Home/BlogAfter years of dabbling in this issue, John Christy and I have finally submitted a paper to Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology entitled, “Urban Heat Island Effects in U.S. Summer Surface Temperature Data, 1880-2015“.
I feel pretty good about what we’ve done using the GHCN data. We demonstrate that, not only do the homogenized (“adjusted”) dataset not correct for the effect of the urban heat island (UHI) on temperature trends, the adjusted data appear to have even stronger UHI signatures than in the raw (unadjusted) data. This is true of both trends at stations (where there are nearby rural and non-rural stations… you can’t blindly average all of the stations in the U.S.), and it’s true of the spatial differences between closely-space stations in the same months and years.
The bottom line is that an estimated 22% of the U.S. warming trend, 1895 to 2023, is due to localized UHI effects.
And the effect is much larger in urban locations. Out of 4 categories of urbanization based upon population density (0.1 to 10, 10-100, 100-1,000, and >1,000 persons per sq. km), the top 2 categories show the UHI temperature trend to be 57% of the reported homogenized GHCN temperature trend. So, as one might expect, a large part of urban (and even suburban) warming since 1895 is due to UHI effects. This impacts how we should be discussing recent “record hot” temperatures at cities. Some of those would likely not be records if UHI effects were taken into account.
Yet, those are the temperatures a majority of the population experiences. My point is, such increasing warmth cannot be wholly blamed on climate change.
One of the things I struggled with was how to deal with stations having sporadic records. I’ve always wondered if one could use year-over-year changes instead of the usual annual-cycle-an-anomaly calculations, and it turns out you can, and with extremely high accuracy. (John Christy says he did it many years ago for a sparse African temperature dataset). This greatly simplifies data processing, and you can use all stations that have at least 2 years of data.
Now to see if the peer review process deep-sixes the paper. I’m optimistic.
Does the Climate Reference Network influence your conclusions?
“My point is, such increasing warmth cannot be wholly blamed on climate change”
Climate change is about population growth, because there is no greenhouse gas effect. The heat island is directly correlated with population and so does global warming. Fifty percent of the land has been cleared to sustain the world population by farming. The exploded population needs heat and energy for one reason and another. All the heat of deforestation and fossil energy has caused global warming, just like a big heat island.
Great, another empirical analysis that lumps different mechanisms into statistical correlations.
I think you would be impressed by the analysis. Statistics can be useful. Unless you think that cities being warmer than rural areas is due to sunspots…then I can’t help you.
I think that local hydroclimatic conditions are a significant contributor the ΔT between rural and urban areas.
And of course “local hydroclimatic conditions” are influenced by man-made heat, aren’t they?
Unless you are suggesting that thermometers do not respond to anthropogenic heat.
You surely aren’t suggesting that, are you?
Maybe you should stick to repeatedly bleating about various types of excrement.
Have fun.
Dr. Spencer,
It seems that all these entities in the business of collecting and homogenizing surface temperature data appear to have little interest in the accuracy of their data.
Roy…Ark is a whiny alarmist with an IQ quotient beneath that of a frog. Not worth responding to him.
We continue to observe a cool Humboldt Current in the southeast Pacific and a cold California Current.
Peruvian anchovies are happy.
https://i.ibb.co/Jx1YFnD/gfs-pacific-sat-sst-d1.png
Interesting findings. Keep us abreast of your progress. I have long ‘assumed’ that UHI was a real thing that needed to be accounted for. Excellent to see your work and care of analysis.
Roy Spencer
” … the adjusted data appear to have even stronger UHI signatures than in the raw (unadjusted) data. ”
No surprise for me…
Here are two charts (from layman’s work of course) comparing for CONUS station data processing out of:
– GHCN daily;
– GHCN V4 unadjusted;
– GHCN V4 adjusted;
– NOAA Climate at a Glance.
1. 1979-2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wOKoVJ3Kv1-A_5PqTgnDX_4hEiAYGwEK/view
2. 1900-2023
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12bpfkQmzg_OpKPvEx7XHDFJxW6CnrOZJ/view
While the comparison during the sat era does not give extreme differences, the one since 1900 gives greater ones.
While the linear estimate for GHCN V4 unadjusted over 1900-2023 is very near to the raw GHCN daily evaluation, that of GHCN V4 adjusted is nearly twice as high as for the unadjusted variant.
Amazing is the fact that the time series downloaded from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance ‘National’ shows over 1900-2023 a lower estimate than GHCN V4 adjusted.
*
Trends in C /decade
1900-2023
GHCN daily: 0.05 +- 0.01
V4 unadj: 0.06 +- 0.01
V4 adj: 0.11 +- 0.01
CaaG: 0.09 +- 0.01
*
1979-2023
GHCN daily: 0.21 +- 0.03
V4 unadj: 0.20 +- 0.03
V4 adj: 0.25 +- 0.03
CaaG: 0.26 +- 0.03
*
2000-2023
GHCN daily: 0.25 +- 0.08
V4 unadj: 0.27 +- 0.08
V4 adj: 0.30 +- 0.08
CaaG: 0.17 +- 0.10 (???)
This CaaG trend for 2000-2023 is really strange. I hope somebody can confirm it.
*
But what is even more strange – at a quite different level – is that unlike GHCN daily, GHCN V3 and… Climate at a Glance, GHCN V4 does not seem to provide the users with TMIN and TMAX data.
Yes, I don’t know why they stopped providing Tmax and Tmin. They obviously have the data, which is how they compute Tavg.
Thanks for the reply.
” They obviously have the data, which is how they compute Tavg. ”
Yes of course. But disturbing for me is above all that their CaaG very well offers the two, now prettily hidden in V4, though it uses them too.
*
I’m somewhat surprised that you now use summer data for your UHI research.
I didn’t have time to read many of your UHI main posts, so I’m left with the impression that you originally wanted to focus on winter time for reasons evident to me when working with annual cycles removed.
Maybe my memory was wrong.
*
You recently mentioned NOAA’s CaaG data; I then tried to get an idea by comparing GHCN daily’s TMIN, TMAX and the average of the two for the year, the winter resp. the summer months with the same for CaaG:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FO1mGttEjZ5FroT20BaxRRltd-TBzPiz/view
The difference is sometimes really stark. And when you consider that V4 ‘adjusted’ (and for sure, even more so ‘estimated’) is even further away from raw data than CaaG, then you wonder how you can ever examine UHI in V4 adjusted without the results being a priori contaminated by the wonderful PHA algorithm :–)
*
Clive Best is an excellent observer and evaluator of climate data series, and did not skimp on criticism of V4 years ago.
*
Bonne chance, dit-on dans ma langue maternelle.
binny…”Im somewhat surprised that you now use summer data for your UHI research”.
***
Why the surprise? All the bs about low Arctic ice is based on one month of summer in the Arctic.
Slowly but surely, it becomes difficult to make a difference between Robertson and a little dog leaving its poops beneath each tree it sees.
Why can’t this boring guy refrain from talking about things he doesn’t know anything about?
Binny,
Are you in competition with Arkady to see who can make the most references to faeces of various sorts?
Does the winner get a prize? On the basis of the most sniggers generated?
Maybe you need to get some ideas from your nearest kindergarten playground. Small children are often a source of amusement about poo, farts, wee-wee, and so on.
About your level.
The same goes for Flynnson, of course, who can’t post anything other than his eternally aggressive, prepubescent blah blah.
As some people rightly say: Anyone who is already stoopid at 7 will remain stoopid even long after her/his 77th.
*
Merci Messieurs, au suivant, à la queue leu leu comme l’on dit chez nous :–)
Binny,
Are you in competition with Arkady to see who can make the most references to faeces of various sorts?
Does the winner get a prize? On the basis of the most sniggers generated?
Maybe you need to get some ideas from your nearest kindergarten playground. Small children are often a source of amusement about poo, farts, wee-wee, and so on.
About your level.
Swenson says:
”Are you in competition with Arkady to see who can make the most references to faeces of various sorts?
Does the winner get a prize? On the basis of the most sniggers generated?
Maybe you need to get some ideas from your nearest kindergarten playground. Small children are often a source of amusement about poo, farts, wee-wee, and so on.
About your level.”
bin just called it in a post above. the 7 year old bathroom humor in a 77 year old ignorant grinch.
Well done, Roy.
I was curious about something unrelated,for your readers. Two studies on methane from 2023 arrived at these conclusions.
1. Methane has greater cooling potential than previously thought (about 30%) due to the way it interacts with clouds, dissipation assisting heat release.
2. The source of rapidly rising methane this study cited as being African wetlands. And while human activity was integral, it was said human activity was not the cause of the rising levels since 2006 due to regulations having stemmed levels in the 90s.
Is it possible then, based on finding #1 that methane could be a big factor in stratospheric cooling? If so, then it’s not really human activity causing it then based on finding #2.
I’m just a layman. That was my initial reaction to these studies.
The problem is methane is measured in pub which effectively removes any influence it may have in the atmosphere.
Similarly, methane has a relatively short life compared to that of carbon dioxide.
The first tropical cyclone in the Southern Hemisphere this spring will form east of the Solomon Islands and does not threaten the Great Barrier Reef.
The number of sunspots is drastically decreasing and the blocking of zonal circulation in the northern hemisphere will intensify, already resulting in massive downpours in western Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/0Fqzb94/EISNcurrent.png
Blocking zonal circulation in the North Pacific promises an interesting winter in North America, particularly in California.
https://i.ibb.co/cxWDbwL/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
Daily SST Anomaly comparison: 1997, 2015, and 2023.
No UHI effect here: https://imgur.com/a/Dl79Hwg
No CO2 effect either. SST warms from sunlight.
This is typical of a post by Ark, he is looking for an urban heat island effect in the ocean.
Strong cooling is seen in the North Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/rQ30yqD/ct5km-sst-trend-7d-v3-1-nwwl-current.png
Dr. Spencer: Yet, those are the temperatures a majority of the population experiences. My point is, such increasing warmth cannot be wholly blamed on climate change.
“Climate change,” infers within the bounds of natural variation. Should not we distinguish between natural global warming and man-made global warming. No one really believes that all of the warming since the mid-1800’s is anthropogenic; in fact, until only recently the stated consensus* was only that most of the GW since the 1950’s to 1970’s time frame was. Thus, that might suggest that it’s only a few tenths C.
A novel approach. Using a satellite measurement of IR radiance taken in 1979 the notch noted as due to CO2 represents close to 10% of the total IR radiation. At 230 watts per square meter this is close to 22 watts. On the basis heat transferred from the heated CO2 to the other atmospheric gases is in proportion to the relative molecular weights one can calculate the annual heat transferred to be 109 watts or 370 BTU’s. This can then be ratioed to the annul measurement made by Mana Loa of CO2 levels. From 1959 to 2020 62 years the total BTU’s transferred are 17,098. Using the weight of one square meter of atmosphere the temperature increase over the 62 years amounts to 0.19 degrees F or o.11 degrees C. This represents just under 20% of the UAH temperature trend of 0.14 degrees per decade.
You are mixing power with energy. I checked the conversion. Your BTU value in power would be BTU/hour (106 watts = 372 BTU/hr).
dennis…”At 230 watts per square meter this is close to 22 watts. On the basis heat transferred from the heated CO2 to the other atmospheric gases is in proportion to the relative molecular weights one can calculate the annual heat transferred to be 109 watts or 370 BTUs”.
***
You are right about the amount of surface IR absorbed by CO2 being around 10%. And you are right that the heat transferred by CO2 to the atmosphere is proportional to their relative molecular weights. However, the amount of heat transferred is nowhere near 109 watts.
Gerlich & Tscheuschner, both with experience in thermodynamics, calculated the heat transfer for a doubling of CO2 at 0.06C, using a heat diffusion equation. If you use the Ideal Gas Law you get a similar warming effect.
The molecular weight content in the atmosphere of CO2, as compared to it’s 0.04% in the atmosphere, is about 0.06%. That’s the multiplier you seek…0.06.
I have not looked at this closely, but based on your figure of 230 watts, you’d be looking at 230 x 0.06 = 13.8 watts.
Is the UHI influence measured by the paper only of the maximum temperature? Or is it the minimum temperature? Or is it the temperature used when calculating “climate temperature” which is (Tmin + Tmax)/2. If you include the UHI influence on minimum temperature, the impact could be considerably much greater than what is quoted. Or, I could be missing the entire point of this paper.
Good point, SMS. 100% agree.
What do you two not comprehend about:
”This impacts how we should be discussing recent ”record hot” temperatures at cities. Some of those would likely not be records if UHI effects were taken into account.
Yet, those are the temperatures a majority of the population experiences. My point is, such increasing warmth cannot be wholly blamed on climate change.”
Hunter boy
As usual, you behave like a gullible follower of those whose discourse matches your personal gut feeling, hence preferred narrative.
Try to understand what is behind the nine charts whose links are stored in this pdf file
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FO1mGttEjZ5FroT20BaxRRltd-TBzPiz/view
and… start thinking.
Bindidon says:
”Try to understand what is behind the nine charts whose links are stored in this pdf file
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FO1mGttEjZ5FroT20BaxRRltd-TBzPiz/view
and start thinking.”
Unlike you Bin, I don’t have a lot of confidence in statistical studies of non-representative populations. Are you not at all
aware of what Roy’s work is demonstrating?
The variations in those outputs would be reverberating in your ear if you had ever thought about it. We used to have a rule of thumb when confronted by variations that moved 20 to 30% and got to work fully expecting the actual accuracy to far worse just based upon our knowledge that the authors had varied personal interests in the results they presented.
The role of science is to provide facts not advocacy. And that would include all the relevant facts not just the ones you want to hear for whatever reason.
Tim S
The conversion from 22 wats is times 0.000605 conversion due to relative molecular weights. Next the power (.0124 watts) times 24 hrs times 365 days yields 108 wat hours for the year. conversion to BTU’s is watt hours times 3.4126 which is 370 BTU’s. The sum of all years as the heating is cumulative and based on the relative heating due to annual change of the CO2 levels from 1959 through 2020 is 17,098 btu’S. Conversion to temperature in degrees F equals BTU’s times 0.24 divided by the weight of a column of atmosphere one meter square which at average air pressure is 22,149 pounds.
You obviously meant BTUs, instead of btu’S.
Your gibberish generator needs a bit of work.
Oh well.
It can be noted that the tropical cyclone that formed north of the Solomon Islands (where surface temperatures reach 30 C) will remain in the region of these islands.
https://i.ibb.co/RPsp63F/coraltemp-v3-1-seel-current-1.png
Gordon Robertson
The conversion of 22 wats to the surrounding atmosphere based on relative molecular weights is a factor of 0.000605. This results in a conversion of 22 watts to 0.0124 watts. Based on an annual total 0.0124X24X365 results in 108 watt hours. Converting from watt hours to BTU’s at 3.4126 yields 370 BTU’s for the year 1979.
Without commenting on the rest of your method and assumptions, you are wrong about the conversion from mole fraction (ppmv) to weight fraction for the year 1979 when CO2 was about 335 ppmv.
0.000335 x 44/29 = 0.000508
One major problem with this analysis may be the use of adjusted GHCN data. The adjustments are almost certainly riddled with general errors, not caused by UHI, my guess (based on analysis of adjustments in Australian ACORN-SAT data) is that the general errors are much larger than UHI.
Michael Chase
2u2, 100% agree. That is exactly what I’m telling since a while.
When you take as source something like GHCN V4 adjusted, you will never be able to make a distinction between UHI effects and those coming from the Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm used by NOAA in their time series constructions.
Tim S and Gordon Robertson
My apologies the refence year was 1996 when the IR radiance measurement was taken. The Mauna Loa CO2 measurement for that year was 362.74 ppm. The watts absorbed by CO2 was 22.
Diatomic O2 is 32 g/mol at 23.14 % of atmosphere
Diatomic N2 is 28 f/mol at 75.51% and
Ar is 49 g/mol at 1.29%
Weighted ave of three gasses 29.062
CO2 is 44 g/mol at 0.04% and weighted average is 0.0176
Weighted average of CO2 to the other gases is 0.0176 divided by 29.063 or 0.000605
The watts transferred to the other gases by CO2 is 22 times 0.000605 or 0.0134 watts. Watts transferred for the full year would be 0.0134 times 24 times 365 for a total of 117 watt hours. Converting to BTU’s (X3.4126) 400 BTU’s.
Again my apologies
I couldn’t follow your calculations, Dennis. I suspect you are confusing “Watts” with “Watts/m^2”.
Just allow the GHE nonsense to expose itself. For example, the nonsense starts with comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere. Then, the claim is Earth is 33K hotter than it’s supposed to be! You can’t make ANY meaningful claim by comparing to an imaginary object.
That ain’t science.
Here is a basic physics problem that can solve all this.
1) CO2 is 415 PPM
2) CO2 is 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere
3) How much kinetic energy would a CO2 molecule need to posess to materially impact the kinetic energy of the other 2,499 molecules to a level of increaseing temperature by 1 Degree C
4) Can 15 Micron LWIR possibly provide that much energy?
Answer the above question and you can solve the mystery of CO2’s impact on temperature. It is all basis physics, and I’m pretty sure 15 micron LWIR won’t be providing the energy needed to incease the kinetic energy of the other 2,499 molecuels by any material level.
“Can 15 Micron LWIR possibly provide that much energy”.
Here is paper showing such complete with math. Not much more than 1C so the alarmists are way wrong but yeah 1C.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
“The atmospheric temperatures and concentrations of Earths five most important, green- house gases, H2 O, CO2 , O3 , N2 O and CH4 control the cloud-free, thermal radiative flux from the Earth to outer space.”
And at night, all (repeat all) energy radiated by the surface escapes to space, with the surface temperature falling as a result.
The authors also neglect to mention that their opening statement must also apply to thermal radiative flux (whatever that is supposed to mean, as opposed to “radiation”), from outer space to the Earth. Measurement indicate that about 30% of solar radiation impinging on the atmosphere does not even reach the surface.
Another pointless paper based on wishful thinking, and unsupported by reality.
Try an appeal to another authority.
^ When the arithmetic is above your ability.
Ken,
Not even a good try. There was nothing wrong with Lord Kelvin’s mathematics when he calculated the age of the Earth using heat loss measurements, but he was wrong.
