you haven’t adequately thought this out and you have let a few thought experiments throw you off. Swanson’s short term leaking experiment isn’t going to show us anything with regard to the extremely slow rate of warming/cooling to deal with resistances.
This is a big safety issue in the design of electronic equipment. The equipment might not burnup for extended periods of time and on and off cycles. But the power surges from switching on electronic circuits and or extended continuous use and suddenly you have a fire. And you regales us with perfect conductors with zero resistance and hard limits established by inadequate experimentation.
And of course the simple explanation is that there is nothing wrong with what you have thought about. Just that you have haven’t thought it it out thoroughly and you have the wrong object getting hotter.
2LOT tells you which object is going to get hotter.
Even more beautiful:
[GASLIGHTING GRAHAM JUMPS TO CONCLUSION] thus it must be a heat transfer from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.
A big *thus* right there!
No, not at all, if you follow the argument.
Hardly.
DREMT,
“when we look at the entire system before and after separation we can isolate that the only transfer of energy responsible for the increase in temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP is the ‘back radiation’ transfer.”
You’re only proving my point that you exclude the other energy vectors when considering heat flow. Acknowledging that there are other vectors and then waving them away to argue your point is exactly what I said you do.
Are you considering the NET radiative transfer between BP and GP when you claim heat is going from GP to BP?
Nope.
You discard that truth.
Your “logic” tells you that because the new vector causes the BP to get warmer, then you can now abandon the fact that heat flow is determined by the NET exchange. Unfortunately, this “logic” requires that you treat radiation as if it is heat. Even if you claim you don’t believe that, this is what your “logic” entails.
“… you link to a radiant barrier, which is a great example of insulation that functions via the reflectivity of the material, thus confirming what I (and Wikipedia) said, then try to pretend the GP functions the same way. If the GP was reflective, I would have no problem with the BP warming”
As you readily agree that GP sends radiative energy back to BP there should be no dispute. The only difference is the efficiency of insulation.
Why does the radiation returned by roof insulation cause the house to get warmer, but the radiation returned by GP to BP doesn’t cause it to get warmer? Apart from the efficiency, what material difference is there?
[DREMT] when we look at the entire system before and after separation…
[BARRY] You’re only proving my point that you exclude the other energy vectors when considering heat flow…
Deal with the disconnect there, first, barry.
Then, on your point about insulation, read the Wikipedia entry over and over again until you grasp what is being said:
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[1] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
The now classic DREMT obfuscation.
Find a source with one example, doesnt mention the type being discussed here, but doesnt EXCLUDE it either. Then tries to pretend that it is BEING EXCLUDED.
Thats how we recognize trolling in DREMT.
“[DREMT] when we look at the entire system before and after separation”
And the now classic DREMT dodge. Say you are doing X, but actually do Y.
DREMT ignores the parts of the system changes that could explain all:
The suns steady flux of input heat to the BP throughout, and the reduction in heat loss from the BP after separation.
If he was truly interested in ‘getting to the truth’, he could put these two together and he could easily explain BP warming without any need for heat flowing from cold to hot…
..but will he?
…“thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[1] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
DREMT,
Let’s add some more to the quote you think refutes what I said.
“when we look at the entire system before and after separation we can isolate that the only transfer of energy responsible…”
As I said, you acknowledge the system, but when you claim a heat transfer you “isolate” one vector, waving away the rest.
Here’s my response.
Per the GPE, before separation there is no heat flow.
After separation BP’s radiative flux to GP is greater than GP’s radiative flux to BP.
As heat flow between is determined by the NET exchange of radiative energy, the heat flow is now BP to GP.
If you agree that heat flow is determined by the NET exchange, you should be agreeing with me.
Why do you disagree with the above? What is wrong with it?
“After separation BP’s radiative flux to GP is greater than GP’s radiative flux to BP.”
False. After separation BP and GP are still both at 244 K, so their radiative fluxes towards each other are equal.
Once again, barry, if you look at all the energy flows before and after separation, the only energy transfer that is there after separation that wasn’t there before is the “back-radiation” transfer. So we know that this must be responsible for the progression from 244 K…244 K to 262 K…220 K. So this transfer is working like a heat transfer in Eli’s solution, from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.
“After separation BP and GP are still both at 244 K, so their radiative fluxes towards each other are equal.”
Yes, initially, but not in the steady state.
Initially the radiative fluxes towards each other are equal, and thus the Heat LOSS from the BP to GP has dropped to 0.
And the overall heat loss from the BP is cut in HALF to 200 W/m2
With the steady 400 W/m^2 heat input from the sun, the BP has no choice, it must WARM.
And the GP, initially with 0 heat input from the BP, and 200 W/m^2 output to space, has no choice, it must COOL.
For those of us for which truth matters.
“And the overall heat loss from the BP is cut in HALF to 200 W/m2”
And this is exactly the same result as adding insulation would have.
Thus is is baffling how anyone could deny this new arrangement has increased the insulation of the BP.
…so this transfer is working like a heat transfer in Eli’s solution, from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.
“like a heat transfer” but not one.
Thats right Nate. . . .it isn’t a heat transfer. Its a ‘pretend we don’t know anything about physics’ heat transfer which of course is a fantasy.
Regarding DREMT’s diagram:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
400 W/m2 is going from BP to GP.
So now we have a source and a vector for the extra 200 W/m2 we’ve all been asking about.
So how does the BP emit 400 W/m2 to GP if its emitting 200 W/m2 to the other side?
That’s the equivalent of 600 W/m2 toto. So where does BP find the extra 200 W/m2 from?
How and why are you confused, barry?
It’s colour-coded. The red arrow comes from the Sun. The blue arrows are emitted by the BP. So, the BP is emitting 200 W/m^2. The green arrows are emitting by the GP. So, the GP is emitting 200 W/m^2. The additional green arrow at the very bottom of the diagram is the "back-radiation" from the GP to the BP being returned from the BP to the GP, rather than violating 2LoT.
“from the GP to the BP being returned from the BP to the GP” by some sort of unknown physics defying mechanism.
Once again, as Barry noted, it violates Kirchhoffs Law and requires a blackbody to also be a mirror, which has never happened before ever.
This is not a serious argument.
Nate arguing that it is up to the skeptics to disprove your theory isn’t an argument for your theory. I realize you have no argument for your theory so all you ever do is try to flip the burden of proof.
barry asks “So how does the BP emit 400 W/m2 to GP if it’s emitting 200 W/m2 to the other side?”
BP is NOT emitting 400 W/m^2 to GP, barry. As DREMT has pointed out, the arrows are color-coded for clarity. Find someone that is NOT color blind. Then find a responsible adult to explain it to you.
Funny, DREMT claims blue arrows are BP emissions then shows a green arrow FROM the BP. LOL, Clint’s humor is hitting new heights of entertainment.
Clint,
Does DREMT mean that BP reflects GP radiation? I haven’t been able to get a clear answer from him on that.
DREMT,
Firstly, you could have made this clear days ago.
So the extra 200 W/m2 comes from GP itself, the radiation bouncing off BP.
This is unphysical, because BP is a blackbody, not a mirror. By definition it absorbs all radiation. That arrow should be blue. And that changes the energy balance on BP.
You’ve handily created a machine that has limitless energy, solving AGW and a host of other problems, for which you deserve a Nobel Prize.
This means that I could put another infinite sheet behind GP and it too would warm to 244 K.
We could do this infinitely, forever doubling the surface area and the temperature throughout the ever enlarging system would be maintained without a drop more energy being provided.
In the real universe a plate heated by a source would become cooler if you increase the surface area and keep the energy constant.
Your model remains unphysical, breaking 1ToL. GP is now heating itself with its own energy, magically receiving 400 W/m2 total when it is only getting 200 W/m2 energy given to it by BP.
barry, a black body is an imaginary object. If you actually believe something absorbs all frequencies of E/M, then you’re braindead.
The rest of your comment is just your usual crap.
“This is unphysical, because BP is a blackbody, not a mirror. By definition it absorbs all radiation.”
Sure, but a blackbody cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT.
“This means that I could put another infinite sheet behind GP and it too would warm to 244 K..”
You could add as many infinite plates as you want, the temperature of all the plates would indeed be maintained throughout the system. That’s because infinite plates are an idealisation, with no losses of energy past the edges of the plates. In the real world, with real plates, the temperature of the plates would decrease as you got further from the heat source, due to the losses (amongst other things).
“Your model remains unphysical, breaking 1ToL. GP is now heating itself with its own energy, magically receiving 400 W/m2 total when it is only getting 200 W/m2 energy given to it by BP.”
There is no 1LoT violation, barry. Everything balances.
P.S: I did make it clear days ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1476877
You obviously were not paying attention.
For some reason you couldn’t give me the answer directly, despite asking you over and over again. I personally don’t have time to read every comment. Unlike some I’m not here every single day.
barry, the links to old comment threads, recently provided, indicate you were involved in this discussion years ago. And even then you couldn’t understand the simple diagram, even when people explained it to you. It’s just like your inability to understand that view factors don’t affect fluxes that are ARRIVING at a surface.
You’re unable to comprehend any of this. You’re just another braindead cult idiot posing as an anonymous troll.
I haven’t got time to read all the comments, Clint. Apparently you do, so go you.
Well you should have read this comment, barry, as it was addressed to you and you responded:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1474644
So now you are starting to look dishonest.
The comment where you said that IF this happened then my accounting problem would be cleared up.
You didn’t commit to a position so I queried it. You didn’t reply.
You didn’t state the nature of the “transaction,’ and spent days being vague about it.
Even today you have not clearly stated whether GP radiation is reflected or absorbed by BP.
How about you answer that question directly, right now, without prevaricating?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1474997
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478705
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478754
“Sure”
So you agree your model breaks the laws of physics. A blackbody cannot be simultaneously be a mirror.
If you think that you can propose an unphysical model to rebut a model you think is unphysical then I have a perpetual motion machine to sell you.
I was saying “sure” that a blackbody absorbs all radiation by definition.
My solution doesn’t break any laws of physics, barry. It just doesn’t use a blackbody as an excuse to violate 2LoT, like your solution does.
“My solution doesnt break any laws of physics, barry.”
Shameless.
Sure it does Nate. It has the cold object warming the hot object. . . .unless of course you are content to have the GP only emit 200watts/m2 to space violating 1LOT.
And of course DREMTs version has the GP warming to emit 400w/m2 violating neither 1LOT or 2LOT.
Bill displays total confusion about whats being said in this discussion.
If you feel you must post on this subject, try quoting someone.
Since apparently you can’t do the math. DREMTs model when a BP infinite plate is warmed to 16.5c; the BP will warm an adjacent and parallel GP plate to 16.5C also such that it loses 400w/m2 out of the side opposite of the BP.
No violation of 1LOT as all 400w/m2 being emitted toward the GP is fully accounted for.
No violation of 2LOT because the BP started out warmer than the GP and the GP warmed to the same temperature as the BP.
Your concept is that the GP only warms to -29C or if it started at 16.5C it cools to -29C thus either 1LOT is violated here or if you try to fix that to heat the BP to a temperature greater than 16.5C you will violate 2LOT.
So you agree that BP absorbs GP radiation?
A clear answer on this would be great, because you’ve never given one.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1474997
If by clear answer you mean:
“I’m not sure. I don’t claim to know”
Then I’ll take I don’t know as a clear answer.
The correct answer according to physics is that all objects absorb radiation regardless of the temp of the source, and a blackbody by definition absorbs all radiation incident on it.
The correct answer according to physics is that the BP rising in temperature at the expense of the GP as the result of the “back-radiation” transfer violates 2LoT, so we know that can’t happen. You can’t use a blackbody as an excuse to get around that.
How is the GPE different from a sweater preventing heat loss, or closing a door to make a heated room warmer?
If you heat the sweater to the same temp as your skin on a cold day, it will get colder while your skin gets warmer when you put it on.
If the door is off its hinges in the room it’s the same temperature as the room. Now seal the room with it and the door gets colder from the air outside while the room gets warmer.
How are these examples different from separating two plates?
Why are these examples not violations of 2LoT but the radiative example is?
…because those are examples involving insulation, barry…and “cold surroundings”. Whereas the GPE involves perfectly-conducting blackbody plates (which thus have no properties of insulation) in a vacuum – the absence of “surroundings”.
Because DREMT still wrongly writes “the back-radiation” transfer violates 2LoT”
That’s wrong because EMR is NOT heat.
Eli’s GPE solution is correct because it treats EMR correctly & shows entropy increasing in the process whereas DREMT’s solution wrongly does not show an entropy increase in the process violating 2LOT.
Ball4, the adorable ignorable, is ”just saying anything” again.
“Whereas the GPE involves perfectly-conducting blackbody plates (which thus have no properties of insulation)”
plates are ‘perfectly conducting’ but vacuum is certainly not!
Again, the plates in vacuum ARE acting as insulation (as Bill stated, the vacuum between plates is more effective at insulating than air).
And because because upon separation, the heat flow Q demonstrably drops from 200 W/m^2 to 0!
As both JP and DREMT agree!
“in a vacuum the absence of surroundings.”
OMG
The absence of ‘surroundings’ doesnt stop the emission of heat to it, as demonstrated by the single BP, the GP, and the JWST.
So red herring.
…the adorable ignorable, is ”just saying anything” again.
DREMT,
“because those are examples involving insulation, barry… and ‘cold surroundings’. Whereas the GPE involves perfectly-conducting blackbody plates (which thus have no properties of insulation) in a vacuum the absence of ‘surroundings’.”
Wow, that’s a serious miss of the point. The insulation in the GPE is radiative, not conductive.
And this furphy about space not being ‘surroundings’ is another false premise. The plates still radiate to space regardless of the strange designation you give it, and that radiative flow can be interfered with just as with convection and conduction.
Please explain why you can accept convective and conductive insulation but not radiative.
“The insulation in the GPE is radiative, not conductive.”
I’m well aware that you think the GPE involves radiative insulation. It doesn’t, because as I already explained a dozen times, radiative insulation functions via reflection, and not absorp.tion/emission.
“It doesnt, because as I already explained a dozen times, radiative insulation functions via reflection, and not absorp.tion/emission.”
As he already falsely asserted, many times, but without evidence.
1. His Wikipedia source does not EXCLUDE non-reflective plates acting as insulators. He misrepresents as being exclusive.
2. He has seen the Wikipedia page on MLI, many times, that describes blackbody plates separated by vacuum acting as insulators, but ignores it.
3. Bill explained that vacuum between glass plates is obviously more effective at insulating.
4. As he and Joes Postma agreed, the heat loss, Q, is reduced, between the plates, (to 0) upon plate separation.
So no matter whether he calls it insulation or not, he has already agreed that it is doing exactly what insulation does, reduce heat loss.
…it doesn’t, because as I already explained a dozen times, radiative insulation functions via reflection, and not absorp.tion/emission.
For those of us whose ‘interest is in getting to the truth’ I wonder how do we tell when he have found the truth?
Some suggestions:
-Truth is not found by assertion.
-It has to have solid empirical evidence to back it up.
-Truth cannot contradict long established known truths.
-Truth has to be logically consistent with known truths.
Can we agree on these? Anything to add?
“The correct answer according to physics is that the BP rising in temperature at the expense of the GP as the result of the back-radiation transfer violates 2LoT, so we know that cant happen. You cant use a blackbody as an excuse to get around that.”
Nice try with whataboutism. And its a ‘whatabout this other unsupported thing that I have claimed’.
As we all know, that doesnt get you out of answering the question.
Afterall, the truth is what you are after isnt it?
…doesn’t, because as I already explained a dozen times, radiative insulation functions via reflection, and not absorp.tion/emission.
-Truth is not found by assertion.
Apparently some of us disagree.
…because as I already explained a dozen times, radiative insulation functions via reflection, and not absorp.tion/emission.
DREMT,
“as I already explained a dozen times”
You haven’t explained once, you have only asserted, while I have asked you to explain why you make this assertion. The wiki quote, as I said, doesn’t cover it.
barry, you started a new thread on it. So why are you still responding up here!?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479223
Because DREMT’s premise has been falsified up here.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
This is unphysical, because BP is a blackbody, not a mirror. By definition it absorbs all radiation.
Sure, but a blackbody cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT.”
So DREMT agrees that it is unphysical.
If your proposed solution doesnt satisfy ALL laws of physics then it cannot be correct, and you need to find a different solution that does.
No Nate. DREMT is not, unlike you, guessing what happens.
Bill again offers mixed messages.
Offering vague support for slayers, while elsewhere posting facts that shows they are wrong.
“Thus 1/8″ air gaps in dead air spaces perform very poorly because heat conducts between the panes of glass but an 1/8″ vacuum gap would perform well because of no conductivity.”
I would simply point out, Bill, that the DREMT/Postma ‘solution’ is based entirely on a GUESS that the plate temperatures should end up equal.
In sharp contrast, Eli’s solution, is found by actually solving for the temperatures, by solving the basic laws of physics applied to the system.
His solution is sensible: It has
Tsun > Tbp > Tgp > Tsp
and Heat flow always from hotter to colder, hence no 2LOT violation.
You are just confused Nate.
Just thought another reminder about the plates diagram…if you pay close attention to it, it says underneath:
"Screen Shot 2018-01-20 at 5.05.51 AM"
In other words, this is nothing new. These ideas have been around since the very beginning of the Green Plate Effect discussion.
Actually, DREMT has been wrong on the GPE for over 5 years by violating 2LOT.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (“plates pressed together”) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
Ah, you’re back. Still repeating the same assertions in the hope of drumming them into people’s heads, I see.
Scratching my own itch, vintage 2019-06:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-358296
Looks like Graham’s charade has been introduced in the most indirect manner.
Found it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281780
H/T Pupman’s timestamp.
Let readers find Graham’s and Pupman’s old socks.
It gets better:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281648
The first link is intriguing.
The first link is intriguing because it leads to a comment Eli left at Joe’s. It starts thus:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31333
Vintage 2017-10.
This shows beyond doubt that Graham knew he was pulling our collective leg.
A useful comment, with all of Postma’s corrections in place to what Eli is saying. Worth people clicking on it, to read in full for themselves.
[GRAHAM] A useful comment, with all of Postmas corrections in place to what Eli is saying.
[ALSO GRAHAM] If you respond with anything but a detailed explanation of how Ive changed the conditions of the thought experiment by what is quoted there, then [some empty threats].
You are putting together quotes from completely different contexts and coming up with nothing at all of relevance. Thanks for the links, though.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once more.
What will it be when he’ll discover The Simplest Green Plate Effect
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
?
Funny, Postma screen name used to frequently comment here & is just as wrong as is DREMT about the GPE.
Time again for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
Oh, I found that one a long time ago, Little Willy. It is actually quite useful in arguing against the GPE in that Eli purports the same principle should work with conduction as well as radiation in that article, when all his followers had already agreed that with the plates pressed together they would be at 244 K244 K.
And 1 plate is in equilibrium with the sun when radiating directly to space at 244K. DREMT’s opinion prefers 2LOT violating solution for 2 plates at equilibrium each at 244K not the physical facts.
Time again for DREMT to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE.
Readers should actually refer to Elis 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
Two plates pushed together is still two plates, Ball4. Not one plate. Eli wrote another article on the GPE stating that the same GPE principle should apply regardless of the means of heat transfer. When the plates are pushed together, the mode of heat transfer is conduction. Yet you guys have both plates at 244 K when pressed together. Contradicting his article.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham can tell readers by which thermo principle can a plate send from another plate.
Send what from another plate, Little Willy? What on Earth are you talking about?
“Two plates pushed together is still two plates, Ball4.”
No. Mass is not important at thermo. equilibrium, DREMT. There is then at thermo. equilibrium ONE BP with sunshine on it radiating to deep space at 244K. This is just one error made by DREMT but not the only physics error.
DREMT just needs to man up, and admit being wrong about the GPE.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (“plates pressed together”) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478133
“Eli has not said anything about how the heat is being transferred, radiation, convection or conduction but since heat transfer, no matter the mechanism, is always proportional to temperature, the temperature of the blue plate must increase as more plates are added.“
EMR is NOT heat DREMT.
That was a quote from the article, written by Eli, Ball4. He likes to refer to himself in the third person. Please, keep embarrassing yourself.
And so Gaslighting Graham simply ignores every word I just said, and repeats his twisted version of the truth.
Hardly.
[W] This shows beyond doubt that Graham knew he was pulling our collective leg.
[GG] A useful comment, with all of Postmas corrections in place to what Eli is saying.
It didn’t show that I was pulling your collective leg. Your accusation was false, as usual. I am not pulling anyone’s leg. The links were useful, though. Thanks.
And now Gaslighting Graham silently glides over the fact that his “hardly” should be put in perspective.
The perspective of someone who can’t deal with these issues honestly.
Please stop falsely accusing me of dishonesty.
Gaslighting Graham goes back to gentle gaslighting.
Please stop falsely accusing me of gaslighting.
Here is how an argument looks like:
P1. We have evidence that Eli said view factors did not matter.
P2. We have evidence that Graham knew it.
C. Graham has been pulling legs since the beginnings.
There are ways to spell out the argument furthermore, but that should be enough.
Eli can claim view factors don’t matter in radiative transfer if he wants to make himself look bad. That’s on him.
Graham can claim he does not change the conditions of the thought experiment while pretending he knows better than the one who conceived it.
That is his usual gaslighting.
View factors aren’t "conditions".
Graham just *knows* what are the conditions Eli has set up.
Has he ever spelled them out? No, but he knows them.
And please, readers – pay no attention to the fact that Graham cited a comment in which Eli explains why he was excluding view factors.
There are no readers interested in your trolling, Little Willy.
Readers may find delight in Gaslighting Graham’s utter cluelessness.
Or not.
“Eli can claim view factors dont matter in radiative transfer if he wants to make himself look bad. Thats on him.”
As usual from DREMT, this is a total misrepresentation and slander of Eli.
The point of VF is to tell us how much of the flux from a source hits the other object.
Eli made it clear that in the simple arrangement of his example, all flux between the plates hits the other plate, which makes VF = 1 , and thus not a factor.
And in the case of the sun, we are explicitly informed how much of the sun’s flux hits the blue plate, and thats all we need to know.
For the flux emitted to space by the plates we simply don’t care what it HITS, it is irrelevant to the problem. All we care about is that it leaves the plates.
But for the ignorati, Postma just needs to toss out sciency term like View Factor, without correctly explaining its role, to obfuscate this issue.
…or not.
Graham is just stuck in a cycle of repeating unresponsive things.
How about: "Little Willy, please stop trolling".
Responsive enough?
What can he say? The facts, logic and common sense are not on his side. So repetitive noise is the best he can do.
Our blog has tinnitus as a result.
…responsive enough?
EXERCISE IN ADVANCED MATHEMATICS
1. Look at the following diagram:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
2. Count the number of arrows per color.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1477995
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478135
Hint #1
[GG] It’s a given that if the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero, that it will be emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the other side.
[ALSO GG] The additional green arrow at the very bottom of the diagram is the “back-radiation” from the GP to the BP being returned from the BP to the GP, rather than violating 2LoT.
Indeed. Both evident from the diagram.
Funny, what is evident from the diagram is DREMT claims blue arrows are BP emissions then shows a green arrow FROM the BP. LOL, the DREMT humor is hitting ever new heights of entertainment.
Little Willy just quoted the explanation, Ball4.
Exactly, B4.
One red arrow.
Two blue arrows.
Three green arrows?
“The additional green arrow at the very bottom of the diagram is the “back-radiation” from the GP to the BP being returned from the BP to the GP, rather than violating 2LoT.”
[GIVEN] If the green plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 towards the blue plate when heat flow has gone to zero, it will be emitting 200 W/m^2 to space on the other side.
[TAKEN BACK] The additional green arrow at the very bottom of the diagram is the “back-radiation” from the GP to the BP being returned from the BP to the GP, rather than violating 2LoT
Not sure what your problem is.
Let’s simplify for the dumbest ones in the back:
[SYMMETRY] If G is emitting N towards the B, it will emit N to space on the other side.
[ASYMMETRY] The additional N is [some Sky Dragon Crank handwaving].
There is no inconsistency or problem in what I’ve said, Little Willy. The diagram shows the GP is at 244 K, emitting 200 W/m^2. Of course that naturally means it emits 200 W/m^2 towards the BP, and 200 W/m^2 to space. After all, it has two sides. The emissions from the GP to the BP, instead of raising the temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP, in violation of 2LoT, are returned from the BP back to the GP.
Maybe Gaslighting Graham does not understand what symmetry means.
A plate emits from both side. What a plate emits should be the same from both side. That implies two conditions:
(C1) An even number of arrows.
(C2) The same quantity on each arrow.
As soon as Gaslighting Graham breaks one of these conditions, either he refuses to play by Eli’s rulz, he revises his doodle, or persits with this line of gaslighting.
Worthless willard doesn’t understand *emit*. That means he doesn’t understand ANY of this.
That’s why he’s worthless.
Graham’s “trick” exposed, Puman continues to troll.
He probably delights in the misery he causes others.
Exactly, Clint R. I have explained it enough times by now. If people still don’t get it, that’s on them.
More astute people get that DREMT is physically wrong violating the 2LOT, that’s on DREMT.
Clint R is not even wrong, Clint is just humorously entertaining.
Please explain, Ball4. How does this:
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
violate 2LoT?
Gaslighting Graham and Pupman are making themselves and their Team look quite ridiculous.
May they continue.
DREMT asks how does the GREEN arrow from the BLUE plate in the figure violate 2LOT?
The colors don’t match.
Ask a sensible question, get a silly answer…
I only dumbed down DREMT’s answer in hopes DREMT would understand the obvious physical violation of 2LOT.
NB: DREMT, entropy always is produced in any real process as is shown in Eli’s GPE solution.
Readers should actually refer to Eli’s 1LOT energy transfer eqn.s published over 5 years ago for the correct 1 plate (plates pressed together) and 2 plate GPE solutions that both produce entropy in the process.
Entropy is not considered in 1LoT, Ball4. Both of the two plate “solutions” satisfy 1LoT. But only the one in DREMT’s diagram fits with 2LoT. But, you wouldn’t understand. Just stick with your “colors don’t match”. A box of crayons fits your level of understanding.
Ball4, the thing about you is…I know you will just say anything. I know from discussing the moon issue that you will, for example, happily and repeatedly claim that Tesla argued that the moon rotates on its own axis. Even though it’s universally known and accepted that he argued the moon does not rotate on its own axis. You just say stuff. Then you say it over and over again. To be blunt, you lie relentlessly. So…I have absolutely no reason to trust you. You have no credibility, as far as I’m concerned. So, you can assert over and over again that my solution violates 2LoT…but until you can actually explain it, it’s not going to convince me.
Great, now B4 is being trolled by two Sky Dragon cranks instead of just one.
Clint R 2:53 pm, humorous comment but DREMT used the crayons on the diagram.
—–
Again 2:54 pm see the convincing NB: DREMT, entropy always is produced in any real process as is shown in Eli’s GPE solution.
DREMT needs to understand entropy isn’t produced in DREMT’s diagram in the process of adding the GP to the BP system with both plates 244K at equilibrium as I’ve already explained using the eqn. for thermo. entropy.
Tesla proved with momentum eqn.s that the moon does inertially rotate on its own axis. Whenever Tesla writes the moon is observed not rotating on its own axis, then Tesla’s observation location is always from Earth since always looking at the same lunar face.
Ball4, you actually claimed that Tesla argued the moon rotates on its own axis, and it was supposedly (according to you) only the editor of the article that was getting it wrong and misrepresenting Tesla! Even though, obviously, many times Tesla stated and went to extraordinary lengths to argue that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. You just sort of pretended that wasn’t the case. Then you looked at one section of one of the three articles in which Tesla was discussing some of the reasons people think the moon rotates on its own axis, and tried to state that he proved the moon rotates on its own axis! So, you’ll pardon me if I take anything you have to say on the complex subject of entropy with a huge pinch of salt. Seems like the perfect way for you to obfuscate, when on the other hand, I have explained in terms that anyone can understand, why Eli’s solution violates 2LoT.