Just as Happer & Co are wrong.
Maybe you believe in the power of calculations based on erroneous assumptions, but I don’t.
As to arithmetic and ability, you are aware that climate is the historical statistics of weather observations, I presume? Generally basic arithmetical averages which can be performed by a 12 year old of average intelligence. Apparently beyond the ability of some “climate scientists” who believe that the statistics drive the weather from which they are derived!
Go on, tell me that the Earth’s surface hasn’t cooled since it was molten, Happer & Co’s assumptions and subsequent calculations notwithstanding.
More energy does NOT mean higher temperatures. That simple fact seems counter-intuitive, but is easily proven — ice emits energy, but we do not heat our homes with ice cubes.
In order to raise the temperature of a system, the energy added MUST be the “right kind” of energy. The energy added must be able to increase the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the system. Low energy 15μ photons do NOT have the “right kind” of energy. Those CO2 photons have lower frequency than the peak energy photons from ice!
Those of us who learned about surface temperature measurements from actual field experience have long viewed the “homogenization” routines favored by amateurs and academics as nothing more than a badly rationalized attempt to ignore the physical basis of UHI and transfer their trend-altering distortions from long urban records to the generally shorter records at unaffected sites throughout much of the world.
Thanks to the wisdom of the founders of the U.S. observation network to place thermometers in small-town and rural locations, we have a more-than-century-long record of surface temperatures little affected by UHI. The stark discrepancies of trend between that highly-privileged record and the rest of the world rings a clarion bell about the unreliability of most global surface temperature indices.
Christy and Spencer should be applauded for bringing common sense to the climate “science” literature.
” Thanks to the wisdom of the founders of the U.S. observation network to place thermometers in small-town and rural locations, we have a more-than-century-long record of surface temperatures little affected by UHI. ”
What’s the name of the station network, sky?
Don’t tell me you mean USHCN, the station set which heavily criticized at WUWT by Watts & Co :–)
Even the super pristine USCRN station set is now being discredited by pse~udo-skep~tical people on various blogs.
Last but not least, the existence of UHI has been known for years in rural areas as well.
“What’s the name of the station network, sky?”
Oooooooh! A gotcha – or are you claiming you don’t know?
Not terribly clever, Binny, not terribly clever at all.
Starting with 1896, there is a very substantial subset of USHCN station records from small towns and at agricultural experiment stations throughout the contiguous USA that manifest high cross-spectral coherence (q.v.) amongst neighbors. That subset invariably produces far-less-trending, lower-variance regional averages than those obtained by index-makers who manipulate the data at all stations in the name “homogenization.” Non-climatic data vagaries (to which Anthony Watts drew much-needed attention) are thus effectively avoided instead of being ineptly compensated and then incorporated into the regional estimates.
Of course, I don’t expect those who never gathered any field data but comment incessantly upon them to understand the science of such bias-eliminating procedures.
sky
Apologies for the very late reply, I was busy with many other things.
*
” Of course, I dont expect those who never gathered any field data but comment incessantly upon them to understand the science of such bias-eliminating procedures. ”
The last time you posted on this blog must be a little while ago. Maybe you are more present at WUWT?
*
I namely use since years a list of USHCN stations having sufficient data for the period since 1895 and (in between) 2023 to produce e.g. such a graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a2Zike4y2GgZ5NdRqdElapLcEJiQiyVZ/view
GHCN daily was preferred because USHCN of course is restricted to the US but I was much more interested in a similar graph for the Globe.
*
” Non-climatic data vagaries (to which Anthony Watts drew much-needed attention) are thus effectively avoided instead of being ineptly compensated and then incorporated into the regional estimates. ”
Maybe you mean something like this, for example:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14OiHmTn0DjbJF_s7cEZXicQd6-oAiCqe/view
The blue time series was generated out of those 71 ‘well-sited’ USHCN stations selected by Watts’ surfacestations.org:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ipzDRdJppZDM6ii4qj9h1AKFrC3t0h94/view
which were published by NOAA in 2012. I lost the source’s link :–(
The red series was generated out of those 329 GHCN daily stations I found within a 1 degree grid around the 71, respectively.
What do you mean, sky?
*
” Starting with 1896, there is a very substantial subset of USHCN station records from small towns and at agricultural experiment stations throughout the contiguous USA that manifest high cross-spectral coherence (q.v.) amongst neighbors. ”
Unfortunately, you don’t provide for any list of this USHCN station subset you seem to know a lot about.
This an ascending sort by linear trend of the USHCN stations I used for the measurement stat above:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZKdygAEBrzY02UmbVO-f0p1F2lXhRko6/view
Feel free to select those you think be best for you.
P.S. I hope you agree with my experience that the GHCN daily data
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
are at least as raw as those from USHCN
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/
There’s virtually nothing to agree with when you:
a) Fantasize that I prefer WUWT.
b) Fail to show any comprehension of the role of high cross-spectral coherence in identifying station records relatively free of non-climatic vagaries.
c) Switch the time-scale of monthly data starting in 1896 to daily data from the latter half of XX century in your comparisons.
d) Presume that I would seek blog stardom and hand over the fruits of my work to your amateurish review, instead of enjoying all the benefits of professional reward.
e) Indulge in ad hominems.
I won’t waste any more time with you.
Ad hominems?
Where did I write any one in my text?
Ad hominems, Professor sky, are what I have to read about myself all the time on this blog, for example:
” brain~dead cult idi~o~t ”
just because I present documents computing Moon’s spin about its polar axis to those who deny it.
*
And by the way, Sir: from (a) to (e): not ONE reference to any data source.
Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le professeur, et… bonne continuation!
The author of the epithet “a little dog leaving its poops beneath each tree it sees” now pretends he’s innocent of ad hominems.
My point is, such increasing warmth cannot be wholly blamed on climate change
Climate change is about population growth, because there is no greenhouse gas effect. The heat island is directly correlated with population, and so does global warming. Fifty percent of the land has been cleared to sustain the world population by farming. The exploded population needs heat and energy for one reason and another. All of the heat of deforestation and fossil energy has caused global warming, just like a big heat island.
Nabil,
If you haven’t already seen this, you may be interested –
“From Urban to National Heat Island: the effect of anthropogenic heat output on climate change in high population industrial countries: National Heat Islands.”
Part of the conclusions are relevant “These conclusions might be perceived to be in contrast to recent studies of the UHI effect that relate to large cities, where warming of only ∼0.1∘C per decade or less is detected, compared with nearby rural districts . . . “.
I agree with you that there is no greenhouse gas effect, so any observed increase in thermometer temperatures is due to heat from some other source. Human activities seem a reasonable candidate.
Thank you.
Also, you may want to research urban heat in arctic cities where the sun disappears for a long period of time.
Nabil,
Thanks.
GHE proponents (some of them anyway) prefer to believe in Arctic Amplification.
This belief results in gems like “From the perspective of the TOA and atmospheric column energy budgets (figures 3(a) and (c)), CO2 radiative forcing opposes AA by preferentially heating the tropics. However, from the perspective of the surface energy budget (figure 3(b)), CO2 radiative forcing contributes to AA by preferentially heating the Arctic.”
But not to worry, NASA experts cover all the bases by saying “In the grand scheme of things, the urban heat island effect hasn’t played a substantial role in global warming. The primary culprit remains other human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.”
They don’t seem to want to acknowledge that “burning of fossil fuels” results in – heat! And to what do thermometers respond? Heat!
Not only that, but using electricity produced by wind, solar, hydropower, nuclear power, or anything else, results in – heat!
What a surprise! It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. I laugh anyway. Crying won’t help.
”I agree with you that there is no greenhouse gas effect, so any observed increase in thermometer temperatures is due to heat from some other source. Human activities seem a reasonable candidate.”
Well there is a greenhouse effect. How it works is in issue. One way I see it working is by altering the lapse rate. There are claims that CO2 can do that but I haven’t seen the evidence. And we know that water can do it.
Mathematically, CO2 does alter the Lapse rate and the earth’s outgoing radiation does decrease as a result. There is a paper on the subject if you do some research. However, the incoming and absorbed solar radiation decreases equally because the atmosphere cools down and it’s diameter decreases. The net outcome is no change in the energy balance of the earth. CO2 emission cannot change climate, only heat production can.
Bill,
You say there is a greenhouse effect, but I guarantee you cannot describe it in any way that accords with fact.
The lapse rate is just the rate at which air temperature generally decreases with altitude – with limitations, of course. At low pressures, temperature based on average molecular velocity becomes meaningless, hence the 2000 C temperature of the thermosphere wouldn’t even help to boil a kettle for a cup of tea.
At other times, low level inversions exist (familiar to every meteorologist and citrus farmer) where temperature at standard pressure actually increases with altitude. It can get quite complicated, as assumptions are made about theoretical adiabatic processes, nominal thickness of the troposphere, and other factors.
If the measured lapse rate is different to the calculated lapse rate, your calculations are in error, or your measuring technique is suspect. Rather like GHE proponents who claim the Earth’s surface temperature “should be” other than what is!
Unless you can describe the GHE, it obviously does not exist. Unicorns do not exist, but at least they can be described! Funny, isn’t it?
well the definition of a greenhouse effect is a temperature greater than that provided by mean incoming energy shining onto the planet from the stars in the sky.
That would be about 342w/m2 or about of 278 to 279k.
since its widely accepted that actual mean global temperature is some where between 286 and 289k that makes for a greenhouse effect of somewhere minimally between 7 and 10k.
of course since that is based on blackbody radiation the greenhouse effect could be greater but i have never seen a formal analysis of radiant characteristics of the earth’s surface that would mandate the chosen greenhouse level of 33k or in support of your claim of 0k.
but i do agree that the mechanism of the greenhouse effect has never been formally described except by the false claim of the 3rd grader radiation model. i am aware of possible ways it could work. but nobody seems to care enough to describe any other personal fantasy in fully blueprinted detail.
Bill,
The problem is that nobody can describe this supposed “effect”. Where may this effect be observed, measured, documented? There is precisely no experimental support for an effect which cannot even be described in any way that accords with reality.
You mention that I “claim” the effect has a measurement of 0 K. No, the “greenhouse effect” does not exist, so ascribing ing any measurement to it is pointless.
As to anybody claiming that the Earth’s “surface temperature” is not what it is, and “should be” something else, their supposition is absolutely wrong. A thing is what it is, not what it “should be”.
Possibly the best “description” of the GHE is that is a figment of a collective fantasy.
I described the GHE for you Swenson. Its a temperature warmer than expected. It got its name from a greenhouse that maintains temperatures inside of it without an additional power source by virtue of restricting convective cooling. Thus it is entirely describable. Have you no experience with greenhouses?
Years ago I made a living building out various structures that maintained warmer temperatures than the surrounding environment without relying upon external power sources. The field of work is known as Passive Solar Energy heating and is completely describable and buildable and the results can be measured.
The only issue here with the global greenhouse effect is that Dr. RW Woods showed that IR blocking doesn’t produce an effect. This has been duplicated by others. So there are various theories of how it might occur within an atmosphere.
Bill,
You describe the GHE as “Its a temperature warmer than expected.”
May I add that to my list of bizarre descriptions of the GHE?
If you measure a temperature, and it’s warmer than you expected, then your expectations have been dashed. I might expect my toast to be brought to me piping hot, but it generally isn’t. Would you describe this as a Global Cooling Effect, ie a temperature cooler than expected?
Passive solar energy depends on solar energy. You seem to conflate solar energy with the GHE, but correct me if I err. Are you saying that the GHE is only apparent while the Sun is shining?
Very confusing, but thanks for your description of the GHE as “It’s a temperature warmer than expected”.
swenson that would not be expected in the form of an opinion but expected in terms of the SB law. nothing should heat to a level exceeding the capability of the source. one has to have a scientific explanation if the mean temperature of an object warms to a level above what it should under a mean level of radiation. that is how science has defined a greenhouse effect. of course there are ways of doing that. its just that backradiation isn’t one of them.
” And at night, all (repeat all) energy radiated by the surface escapes to space, with the surface temperature falling as a result. ”
If that was the case, we would have at night temperatures of about -100 C every night, like on the Moon.
How is it possible to write such dumb stuff?
Binny,
You are not very bright, obviously.
The temperature falls, resulting in nighttime minima between around 44 C, and -90 C.
The rate of temperature fall is dependent on a number of factors, but fall it does.
I repeat, all radiation emitted by the surface escapes to outer space, as long as the surface is hotter than outer space – nominally about 4 K or so.
You didn’t mention that the Earth’s surface does not get as hot as the Moon’s (after the same exposure time) – 90 C as opposed to >125 C. Does the GHE keep the Earth cooler, do you think?
Feel free to reject reality, and go back to fulminating about canine excrement and “blah-blah”. You seem to be quite accomplished in that regard.
” I repeat, all radiation emitted by the surface escapes to outer space, as long as the surface is hotter than outer space nominally about 4 K or so. ”
Oh… genius Flynnson ‘forgot’ this time to mention ‘And at night, …’.
The one who is ‘not very bright’, Flynnson: that’s you.
Because Earth radiates IR all the time wherever it was hit by solar radiation – day and night.
Keep on blathering, Flynnson! It’s so fun to watch geniuses like you.
Yes the earth radiates all the time. But if there were no GHG then the surface would far hotter during the day and far colder at night. . .like the moon.
The topic at hand seems to be the selling of high daytime temperatures being an artifact of something other than GHG. Cause if you honestly market the GHE and tell people they will be warmer at night they are going to cheer.
Yeah, Hunter boy.
And while on the one hand
– you discredit and denigrate dozens of incredibly complex analyzes of the lunar motions as “academic exercises” though you don’t understand anything about them and they don’t match your gut feeling,
on the other hand
– you agree and applaud to what is a comparatively 10,000 times easier analysis of station temperature reports – just because it goes with your gut feeling, even though you don’t understand anything about it either.
This, Hunter boy, is the pure essence of pse~udo~skep~ticism.
Bravissimo!
Yes Bin you are still a robot and still don’t get that the moon actually rotates around the earth.
Sure your superhero’s chose to view the moon’s motion reduced to a spin on its own axis, as is typical of any analysis of any complex motion. Your problem is you actually see that as an immutable reality despite not having a single bit of evidence of it being true.
As to your discussion on station temperatures I would refer you to the fact you can’t understand the point that Roy is making in this thread obviously even when it has been repeated to you.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/new-paper-submission-urban-heat-island-effects-in-u-s-summer-temperatures-1880-2015/#comment-1548865
And yet you continue to spin in circles and claim others don’t understand what is going on here. Sad!
Hunter boy
” Yes Bin you are still a robot and still dont get that the moon actually rotates around the earth. ”
You see, Hunter boy, you perfectly confirm what I mean: you put your gut feeling above scientific work.
You trivially, polemically discredit work of others which you are absolutely unable to scientifically contradict.
And that you also feel the need to polemically denigrate me by calling me a ‘robot’ tells a lot.
*
By the way, Hunter boy: the Moon does not rotate around the Earth.
It orbits it, what is a fundamentally different motion.
The simple fact that you use the same word for orbit and spin enlightens your mistake.
But, like Robertson and a few other specialists: you know it of course better.
I can live with that, no problem.
Binny,
You are not very bright, obviously.
The temperature falls, resulting in nighttime minima between around 44 C, and -90 C.
The rate of temperature fall is dependent on a number of factors, but fall it does.
I repeat, all radiation emitted by the surface escapes to outer space, as long as the surface is hotter than outer space nominally about 4 K or so.
You didnt mention that the Earths surface does not get as hot as the Moons (after the same exposure time) 90 C as opposed to >125 C. Does the GHE keep the Earth cooler, do you think?
Feel free to reject reality, and go back to fulminating about canine excrement and blah-blah. You seem to be quite accomplished in that regard.
Bindidon says:
”You trivially, polemically discredit work of others which you are absolutely unable to scientifically contradict.
And that you also feel the need to polemically denigrate me by calling me a robot tells a lot.”
Thats simply because you are the one not understanding the work of others. What makes you the arbiter of the meaning of the work of others?
—————–
Bindidon says:
By the way, Hunter boy: the Moon does not rotate around the Earth.
It orbits it, what is a fundamentally different motion.
————
What makes a rotation a rotation is a fixed axis about which something rotates. All orbits have fixed axes as do all spinning balls.
The fact is that when the rotation is around an external axis it is arbitrarily treated conceptually as either a rotation or an orbit. And when and only when is it treated as an orbit is the spin then treated as a conceptual motion.
When treated as a rotation around and external axis then a spin only exists if the spin is out of time with the rotation.
But since you have been repeatedly educated on this fact you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that with any rotation about a fixed external axis there is an in time spin and we can count it separately from various locations and is known as the sidereal spin. Sidereal spins are never ever recognized except as an integral part of a rotation on an external axis. But you don’t understand why that is the case.
——————–
Bindidon says:
”The simple fact that you use the same word for orbit and spin enlightens your mistake.
But, like Robertson and a few other specialists: you know it of course better.”
better than you for sure! you are so lost here you think i use the same word for orbit and spin. not at all true.
Nein Nein Nein you Dummkopf, you cannot power the light bulb by radiation from ice
– speaking of writing dumb stuff
Aaaah! The all time stalking, scientifically at least 100% uneducated dachshund is here again.
Allez, mon petit teckel! Retourne bien vite dans ta niche, et ronge bravement ton os.
A large mass of Arctic air is falling into western Canada.
https://i.ibb.co/9pw9d86/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
ren…thanks for the warning, had not expected sub-zero weather this time of year but we are forecast for -3C on the 26th.
Gotta love that global warming. And, yes, the climate is changing, it’s getting colder.
It’s going to be interesting to see if Spencer and Christy get their research accepted. But, either way, they win.
Reality always wins.
2023 10 22 2023.807 53 5.9 21 26
Please drop below 50 sunspots per day for a while, Sunny Boy, I want to see the GSM alarmism erupt soon after.
It’s still ahead of the red line Bindidork
Dachshund, I was 100% sure you wouldn’t understand the bit of irony.
Look at all your and Palmowski’s messages about the SSN you two posted between 2020 and 2022.
You mean like me saying the red line is the wrong shape and the sun would never follow it and being ahead of it is meaningless
I’ve been looking at the effect heat sinks from nuclear power plants have on local air temperatures. A big problem is getting data at the power plant. I don’t have the problem at the nuclear plant I work at because we keep our own meteorological data going back 30 years.
Approximately 2/3rds of a power plant licensed thermal load ends up as waste heat.
Our data shows local warming when we reduce power generation. This is most likely due to reduction in clouds and occurs during the Dec-Feb time frame. No warming during the remainder of the year.
EIA keeps an outage log showing when plants are on.
https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/outages/
I would like plant data from Palo Verde nuclear station. The nearest GISS data is from Litchfield Park (16 miles). For the site, with all three units running, the total thermal load is 3×3990 MWt and total heat sink via cooling tower is 3x 2590 MW. IF you spread this out over a 20-mile radius, it comes to 2.39 W/.
Plants came online about 1986-1988 and the GISS temperature trend clearly increases a full 1C from 1986 to present. Why not cooling? Low humidity. You don’t get clouds from those towers. Not like here in SC.
The climate alarmist base all their calculations on 2.5 W/m of radiative forcing. I don’t see where they include extra energy emitted from energy use.
They calculate the surface temperature of the earth using a radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere but heat from energy use is ignored.
Energy use has the same effect as increasing energy from the sun or reduced outgoing short wave. The total annual energy use in the USA is 9.70E+16 BTU/YR. This energy doesn’t disappear into the ocean.
This amount equates to 1.11E+13 BTU/HR = 3.25E+12 Watts.
The approximate surface area of the most populated Eastern USA from the Mississippi to the Atlantic coast is about 1000 miles x 1000 miles = 1.00E+06 miles which comes to 2.59E+12 m
If you take the total rate of energy use and divide it by this area, you get 1.25 w/m
This is half of the projected forcing the IPCC keeps clamoring about from reduced outgoing IR due to rising CO2.
So, when you hear them blaming warming trends on CO2, ask them about urban heat island effect. Not all warming can be from C02 increase.
Not when they ignore heat from energy use. All energy used on the surface ends up as heat. Including windmills
sam…”…the GISS temperature trend clearly increases a full 1C from 1986 to present. Why not cooling?”
***
GISS gets its data from NOAA and they use only three surface stations to cover California, with all of them near the ocean. There is no cooling because they ignore the Sierra Nevadas or any temperatures inland.
First let me say that when I cut and pasted, it loped off my (m) term on everything. Understand. GISS is useless. I concur. I made several points. I work at a nuclear plant, and we have our own meteorological station with lake and air temperature data going back a few decades. I’ve studied the data using statistical Sofware.
1. Our MET station data shows warming after we shut one of our coal fired units 12 years ago. As a result, the lake which we use as a heat sink cooled down a few degrees and evaporation from the lake decreased. The effect was air temperature warming by 0.8C in 12 years and all this warming came during December – February. No warming at all for the remaining months. This is based on our meteorological data. My reasoning for this is that during the winter, the humidity in the air is low and evaporation from our lake has a significant effect on cloud cover. When the lake temperature is higher, evaporation increases and so does cloud cover. This results in less solar irradiance during the winter months causing fewer cold days during the winter.
2. I don’t have access to other plant data, but I have put together some facts on Vogle Site, Watts Bar and Palo Verde. Watts Bar started Unit 2 up in October of 2016 and GISS from Spring City shows a clear decrease of 1C since 2016 in average annual air temperatures. I attribute this to the same cause and effect as our site but we must study it more
3. Palo Verde is the mother of all nuclear sites. The nearest GISS station and NECP/NCAR1 shows clear warming since late 80s and early nighties. I attribute this to low humidity. The cooling towers there don’t make low clouds.
4. My last point was just the fact that I’m unaware of why climate science doesn’t include total energy use in their radiative balance.
9.70E+16 BTU/YR US annual energy consumption
1.11E+13 BTU/HR
3.25E+12 Watts
1.00E+06 miles Eastern USA 1000 x 1000 miles square
2.59E+12 m
1.25 w/m
“The total annual energy use in the USA is 9.70E+16 BTU/YR. This energy doesnt disappear into the ocean”
Sam,
Virtually all of the energy consumed is returned to the surface by CO2. please see
https://doi.org/10.3390/e25010072
In short, your methodology is correct, but you need to add the heat of deforestation. Yes, the numbers speak: Global heat production has caused climate change, not CO2.
The total annual energy use in the USA is 9.70E+16 BTU/YR. This energy doesnt disappear into the ocean.”
Sam,
Virtually all of the energy produced is returned to the surface by CO2. Please see
https://doi.org/10.3390/e25010072
In short, your methodology is correct, but you should add the heat of deforestation. Yes, the numbers speak. Global warming is caused by heat production, not CO2.
The total annual energy use in the USA is 9.70E+16 BTU/YR. This energy doesnt disappear into the ocean.”
Sam,
Virtually all of the energy produced is returned to the surface by CO2. Please see
https://doi.org/10.3390/e25010072
Your methodology is correct, but you should add the heat of deforestation. Yes, the numbers speak. Global warming is caused by heat production, not CO2.
Sorry, for the three identical comments, I am having a browser problem.
“The total annual energy use in the USA is 9.70E+16 BTU/YR. This energy doesnt disappear into the ocean.”
Sam,
Virtually all of the energy produced is returned to the surface by CO2. Please see
https://doi.org/10.3390/e25010072
In short, your methodology is correct, but you should add the heat of deforestation. Yes, the numbers speak. Global warming is caused by heat production, not CO2.
Sam Shicks
Please have a look at the positions of Litchfield Park station
USC00024977 33.4992 -112.3631 317.0 AZ LITCHFIELD PARK
and Palo Verde’s nuke plant:
https://i.postimg.cc/vHLGSw-rL/Litchfield-Palo-Verde.png
Are you really sure that Pale Verde’s cooling output has a greater influence on the station’s measurements than the thousands of energy generating buildings and industry locations in Phoenix and suburbs?
tim s…to Dennis…”you are wrong about the conversion from mole fraction (ppmv) to weight fraction for the year 1979 when CO2 was about 335 ppmv”.
***
Seems to me that using molar quantities only serve to complicate the subject.
ppmv is not a mole fraction. We re dealing with individual molecules, not moles. ppmv, or parts per million per unit volume, for air, is a reference to the total number of molecules of all gases in a certain volume.
Moles are important when we need to take into account the atomic weight of each atom or molecule, but as I see it, they are so close it is not worth factoring that into the equation. For example, oxygen and nitrogen have a ppmv of about 99% but when you factor in the molecular weights, the mass percent is slightly lower. CO2 at 0.04% has a mass factor of 0.06, not worth writing home about.
That’s why I talk only about ppmv, hoping it is understood that when masses are involved, the ratio is not a significant factor.
As usual, I suspect you know better. For rigorous analytical reporting the actual value should be reported. By convention, ppm is assumed to be weight fraction. ppmw is more explicit, but should be espressed as mg/L for liquids or mg/Kg for solids. Only gases are expressed as ppmv and it is a mole fraction more technically expressed micromole/mole.
Swenson
“I repeat, all radiation emitted by the surface escapes to outer space, as long as the surface is hotter than outer space nominally about 4 K or so. ”
That turns out not to be the case. Not all the emitted radiation escapes to space.
On the graph the red line shows the amount of radiation emitted by the surface. The black line and the blue area below it show the amount of radiation escaping to space.
The area between the black and red lines shows the amount of radiation retained by the atmosphere, aka the greenhouse effect.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
Ent, that graph is as hokey as you are.
No one knows the actual values, but we know for sure that the “390 – 240” is bogus.
RLH, Bill Hunter
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation includes epsilon, the emissivity. This is the fraction of emissions that a real object, a grey body, emits compared with an ideal black body.
For Earth’s surface epsilon is 0.95. Emission from Earth’s surface is 95% that of a black body and this is accounted for when calculating emissions.
The problem is Earth’s surface is not uniform and fluxes can not be averaged. See the “Bricks Problem”, which you avoided answering.
You and your cult understand NONE of the applicable physics.
“The Stefan-Boltzmann equation includes epsilon, the emissivity”
which is acknowledged to be very poorly measured across the whole of the Globes surface. A small change in that has a very large effect in the overall calculations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity
“Earth’s surface emissivities (εs) have been inferred with satellite-based instruments by directly observing surface thermal emissions at nadir through a less obstructed atmospheric window spanning 8-13 μm.[31] Values range about εs=0.65-0.99, with lowest values typically limited to the most barren desert areas. “
yes and even the emissivity measured at nadir is a poor measure of mean wattage escaping a rough surface. comparing it to a blackbody curve is beyond hilarious. but hey we got folks in here gobbling it up like the 3rd grader radiation model.
the way its presented to public by the likes of trenberth its energy in with the epsilon parameter in place at 242w/m2 which recognizes albedo (the inverse of emissivity) and its emitted at energy figured without the epsilon parameter and the difference is deceptively called the greenhouse effect.
Its funny how the non-skeptical folks in here just repeat what their daddy told them.
.95 is an estimate of emissivity from the true vertical. But emissivity decreases with increasing angle because of surface roughness. And the oceans vary greatly in swell height and seafoam generated by winds.
And mean wind speeds change from year to year and from decade to decade.
https://tinyurl.com/39wnru4a
Ok how do you know that 95 percent figure is correct?
Has it been measured or is it assumed?
Is it constant for the earth as a whole?
I assume that the figure is different for the ocean compared to land.
Also how do different types of land affect it. A desert will have a different emmision spectrum to the ice over the poles..
the 95% figure is an estimate derived from nadir satellite views. But these are taken on clear days which particularly for the ocean does not include storms which greatly reduce emissivity. Mean wind speed is estimated at a bit more than 20mph. But clear days correspond generally to a lower wind speed average.
Clint R
You do not know that the graph is hokey. You believe that the graph is hokey; not the same thing at all.
No Ent, I know the graph is hokey. I know you are hokey.
You don’t have any respect for reality or science. You believe you get to make up science to fit your bogus beliefs.
EM,
You do not understand your own graph.
All of the energy shown by the graph escapes to space. Some at greater rates than others. Have a look – show me a frequency that has no “flux”, if you can.
Of course, what ignorant cultists fail to mention is that any radiation absorbed by say, CO2, raises the temperature of the CO2, which immediately emits that radiation, generally at longer wavelengths. Any gas hotter than its surroundings will cool. Fact.
The fact is that even when the atmosphere is hotter than the surface (say at night, with a low level inversion), the surface still cools. Fact.
You do not seem to have the faintest clue what you are talking about.
Swenson says:
”The fact is that even when the atmosphere is hotter than the surface (say at night, with a low level inversion), the surface still cools. Fact.”
yes that is typically the case as typically the atmosphere is transparent to allow penetration of the inversion at a greater amount than any warmth received from the inversion.
but you will have a really hard time convincing EM because he believes the backradiation fairytale warms everything.
Actually,
“Of course, what ignorant cultists fail to mention is that any radiation absorbed by say, CO2, raises the temperature of the CO2, which immediately emits that radiation, generally at longer wavelengths. Any gas hotter than its surroundings will cool. Fact.”
Not a fact.
CO2 emits the same wavelengths it abzorbes.
“the red line shows the amount of radiation emitted by the surface”
if it was a black body. It is actually a grey body.
And if it were a blackbody with a mean temperature of 294K when it is actually probably somewhere between 285 and 289k.
Bill Hunter
The graph shows emissions for a point on Earth’s surface, not a global average.
That means you can NOT use it as you attempted, Ent.
You got caught in your fraud, again.
exactly! the poles emit more radiation to space than they receive from the sun due to convective transport. thus spots at low latitudes emit less than what is received making EMs reply and graph about as hokey as can be as he actually selected a spot several degrees warmer than average. anybody who knows anything about the movement of energy in the earth’s climate system would instantly spot that and call out the hokum. i didn’t see any of em’s buddies spotting it either.
EM,
All emitted radiation escapes to space, if the emitting body is hotter than its environment, which it is, certainly in the absence of sunlight.
Any graph purporting to show that the surface or the atmosphere heats up in the absence of sunlight is just silly.
The graphic to which you link is brightly colored – and completely irrelevant.
The surface cools at night. Deny it if you wish.
All energy emitted by the surface finds its way to space – and disappears from the Earth. Fast or slow, makes no difference. Thus, the surface has cooled, in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight, graph or no graph.
Saying that the GHE is the area between the black and red lines showing the amount of radiation retained by the atmosphere, is just ludicrous. About as silly as Willard’s “Not cooling, slower cooling”.
Get a grip on reality.
ent…I have seen this cartoon before. Quite amusing.
For one, there is no indication of the source, or how the graph was compiled. Was it from actual measurement, from a model, or simply mathematical calculations based on an incorrect application of S-B?
For another, I was taught in engineering drawing classes, that a drawing should be self-explanatory. In this drawing, it is indicated that the greenish colour, indicating the area under the curve, is the ‘spectral flux’ at TOA. What is meant by ‘spectral flux’?
The rage of the base tells us it extends to 2000 cm^-1, which is a wave number for 2000 cycles per centimeter. Converting to wavelength we get 5000 nanometers. The curve’s peak is around 700 cm^-1, centering it at about 14,286 nm, which is about the mid-IR band. The centre wavelength is close to 15,000 nm which is 15 microns, since a nanometer is 10^-3 microns.
So, we are talking about surface emission. Why is that not indicated on the graph as a title? The most import omission on the graph, however, is how they measure CO2 absorp.tion at 24 W/m^2 when the CO2 spectrum is overlain with the H20 spectrum? They make it appear on the drawing that the H2O spectrum is to the side of the CO2 spectrum but that is a lie.
That’s why I call this drawing a cartoon. It serves about the same purpose as a real cartoon…entertainment value.
The 240 W/m^2 is very much hot!
–
Just think about an appartment of 100 m^2. If you arrange 240 W electric heaters on each square meter, there will be 24 kW – it is too much of energy.
–
Something is very wrong in earth’s radiative balance’s estimations!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You should go outside sometime.
Ken…I think Christos is agreeing with you. He is taking a shot at the S-B based theory that the Earth emits 240 W/m^2. According to the bs surrounding S-B, ice emits 315 W/m^2.
Why is no one querying this, as Christos is questioning it?
Earth radiative balance is 240 Wm-2.
No one is questioning S-B because its pretty solid.
https://climatalk.org/2020/12/27/earth-radiation-balance/
Useless Maundering isn’t going to disprove S-B.
Ken, from your link –
“We can conclude three things from this: first, without the back radiation from greenhouse gases, the source would receive only a third of the energy and therefore be quite cold; . . . ”
Complete garbage. The Moon has no “greenhouse gases” and maximum temperatures exceed 125 C.
Even your silly authors write “Averaged over the entire Earth surface, the incoming solar energy amounts to 341.3 Watts per square metre (W/m), most of it being visible light. Of this incoming energy, 102 W/m get directly reflected back into space.”
Gee, reducing the amount of incoming radiation makes the surface hotter, does it?
Only joking, the Moon’s surface gets hotter because it gets more incoming radiation, not less!
Do the authors of your reference work in a sheltered workshop, or possibly for the Government? I certainly wouldnt involve them in anything which requires accepting reality.
Would you!
ken…”No one is questioning S-B because its pretty solid”.
***
I know you believe this but you don’t seem to understand what S-B means and what it does not. S-B was derived initially by Stephan, the ‘S’ in S-B. He, in turn, got his data from an experiment by Tyndall in which he heated a platinum filament wire electrically till it glowed. The filament only glows between about 500C and 1500C and it was in the temperature range that S-B applied. There is not a shrd of evidence that it applies accurately for radiation at terrestrial temperatures.
The constant of proportionality applies in that range only and no official experiments have been done at terrestrial temperatures to establish its accuracy there. Obviously, it is wrong at terrestrial temperatures because it gives ice a radiation intensity of 315 watts/m^2.
One of the biggest problems with S-B was Stefan’s association with Boltzmann, the ‘B’ in S-B. Boltzmann was his student and went on to derive a statistical analysis of gases without working with an actual gas. He was so arrogant that he re-defined entropy statistically, so much so, that many modern scientists incorrectly use his definition which redefines entropy as a measure of disorder rather than a measure of heat, as Clausius, the inventor of entropy, had defined it.
Anyone applying S-B today must understand those limitations, especially those who accept that ice can emit a radiation with intensity of 315 W/m^2.
You are welcome to your beliefs and your opinion that S-B is ‘pretty solid’ right across the range of temperatures from 0K thought the hottest temperature available. I read somewhere that for temperatures well in excess of 1500C, the T^4 figure is adjusted to T5. Why would that not apply at lower temperatures as well?
ken…re your link…I am surprised you’d offer a link to the work of Trenberth after your promotion of Happer. Trenberth and Kiehl wrote the original paper on the energy budget and it is full of inaccuracies. The most glaring inaccuracy is back-radiation offering almost twice the energy input as the Sun. Trenberth would have us believe that a trace gas can return almost as much radiation as the surface emits.
Seriously, Ken, the energy budget paper was an amateur effort in which Trenberth admitted they had used no physical evidence and only calculation based on theory.
On top of that, Trenberth is a notorious alarmist. If you want to offer that trash as evidence, it makes me suspect your claim to be a skeptic.
The radiative balance model as described by the climate shysters is a Mathematical onanie, willy nilly adding and subtracting imaginary wats
A complete and utter nonsense with no bases of real world and fizzix.
Flat earth included as a bonus.
https://i.postimg.cc/Kcfhz3NS/energy-budget.png
Bathed in perpetual sunlight to boot. Night has been abolished, as surface cooling is inconvenient for the SkyDragon narrative.
A strong tropical cyclone is approaching Vanuatu from the northeast. A very clear eye.
Tropical cyclone Tej makes landfall on the border of Yemen and Oman. Rainfall will exceed the annual norm in the area several times.
In 5 days there will be a major winter attack in the northwest of the US.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/10/28/1200Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-102.68,45.14,1470
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/10/28/1200Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=-102.68,45.14,1470
It could be a minor weather shock in the western US.
https://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/october-on-track-to-smash-prior-monthly
Any other predictions for October?