Ball4, as DREMT explained, it’s not worth wasting time with you. You can’t even clearly state your objections to the correct solution. “Entropy production” is not clear. It’s as if you’re trying to be slippery, so when you get caught you can alter the meaning. State clearly, using thermodynamic phraseology, i.e. “entropy increase” or “entropy decrease”.
At least TRY to act as if you have a clue.
Ask a simple question about symmetry.
Get two Sky Dragon cranks whinging and trolling.
What’s not to like?
Clint R 3:34 pm, if you really understood thermodynamics you would understand entropy is always produced in any real process such as adding a GP to the already sunshine irradiated BP system as is shown in Eli’s results over 5 yr.s ago.
—–
DREMT 3:33 pm, as I just wrote whenever Tesla writes the moon is not rotating on its own axis, Tesla is observing from Earth as the same lunar face was always seen by Tesla. Then Tesla went on to prove with conserved momentum eqn.s approach that the moon does inertially rotate on its own axis.
Willard, yeah, it’s been great entertainment reading the humorously wrong comments from Clint R and DREMT over the years.
Thankfully, Eli had the correct solution to the GPE example supporting how the planetary GHE works years ago. And long ago Dr. Spencer put up couple experiments supporting Eli’s eqn.s.
Ball4, as I said, and you are proving to anybody who has read Tesla’s articles on the moon, you just say anything. It doesn’t matter how obviously wrong you are.
Okay Ball4, youre now stuck with entropy production is entropy increase. I just wanted to pin you down because we know how slippery you are.
The plates stuck together increases entropy, so the correct solution also increases entropy. There is NO difference.
Now you get to slip your way out of that. Use plenty of grease.
DREMT: “I have explained in terms that anyone can understand, why Eli’s solution violates 2LoT.”
No because EMR is NOT heat. Eli’s eqn.s use energy.
DREMT, any more astute reader than DREMT who reads and understands Tesla’s articles will find what I wrote.
Yes, B4.
Our Dragon cranks will say anything.
It just does not matter how ridiculously wrong they are.
Humorous comment by Clint R “plates stuck together” lol. DREMT and Clint R are the ones with “plates stuck together” not Eli.
See Eli’s solution for the correct increase in entropy complying with 2LOT and 1LOT.
Ball4 continues bashing the same straw man and telling porkie pies about Tesla.
A plate emits from both side. What a plate emits should be the same from both side. That implies two conditions:
(C1) An even number of arrows.
(C2) The same quantity on each arrow.
As soon as Gaslighting Graham breaks one of these conditions, either he refuses to play by Eli’s rulz, he revises his doodle, or he persists with this line of gaslighting.
Willard says:
”As soon as Gaslighting Graham breaks one of these conditions, either he refuses to play by Elis rulz, he revises his doodle, or he persists with this line of gaslighting.”
Its only a requirement to follow ‘Eli’s rulz’ after they are recognized as Eli’s Law.
You are free not to play, Gill.
Just don’t pretend you won afterwards.
Little Willy demands some more attention.
Gaslighting Graham wants his cake and eat it too.
I wanted “reality and truth” cake, and found it.
Gaslighting Graham demands more attention.
No, far from it. I’m quite bored of all the attention from trolls that I’m currently getting.
Yet our Dragon crank is back, still repeating the same assertions in the hope of drumming them into peoples heads.
No repeated assertions here. That’s Ball4’s game. He always argues by repeated assertion.
Why can’t Gaslighting Graham deal with these issues honestly?
What issues? We’re just stuck in a cycle of you repeating things others have said which don’t apply to the situation you’re using them in.
Gaslighting Graham plays dumb once again, oblivious of the first comment of that subthread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478194
Since most of the times his context-free responses make it seem as if he got out of a trunk car after being stashed for a few hours, I surmise he’s caught in his phone notifications once again.
See my comment of April 23, 2023 at 7:31 PM. The comment before the one you just linked to. It refutes the comment you just linked to.
More armwaving by Gaslighting Graham.
Still on his phone, incapable to admit that he’s responding in a subthread started by a comment he never really addressed.
Please stop falsely accusing me of armwaving.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham should go and have a lie down, somewhere.
He appears to be overheating.
Please stop falsely accusing me of overheating.
Perhaps Gaslighting Graham ought to stop commenting in a sub thread on a topic he refuses to answer,
I pointed out that the answer had already been given. Then you falsely accused me of armwaving.
Gaslighting Graham insists that he answered my questions before I asked them by pointing out a comment about something else.
Actually, you never asked a question…but my 7:31 PM comment did deal with your 7:39 PM comment. As did Clint R’s 8:39 PM response. Just the way it goes.
Gaslighting Graham never handwaves – he *points* out.
Little Willy just wants to argue. About anything. Even if he has nothing worthwhile to contribute.
Gaslighting Graham will gaslight just about anything.
A plate emits from both side. What a plate emits should be the same from both side. That implies two conditions:
(C1) An even number of arrows.
(C2) The same quantity on each arrow.
As soon as Gaslighting Graham breaks one of these conditions, either he refuses to play by Eli’s rulz, he revises his doodle, or persits with this line of gaslighting.
Eli’s model is simpler than the usual zero-dimensional energy balance model, yet Sky Dragons cranks still fail at it.
Why is that?
The alternative solution is just as simple as Eli’s, only it doesn’t violate 2LoT.
Graham’s doodle breaks the two conditions.
Where is the Sky Dragons’ crank model?
Little Willy does love asking for a "model".
Your problem Willard is you extrapolate a warming rate with some mathematical equations of processes that don’t establish the limits.
I can agree that with a point source of light and two directions of virtually unlimited view from two sides of an object that is receiving a mean 400w/m2 on half its total surface will emit all that radiation to the unlit sky.
If the entire sky is lit via 400w/m2 the object in question (like the pile of bricks in the middle of a room) will be 16.5C. No more no less.
Any way you do the math the room nor the lit surface in space is going to get hotter than 16.5C in any experiment you can dream up.
And if you don’t understand why that is you simply are not thinking out the entire problem and you end up with the wrong object warming. Its all about heat loss.
There is no heat loss toward a lit sky if that lit sky is the only light. If heat loss is zero they call that equilibrium. Nate is just wrong about stuff having unlimited potential to heat as you apply layers. Bricks piled in the middle of a room has billions of layers.
Nate is just wrong about backradiation warming the object providing the only energy.
He doesn’t understand the basics. That ignorance has the wrong object warming violating the 2LOT.
Once it has warmed to the same temperature as the mean surroundings its not going to warm any more than that.
Out of this insanity arises a lot of nonsense on both sides of the aisle.
The longer Gill’s comments get, the less he seems to say.
Let’s help our Sky Dragon cranks:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
There are less terms involved in this model than there were years for Sky Dragon cranks to grasp it. Either it was too hard, or they’re just trolling. Could be both.
Or, we fully understood it from the beginning, just disagreed because of the obvious 2LoT violation.
If Sky Dragon cranks could prove a 2LOT violation in
σT1^4 = 2σT2^4
they would have done so a long while ago.
Little Willy’s utter cluelessness is always a delight.
Gaslighting Graham returns to his gaslighting program.
Just an observation.
Bill brings up bricks? Lit sky? In a room?
None relevant to the discussion, as usual.
And his conclusions about what is being discussed are thus not supported but what he says.
…just an observation.
Graham is just stuck in a cycle of repeating things which do not apply to the situation he is using them for.
No, it’s just when I see Nate’s name come up in the comments, I immediately just repeat the last sentence of whatever I wrote previously. That’s so he can’t take advantage of the fact I no longer respond to him.
“Thats so he cant take advantage”
Tee hee. Such a sensitive child.
We know that when DREMT thinks he has a sensible answer, he finds a way to respond, while pretending he is responding to someone else.
Thus we know in these instances of mindlessly repeating his last sentence, he actually has NO sensible answer.
And that’s been the case throughout this discussion.
With Barry and others he just obfuscates, repeats his unsupported claims, and never addresses the gaping holes they poke in his logic.
…that’s so he can’t take advantage of the fact I no longer respond to him.
OPEN PROBLEM
Suppose that some plate P1 receives or sends some Bonus Rays (BR) to P2. Wouldn’t that imply that P2 also sends some part of that BR back to P1?
That back and forth could then happen for a long while.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint,
I was at my God-daughters house over the weekend and they have an indoor sauna made with four heat lamps in a tent structure.
The lamps are in a diamond pattern on one wall and there are 3 switches, 2 of which turn on one lamp and 1 switch which turns on the middle two.
I couldn’t resist.
I had a sauna, and put my hand in front of the lamps, focussing on what I felt in the middle of my palm.
No matter what order I switched the lights on, starting with the middle two, or starting with one of the others, my palm got noticeable instantly warmer with each lamp switched on.
According to you, this should not happen.
According to you, switching on the second and third switch couldn’t make my palm instantly warmer, because those additional fluxes can’t be added to the flux already hitting my palm.
But surely you know that the designers of this rig didn’t add unnecessary lights. Surely you know that each one provides more radiative flux, and therefore more heat to the surfaces of the tent.
I don’t know how you fool yourself about this.
This is the model.
https://sauna.space/products/luminati-infrared-sauna?sca_ref=2176411.1cplnnIHXx
According to me this should not happen???
“According to you, this should not happen.”
Is this where I’m supposed to call you a “lying dog”, barry? Where did I ever say such nonsense?
I’ve never indicated adding more of the “right kind” of energy would not raise temperatures. That’s not the issue here. The issue here comes from modeling the GHE. Folkerts claimed that solar flux would add to flux from the atmosphere. He even gave a numerical example.
I showed that was nonsense by showing it would mean you could boil water with ice cubes. Your cult immediately started foaming at the mouth. You called me a “lying dog”. Nate, Ball4, and Norman came out from under their rocks to attack me. Swanson did a demonstration using two spotlights.
Not one of your cult understood the issue, as usual.
If you want to prove me wrong, you need to get a bunch of ice cubes and boil some water. If the water doesn’t boil, just get some more ice cubes. Your cult says it should work!
Now, what will you try next?
Clint,
I quote you:
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.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1254315
Have you changed your psition since you write this?
You’ve never before mentioned the “right kind of energy.” What does that mean?
Are you saying that the radiation from these heat lamps are indeed additive at a surface, so that temperature increases?
Looks like you’re contradicting what you said a year ago.
barry, youve got it all twisted and distorted. If you are quoting me out-of-context, THAT is distorting. Before I waste my time explaining it to you, you need to take the honesty quiz.
1) Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
2) Is view factor a consideration to a flux that ARRIVES at a surface, yes or no?
If you cant answer both questions honestly, then theres no point in me wasting time with you.
There is no point in these questions. An existential waste of time.
Sorry Ken but focusing on reality is never a waste of time. If barry refuses reality, then I’m wasting my time trying to help him.
Reality is very “existential”.
… and in reality, reliable videos show passenger jets flying backwards.
Clint R avoids reality with very humorous unreliable comments.
Your entire cult will agree with you Ball4. They all will choose their cult beliefs over reality. In fact, they will even try to pervert reality to fit their false beliefs!
That’s what a cult does.
… and Clint R is a founding member of a cult avoiding thermodynamics reality. I go with thermo. reality as do those observing reliable videos of passenger jets flying backwards.
Clint,
I quoted you clearly saying that fluxes of equal intensity do not add on a surface, because one of the fluxes is reflected. That was your definitive statement on the matter a year ago.
If I have twisted your words here, you can clear it up without playing games.
Now you are saying:
“I’ve never indicated adding more of the “right kind” of energy would not raise temperatures.”
To my knowledge you have never said anything like this in the year since that long post explaining your view.
So equal fluxes can add and make a surface warmer or not?
barry, you have a history of perverting reality. You have a history of twisting and distorting what I have said. You have no interest in reality or science. Before I waste my time explaining anything to you, you need to take the honesty quiz.
1) Do passenger jets fly backward, yes or no?
2) Is view factor a consideration to a flux that ARRIVES at a surface, yes or no?
If you can’t answer both questions honestly, then there’s no point in me wasting time with you.
1) No
2) If a given value is the energy irradiating a surface then you can forego considering view factors. Otherwise, view factors matter.
Can equal fluxes arriving at a surface combine to heat that surface or not?
You answered the first one honestly.
Why can’t you answer the second one the same way? The question is “yes or no”.
Why can’t you deal with these issues honestly?
Are you going to answer my question?
I’m not being dishonest I’m trying to be precise.
One word answers don’t make an answer more honest.
Eg: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
See barry, you can’t deal with these issues honestly?
It looks to me like you can’t explain the apparent contradiction between what you said a year ago and what you said yesterday, and are throwing mud to hide your inability.
Rather than trade taunts, how about you answer honestly, even just to demonstrate what that looks like.
Another false accusation from troll Clint. The context is clear in Clint’s quote.
It clearly is Clint just saying stupid stuff.
A little more from your post a year ago:
“Well then, what happens to the flux from the second source, if it is not absorbed? If the photons haven’t enough energy to get absorbed, they get reflected.”
Then at 4:23 AM, you made this comment, barry:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478324
See the games you play?
You have NO interest in honesty, reality, or science.
What games? You think the radiation is reflected and DEMT is unclear about it. You weighed in so I asked your opinion.
What game am I playing saying these things?
I wouldn’t say “unclear”, just “skeptical”, barry. I don’t give a definitive answer on whether the photons are reflected or somehow absorbed and immediately re-emitted without affecting the temperature, or perhaps even some other process as yet unknown, because I can’t claim to be sure about the fate of individual photons. I have been quite open and honest about this uncertainty and have always given the same answer, for quite some time now. The only thing I can be sure of is that 2LoT cannot be violated.
I would say that you asking Clint R to answer something on my behalf was a little disappointing, though. You must know Clint R can’t speak for me and it’s also not like I hadn’t answered you already to the best of my ability.
DREMT,
You have often played your opponents off against each other or revelled in disagreement between them. Let’s not get holier than thou here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1477843
I am trying to get answers. What is uncertainty to you is a lack of clarity to me. And this is the clearest you have been on the matter since you said you couldn’t speak to the fate of “individual photons.”
“perhaps even some other process as yet unknown”
Which you would require to substantiate your firm belief that the GPE violates the second Law.
… because if the GP radiation is absorbed by BP that changes the energy balance of BP leading to the GPE, and if the GP radiation is reflected that contradicts what BP is – not to mention that GP in your scenario would also reflect BP radiation, and neither body would absorb any radiation from the other.
Thus you would need to come up with a process that is completely novel to known physics.
barry says:
Thus you would need to come up with a process that is completely novel to known physics.
————————–
What is so novel about 400w/m2 going into a system and coming out?
What seems novel is making the source warm up to get out of the system.
You’ve missed the point.
Well, it’s such a rare occasion to see two Team GPE members arguing against each other, however briefly. I couldn’t resist!
I wouldn’t say the answer I’ve given here is any different to the one I already gave you a few days ago.
“Which you would require to substantiate your firm belief that the GPE violates the second Law”
No, not at all, that’s the thing. Understanding that the GPE violates 2LoT is the key. Once you understand that, then you know that the “back-radiation” transfer from GP to BP must be returned from the BP to the GP. How that happens, ultimately, doesn’t even matter. Well, not that I wouldn’t be interested to know…
However, Clint R and others do have answers if you want them. You already know what they are, you just don’t want to take their word for it. Which is fair enough.
No, really, Clint has contradicted himself.
A year ago he made possibly his longest post laying out his view that equal fluxes arriving at a surface don’t add, and one of the fluxes is reflected. 9 months later he qualified the wording slightly but never explained what he meant (“doesn’t simply add”.) Yesterday he said something brand new, never before said by him, that the “right kind of energy” does add on a surface.
barry, your inability to understand is NOT my responsibility. You take my words out-on-context to distort and pervert.
You can’t accept reality so you have to pervert it.
Trolling me is nothing new. I’m used to it.
Of course you are, Pupman.
You have been trolling this website under various socks for a decade at least.
“Understanding that the GPE violates 2LoT is the key.”
That is an article of faith, and the attempts to demonstrate it remain as unconvincing as ever, breaking 1LoT, and positing processes that can’t be explained – as you happily admit.
“Once you understand that, then you know that the ‘back-radiation’ transfer from GP to BP must be returned from the BP to the GP.”
Once you start with a false premise you have to make arguments that are non-physical, such as a blackbody being a reflector.
And when people ask for reputable references for such views, then it’s no surprise when these requests go ignored. For a few years now.
barry, when you stop perverting our words, and start dealing honestly, all can be explained so that a responsible adult can understand.
But, you must behave as a responsible adult.
“That is an article of faith, and the attempts to demonstrate it remain as unconvincing as ever, breaking 1LoT, and positing processes that can’t be explained – as you happily admit”
Well, that’s the most twisted take imaginable at what I’ve been at pains to patiently and politely explain to you over several weeks, barry. There is no faith involved whatsoever. I laid out the logic for the 2LoT violation and you have not been able to refute it. In fact, you dodge it. You won’t address it. You bypass it, talking about how the “net flow” is always hot to cold and other obvious non-points that fail to address the elephant in the room. This elephant:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478334
You are still talking about 1LoT violations when there are none! I’m not “positing processes that can’t be explained”, I’m open to processes that haven’t yet been explained, but more importantly, I’m open to the processes that Clint R and others have explained, which you are well aware of, but are acting like are some kind of mystery.
“Once you start with a false premise you have to make arguments that are non-physical, such as a blackbody being a reflector.”
Not a false premise, barry. You would have to refute my logic, and you haven’t so far. You can’t use a blackbody as an excuse to violate 2LoT.
DREMT,
I think my take is fair on the article of faith.
You have said ‘all I know is that GP cannot warm BP or cause it to be warmed.
That’s an accurate paraphrase, and is your bottom line. I remarked that it was the most honest thing I’d read from GPE critics. It’s your fundamental ‘truth’.
This is your starting premise. This is the dogma. The rest of your argument flows from that.
I am not disputing that you have spent time trying to justify that. I am saying that you start with this as a fundamental, and then have set about trying to rationalize why the GPE breaks the 2nd Law.
It is from this position that your argument flows, and why you can’t explain how the radiation from GP is turned back by BP. The options that physics give you are insufficient, so you have to suggest there is another, unknown mechanism.
“You would have to refute my logic”
There are plenty of logically consistent positions that are false – if their premises are false.
A proposition can be falsified also by refuting the premises. Today we’ve drilled down to a mechanism your thesis requires that doesn’t exist.
At this point the GP radiation towards BP in your model is returned to the GP by magic.
barry simply ignores every word I just said, and repeats his twisted version of the truth.
Then he says:
“A proposition can be falsified also by refuting the premises. Today we’ve drilled down to a mechanism your thesis requires that doesn’t exist.
At this point the GP radiation towards BP in your model is returned to the GP by magic.”
That’s not a premise in the 2LoT violation logic, barry. How the GP radiation toward the BP is returned to the GP is utterly irrelevant to the fact that Eli’s solution violates 2LoT. The logic for that 2LoT violation has been given to you multiple times now, and you refuse to deal with it. Focusing on this “how is the radiation returned” issue is just your brain’s latest way of looking for a way out.
DREMT 6:34 am is wrong since EMR is NOT heat thus there is no violation of 2LOT in Eli’s GPE solution.
Eli’s solution does NOT violate 2LOT as it shows increasing entropy in the solution whereas DREMTs GPE solution wrongly does not show an increase in entropy violating 2LOT. Very ironic.
Ball4, the adorable ignorable, is ”just saying anything” again.
Cult Leader grammie pups again pontificated his usual nonsense:
grammie pups has NEVER EXPLAINED how Eli’s model (the GPE) violates the 2nd Law, he just states that it does so. He can’t describe how the 2nd Law is violated and as Barry wrote, “This is the dogma. The rest of your argument flows from that.”
I’ve now given 4 real world examples which support the GPE effects, all of which you continue to ignore. The last one was so obvious that I saw no reason to document it, since any half smart tinker could replicate it for his own enlightenment.
Years later, Cult Leader Grammie pups continues to disgorge his usual effluent to pollute the group and waste everybody’s time.
“grammie pups has NEVER EXPLAINED how Eli’s model (the GPE) violates the 2nd Law“
Now they’re just lying. Swanson was a part of this discussion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1476574
So beautiful:
[GG DOES ARGUMENT] I think everything follows from the premise. So, if you want to refute my argument, attack the premise.
As if Gaslighting Graham never heard of how arguments work.
Cult Leader grammie pups linked to an earlier post in which he wrote:
As I noted in a previous response, “grammie clones final words are a simple assertion.”, which is NOT A FACT BASED EXPLANATION. As Barry (and even Gordo) noted, thermal IR radiation is not “heat”, but a different form of energy with different characteristics. All you’ve got to offer are your “magic green arrows, which do violate the laws of physics.
It’s been shown that the cult idiots do not understand the basic physics involved. Swanson is a leading example of that incompetence. His “demonstrations” only demonstrate he doesn’t understand the issues.
He’s used two spotlights as an example of “fluxes adding”. That ain’t the issue. Two spotlights are two independent sources of “viable” energy, or “right kind of” energy, or “low entropy” energy. The issue is NOT about two spotlights, or two suns, or any such nonsense. The issue is about solar energy simply adding to flux from the atmosphere, which does NOT happen.
To understand, it is first necessary to understand “temperature”. Interested persons should look up how temperature is determined. Then consider examples from everyday. For example, two glasses of water at 40 degrees, poured together, do not result in 80 degree water. If you understand that temperatures do not simply add, then ask yourself if you understand why that is true. Temperatures don’t simply add because there is no increase in “viable” energy.
The cult can’t understand simple concepts because they’re braindead. The cult can’t honestly answer simple questions because they’re dishonest.
Dishonest and braindead — two qualities of a cult.
Sure, Swanson, if you just quote one sentence, and ignore the rest, you can pretend that the one sentence is all I’m saying! However, there is actually an entire argument written there. Here, I’ll link you to another iteration of the argument, and you can pull the same trick again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478310
and further:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478334
I realise that IR radiation is not heat. The problem is, Eli’s solution treats it like it is! It’s funny how people keep telling me the problem with their own solution as if I’m the one who doesn’t get it!
“That’s not a premise in the 2LoT violation logic, barry.”
You should re-read my post. I stated clearly what your false premise is – ‘all I know is that GP cannot warm BP or cause it to be warmed.’
This is your dogma, your article of faith, your premise, etc.
This dogma, based on equating radiation with heat, is the root of all your argumentation.
“How the GP radiation toward the BP is returned to the GP is utterly irrelevant to the fact that Eli’s solution violates 2LoT.”
It’s entirely relevant to substantiating this claim and is key to why your model fails. It isn’t supported by physics.
“The logic for that 2LoT violation has been given to you multiple times now, and you refuse to deal with it.”
If the logic is based on faulty premises then the argument doesn’t stand.
Your challenge to the GPE requires a magical process. It doesn’t fly in physics.
BP absorbs GP radiation, this increases its energy load and in order to balance output with input it must warm up.
A more efficient version of radiative insulation IRL is the reflective material lining the roof of a house. The only difference of note is the degree of emissivity. Here, the radiation given off beneath is returned, causing the house to be warmer than it would be without the radiative insulation.
barry…you’re not listening, again.
There are two different things being discussed here:
1) Eli’s solution.
2) The alternative solution.
The argument for the 2LoT violation is an attack on 1). That’s one thing. Call it a).
The issue about how the radiation from GP to BP is returned from the BP to the GP is your attack on 2). That’s a separate thing altogether. Call it b).
1) is refuted by a), but none of the premises for a) are involved in b). They’re separate issues entirely. OK? Get it through your head. You cannot refute a) by pointing at b).
In other words, you can criticize 2) all you like. It won’t change the fact that 1) is debunked. The debunking of 1) does not depend on the validity of 2) at all.
However, once you understand that 1) is debunked, and that the plates must remain at 244 K…244 K, you’ll understand the necessity for the radiation from GP to BP to be returned from BP to GP. 2) will then make sense to you.
[GG] That’s a separate thing altogether. 1) is refuted by a), but none of the premises for a) are involved in b).
[ALSO GG] thus it must be a heat transfer from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.
No contradiction, no inconsistency, no problem. Little Willy can’t follow a discussion.
Cult Leader grammie pups still doesn’t understand that simply posting an assertion without supporting physics does not prove his case. He is repeating his earlier error in which his stated:
grammie is ignorant of thermodynamics and the context in which the 2nd Law was presented. Back 150 years ago, little was known about thermal IR radiation and the problems were how heat engines worked. Steam locomotives were a prime example, as were the later use of steam to generate electricity. It was years later when the internal combustion engines, jet aircraft and rockets appeared, all of which were machines. Machines such as refrigerators, A/C and heat pumps were still later innovations that exhibited actually moving thermal energy from a colder location to a warmer one, and all of them require an external energy supply.
The GPE does not violate the 2nd Law, as no more energy can be removed from the system than that which is applied. The total energy leaving the BP is larger with the addition of the GP, but the sum of the energy leaving the system is equal to that which is supplied, no more.
> No contradiction, no inconsistency, no problem.
No clear premises. No clear inference. No argument. Gaslighting Graham (GG) simply can’t argue.
Either E’s solution follows from the thought experiment, or it does not. If it does not, then that needs to be showed.
GG’s doodle *could* follow from the thought experiment. Does it? If it does, that needs to be showed too.
If GG’s doodle does not follow from the thought experiment, then it does not refute *anything*.
Simples.
The only way to settle an argument in a direct manner is to make all the premises explicit and to show how one’s preferred conclusion follow.
Arguing by denial, incredulity, sheer repetition or armwaving does not cut it. That’s just good for our Pupman troll.
Since GG wants to be taken srsly, perhaps he should stand up with his shoulders straight and argue like a serious person. Not just a concern troll who keeps lulzing by pure Machiavellism.
Swanson, you just did it again! You can’t just snip out one sentence from my argument and pretend that’s all I’m saying.
Plates together: 244 K…244 K.
Plates initially separated: 244 K…244 K.
Examine all of the energy flows in both situations. The only difference in the latter is the "back-radiation" transfer now occurring from the GP to the BP. The plates then supposedly change to 262 K…220 K according to Eli’s solution. Thus we know that the "back-radiation" transfer must ultimately be responsible for that change. If a transfer of energy is causing one of the plates to rise in temperature at the expense of the other, what sort of transfer would you call that?
More armwaving to evade something obvious:
“The GPE does not violate the 2nd Law, as no more energy can be removed from the system than that which is applied. The total energy leaving the BP is larger with the addition of the GP, but the sum of the energy leaving the system is equal to that which is supplied, no more.”
"The total energy leaving the BP is larger with the addition of the GP"
Lol…only if the "back-radiation" transfer from GP to BP is successful in increasing the temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP.
This is why this is so much fun.
First Swanson messes up the Laws. He confuses 1LoT with 2LoT.
The GPE does not violate the 2nd Law, as no more energy can be removed from the system than that which is applied. The total energy leaving the BP is larger with the addition of the GP, but the sum of the energy leaving the system is equal to that which is supplied, no more.
Then worthless willard jumps in to “second the motion”!
1LoT is about energy accounting.
2LoT is about heat transfer and entropy.
The cult can’t understand simple concepts because they’re braindead. The cult can’t honestly answer simple questions because they’re dishonest.
Dishonest and braindead — two qualities of a cult.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478952
> Lol … only if
It’s as if Gaslighting Graham begged not to be taken seriously.
Either Sky Dragon cranks play by Eli’s rules, or they don’t.
Which is it?
I wrote other words, Little Willy.
[W] Since GG wants to be taken srsly, perhaps he should stand up with his shoulders straight and argue like a serious person. Not just a concern troll who keeps lulzing by pure Machiavellism.