The question that need to be answered is why is that the Spring/Autumn is SO warm?
agreed. HTE would seem to be the most likely culprit since there doesn’t seem to be anything else being suggested.
Richard, it was warm around here in the Vancouver, Canada region till recently. We are now facing 10C highs and lows around 0C. One forecast is for -3C.
If it’s warm where you are I am happy for you.
“Any other predictions for October?”
0.8C +/- 0.05
Actually that’s not a bad guess, Ark.
The southern PV is shutting down finally. It’s work is done. All the excess thermal energy from the HTE has been removed. The only “abnormal” forcing is the El Niño, which the northern PV should be able to handle.
We need a new Journal format, where peer review is open and evergreen. This would improve science tremendously. Papers could change status from citable to critically flawed based on reviews. Perhaps add an AI to cross reference and find inconsistency that represents opportunities to learn. Scares me you are scared of peer review. Glad I pivoted from an academic career. Science is broken.
Peer review should be what the phrase states, a review by peers. That means all scientists who care to review the paper.
As it stands, peer review has been reduced to a journal editor deciding whether a paper is worth reviewing, and if he/she thinks it is worth a review, farming the paper out to one reviewer. Therefore, scientific work is reduced to the opinion of one person, right or wrong.
Roy has revealed the problem with this method, where a reviewer may not understand the intent of the paper or the information it contains.
Then there is the issue faced by John Christy of UAH who co-authored a paper that was dogged by Kevin Trenberth of UCAR, so much so, that a journal editor felt inclined to resign after accepting the paper. Trenberth has no business sticking his nose into peer review, however, he apparently has a history of it along with Michael Mann.
Trenberth and Phil Jones, both climate alarmists, with Jones formerly head of Had-crut, were partnered as Coordinating Lead Authors on IPCC reviews. CLAs hold a very influential position in the reviews since they appoint the Lead Authors who oversee the reviewers and write the Summary for Policymakers. They get to influence the politicians because politicians go on the Summary, not on the main report, written by 2500 reviewers.
The Summary is a farce. Before 2500 reviewers submit their findings, the Summary has already been released, written by 50 Lead Authors. Then the main report is amended to reflect the opinions of the Summary. The IPCC is crooked as is most peer review these days.
In the Climategate email scandal, Phil Jones wrote that he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that certain papers from skeptics would not make it to the final review stage. One of those papers was co-authored by John Christy and the paper did not make it to the review stage.
Although Jones did not name ‘Kevin’ as Kevin Trenberth, it seems apparent that’s who he meant. In the other emails, Michael Mann was seen to be actively campaigning to interfere in peer review by putting pressure on reviewers.
Gordon Robertson says:
”As it stands, peer review has been reduced to a journal editor deciding whether a paper is worth reviewing, and if he/she thinks it is worth a review, farming the paper out to one reviewer. Therefore, scientific work is reduced to the opinion of one person, right or wrong.”
Well one has to recognize what peer review is. What you usually have is either a for-profit magazine or a non-profit advocacy journal who represents a field of science. They need to maximize either sales or benefits to a defined niche populace. Thus they select peer reviewers deemed to fit the mold.
There is nothing crooked about this as no laws or regulations or promulgated standards govern the peer review programs.
But if you want truly independent peer review it would need to arise from a desire by the science community in cooperation with government regulation to provide appropriate penalties to professionals involved in peer review processes. The CPA model provides a framework of an accounting society promulgating standards and the government taking care of the egregious violations. Alternatives might involve the independent Civil Service providing peer review of papers finding their way into policy processes. Obviously no system can be near perfect, but the current system is so severely lacking when butting up against public interest. . .either something has to be done or we will have to wait until so much credibility is lost that science falls by the wayside.
bill…my point is that peer review should be by peers…all of them who wish to review a paper. That means the entire scientific community. No paper from a legitimate scientist like Roy, John Christy, or Lindzen should ever be rejected by one person reviewing a paper.
All paper from legitimate scientists should be accepted and published. If I entered a paper, I could see it being subjected to greater scrutiny. However, if I remained inside the bounds of acceptable science, my paper should be released.
In other words, if I write a paper criticizing Einstein, it should not be rejected simply because I criticized an authority figure. That has happened to bona fide scientists like Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock.
https://arxiv.org/
Yea this is close to what I have in mind. I have not submitted to it myself, but am interested in trying. The difference is 1. Make it a content journal like paleoclimate etc. 2. Include AI, When I play with Chat GPT, I don’t understand why they don’t have a deep learning trained to find inconsistency and flag them.
binny…to Bill Hunter…”…you discredit and denigrate dozens of incredibly complex analyzes of the lunar motions as academic exercises…”.
***
That’s because those analyses are just analyses, not actual physics based on the scientific method. They were done by scientists known more as mathematicians than physicists.
Going back to Cassini, it’s not at all clear upon what he based his OPINION of lunar rotation. Cassini’s lifespan almost parallels that of Newton so Cassini was likely not privy to Newtons work since much of it has not published till after Newton’s death circa 1725. Cassini would have been affected more by the work of the mathematician Kepler, who used the observations of Tycho Brahe to work out his relationships in planetary motion.
Cassini did important work, such as discovering planets and observing the rings of Saturn, however, it appears he guessed that the Moon rotated about a local axis rather than proving it. Furthermore, the interpreter of Newton’s work, which was largely in Old Latin, likely used the opinions of Cassini to claim Newton believed the Moon rotated. There is nothing related to physics in Principia to indicated Newton believed that, in fact, Newton’s own words related to lunar motion indicates the opposite.
Lagrange and Laplace did important work in mathematics that is still used today but their dabbling in physics was more comical than anything. Mayer also did important work wrt the Moon but any theories he had re lunar rotation were more flights of fancy than good science. The unfortunate thing with Mayer was the invention of a sea-going clock that had the accuracy to help sailors identify their position wrt to longitude. Meyer had done it brilliantly wrt the Moon but the clock made his work obsolete, since the Moon is not out every night and only appears in any sky for two weeks at a time.
The only scientist who has examined the problem of lunar motion re rotation was Tesla and he proved the Moon cannot rotate. He applied principles related to kinetic energy to prove it impossible for the Moon to rotate while keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
Several of us here on Roy’s blog have also proved Tesla’s point and none of us are professional scientists per se.
It becomes boring to correct Robertson all the time because he never changes his mind and always resorts to this old stuff. But if you don’t correct him, his gullible followers on this blog will think he’s right.
What he wrote is all his own invention.
*
1. ” Cassinis lifespan almost parallels that of Newton so Cassini was likely not privy to Newtons work since much of it has not published till after Newtons death circa 1725. ”
Wrong.
Newton’s hint on the lunar spin appeared already in the first edition of the Principia in 1686/7 (in Book III, ‘De Mundi Systemate’):
https://books.google.de/books?id=XJwx0lnKvOgC&pg=421&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
You and your friends-in-den~ial desperately tried many times to misinterpret and misrepresent Newton. Your bad.
Newton perfectly had understood Cassini.
In the third edition of 1726, he specifically refers to the letter he wrote in 1675 to the German astronomer Mercator (Nikolaus Kauffmann, as his name was then spelled).
https://books.google.de/books?id=x-_K1KGZvv4C&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&source=bl&ots=LtVy4wJkn_&sig=ACfU3U3JXf_82r1cHHz7daxmm0agYrJFcQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUgYmsh8zjAhVsxosKHY1NAXAQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
See footnote (g) 78.
This is from a renowned review in Latin made in Italy by the French priesters Thomas Leseur and François Jacquier between 1739 and 1742.
Mercator published Newton’s letter in 1676 in his treatise about astronomy.
*
2. ” Furthermore, the interpreter of Newton’s work, which was largely in Old Latin, likely used the opinions of Cassini to claim Newton believed the Moon rotated. There is nothing related to physics in Principia to indicated Newton believed that, in fact, Newton’s own words related to lunar motion indicates the opposite. ”
A further load on egomaniacal narrative and lies.
Firstly, Robertson has been explained at least once that Newton’s and all other people’s scientific work was, in Principia’s times, published in New Latin; Old latin was in use by Romans until about 50 BC.
In addition, Robertson is trying for the umpteenth time to refute Newton’s view of the moon’s rotation around its axis, claiming that it only came about in translation (he apparently means Andrew Motte’s).
Robertson received a list of all known Principia translators (at least 10, from different countries) from me some time ago, but of course ignored it.
He could also look at the latest original translation from the Latin by Ian Bruce… but he will definitely be careful not to do so.
*
3. ” Lagrange and Laplace did important work in mathematics that is still used today but their dabbling in physics was more comical than anything. Mayer also did important work wrt the Moon but any theories he had re lunar rotation were more flights of fancy than good science. ”
This is of unbelievable arrogance, especially when coming from a scientifically 100% uneducated person like Robertson, who never would be able to contradict these historical scientists.
Robertson and all the lunar spin den~iers ‘operating’ on this blog don’t have a tiny bit of a clue of what Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace did, let alone their many many successors.
*
4. ” The only scientist who has examined the problem of lunar motion re rotation was Tesla and he proved the Moon cannot rotate. ”
Tesla didn’t prove anything: he wrote a trivial pamphlet in which he expressed his private OPINION, and nothing more.
Tesla was a successful inventer, no doubt; but he was not a scientist, as he never finished any scientific education anywhere, and hence never and never would have been able to find any flaw in the work of all scientists who worked in this area.
*
5. ” Several of us here on Roys blog have also proved Teslas point… ”
This is really brazen.
Nowhere – I repeat: nowhere did anybody prove anything in this area – except own utter overestimation.
*
Whe gullibly believes Robertson’s trash deserves it.
Bindidon makes up science from hints.
1) These people lived in an era before it was fully understood what controls motions. Newton and those who follow him in here have argued that no torque is exerted on the moon by earth because its a sphere.
2) There is no work from Newton that clearly specifies the differences between rotations and orbits. Being able to do it mathematically isn’t evidence of of spin and orbit being separate and independent motions.
3) Some of the people you quote did more work that fundamentally makes an orbit a rotation than any work they did that makes spin and orbit separate and independent motions.
If I am wrong provide the evidence in the form of a credible link.
1. The Hunter boy is here the one who makes up science from… his own three hints, for which as usual we see no reference ‘in the form of a credible link’.
This is really brazen.
Thus, Hunter boy: what about starting with a link showing scientific evidence of what you claim in your hints?
*
Moreover, you seem to ‘forget’ the fact that you yourself discredited and denigrated how Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and today’s lunar spin analysts computed the lunar spin period and its inclination wrt the Ecliptic, without giving any scientific contradiction to these works.
All you could answer was your vague ‘gut feeling’ that these people wouldnt understand physics!
By the way, Mayer’s education in physics was probably light years higher than yours (and mine).
*
You deliberately ignore everything that was done in the field – from the people at the Kazan Observatory in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, up to the recent works done by so many people.
You very probably keep opinionated to such an extent that you didn’t carefully read even only ONE of the papers whose links I presented on this blog:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
*
2. ” These people lived in an era before it was fully understood what controls motions. ”
So, if I well understand you, Newton himself did not ‘fully understand’ what controls motions.
Wow.
You do not seem to know how perfectly Mayer, Lagrange and Laplace were aware of Newton’s work. Maybe you even ignore that their work was done long after Newton died?
I just need to name Mayer, who used Newton’s gravity law to mathematically prove that the Moon was of sufficiently spherical shape to make the use of spherical trigonometry valuable for the analysis of the motions of the lunar craters he observed during over a year.
*
3. Nobody talks about torque here. Conversely, no one has ever been able to scientifically disprove that celestial bodies that orbit a larger celestial body also rotate around an internal axis, because both movements were given to them at birth in stellar accretion disks.
Bindi, I’m tired of this nonsense and you keep bringing it up. You must believe if you spout your crap enough you might convince someone. Maybe you’re just obsessed with perverting science….
Newton’s quotes have been explained to you numerous times. He was clearly referring to how day/night occurs on Moon. He was NOT implying Moon spins.
If you were sane, you would realize you have NO valid model of “orbital motion without spin”. You MUST have such a model, or you’ve got NOTHING.
Clint R
Feel free to get tired.
Your desperate trials to misrepresent what Newton wrote in his Principia
https://books.google.de/books?id=x-_K1KGZvv4C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&source=bl&ots=LtVy4wJkn_&sig=ACfU3U3JXf_82r1cHHz7daxmm0agYrJFcQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjUgYmsh8zjAhVsxosKHY1NAXAQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
won’t change anything.
The Latin text above was translated by the German professor Jakob Philipp Wolfers in 1872.
https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Mathematische_Principien_der_Naturlehre/Buch3-I
(. 21. Lehrsatz)
I translated it into English using Google’s Translator.
*
” The daily movement of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the Moon arises from its daily movement.
This is clear from the first law of motion and from . 107., addition 22. of the first book.
Jupiter completes its daily revolution in relation to the fixed stars after 9h 56m, Mars after 24h 39m, Venus after about 23h, the Earth after 23h 56m, the Sun after 25 days and the Moon after 27 days 7h 45m.
This results from the Phaenomena.
Since the spots on the sun’s disk return to the same position in relation to the earth after 27 1/2 days; so the sun must rotate with respect to the fixed stars in approximately 25 1/2 days.
Since the day of the moon rotating uniformly around its axis is one month, the same side of it will always be very close to the distant focal point and, depending on the position of this focal point, will be turned away from the earth on one side or the other.
This is the moon’s libration in longitude.
As for its libration in latitude, it arises from its latitude and the inclination of its axis to the ecliptic.
According to my letters to him, Mercator extensively elaborated on this theory of libration in his Astronomy, published in 1676. ”
*
You can distort this text as long as you want: that won’t change it.
*
Your endless blah blah about your ” orbital motion without spin ” is absolute, insane, unscientific nonsense.
Bindi, you’ve definitely gone wacko over this. You’re confusing a translation from Newton with other unrelated translations. You’ve got it so confused that you appear insane.
It’s real simple.
Newton invented calculus to answer this issue. His work revealed that a non-spinning body would always have the same side facing the inside of the orbit, just as Moon does. I’ve offered to prove this to you if you would refrain from commenting here for 60 days. You refused because you have no interest in learning reality.
Also, we STILL don’t have YOUR model of “orbital motion without spin”.
understanding that forces control motions is fundamentally different from know which force controls a specific motion. wow! you had no idea nor reference to provide.
binny…”As for its libration in latitude, it arises from its latitude and the inclination of its axis to the ecliptic”.
***
Dremt explained it better. The lunar orbital plane is on an angle of about 5 degrees to Earth’s orbital plane. Therefore the Moon passes through Earth’s orbital plane and our view of it from Earth changes. That gives us latitudinal libration.
Libration is all about view angle. It’s an illusion created by lunar orbital motion. Nothing rotates.
It probably won’t change anybody’s mind, but the graphic on Wikipedia showing “Newton’s cannonball” shows (as it should) a cannonball fired from a smoothbore cannon (no spin from rifling, no tumbling) orbiting the Earth, with one side facing the Earth at all times – just like the Moon.
The force of gravity acting on the cannonball and the Moon causes it to fall towards the Earth bottom first, as it should.
If anyone thinks this is a different form of motion to a ball on a string whirling around a fixed point, they are welcome to think so.
However, there is only one major force working on the Moon, the force of gravity, causing the Moon to fall towards the Earth about one twentieth of one inch every second. Yes, I know s=1/2at^2. Work it out. Newton was right.
Don’t take Clint R’s bet.
I did, and he never produced his proof.
Because he doesn’t have one, he’s a welsher.
Brain-dead bob is trying to get me to use the “L” word.
But, I was raised better. I know who my dad was….
Still no proof eh, Clint R?
“It probably wont change anybodys mind, but the graphic on Wikipedia showing Newtons cannonball shows (as it should) a cannonball fired from a smoothbore cannon (no spin from rifling, no tumbling) orbiting the Earth, with one side facing the Earth at all times just like the Moon. ”
Which brings back the torque problem.
Before firing the cannonball makes one rotation every 24 hours, as it sits on the surface of the Earth. After firing you claim that it keeps one face towards Earth.
A spinner would say it is rotating once per orbit (1 revolution and rotation every 90 minutes?).
A non-spinner would say it does not rotate at all.
Either way a mysterious torque has been applied to change the rate of rotation.
If you tried the experiment in reality the cannonball would keep the rotation it had before firing. It would complete one revolution around its orbit every 90 minutes and one rotation on its axis every 24 hours.
Wrong Ent!
The cannonball would have ZERO rotation before firing. Once again, you’re confusing revolving with orbiting.
You don’t understand ANY of the science involved. You’re just religiously trying to support your cult’s nonsense.
Entropic man says:
”Before firing the cannonball makes one rotation every 24 hours, as it sits on the surface of the Earth. After firing you claim that it keeps one face towards Earth.
A spinner would say it is rotating once per orbit (1 revolution and rotation every 90 minutes?).
A non-spinner would say it does not rotate at all.”
————————
thats the crazy part of the spinner religion.
lets look at a simpler example.
a cannonball is sitting on the ground on earth.
both a spinner and non-spinner would say the cannonball is rotating once rotation per day around the center of the earth.
now carefully and vertically elevate the cannon ball to a elevation that its velocity increases to an acceptable orbital speed and assume an earth day is about 90 minutes to begin with.
the spinner would say the cannonball is both orbiting the earth and rotating on its own axis at one time per the original 90 minutes. yes it would show all faces to the earth because the radius of its rotation was increased around the center of the earth, but its velocity didn’t change. So indeed the resultant increase in elevation would increase the angular momentum of cannonball by exactly the energy that was applied to increase its altitude.
the non-spinner would say that the cannonball continues to rotate around the center of earth, but with a retrograde spin on the center of the cannonball. And that gravity of earth would work to stop the retrograde spin and apply that energy to a further increase in elevation and by extension move the retrograde spin angular momentum to the angular momentum of the cannonballs rotation around the center of the earth. thus all angular momentum is conserved in accordance with the laws of physics.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Entropic man says:
”Either way a mysterious torque has been applied to change the rate of rotation.”
——————
No mystery. Its solved above. Become a non-spinner and all confusion goes away.
one small error is in the above. the velocity was not supposed to increase as the cannonball was lifted as the force was to be purely vertical. i had to rewrite this as the first time i wrote it the orbital velocity didn’t increase. but that post failed to post so i had to rewrite it.
cannons create trajectories by inceasing that orbital velocity and i wanted a simpler example where torque wasn’t initially applied as straight lift would not apply torque without a continuing physical connection to the ground adding both radius and velocity to the cannonball.
i guess em doesn’t want to explain how the cannonball (or rock) at rest on the surface of the earth goes from rotating around the earth’s center to rotating around its own center when lifted off the surface.
if i were a spinner i would avoid that one at all cost too.
binny…from your link 1…once again Newton is talking about libration, it’s right in the title of Prop. XVII, Theor. XVI. A fairly accurate translation from Google follows…
“Since the moon, revolving uniformly around its axis, is a monthly day; the same face of this will always look at the further center of the world itself, and therefore, according to the position of that center, it will deviate here and there from the Earth. This is the balance in the length of the plane of the disk”.
The Google translator confused libratio, an obvious reference to libration, with ‘balance’.
The argument here is what is meant by axis and revolution. As Dremt and Bill Hunter have argued, correctly, a rotation depends on whether the axis is internal or external. Normally, we use ‘revolve’ to express the motion of a planet about the Sun, or another planet, but a firearm, the revolver, is called that when the chamber actually rotate about an inner axis. Therefore, we humans use the word rotate and revolve interchangeably.
In Newton’s Latin, he uses the word ‘revolventis’. I looked up the root meaning of that word in Latin and it can mean different things depending on the context. It is normally used to describe the motion of a planet in orbit about the Sun or about another planet. However, it can refer to general motion along a curved path.
In another Newton quote from Principia (July 5th, 1686), he states…in Def. V…
“Hujus generis est gravitas, qua corpus tendit ad centrum Terr: Vis magnetica, qua ferrum petit centrum Magnetis, et vis illa, qucunq; sit, qua Planet perpetuo retrahuntur a motibus rectilineis, et in lineis curvis revolvi coguntur. Est autem vis centripet quantitas trium generum, absoluta, acceleratrix et
motrix”.
Google…”Gravity is of this kind, by which the body tends to the center of the Earth: The magnetic force here, where the iron seeks the center of the magnet, and that force, each one; let it be, which Planet they are constantly withdrawn from rectilinear motions, and forced to revolve in curved lines”.
This is a variation of his quote that I have posted several times. It omits his statement about the near face always facing Earth. It is simply not possible for a planetary body (th Moon) to move as Newton describes while rotating about a local axis and keeping the same face pointed at Earth.
Note the phrase…”…et in lineis curvis revolvi coguntur”…wich translates as “…and they are forced to revolve in curved lines”.
What are the chances that Newton would use revolve to describe local rotation? At the link you posted, he is clearly talking about libration, which is a property of Earth’s slightly elliptical orbit. He is not talking about local rotation and the context must be respected.
The clincher, however, is Newtons reference to the magnet pulling a body off course in comparison to Earth’s gravity. He states that the planets are forced from rectilinear motion to move in curved lines. In the other quote I proved in the past, he does not say curved lines, he says curvilinear motion.
In summary, Newton stated the planets move in straight lines and are bent off that straight line into a curved path, which is obviously the orbital path. He also states in your own link that the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth but faces slightly either side of the line connecting them in longitudinal libration.
If he was referring to the Moon rotating about a local axis, why would he confuse a libration in which the Moon appears to move a few degrees back and forth about a line connecting Earth and Moon with a full blown 360 degree rotation?
binny…”Tesla didnt prove anything: he wrote a trivial pamphlet in which he expressed his private OPINION, and nothing more.
Tesla was a successful inventer, no doubt; but he was not a scientist…”
***
Some pamphlet. He very accurately laid out the kinetic energies of spheres that had to move in a similar manner as the Moon. He had spheres attached to spokes on a wheel-like apparatus, and any common ijit should be able to see that the motion of those spheres parallel the motion of a Moon in orbit that keeps the same face pointed at Earth. Obviously, I have mistaken you for a common ijit because you cannot even understand what one would understand.
Some inventor!!! Einstein should have been so lucky as to invent 3-phase transmission systems, 3-phase motors, and 3-phase transformers, etc. If he lacked a degree, it proves that someone without one can operate at the genius level, wile out-performing scientists with degrees.
Gordon Robertson
You and Tesla have two things in common.
You are both electrical engineera and you both write a load of bullshit.
EM,
So?
So both of them are wrong about the Moon’s rotation.
Also, GR is using the “argument from authority”, citing Tesla who isn’t an authority.
Hunter boy
You wrote above:
” Bindidon makes up science from hints.
1) These people lived in an era before it was fully understood what controls motions. Newton and those who follow him in here have argued that no torque is exerted on the moon by earth because its a sphere.
2) There is no work from Newton that clearly specifies the differences between rotations and orbits. Being able to do it mathematically isnt evidence of of spin and orbit being separate and independent motions.
3) Some of the people you quote did more work that fundamentally makes an orbit a rotation than any work they did that makes spin and orbit separate and independent motions.
If I am wrong provide the evidence in the form of a credible link. ”
*
I provided you since quite long as time with links to papers you discredit – based on your gut feeling, instead of providing me with links to papers scientifically contradicting the papers I presented.
And please, please: avoid mentioning Tesla’s superficial pamphlet.
Where are your links, Hunter boy, pointing to scientific papers contradicting ALL scientists I mentioned – from Cassini, NEWTON, Mercator, Mayer, Euler, Lagrange, Laplace, Beer/Mädler, Habibullin, Rizvanov, Koziel, Echhardt, Calamé, Mingus, Moons, etc etc, and all American, Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Indian people who prepared lunar landings and perfectly understood that they had to care of our Moon rotating at 4.7 meters per second at its equator?
Do you know what I think, Hunter boy? I think you are not able to present even one such paper.
*
By the way: you were brazen enough to write:
” Being able to do it mathematically isnt evidence of of spin and orbit being separate and independent motions. ”
Do you REALLY think that a top science man like Newton would be du~mb and ignorant enough to view Earth’s spin and orbit NOT ‘being separate and independent motions’ ?
Now, Hunter boy, you are really going a bit too far.
*
I review your point (3):
” Some of the people you quote did more work that fundamentally makes an orbit a rotation than any work they did that makes spin and orbit separate and independent motions. ”
Where is your link to a document proving this your ‘hint’ ?
Bindidon,
Why do you care about Moon’s rotation?
–
Moon does not rotate for many-many millions years now.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks, Christos.
How’s life in Athens these days?
notice how bindidon cowers out of establishing his claims.
first he lies about previously providing references from Newton’s work establishing the spin element of the moon’s angular momentum is independent of the orbit element.
Then as typical of our warmists in hear he goes on a major campaign of name dropping without providing any such evidence for any of them.
Then he caps it off with a challenge to me to refute what obviously doesn’t even exist. Really sad!
You must be new here, Robert:
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
I hope you stick around!
The effect of urban heat islands has been, let’s say, looked at, and within the limits of the global effect on the temperature trend, is really small.
Hansen et al. 2010 Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo, 2010: Global surface temperature change. Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4004, doi:10.1029/2010RG000345.
Asphalt is pitch black. . .literally.
It’s also black pitch.
Literally.
Eli, whenever you see the name “Hansen”, you know it ain’t science.
Eli, Eli, Eli,
You do understand that Dr. Spencer’s work falsifies Hansen’s work? Not the other way.
‘
He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed, obviously
Eli Rabbett wrote –
“The effect of urban heat islands has been, lets say, looked at, and within the limits of the global effect on the temperature trend, is really small.”
Ooooooh! Appealing to his own authority (with a bit of sarcasm thrown in for good measure).
No doubt Eli could describe the GHE if he felt like it, but he doesn’t feel like it. He could probably explain why the surface cools every night, as it has done for four and a half billion years, if the Chinese hadn’t stolen his intellectual property!
Eli is one of those strange people with a diseased imagination who waffles about green plates and blue plates, and seems to think that an object instantaneously radiating all the energy which impinges on it, somehow creates some, and heats up to radiate more than it receives!
Quite apart from all the other physical impossibilities he seems to believe!
Not terribly bright is Eli Rabbett.
Can’t describe the GHE, can’t say why the surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and doesn’t have a grasp of basic physics! And then appeals to the authority of James Hansen, who has been predicting doom for some time. For example, in 2008 he said “in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.”
Oh well, birds of a feather flock together.
swenson, is the GHE in the room with you right now?
Have you accidentally borrowed Weepy Wee Willard’s gibberish generator?
If you can describe the GHE, and tell me which room to look in, I’ll let you know.
I’m not in a room at the moment, so you wasted money on those mind reading lessons.
Mike Flynn,
Gill already spoon fed you:
Search for “Wood” on this page.
Cheers.
You’ve got your gibberish generator back, then?
It’s working well, I see.
What are you braying about, Mike?
Searching for “Wood” leads to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/new-paper-submission-urban-heat-island-effects-in-u-s-summer-temperatures-1880-2015/#comment-1549730
Don’t like it?
Suck it up.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Another stupid link?
What are you babbling about? If you have something to say, say it.
Or just crank out more gibberish. The choice is yours.
Have you found a better description of the GHE apart from yours – “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Maybe you could devise one which states the outcomes of the GHE – unless you are claiming that the slow cooling of the Earth was due to a GHE, rather than the application of known physical laws.
You aren’t looking terribly rational, are you?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Don’t like Gill’s description?
See if I care!
Cheers.
Weepy Wee Willy,
Another stupid link?
What are you babbling about? If you have something to say, say it.
Or just crank out more gibberish. The choice is yours.
Have you found a better description of the GHE apart from yours “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Maybe you could devise one which states the outcomes of the GHE unless you are claiming that the slow cooling of the Earth was due to a GHE, rather than the application of known physical laws.
You aren’t looking terribly rational, are you?
Mike Flynn,
You bray –
“Another stupid link?”
What other link?
Cheers.
"swenson, is the GHE in the room with you right now?"
DREMT impersonator, please stop destroying the integrity of the entire system.
swenson…”No doubt Eli could describe the GHE if he felt like it, but he doesnt feel like it”.
***
Eli has a degree in physics but teaches chemistry classes. In a paper he co-authored as a rebuttal to the G&T refuting the GHE, the team made a major gaffe. One basis of G&T in their paper is the 2nd law, which they applied to radiation transfer. Eli and his buddies replied essentially that the 2nd law contradicted radiation flow because it would mean one body of a two body system was not radiating.
That is one of the major errors in the GHE and AGW theories. They believe that heat can be transferred in both direction, between bodies of different temperatures by radiation. Yet, Clausius, who wrote the 2nd law, claimed that even radiation could not transfer heat, by its own means, from cold to hot.
Obviously, Eli has not studied quantum theory because the explanation for the 2nd law is inherent in it.
Cool story, Bordo:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/03/dear-judge-alsop-spectroscopic-basis.html
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/03/dear-judge-alsop-quantum-interlude.html
Where are your posts on quantum theory?
Ha Gordon,
Eli could teach you a thing or two about Quantum Theory.
He was the head of the Physical Chemistry department where he taught.
bob, if you were able to think for yourself, you would understand that a PhD rotting in academia means NOTHING. One can’t even find the energy in a photon. One believes Sun can warm Earth to 800,000 K. One believes ice cubes can boil water.
How many examples do you need?
Clint R,
Not beliefs, evidence.
Who can’t find the evidence in a photon?
You took a quote out of context, if you quoted the whole thing, you would not say he believes the Sun can warm Earth to 800,000K.
I have seen evidence that ice cubes can cause water to boil.
oops, energy in a photon.
Go back to your rabbit warren, Eli, we are onto you.
Who’s “we,” Bordo?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Don’t you know? Tsk, tsk.
Isn’t it obvious, wee willy, we refers to the intelligent posters who are also skeptics?
Where? There aren’t any intelligent sceptics posting here.
EM,
I see. Anyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent, is that it?
Maybe you could provide a description of the GHE, and let a few skeptics express an opinion on it. Others could make up their minds about the level of your intelligence, and your ability to judge tha of others.
Here’s Willard’s description of the GHE – “Not cooling, slower cooling.”
What would you judge Willard’s IQ to be, based on his GHE description?
Higher than yours. You can’t even get his quote right.You
It should be “Not warming, slower cooling”
Higher than yours. You can’t even get his quote right.
It should be “Not warming, slower cooling”
EM,
I quoted Woeful Willard.
You just make up what you want to believe.
But if you want to fantasise, go ahead. Stick with your imaginary “quote”. If you believe that a description of the GHE is “Not warming, slower cooling”, then any global warming is most definitely not due to the GHE!
If you claim to be the arbiter of intelligence, you don’t seem to be doing too well.
Accept reality. You can’t even describe the GHE, can you? And you complain that people who don’t believe in a GHE which you can’t even describe, are unintelligent!
You need to try a little harder.
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
That quote is all yours.
Your paraphrase too!
Would you agree with Bordo that “we” refers to Sky Dragon cranks?
EM,
I quoted Woeful Willard.
You just make up what you want to believe.
But if you want to fantasise, go ahead. Stick with your imaginary quote. If you believe that a description of the GHE is Not warming, slower cooling, then any global warming is most definitely not due to the GHE!
If you claim to be the arbiter of intelligence, you dont seem to be doing too well.
Accept reality. You cant even describe the GHE, can you? And you complain that people who dont believe in a GHE which you cant even describe, are unintelligent!
You need to try a little harder.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
You did not quote me.
You misquoted yourself!
Cheers.
Witless Wee Willy,
What are you on about? What quote?
Are you claiming that you can describe the GHE better than “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Ho ho. I’d like to see that!
Michael Flynn?
Braying?
What?
Quote?
Cheers?
Witless Wee Willy,
What are you on about? What quote?
Are you claiming that you can describe the GHE better than “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Ho ho. I’d like to see that!
Why do you keep misrepresenting your own quote, Mike?
Elli, you quote a source that only you find authoritative, others don’t, so your appeal is risible.
Do you really believe that all the airport tarmac and the underlying concrete, all the buildings will instantly become cold as soon as the sun sets?
Eli, Anon. Please mind the Mediterranean habit of putting two L’s everywhere. People might get the hint.
Also, Eli is not alone in finding Hansen & al authoritative. So you might need to get your facts straight.
Finally, please work on your logic: Hansen & al’s results do not rely on denying any thermal property. They make a statistical point. The aeroport tarmac is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Cheerios.
weepy wee willy…”Eli is not alone in finding Hansen & al authoritative. So you might need to get your facts straight”.
***
Hansen could not make it in physics so he turned to astronomy. There, he fell under the spell of the ijit Carl Sagan, who brayed about the Venusian atmosphere being caused by a runaway greenhouse effect. That was disproved in 1978 when two probes of the Venus atmosphere returned surface temperatures of 450C, far too hot to produce a runaway greenhouse effect.
That did not stop Hansen from creating the lie that Earth was heading in the same direction. Hansen is likely an authority figure to you but to me he is yet another dumbass alarmist.
C’mon, Bordo.
Jim has a PhD in physics.
I bet you don’t even have a certification in electronics repair.
Do you happen to believe that a tube amp changes is better?
Oooooh! A PhD! He must be really, really, smart, then.
Averaging the historical observations of weather must take an enormous intellect, must it?
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, you know. Ask any self proclaimed “climate scientist”.
Mike Flynn,
Bordo said that Jim “could not make it in physics.”
Jim has a PhD in physics.
What are you braying about?
Wasteful Wee Willy,
Oooooh! A PhD! He must be really, really, smart, then.
Averaging the historical observations of weather must take an enormous intellect, must it?
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, you know. Ask any self proclaimed climate scientist.
Your Jim may have a PhD, but he doesn’t have a description of the GHE. A strange prophet of doom, with some odd ideas about fossil fuels, while believing he can foresee future climate states!
Luckily, only SkyDragon cultists like you pay any attention to his ramblings.
Best crank up your gibberish generator, and try to create some diversions.
I meant that Hansen could not make it in physics despite having a degree in physics. It appears he took the easy road and went into astronomy. Then an even easier road and got into climate modelling.
Silly willy, if you were able to think for yourself, you would understand that a PhD rotting in academia means NOTHING. One can’t even find the energy in a photon. One believes Sun can warm Earth to 800,000 K. One believes ice cubes can boil water.
How many examples do you need?
Jim is retired since a long while, Pupman, so get your cheap insults straight.
If you knew anything about string theory, Bordo, you might have to rethink your physics envy.
No “cheap insults”, silly willy. That’s your area.
Hensen was a corrupt bureaucrat. He was either dishonest or incompetent (or both) as he misled children like you.
TYPO — Should be “Hansen”, of course.
Poor Pupman. Can’t write Jim’s name properly.
Riddle me this – why did the GOP try to silence him?
https://www.npr.org/2008/01/08/17926941/james-hansen-and-mark-bowen-on-censored-science
Sorry silly child willy, but I corrected my typo before you woke up from your nap. So, another of your false accusations bites the dust.
Hansen, as a GOV bureaucrat, was not allowed by law to promote his cult beliefs. Yet, he bragged that he had adjusted thermostats and closed windows before his testimony, to support his agenda.
I saw that you corrected your typo, Pupman. Still, “Hansen” is a bit simpler than “Kirchhoff,” don’t you think?
Riddle me this. Jim, who’s a lifelong Republican, knows that nature bats last. Dubya thought otherwise. Why are Sky Dragon cranks even sillier than Dubya?
Yes child, you got caught making another false accusation.
And you’ll try something just as silly again, won’t you?
“Yes” is seldom an answer to a why-question, Pupman.
Riddle me this –
Do you know when Massey Energy ceased to exist, by any chance?
Wilard, I have always found that when people rely on insult or authority figures to justify their arguments they finding it too difficult to argue the facts & logic.
To ignore thermal mass is puzzling as many cultures around the world have relied on thermal mass to make their built environment more comfortable. I do not know what part of the world you inhabit to be able to ignore thermal mass & it’s impacts.
But thermal mass could easily limit night time cooling or Tmin which would have an unwanted influence on the historical record.