[GG] Lol … only if
Followed by more spaghetti writing by our Always Misunderstood Sky Dragon Hero.
Eli said it best:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Then he showed his model, in the form of an equation.
Where is our Sky Dragon cranks’ model?
I’m just waiting for a response from Swanson, by the way.
OK, I thought maybe Graham wasn’t that petty and obnoxious…
I was wrong about that.
In what sense is waiting for a response from Swanson petty and obnoxious?
Three questions might spring to the mind of readers:
Q1. Has Graham offered a model besides his doodle?
Q2. Has Graham presented the two main premises of the Green Plate thought experiment?
Q3. Has Graham ever tried to analyze the model Eli presented?
So much to do, so little time.
It’s always funny when worthless willard throws crap against the wall. It shows how desperate he is.
But his funniest blooper today was when he parroted Swanson at 1:27PM. Swanson got 1LoT confused with 2LoT, and worthless willard didn’t know the difference!
That’s why this is so much fun.
How and why are you so confused, Pupman?
You just have to find the two main premises behind Eli’s model.
Should be easy for you.
DREMT,
What we are disputing has several prongs or iterations, and they are not isolated, they are linked.
“1) is refuted by a)”
No, that’s your claim, but in your post you treat it as if it is self-evident and we have to move on. Later in the post you say:
“In other words, you can criticize 2) all you like. It won’t change the fact that 1) is debunked”
It’s not debunked. You are projecting your article of faith once more.
Eli’s GPE requires that blackbody BP absorbs GP radiation, changing the energy balance of BP. This is absolutely consistent with physics and the field of radiative transfer. You’ve seen many links to reputable sites confirming that bodies of different temp absorb each others’ radiation.
But you have posited some unknown process whereby the GP radiative energy towards BP is returned to it, in full, and BP is not affected by it. As far as physics is concerned the mechanism is a magic one.
Rather than me having to “understand” that Eli’s GPE is debunked, you need to own what you have already admitted – that your solution has a magical instead of a physical process – and finally let go of the dogma that leads you to this weak position.
This is getting tiresome, barry. Eli’s solution is debunked because there is a 2LoT violation, as I have explained. Try to keep the logic behind that separate to your criticism of the alternative solution, because it is separate. They are two different things.
Then, stop trying to pretend that I am necessarily proposing some new process unknown to physics with the alternative solution. You know about the “wavelength mismatch” idea that Clint R and others have discussed for as long as the GHE has been discussed. Stop pretending otherwise. Start discussing it, with Clint R perhaps, if you wish. Leave me out of it, for once.
I can’t be responsible for answering all your questions on everything, over and over again, until the end of time.
Graham simply ignores every word Barry just said, and repeats his twisted version of the truth.
grammie pups repeated his usual mantra:
No, grammie, you HAVE NOT EXPLAINED how the so-called “back radiation” in Eli’s (and my demos) is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo. All you have done, over and over, is to assert it’s a violation, each time without proof, all the while ignoring proven facts.
A body which emits thermal IR radiation at a particular wavelength will absorb IR radiation at that wavelength which is sourced from some other body. The temperature of the source body does not effect the absor_ption, though the spectrum of all wavelengths from the cooler body will be different from that emitted by the warmer body. Remember that you wrote:
If you are tired of replying to reasoned posts, perhaps it’s you who should stop being a troll and get a life somewhere in the real world.
“Then, stop trying to pretend that I am necessarily proposing some new process unknown to physics with the alternative solution. You know about the wavelength mismatch idea that Clint R and others have discussed for as long as the GHE has been discussed. Stop pretending otherwise. Start discussing it, with Clint R perhaps, if you wish. Leave me out of it, for once.”
Yeah Barry, its not ‘some process unknown to physics’ because Clint has some vague ideas about what it might be.
And leave him out of it. He has no interest in knowing what that magical Green arrow is, the one he asserted must be there!
So what if his assertions are built out of a house of cards?
It doesnt matter, because he has also asserted that Eli violates 2LOT, and we need to listen to him on that, while he refuses to listen to any of us when we poke holes in that assertion.
"No, grammie, you HAVE NOT EXPLAINED how the so-called “back radiation” in Eli’s (and my demos) is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo."
Swanson continues to lie through his teeth, despite me having explained it to him on this very sub-thread for everyone to read! Stunning.
"A body which emits thermal IR radiation at a particular wavelength will absorb IR radiation at that wavelength which is sourced from some other body. The temperature of the source body does not effect the absor_ption, though the spectrum of all wavelengths from the cooler body will be different from that emitted by the warmer body. Remember that you wrote:
I understand that a blackbody absorbs all radiation it receives, by definition."
I also wrote that a blackbody (an imaginary ideal) cannot be used to violate 2LoT.
"If you are tired of replying to reasoned posts, perhaps it’s you who should stop being a troll and get a life somewhere in the real world."
I’m not tired of replying to reasoned posts. I’m just not receiving any. I’m receiving responses full of false accusations and misrepresentations, responses from people pretending I haven’t explained things which I have explained, and general argumentative nonsense from people in denial.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights once again.
…and general argumentative nonsense from people in denial.
Swanson, you clearly don’t understand thermodynamics. You don’t even know the difference between 1LoT and 2LoT.
Your bogus plates “solution” conforms with 1LoT. The energy is accounted for, and balances. Energy in equals energy out. But, that ain’t 2LoT. Your bogus “solution” violates 2LoT, but you can’t understand that because you can’t understand 2LoT. But, I can make it easy for responsible adults to understand.
With both plates in perfect contact, they will obtain the same temperature, under the perfect conditions of the thought experiment. Slightly separated, they will also obtain the same temperature. There is no violation of 2LoT.
In the bogus solution, energy is being “organized”. That means more energy is somehow accumulating in the blue plate, at the expense of the green plate. Such organization does not happen without some help from outside the system. Since different temperatures provide an energy source, your bogus solution has created an energy source out of thin air!
Your cult does not understand thermodynamics. Your cult does not understand radiative physics. Your cult believes everything absorbs all wavelengths all of the time. Your cult does not believe in “reflection”, yet reflection is why our eyes allow us to see. Reflection is all around us. Your cult is blind to reality.
> With both plates in perfect contact
Funny you mention that, Pupman, for it echoes a riddle I submitted to you earlier:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1470741
You did not try to solve it.
Oh, and if you could acknowledge that by joining the plates you are stepping out of Eli’s thought experiment, that’d be great.
Pushing the plates together and then separating them has been a key part of this discussion from the beginning. Have you only just noticed that, Little Willy? You really don’t pay any attention at all. You can argue that it’s not a part of Eli’s thought experiment all you like…it’s a subtle change that makes plain the 2LoT violation all the same…and everyone else on Team GPE has accepted that it’s a part of the discussion. Thought experiments are for thinking through!
grammie clone chimes in with this gem:
Sorry, troll, my understanding of physics is that an opaque surface will absorb (e=1.0), reflect (e=0.0), or exhibit some combination of the two for an intermediate value of emissivity, e. grammie clone’s latest red herring is to introduce real surfaces into a discussion of surfaces with assumed black body emissivity (e=1.0). It’s total bogus BS. Even if one wants to discuss real surfaces with near-BB emissivity, one must understand that most of the thermal IR radiation will still be absorbed by those surfaces.
But grammie clone went still further astray, writing:
No grammie, there’s no energy being “accumulated” in the BP. The two plates reach steady state which means that the net flow of energy in and out of each plate is a constant, there’s no such “accumulation” of energy in the BP, no device which “organizes” things. That should be obvious to anyone who bothers to think about it, since the temperature of the BP doesn’t change after that point in time. And grammie clone wants to forget there’s energy being supplied from a source outside the two plates, which provides his so-called “help”.
> Pushing the plates together and then separating them has been a key part of this discussion from the beginning.
FWIW, the beginning was Eli’s post:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
As readers can see, no plates were pushed together in that post.
That’s correct, Little Willy. However, the post has been discussed extensively at this blog. From the beginning (well, certainly within a few months after the post came out), somebody commented about the plates being pushed together, and then separated. It’s been a part of the discussion ever since. Team GPE has always agreed, and defended, the concept that pushed together the plates are 244 K…244 K, and separated they spontaneously evolve to 262 K…220 K.
A while afterwards, Eli wrote his "Simplest Green Plate Effect" article, in which he stated that his concept worked regardless of the mode of energy transfer. This was a bit of a mistake, as he was probably unaware that his followers had been avidly stating over and over again that the plates pressed together would be 244 K…244 K…in contrast to what he implies with his article. As conduction is the means of energy transfer between the plates when pushed together, and the GPE is supposed to work with the same "proportions" regardless of the means of energy transfer according to his article, you could read it that he is implying that pushed together, the plates should be 262 K…220 K still…
> somebody commented about the plates being pushed together
That somebody could be:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279625
I wonder who that somebody could be.
It might have been J Halp-less. Maybe not. Whoever it was, it certainly was a blow to Team GPE. Pretty much all of whom are still commenting today, with furious hatred directed towards anyone who dares disagree with them. Of course, every time the debate restarts, they immediately "forget" all these arguments were ever made…
> It might have been J Halp-less.
Graham might have found illeism a bit odd.
Perhaps it’s just when Eli does it?
Good comment, anyway, Clint R at 9:54 AM. It obviously had the desired effect, given the eruption of trolling and subject-shifting that’s followed.
Barry already refuted that squirrel more than five years ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279648
…that doesn’t refute a thing, Little Willy. It doesn’t refute what Clint R is saying, and it doesn’t refute what I’m saying either. All it basically confirms is that barry agrees the plates pressed together are 244 K…244 K.
Thanks DREMT.
Yeah, throw a little science and reality at them and they go bonkers. They start hurling their crap against the wall. I think sometimes they don’t even care what they’re spewing. In his last comment, Swanson was rambling about an opaque object. I’m not sure he even knew what his point was. He seemed to end up awkwardly still believing that objects absorb everything, all the time.
Then, he went into denial that his bogus solution “organized” the energy. He gets caught red-handed, and he just denies it. Cult members make great crooks.
They now don’t want to put the plates together. They don’t want to talk about that! They have to censor anything that debunks their beliefs.
Okay, don’t put the plates together. Just turn the power off, in their bogus solution. That would have BP at 262K and GP at 220K. How can they explain the energy available from the temperature difference? Turning the power off on the correct solution would cause no such perversion of science — both plates are at the same temperature.
What will they try next?
And so our two trolls still refuse to play by Eli’s rules:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
They just can’t read.
One plate, or two plates together, or two plates slightly apart — all 244K.
Little Willy starts his "random quoting in the hope people think he’s made a point" routine.
In any event, Graham’s switcheroo was delicious:
(W) Graham might have found illeism a bit odd. Perhaps it’s just when Eli does it?
(GG) Good comment, anyway, Pupman
In any event, Little Willy is a troll. With Swanson and barry disappearing out the back door, I guess that’s that.
More evasion from Graham.
Superb.
DREMT,
“This is getting tiresome, barry. Eli’s solution is debunked because there is a 2LoT violation, as I have explained.”
This is precisely what we have been disputing the whole time and now you peremptorily claim victory?
You are wrong. If you want to stop engaging the point that’s your choice, but claiming you have successfully argued your defense of it in order to do so is merely self-serving.
DREMT,
“stop trying to pretend that I am necessarily proposing some new process unknown to physics with the alternative solution. You know about the ‘wavelength mismatch’ idea that Clint R and others have discussed for as long as the GHE has been discussed. Stop pretending otherwise. Start discussing it, with Clint R perhaps, if you wish. Leave me out of it, for once.”
Yes, you are definitely closing the shutters and claiming victory.
“I don’t know” was a far more honest answer than ‘Clint will explain it for me.’
Clint,
“In the bogus solution, energy is being ‘organized’. That means more energy is somehow accumulating in the blue plate, at the expense of the green plate. Such organization does not happen without some help from outside the system. Since different temperatures provide an energy source, your bogus solution has created an energy source out of thin air!”
Why do GPE critics regularly forget that there is an outside source of energy powering the system? The sun.
The GP in the original GPE is not losing energy at any time, so BP does not get warmer at GP’s expense.
In the ‘split plates’ reorganization, the GP loses energy because it is getting less energy, not because it spontaneously decided to lose it.
Different temperatures provide a gradient for heat flow, they do not “provide an energy source.” The energy source is the Sun.
You have most things wrong here.
“This is precisely what we have been disputing the whole time and now you peremptorily claim victory?”
Not really what we’ve been disputing the whole time, barry, no. I laid out the logic for the 2LoT violation and you have been dancing around it, refusing to accept it, arguing with everything but the logic! Which you cannot refute or even address.
Swanson refuses to even acknowledge it exists!
Funny.
barry, you can’t honestly answer the simple question, and you don’t understand the science.
Your statement: Different temperatures provide a gradient for heat flow, they do not “provide an energy source.” is blatantly false. A temperature difference can DEFINITELY do work.
Above Swanson confused 1LoT with 2LoT. Not ONE of your cult could answer the simple physics problems correctly. You’ve got NOTHING, except your trolling tactics.
“I laid out the logic for the 2LoT violation and you have been dancing around it, refusing to accept it”
For good reason, its WRONG. And why would anyone expect us to accept an obviously false claim?
And the so-called ‘logic’ DREMT laid out is like Swiss cheese, full of holes, which have been explained over and over.
The facts and logic presented by Barry and others, that debunks DREMTS claims, is simply ignored.
That is not honest debate, that is fraud.
” A temperature difference can DEFINITELY do work.”
Sure, but for the GPE, that is not relevant, there is no work being done.
Re: The oft repeated use of ‘AT THE EXPENSE OF’ to claim a violation of 2LOT is happening.
“raising the temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP, in violation of 2LoT”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479617
“Reminds me of the news that the Dam on Lake Powell is opening its flood gates, releasing water that will then help fill Lake Meade, downstream.
The opposite has also happened. When it closes its flood gates, its water level rises AT THE EXPENSE of Lake Meade, whose water level drops.
DREMT thinks this means that Lake Meade sent its water upstream, defying the law of gravity, to fill Lake Powell.
But that would be stupid, because the Colorado river input, from a higher elevation, is what caused Lake Powells water level to rise.”
…which you cannot refute or even address.
Swanson refuses to even acknowledge it exists!
Funny.
grammie clone just can’t get away from his stinking red herring, writing:
grammie clone wants to forget that the back ground of all these many comments about the GPE over several years is based on modeling two plates which are specified to be black bodies in IR wavelengths. That means their emissivities are defined to be 1.00 for the thermal IR emissions.
Then he repeats something about “organized” energy, playing another meaningless semantic game of sorts. Where is his “organization” in all this?
He concludes with another weird brain fart:
His complete failure to understand Thermo-Dynamics is obvious in this comment. Both plates are losing energy to deep space and will continue to do so if the Sun is somehow switched off, (a challenge to science of the first order). Both would cool to near absolute zero over time, which would be a long way from those stated temperatures. In other words, grammie clone insists on ignoring the effects of TIME.
April 25, 2023 at 1:22 PM:
Swanson, you just did it again! You can’t just snip out one sentence from my argument and pretend that’s all I’m saying.
Plates together: 244 K…244 K.
Plates initially separated: 244 K…244 K.
Examine all of the energy flows in both situations. The only difference in the latter is the "back-radiation" transfer now occurring from the GP to the BP. The plates then supposedly change to 262 K…220 K according to Eli’s solution. Thus we know that the "back-radiation" transfer must ultimately be responsible for that change. If a transfer of energy is causing one of the plates to rise in temperature at the expense of the other, what sort of transfer would you call that?
> I dont know was a far more honest answer than [Pupman] will explain it for me.
In fairness, Pupman needs to explain many things to Graham.
The irrelevance of view factors being one of them.
How will Swanson dodge the argument this time?
“If a transfer of energy is causing one of the plates to rise in temperature at the expense of the other, what sort of transfer would you call that?”
I wouldnt call that a transfer of heat from a cold body to a hot body, in defiance of the 2LOT,
because the heat came from the SUN.
Just as when When Lake Powell closes its flood gates and its water level rises AT THE EXPENSE of Lake Meade, whose water level drops,
I would not call that a transfer of water from Lake Meade to Lake Powell, sent upstream, defying the law of gravity,
because the water came from the mountains and the Colorado river upstream.
All Graham is saying is that wearing a coat *cannot* increase his body temperature.
No, Little Willy. I’m saying what I’m saying…and I await a response from Swanson, the avoider.
Swanson only, please. No distractions. No diversions. Nobody else.
One plate, two plates, and infinity of plates, same temperature,
A body with a coat, two coats, three coats, same temperature,
Graham is a genius.
Swanson only, please. No distractions. No diversions. Nobody else.
E. Swanson, DREMT 4/27 7:32 am premise is known to be wrong, so by DREMT’s own admission, DREMT was forced to agree with Eli’s GPE solution upthread with no further valid defense by DREMT.
DREMT is just trying to hide from his own premise being falsified here down thread.
…Swanson only, please. No distractions. No diversions. Nobody else.
Evidently, the emergency moderator has no blog authority, as all commenters well know so the previous comment can be ignored, as well as those similar in the future & without response.
Also, my comment was directed to E. Swanson as DREMT’s premise has already been falsified up thread while Eli’s premise stands.
Evidently, Swanson has left the building.
As to lying troll Ball4:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479199
Ad. hom.s are not a defense DREMT. Lets see a valid physics defense.
We did, at the linked comment.
Not valid physics. Remember EMR is NOT heat and DREMT has agreed. Start to use DREMT’s commitment. There is no need to even use the word heat.
Sure, EMR is not heat…and the “back-radiation” transfer shouldn’t be treated like a heat transfer…but in Eli’s solution, it is. That’s the problem.
“but in Elis solution, it is.”
Eli doesnt even discuss the plates being separated. Because that is a red herring.
…EMR is not heat…and the “back-radiation” transfer shouldn’t be treated like a heat transfer…but in Eli’s solution, it is. That’s the problem.
Sky-dragon-slayers persist in their delusions, no matter what.
…is not heat…and the “back-radiation” transfer shouldn’t be treated like a heat transfer…but in Eli’s solution, it is. That’s the problem.
Sly-dragon-slayers like DREMT are saying many variations of these:
CO2 is not a heat source.
A cold thing cannot cause a warm thing to get warmer, that would be a 2LOT violation.
Back radiation from CO2 can’t heat anything.
So the GHE cant cause warming.
If the GHE did cause warming, that would be a 2LOT violation.
In the Green-Plate-Effect (GPE), the cold green plate (GP) is not a heat source for the warm blue plate (BP).
Back radiation from the GP can’t cause warming of the BP, that would be a 2LOT violation.
If the BP does warm at the expense of the GP cooling, that’s a 2LOT violation.
But in EVERY case they are making the SAME mistakes.
They are trying to ISOLATE one SB emission, from the cold object, as the cause of warming, and thus it must be a heat source, and thus that can’t happen, because that would be a 2LOT violation.
But this willfully ignores the other parts of the SYSTEM.
In particular they ignore the Heat Source, that ultimately is the source of heating.
The sun.
They ignore the fact that in the system, the heat from the hotter heat source is flowing continuously to the cold reservoir.
Any material that IMPEDES that flow of heat from the heat source to the cold reservoir will cause heat to accumulate upstream from the impeding material, and a deficit of heat below the impeding material.
That is looking at the whole system. The impeding material is not the source of heat. The object with the heat deficit is not the heat source.
The heat source is always the hot object.
Just as when the Colorado river flows from the high mountains down to the sea, there are dams impeding the flow, and water reservoirs (lakes) produced.
When the Glen Canyon Dam on Lake Powell closes its gates, it causes the water level to rise above the Dam in Lake Powell and to drop below the Dam, in Lake Meade.
No one could reasonably suggest that the Dam is a source of water, or that water from Lake Meade flowed uphill to fill Lake Powell.
The source of the water is the Colorado river, and streams feeding it high in the mountains.
Even though the water level in Lake Powell rose at the EXPENSE OF the water level in Lake Meade, no one could reasonably suggest that Lake Meade is the source of the water going into Lake Powell.
But this is what they are suggesting must be the case for HEAT flow in the GPE or the GHE. They are suggesting that heat from the cold CO2 must have flowed to the warmer Earth, and the heat from the colder GP is flowing to the warmer BP, and this can’t happen because that would be a 2LOT violation.
But thats wrong, because they neglect to look at the whole system, and neglect to see what the real heat source is.
…not heat…and the “back-radiation” transfer shouldn’t be treated like a heat transfer…but in Eli’s solution, it is. That’s the problem.
No, DREMT Eli treats EMR as EMR since nowhere in Eli’s 1LOT eqn.s is found any heat. There is no problem with Eli’s eqn.s as the eqn.s comply with 2LOT increasing universe entropy in the GPE process.
Cult Leader grammie pups continues to chant his mantras in spite of all evidence that he is wrong. For example, he repeatedly wrote:
grammie pups has agreed that both the BP and GP black bodies absorb IR radiation and that the BP will absorb the “back radiation” from the GP. He just can’t get it thru his thick skull that IR radiation represents an energy transfer from one body to the other. The result is that the BP must warm compared to the single plate situation he keeps throwing up.
He denies this fact, even as he insists that the GP will absorb IR radiation energy coming from the BP which make’s the GP warmer would be the situation without it. As usual, he has provided no proof of his repeated empty assertions about Eli’s math model being a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo.
“As usual, he has provided no proof of his repeated empty assertions about Eli’s math model being a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo.“
You are completely and utterly ridiculous, Swanson. You’re still simply pretending that I haven’t repeatedly explained it to you!
Sky Dragon cranks are trying to isolate one part of the emission chain, from the cold object, as the cause of warming.
They then interpret it as a heat source, which leads them to conclude it’s a thermo violation.
While doing so they forget that the model works as a complete SYSTEM, and that the only heat source is the Sun.
It’s really that stupid.
Most people, when an actual flaw in their logic is pointed out, they either fix the flaw, change to a better logic, or quit making the argument.
DREMT seems to believe that if he ‘explains’ i.e. asserts something, then it should be believed, and there must be something wrong with the people pointing out any flaws in his logic.
That is a common trait in narcissists.
Wrong, Little Willy. I look at the system in its entirety, both before and after separating the plates. The input from the Sun is a constant throughout. It is not what is changing. The only thing that changes, to result in the increase in temperature of the BP, and decrease in temperature of the GP, is the addition of the transfer from the GP to the BP on separation.
The only thing that changes, to result in the increase in level of water in Lake Powell, and decrease in level of water in Lake Mead, is the closing of flood gates on the Glen Canyon Dam on Lake Powell.
No one in their right mind could think that the Dam is a source of water, or that Lake Meade was the source of water filling Lake Powell by flowing uphill. Because that would be ignoring the actual source of water which was the river flowing from the mountains.
But that is very similar to what DREMT is continuing to argue, because he is ignoring the actual source of heat from the sun.
…the only thing that changes, to result in the increase in temperature of the BP, and decrease in temperature of the GP, is the addition of the transfer from the GP to the BP on separation.
Heat is flowing steadily from a heat source to a cold reservoir through a metal, which is an excellent conductor of heat.
Opening up a vacuum gap in that metal will disrupt the steady flow of heat through that system, because vacuum is a poor transmitter of heat.
With the heat flow disrupted, it builds up on the hot side of the gap and leaves a deficit on the cold side of the gap.
No one in their right mind would think opening up a vacuum gap in the metal should cause the flow of heat to REVERSE and flow from the cold reservoir to the heat source.
But that is what is being suggested here.
You are wrong DREMT 9:30am, your premise has been falsified up thread, you embarrass yourself no end, there are two things that change, to result in the increase in temperature of the BP, and decrease in temperature of the GP, 1) the addition of the EMR transfer from the GP to the BP on separation, and 2) the addition of the EMR transfer from BP to GP on separation.
Cult Leader grammie continues his delusions, writing:
No, grammie, as we all know by now, what changes is that the energy flowing between the BP and the GP switches from conduction to thermal IR radiation. grammie agrees that this occurs from the BP to the GP and the GP emits toward the BP. His problem is that he can’t admit that the IR radiation from the GP to the BP is absorbed. So he can only make the transfers balance by postulating an imaginary Green Arrow from the BP back to the GP to produce his “244-244” result.
Swanson, try responding to the argument I have made, and which you have repeatedly ignored. You know, the one I linked you to several times, and posted twice.
Cult Leader grammie thinks he’s made an argument which he claims I ignored. As barry noted:
Sorry, Your arguments aren’t sound. All you do is repeat your mindless assertions that the GPE violates the 2nd Law without any analysis or other proof.
“Thus we know that the “back-radiation” transfer must ultimately be responsible for that change. If a transfer of energy is causing one of the plates to rise in temperature at the expense of the other, what sort of transfer would you call that?”
DREMT looks at one part of the system in isolation, and he naturally expects that everyone should pay attention only to his thinking, in isolation, while he pays no attention to anyone’s.
Swanson clearly did address your assertion and question many times over.
He clearly took issue with the premise that you asserted
“Thus we know that the “back-radiation” transfer must ultimately be responsible for that change.”
He addressed that by clearly stating:
“what changes is that the energy flowing between the BP and the GP switches from conduction to thermal IR radiation.”
Which clearly causes a DISRUPTION in the flow of heat, (it initially goes to 0!) not a REVERSAL in the flow of heat.
There is never a moment when the heat is flowing up-hill to the warmer BP. It is always flowing downhill from the SUN to the BP.
Swanson is completely shameless. Oh well.
Gaslighting Graham looks at one part of the system in isolation, and he naturally expects that everyone should pay attention only to his thinking, in isolation, while he pays no attention to anyone’s.
“No, grammie, as we all know by now, what changes is that the energy flowing between the BP and the GP switches from conduction to thermal IR radiation.”
As if I don’t know that…and so what? This is precisely what I explained to Ball4. There is a transfer from BP to GP both before and after separation. Before it is via conduction, and after it is via IR radiation. It was there before, it is there after. So, once again…the only change in energy transfers is the addition of the “back radiation” transfer after separation. That was not there before, it is there after. That then leads to the rise in temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP. It’s the only thing that’s changed. Thus it must be responsible for the progression from 244 K…244 K to 262 K…220 K. So it must be a heat transfer, from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.
DREMT’s premise has already been falsified up thread, again and again, DREMT is just repeating a known falsehood. To wit:
DREMT once again wrongly writes: “So the (“back radiation” transfer after separation) must be a heat transfer, from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.”
No, as DREMT has been told many times, and even agreed, EMR is not heat.
Correctly: So it must be an EMR transfer, from cold to hot, not violating 2LoT as entropy increases in such a process in accord with 2LOT.
Conduction in the plates exists before and after separation, so conductive energy transfer was there before and after thus the EMR GP to BP is NOT the only change in energy transfers.
Cult Leader grammie pups doubles down again:
Heat transfer via conduction and energy transfer via IR radiation involve different physical processes with different rules and different results. Neither process is reversible, the IR energy transfer from the BP to the GP can not return all the energy emitted by the BP back to the BP, only about half for the GPE model. If the GP surface were a perfect reflector, that might be possible, but there are no perfectly reflecting surfaces.
grammie has not shown how the 2nd Law would apply to the GPE situation, which is a combination of passive processes. There are no machines involved to move any energy from cold to hot. There are no “magic green arrows” from the BP to the GP.
Only the first sentence of Swanson’s post contains even an attempt at a rebuttal:
“Heat transfer via conduction and energy transfer via IR radiation involve different physical processes with different rules and different results.”