Dear Anon,
I have always found that most who appeal to nullius in verba are biting more than they can chew. I also found that it is easier to insult someone under a veil of false politeness. You fit both description.
Thermal mass may not be able to explain climate change, but if you are willing to try, go ahead.
anon..I am curious about mass being applied to heat. Thermal mass has even been associated with inertia. Strikes me as being wrong-headed.
Newton invented the concepts of mass and inertia, and he specifically reserved the word inertia for the physical motion of a mass. It was intended to be a resistance to motion, or the resistance of a mass in motion to a change in velocity. I realize we humans use the word inertia to mean other things, like a lack of desire to move, but in science, we should stick to the real meaning of words.
I mean, we don’t know what energy is, so how can it have inertia? It’s like the claim that photons have momentum but no mass, when we clearly have defined momentum as mass x velocity. We have Einstein to thank for that. In one of his silly thought experiments, he visualized light as having mass. How much does a container of light weigh?
It appears we already have a perfectly good phrase for thermal mass, called heat capacity and/or specific heat. Thermal mass can also be referenced as volumetric heat capacity, a fancy term for the heat capacity of a volume of mass.
Why anyone would want to confuse mass and inertia with heat is the issue. I realize it is convenient and cute but it’s not accurate science.
May seem petty on my part, but I think scientists should invent their own terms without stealing from other scientists and re-defining meaning. Boltzmann stole the word entropy from Clausius and redefined it to mean a state of disorder rather than the intent of Clausius, which was a summation of infinitesimal quantities of heat.
Gibbs, who created an equation for free energy, actually incorporated the Clausius meaning for entropy in his formula as a heat quantity (T.dS). Plank, on the other hand, used the Boltzmann theft of entropy in his equations. Today, we have a science community thoroughly confused as to the meaning of entropy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is a very simple concept describing the direction of heat transfer, by its own means, has become a mysterious entity based on an undefined entropy.
Is it any wonder that science is in such trouble?
Willard,
“I have always found that most who appeal to nullius in verba are biting more than they can chew. I also found that it is easier to insult someone under a veil of false politeness. You fit both description.”
I’m sure you think that someone cares for your opinions.
You can’t even describe the GHE! What is it supposed to do, if anything?
Carry on acting the goat.
Mike Flynn,
Unless you copy-paste your comment again, I won’t read it.
Cheers.
LOL . . . you cite Hansen. From 2010. From footnote 32. Where FN35 shows a preponderance of urban and semi-urban stations. Where FN46 shows a preponderance of stations in high density areas.
13 years is far too outdated to be used as counterargument, especially when the “pitch black” reference is unrelated.
In two days, a mass of dry Arctic air will drop into California. The front may experience snowfall, especially in the mountains. This air mass in the upper layer contains large amounts of stratospheric ozone, which is a heavier gas than the air in the stratosphere.
https://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif
Tropical cyclone devastates Vanuatu islands.
Did not recognize the place at first, it was better known as the New Hebrides.
Blocking zonal circulation in the lower stratosphere in the North Pacific and Atlantic.
https://i.ibb.co/v468BLQ/gfs-t100-nh-f00.png
Ren, thanks for the reality check and current global climate status. Keep it up!
October is shaping up to be the hottest October on record.
Deniers are advised to ready their hugboxes.
A,
Apart from the billions of years when it was hotter, as the Earth cooled from the molten state.
Even the dummies who cry “hottest in 100,000 years!” acknowledge that it was hotter 100,000 years ago. Too much man-made CO2, do you think?
Maybe according to your fudged NOAA records, but it has not been my experience here in the Vancouver, Canada region that is the case. The past two weeks have been typically cold and miserable and we are expecting an Arctic air mass to descend on us soon.
For it to be considered record breaking here, we’d need consecutive days at 15C or more. Currently we are mired at a typical 10C with night time temps hovering a mite above 0C. I already have the heavy woolen blanket on my bed and that signifies typical winter temps.
And Vancouver is typically the warmest area in Canada, next to Victoria at the tip of Vancouver Island.
ren…I was bracing for the Arctic air you reported descending on us here in the Vancouver, Canada region, but it seems to be abating rather than getting colder. It rained pretty good yesterday and with Arctic air, that would have meant snow. Night time temps are still close to 0C.
Ark thinks it has been a warm October but I invite him here to Vancouver to dip in the ocean and see how warm it is when he gets out. I was just out raking leaves, wearing a thick thermal jacket, a scarf, and a toque on my head. Some record temperatures.
The point is, temps have dropped by an average 10C daytime in the past month despite all the propaganda about CO2 warming. I know why and the alarmists seem to be stumped. We have moved millions of miles along our orbital path in the past month and with the Earth’s axial tilt we are simply not getting the required sunlight to warm the place.
CO2 makes not the slightest bit of difference to the real arbiter of heating, the Earth’s orbit and tilt. And let’s not forget Swenson’s point about our 5000C furnace at the Earth’s core.
ent unload more good, old Irish blarney…”Also, GR is using the argument from authority, citing Tesla who isnt an authority”.
***
I did not cite him I explained his theory. I have offered my own proof that the Moon cannot rotate and Isaac Newton seemed to agree, if we can ever get the translation straight. It’s pretty bad when someone has to actually read what Newton said then translate the translation.
I think it is only twice that Newton alluded to some kind of revolution of the Moon in Pricipia, once related to libration and another time related to planetary motion. Had he believed the Moon rotated about a local axis he would surely have elaborated on that, going into the motion in detail.
No one knows what he thought on the matter, the translations were all done after he died and he was not around to explain the meaning he put into Prinicipia. I am suggesting the translators took license by adding their own interpretation to what Newton meant by revolving.
All I pointed out was Tesla’s method of disproving rotation. My own explanation differs a good deal from Tesla’s, and it is my own. I worked it out using basic physics I learned as part of my engineering training and it was very simple.
After offering my own explanation, I read what Newton said in Principia about the Moon moving with a linear motion and having that linear motion converted to curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field. Nothing related to in-depth analysis there, it was all very basic engineering principles based on a free body diagram, which I learned as part of my engineering education.
As someone educated in biology, this should be apparent to you, it’s right in front of your nose. Just look. I have encouraged every spinner to lay out the Moon’s motion on an x-y plane and just look. Not one spinner has bothered, all of you choose to take the word of authority figures.
If I asked you if a car moving down a straight highway was rotating about its COG, you’d be daft to claim it was. Yet, if the same car moves along a slightly curved path, you suddenly all agree it is rotating about a local axis.
Come on, man, use some of that grey matter that is allegedly between your ears.
Something you might not know…or care about. The words grey and gray mean the same thing. Yanks, being notoriously bad at spelling, and who pronounce the letter zed incorrectly, changed the colour grey to gray.
Said with humour, in case some of you Yanks think I am taking shots at our good buddies south of the order.
It is a weak mind that can not think of AT LEAST two ways to spell any given word! 🙂
bill hunter…”.95 is an estimate of emissivity from the true vertical. But emissivity decreases with increasing angle because of surface roughness”.
***
Bill…I was just noticing that the other day. The Sun’s position in our sky at the latitude of Vancouver, Canada, is only a few degrees south of it’s position in summer, yet it now feels significantly cooler. I am talking direct rays, nothing to do with roughness. The Sun is line of sight, but it feels a lot cooler.
That is likely due as well to the increasing distance we are from the Sun as the Earth moves in its orbit. The inverse square law is at work but one would not think such a change in distance would affect us that much.
None of that is factored in alarmist climate theories.
Hate to tell you Gordon, but the Earth is moving closer to the Sun as we speak, and it reaches its closest approach in January.
“Perihelion is the point of the Earth’s orbit that is nearest to the Sun. This always happens in early January about two weeks after the December Solstice.”
thanks for pointing that out, Bob. So it must be the tilt of the Earth causing the cooling in the northern hemisphere.
Interestingly, UAH Global temperatures are maximum when Sun is farthest from Earth (Apogee).
Also interesting, the lowest temperature in Antarctica (-89 C or so) was recorded at the height of summer (July in SH).
Strange.
Swenson
Oops. The height of Summer in the Southern Hemisphere is January.
How could an Aussie like Mike Flynn know that, EM?
How could an Aussie like Mike Flynn know that?
Sorry. My bad.
Thanks, Mike.
looks like the three of you need to google
what causes the seasons?
Very faint spots on the solar disk. Only the solar wind from the coronal hole will work. The sun goes to sleep, and the western circulation in the northern hemisphere slows down. It will be an unusual winter.
https://i.ibb.co/P5pn6bB/latest.jpg
https://youtu.be/CSVFpval4Dw
“Acapulco Is Essentially Destroyed” After Hurricane Otis.
Because of how quickly the storm turned into a Category 5 hurricane, the city had very little warning, and a lot of people were caught off guard.
Hurricane Otis in the Eastern Pacific unexpectedly intensified from a Tropical Storm to a Category 4 hurricane in just 12 hours. It made landfall as a Category 5 hurricane.
Arkady, hurricanes often change category over a few hours. You seem to want to blame climate change on the cat 4 increasing to cat 5.
So what causes hurricanes reducing their category? Anti climate change or Dark climate change ?
“You seem to want to blame climate change on the cat 4 increasing to cat 5.”
Did I say that?
No!
What caused it to intensify so quickly was the warm sea surface of the eastern pacific. That is basic physics.
Conversely, hurricanes reduce intensity when they encounter cooler waters, for one thing.
Read a textbook!
Did you get caught peddling your alarmism, Ark?
Don’t you hate it when that happens?
No disrespect, but I’ll await Anon for a reason’s reply before I say anything more on this subject.
Arkady, used raised the issue of a hurricane changing category and stated it was unexpected. Why raise the issue if you were not trying imply climate change. Or is there some link to UHI that you are aware of?
For those deniers who’ve been living under a rock, when climate scientists say “…hottest October on record,” they’re referring to historical temperature records that have been collected and maintained over the years. These records typically include data from various sources such as weather stations, satellite measurements, and ocean buoys. The term “on record” means that it is the hottest period in the historical data set available. These records date back several decades, with some dating to the late 19th century.
The specific data sources and methods may vary, but they provide a comprehensive and long-term view of global or regional temperatures.
Thanks for your admission that you’re cherry-picking, Ark.
Okay chud, enlighten us with your definition of the phrase “on record”.
This should be good!
Ark, are you even denying your own cult’s “Eocene”?
Pray tell, who was keeping records during the Eocene?
Are you in denial of your cult’s “reconstructions”? Don’t you fully believe in “proxies”?
You may need to go back for more indoctrination…..
As always you evade giving a straight answer to a simple question.
It’s obvious that you have no idea what the phrase “on record” means. Thanks for clearing that up.
Now, go back to your hugbox.
At least I don’t have to refer to people as “chud”, like some frustrated child.
This might be a good time for you to look at why you religiously support a perversion of science.
“At least I don’t have to refer to people as chud…”
How’s about brain-dead. You like that better?
Yes, “brain-dead” is perfect for those that reject reality and can’t learn.
For example, maybe you’ve seen several of the cultists claiming that ice cubes can boil water.
There’s many other examples too.
Yes, “brain-dead” is perfect…”
Granted!
From now on, you shall be known as… Brain-dead.
Well that would be a false accusation, Ark.
That’s what I get from brain-dead cult idi0ts.
So I’m used to it….
Clint R
I know your Mantra.
YOU: “No evidence, no problem!”
You are devoid of any support for any of your ridiculous unfounded claims yet that has never stopped you from making them over and over.
It is obvious you belong to a lunatic cult as you use that term excessively and yet do not understand its meaning.
You are totally devoid of a scientific mind. You do not seek or accept any evidence. You ignore all facts and you repeat things over an over (which is what cult minded people do).
You are also an arrogant asshole who can’t accept even the possibility that they might be wrong on some point. I can see why you support Trump, he is another arrogant asshole who can’t accept he is wrong and lies all the time when he needs to. The Cult of the arrogant assholes, lovers of Trump and Postma both similar minds. Arrogant assholes like you. I guess that is your cult. Be arrogant, ignorant and never support any of your claims.
Again “No evidence, no problem” It is how you operate. I have asked you for evidence many times and yet you supply zero. At least crackpot Gordon Robertson tries to come up with some lunatic evidence, more than what you can do.
Norman,
Are you trying to make a point?
Child Norman has learned to use a keyboard, but hasn’t cured his anal fetishes.
Maybe he should try a new psycho analyst….
Again
Clint R “No evidence, no problem”
Correct tr0ll Norman, you can’t support your nonsense with evidence. That confirms you have NOTHING.
No problem.
norman…are you on the sauce again? I mean, 4 a**h**es in the same post is a bit much, even for you. One crackpot is fairly normal but, hey, you call eminent scientists and mathematicians crackpots.
Come on, Normie, cheer up. It’s good news that the planet is safe and not heading toward climate Armageddon. It’s good news the 2nd law is still intact and that ice cubes do not heat hotter objects and liquids. It’s good news that the Moon is not rotating on its axis, otherwise the Man in the Moon would not be available to us all of the time. And who knows what the other side is made of, other than cheese?
Norman can’t even describe what happens to the photons emitted by ice, when the ice is totally submerged in water.
That’s because, like all SkyDragon cultists, Norman doesn’t understand what he reads on the internet. In this case, the behaviour of the photons emitted from ice when the ice is completely surrounded by water is not easily found on the internet, so Norman can’t even find something to read and get wrong!
Norman’s response will no doubt be reduced to oblique references to assholes, and other juvenile attempts at bad language. Nothing relevant, of course.
Typical.
Mike Flynn,
It’s hard to say what you’re braying about, but you said the magic word. Did you know that there was an albedo effect in Antarctica?
Even in January. I kid you not.
Willard,
Norman cant even describe what happens to the photons emitted by ice, when the ice is totally submerged in water. Neither can you.
Thats because, like all SkyDragon cultists, Norman doesnt understand what he reads on the internet. In this case, the behaviour of the photons emitted from ice when the ice is completely surrounded by water is not easily found on the internet, so Norman cant even find something to read and get wrong!
Normans response will no doubt be reduced to oblique references to assholes, and other juvenile attempts at bad language. Nothing relevant, of course.
Typical.
Gordon Robertson
Ice cubes will result in a HEATED OBJECT (meaning it is receiving a continuous supply of energy from somewhere) reaching a higher steady state temperature than if the HEATED OBJECT were surrounded by even colder material like dry ice.
You should do an experiment to prove science wrong. I do not expect it but take a heated object at room temperature and measure its steady state temperature. Then surround it with ice (it will decrease in temperature). Then surround it with dry ice and it will decrease even further. Then surround it with ice again and the temperature will go up even though the ice is colder than the heated object.
You have a misunderstanding of how the 2nd Law works and are unwilling to accept you are in error. You are not considering a heated object in your understanding.
Norman, you dimwit .
If you freeze water to the temperature of dry ice, then surround it with water ice or anything else at that temperature, its temperature will not change.
You don’t like water?
Use something else, then. What silly fantasy are you trying to turn into fact?
You don’t even know where the photons emitted by ice which is totally surrounded by water go, do you? Nor do any SkyDragon cultists – they are equally clueless.
You might as well start using words like “asshole”. It won’t help anybody think you are intelligent.
Norman keeps throwing crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.
He has NO knowledge of thermodynamics. He keeps using his “heated object”, not realizing something is supplying the heat to the object. He should try heating the object using only ice. But wait — his cult believes ice can boil water!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Swenson
A big reason I ignore you, for the most part, is you can’t read. I even all-capped the word but you can’t process the meaning. “HEATED!” Think before you post and accuse me of anything.
Norman, you nitwit,
The Earth is HEATED by the Sun, is it not?
Surrounding it with ice, dry ice, liquid nitrogen, carbon dioxide or anything else, will not make it hotter!
I suppose you are trying to pull off an illusion where you have a secret heat source (a la Tim Folkerts) inside your object, and then restrict the rate at which the internal heat can be dissipated. Nope. Won’t work. The surface temperature of the Earth is determined by the heat flow from the glowing interior, and the effect of sunlight on top of that. No amount of insulation will make the temperature increase.
Back to basics, even before you discover that you cannot describe the elusive GHE.
Submerge a block of ice in water. The ice is constantly emitting IR (as does all matter above absolute zero). Where does this energy go? Why doesnt the water surrounding the ice get HOTTER? After all, according to you it is being HEATED by the ice, isn’t it?
You really have no clue, do you? It’s all right, Norman. None of your SkyDragon buddies (even the ones with PhDs) have a clue, either. Ask a few. Look on the internet.
SEE?
Arkady, you seem to miss the whole premise of Dr Roy Spencer’s article on urban heat islands and the affect that they have on the temperature readings. By artificially increasing the temperature are the new records reliable? Would you condone athletes from artificially increasing their performance, would you still say the new records are beyond reproach?
Here’s one component (of many) of the historical temperature record: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
Are you insinuating that it is not reliable? If yes, then you missed Dr Spencer’s point that the UHI effect is small.
Paraphrasing Richard Feynman:
I don’t give a f&%k how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
Arkady, Roy’s work isn’t an experiment. it is simply an algorithm deployed to try to tease out a particular human caused effect on certain thermometers in the surface station network. but it ignores the likelihood that the control thermometers are also affected by other human changes to the local environment. fact is you can’t turn a sows ear into a silk purse
ontop of that we already know some urban environments are up to 4C hotter than the surrounding country side. and that some surrounding country sides are several degrees hotter than than natural forests.
none of this happened all at once and despite this warming country sides aren’t growing in population but the cities are growing rapidly. AGW must actually not be a bad thing with humans continually choosing warmer environments.
A,
Why do you need to paraphrase Feynman? So you can imply some foul language, hoping that it will make you appear wise and knowledgeable?
Here’s what Feynman wrote –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
What theory are you talking about? You obviously have no idea what a theory is, or you wouldn’t be making such outlandish comments.
It’s all a bit rich coming from a SkyDragon cultist who can’t even describe the GHE. At least Dr Spencer can describe the UHI.