…and it is pure hand-waving. He has nothing specific. Since the plates are perfect conductors, you can claim the heat transfer between them (even though they are the same temperature) is anything you like, from 0 to as much as you want to suit your narrative. You can then claim that since the heat transfer is 0 on separation, it “should be” instead whatever that value is that you’ve chosen, and so the BP and GP temperatures “must” change until it is. It doesn’t work, though, as ultimately the heat transfer value between the plates to suit Eli’s 262 K…220 K solution is 133.33 W/m^2. If you choose that as the value of the heat transfer going between the plates via conduction, however, then the whole thing won’t balance at 244 K…244 K.
The thing is – no matter how you try to dress it up – there is still a transfer of energy via conduction from BP to GP before separation…and there is still a transfer of energy via IR radiation after separation. The energy transfer in that direction is still there, either way. It is not anything new. The only new energy transfer upon separation is the “back-radiation” transfer from the GP to the BP…so we know that must be responsible for the progression from 244 K…244 K to 262 K…220 K. A heat transfer from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.
“there is still a transfer of energy via conduction from BP to GP before separationand there is still a transfer of energy via IR radiation after separation. The energy transfer in that direction is still there, either way. It is not anything new. The only new energy transfer upon separation is the back-radiation transfer from the GP to the BP”
And yet that change does not EVER REVERSE the flow of heat, it only REDUCES it.
And that reduction in heat OUTPUT, given the steady heat INPUT from the SUN, is all that’s required to cause warming of the BP.
Thus it DOES NOT FOLLOW that:
“and thus it must be a heat transfer from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.”
End of story, for anyone using actual logic.
cult Leader grammie continues to display his confusion confusion regarding IR radiation energy transfer:
No, grammie, with the plates separated, one now has a different system which operates under different physics.
When separated, one must consider the additional IR radiation transfers between the BP and the GP, which did not exist with the other configuration. The BP radiates toward the GP and the GP radiates toward the BP. The GP absorbs the radiation from the BP and the BP absorbs the radiation from the GP. The radiation from the GP to the BP is not “new”, it just happens to be part of the overall process and in the real world, it’s measurable. And, that radiation from the GP to the BP is absorbed by the black body surface, increasing the energy supplied to the BP.
This is simple energy transfer physics and does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermo. There are no “magic green arrows” or any change in the BP’s emissivity from BB to mirror. You got nothing but empty assertions and BS.
Previous two comments correctly falsify DREMT’s 1:11am premise “A heat transfer from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.” which has already been falsified up thread many times since as DREMT has agreed EMR is NOT heat. DREMT continues to wrongly write EMR IS heat.
Valid physics: “An EMR transfer of energy from cold to hot, produces entropy so no violation of 2LoT.”
“When separated, one must consider the additional IR radiation transfers between the BP and the GP, which did not exist with the other configuration“
Swanson ignores the previous comments. “There is a transfer from BP to GP both before and after separation. Before it is via conduction, and after it is via IR radiation. It was there before, it is there after. So, once again…the only change in energy transfers is the addition of the “back radiation” transfer after separation. That was not there before, it is there after. That then leads to the rise in temperature of the BP at the expense of the GP. It’s the only thing that’s changed. Thus it must be responsible for the progression from 244 K…244 K to 262 K…220 K. So it must be a heat transfer, from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.”
Watch…now he will probably repeat his hand-waving about the differences between conduction and radiation…
E. Swanson says:
The only new energy transfer upon separation is the back-radiation transfer from the GP to the BP
No, grammie, with the plates separated, one now has a different system which operates under different physics.
————————
So you claim but provide zero support for. Conduction also has a resistance.
So you take this thing you think you know something about. Compare it to something you obviously know nothing about and conclude that when you add this resistance the hot object will get hotter and the cold object will get colder and create a ‘greenhouse effect’ on the hot object.
IMO, there are specific circumstances where warming will occur because radiation is a weaker conductor than is conduction through most thin solid materials.
But zero greenhouse effect is created in either case.
And that is because if the BP isn’t insulated from losing heat to space out its heated side, the balance of resistance between moving heat to the GP vs losing it to space on its its lit side where it might find less resistance. But in no case does that mean the BP can ever warm up hotter than the temperature determined by the mean light radiance shining upon it.
So you have several cases:
1. A heated plate BP where it can only lose heat out of one side as the other side is fully insulated (the lit side in Eli’s thought experiment) the surface of the earth would be an example. In this case the surface of the plate would heat to 16.5C
2. A heated plate exposed to space on both sides and exposed to 400w/m2. In this case the BP would warm to -29C and emit 200w/m2 out of both sides.
3. BP in 1 when a glass greenhouse is placed over it. Nothing happens.
4. BP in 2 when a GP is placed behind the BP. The BP will warm due to the increase in resistance via radiation vs conductivity.
BP will lose less heat out of the side away from the light source and more toward space around the light source.
The balance will be dependent upon what percentage of the sky is taken up by the light source so if the light source is as in 1 instead (filling entire sky), then the the BP will be 16.5C and the GP will be 16.5C and that means the 400w/m2 received by BP will be going to space and zero net will be going back toward the light source.
All you spinners are doing is botching your math and resistance equations so badly you think 2LOT can be violated.
A greenhouse effect is currently defined as heating beyond the temperature specified by the sum of the mean power of all the power sources available. It can’t be done. You need a mechanical or chemical process to do it in addition to the electromagnetic radiation.
Nate thinks he has an explanation by pointing out that the T of the sun is higher than 16.5C
But he is in essence claiming that 2LOT is not being violated because he feels he can violate the square distance law instead and that he can completely ignore the limit posed on watts received from the sun at his will.
One can’t say its 2LOT isn’t violated because I can violate the square distance law. Thats just either so stupid or so over inculcated into being an establishment parrot its is ridiculous.(not sure there is a difference there).
“Swanson is completely shameless.”
That is some high level projection.
Swanson is guilty of pointing out glaring flaws in DREMTS logic.
There is no shame in that.
“4. BP in 2 when a GP is placed behind the BP. The BP will warm due to the increase in resistance via radiation vs conductivity.
BP will lose less heat out of the side away from the light source and more toward space around the light source.”
Bill finally gets it. DREMT still doesnt.
“Its the only thing thats changed. Thus it must be responsible for the progression from 244 K244 K to 262 K220 K.” So it must be a heat transfer, from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.”
The flood gates close on the Dam on Lake Powell.
Its the only thing that’s changed. Thus it must be responsible for the increase in water level in Lake Powell and the decrease in water level in Lake Meade. So it must be a water transfer from a lower to a higher elevation, in violation of the law of gravity (and energy conservation).
I keep returning to this example because it illustrates so well the extreme illogic of DREMTs claim.
Obviously in the Lakes, there is no water being transferred from the lower elevation to the higher. That DOES NOT FOLLOW from the previous facts. Because it IGNORES the true water source, the Colorado river.
Obviously in the GPE, there is no heat being transferred from the cooler object to the hotter object. That DOES NOT FOLLOW from the previous facts. Because it IGNORES the true heat source, the Sun.
“BP in 2 when a GP is placed behind the BP. The BP will warm due to the increase in resistance via radiation vs conductivity…”
…only if the GP is reflective.
Hunter troll is hopelessly lost in space. He confuses conduction and thermal IR radiation, suggesting that IR radiation is just a “resistance” to heat flow.
For conduction, “resistance” is defined by the material properties and thickness of some object, such as the wall of a house. The energy flow thru a wall is easily calculated by modeling the flow using an analog of a simple electrical circuit: E=I*R, which is transformed to Q = Twarm-Tcold/R.
For radiation energy transfer, the S-B equation has no term for R as there is no thickness and the temperatures in Kelvin are included NOT as linear terms, but raised to the fourth power.
Hunter troll drifts onward, adding other situations beyond the GPE, which aren’t germane to grammie’s eternal BS about two plates. In so doing, he fails to understand that Eli’s 400 w/m^ is a rough average for the solar energy over the entire Earth’s surface modeled as spread over two sides, not one. The result is his repeated red herring comments about 400 w/m^2 giving a temperature of 16.5 C. He ends with a mention of the Inverse Square law, which has no effect for Heat transfer model with infinite parallel plates. Pathetic fail again.
the spinners in here are obfuscating my explanation.
when the experiment involves nothing but infinite plates providing all the light sources (infinite for the purpose of view factor being equal to 1.0 and a 1.0 square distance factor) DREMTS outcome is correct.
if a point source of light is used the square distance rule will allow cooling on both sides of the BP.
then swanson jumps in and tries to incorrectly claim resistance only applies to conduction. The concept of radiation is a resistance only in the sense of reducing a rate of warming. It is overcome only when the resistance against going the other direction is greater.
once all sides are the same temperature and equivalent in force equilibrium results, the cold objects will have all warmed to the same temperature as the original hot object.
spinner confusion only arises out of ignorance combined with knowledge that a greenhouse effect exists on earth and venus. i.e. they believe what their daddies, the government, has told them. . . .except that mainstream science has already conceded to this point. . . .and has moved beyond it. . . .except it has been a subtle shift so as to not upset the apple cart or ruffle the feathers of the goose that lays the golden egg.
“The concept of radiation is a resistance only in the sense of reducing a rate of warming. It is overcome only when the resistance against going the other direction is greater.”
Bill is talking about radiant insulation. As he indicated
“when a GP is placed behind the BP. The BP will warm due to the increase in resistance via radiation vs conductivity.”
Sorry Nate but you only managed to comprehend half of what I said.
Hunter troll claims that we “are obfuscating my explanation.” That’s because decoding his posts is so difficult, such as:
Force? What does that mean? F=M*A???
What are the “cold objects” (plural)? There’s only one GP.
Here’s another one:
In electrical engineering the term “resistance” has a well defined meaning. So too in mechanical engineering, it’s one of the definitions regarding heat transport. And “rate of warming”? For the GPE at steady state, there’s no “warming” since the temperatures don’t change. And, radiation is not a “concept”, it’s a branch of physics with a long history which the Cult insists on ignoring.
Hunter must have switched to using a Bot to write his posts.
“Sorry Nate but you only managed to comprehend half of what I said.”
Bill occasionally makes a valid point:
He correctly concluded that
“when a GP is placed behind the BP. The BP will warm..”
Then upon realizing that this is unsupportive of his party narrative, he tries to walk it back.
Apparently for Bill, the facts are variable, if they need to be.
What Nate and Swanson are failing to grok is that the BP exposed to 400w/m2 will ‘lose’ a net of 400w/m2 and the BP will be somewhere between 244K and 290K.
If the BP is adequately insulated on one side its temperature will approach 290K. It works like water and electricity taking whatever path is available. It only possesses a total of 400w/m2 to give.
If its insulated on both sides it will still be 290K and temperature gradients will form depending upon the amount of back resistance relative to each side.
2LOT prevents backradiation from increasing the temperature of the source and likewise an inanimate object can’t generate heat unless you have the fire triangle satisfied of heat, fuel, and oxygen and then you have the potential for a chemical reaction.
So in essence the GPE is always always always presented without specifying the radiant input either because somebody’s intent was to deceive somebody into believing a greenhouse effect was possible via this route or they are somebody else’s dumb parrot just spewing what their daddy told them.
Hunter thinks he’s a Stranger in a Strange Land:
Hunter troll just keeps on playing with his red herring.
He may be right that a 1.0 m^2 plate supplied with 400 watts of power with
adequateperfect insulation on one side and the other exposed to deep space would exhibit a temperature of 290 k, but that has nothing to do with Eli’s GPE because both sides radiate energy.Then he wanders off into the weeds:
He’s just thrown out another of grammie’s famous empty assertions without proof regarding thermal IR radiation and the 2nd Law. And, where did that “fire triangle” enter the picture? He keeps thrashing around:
Hunter troll must have missed that part of Eli’s original GPE where there’s a 400 w/m^2 energy supply from the far distant Sun is “always always always” specified.
Translation: The GPE is “always always always” somebodys intent to deceive or they are somebody elses dumb parrot.
Same old bottom line, same old rejection of well proven science built on more than 100 years of evidence from research.
“What Nate and Swanson are failing to grok is that the BP exposed to 400w/m2 will lose a net of 400w/m2 and the BP will be somewhere between 244K and 290K.”
I think you meant to say DREMT doesnt grok that. He is the one insisting it is no more than 244 K.
Eli solved the problem and found the BP is 262 K, and Swanson and I have always grokked that solution.
Yeah well you and Swanson are morons.
262K does not represent a greenhouse effect and you are really a dumbass if you think it does. A greenhouse effect from a 400w/m2 lit surface would be >290K.
I agree with the 262K. That has the BP losing 400w/m2 with 267w/m2 out of the light point source side as described by Eli and 133w/m2 out the GP side. That is 400w/m2 total with the 400w/m2 light source completely and 100% accounting for the results. Thus it represents no greenhouse effect and you are a dumbass to think it does.
And DREMT is correct because he said the BP didn’t warm at the expense of the GP. When the GP was sliced off it cooled on the space side down to the 220K, stabilizing at an emission of 133w/m2 to space away from the BP. And the BP was warmed to 262K by the point source of light to emit the remainder 267w/m2 of the 400w/m2 shining on that surface.
the only thing I have pointed out is that the results of the experiment is what you get inside of an atmosphere with two cooling modes the apparatus. So far nobody has produced an experiment in the vacuum of space so what happens there is just a what if, he said she said argument. . . .not science.
Swanson says:
”In electrical engineering the term resistance has a well defined meaning. So too in mechanical engineering, its one of the definitions regarding heat transport.”
—————–
Yes there is a resistance to conduction. Its called insulation. Namely it reduces heat loss through a wall in a typical atmosphere.
As I see it the emissions of the two surfaces is what determines the ”rate” of cooling for the hot object and the ”rate” of warming for the cool object. You try to take it further than Stefan Boltzmann took it and try to make up a scenario where the hot object warms instead of the cold object. You will need to show me which experiment established that fact.
Thats energy flowing into and through an object and the resistance to conduction is what causes the object to warm, the greater the flow of electromagnetic energy the greater the rate of warming. Thats how it works with electricity. You mobile phone gets pretty warm with just 5watts of charging power and some of that 5 watts is being sequestered chemically.
If you think thats false its up to you to provide the evidence.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Swanson whines:
Hes just thrown out another of grammies famous empty assertions without proof regarding thermal IR radiation and the 2nd Law. And, where did that fire triangle enter the picture? He keeps thrashing around:
———————
the fire triangle would be one way of producing a greenhouse effect Swanson. So far you haven’t demonstrated one so I was just giving you some help.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Swanson whines:
Hunter troll must have missed that part of Elis original GPE where theres a 400 w/m^2 energy supply from the far distant Sun is specified.
——————-
Perhaps he did, but you didn’t.
Bottom line is by specifying the light source to be 400w/m2 he completely failed in producing a greenhouse effect where one would need for the BP to emit more than the energy supplied by the sun. . . . right?
As it turns out the BP is emitting exactly the amount of energy that it gets from the light. . . .what happened to the 133w/m2 you claim is coming from the GP????
“I agree with the 262K. That has the BP losing 400w/m2 with 267w/m2 out of the light point source side as described by Eli and 133w/m2 out the GP side. That is 400w/m2 total with the 400w/m2 light source completely and 100% accounting for the results.”
Finally, after all this time, you get it and agree with us, and admit DREMT and Postma have been getting it wrong all this time.
“Thus it represents no greenhouse effect and you are a dumbass to think it does.”
On that you are mistaken, no one here has been claiming the GPE is the greenhouse effect.
It simply illustrates the erroneous thinking of sky-dragon-slayers on radiative heat transfer.
Nate absent mindedly says:
Finally, after all this time, you get it and agree with us, and admit DREMT and Postma have been getting it wrong all this time.
—————————
What the heck are you talking about? I represented this effect as an experiment in the atmosphere months ago in discussing the effect of multiple plates in a radiation field and have referred to it as such. I have just refrained from calling out this as an effect in the vacuum of space as I have not seen an experiment or any evidence from you morons on this.
And I pointed out above that DREMT made his conditional on the BP not warming at the expense of the GP which is absolutely true.
Further I am not aware of DREMT discussing this in terms of a point source of light.
Understand this Nate, the GP’s additional heat when severed from the BP was lost to space not to the GP. And the BP warmed because the point source of light was providing 400w/m2 onto one surface of the BP and in all circumstance both before and after the introduction of the GP continued to lose exactly the amount of energy it received from the point source of light. Putting the GP had no effect on that other than cause for more energy to be expelled from the side of the plate facing the light and it expelled less energy from the GP side because of the gentle influence of the temperature of that plate similar to opening and closing one branch of a parallel electrical circuit. Putting the GP in place puts a minor resistance in the electromagnetic circuit branch going through the GP. The more current that flows the more heat is generated.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate ignorantly says:
On that you are mistaken, no one here has been claiming the GPE is the greenhouse effect.
It simply illustrates the erroneous thinking of sky-dragon-slayers on radiative heat transfer.
——————————
The he11!! Eli certainly represents it as a greenhouse effect. Glad to see you are now calling him a liar Nate. Good to have you on our side!!!
Obviously an experiment that has no effect on how much energy the plate emits isn’t evidence of a cold object warming a warm object because it would cause that plate to warm and emit more. But its more than obvious that the GP isn’t adding energy to the BP and if its not adding energy to the BP its not a greenhouse effect. All we have here is a bunch of morons claiming it does. And if that was not what you were claiming what the he11 were you claiming?
“And I pointed out above that DREMT made his conditional on the BP not warming at the expense of the GP which is absolutely true.”
Bill you said the BP warmed with the GP behind. You agreed with Eli it warms to 262 K, and you agree “133w/m2 out the GP side” which requires the GP to be 220 K.
BP either warms or it doesnt. GP cools or it doesnt. There is no ‘conditional’ involved here.
DREMT consistently claims BP and GP are both at 244K. No matter what excuses he gives, its wrong.
Unless you guys are Shrodinger cats, you can’t be both in agreement and in disagreement about these facts.
“Eli certainly represents it as a greenhouse effect.”
An Eli quote needed, please.
Bill, from what I understand of your arguments, you think in the GPE (which has the energy source to the BP as a point source Sun) that the BP will warm from 244 K up to a potential maximum of 290 K if insulated by the GP. I would agree, on the condition that the insulation by the GP is only going to function via reflectivity. So if the GP were a perfect reflector, the temperature of the BP would be 290 K. With the GP as a blackbody, the temperature of the BP would be 244 K…then there is everything in between.
If I’ve understood you correctly, you agree that if the view factors between the energy source and the passive object are equal to one, then the passive object cannot raise the temperature of the energy source, period. So, for example, with the "Steel Greenhouse", where the view factors are equal to one between the sphere and the shell, you would agree that adding the shell to the sphere does not increase the temperature of the sphere one iota.
Is that correct?
Hunter agrees with the GPE, then denies it:
Hunter troll, Your agreement with Eli’s math is an acceptance of the effects of “back radiation” from the GP to the BP. grammie and his clone are in denial of that effect, going so far as to claim that there is a “magic green arrow” which counters the GP to BP energy transfer or that the black body surfaces can become mirrors reflecting the IR emissions from the GP. They do not agree that the BP warms, so you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, as they say.
Hunter insisted that:
Hunter appears totally unaware of the work of NASA when operating outside the atmosphere. Maybe Hunter should take a few months searching thru the archives for work on IR heat transfer by NASA. Besides, they can come pretty close with a thermal vacuum chamber used for testing satellites before launch, a subject in itself. Never say Never is an old truth.
Hunter’s next post is full of more stupid stuff displaying his ignorance of the word “resistance” as used in conduction heat transfer, such as HVAC systems. Sure, an electrical current thru a resistance will produce warming of the object, but that’s different physics. He concludes:
Wrong. Eli’s GPE is based on solar insolation, essentially a point source, which is evenly applied across one side of the BP. Everything else is derived from that. There’s never been any claim that the BP emissions exceed that 400 w/m^2 supplied.
Hunter’s misrepresentations of Eli’s GPE are either evidence of an acute lack of understanding of physics or proof of his intent to spread disinformation and outright lies.
Swanson says:
”Wrong. Elis GPE is based on solar insolation, essentially a point source, which is evenly applied across one side of the BP. Everything else is derived from that. Theres never been any claim that the BP emissions exceed that 400 w/m^2 supplied.”
Really weak Swanson. The greenhouse effect is defined as a surface warming from the input of backradiation to a temperature higher than that provided by the sun alone.
The GPE doesn’t do that because if you do that the temperature of the BP would not be limited to 16.5C. Eli’s experiment only raises the temperature of the BP to 9C. He is more than 7.5C shy of a proof. Yet it represents the experiment as a greenhouse experiment. And by that standard its a complete and total failure. . . .like your experiment was even worse. You didn’t even document the threshold for a greenhouse effect.
Swanson aggressively and hatefully spits:
“Your agreement with Eli’s math is an acceptance of the effects of “back radiation” from the GP to the BP. grammie and his clone are in denial of that effect, going so far as to claim that there is a “magic green arrow” which counters the GP to BP energy transfer or that the black body surfaces can become mirrors reflecting the IR emissions from the GP. They do not agree that the BP warms, so you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, as they say.”
Swanson, the BP can warm up to a maximum of 290 K if the GP radiatively insulates it, which it will do so long as it’s reflective. As a blackbody, obviously the GP will not radiatively insulate the BP, so the BP will remain at 244 K. If the GP were instead a perfect reflector, the BP would be 290 K. Then, there is everything in between.
You need to calm down with your “magic green arrow” criticisms. A blackbody cannot be used as an excuse to violate 2LoT. So, with no 2LoT violation, both blackbody plates will remain at 244 K. The emissions from the GP back towards the BP cannot warm the BP at the expense of the GP, thus we know they must ultimately be returned from the BP back to the GP. That is the additional green arrow from BP back to GP. Any criticism of the alternative solution does nothing to counter the arguments behind the debunking of Eli’s solution, which of course eternally stands. You’ll probably now pretend once again not to have seen it. Funny.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Bill, from what I understand of your arguments, you think in the GPE (which has the energy source to the BP as a point source Sun) that the BP will warm from 244 K up to a potential maximum of 290 K if insulated by the GP. I would agree, on the condition that the insulation by the GP is only going to function via reflectivity.
———————–
You could be right as everybody is just dreaming up thought experiments which at best is an extremely iffy way to come to conclusions.
One point. Trenberth’s budget is BS. Trenberth just assumes without evidence that backradiation is warming the surface. Even if it is the number is way too high. He provides no support for it in his papers and he says its a plug number.
Bottom line having worked on solar designs its easy to get at low latitudes in excess of 1200w/m2 solar power direct from the sun. That would equate to a surface temperature of 109C yet under the best conditions (lowest amount of GHG, next to zero transpiration or evaporation) the world record temperature is 56C which means about 1/2 the solar energy is being lost to convection and diffusion.
So when you separate the GP from the BP in an experiment in the atmosphere convection is going to have a large effect.
I have said my experience is surface based and I know nothing about what studies have been done in aerospace. In fact the silence is deafening. One would think nobody wants you to know as it seems preposterous that this hasn’t been resolved in that field. All I know is every system I have seen for insulation in space does involve reflection.
So I am not challenging your take. I would expect the GP to cool. But one also has to consider that radiation is the weakest cooling mode so splitting a conductive plate into plates that just exchange radiation should cause the GP to cool. Perhaps not as much as it does inside the atmosphere though.
I think you can also rationalize using electricity as a model. Parallel circuits have less resistance. So there are many analogies (a hose with two nozzles for example, block one and more water comes out the other because you have increased resistance and a single nozzle when you use your finger to partially block the opening. But in every case water pressure is measured with zero water leaking and thats its limit. Our village idiots figure trapping the solar rays completely will cause the world to ignite they don’t believe in any kind of equilibrium.
Bill writes 11:26 am: “everybody is just dreaming up thought experiments”.
That’s wrong Bill. Dr. Spencer performed easily replicable experiments years ago on the earthen natural atm. supporting Eli’s GPE solution.
Ball4 lies again.
Ad hom.s are not a defense DREMT.
Well, of course I could have mentioned Dr. Spencer’s experiments supporting the GPE wouldn’t be easy to replicate, or even understand, for a non-physics major such as DREMT, but of course they are easy to understand for more informed, critical blog readers & to replicate or devise equivalent experiments.
I don’t need a defence, Ball4. You do. You are lying. Dr Spencer never conducted any experiments on the GPE.
Hunter’s continued trolling is getting tiresome. His latest posts appear to think Eli’s results should give a 16.5 C temperature from a surface heated with 400 w/m^2, whereas Eli’s basic premise is modeled with the Earth as a flat disc. Then, 400 w/m^2 represents the outbound energy from one side being heated with an 800 w/m^2 for half a day and zero the other half. We’ve been over this for many months and Hunter still hasn’t figured it out.
In his next post, he admits:
Actually, there’s lots of information available about radiation heat transfer in space or in a vacuum, though not all on the Net. Here’s some examples from 5 minutes of searching:
https://www.nasa.gov/smallsat-institute/sst-soa/thermal-control#_Toc120613719
Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook, Volume I: Fundamental Technologies
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Spacecraft-Thermal-Control-Handbook,-Volume-I:-Gilmore/b7186fccd2c15d78bf44486052d037659eb5e4ce
Notice the long list of references in both, including:
Chapter 2 Space Thermal and Vacuum Environment Simulation
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Chapter-2-Space-Thermal-and-Vacuum-Environment-Chisabas-Loureiro/6d74e8e01fb62a79122fce3988471c26268079d7
Hunter insists on adding convection into the heat transfer problem, but that is just another way of avoiding the physics of radiation heat transfer as captured in Eli’s GPE. Sure, in the real world, the lower atmosphere heat transfer is dominated by convection, but that does not apply above the tropopause where understanding thermal IR radiation becomes more important. The effects of IR radiation from a colder body to a warmer one is fundamental to this understanding and the incessant denials from the slayers do not change the physics.
“…whereas Eli’s basic premise is modeled with the Earth as a flat disc. Then, 400 w/m^2 represents the outbound energy from one side being heated with an 800 w/m^2 for half a day and zero the other half. We’ve been over this for many months and Hunter still hasn’t figured it out.”
Um…what!?
DREMT’s physics are indefensible & DREMT’s 1:28 pm misleading & humorous wording exposed: Dr Spencer never conducted any experiments on the GPE but as I wrote Dr. Spencer conducted experiments supporting the GPE with the real atm.
DREMT another thing to consider on that ‘hose pressure’ analogy is the fact that radiation has a pressure.
https://www.planetary.org/articles/what-is-solar-sailing
The hose example is where flow increases in one direction as a result of a resistive pressure in the other direction. The BP has a ready supply of input energy from the sun and stays tightly in radiant equilibrium with that as it cools due to changes in the area allowed to freely radiate without any back pressure.
But when you try to use your thumb to block both nozzles at the same time pressure dramatically increases.
there is more to all this than immediately meets the eye and the extrapolators around here simply don’t realize this isn’t stuff you can extrapolate.
These whiners in here when confronted by a real greenhouse effect simply deny the experiment is valid without saying explicitly why its invalid. We had the 2 compartment box experiment where the moaned bout a handful of watts, like one tenth of what the expected greenhouse effect would be with their theory, then they do the same thing with Woods and Pratt’s experiments.
all this negative evidence surrounding them and they simply put a blindfold on and recite what their daddy told them.
Ball4 says:
DREMTs physics are indefensible & DREMTs 1:28 pm misleading & humorous wording exposed: Dr Spencer never conducted any experiments on the GPE but as I wrote Dr. Spencer conducted experiments supporting the GPE with the real atm.
————————–
what difference does it make Ball4? No greenhouse effect is produced by the GPE.
Ball4 keeps on lying. The only experiments supporting the GPE would be conducted in vacuum conditions. Dr Spencer has conducted no experiments supporting the GPE.
The difference is GPE results do have experimental support performed
& reported right on this blog years ago, Bill. I am unaware of Eli writing any greenhouse effect is produced by the GPE so Bill could be correct on that. The earthen GHE is a field of optics phenomenon & not the opaque GPE plates.
Dr. Spencer has conducted experiments supporting the GPE results despite incorrect comments by obvious non-physics majors such as DREMT 2:01 pm, but more astute, informed commenters familiar with the reported results know reality is otherwise than DREMT’s comment. The real earthen experiments were conducted such that convection was minimized enough and radiative effects maximized enough all supporting the GPE ideal theoretical results.
E. Swanson reported replicable experiments supporting the GPE in a near enough vacuum to understand they also supported the ideal GPE.
…the only experiment even remotely in support of the GPE is Swanson’s experiment, Ball4…and he is up against Geraint Hughes’ experiments which show no GPE.
Bill sez:
“when a GP is placed behind the BP. The BP will warm..”
I agree with the 262K. That has the BP losing 400w/m2 with 267w/m2 out of the light point source side as described by Eli and 133w/m2 out the GP side. That is 400w/m2 total with the 400w/m2 light source completely and 100% accounting for the results.
Then when he finds out DREMT disagrees, he turns a 180:
“Swanson, the BP can warm up to a maximum of 290 K if the GP radiatively insulates it, which it will do so long as its reflective. As a blackbody, obviously the GP will not radiatively insulate the BP, so the BP will remain at 244 K.”
Wow, the guy is just not allowed to deviate from the sky-dragon-crank narrative, even if he determines that the facts don’t agree!
Wrong DREMT 2:25 pm, Geraint Hughes’ experiments did not, and do not, disprove the 1LOT and 2LOT and only a non-physics major such as DREMT could comment that they did do so. Hughes experiments are not even replicable as not enough information was given to do so to even find out what Hughes did wrong.
Ball4 “just says anything”.
Hunter troll finds his bluff called, so he pulls another red herring about solar sails from some dark corner of his mind. Hunter apparently has never realized that EM radiation is made up of photons, which have no mass, but which exhibit momentum. That doesn’t change the emission or absorp_tion of thermal IR radiation, which is the subject of the GPE and all the denialist claims regarding the 2nd Law which it refutes. Back Radiation Holds!
Hunter then drops back to the Woods paper and Pratt’s refutation of his results and throws in a mention of some 2 box experiment of unknown parentage. Just more denialist BS instead of reasoned science. He’ll never admit he’s wrong.
When will Swanson admit he’s wrong?
Cult Leader grammie pups wrote:
Don’t forget my ice plate experiment where I minimized the effects of convection with an inverted warm plate facing a cold surroundings below.
grammie thinks G. Hughes’ experiment somehow refutes my Green Plate Demo, when Hughes didn’t make proper measurements of temperatures, his only instrument was an unspecified immersion device which did not fit snugly within his larger brass tube glued to his BP. Hughes had no proof that his device actually suppressed convection, since his pressure measurement was a simple mechanical gauge which was not useful for measuring high vacuums nor could he prove that he achieved the same level in successive runs.
Swanson falls for the classic scam where I induce you to put $20 into a pot in which I put $20.
Now with $40 sitting there I sell it to Swanson for $30 and Swanson walks away so pleased with himself that he had conned me out of $10.
“Where is the dip?”
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/#comment-28832
Hunter troll can’t come up with a logical reply, so he invents another red herring which has nothing to do with the GPE. It’s a flow problem (energy in equals energy out), not a content problem (the temperatures of the BP and the GP).
grammie (huffingboy) asked” “Where is the dip?”
Answer: It’s in G. Hughes’ experiment, not mine.
BTW, Hughes could not provide proof that his setup produced a sufficient vacuum to stop convection, which he claims to achieve a level of 2 mb. His experimental setup was based on a tall cylinder with energy supplied at the bottom, which would promote convection. READ the Reference given above, especially Figure 8 and 9.
“It’s in G. Hughes’ experiment, not mine…”
…and that is a problem for you.
Cult Leader grammie pups still thinks G. Hughes’ work is correct, even though it’s obvious that Hughes’ didn’t actually measure the temperature of his BP with his wobbly lab thermometer and had no thermometer measurement of his GP. His plates were thin metal with low heat capacity, whereas I used 1/4 in thick aluminum plates with thermocouples embedded within.
“His plates were thin metal with low heat capacity, whereas I used 1/4 in thick aluminum plates with thermocouples embedded within…”
…so Hughes’ setup should be more susceptible to temperature changes than yours, so it’s all the more surprising and significant that he detected no GPE.
Cult Leader grammie pups still doesn’t understand that thermal mass doesn’t change the steady state temperatures. It would impact short term transient response such as that which Hughes reported.
“It would impact short term transient response such as that which Hughes reported…”
…in his blue plate. So obviously Hughes could measure the temperature of his blue plate, contrary to what you tried to suggest at 11:26 AM yesterday, by your own admission.
‘its all the more surprising’ that his experiment disagrees with ordinary physics.
And such an extraordinary finding requires extraordinary evidence. He doesnt have that.
But dragon-cranks will buy it anyway. They are very gullible.
Cult Leader whined:
I agree that his thermometer could measure temperature. But there’s no proof that it’s measurements represented ONLY that of his BP. The long metal stem sticking above his ill fitting well would also respond to the effects of suddenly lowering the temperature and would then later represent the effects of IR radiation from the walls of his cylinder and any residual convection. His claimed results are not proof of his conclusions, nor of your incessant references to them.
I’m not whining about anything, Swanson, I’m just documenting your internal contradictions as and when you make them. If your excuse for Hughes recording the dip and you not recording the dip is that his plates were more susceptible to temperature change then you’re conceding that he can measure the temperature of his blue plate, contrary to what you said earlier.
Im not aware of DREMT having ever done any experiments with heat, temperature, vacuum, etc.
Yet he thinks his opinions on experimental methods, and the relative quality of different experiments, should be taken seriously why?
…not whining about anything, Swanson, I’m just documenting your internal contradictions as and when you make them. If your excuse for Hughes recording the dip and you not recording the dip is that his plates were more susceptible to temperature change then you’re conceding that he can measure the temperature of his blue plate, contrary to what you said earlier.
“If your excuse for Hughes recording the dip and you not recording the dip is that his plates were more susceptible to temperature change”
Hughes’ SENSOR is much more susceptible to the air cooling as its pressure drops.
“Lastly, theres no reason that my results should exhibit a dip like you claim to have found(b) since my system is different than yours. My plates are both 1/4 inch (~6mm) thick and the thermocouples are embedded within each, so my plates have about 5 times the thermal mass as your plates. Your temperature measuring device appears to be an immersion type, not a point contact type, thus the dip you claim to see could well be just the air being cooled as its pressure drops, not the temperature of your 1mm thick plate plate.”
Regardless of Swanson’s sound explanation, Hughes suggests Swanson’s data must be fake.
Hughes is clearly not objective and has a non-science agenda.
…whining about anything, Swanson, I’m just documenting your internal contradictions as and when you make them. If your excuse for Hughes recording the dip and you not recording the dip is that his plates were more susceptible to temperature change then you’re conceding that he can measure the temperature of his blue plate, contrary to what you said earlier.
What trolling looks like…
Trolling: “if WMO had just checked in with Dr. Spencer they would know Earth has been in a 40-50 year warming trend.
Obviously, they’re just now catching up.”
Reality: “The temperatures we measure from space are actually on a very slight downward trend since 1979 in the lower troposphere. We see major excursions due to volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo, and ocean current phenomena like El Nino, but overall the trend is about 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade cooling,” Spencer remarked.
… in Feb. 1997.
Exactly, Ball4.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd5feb97_1/
You miss the point Ball4. No matter.
Here is more reality from the WMO: “Nineteen ninety-eight was by far the warmest year since worldwide instrument records began 139 years ago. No single year can indicate a change in climate, but a perspective of global data spread over a long period of time shows that the world is in a period of warming. Even if 1999 should prove to be cooler than 1998, the trend towards warmer temperatures is indisputable.” WMO 1998.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, …
“As of 2009, it appears that the PDO may have switched back to its cooling phase, just as it did in the 1940s. Only time will tell whether Arctic sea ice continues its return to more “normal” levels and global temperatures continue refusing to climb.” Spencer wrote.
“Global temperatures in 2010
Average global temperatures were estimated to be 0.53C 0.09C above the 19611990 annual average of 14C. This makes 2010 tied for warmest year on record in records dating back to 1880. The 2010 nominal value of +0.53C ranks just ahead of those of 2005 (+0.52C) and 1998 (+0.51C), although the differences between the three years are not statistically significant…” WMO
What Is Science?
https://bit.ly/3LpFTJr
What is a Crank?
https://www.youtube.com/@bgaede/videos
US TV host Tucker Carlson to leave Fox News, days after the $787.5m settlement of a legal case.
They’ve started cancelling themselves!
YOU’RE FIRED! https://youtu.be/XyWLm5E0SAI
You might also like:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/succession-based-on-rupert-murdoch-drama.html
“When you’re born into this world, you’re given a ticket to the freak show. If you’re born in America you get a front row seat.”
There aren’t any details on why Carlson and Fox parted ways.
Has Don Lemon been canceled too, then?
Probably both were too expensive.
Corporate news.
There is other news.
You tell me bub.
Cancel culture refers to the phenomenon of publicly calling out or boycotting individuals, companies, or organizations for perceived offenses or controversial views, with the goal of holding them accountable and effecting change. This can take many forms, including social media campaigns, petitions, and protests.
The term “cancel culture” is often used in a negative context, with critics arguing that it can be used to stifle free speech and silence dissenting opinions, as well as disproportionately punish individuals for minor offenses or mistakes made in the past. Supporters of cancel culture argue that it is a necessary tool for promoting accountability and social justice.
It’s important to note that cancel culture is a complex and contested concept, and there is ongoing debate over what it is and how it should be understood.
What info do you have that Fox and Carlson are “cancelling” each other, bub?
Why are you trolling me? Buzz off.
I guess I’m used to people saying things they mean here. No worries.
It was sarcasm.
If I had to guess, I would say that for the right, losing 800M after a smear campaign is on par with saying that 50 yo women are not in their prime anymore or that men sports were more interesting to watch.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
April UAH results are about a week away, but Im making my guess now, in case I forget.
+0.07
Tough call because dont know how much lingering effects from La Niña will cool or Hunga-Tonga will warm. The Polar Vortex is still having trouble forming. With H-T and PV working against me, I could be too low.
Well see….
Yeah, back down to zero point zero
DREMT,
I moved this point down here so we could address it separately.
“Then, on your point about insulation, read the Wikipedia entry over and over again until you grasp what is being said:
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[1] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.” ”
I already spoke of the difference between a blackbody and a reflective surface in the post this quote replies to. I’ll repeat it here.
——
As you readily agree that GP sends radiative energy back to BP there should be no dispute. The only difference is the efficiency of insulation.
——
The wiki quote doesn’t respond to this this.
Reflective roof insulation returns 95% of the radiative energy it receives (I looked it up). GP returns 50% of the radiative energy it receives. The only difference is the efficiency of the insulating material. What other difference is there? Why would 95% of returned radiative energy cause warming but not 50%?
barry…I really am exhausted. Do we really have to now have another new thread!?
You will not understand, but here goes:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/03/07/the-nub-of-the-argument/#comment-62832
[JOE] Reflection is *not* the same thing as thermal [A] followed by re-emission! In the latter case the situation and physics is about heat flow and energy frequencies and temperatures, etc., whereas in the former case (reflection) it has NOTHING to do with heat [A] or heat transfer or ANY temperatures at all.
A pity Joe forgot to say what the former was, and just said what it was not.
Graham will then blame Barry for not getting that absence of characterization.
There’s an entire post of other words that were said.
Joe goes guru mode:
Hmmm. So deep. So profund.
Should we call this new thing Emissivity Transference?
We’ll call you a troll.
[GG] You will not understand, but here goes
[ALSO GG] Well call you a troll
Yep.
Graham won’t understand, but here goes:
https://skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm
Graham won’t understand, but here goes:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/16/postma-on-the-greenhouse-effect/
I wasn’t talking about Postma disproving the Greenhouse Effect, but sure…knock yourself out. Link to something random.
As I said, Graham wouldn’t understand.
Oh well.
Yes. Oh well.
Well, at least Gill got the memo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479366
Sky Dragon cranks have a new word for the day!
Postma does not address the point I am making. He, like you, simply asserts what needs to be explained.
I get that you’re exhausted, as now you are directing me to other people instead of answering yourself.
For the record, you haven’t been able to support your claim that the GPE breaks 2LoT. Assertion and fictional physics don’t cut it. I remain unconvinced, as I said way upthread when we started all this.
“Postma does not address the point I am making. He, like you, simply asserts what needs to be explained.”
None of that is true, barry.
“I get that you’re exhausted, as now you are directing me to other people instead of answering yourself.”
Just easier than putting it in my own words.
“For the record, you haven’t been able to support your claim that the GPE breaks 2LoT. Assertion and fictional physics don’t cut it.”
Assertion and fictional physics was not what was provided for the 2LoT violation explanation. Simple, irrefutable logic was. You’re still confusing the 2LoT violation explanation with the explanation for the alternative solution with the additional green arrow. Oh well.
“I remain unconvinced, as I said way upthread when we started all this.”
Nothing will convince those that have willingly shut their mind to the truth.
DREMT can’t explain the science himself and can’t address the questions posed here, so he defers to a faux authority who is, conveniently, not here to answer questions or criticisms.
Another now classic DREMT evasion tactic.
…nothing will convince those that have willingly shut their mind to the truth.
For the record, Graham has not been able to support your claim that the Elis rudimentary solution breaks 2LoT.
Oh, Eli’s solution breaks 2LoT. As explained up-thread.
As usual, Graham does not support his violation claim and handwaves.
Well, it gets tiresome to repeat what I have explained about a dozen times already.
Explaining your thinking, yes. Ignoring the rebuttals, yes.
Supporting the claim, no.
Graham returns to his gaslighting programme.
Perhaps he should consider writing a blog post and be done with it?
Perhaps you should stop trolling.
Had he written a post on something he wasted more than five years of his life, Graham could then honestly say he explained the violation. Presuming he can explain it, which is a stretch.
Then his handwaving would at least be genuine.
I’m genuine, and I’m genuinely tired of being falsely accused of being dishonest.
Writing a blog post where *he* explains the violation should take less time that his actual last wordism.
An ironic last wordism in which he keeps saying he is tired of talking about the *only* thing that could keep the exchange fruitfully for him.
You’re currently taking part in a discussion up-thread where I have made the argument, and linked to various iterations of the argument, several times. That’s the discussion where I’m currently waiting for a response from Swanson. So, you’re now proving your own dishonesty by pretending not to be aware of it. I know that you know what the argument is.
For the record, Graham has not been able to support his claim that Eli’s model violates thermo.
Willard says:
April 27, 2023 at 9:50 AM
For the RECORD, Graham has NOT been able to support his claim that Elis model VIOLATES thermo.
—————–
How can it Willard? It doesn’t produce a greenhouse effect. If it did produce a greenhouse effect it would violate 2LOT and 1LOT.
Gill, Gill,
You’re working too hard.
If you want to be a good sealion, you need to ask questions that make sense.
You’re a liar. Anyone following both discussions will have proof that this:
"Had he written a post on something he wasted more than five years of his life, Graham could then honestly say he explained the violation. Presuming he can explain it, which is a stretch.
Then his handwaving would at least be genuine."
is a lie. I have explained the violation, repeatedly, in a discussion which you are currently taking part in. That’s proof of your dishonesty.
For the RECORD, Graham has NOT been able to support his claim that Eli’s model VIOLATES thermo.
Correct.
Proven liars such as yourself will not be judged well by readers, Little Willy.
I bet Gaslighting Graham will never find who said:
> As you readily agree that GP sends radiative energy back to BP there should be no dispute. The only difference is the efficiency of insulation.
It was barry. Not me.
And Barry is the on set up the topic to discuss in this thread,
I bet Graham still does not know why the plate is blue.
> is the on s
The one who.
I hate my French autocomplete,
I made no mention of the blue plate. I was not referring to it when making my 12:58 AM comment to barry.
Graham gaslights again.
Here’s where Barry mentioned the blue plate:
Graham responded to Barry:
Graham’s charade about the Sun being a blackbody is pure crap.
Once again: I made no mention of the blue plate. I was not referring to it when making my 12:58 AM comment to barry.
Once again, Graham tries to evade the facts laid out before him by repeating what has just been refuted.
No shame, no honour, no nothing,
Nobody, least of all you, has any idea what you are talking about, Little Willy. Where did I say the Sun was a blackbody!? Where did I mention the blue plate!? You are just lying again.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once more.
You are a proven liar.
Here is Graham explaining the thermo violation in Eli’s thought experiment:
https://tenor.com/view/the-incredibles-bernie-kropp-coincidence-gif-5259467
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Barry:
Why would 95% of returned radiative energy cause warming but not 50%?
————————–
Reflection doesn’t always cause warming.
Depending upon the surface, reflection can be directional and acts like a magnifying glass. Emissions are never directional. Thus with reflection you can reflect a point source like the sun from many other locations to one focal point.
If you aren’t doing that all you are doing is slowing the cooling rate. But that doesn’t limit the reflective object from warming to equilibrium with the light source it just changes how fast it occurs.
That disconnect from an objects equilibrium temperature and how much it reflects is what you don’t recognize. Read Stefan Boltzmann and run some your balancing calculations using their q = ε σ T4 A equations with the ”ε” emissivity factor.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
The reason the white lines in a parking lot are cooler than the black asphalt is because of the presence of convective cooling. Otherwise the white lines could get just as hot as the black asphalt despite less solar light being absorbed.
You can’t extrapolate this effect to space where convection is not present. You have to remain aware that there are two modes of cooling in the atmosphere and only one in space.
I don’t need to be reminded that convection and radiation are two of the three methods of heat transport.
The point I am making is that whether radiation comes from a blackbody or a reflector has no bearing on the capacity for an object to absorb that radiation. DREMT is arguing that radiation from a reflector can be absorbed by a hotter body, but radiation from a blackbody cannot be absorbed by a hotter body.
That’s the issue. You’re welcome to address that.
All you are doing Barry is extrapolating. Extrapolation isn’t science. One can only extrapolate after the effect has been established scientifically. Its easy enough to construct a glass sphere with ball inside of it and measuring instruments and put it up into space to test the issue.
Actually you and the other spinners are way behind the times on this. This type of heating has already been abandoned by mainstream science precisely because it doesn’t work the way you think.
Now barry…is that really what I’m saying?
What I said is that radiative insulation functions via the reflectivity of the material. Which is not just simple assertion, as it’s backed up by the Wikipedia article on insulation:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced, creating a thermal break or thermal barrier,[1] or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
The reflected energy is never absorbed by the lower temperature body. So it is not going into “setting the temperature” of that body. With a blackbody, all the energy it receives goes into “setting its temperature”. So, what it emits back to the source cannot raise the temperature of the source, since that is what has “set its temperature” in the first place. Whereas the reflected energy from a “greybody” was never a part of that.
One type of ‘radiative insulation functions via the reflectivity’. The article makes no claim that this EXAMPLE is the ONLY type.
But DREMT straight up misrepresents it as such, because thats what he does.
He ignores evidence from the SAME source that there is in fact another type, that CAN use non-reflective material to produce radiative insulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
“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”
Because that is what he does.
He knows that cannot win via honest debate.
“With a blackbody, all the energy it receives goes into setting its temperature. So, what it emits back to the source cannot raise the temperature of the source, since that is what has set its temperature in the first place. ”
Only someone truly determined to not understand, will ignore that the SOURCE of heat causing the temperature rise is a higher T object, the SUN.
Reminds me of the news that the Dam on Lake Powell is opening its flood gates, releasing water that will then help fill Lake Meade, downstream.
The opposite has also happened. When it closes its flood gates, its water level rises ‘at the expense’ of Lake Meade, whose water level drops.
DREMT thinks this means that Lake Meade sent its water upstream, defying the law of gravity, to fill Lake Powell.
But that would be stupid, because the Colorado river input, from a higher elevation, is what caused Lake Powell’s water level to rise.
…whereas the reflected energy from a “greybody” was never a part of that.
> Only someone truly determined to not understand, will ignore that the SOURCE of heat causing the temperature rise is a higher T object, the SUN.
I disagree, Nate. A troll could, and Hanlons Razor not longer applies to our actual trio of our Sky Dragon cranks.
Oh, is that something Nate said? I don’t read his comments, or respond to them…but obviously I was not mentioning anything to do with the Sun. I was trying to talk to barry about radiative insulation. Presumably barry agrees that if the Sun was instead in the form of an infinitely large, perfectly conducting blackbody plate, internally generating heat; that another, passive infinitely large, perfectly conducting blackbody plate, placed right next to the Sun plate, would not result in the Sun plate increasing in temperature?
“Now barry… is that really what I’m saying?”
Yes, I summarized your position perfectly, as your comment demonstrates.
It’s sheer nonsense.
…and when I say placed right next to the Sun plate, I mean there’s a little gap there, so that radiation is the mode of energy transfer between the two.
Graham always ignores what Nate says, and when he does sometimes he will try to respond to what Nate says anyway.
As a way to ignore that it refutes his interpretation of what is he source of heat in the system, it works well.
Graham is a black body of communication.
I hadn’t defined any system, Little Willy.
I do ignore his comments. However, I’m not ignoring your comments.
Gaslighting Graham is ready to say just about anything when Nate catches his fibs.
Spell out what fibbing I’m accused of…because right now I have no idea.
And so Graham returns to playing dumb.
What a beautiful afternoon.
I’m not playing dumb. Since I don’t read what Nate says, how can I possibly know what I’m accused of!? All I saw was the bit you quoted. Which is presumably out of context.
[GG] With a blackbody, all the energy it receives goes into setting its temperature. So, what it emits back to the source cannot raise the temperature of the source, since that is what has set its temperature in the first place.
[N] Only someone truly determined to not understand, will ignore that the SOURCE of heat causing the temperature rise is a higher T object, the SUN.
[W] A troll could, and Hanlon’s Razor not longer applies to our actual trio of our Sky Dragon cranks.
[GG] Oh, is that something Nate said? I don’t read his comments, or respond to them…but obviously I was not mentioning anything to do with the Sun.
[W] Graham is a black body of communication.
[GG] But I hadn’t defined any system!
[W] Graham is ready to say just about anything when Nate catches his fibs.
[GG] Spell out the fib.
[W] Graham is playing dumb again.
[GG] I am not playing dumb!
[W] Of course you are, Graham. We all know you are.
As usual, you deliberately leave out the relevant information. You said:
"As a way to ignore that it refutes his interpretation of what is [t]he source of heat in the system, it works well."
That’s when I responded that I hadn’t defined any system…and, that’s correct. I was talking to barry about radiative insulation, but had not got into any specifics.
Graham is a gaslighting goofy boy.
The system.
Under consideration.
The only one of interest.
Has one.
And only one source of heat.
It’s the Sun.
Goofy Graham.
No wonder he can’t explain how Eli’s model violates thermo.
You’re a disgustingly dishonest troll, Little Willy. Please continue to disgrace yourself.
Gaslighting Graham is gaslighting once again.
A blackbody is not a heat source. We all know that. Why the hell would he presume that we should take a blackbody as a heat source?
No wonder Sky Dragon cranks need to misread basic encyclopedic entries and invent stuff like emissivity reflectance.
That reminds me when the Lake Powell dam opens its flood gates, releasing water that helps fill Lake Meade downstream. The reverse can also happen, by closing its flood gates. Then its water level rises at the expense of Lake Meade, whose water level drops.
According to Sky Dragon cranks this means that Lake Meade send its water upstream to fill Lake Powell, and thus violated the law of gravity. That would be stupid, because the Colorado river input, from a higher elevation, is what caused Lake Powell’s water level to rise.
So yeah – to keep one’s eye on the real source, and to account for the flow of what happens AS A WHOLE, matters more than to come up with a BS interpretation that has no import except for online trolls.
"A blackbody is not a heat source. We all know that. Why the hell would he presume that we should take a blackbody as a heat source?"
Where did I say that a blackbody was the heat source!? Unless you’re referring to what I said at 8:16 AM, which was written after Nate’s intervention into what I was discussing with barry, and is just a hypothetical scenario with a "Sun plate".
Goofy Graham plays dumb again:
“With a blackbody, all the energy it receives goes into setting its temperature. So, what it emits back to the source cannot raise the temperature of the source, since that is what has set its temperature in the first place.”
Only someone with bad cognitive manners or a troll will ignore that the SOURCE of heat causing the temperature rise is a higher T object, in our case the SUN.
Parsomatics over the concept of blackbody is one of the gremlins I alluded to elsewhere:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479787
So the Sun sets the temp, not the blue plate. It’s as if Graham can’t read Eli’s equations.
"So the Sun sets the temp, not the blue plate"…
…a challenge to Little Willy. Find where I have used the words "blue plate" in this thread (other than in this comment). If he can’t find it, he should retract his false accusations immediately.
Once again Graham forgets how the thread started:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479146
He should read that comment until he really gets it.
There will be a quiz later.
I accept your retraction.
The comment was not a retraction; DREMT is as confused as ever. Pity
Another troll? No thanks.
So I went to visit a Sky Dragon crank.
His house has no door.
I asked him why, and he told it would make no difference.
The straw men just get sillier and sillier…
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Obviously not.
Challenge accepted and more than met:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479793
Graham can continue to his regular gaslighting.
That’s one of your own comments, Little Willy.
This time Graham is almost right.
Almost 🙂
So you failed the challenge.
Once again Gaslighting Graham lies by omission.
He omits to say that he was responding to Barry, and that Barry was mentioning Eli’s setup. That setup includes a blue plate and a green plate.
He also omits to say that even if he was talking in general terms, it must apply to Eli’s thought experiment.
Finally, he omits to mention that his usual armwaving about backradiation involves the blue plate.
From this we can conclude that Graham throws in another spurious challenge to distract from the fact that one does not simply treat the plates as heat sources.
I was trying to talk about radiative insulation. Which has nothing to do with the GPE, because it functions via reflectivity.
Again, Gaslighting Graham omits to mention that the laws of thermo ought to apply whatever specific heat transfer mechanism under consideration.
He also omits to mention that his bogus trick against Eli’s model would apply. It would work against just about any system, in fact.
Take a system. Divide it in components. Make energy flows from the hottest to the coldest components. Energy preservation becomes impossible.
Once again, Little Willy has no idea what he is talking about.
Once again Gaslighting Graham ignores that an army of trolls used the homunculus argument before him.
In any event, here’s what he’s trying to evade:
That’s the issue. Gaslighting Graham is welcome to address that.
He’s also welcome to pretend that it’s not what he’s trying to suggest when he’s “trying to talk about radiative insulation.”
Energy reflected from an object is not energy absorbed by that object. That is a fundamental difference straight off the bat.
Does it mean that Graham finally admits that he’s not abiding by Eli’s premises?
Stay tuned!
You are completely confused. So much so there is no point talking to you.
And so Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights once again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint,
Could you please clarify the apparent contradiction between what you said a year ago:
“Fluxes don’t add”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1254315
And what you said in the last couple days:
“I’ve never indicated adding more of the “right kind” of energy would not raise temperatures.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1478232
A year ago you said two fluxes of equal intensity arriving at a surface cannot add because one of them would be reflected.
You now appear to have modified that view.
Can you please explain?
Easy to explain, barry — there are no contradictions. You’re just throwing crap against the wall, hoping something will stick. You’re trying to take things out-of-context so you can twist and distort reality.
As you demonstrated upthread, you can’t answer simple questions honestly. You have NO respect for honesty, reality, or science.
Go troll someone else.
If it’s easy to explain, please go ahead and explain it.
Your conclusion a year ago was that fluxes of equal intensity cannot add to increase the temperature of a surface, and now you are saying it’s possible. It’s an apparent contradiction, please clarify.
Troll barry, you will just twist and distort anything I say. Here, by taking my words out-of-context, you believe you have found contradictions. There are NO contradictions. There is only your willingness to twist and distort.