Feynman’s statement is also questionable in some respects. Linus Pauling and Scottish surgeon Ewan Cameron, teamed up on a study is Scotland in which they gave 10 grams of vitamin C to terminally ill cancer patients. When the experiment was repeated by a Dr. Moertell at the Mayo Clinic, they reported no effect. An astounded Pauling called Moertell to get the facts. Turned out he used only 250 milligram, 2.5% of the 10 grams used by Pauling & Cameron, and kept the patients on chemo. When Pauling asked why they’d keep a terminally ill person on chemo, Moertell replied it gave the appearance than something was being done.
It appears that Feynman’s point depends on who is doing the experiment.
Also, the 10 grams used by Pauling and Cameron is small compared to the amounts that are given by IV, which begins about 25 grams. Some people take 50 gram or more orally in divided dosages for a cold or the flu. Pauling took 18 grams a day and lived till 94 despite chronic, long-term health conditions.
Pauling and Cameron made no sweeping claims for the experimental results, only that the quality of life for the patients improved markedly, which is major for the terminally-ill. It also increased their life expectancy dramatically.
They noted that one patient went into remission and remained in remission as long as he took the recommended amount of C. Of course, he felt so good he did not think the C was required and went off it. When his cancer returned, Pauling and Cameron faced an ethical dilemma, whether to get him back on the C or use chemo again.
They tried the C and sure enough, the guy went back into remission. It’s not clear what the C was doing but many people with normal diets have so little C in their bodies that they are essentially in a state of sub-clinical scurvy. That is particularly true for people who smoke, or who are stressed.
ark…”…you missed Dr Spencers point that the UHI effect is small”.
***
The entire global warming claim is small…about 1C in 180 years. That’s an average, meaning some parts of the planet have warmed while some have cooled. Roy appears to be asking how much of that 1C is due to heat island effects.
Another scientist Syun Akasofu, who pioneered in studies of the solar wind, is asking how much of it is due to rewarming from the Little Ice Age. When you ad all those factors up, there may not be much left for anthropogenic warming.
Gordon,
The UHI is by definition, anthropogenic warming. Man-made heat.
The GHE is a fantasy. Nobody can even describe it. Even Willard, claiming the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”, cannot bring himself to mention the term heat, nor say that the GHE makes thermometers hotter.
Just another gutless SkyDragon cultist, too scared to say what he means. He knows he will be laughed at.
I might fell sorry for Willard, but I sure as heck have no sympathy with his plight. He brings it on himself. No self control at all.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about, and why are you pulling me in?
Gordon,
The UHI is by definition, anthropogenic warming. Man-made heat.
The GHE is a fantasy. Nobody can even describe it. Even Willard, claiming the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”, cannot bring himself to mention the term heat, nor say that the GHE makes thermometers hotter.
Just another gutless SkyDragon cultist, too scared to say what he means. He knows he will be laughed at.
I might fell sorry for Willard, but I sure as heck have no sympathy with his plight. He brings it on himself. No self control at all.
Mike Flynn,
It’s your own quote:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-188281
It should be “slower,” but I’m going to give you a free pass on that since you conceded your blunder on Antarctica.
Cheers.
Wow! Willard joins the ranks of the skeptics!
Contrarians are now on board with the IPCC.
Wow!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You quoted Mike Flynn –
“Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me. Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly?”
I agree with his statement.
Maybe you should repeat it several times. If you repeat it enough, even dummies like you and the other SkyDragon cultists will be able to see that slow cooling does not result in heating. That’s why it’s called cooling, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“You quoted Mike Flynn.”
I rather quoted you.
You are Mike Flynn.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You quoted Mike Flynn
“Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me. Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly?”
I agree with his statement.
Maybe you should repeat it several times. If you repeat it enough, even dummies like you and the other SkyDragon cultists will be able to see that slow cooling does not result in heating. Thats why i’s called cooling, dummy.
Mike Flynn,
You agree with Mike Flynn.
What a surprise!
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You quoted Mike Flynn
“Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me. Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly?”
I agree with his statement.
Maybe you should repeat it several times. If you repeat it enough, even dummies like you and the other SkyDragon cultists will be able to see that slow cooling does not result in heating. Thats why is called cooling, dummy.
It seems you now agree.
Arkady, so you do condone artificial performance increases to justify new records. Why?
People who often do data analysis will often claim that they will remove bad data from the base data. Yet the climate change lobby seem to want to add bad data. Again why?
Why the passive aggressive crap again, Dear Anon. Is it a hubris thing?
I have yet to read one comment from you that does not contain an insult.
Willard,
Why do you see everything as an insult? What about being offended, bullied, irritated?
Have you no self esteem, laddie? Just another gutless wonder whining about “feelings”!
Take a teaspoon of cement. Harden up.
[snigger]
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Anon keeps whining about insults.
Don’t you think he should stop insulting people all the time?
Why do you see everything as an insult? What about being offended, bullied, irritated?
Have you no self esteem, laddie? Just another gutless wonder whining about feelings!
Take a teaspoon of cement. Harden up.
[snigger]
You already said that, Mike.
Twasn’t relevant then, tisn’t now.
Cheers.
Why do you see everything as an insult? What about being offended, bullied, irritated?
Have you no self esteem, laddie? Just another gutless wonder whining about feelings!
Take a teaspoon of cement. Harden up.
[snigger]
Mike Flynn,
Is your antisocial behavior the reason why you’re looking for a new job?
Headline from phys.org (whatever that is) –
“Study: Earth’s roughly warmest in about 100,000 years.”
Michael Mann doesn’t disagree, but is skeptical about her predictions of doom. He’s the only official harbinger of doom, you know –
“A fifth scientist, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, called the study provocative and interesting but said he remains skeptical until more research confirms it.”
Mann is benefiting from his ‘dealing with misogyny’ classes. After the way he insulted Judith Curry, using sexual innuendo, for the major crime of disagreeing with him and his alarmist hordes, it’s amazing he did not refer to another female author as a clothy-eared git. Mind you, she was talking his language.
When I have heard Mann, dressler & other debate climate change it for s very similar to reading posts by Wilard, a lot of insult to hide the poor content.
When I listen to those on the sceptical side like Judith Curry, Roy Spenser, Soon and others it is the opposite of Wilards posts by being content rich and insult light.
I have yet to see a comment from Anon that does not conceal an insult behind some old-fashioned latin snobism. In fact I have yet to read a comment in which Anon contribute anything.
whats he doing Willard? Not referring to you using your preferred pronoun?
Exactly like you just did, Gill.
Willard,
You wrote –
“I have yet to see a comment from Anon that does not conceal an insult behind some old-fashioned latin snobism. In fact I have yet to read a comment in which Anon contribute anything.”
Why do you bother writing such nonsense?
Do you think anybody cares what you see?
Mike Flynn,
You wrote –
Something I skipped.
Here you go:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Cheers.
Willard,
You wrote
“I have yet to see a comment from Anon that does not conceal an insult behind some old-fashioned latin snobism. In fact I have yet to read a comment in which Anon contribute anything.”
Why do you bother writing such nonsense?
Do you think anybody cares what you see?
I doubt if anybody follows your links. Let me know if you find anyone who does.
You already said that, Mike.
Don’t have any new material?
Willard,
You wrote
.I have yet to see a comment from Anon that does not conceal an insult behind some old-fashioned latin snobism. In fact I have yet to read a comment in which Anon contribute anything.”
Why do you bother writing such nonsense?
Do you think anybody cares what you see?
I doubt if anybody follows your links. Let me know if you find anyone who does.
ark…whose record? Until 1979, all we had were the seriously fudged NOAA records. You cannot trust the historical records from NOAA since they have retroactively altered them to what NOAA thinks they SHOULD be.
NOAA are alarmists, pure and simple, as are GISS, Had-crut and BoM. NOAA and GISS have actively changed past temperatures, dating back through the 1930s, when heat waves and temperatures were higher than today, to sho the 1930s as being cooler.
NOAA and GISS teamed up to declare 2014 the hottest year ever when UAH had it as a relatively normal year. However, in the fine print, they had declared it the hottest based on a 48% probability for NOAA and a 38% probability for GISS. Why do you support such chicanery?
In 2013, when the IPCC announced the 2012 review showed no warming over 15 years, from 1999 – 2012, NOAA went back and altered the SST to show a trend.
Winter in the US.
https://i.ibb.co/nsgDB6x/gfs-T2m-us-21.png
… but not quite so in Poland, as we can see:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20231031&daytime=night&iid=PL
*
It’s cooling since years in Northern Conus:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q1nAZRyAgkgmwkGCJAbwGGXzB_AAwf22/view
and for sure it won’t be the other way ’round soon.
” No one knows what he thought on the matter, the translations were all done after he died and he was not around to explain the meaning he put into Prinicipia. ”
Oh! … the tranlations …
Interesting. Robertson apparently learns it’s sometimes not that bad to learn instead of guessing, claiming and playing the all-time-better-knower.
It is namely only very short time ago that he mentioned only one translator (Andrew Motte, the very first one: 1729) who – allegedly – wrongly interpreted Newton (but, but… only in Book III, Prop. XVII, Theor. XV of course; all the rest was ‘by miracle’ 100% correct).
*
I have mentioned long time ago a small paper written in 1955 by F. E. Brash
https://tinyurl.com/Brash-1955
in which he mentioned all Newton translators known to him at the time (and which are all stored in the ‘Stanford Newton Collection’).
The non-English translations in his list were
– French: du Chatelet (1759)
– Italian: Fergola (1792/93)
– German: Wolfers (1872) – he translated all three editions in a row
– Swedish: Lund (1927/31)
– Japanese: Kunio Oka (1930)
– Dutch: Beth sen. (1932) – selected chapters
– Russian: Krylov (1936).
About Krylov’s work and technical competence:
” First Edition in Russian of Newton’s Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (1687), made by Russian naval engineer and applied mathematician Aleksei Nikolaevich Krylov (1863-1945), who became internationally famous for his works on magnetic compasses, ship floodability, hydrodynamics and computational mathematics.
He built the first machine in Russia for integrating ordinary differential equations, and in 1931 published a paper on what is now called ‘Krylov subspace’, dealing with computation of the characteristic polynomial coefficients of a given matrix. ”
*
The most important review of Newton’s Principia, however wasn’t a translation: it was a deeply annotated reprint of the Latin original, made in 1739/42 by the two French Minim friars Le Seur and Jacquier (Rome) with a substantial help from the Swiss professor Calandrini (Geneva):
https://tinyurl.com/Leseur-Jacquier
*
When you read Newton’s original Latin text in the annotated edition above, you inevitably ask how Robertson can be so brazen to write
” I am suggesting the translators took license by adding their own interpretation to what Newton meant by revolving. ”
because in fact, none (I repeat NONE) of the two translations I have read (French, German) differ by even a bit from the original.
Exactly the inverse happened all the time.
Robertson and his lunar spin den~ial boys intentionally mis~construe since years what Newton wrote, translated from the original Latin text by Ian Bruce in 2012:
” It is apparent by the first law of motion and Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Book I that Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fix~ed sta~rs in 9 hours and 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes, Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the sun in 25 1/2 and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes. ”
They really claim that Newton spoke of rotation around an own axis in connection with Jupiter, Mars, the Earth, Venus and the Sun, but purely by chance not with the Moon!
Splendid. I look forward to the day when a probe will take thousands of photos of the Moon, where the movement of a lunar crater will irrefutably indicate, behind Moon’s orbital trajectory, the lunar rotation calculated by Cassini and hundreds of others.
Thie~ving, I tell you!
“…but purely by chance not with the Moon!”
Correct Bindi. That’s because Moon is orbiting Earth, not Sun. The planets orbit Sun. Moon orbits Earth.
If you had only done the simple coffee cup/pencil experiment, you might have learned. But, being brain-dead, you can’t learn.
Binny,
Not disagreeing with anything you say. There is a difference between rotation as seen from a great distance, and as judged using different criteria.
From Wikipedia, for the Earth –
“Earth rotates once in about 24 hours with respect to the Sun, but once every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds with respect to other distant stars ”
As to the Moon, it rotates not at all with respect to the body it orbits (the Earth), as it shows one face only, but with regard to the fixed stars, shows all faces, and therefore is judged to rotate with respect to an observer at that distance.
Do you think it’s possible that Newton knew this, and didn’t include the Moon (as you point out), for this reason?
It makes no difference, really, to the Moon’s motion. Much ado about nothing, in one sense.
Pip pip.
binny…”…translator (Andrew Motte, the very first one: 1729) who allegedly wrongly interpreted Newton (but, but only in Book III, Prop. XVII, Theor. XV of course; all the rest was by miracle 100% correct)”.
***
Motte has been critiqued in a modern analysis and he made several error in his translation. However, the translation to which I have referred, re the Moon, references one-sentence statements by Newton that he covered in no detail elsewhere. Does it not strike you as strange, that an eminent scientist known for his detail, would say nothing re details about the Moon rotating on a local axis?
I have explained what Motte missed and had he been more observant, he may have gotten it too. Newton declared elsewhere in Motte’s translation, that the Moon moves with a linear motion that is bent into curvilinear motion by Earth’s gravitational field. Furthermore, he observed that the Moon always keeps the same face toward Earth. In Newton’s mind, that had to be a no-brainer that the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis. Whereas lesser minds like mine need to keep re-enforcing that no-brainer, to Newton, it would not be worth mentioning.
That should have been obvious to Motte.
In that case, the contexts in which Newton made the statements is very important and you have conveniently omitted those contexts. In none of his statements did he refer specifically to lunar rotation, he talked about libration and general planetary motion.
What Clint pointed out is crucial. The other planets orbit the Sun while the Moon orbits Earth. Therefore their motions wrt the stars are different. Also, the motion wrt the stars for a planet is because it actually is rotating on a local axis. The Moon’s change in orientation wrt the stars is easily explained by orbital motion itself.
A particular facet on the Moon, like the near-face, definitely changes it’s orientation wrt the stars every 28 days or so, but it is never rotating on a local axis. Therefore, it’s axis must be the Earth, as an external axis.
Bindidon says:
They really claim that Newton spoke of rotation around an own axis in connection with Jupiter, Mars, the Earth, Venus and the Sun, but purely by chance not with the Moon!
Splendid. I look forward to the day when a probe will take thousands of photos of the Moon, where the movement of a lunar crater will irrefutably indicate, behind Moons orbital trajectory, the lunar rotation calculated by Cassini and hundreds of others.
———————-
none of that is evidence that the moon rotates on a fixed axis located at the center of the moon. the axis center is at center of mass of the earth. certainly you are welcome to consider it at center of the moon for analytical purposes but in the physical world where motions are determined by forces the axis around which the moon travels is the COM of earth.
and of course it is true that Jupiter, Mars, Earth, Venus, and the Sun do all possess another spin on their internal axis deriving from a force differing from the force gravity of the body or bodies they orbit.
so all you are doing bin is throwing stuff at a wall in hope something sticks and it really isn’t working.
Related…
An early look at the October anomaly: https://imgur.com/a/XOCdXko
Two points…
-anytime I see warming indicated with bright reds I immediately smell an alarmist.
-I smelled correctly. NCEP is a branch of ‘NOAA the Fudgers’.
I’m not a medical doctor, but I would diagnose Parosmia which may be a symptom of head injury, seizures in the temporal lobe of the brain, or a brain tumor. You’d better have that looked at.
You can pass the time waiting for your socialized medical system’s appointment by reading this material: Scientific colour maps.
Arkady, we are well aware that you are not an expert, in the field of medicine .
Just as we are aware that you are not exactly an expert in mythology, dear Anon.
Nor is Ark an expert in any field of science, merely a passenger reliant on authority figures who supports a certain hysteria about climate disaster based on a trace gas.
Speaking of appeals to authority…
And that is just the latest example.
Arkady follows the inimitable Wobbly Wee Willy down the path of endeavouring to get people to waste time following pointless and irrelevant links.
How do I know they are pointless and irrelevant?
Because they were provided by a SkyDragon cultist who can’t even describe the GHE that they demand others worship!
Here is you describing the greenhouse effect in April 2015, Mike Flynn:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Arkady follows the inimitable Wobbly Wee Willy down the path of endeavouring to get people to waste time following pointless and irrelevant links.
How do I know they are pointless and irrelevant?
Because they were provided by a SkyDragon cultist who cant even describe the GHE that they demand others worship!
Maybe someone would value your opinion, but that would remain conjecture, unless evidence to the contrary is presented.
You can’t even describe the GHE. Is the GHE supposed to make thermometers hotter or colder? Can this effect be supported by reproducible experiment?
No?
You are entitled to your fantasy. Colour me less than totally convinced. My diagnosis is that Michael Mann may be suffering from a delusionally psychotic condition.
What is your unqualified opinion?
[laughing at strange SkDragon cultist]
Your own description of the GHE is the best, Mike Flynn:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
It sure is nice around here when Wingnut goes on his long absences.
Whinnying Wee Willy fails again.
He apparently posts a link to something Mike Flynn wrote. I can’t be bothered looking because the GHE does not exist. I believe Mike Flynn has stated so on several occasions.
Willard is obviously out of touch with reality.
I feel sorry for him, but I have no sympathy at all. It’s his own decision that he chooses to reject reality.
Mike Flynn,
The only reason this would fail:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
is that you do.
I believe in you.
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy fails again.
He apparently posts a link to something Mike Flynn wrote. I cant be bothered looking because the GHE does not exist. I believe Mike Flynn has stated so on several occasions.
Willard is obviously out of touch with reality.
I feel sorry for him, but I have no sympathy at all. Its his own decision that he chooses to reject reality.
Mike Flynn copy-pastes his comment again.
Whinnying Wee Willy fails again.
He apparently posts a link to something Mike Flynn wrote. I cant be bothered looking because the GHE does not exist. I believe Mike Flynn has stated so on several occasions.
Willard is obviously out of touch with reality.
I feel sorry for him, but I have no sympathy at all. Its his own decision that he chooses to reject reality.
Good, Mike.
Again. Make Troglodyte happy.
Whinnying Wee Willy fails again.
He apparently posts a link to something Mike Flynn wrote. I can’t be bothered looking because the GHE does not exist. I believe Mike Flynn has stated so on several occasions.
Willard is obviously out of touch with reality.
I feel sorry for him, but I have no sympathy at all. Its his own decision that he chooses to reject reality.
Typical ad hom response from an alarmist who has been cornered by scientific fact.
> Typical ad hom response from an alarmist
Don’t ever change, Bordo.