Until you can honestly answer the simple question: Is an ARRIVING flux any longer affected by view factor?
If you can’t honestly answer that simple question, then “Please stop trolling”.
You’re refusing to deal with your contradiction unless I answer your question with precisely the word you want. Unbelievably childish. I’ve lost interest.
barry, please stop trolling.
These are the people who make laws about CO2
https://youtu.be/bJfrKNR3K2k
The Earth climate system’s energy imbalance has accumulated 381 ZJ total from 1971 to 2020. The majority, about 89%, of this heat has been stored in the oceans.
Over the past few years, ocean temperatures have steadily increased exceeding 2σ levels, despite the Pacific being firmly under the influence of the cooling La Nia phase. https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
BOM: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean
“The Bureau’s ENSO Outlook is at El Nio WATCH. An El Nio WATCH is not a guarantee that El Nio will occur, rather it is an indication that some of the typical precursors of an event are currently in place. An El Nio WATCH means that there is around a 50% chance that El Nio will develop. This is about twice the normal likelihood of El Nio forming in any year.”
Documenting the total f&%kery taking place.
Thanks for keeping us updated on f&%kery, TM. (H/T to Arkady.)
Just try frying an egg with all the “heat”.
If you understood the science, THAT should tell you something…
At that rate the amount of energy accumulated in one second funnelled into an area the size of a saucepan would instantly evaporate the saucepan.
Please tell us how you plan to “funnel” all that energy, troll barry.
It was you who suggested frying an egg with “all” the heat, so you tell me.
And the implication was it can’t be done, troll barry.
But you missed that. This is all over your head.
Where can I buy this “Energy Funnel” ???
Ask Vlad.
TYSON MCGUFFIN.
I believe that climate scientists’ forecasts underplay the reality that, our once stable climate is changing for the worse far quicker than predicted by earlier models.
We need to plan for the worst even as we hope for the best.
Global warming has a cozy feel to it that is far from justified by reality. http://www.ocean.iap.ac.cn:8101/temporary/1674847720345.png
To reflect this, I prefer to use alternative terms like f&%kery, and once, just once, I want to hear a scientist say… f&%kery.
It has been suggested here that a hotter body can’t, or is extremely unlikely to, absorb the radiation from a cooler body. This is one the principles put forth by those who argue that the greenhouse effect breaks the second law of thermodynamics.
It’s completely wrong, and you will not find such a claim in any school or university level physics text. It’s a fictional account of radiative transfer.
Why is it wrong?
Let’s take the idealised blackbody to make the point and then devolve to real-world objects.
A blackbody is a perfect emitter of radiation. Per Kirchoff’s law, it must therefore be a perfect absorber of radiation.
A blackbody emits radiation at all frequencies, with a peak in the frequency curve inversely proportional to its temperature. here is a typical visualization:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Wiens_law.svg
Per Kirchoff’s law, a blackbody therefore absorbs radiation at all frequencies.
At the microscopic level, a surface of non-zero K receiving and emitting radiation has a multitude of electrons gaining and losing energy and changing energy states. For the idealized blackbody the surface has a broad range of quantum states the electrons can move to when absorbing/emitting radiation.
The radiation from a cooler blackbody covers the entire spectrum of frequencies, so when a warmer blackbody electron emits and drops to a lower state, the radiation from the cooler blackbody definitely has radiation of the correct frequency to elevate the quantum state of that electron.
In real life surfaces do not have a perfect Planck curve, but there are still a variety of quantum states that electrons can jump up and down to, which can take radiation from cooler objects as long as the cooler object is emitting any radiation that is of a frequency that matches the quanta. That will always be the case, it is simply a question of degree of absorp.tion. As soon as the warmer body electron emits, it is in a lower state that the cooler body radiation can charge. If an electron has multiple states then it can bounce up or down between these quanta and only needs the correct frequency radiation to bump it up to the next of several states.
I think that critics forget or are unaware that objects emit and absorb at a wide range of frequencies. Gases have a much narrower range than solids, but the principle remains. For the GHE, Earth’s and CO2’s peak emission closely match – centred on the 15um wavelength (wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional).
Georgia State University has a good brief on it.
“In this relationship the term with Tc represents the energy absorbed from the environment. This expression explicitly assumes that the same coefficient e applies to both the emission into the environment and the absorp.tion from the environment. That is, a good emitter is a good absorber and vice versa; the same coefficient can be used to characterize both processes…
Perhaps the most fundamental conceptual way to approach this question is to observe that a hot object placed in a room must ultimately come to thermal equilibrium with the room. The hot object will initially emit more energy into the room than it absorbs from the room…
If a surface is an ideal absorber in the visible, this implies that there is an abundance of available electron states so that a photon of any color in the visible spectrum can interact with electrons in the solid to elevate them to an available upper level. The implication is that any color in the visible spectrum can be readily absorbed, hence it is an ideal absorber, a perfectly black object…”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/absrad.html#c1
The notion that warm objects can’t absorb radiation from cooler objects is an out and out furphy.
Troll barry, just a small introduction to reality for you:
* “Kirchhoff” is spelled with two “hs”.
* Kirchhoff’s Law means an object that emits at a specific wavelength can absorb at that wavelength. The law does NOT mean you get to pervert 2LoT.
* There is no such thing as a “black body” — an object that MUST absorb all wavelengths.
* A bunch of links you don’t understand doesn’t help your case.
* Endless incoherent rambling is NOT science.
* Ice can NOT boil water.
grammie clone actually wrote something I can agree with:
“(his) Endless incoherent rambling is NOT science.”
Glad you agree that barry’s endless incoherent rambling is not science, Swanson.
Feel free to point out what is wrong with the above, DREMT. Clint has managed to cover the spelling so far.
You need to address your request to Swanson. He just wrote that he agreed with Clint R that your endless incoherent rambling is not science. I was just glad to see agreement between these two old enemies.
Oh, you’ve become facetious again.
You’ve remained obdurate.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
Little Willy remains a minor pest.
The minor pest here is Graham, who distorted what ES said to troll Barry.
Swanson should have made what he was saying clearer. Mine was a perfectly valid interpretation of what he said. The only reason anyone would assume otherwise is due to the dogged tribalism that infests the blog. We know Swanson is critical of Clint R, and blindly supports barry no matter what, so it was obvious that Swanson would not be criticizing barry. Nevertheless, I thought I would make the point that Swanson should be a little clearer in what he says.
What ES said was already clear,
Graham simply redirected what ES said toward Barry.
Classic No U.
Perhaps one day will own what he does.
Yes, that’s what I did. I redirected it towards barry….because as I just said, that was one interpretation you could have made from what Swanson said…because Swanson was not careful enough with the way he wrote what he said.
Why are we all ignoring that Swanson came along and twisted what Clint R said against Clint R!?
[GRAHAM READS] Pupman’s endless incoherent rambling is NOT science.
[GRAHAM HEARS] Barry’s endless incoherent rambling is NOT science.
You’re not interested in accurately representing anything that anyone says, Little Willy.
Since Graham lacks the social skills to realize that he’s using ES to troll Barry, let’s show him where that happened:
(B) Feel free to point out what is wrong with the above. [Pupman] has managed to cover the spelling so far.
(G) You need to address your request to [ES]. He just wrote that he agreed with [Pupman] that your endless incoherent rambling is not science.
(B) Oh, you’ve become facetious again.
(G) You’ve remained obdurate.
So yeah – Graham is clearly trolling Barry.
Let’s try to be objective. Clint R wrote, as part of a criticism of barry’s comment:
"* Endless incoherent rambling is NOT science."
Swanson did the initial "no U", twisting Clint R’s words back onto Clint R.
I did the next "no U", twisting Swanson’s words onto barry…because Swanson was not careful enough with how he worded his original twisting.
Little Willy comes along, certain that everything, all over the world, is my fault, and originates with me.
Let’s try to be even more objective –
Graham does not wish to communicate with Barry.
He is past that.
He just wants to respond to him.
So using ES against Barry suits him.
So what I said is correct –
Graham.
Is trolling.
Barry.
No ifs, no buts.
That’s all there is to it.
"Graham does not wish to communicate with Barry."
What I wish is that barry would acknowledge Eli’s solution is debunked. He can still carry on with his criticisms of the alternative solution. He just needs to find his own solution.
Graham would have a better chance to convince Barry of a fact if that fact was true.
Meanwhile, the fact of the matter is that Graham was trolling Barry.
You’re trolling me. Relentlessly. In multiple locations in the comments at once.
Graham has yet to deny the objective facts.
Pupman trolled Barry.
Then he himself trolled Barry.
Here we are.
When will he try to gaslight readers?
Clint R responded to barry, Swanson trolled Clint R, I held up a mirror for Swanson.
Swanson disappeared (as he so often does).
Little Willy turned up to troll.
Pupman trolled Barry.
Gaslighing has returned to his gaslighting.
Swanson trolled Clint R.
Little Willy continues to troll me.
Gaslighting Graham trolled Barry.
He should have used ES to troll Barry.
He has a chance.
He blew it.
End of story.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard, you need to understand the narcissist’s rules.
They are never at fault, for anything, or wrong about enaything, ever.
SO when they say:
“Mine was a perfectly valid interpretation of what he said.”
They literally believe that their juvenile trolling is ‘perfectly valid’
And when they say
“What I wish is that barry would acknowledge Elis solution is debunked.”
They literally think that their own BS hasn’t been thoroughly debunked, by Barry and several others.
They literally think that if Barry doesnt agree with their unsupported BS, then there must be something wrong with Barry.
Now that Nate concedes he can’t win the argument with evidence he is now taking a shot at winning it by declaration.
Cool Nate now that you have debunked Eli’s Greenhouse Plate Experiment (GPE) as a fraud you should be declaring victory for your new found position and punishing all the morons in here who think the GPE is a greenhouse effect experiment.
“Cool Nate now that you have debunked Elis Greenhouse Plate Experiment (GPE) as a fraud you”
I don’t how Bill developed the skill to speak out of both sides of his mouth like that.
Elsewhere he fully agreed with Eli’s solution to the GPE:
“I agree with the 262K. That has the BP losing 400w/m2 with 267w/m2 out of the light point source side as described by Eli and 133w/m2 out the GP side. That is 400w/m2 total with the 400w/m2 light source completely and 100% accounting for the results.”
Here he is calling it debunked and fraud?
It is quite baffling.
Eli never claimed the GPE was the GHE, but Bill pushes this fraudulent STRAWMAN over anyway.
"Now that Nate concedes he can’t win the argument with evidence he is now taking a shot at winning it by declaration."
What on Earth is he going on about now, Bill? I don’t read or respond to his posts, so I have no idea. I just note that he often comes along after the thread is dead to add his two cents. I know I PST on old threads, but I’m not actually trying to add any argument, like he does (or he certainly used to, when I used to read what he says). He’s such a "last worder" troll.
Yep Eli said he called the GP ”Green for Greenhouse”.
He also said: ”Without the greenhouse plate it was 244 K.”
And he also in the comments directly states his experiment is proof of the greenhouse effect saying:
What has been proved is that colder bodies can warm a hotter body through back radiation.
Does Nate now still want back down on his claim that the GPE isn’t represented as proof of the greenhouse effect by anybody?
Nate, does that mean it is or it isn’t proof of the GHE? If it isn’t then what they heck are we debating it for?
“What has been proved is that colder bodies can warm a hotter body through back radiation.”
is exactly what he addressed with the GPE. That was the point of it.
And you AGREED with him!
“when a GP is placed behind the BP. The BP will warm”
and his solution:
“I agree with the 262K. That has the BP losing 400w/m2 with 267w/m2 out of the light point source side as described by Eli and 133w/m2 out the GP side. That is 400w/m2 total with the 400w/m2 light source completely and 100% accounting for the results.”
until you didnt.
Because you are all over the place.
Bill, it’s certainly treated on this blog as if it’s supposed to somehow prove the GHE. Nothing could be more important to Team GPE than defending it at any cost. The funny thing is, as you’ve noted elsewhere, it doesn’t do what the GHE is supposed to do, in any case. With the GHE, it’s meant to take what they treat as being an average input of 240 W/m^2 and then turn it into an average surface temperature of 288 K, emitting 390 W/m^2. Whereas the GPE takes an input of 400 W/m^2 and returns 267.7 W/m^2.
So with the GHE, you’re getting back more than what you started with! The GPE aims much, much lower.
Yes the behavior of people inside strawmen is odd. But none of them are people here, or Eli.
It is plainly obvious the the GPE doesnt have the same geometry as Earth with its GHE.
The GPE has no insulation on one side and is insulated on its other side by GP.
In the GHE on Earth, the Earth’s surface is well insulated on its lower side, and is insulated by the GHE on its topside.
The GPE, since it is uninsulated on one side can never exceed a T that gives an SB emission = input flux. So if it received 400 W/m^2 then best it can do is emit 400 W/m^2 and reach maximum 290K.
Since the Earth is well insulated on one side, by insulating its other side with the GHE. it has the potential to heat to a HIGHER T than its input solar flux equivalent.
And in fact it does.
It is no mystery that heat transfer in different geometries gives different results. To suggest that they should be the same, or if not the same, then the GHE is debunked, is a glaringly obvious strawman.
…so with the GHE, you’re getting back more than what you started with! The GPE aims much, much lower.
Nate says:
”It is no mystery that heat transfer in different geometries gives different results. To suggest that they should be the same, or if not the same, then the GHE is debunked, is a glaringly obvious strawman.”
Again we agree. The strawman effect works both ways. Running around in forums with the GPE as an argument for the GHE is a strawman argument. The fact is processes within the atmosphere is determined by feedback which isn’t understood. Its a house of cards built on a minor atmospheric effect. the only consensus that exists in science among the knowledgeable rather than ignorant scientist population as to its quantification is among the herd animals all feeding in the same trough where the food is allocated based upon political affiliation and loyalty. As Dr Kerry Emanuel allegedly expressed in terms of going along with all this. . . .its good for science.
Apparently yet another benefit of CO2 to go along with the greening of the planet.
That the GPE was ever an argument for the GHE is YOUR strawman argument.
Eli understood that its geometry was different from the Earths.
He clearly stated that the GPE was designed only to debunk that a passive object can’t cause a heated object to warm.
And you agreed that the GP, a passive object, placed behind the heated BP, caused it to warm.
Because the GP reduces the heat loss in that direction from 200 to 133.
It needs to emit 267 on its other side. To do so it must warm.
…with the GHE, you’re getting back more than what you started with! The GPE aims much, much lower.
It is ordinary radiative heat transfer in action. It is just doing what heat flow does!
And yet it does its job of showing the extreme illogic of dragon-crank dogma.
Until they can understand this simple case, they will never have a chance to understand the GHE.
And they are content with that.
…the GHE, you’re getting back more than what you started with! The GPE aims much, much lower.
Nate says:
And yet it does its job of showing the extreme illogic of dragon-crank dogma.
Until they can understand this simple case, they will never have a chance to understand the GHE.
And they are content with that.
————————
Dragon crank dogma is belief in something for which you have no evidence.
Nate you have been asked innumerable times to produce a greenhouse effect in an experiment using radiating surfaces and everybody who has tried has failed.
How many failures do you have to see before you realize all you are doing is preaching dragon crank dogma?
“Nate you have been asked innumerable times to produce a greenhouse effect in an experiment using radiating surfaces and everybody who has tried has failed.”
You can demand any experiment you want, but I am here only to discuss things, not carry out your orders.
Swanson did an experiment to confirm the GPE. It has been clearly explained why it is not a model for the GHE, which in any case, is not purely radiative.
You are welcome to try any experiments you want to test the GHE physics.
…GHE, you’re getting back more than what you started with! The GPE aims much, much lower.
I’m responding to Bill. Unless DREMT is stalking me, he doesn’t need to repetitively post.
…you’re getting back more than what you started with! The GPE aims much, much lower.
Looks like DREMT is stalking me, butting into my discussions with others to post repetitive noise.
…getting back more than what you started with! The GPE aims much, much lower.
Nate says:
You can demand any experiment you want, but I am here only to discuss things, not carry out your orders.
Swanson did an experiment to confirm the GPE. It has been clearly explained why it is not a model for the GHE, which in any case, is not purely radiative.
You are welcome to try any experiments you want to test the GHE physics.
———————————–
Nate says:
You can demand any experiment you want, but I am here only to discuss things, not carry out your orders.
Swanson did an experiment to confirm the GPE. It has been clearly explained why it is not a model for the GHE, which in any case, is not purely radiative.
You are welcome to try any experiments you want to test the GHE physics.
———————————–
plenty of experiments have been done to demonstrate that the gpe doesn’t serve to increase the ghe. why should i bother to do a proper gpe experiment in a vacuum. the fact that anybody did shows the level of desperation you spinners are in. and swanson’s is the only one i am aware of and he failed to demonstrate an effect that couldn’t be attributed to view factors which demonstrate the difference in effect between point sources of light vs infinite plates.
“why should i bother to do”
Yep.
For the GPE, the result is not in doubt, as explained by Eli, me, and (sometimes) you.
For the GHE, you are welcome to create another Earth and test whatever you want.
Well it certainly is within your right of free thought and expression to believe whatever you want to believe to be settled science. But settled science requires evidence in most institutions I have been involved with. It doesn’t include individual beliefs about seeing flying saucers.
Clint,
“Kirchhoffs Law means an object that emits at a specific wavelength…”
No object in the universe emits at one specific wavelength.
“Plank’s Law states that every [solid] object emits over the entire electromagnetic spectrum.”
Per Krichhoff this means that every object absorbs over the entire magnetic spectrum.
Gases are different in that their spectral bands are more discrete. Even the simplest element, hydrogen, has a multitude of absorp.tion lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
The 2 plates in the GPE don’t have to be perfect blackbodies for the principle to hold. Make them greybodies and all you change is the emissivity – the warmer plate will still absorb radiation from the cooler plate and vise versa. Make them 2 plates of thin black-painted tin and the same applies.
Warmer objects absorb the radiation of cooler objects. I can cite any number of standard physics references supporting, as I’ve done many times.
No reputable physics text supports the opposite. None.
More examples of barry trolling:
barry took my words out-of-context, trying to misrepresent me:
“Kirchhoffs Law means an object that emits at a specific wavelength”
No object in the universe emits at one specific wavelength.
What I actually stated:
Kirchhoff’s Law means an object that emits at a specific wavelength can absorb at that wavelength.
barry leaves out part of the sentence so he can try to pervert the meaning.
The rest of his comment is the same kind of trolling. barry has no respect for honesty, reality, or science.
barry, you mention the GPE again. Eli’s solution contains a 2LoT violation, so must be rejected. Now, everything you are currently saying is an attempt at an argument against the alternative solution to the GPE. Another matter entirely. If you disagree with it, perhaps you can make up your own solution? I’m afraid Eli’s is out, though, as discussed.
Gaslighting Graham begs the question once more.
I beg of you to stop trolling.
Back to trolling are you, DREMT? What a shame.
I’m not trolling at all, barry. Why not come up with a solution that satisfies the criteria you want it to, whilst not violating 2LoT as Eli’s solution does?
Gaslighting Graham is earning his nickname once more.
I’m not gaslighting. There are two solutions proposed. barry should be at the point now where he realises that Eli’s violates 2LoT…but he also thinks there are problems with the alternative solution. The obvious answer is that he comes up with his own solution.
It should be obvious to anyone that Graham is trolling Barry right now, that everybody knows it including him, and that he *still* denies it,
Pure, unadulterated gaslighting.
I’m not trolling barry. I genuinely hoped he would understand by now that Eli’s solution violates 2LoT. Instead, he’s decided to conflate attacking the alternative solution with defending against the attack on Eli’s solution. I’m just saying, a rational barry would right now be looking for his own solution to the plates problem.
[B] Sky Dragon cranks keep harping about a fictional account of heatt transfer.
[P] You said “heatt”!
*In his drivel, Pupman keeps lulzing .*
[B] I cited many textbooks that support Eli’s model.
[GG] You mentioned Eli’s model. It has been refuted.
[V] Where?
[GG] Just look over there. *Gaslighting Graham points to the infinite.*
[V] No you haven’t. Just repeat the outline here. Should be easy for you.
[GG] No, I’m sick and tired of repeating myself.
[V] So you won’t support your claim.
[GG] No, I’m sick and tired of repeating myself.
*A few hours later*.
[GG] I’m sick and tired of repeating myself.
[N] The source of Eli’s model is obviously not the blue plate.
[GG] …sick and tired of repeating myself.
[V] So you bite Barry’s ankle without really having much to say, Graham, do you?
[GG] False. But what if I can flip the table and ask Barry for Eli’s model?
[V] You’d be trolling.
[GG] Completely false.
[V] We know you’re trolling, Graham. Everybody knows.
[GG] Ridiculous.
"No you haven’t. Just repeat the outline here. Should be easy for you."
Nobody actually made that request, but since you’re pretending they did, I will act as though somebody has:
Plates pressed together are at 244 K…244 K. Call this config. A.
Plates initially separated are still at 244 K…244 K. Call this config. B.
P1) If you examine all the energy flows through the system in both config. A and config. B, the only energy flow that is not in config. A that is in config. B is the "back-radiation" transfer from the GP to the BP.
P2) Config. B, according to Eli’s solution, would progress from the initial situation where the plates are at 244 K…244 K, to a situation where they are at 262 K…220 K.
Inferences: Since the only energy flow not in config. A that is in config. B is the "back-radiation" transfer, this must be responsible for the transition from 244 K…244 K to 262 K…220 K. This would then have to be a heat transfer from cold to hot.
C) Eli’s solution violates 2LoT.
> Call it config B.
Config B only exists in Graham’s imagination.
Next riddle, please.
You’re such an idiot, Little Willy. The plates pushed together are 244 K…244 K. All agree on that. So when they’re initially separated, they’re still going to be at 244 K…244 K. Or do you imagine that the progression from 244 K…244 K to 262 K…220 K is absolutely instantaneous!?
Even if you did think that, you’d still be forced to concede that the only energy transfer responsible for that absurd instantaneous progression was the "back-radiation" transfer.
Goofy Graham just can’t read:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Graham has to find new ways to block communication and violate algebra.
"That’s wrong though because there are 400 W/m^2 going into the two plate system and 300 coming out. At equilibrium an equal amount of energy has to be going in as coming out."
With the plates initially separated at 244 K…244 K, there is 400 going into the two plate system and 400 coming out. You’re clueless.
How about dealing with the actual premises of the argument, or the inferences made?
Graham insists in trying to find gremlins that do not exist. All Eli needs to show is that his model balances energy in and out of the plates while the system as a whole heats to reach equilibrium.
Without a second plate, this state is reached at a lower temperature than when adding a second plate. We all experience every single morning of our lives. If Eli’s model violated thermo, insulation would too.
Everything else is a bunch of gremlins that Sky Dragon cranks fabricate to refuse to accept basic algebra.
It’d be interesting to list all the gremlins, however. I suspect it’s not very different than the “second by second” crap Graham throws in a related context.
> We all experience every single morning of our lives.
We all experience that effect, that is.
It’s far from clear that we experience every single morning of our lives.
Until later.
So Little Willy couldn’t find any fault with the premises, or the inferences made.
Actually he has found fault with DREMT’s premise and found no fault with Eli’s premise since Eli’s eqn.s increase universe entropy complying with 2LOT and DREMT’s do not comply with 2LOT.
DREMT’s premise was falsified up thread and Eli’s premise still stands.
Ball4 turns up, to lie through his teeth:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479199
Ad. hom.s are not a defense DREMT. Let’s see a valid physics defense.
So Gaslighting Graham cannot show how the model Eli offered violates thermo.
Another win for Team Science!
Right Willard; ever since DREMT made the comment agreeing EMR is NOT heat, DREMT has not offered a valid defense of his GPE solution as his basic premise was falsified upthread.
"Let’s see a valid physics defense."
We did, at the linked comment.
Neither Little Willy nor Ball4 can fault the premises, or the inferences made.
Not valid physics, your premise already falsified. Remember EMR is NOT heat and DREMT has agreed. Start to use DREMT’s commitment. There is no need to even use the word heat.
Sure, EMR is not heat…and the “back-radiation” transfer shouldn’t be treated like a heat transfer…but in Eli’s solution, it is. That’s the problem.
The cult appears to know they’ve lost another one. They are just re-throwing the same crap against the wall. Swanson and barry have “left the building”.
Well, let’s put even more pressure on them, with some easy physics problems
Ball4 has claimed that the cult’s solution does not violate 2LoT, but Ball4 claims DREMT’s diagram does violate 2LoT. As usual, Ball4 has it completely reversed.
So, the first question is, What is the violation of 2LoT in the cult solution?
There has been a lot of discussion about “putting the plates together”. We have the correct diagram for the plates slightly apart — both plates have the same temperature.
So, the second question is, What does the diagram look like for the plates perfectly together?
I would bet the cult can’t correctly answer the questions.
Graham and Pupman show up, lying through their teeth:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479861
Beautiful.
No problem DREMT 3:48 pm since Eli treats EMR as EMR in that nowhere in Eli’s 1LOT eqn.s is found any heat. There is no problem with Eli’s eqn.s as they comply with 2LOT increasing universe entropy in the GPE process.
——
Clint R 3:49 pm then asks some questions of which Clint R should already know the answers if Clint had ever successfully passed a first level college level thermodynamics course. As a result of not doing so, Clint prefers comedy to physics. Actually I’ve written Eli’s eqn.s do not violate 2LOT, uninformed Clint is just humorously mixed up.
DREMT’s diagram shows a GREEN arrow coming from the BLUE BB plate so can’t possibly be correct.
Clint R should refer to Eli’s GPE correct diagram for the 1 sunshine illuminated BB plate “plates pressed together” (DREMT term).
“The cult appears to know they’ve lost another one. They are just re-throwing the same crap against the wall.”
Yep. Over and over again.
Finding fault in Graham’s premises was child’s play:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1480167
Perhaps Pupman could try this experiment –
Take a shower, but with the shower curtain open. Then close the curtain.
According to our Sky Dragon cranks’ logic, Pupman should not feel any difference.
You have found no error in my premises.
No that’s wrong 10:37 am, DREMT’s premises were falsified up thread.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again.
I found at least three errors in what he clumsily calls his “premises.”
It’s coming up on 24 hours, but not one of the cult has been able to answer the simple questions.
1) What is the violation of 2LoT in the cult solution (262K220K)?
2) What does the diagram look like for the plates perfectly together?
They can’t stand science or reality.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Pupman has one job –
Take a shower and compare when the curtain is open and closed.
If he takes the shower in the house of a Sky Dragon crank, he should not feel any difference.
If he takes the shower in the house of a of a normal human bean, he should feel a difference.
When will he do it?
No, Little Willy, that’s a flat lie. You’ve found no error in my premises or inferences. You’re simply not even in the same Universe as the point.
Gaslighting Graham gently gaslights again –
Since the only energy flow when the curtain closed is the “back-radiation” transfer, this must be responsible for the transition from a colder to a hotter shower experience.
I know at least one Sky Dragon crank for which this is a no-no.
It just gets more and more desperate and ridiculous.
More generally:
For any configuration C with one heat source and N+1 objects, the only energy responsible for any of them getting hotter (than with say a configuration with only one object) is the the “back-radiation” transfer. Thus C breaks thermo.
At least according to Gaslighting Graham’s logic.
It is that ridiculous.
4:12 pm:
1) There is no violation in Eli’s GPE, universe entropy increases.
2) See Eli’s diagram.
—-
4:31 pm: DREMT’s errors in GPE premise & inferences were pointed out up thread. Many times. By many commenters.
False, Ball4. People attack the alternative solution to the GPE. They attack the additional green arrow. They bang on about blackbodies being perfect absorbers, etc. None of that changes that Eli’s solution violates 2LoT, for the reasons given. None of it attacks the premises or inferences made. It’s a different matter entirely! The alternative solution is a different matter to the debunk of Eli’s solution.
They waffle on over semantics around the word “heat”. They talk about heat flow being reduced etc…this is just their way of dressing up the 2LoT violation in “acceptable” seeming language. I see through all that.
> for the reasons given
Gaslighting Graham waves his hands once more.
1) Wrong.
2) Wrong.
Thanks for trying, Ball4.
> None of it attacks the premises or inferences made
An outright lie.
5:58: Great comedy Clint R. However, this is a valid science blog.
Thanks for trying to humor commenters though, it seems to be working.
—-
5:28 pm: ” … dressing up the 2LoT violation in “acceptable” seeming language. I see through all that.”
Wrong. There is no 2LOT violation in Eli’s GPE, DREMT, your reasons are not valid science & have been falsified many times over up thread.
Eli’s GPE solution stands. DREMT’s solution has been shown to be not valid many times over in the last 5 years.
Still nobody can answer Clint R, or refute this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479752
Funny.
False and false:
1) https://tenor.com/en-CA/view/the-incredibles-bernie-kropp-coincidence-gif-5259467
2) https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1480251
Sad.
Bashing a straw man won’t cut it, Little Willy.
Wrong and wrong.
Thanks to Gaslihting Graham for trying.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Inferences: Since the only energy flow not in config. A that is in config. B is the “back-radiation” transfer, this must be responsible for the transition from 244 K244 K to 262 K220 K. This would then have to be a heat transfer from cold to hot.”
Non sequitur.
There is never a flow of heat from cold to hot.
Again and again and again, DREMT mischaracterizes a REDUCTION in heat flow as a REVERSAL in heat flow.
Is he really that clueless? No, because he has been informed of his error many times.
Is he just dumb and delusional?
Or is he a liar troll?
What say you readers?
…Willy, please stop trolling.
Nate, you can’t recognize a violation of 2LoT when you see it. You can’t understand it when it is explained to you.
All you’ve got are your insults and troll tactics.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1480227
1) What is the violation of 2LoT in the cult solution (262K220K)?
None.
As thoroughly explained several times.
The steady heat input from the hotter SUN, and the reduction in heat output (loss) from the BP accounts for the warming of the BP.
A REDUCTION in heat loss is not a REVERSAL of heat flow.
Lacking any heat transfer from Cold to Hot, where is the 2LOT violation?
And neither of you offered a sound rebuttal.
Just repeated assertions. That aint science.
Wrong Nate. You simply don’t understand thermodynamics so you just make crap up to support your false beliefs.
Your cult has no appreciation for science, reality, or simple truths. Do passenger jets fly backwards? Your cult cannot even answer that simple question truthfully.
(Correct answers to follow, as I get time, hopefully today.
“dont understand thermodynamics”
Spare us your ignorant misuse of sciency words like entropy in order to obfuscate. We have seen it all before.
You will most likely try another version of the classic sky-dragon-crank tactic:
“isolate one SB emission, from the cold object, as the cause of warming, and thus it must be a heat source, and thus that cant happen, because that would be a 2LOT violation.
But this willfully ignores the other parts of the SYSTEM.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1480089
The cult was unable to answer the simple questions.
1) What is the violation of 2LoT in the cult solution (262K – 220K)?
Answer: The bogus solution “organizes” temperatures, making the blue plate warmer at the expense of the green plate. It does this magically, as no organizing energy is added to the system. The energy in equals the energy out, so there is no energy left to organize the temperatures. Another way of looking at it is the bogus solution has created an energy source. A difference in temperatures corresponds to an energy source. An energy source can NOT magically appear. The cult solution violates 2LoT.
2) What does the diagram look like for the plates perfectly together?
Answer: The energy flow diagram for the plates together would look exactly like the diagram DREMT uses for the plates slightly apart. There would be the same number of blue and green arrows, with the same values. Of course, that’s as to be expected, as the two situations are thermodynamically equivalent.
To guarantee your comment will get a response, please have it checked by a responsible adult.
“no organizing energy is added to the system. The energy in equals the energy out, so there is no energy left to organize the temperatures”
Well well, no sciency words afterall. Good boy.
Instead just made up meaningless gibberish. Not so good.
“2) What does the diagram look like for the plates perfectly together?
Answer: The energy flow diagram for the plates together would look exactly like the diagram DREMT uses for the plates slightly apart. There would be the same number of blue and green arrows, with the same values. Of course, that’s as to be expected, as the two situations are thermodynamically equivalent.”
That’s interesting, Clint R. So, as you see it, when the plates initially separate at 244 K…244 K, there is no change whatsoever with the arrows from how it was before, and thus the progression from 244 K…244 K to 262 K…220 K is completely inexplicable. It’s just the BP gaining temperature at the expense of the GP for no reason whatsoever, energy choosing to “organise” itself by accumulating at the BP. That would certainly be a 2LoT violation if you look at it that way, yes.
I had been looking at it that with the plates pressed together, there was only one arrow of 200 going from the BP to the GP via conduction, and nothing coming back the other way. So that when the plates initially separate at 244 K…244 K, there is now a change with the arrows in that there is now an arrow going back from the GP to the BP, the “back-radiation” transfer. Since that is the only difference between the two situations, that “back-radiation” transfer must be responsible for the progression from 244 K…244 K to 262 K…220 K, meaning it would have to be a transfer of heat from cold to hot, violating 2LoT.
I guess either way you look at it, it’s a 2LoT violation. It would be interesting to know how the others see the situation with the plates pressed together which makes them think there is no 2LoT violation! Shame nobody answered your second question. I would like to see their diagram of the energy flows with the plates pressed together as they see it.
“it was before, and thus the progression from 244 K244 K to 262 K220 K is completely inexplicable.”
Except for the fact that it has been thoroughly explained many times, and the solution agrees with the laws of physics.
And even Bill now has understood that it is correct:
“I agree with the 262K. That has the BP losing 400w/m2 with 267w/m2 out of the light point source side as described by Eli and 133w/m2 out the GP side. That is 400w/m2 total with the 400w/m2 light source completely and 100% accounting for the results.”
Oh well.
DREMT, within a solid it gets more complicated as both conduction (energy transfer between molecules) is occurring, yet photons are still being emitted so there is still absorp.tion and reflection occurring. It appears as chaos, but the net energy flow remains as the green and blue arrows. The net flows are always dictated by temperature. Thermodynamics wins. Moving the plates slightly apart just eliminates conduction, which actually simplifies the situation (less chaos).
Nate says:
Except for the fact that it has been thoroughly explained many times, and the solution agrees with the laws of physics.
And even Bill now has understood that it is correct:
————————–
Nate has gone total stone stupid. Actually Nate now agrees with us that there is no greenhouse effect occurring the GPE.
Welcome to the Sky Dragon club Nate!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1480916
DREMT’s 3:44 am premises have been shown to be wrong upthread.
Either way you look at the GPE, there’s no 2LoT violation since DREMT mistakes EMR for heat and the diagram mistakenly has a GREEN arrow away from the BLUE plate.
Decent humor though.
Ball4 definitely needs to give us his version of the diagram with the plates pushed together, showing his idea of the energy flows between the plates via conduction. That would be fascinating. Any other response from Ball4, on the subject of the GPE, will be dismissed as the trolling that it is.
So if his next comment doesn’t have a link to such a diagram, I will be forced to ask him to please stop trolling.
Ball4 you should note that DREMTs description has emissions from the BP increasing as the GP emissions decrease.
Thats because the GP is losing heat and temperature to space allowing for the BP to emit more in that direction. Its not due to increasing GP temperature as is claimed for our atmosphere and its increasing hotspots.
You morons will bite on anything yo daddies tell you even when it makes no sense at all.
Being the liberal stooge you are I suppose you also still believe that a Chinese Lab Leak causing the pandemic isn’t at all possible either.
DREMT 9:20 am now definitely wants my version of the diagram with the plates pushed together, showing the idea of the energy flows between the plates via conduction.
It IS truly fascinating that DREMT has missed I’ve already provided that info. upthread while completely falsifying DREMT’s GPE premises since DREMT mistakes EMR for heat and DREMT’s diagram mistakenly shows a GREEN arrow going away from the BLUE plate.
—
Bill 9:54 am, the GPE solution is at equilibrium. Please do the work to research and gain a physical understanding of the physics in the meaning of “at equilibrium”.
This is where we discussed it up-thread, Ball4:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1479199
Readers can plainly see you did not provide the information requested. Where is the diagram? Where is there even a description of the energy flows via conduction? No mention of any amounts.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started & thanks for providing a link to where DREMT’s GPE premises were falsified. Readers can plainly see I did provide the information requested by searching on the string: Eli’s diagram
Once DREMT realizes to stop mistaking EMR for heat, then Eli’s diagrams will become crystal clear to DREMT as they are to more astute commenters.
However, I doubt that is going to happen & I will get to enjoy the continuous humor reading DREMT flail away attempting to disprove basic well-known, experimentally based science.
You seem to be claiming that Eli created a diagram with the plates pressed together, showing the conductive energy transfers between the plates, with the amounts involved. However, I know that to be false.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started & the GPE plates are infinitely thin DREMT, so the conductive energy transfer arrows and amounts are also infinitely thin so it’s no surprise DREMT can’t see them.
Stop mistaking EMR for heat, DREMT, and Eli’s diagrams will become clear, no need for any others. Otherwise, I’ll be glad to continue reading the humor in DREMT’s obvious physics mistakes as is the case for over 5 years now.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4 says:
”Bill 9:54 am, the GPE solution is at equilibrium. Please do the work to research and gain a physical understanding of the physics in the meaning of ”at equilibrium”.”
——————————
Ball4, the BP is at equilibrium with its power source losing energy at precisely the rate that it receives from that source.
If you have a greenhouse effect that means you have a second power source (via your claim: backradiation from the GP) and the BP would be at equilibrium with the combined power sources. The BP is not in that condition as it is not at equilibrium with the sum of energy being emitted by the GP plus the sun. . . .only if you can demonstrate that condition with backradiation can you conclude the BP is going to warm from that backradiation. But its not going to do that because the GP does not lose a single watt of energy in the direction of the BP. Thus the states of the various emitters does not establish a GHE. Anyway Nate already agreed it didn’t so he thinks your an idiot too for thinking it does.
On second thought maybe Nate doesn’t think that. I think Nate probably is trying to figure out what he does think.
Bill 1:26 pm, the GP does not lose a single watt of energy in the direction of the BP since at steady state equilibrium GP loses energy of sigma * T2^4 per sec. toward the BP (see the green arrow to the left) & to deep space on the right.
T2 is known by 1LOT, sigma is known from experiment, I’ll let Bill show some competence by doing the arithmetic. This physics supported by Dr. Spencer’s experiments on the real earthen atm.
Careful, Bill…DNFTT.
Bill slanders us:
“You morons will bite on anything yo daddies tell you even when it makes no sense at all.”
But it is Bill, who does exactly that.
He agrees that the when the blackbody GP is placed behind the Blue Plate, the BP warms.
“when a GP is placed behind the BP. The BP will warm due to the increase in resistance via radiation vs conductivity”
He even agreed with Eli’s analysis that the BP warms to 262 K as a result.
“I agree with the 262K. That has the BP losing 400w/m2 with 267w/m2 out of the light point source side as described by Eli and 133w/m2 out the GP side. That is 400w/m2 total with the 400w/m2 light source completely and 100% accounting for the results.”
But THEN, after he is reminded of the party line by his daddy DREMT,
“So if the GP were a perfect reflector, the temperature of the BP would be 290 K. With the GP as a blackbody, the temperature of the BP would be 244 K”
he suddenly reverses his previous sound fact-based conclusion, and PARROTS DREMT,
“As a blackbody, obviously the GP will not radiatively insulate the BP, so the BP will remain at 244 K. If the GP were instead a perfect reflector, the BP would be 290 K.”
It is really a quite pathetic display.
Nate continues to react like a moron.
No Nate I ‘favor’ the idea that the plates will react as described but I can’t explain why.
Fact is we don’t know much about what a quanta actually is. I agree with Einstein and note that every single accepted advance based on light quanta has to be confirmed by experiment.
Without real science thought experiments all have some degree of credibility. You make a fool of yourself by insisting you know the answer.
I am just glad you agree that there is no greenhouse effect being demonstrated by the GPE and as such you surely must condemn anybody who believes it is a demonstration of a greenhouse effect. Its taken you a long time to admit that.
Ball4. The BP loses 133w/m2 in the direction of the GP within your own model. the GP in turn loses 133w/m2 in the direction of space.
Before the GP was put in place the BP was losing 200w/m2 out of both sides of the BP.
The GP can never warm the BP as that would be a violation of 2LOT. I can agree that if you want to artificially divide up flows of photons, which is based purely on speculation, you can fool yourself if you are naive to believe that the GP gave up some energy to the BP.
Its like that trick where you and another person each put $20 into a pot. then you are allowed buy the pot for only $30 and viola you turned $30 to $40. LMAO!
The GP can never warm the BP as that would be a violation of 2LOT.
No Bill, in that result no entropy would be produced which is impossible in any real thermodynamics process per the 2LOT. You are also mistaking EMR for heat which is the same egregious mistake made by DREMT for over 5 years now and counting.
In reality, EMR is NOT heat. Reality always wins.
EMR is not heat…and the “back-radiation” transfer shouldn’t be treated like a heat transfer…but in Eli’s solution, it is. That’s the problem.
“No Nate I favor the idea that the plates will react as described but I cant explain why.”
Indeed you can’t explain it. Nor can you explain why you changed your tune, when given the order to.
And yet you call us ‘morons’.
No DREMT 6:12 am, that’s obviously wrong about Eli’s work since an eqn. for heat appears nowhere in Eli’s GPE solution.
Yes, the lack of the use of the RHTE in Eli’s solution was indeed one of the criticisms levelled at it, Ball4. However, that has no bearing on the fact that the “back-radiation” transfer is treated as a heat transfer in Eli’s solution. We know that it is because it results in the BP gaining in temperature at the expense of the GP when the plates separate, as it is the only additional transfer that is present on separation.
That’s still wrong DREMT 9:42 am, your premise was falsified up thread without a valid defense. DREMT was forced to agree EMR is NOT heat and, again, there is only EMR shown in Eli’s eqn.s.
“…your premise was falsified up thread without a valid defense…”
…false.
DREMT 10:40 am doesn’t, and can’t, prove this humorous assertion because his premise states EMR IS heat. Pity.
Ball4 says:
The GP can never warm the BP as that would be a violation of 2LOT.
No Bill, in that result no entropy would be produced which is impossible in any real thermodynamics process per the 2LOT. You are also mistaking EMR for heat which is the same egregious mistake made by DREMT for over 5 years now and counting.
In reality, EMR is NOT heat. Reality always wins.
———————-
You are just playing word games Ball4. EMR is dependent upon heat. If you can’t heat you can’t increase EMR.
“…his premise states EMR IS heat…”
…false.
OK, then DREMT’s claim now is that’s false, thus DREMT has now admitted Eli’s equations are correct & clearly changed DREMT’s premise to as Eli showed: energy transfer from cold to hot.
Good job DREMT. To support your claim, use that correct basic physics in the future (EMR is NOT heat) and drop referring to GREEN arrow coming from BLUE plate.
No, Ball4. EMR is not heat…and the “back-radiation” transfer shouldn’t be treated like a heat transfer…but in Eli’s solution, it is. That’s the problem.
Wrong, DREMT circles back to drop support for DREMT’s own comment, there is no eqn. for heat shown in Eli’s solution, only eqn.s for EMR are in Eli’s solution. And as DREMT admits EMR is NOT heat.
EMR is not heat, but heat can be transferred via EMR. One of the ways to tell if that is happening, is if the temperature of one body drops whilst the other increases, whilst EMR is being transferred between them. When the plates are separated, the only transfer now occurring which wasn’t when the plates were pushed together is the “back-radiation” transfer from the GP to the BP. So if the BP supposedly increases in temperature and the GP decreases in temperature as a result, that transfer must be a transfer of heat.
“that transfer must be a transfer of heat.”
No, not in the vacuum, that’s just DREMT’s repeated incorrect premise again which was falsified upthread. Thus, you are not correct DREMT, as DREMT writes EMR is NOT heat, so EMR GP to BP is NOT heat GP to BP.
What physically happens is the total thermodynamic internal energy in the GP reduces by being transformed into emitted energy of EMR. There is no mass transfer out from solid GP so there can be no heat transferred out of the solid GP since only EMR transfers as Eli’s eqn.s show thru the vacuum. As DREMT correctly writes, EMR is NOT heat.
In eqn. form, 2LOT is not violated in Eli’s process since integral over time dS/T dt is positive as BP temperature is shown by Eli to increase in the process.
What I wrote is correct. You simply ignored most of it, quoted only one sentence out of context, then vomited up some word salad nonsense.
No, 12:27 pm is only nonsense to a non-physics major. DREMT’s solution violates 2LOT as the BP does not increase in T therefore no entropy is produced in DREMT’s solution as GP is added thus DREMT’s process result is impossible.
You’re wrong, I’m right, as explained. This can be repeated indefinitely. That I will have the last word is certain, so save your breath.
… as DREMT incorrectly explained. It’s ok to remain physically wrong forever about 2LOT in the GPE as you are DREMT since in doing so you create great entertainment hereabouts & in climate sophistry with a lot of humor. Having repeatedly physically falsified DREMT’s premise here, heading to the GHE May post. Out.
#2
You’re wrong, I’m right, as explained. This can be repeated indefinitely. That I will have the last word is certain, so save your breath.
“The GP can never warm the BP as that would be a violation of 2LOT”
Bill debunks this erroneous assertion himself.
“when a GP is placed behind the BP. The BP will warm due to the increase in resistance via radiation vs conductivity”
He mentioned the BP loses 133 W/m2 of heat to the GP while the GP emits 133 W/m2 heat to space in Elis solution, that he liked before.
Notice that
1. no heat is flowing from cold to hot..so 2LOT is happy.
2. No energy needs to be created in the GP, since it is supplied from the BP.
3. In dragon crank scenario, no heat is supplied by the BP to the GP, yet the GP emits heat to space. Energy needs to be created in the GP.
DREMT prattle endlessly about the BP warming ‘at the expense of’ the GP cooling, must therefore
have been a heat transfer from the GP.
So what if fiberglass insulation is placed in between the plates? Would the the BP, now insulated but still heated by the sun, not warm? Would the GP now insulated from the blue not now cool?
Of course they would. Then by DREMTs illogic, the warming of the BP was ‘at the expense’ of the GP, and heat must have transferred from the GP to BP, violating 2LOT.
#3
You’re wrong, I’m right, as explained. This can be repeated indefinitely. That I will have the last word is certain, so save your breath.
“Youre wrong, Im right”
is the essence of any narcissist’s argument.
“Yes, the lack of the use of the RHTE in Elis solution was indeed one of the criticisms levelled at it, Ball4.”
Nah. Its clearly shown graphically in the diagram
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cmHBLd3hLWk/Wda0X4NMNHI/AAAAAAAAEGE/shG27EtZY04xmlAfPlB0M3Ud4FESukd1gCLcBGAs/s400/Untitled4.png
which shows the net energy transferred between BP and GP is
sigmaT1^4 -sigmaT2^4
where 1 is BP and 2 is GP.
Which is exactly the HEAT transfer given by the RHTE.
“However, that has no bearing on the fact that the back-radiation transfer is treated as a heat transfer in Elis solution.”
No it isn’t. At all. Ever.
“We know that it is because it results in the BP gaining in temperature at the expense of the GP when the plates separate, as it is the only additional transfer that is present on separation.”
FALSE
Again, in Eli’s presentation, a cold GP is brought in behind the BP. The GP and BP BOTH heat up to reach equilibrium.
The GP NEVER COOLED, so the heating up of the BP could not have been ‘at the expense of’ the GP.
Obviously all the heating of the system was due to the SUN.
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
#4
You’re wrong, I’m right, as explained. This can be repeated indefinitely. That I will have the last word is certain, so save your breath.
“This can be repeated indefinitely.”
Yes, and that would only demonstrate your erroneous belief that mere assertions can become facts, simply by repeating them enough times.
But go ahead and try.
What else can you do? Other than maybe find some evidence to back up your assertions… but we know that won’t happen.
#5
You’re wrong, I’m right, as explained. This can be repeated indefinitely. That I will have the last word is certain, so save your breath.
Spain recorded its hottest ever temperature for April on Thursday, hitting 38.7C according to the country’s meteorological service.
Did some preoccupied scientist forget his thermometer in the car parked in the sun ???
Spain breaks record temperature for April – BBC.
Just a few April weather reports until ren gets here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/04/21/record-high-low-weather-northeast-midatlantic/
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/04/1154531984/arctic-chill-record-northeast-weather-cold
April 3, 2023 – Casper, Wyoming saw its snowiest day on record, with 26.7 in (68 cm) of snow falling.
Now, the ankle-biting, stalking dachshund is showing us what a downright stupid and also cynical ignoramus he is.
Yesterday, Thursday, April 27, 2023, the highest April temperature in Europe since measurements began was recorded in Córdoba, Spain, at 38.7 degrees Celsius. In Morocco it was even 41.3 degrees in Marrakech.
*
Yes, dachshund: it’s a bit warmer than usual here in Europe. The European Alps lost 8 km^3 ice in 12 months.
But for a gullible believer of Zharkova’s GSM predictions, this means… nothing. What counts for simple-minded Americans is that it’s crazy cold… in America.
In my native tongue we love to say:
” Au royaume des aveugles, le borgne est roi. “
In case of climate alarm . . . .
https://i.postimg.cc/sDg5dBx9/ED-AS013-Ridley-G-20140327154513.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/m2KkXhHr/ED-AS013-Ridley-DV-20140327154513.jpg
Hot in Spain counts, but cold in the US doesn’t count.
That’s Bin’s one-eyed “science”!
(He’s soooo desperate.)
Here comes Bindiclown again spinning around throwing zshit in every direction hoping some of it will stick to something
Americans blah blah blah Zharkova blah blah blah ice melting blah blah blah
Everything except the temperature is falling for over 8 years
Eboy and Binny should get together and duke it out in a pool noodle fight.
Hi ankle-biting, misinforming dachshund polemicist!
When you write:
” … the temperature is falling for over 8 years ”
which temperature exactly do you mean?
Yo mama’s
Way too little, way too late, but perhaps better late than never.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/16/science/j-robert-oppenheimer-energy-department.html
J. Robert Oppenheimer’s security clearance has been restored by the U.S. government, just 55 years after his death and 68 years after his clearance was stripped from him during the most hysterical period of the Cold War.
Oppenheimer was the father of the atomic bomb. He was a genius. Born in New York in 1904, he excelled at everything he ever did, except possibly life. He studied at Felix Adler’s Ethical Culture School in New York City, then went off to Harvard, where he, well, excelled. After an unhappy stint at Cambridge under the great British physicist Ernest Rutherford, Oppenheimer got his Ph.D. at the University of Gottingen in Germany in 1927. When he returned to the U.S., he was offered a number of teaching posts. He settled on a joint appointment at Cal Tech in Pasadena and the University of California at Berkeley.
He was the last person you would expect to be recruited to direct the Manhattan Project. He was a theoretical physicist who had never directed a scientific lab. He was a dilettante at the very highest levels of human curiosity.
But when Brig. Gen. Leslie Groves turned up at Berkeley in the autumn of 1942 looking for someone to build this untried and unprecedented weapon of mass destruction, he immediately realized that Oppenheimer was his man.
Oppenheimer chose the remote mesa at Los Alamos, N.M., for the lab. Years before he had said, “My two great interests are physics and desert country. It’s a pity they can’t be combined.”
How Oppenheimer managed to keep a couple dozen of the most brilliant, neurotic and egotistical scientists of the world in harness at a remote desert facility long enough to build the bomb on time and within budget, in time to affect the outcome of the war, is little short of a miracle. Chock it up to unearthly charisma and also a mind so great that David Lilienthal (later the chair of the Atomic Energy Commission) said, “It is worth living a lifetime just to know that mankind has been able to produce such a being.”
The world’s first atomic explosion occurred at 5:29 a.m. on July 16, 1945, at a remote site in New Mexico.
And then everything fell apart. Because he was a man who did not suffer fools gladly, he made some powerful enemies. Oppenheimer was lukewarm on the development of the hydrogen fusion bomb.
So the military industrial complex decided that Oppenheimer must be silenced and shunted aside.
In short, Oppenheimer didn’t stand a chance. In an obscene and unmistakable miscarriage of justice “Oppie” was stripped him of his security clearance.
Oppenheimer never fully recovered from the blow. He lived the rest of his life under the suspicion of treason.
“Such a wrong can never be righted; such a blot on our history never erased… We regret that his great work for his country was repaid so shabbily…
Henry DeWolf Smyth. February 25, 1967.
American Prometheus!
Thank you for reminding us of this crying injustice.
Before you shed too many tears Bin, you should understand that Oppenheimer brought this on himself. He was a member of about every Leftist/Communist group he could find. He was even friends with two Russian spies. Although Edward Teller (a severe critic) refused to believe that Oppenheimer was an actual spy, the consensus was that he was a security risk.
People in responsible positions have the burden of responsibly.
> the consensus was that he was a security risk.
Pupman is trying to replace Bordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_security_hearing
That quote is BEFORE, worthless willard. My comment was AFTER.
See if you can find a responsible adult to explain it to you.
Before what, Pupman, the infamous 2-1 vote?
Something tells me you do not know what consensus means in a political context.
Clit R and Willtard should get together and duke it out in a pool noodle fight
Your quote was BEFORE the Manhattan project. My comment was AFTER the Manhattan project, worthless willard.
You really need help from a responsible adult. Unless you want to remain worthless.
The quote shows that the establishment ALREADY knew most of what McCarthyists harped about in their inquisition, Pupman. Two or the main protagonists were Oppenheimer ENEMIES. They were HUMILIATED. Just like Sky Dragon cranks ought to feel had they any moral fortitude.
And contrary to Sky Dragon cranks, Oppenheimer enemies had POWER.
Do the Shower Experiment.
Clint R
It doesn’t matter what you write about: lunar spin, GHE, politics.
You always distort and misrepresent everything by oversimplifying the context.
This is what I call the OMWAR syndrome.
Now Bin, is that really true? Arent you just making another false accusation because you have NOTHING to support your false beliefs?
Thats what trolls do.
Bindidon says:
”You always distort and misrepresent everything by oversimplifying the context.”
Actually that isn’t even close to what the dynamic is in this forum.
Fact is when you go to an uncertified expert, and even often a certified one with problem to solve in the discipline of that expert whether it is a scientist, doctor, nutritionist, consultant, lawyer, etc. and ask a question. You will always get an answer whether the answer is known or not.
Why is that. When somebody is hired to answer questions its almost a guarantee they will have an answer. If the answer is well established in the field or not. Go to a doctor with a complaint and they will give you whatever answer the profession has settled upon. If the profession has addressed the question the expert may or may not tell you so but they will give you a suggestion.
Admitting to not knowing is rare as there is no better answer than that to have the customer go spend his money elsewhere.
There is a lot of winking a nodding going on all time. In here I can easily see nobody knows the answer they just think they know the answer.
Yes Bill we understand that you are insecure about your lack of expertise in certain subjects, thus feel the need to devalue the actual expertise of others in these subjects, while overestimating your own competence in these areas.
It is unfortunate. But luckily the damage you could do is rather limited.
One can devalue any physical principle that one cannot demonstrate to be true. Remember that.
We just went through a terrible episode of experts panicking and making ridiculous claims about vaccine efficacy, excessive shut downs, and suppressing true concerns about lab leak theory. Actually the list is endless of the BS that emanates from experts these days who live by zero moral principle and only think what benefits themselves.
Bla bla bla,… all nerds need swirlies.
Hunter boy
Thank you for confirming your enduring penchant for non-committal, gut-dictated blah-blah.
What remains is that you for example doubt about the correctness of the work of hundreds of people performed during centuries, and discredit the whole as ‘academic exercise’ – without being able to scientifically contradict even the least part of it.
You can repeat your blah blah as long as you want, Hunter boy.
It won’t change anything.
Bindidon says:
Hunter boy
Thank you for confirming your enduring penchant for non-committal, gut-dictated blah-blah.
What remains is that you for example doubt about the correctness of the work of hundreds of people performed during centuries, and discredit the whole as academic exercise without being able to scientifically contradict even the least part of it.
————————-
well beyond the fact that you are a bald faced liar whats new?
You have been asked repetitively to provide an experiment by anybody that has proven to be successful as evidence of the alleged miracle work of hundreds of people. Did not a single one of them document their work?
What I laid out comes from experience. The GPE is an experiment of a plate that has 400w/m2 shining on it by a point source of light. Thus it can cool off of twice the surface area of its lit surface area. Since these two cooling surfaces will emit all of the received radiation by emitting a mean 200w/m2 out of surfaces that are twice the dimensions of the lit surface.
that expends all the energy.
If you start insulating one side then that energy will emit from the other side by the object warming from the 400w/m2 shining on it.
It will warm up to a maximum of 16.5C at which point it will be a surface that is emitting all the energy received on one side out that same side as described by basic Stefan Boltzmann experiments. The insulation doesn’t warm anything it can’t its colder. Only by some devious twist of words or twisted science do morons claim it does.
The only shocking thing about insulated BP is that it represents precisely a zero greenhouse effect. . . .emitting 400w/m2 that is absorbed by the lit surface from the lit surface that is receiving the 400w/m2 from a point source of light as illustrated by Eli.
That doesn’t deter a liar though. . . .and here we hear you moaning and squealing like a stuck pig when somebody points that out.
Bill is back to correct on the GPE
“The GPE is an experiment of a plate that has 400w/m2 shining on it by a point source of light. Thus it can cool off of twice the surface area of its lit surface area. Since these two cooling surfaces will emit all of the received radiation by emitting a mean 200w/m2 out of surfaces that are twice the dimensions of the lit surface.
that expends all the energy.
If you start insulating one side then that energy will emit from the other side by the object warming from the 400w/m2 shining on it. It will warm up to a maximum of 16.5C at which point it will be a surface that is emitting all the energy received on one side out that same side as described by basic Stefan Boltzmann experiments. ”
Indeed. By insulating one side with a passive object, the heated BP WARMS from 244 K to as high as 290 K if perfectly insulated.
And as you agreed placing the passive GP behind the BP will cause it to warm, because the blackbody GP, returning 50% of what it receives, is a half-way perfect insulator.
So, as you agreed the BP warms to 262 K.
This was the entire point of Eli’s GPE.
“The insulation doesnt warm anything it cant its colder.”
With the help of a heat source, it can, as shown by you above.
“The only shocking thing about insulated BP is that it represents precisely a zero greenhouse effect. . . .emitting 400w/m2 that is absorbed by the lit surface from the lit surface that is receiving the 400w/m2 from a point source of light as illustrated by Eli.”
Indeed it is not the same geometry as the GHE, but it illustrates the principle that the combo of a heat source + passive-insulation produces warming.
And that passive insulation can be radiative, from a blackbody or non-reflective body.
Given the Earth’s surface insulated on one side by the ground, and on the other by the atmosphere and its GHE, it can warm to a higher T than its input solar flux equivalent T.
Nate says:
”The only shocking thing about insulated BP is that it represents precisely a zero greenhouse effect. . . .emitting 400w/m2 that is absorbed by the lit surface from the lit surface that is receiving the 400w/m2 from a point source of light as illustrated by Eli.”
Indeed it is not the same geometry as the GHE, but it illustrates the principle that the combo of a heat source + passive-insulation produces warming.
And that passive insulation can be radiative, from a blackbody or non-reflective body.
Given the Earths surface insulated on one side by the ground, and on the other by the atmosphere and its GHE, it can warm to a higher T than its input solar flux equivalent T.
———————-
You mean it can in an imagined experiment.
What you fail to consider is whether the GP will continue to warm despite the fact that it becomes more difficult to warm as it warms. There are a few issues why that might not happen in accordance with your premises.
1) The easier path for heat loss is via the lit side of the BP.
2) The fact that heating of an object is disconnected from the radiation it absorbs. Witness ε factor in the equation q = ε σ T4 A.
3) equilibrium is defined as equal temperature thus no heat losses are allowed if the source of energy is a single source. This allows for a very slow amount of warming of heat passing through a material and the resistance that is experienced by that flow of energy. this is how electricity works with heating of wire being related to the amperage passing through it. Thus like the James Webb telescope approaching equilibrium can take many months with a true equilibrium actually never being achieved.
4) You and others as detailed by Postma you may be befuddled by convection. Convection prevents objects in a radiation field from reaching equilibrium unless you restrict the convection thats because roughly half of the energy received by a surface is carried away by convection.
So why should anybody believe your or anybody else’s thought experimeht?
Nate says:
So, as you agreed the BP warms to 262 K.
—————————-
With the caveat that I do not speak on what happens in space between infinite plates. The GP will adopt a temperature half way between the hot and cold source in the atmosphere, most likely due to heat loss by convection.
As I have said repetitively and experiment needs to be conducted under relevant controls that address all the points I raise above if one wants to opine on other worldly matters.
“What you fail to consider is whether the GP will continue to warm despite the fact that it becomes more difficult to warm as it warms. There are a few issues why that might not happen in accordance with your premises.”
Not sure what you are getting at here. The GP warms to 220 K. Then it returns 133 to BP and emits 133, so in balance. The BP then emits 267 from both sides. and is in balance with the 400 input.
These fluxes are solved for by Eli with simple algebra.
I think we agree that the BP, open on one side, insulated on the other can warm to a maximum of 290 K, but that would require many GP, each reducing by half the flux passed on.
"If you start insulating one side then that energy will emit from the other side by the object warming from the 400w/m2 shining on it.
It will warm up to a maximum of 16.5C at which point it will be a surface that is emitting all the energy received on one side out that same side as described by basic Stefan Boltzmann experiments. The insulation doesn’t warm anything it can’t its colder. Only by some devious twist of words or twisted science do morons claim it does."
Sure…and in the vacuum of space you can only insulate the BP by adding materials to its space-facing side with high thermal resistance or if there’s a gap, reflective materials. A perfectly-conducting blackbody plate will thus provide zero insulation either way. 244 K pressed together, 244 K separated.
“in the vacuum of space you can only insulate the BP by adding materials to its space-facing side with high thermal resistance or if theres a gap, reflective materials. A perfectly-conducting blackbody plate will thus provide zero insulation either way. 244 K pressed together, 244 K separated.”
False. No evidence has been provided that excludes blackbody plates in vacuum from insulating.
A blackbody plate returns 50% of the flux it receives, thus clearly it can reduce heat loss.
Bill agrees:
“when a GP is placed behind the BP. The BP will warm due to the increase in resistance via radiation vs conductivity.”
And the explanation of Multi-layer-insulation in Wikipedia and elsewhere, makes absolutely clear how this effect can happen with blackbody plates.
DREMT has seen all of these facts before, but continues to ignore them.
Because he is dishonest.
…and in the vacuum of space you can only insulate the BP by adding materials to its space-facing side with high thermal resistance or if there’s a gap, reflective materials. A perfectly-conducting blackbody plate will thus provide zero insulation either way. 244 K pressed together, 244 K separated.
DREMT has seen all of these facts before, but continues to ignore them,
because he is dishonest.
Bill,
“So, as you agreed the BP warms to 262 K.
–
With the caveat that I do not speak on what happens in space between infinite plates. ”
The BP and GP have only ever been infinite plates in vacuum, in space. And the 262 K cannot be derived without these conditions.
So caveats make no sense.
“The GP will adopt a temperature half way between the hot and cold source in the atmosphere, most likely due to heat loss by convection.”
Likewise in vacuum. It will adopt a T between BP and space, but not half way because EM radiation goes as T^4.
…in the vacuum of space you can only insulate the BP by adding materials to its space-facing side with high thermal resistance or if there’s a gap, reflective materials. A perfectly-conducting blackbody plate will thus provide zero insulation either way. 244 K pressed together, 244 K separated.
Nate says:
Likewise in vacuum. It will adopt a T between BP and space, but not half way because EM radiation goes as T^4.
———————–
No actually is: q = ε σ T4 A which is the heat transfer rate.
we know that convection will remove half of that warming.
If GP also loses q = ε σ T4 A out the backside you conclude it is from backradiation and not convection. Seems to me that the GP would be even colder. Which it isn’t.
So while you run around defining stuff to the way you want to define it and try to cover it up by dropping names and appealing to authority; I am simply demanding you produce some evidence.
And if you can’t you haven’t offered anything that could be considered to be science.
Nate says:
”The GP will adopt a temperature half way between the hot and cold source in the atmosphere, most likely due to heat loss by convection.”
Likewise in vacuum. It will adopt a T between BP and space, but not half way because EM radiation goes as T^4.
——————
Well you need to provide evidence that the heat transfer rate is what determines equilibrium considering that the GP can’t emit until after the heat has done its job. In the infinite plate scenario there is no loss of heat to space around a point source of light.
Its fun debating this in a forum but its beyond stupid to call any answer you think to be true science.
“Well you need to provide evidence that the heat transfer rate is what determines equilibrium considering that the GP cant emit until after the heat has done its job.”
Dont know what it is you are questioning here, Bill.
This is showing the fluxes to and from each plate when they reach their equilibrium temperatures, which must produce an energy balance in each plate to satisfy 1LOT.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cmHBLd3hLWk/Wda0X4NMNHI/AAAAAAAAEGE/shG27EtZY04xmlAfPlB0M3Ud4FESukd1gCLcBGAs/s1600/Untitled4.png
Eli straightforwardly solves for those temperatures. Here’s a reminder of the Eli solution:
https://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
What are you doubting in that explanation, and why?
Be specific.
the thought experiment you are referring to are improperly used equations. the equations are heat transfer rates. thus using two of them between the bp and gp is not supported by demonstrated science.
there is no heat transfer that can occur from the gp to the bp. . . .thus the equation used showing that should possess a negative sign.
your second error is in showing the heat transfer going out the backside in an artificial equilibrium with the radiation pressure field the bp is providing. it doesnt recognize that the gp backside heat transfer toward space is belated.
“the thought experiment you are referring to are improperly used equations. the equations are heat transfer rates.”
The arrows are emitted EM fluxes and the equations are giving the magnitude of those fluxes, using the SB law.
Are you claiming the SB law is invalid?
Are you sure you are ready to reject a long established law of physics?
” the heat transfer going out the backside in an artificial equilibrium with the radiation pressure field the bp is providing. it doesnt recognize that the gp backside heat transfer toward space is belated.”
What is this gibberish talking about, Bill?
according to my source SB discovered this:
”The constant is based on Stefan-Boltzmann’s law, which states that the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area of the black body in one second (E) is directly proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature, or E = σ x T4.”
what is your source?
Your source is correct. And the diagram agrees with it and shows the same SB-law expressions.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cmHBLd3hLWk/Wda0X4NMNHI/AAAAAAAAEGE/shG27EtZY04xmlAfPlB0M3Ud4FESukd1gCLcBGAs/s1600/Untitled4.png
So what is this about?
“the thought experiment you are referring to are improperly used equations. the equations are heat transfer rates. thus using two of them between the bp and gp is not supported by demonstrated science.”
Nate what it means is there is a positive heat transfer rate from the BP to GP. Folks who believe heat is going in the other direction are simply wrong.
This is well established in science.
I don’t know why you have such a hard time understanding that.
The heat transfer rate from the BP to the GP is positive.
The heat transfer rate from the GP to the BP is negative.
“Nate what it means is there is a positive heat transfer rate from the BP to GP. Folks who believe heat is going in the other direction are simply wrong.
This is well established in science.”
Then we completely agree, and DREMT is simply wrong.
”Nate what it means is there is a positive heat transfer rate from the BP to GP. Folks who believe heat is going in the other direction are simply wrong“
There is no way that temperature gradient between the plates can establish itself in the first place. People pushing a narrative that there “should be” this temperature gradient from the “hot Sun” through the plates and out to “cold space” are simply wrong. Space has no temperature. The Sun is hotter than the plates but in a sense there is no difference, due to the inverse square law the plates are at the right temperature for their distance from the Sun. You could increase the temperature of the BP by insulating it, however radiative insulation functions via reflectivity, so a blackbody plate cannot insulate the BP. Those relying on MLI to save their belief system need to realise that in practice, MLI uses reflective materials. It may be claimed that it would work with blackbody materials, but where is the proof? I doubt they ever even bothered testing it with anything but reflective materials. Some people need to realise that when their entire religion comes down to one article on Wikipedia about MLI, and one experiment by someone called “Swanson” who posts on a blog, that maybe their beliefs are not as well-founded as they like to make out.
Absolutely! The Swanson experiment was prematurely discontinued and the figures were already so close to be accounted for by view factors from non-infinite plates that their conclusions are unreliable.
They also disregarded the 2 compartment box experiment that produced no observable greenhouse effect extensively discussed some time ago in this forum. And of course they also disregarded RW Woods, Vaughn Pratt’s, and Roy Spencer’s experiments that also failed to produce the desired GHE.
Science actually recognizes these failures and has for a long time having moved on to a different and very poorly documented theory that considers anything that occurs after CO2 absorbs some additional energy high in the atmosphere to be feedback allegedly forming unobserved hot spots high in the atmosphere.
When Bill talks about the facts and the science, he finds DREMT is getting it way way wrong:
“there is a positive heat transfer rate from the BP to GP. Folks who believe heat is going in the other direction are simply wrong.”
But then when DREMT reminds him of his completely made-up nonsensical rules and assertions,
“There is no way that temperature gradient between the plates can establish itself in the first place. People pushing a narrative that there ‘should be’ this temperature gradient from the hot Sun through the plates and out to ‘cold space’ are simply wrong. Space has no temperature.”
he makes a U-turn and enthusiastically endorses it!
“Absolutely!”
Obviously there is no excuse for Bill’s erratic behavior.
“entire religion comes down to one article on Wikipedia about MLI, and one experiment by someone called ‘Swanson'”
As usual DREMT combines dishonesty with ignorance of basic heat transfer physics.
He needs to misrepresent the evidence against his narrative, neglecting to mention several laws of physics that his ‘solution’ violates, or that it creates energy from nothing.
He neglects to mention that his own source is a Wikipedia article, which doesnt exclude the use of blackbody as a passive insulator.
Eli’s GPE solution agrees with and is solved with the laws of physics, while his alternative utterly fails to satisfy 1LOT, Kirchhoffs’ Law and even 2LOT.
Yes, Bill…and Eli’s solution violates 2LoT, as we know, whereas as has been extensively explained and demonstrated to the point that you’d have to be disgustingly dishonest to suggest otherwise, the alternative solution does not violate 2LoT or 1LoT. Just to repeat, the alternative solution does not violate 1LoT. I really hope nobody would ever dare to suggest that it does after all the explanations that were given, including the diagram, which shows that 1LoT is not violated. I’m sure no-one would be that dishonest, though.
“Yes, Billand Elis solution violates 2LoT, as we know, whereas as has been extensively explained and demonstrated to the point that youd have to be disgustingly dishonest to suggest otherwise”
Or, or, just much more knowledgeable about the laws of physics, and much less willing to ignore the heat source and to imagine a drop in heat LOSS from the BP to the GP implies ‘heat is going in the other direction’
And obviously Bill agrees “Folks who believe heat is going in the other direction are simply wrong.
…Bill…and Eli’s solution violates 2LoT, as we know, whereas as has been extensively explained and demonstrated to the point that you’d have to be disgustingly dishonest to suggest otherwise, the alternative solution does not violate 2LoT or 1LoT. Just to repeat, the alternative solution does not violate 1LoT. I really hope nobody would ever dare to suggest that it does after all the explanations that were given, including the diagram, which shows that 1LoT is not violated. I’m sure no-one would be that dishonest, though.
” I really hope nobody would ever dare to suggest that it does after all the explanations that were given, including the diagram, which shows that 1LoT is not violated. Im sure no-one would be that dishonest, though”
Or, or such people are simply much less willing to fabricate non-existent unphysical extra energy flows, that require blackbodies to transform into mirrors, to cover up obvious violations of the law of Conservation of Energy.
…and Eli’s solution violates 2LoT, as we know, whereas as has been extensively explained and demonstrated to the point that you’d have to be disgustingly dishonest to suggest otherwise, the alternative solution does not violate 2LoT or 1LoT. Just to repeat, the alternative solution does not violate 1LoT. I really hope nobody would ever dare to suggest that it does after all the explanations that were given, including the diagram, which shows that 1LoT is not violated. I’m sure no-one would be that dishonest, though.
And Bill, and any other readers, one of us in this debate (DREMT) is not a physicist, and regularly makes assertions that are not based on any laws of physics, or supported by actual physics, and appear to be often based on the posters feelings and incredulity of what the real physics says.
When the other one of us (Nate) who DREMT knows is a physicist, points out that his assertions do not agree with physics, and explains in detail why, and shows sources that concur, the other one of us (DREMT) admits that he doesnt bother to read these rebuttals, and feels empowered to ignore them.
Then he repeats this debunked assertions, as he just did, as if no one ever pointed out that they are not supported by the laws of physics.
Yet he claims he is the one doing honest debate and he is the one who understands heat transfer physics better.
…Eli’s solution violates 2LoT, as we know, whereas as has been extensively explained and demonstrated to the point that you’d have to be disgustingly dishonest to suggest otherwise, the alternative solution does not violate 2LoT or 1LoT. Just to repeat, the alternative solution does not violate 1LoT. I really hope nobody would ever dare to suggest that it does after all the explanations that were given, including the diagram, which shows that 1LoT is not violated. I’m sure no-one would be that dishonest, though.
Nate says:
”And Bill, and any other readers, one of us in this debate (DREMT) is not a physicist, and regularly makes assertions that are not based on any laws of physics, or supported by actual physics, and appear to be often based on the posters feelings and incredulity of what the real physics says.”
Lacking any argument (and worse no study or experiment) to support his beliefs Nate resorts to attacking anybody who disagrees with him.
Nate you aren’t a physicist either and have been totally unable to produce evidence that what you believe to be true is true.
“Lacking any argument”
Just a wee bit disingenuous there. Where have you been?
You still haven’t found a real flaw in Eli’s original very straightforward analysis.
YEP thats it. all of it. an ‘imagined’ experiment.
Physics and engineering will carry on without you, understanding how radiant heat transfer and thermodynamics work, and applying that understanding to all sorts of technological problems.
If you are truly determined to keep up the pretense that ‘nobody knows’ how it works, because that’s what’s required for you to stay in good standing with your tribe of science deniers, then that’s your choice. Good luck.
No physics going on in any of these discussions Nate.
Only thing being discussed here is government control. When you can get fired because of uttering a single word, when parental control of the upbringing of children is shifted to the the State on the pretense of a few mistreated children, when guns are confiscated becasue of a few events resulting from a micro-small proportion of the population, when access to energy is restricted by the government on phony made up physics. . . .the only thing in question here is whether we remain free or become a fascist state where nothing but the interest of the state and those in power is being considered.
“No physics going on in any of these discussions Nate.”
I guess you missed this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1470936
and about a hundred others.
“Only thing being discussed here is government control.”
Sure, when science denial fails, pinch-hit with extremist politics.
And none of this has anything to do with surface engineering on the face of the planet.
I have designed, built, and installed successful solar energy projects. Did so for small projects for many years. Got the opportunity to build a large radiant heating project so I retained the services of a man who had designed the radiant heating system for the famous Los Angeles Greek Theatre, and many others, to review my plans and as a result was able to build an even more efficient system for my project.
So don’t tell me about engineering. You are like a 3 year old child trying to tell his parents what life is all about.
Dr Vaughn Pratt had to come in here to straighten you out in this forum several months ago. And you just ignored a guy who had done a series of experiments and experienced a shock at the outcome. Now your head is someplace in outerspace just parroting what your daddy told you. Grow up Nate. Take some lessons from Richard Feynman about what science is all about. Its not what you hear on your favorite SS site.
“so I retained the services of a man who had designed the radiant heating system ”
So you had the sense to hire an expert who had the required knowledge of the laws of physics and the ability to apply them.
QED
Thats correct Nate. Obviously a step you haven’t yet taken.
In August 1945 two USAAF B-29’s each dropped single ‘atomic’ bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The devices nicknamed Little Boy and Fat Man, each exploded with the energy equivalents of the normal payload of 1,000 such bombers deployed simultaneously.
Within days Japan surrendered, bringing an end to World War II.
These operations represented the culmination of the work of the U.S. Army’s Manhattan Engineer District which had been assigned responsibility for developing the bombs.
As vast and successful as it was, however, the Project was by no means a sure thing: the entire undertaking was predicated on turning a recently discovered and incompletely understood physical phenomenon into a weapon that could be configured for operation in combat conditions.
Truth, Justice and the American Way.
https://youtu.be/Q2l4bz1FT8U
Andrea Weinberg, Tyson McGuffin, Arkady Ivanovich and Refutation of False Science = the same person?
All have materialised on the blog at about the same time, all tend to interact on the same threads at the same points in the discussion, all have similar styles and of course all are on the same team.
Documenting the total f&%kery taking place.
On April 28, 2023, CO2 levels at Mauna Loa breached 425.00 ppm. https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/mlo_co2_hour.png
This is:
Likely the first time in the past 800,000 years. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/images/2022-07/ghg-concentrations_figure1_2022.png
Possibly not seen in over 3 million years (mid-pliocene warm period). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/figures/IPCC_AR6_WGI_TS_Figure_1.png
A CO2 forcing equal to 2.5-4 C of warming. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/figures/IPCC_AR6_WGI_TS_Box_2_Figure_1.png
Good examples, Ark.
And don’t forget the bogus 33K, which refers to an imaginary sphere. You mentioned the bogus CO2 “forcing”, which violates 1LoT.
Then, there are the infamous “ice boiling water”, fluxes adding, and other 2LoT violations.
The list goes on and on…
Clint R Sealion again
Fail to see any fakery there, Arkady.
Just to be clear, from a scientific perspective, there is overwhelming evidence that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are contributing significantly to climate change. Therefore, refusing to take action to mitigate the human caused portion of climate change is a form of f&%kery as it involves neglecting the seriousness of the issue and disregarding the potential consequences for the planet and its inhabitants. Refusing to take action is a selfish and irresponsible act that prioritizes short-term interests over the long-term health and well-being of the planet and its inhabitants.
Also, just to be clear, if you are a climate science denier, I don’t give a f&%k about how clever or insightful you think your arguments are, how thoughtful your “gotcha” questions appear to you, or how unquestionably convincing you think your graphs are.
Just to be clear, from a scientific perspective, there is ~ not ~ overwhelming evidence that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are contributing significantly to climate change.
You won’t accept the existing graphs of salient data as evidence. What data are you relying on to inform your ‘humble reasoning’?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you have none.
Climate change is driven by solar activity and moderated by ocean currents.
A good feeling today.
SOI is playing up suggesting less heat than expected this last 2 weeks.
Hence
UAH will not go up but stay steady or even go down.
Fingers crossed.
The SOI typically lags the ONI when heading into El Nino or La Nina.
For the 2018-19 El Nino it was 4 months behind.
ENSO 3.4 for last 4 weeks:
Apr 2-8 … 0.0
Apr 9-15 … +0.1
Apr 16-22 … +0.3
Apr 23-29 … +0.4
As 6 of the 7 main models (BOM being the exception) don’t suggest an an El Nino beginning until June or July, and the El Nino threshold for ENSO 3.4 is +0.5, it seems that it is actually somewhat ahead of schedule.
In any case, you can’t judge the future from week to week variation.
Having said that, I do expect UAH to drop this month.
Well this appears to be shaping up as the first non-Modoki El Nino since 1997. . . .which actually appears to be the only non-Modoki El Nino from 1986 onwards.
Supposedly, prior to the 1986 El Ninos were primarily traditional like 1997. I can’t confirm that as the SST charts I am looking at only have archives back to 1985.
Wikipedia says (with links to sources): “there were ‘Modoki’ events in 195759, 196364, 196566, 196870, 197778 and 197980”.
Also, there seems to be some correlation between Modoki El Ninos and a negative PDO. And interestingly, the last two long-term (based on centred 10-year running averages) switches in the PDO occurred a couple of years after the two previous triple La Ninas.
You’ll have to imagine the hyphens there – they didn’t paste.
You have to be careful. These Modoki’s are broken up into Modoki I and Modoki II.
Here it is not enough regarding where it forms but also includes whether peak warming is more toward the S. America coast or further to sea.
The study Wiki is relying on is a Chinese/Univ of Miami study. I am aware that the Australians and Americans don’t agree on what an El Nino is. The Chinese? I don’t have a description of the standards that comprise a single El Nino event but note it also is different than the American standard.
The most recent paper I am going by was 2011, using American El Nino standards. I do that because it becomes almost unmanageable when you start mixing standards. Like the GHE not everybody agrees on how it operates.
And since the Chinese/U Miami paper is 2013 I don’t know if NWS has modified its standards accordingly. So I would take it all with a grain of salt.
So basically I stick with papers referenced from NWS. It might actually be better to use IRI/CPC at Columbia University as that is the prediction center for ENSO on a global basis, but they don’t seem to be as transparent as NWS. I only use IRI/CPC for comparing global prediction model output.
“I am aware that the Australians and Americans dont agree on what an El Nino is”
The only difference is the BOM’s cutoff, nothing else. What the BOM chooses doesn’t speak for Australian researchers in general.
You can’t pick and choose based on what you want to believe.
And it clearly states that your Modoki I and II were concepts introduced by these same Chinese authors, so you are making a statement based on people you have CHOSEN not to trust.
No I have chosen not to trust anybody. Its a matter of relevance and the amount of evidence in support of that relevance.
I am just using NWS and its important to note the Chinese paper is discussing separate El Nino events that NWS doesn’t recognize. That is run by the civil service and I have a tremendous amount of trust in the US civil service.
Go to the NWS site and check out the inconsistency. I didn’t try to match it to the Australian standards its just a different definition of what an ENSO event consists of.
Thats one of the biggest caveats when looking at all the so-called special circulation events in the Pacific Ocean. Standards change agency by agency; institution by institution. Part of the role of Columbia University and their modeling exercise is to compare different ENSO models from around the world.
This Chinese paper may well influence some of those models but I have no idea which ones they are. Just because Wiki has a reference to it doesn’t say anything about that.
Look at table 1 on this page:
https://www.ess.uci.edu/~yu/2OSC/
This is referred to in a NOAA-sponsored paper.
And of course if the NWS is to be trusted then so is its parent body.
Well first off NWS is primarily an independent civil service operation. Where as the link you provided is a non-independent outside contractor so no the same controls are not in place between the two sources so your extrapolation about trust isn’t justified by anything real. That of course says nothing about what non-independent motives your outside source may or may not have. ENSO generally isn’t a politically controversial topic so in no way am I impugning your source. I am just characterizing the control mechanisms between the two.
Also your source only defines two separate types of El Ninos as near as I can tell. Perhaps I missed something. But my original post was about two different types of El Ninos and you responded with a link to a paper that described two subsets of the central pacific El Nino otherwise know as a Modoki El Nino type I and type II. The link to UC Irvine is only discussing the divisions I brought up.
Climate anxiety real or fake?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve-V7FRgAR8
Maybe, it’s 25% if you are young, if you are 7 to 10.
I think the cure is, don’t heat your home
Swanson rather than making an argument goes ad hominem. Typical!
How about calling out Swenson next time for the same thing.