Well, that was informative, wasn’t it?
Rhetorical question – just more information-free gibberish from the weasel Willard.
Mike Flynn,
What are you braying about?
Well, that was informative, wasnt it?
Rhetorical question just more information-free gibberish from the weasel Willard.
Red no longer indictates peak temperatures. GISS has had to extend its colour scale with the highest temperatures indicated by brown.
BOM had to do the same, going beyond red to purple.
Meantime, UAH gets by with yellows and oranges.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
UAH has reds available but their integrity prevents them trying to turn 1C of warming over 180 years into an alarmist propaganda that needs to push such warming as a raging inferno.
If you really have a degree in biology, which I don’t doubt, surely the brain that got you to the degree can see beyond your current entrenchment in alarmist propaganda.
Are you retarded?
The image you linked to uses the same standard rainbow color scheme as the figure I posted. Only difference is the climatology baseline.
A,
You wrote –
“The image you linked to uses the same standard rainbow color scheme as the figure I posted.”
Oh, that’s comforting. A brightly colored graphic which use the colours of the rainbow!
Signifying precisely nothing of measurable benefit to man nor beast, I suppose. As usual.
Have you managed to find a useful description of the GHE anywhere? It doesn’t even have to contain all the colours of the rainbow, although you can use them if you think it will help.
Carry on.
we know which was one us is retarded, and it’s not me.
Don’t be so hard on Mike Flynn, Bordo.
Clint R
“No evidence, no problem or Evidence? Who needs evidence when I can make up anything I want”
I guess you still are making up stuff and NEVER suppling any evidence to support any of it.
Norman,
If you pretend to quote someone, it just makes you look stupid.
Maybe you could quote Willard’s description of the GHE – “Not cooling, slower cooling.”
Cooling, you see. Not heating. Quote away.
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Oh goody!
Another mysterious Willardesque link – to something that no doubt contradicts Willard.
Willard is a strange lad indeed.
Mike Flynn,
That description of the greenhouse effect
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
does not contradict anything!
Cheers.
Willard,
Nobody will ever know, will they? You’re certainly not going to tell anybody.
I quite understand why you take refuge in mystical links. You don’t have the backbone to provide direct quotes, do you? You know they won’t support your bizarre notions!
You can’t provide a description of the greenhouse effect for one very good reason – it doesn’t exist, you donkey!
Off you go now Whinnying Wee Willy, keep braying like the jackass you are.
What are you braying about, Mike?
It’s a miracle that you could reach this website for more than ten years if hyperlinks defy your imagination!
Willard,
Nobody will ever know, will they? You’re certainly not going to tell anybody.
I quite understand why you take refuge in mystical links. You dont have the backbone to provide direct quotes, do you? You know they wont support your bizarre notions!
You cant provide a description of the greenhouse effect for one very good reason it doesnt exist, you donkey!
Off you go now Whinnying Wee Willy, keep braying like the jackass you are.
Nobody will ever know why you keep spamming, Mike.
Got the gibberish generator running well, I see.
Better.
I remember Mike Flynn well. Good guy. Have you seen him around lately?
C’mon, Bordo.
You pull that one every two months or so.
Thank you for showing that your crankiness is mostly juvenile.
Poor child Norman is so desperate he has to make up quotes I never stated.
He also makes up his own “science”, so I guess it all fits.
At least he’s consistent….
Clint R
No evidence no problem.
“NASA’s Hanel Beaten by Planck’s Friend Rubens: Water Vapor vs. CO2”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8wF2wp2i6Q
I know that deniers like to “keep the bad news light.” But this cannot be sugarcoated. This is a new paradigm.
Hurricane Otis struck near Acapulco, Mexico, on Tuesday night as a monster 165 mph category 5. On Monday night, about 24 hours prior to landfall, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) was predicting it would do so as a 70 mph tropical storm.
With the energy content (and destructive potential) of the wind increasing with the cube of the windspeed, that means that Otis reached Mexico with 13 times more destructive potential than what had been called for. Even when the tardy hurricane warning was issued at 4 a.m. local time on Tuesday, NHC was still forecasting just an ordinary category 1 hurricane to reach the Pacific coast of Mexico.
While Otis is a record setter, this is far from the first time the eastern Pacific has seen rapidly intensifying hurricanes this year. A whopping 80% of this years storms have undergone rapid intensification.
Yep! Unprecedented for the eastern Pacific since at least the 1930’s and late 18th century.
oops that would be late 19th century, not 18th
ark…if you have a genuine interest in science, is it not incumbent on you to look for evidence for these hurricanes’ power in more natural causes than the notion they are caused by a 1C warming over 180 years, allegedly caused by a trace gas?
According to UAH, the least warming, by far, has occurred in the Tropics, where these hurricanes normally originate.
Are you retarded?
A 1C warming averaged over 510,000,000,000,000 m^2 of earth’s surface, 70% of which is ocean, is not insignificant. Especially over a 180 year period.
A,
Of course it’s insignificant.
Man-made heat is ephemeral.
Hopefully, you realise that the whole Earth is more than 99.9% hot enough to glow.
Surface temperatures due to sunlight range from about +90 C to -90 C.
Which particular temperature, changed by 1 C, do find particularly scary?
Do you suffer from severe anxiety, perhaps? Are you fearful of being roasted, toasted, boiled or grilled by a change in temperature of 1 C? Even in the US, air temperatures have changed by 57 C in one (yes, one) day! The inhabitants of the town seem to have survived.
Your terror of a change of 1 C in air temperature is only shared by SkyDragon cultists, I imagine. Normal people accept air temperatures change from moment to moment, and only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
Worry away. Be as fearful as you like. I don’t care.
You don’t even know which hemisphere you reside in!
A,
Of course its insignificant.
Man-made heat is ephemeral.
Hopefully, you realise that the whole Earth is more than 99.9% hot enough to glow.
Surface temperatures due to sunlight range from about +90 C to -90 C.
Which particular temperature, changed by 1 C, do find particularly scary?
Do you suffer from severe anxiety, perhaps? Are you fearful of being roasted, toasted, boiled or grilled by a change in temperature of 1 C? Even in the US, air temperatures have changed by 57 C in one (yes, one) day! The inhabitants of the town seem to have survived.
Your terror of a change of 1 C in air temperature is only shared by SkyDragon cultists, I imagine. Normal people accept air temperatures change from moment to moment, and only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
Worry away. Be as fearful as you like. I don’t care.
ark the snark…”You dont even know which hemisphere you reside in!”
***
EeeeeeWWWW!! Do I smell a rotting red-herring!!!
It is insignificant if the global temperatures upon which the warming is based were 1C to 2C below normal due to a mini ice age, the Little Ice Age.
You ask if I am retarded but you cannot reason beyond what your authority figures tell you. Your brain is stuck in a hysterical subroutine.
Your main authority source, the IPCC, is run by the UN, who currently cannot commit themselves to speak out about Hamas terrorists in the Gaza strip. The UN are a gutless load of gutter snipes who are far removed from reality, as are their adherents, like you.
You’ve gone off the deep end now. Good luck to you.
A,
Man-made heat is ephemeral.
Hopefully, you realise that the whole Earth is more than 99.9% hot enough to glow.
Surface temperatures due to sunlight range from about +90 C to -90 C.
Which particular temperature, changed by 1 C, do find particularly scary?
Do you suffer from severe anxiety, perhaps? Are you fearful of being roasted, toasted, boiled or grilled by a change in temperature of 1 C? Even in the US, air temperatures have changed by 57 C in one (yes, one) day! The inhabitants of the town seem to have survived.
Your terror of a change of 1 C in air temperature is only shared by SkyDragon cultists, I imagine. Normal people accept air temperatures change from moment to moment, and only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
Worry away. Be as fearful as you like. I dont care.
Whether its 1C over 520 x 10^6 km^2, or a 9′ x 12′ room, it’s still 1C. Absolutely nothing to write home about.
Move on folks, nothing to see here, unless of course you are a mindless alarmist bent on convincing people the sky is falling.
Related…
Confidence in forecasting hurricane tracks is still high, however we can no longer be as confident in regard to the strength of a storm.
It seems that the warm water is having a greater influence than wind shear. Otis had wind shear over it, and it did not matter.
Lastly, here is a 2.5 minute video on hurricane intensification.
Much ado about nothing. There have been Category 5 hurricanes recorded back to at least the 1920s.
Hurricanes would not have been well reported in the earlier part of the 20th century and only noted since climate alarmists began looking for evidence to support their inane theory that a trace gas can cause such catastrophe.
Are you retarded?
The issue is hurricane intensification.
A,
You wrote –
“The issue is hurricane intensification.”
Hang on there just a second, pardner! Who appointed you issue arbiter?
I say the issue is that neither you nor any of your SkyDragon ilk can even describe the elusive GHE!
It’s my sub-thread, so I decide what’s relevant and what isn’t.
Besides, you don’t even know which hemisphere you reside in!
A,
You wrote
The issue is hurricane intensification.
Hang on there just a second, pardner! Who appointed you issue arbiter? Who gave you the power to determine thread ownership? Do you often think that you are wise and powerful?
I say the issue is that neither you nor any of your SkyDragon ilk can even describe the elusive GHE!
ark in the dark…”I decide whats relevant and what isnt”.
***
What you fail to grasp is that you are irrelevant, ergo your opinion has no meaning. Of course, you are free to opine all you like and posters like Swenson and I are here to straighten you out.
The real issue is your inference that stronger hurricanes are caused by a trace gas in the atmosphere. And, how much stronger can you get than a Cat 5? We’ve had them since hurricanes were recorded.
That’s nothing, Bordo.
The real issue is how a trace gas can be responsible for life on Earth.
Willard,
“Thats nothing, Bordo.
The real issue is how a trace gas can be responsible for life on Earth.”
You mean to say you don’t know? That’s OK, join the rest of the SkyDragon dummies who want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and exterminate all humans from the face of the Earth!
For the most noble of reasons of course, to save humanity!
You’d have to laugh at such silliness, wouldn’t you? Was the guy who reportedly said “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” during the Vietnam war, a relative of yours, perhaps?
Are you truly as ignorant as you imply?
I think it’s all a gas, wee willy.
Jumpin’ Jack Flash,
It’s a gas, gas, gas.
A trace gas allows you to be a crank every day, Bordo.
Think about that.
Willard,
“Thats nothing, Bordo.
The real issue is how a trace gas can be responsible for life on Earth.”
You mean to say you don’t know? Thats OK, join the rest of the SkyDragon dummies who want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and exterminate all humans from the face of the Earth!
For the most noble of reasons of course, to save humanity!
Youd have to laugh at such silliness, wouldn’t you? Was the guy who reportedly said “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” during the Vietnam war, a relative of yours, perhaps?
Are you truly as ignorant as you imply?
Mike Flynn,
I mean?
I do not know?
What?
Without a trace gas, you would not bray that much.
Rejoice!
Willard,
“Thats nothing, Bordo.
The real issue is how a trace gas can be responsible for life on Earth.”
You mean to say you don’t know? That’s OK, join the rest of the SkyDragon dummies who want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and exterminate all humans from the face of the Earth!
For the most noble of reasons of course, to save humanity!
Youd have to laugh at such silliness, wouldnt you? Was the guy who reportedly said “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” during the Vietnam war, a relative of yours, perhaps?
Are you truly as ignorant as you imply?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
Who cares what you said.
You do realize that whining about trace gases does not cohere with the idea that CO2 is plant food, right?
Willard,
“Thats nothing, Bordo.
The real issue is how a trace gas can be responsible for life on Earth.”
You mean to say you don’t know? Thats OK, join the rest of the SkyDragon dummies who want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and exterminate all humans from the face of the Earth!
For the most noble of reasons of course, to save humanity!
Youd have to laugh at such silliness, wouldnt you? Was the guy who reportedly said “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” during the Vietnam war, a relative of yours, perhaps?
Are you truly as ignorant as you imply?
What are you braying about, Mike?
Willard,
“Thats nothing, Bordo.
The real issue is how a trace gas can be responsible for life on Earth.”
You mean to say you dont know? Thats OK, join the rest of the SkyDragon dummies who want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and exterminate all humans from the face of the Earth!
For the most noble of reasons of course, to save humanity!
Youd have to laugh at such silliness, wouldnt you? Was the guy who reportedly said “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” during the Vietnam war, a relative of yours, perhaps?
Are you truly as ignorant as you imply?
“But Trace Gas” conflicts with “But Life,” Mike:
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
https://climateball.net/but-life
People who are educated and paying attention know that the models are very good at predicting the path in the 3 to 5 day window because they are very good at predicting the movement of weather systems. They can also predict the accuracy of the forecast with the shape of the cone.
They have always been less accurate at predicting the intensity because there are so many variables and random processes at work. Warm ocean water is not something new or unusual.
Tim S
” Warm ocean water is not something new or unusual. ”
This depends of course of what exactly you understand by ‘new’ or ‘unusual’, and where you measure.
I don’t like ERSST V5, an hence prefer since years to download ‘1 degree grid’ data from Met Office’s HadISST1 SST, the second rawest of all SST time series known to me – the rawest being COBE-SST2 (but which exists in binary form only, gracias no).
Unluckily, HadISST has been stopped this year: SST and sea ice data are no longer available since last May.
Nevertheless, when generating monthly data out of HadISST’s grid from 1871 till this year for the North Atlantic (0N-75W — 60N-5W), you see that data later than the 1990s unequivocally accumulate when you perform a descending sort on it and print the top 20.
1. Absolute data
2023 3 22.00 (C)
2023 2 21.84
2019 3 21.83
1998 3 21.83
2019 2 21.81
2022 2 21.79
2003 3 21.75
2020 3 21.73
2017 3 21.73
2010 3 21.71
2018 3 21.69
1998 2 21.69
2010 2 21.68
2000 3 21.68
1988 3 21.68
2017 2 21.66
2015 3 21.66
2022 3 21.65
2016 3 21.64
2006 3 21.64
No idea by the way why the North Atlantic SSTs are highest in February/March.
2. Anomalies wrt the monthly means for the reference period 1991-2020
2023 3 0.42 (C)
2022 12 0.41
2023 4 0.39
1998 7 0.39
2023 2 0.37
2023 1 0.36
2019 2 0.34
2022 2 0.32
2022 11 0.32
2021 7 0.31
2020 1 0.30
1973 6 0.30
2019 11 0.29
1987 11 0.28
2010 6 0.27
2019 1 0.26
2018 12 0.26
2009 12 0.26
1998 8 0.26
1987 10 0.26
The presence in the top 10 of 2022 11/12 and 2023 1/2/3/4 is suspect, to say the least, and might be a hint on Hunga Tonga’s stratospheric injection of water vapor.
But so far, no assumption has been turned into proof, and the presence of 2018/19/20/21 in the top 20 doesn’t support the idea very much either.
And… what about not even one month before 1973?
*
When you generate time series out of UAH’s 2.5 degree grid (anomalies or reconstruction of absolute data), you barely see anything of all that: the top ten is in both cases full of 1998, 2016, 2020, i.e. completely dominated by El Nino.
*
HadISST and UAH produce for the Globe two series pretty good on par:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lYv80u2gnI1FC-5Byc4eYkeDJ5QMaffs/view
I’ll generate a comparison chart for the North Atlantic tomorrow.
Data sources
HadISST1 SST
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/
UAH LT
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
Tim s…there is a vast difference between weather prediction models and climate models. The former are based on decades of actual weather data while the latter are based on guesses related to the effect of a trace gas in the atmosphere.
It is possible to validate a weather model to some extent but that is not possible with a climate model. That’s the basic reason the IPCC were forced to change ‘prediction’ to ‘projection’.
Winter in the US.
https://i.ibb.co/h1HKrYD/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-28-083319.png
Was the Little Ice Age caused by a drop in global temperature? No, it was the inhibition of circulation in the winter polar vortex. The Thames can only freeze if continental air from the east flows into England during the winter.
ren…what would affect circulation in the polar vortex for 450 years? The only thing coming to mind is variations in solar output or variations in the Earth’s orbit.
In Canada and the northern United States, the highs themselves. So why is it so cold?
https://i.ibb.co/qjd5NdH/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-28-183252.png
https://i.ibb.co/vzj1vkp/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-28-183128.png
ren…it’s only cold at night here in Vancouver, Canada. Seems to be a battle between colder Arctic air trying to move down and warmer air from the ocean holding it off during the day. At night, when solar energy is not heating the ocean, the colder Arctic air moves in.
What’s happening now in the lower stratosphere.
https://i.ibb.co/VDhxnSP/gfs-o3mr-100-NA-f000.png
The forecast shows a weakening of the polar vortex with a strong center over Hudson Bay.
https://i.ibb.co/CMjX0jS/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
Earlier, the amazingly confused bobdroege wrote –
“CO2 emits the same wavelengths it abzorbes.”
Well, no. It may, of course, in which case there may be no way of establishing whether the photons in question interacted with the CO2, if they are emitted in the same direction.
Generally, photons from a body warmer than the CO2 will be absorbed, resulting in increased velocity of the molecule, measured as higher temperature, if temperature is based on the average velocity of the molecules in a constrained gas.
Now the CO2, being hotter than its environment, will emit photons of progressively longer wavelengths as it cools – all the way to absolute zero, if allowed to do so.
Surprisingly, many internet sources confuse the mechanism whereby electrons absorb enough energy to result in electron orbital level changes, with what happens when an electron interacts with a photon of lesser energy than that required for excitation.
The whole matter is far more complicated than I can put here, but suffice it to say that CO2 exposed to a warmer body will heat. In a cooler environment, it will cool – emitting photons of wavelengths proportional to its absolute temperature. Hot things cool, if allowed to do so.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
Well, no. It may, of course,
Well, which is it?
No, or yes, it may?
Buffoon.
No to bodroege’s broad assertion, which implies that CO2 can only emit those wavelengths which it absorbs, and further implies that CO2 can only absorb specific wavelengths of energy.
So in general, no.
In particular cases it may, but how would you know? For example, CO2 is regarded as transparent to visible light wavelengths. Can you be certain that electrons have not absorbed photons, and emitted identical photons – momentum and direction?
You do seem rather reluctant to accept reality, but you have no choice. Your intellect apparently cannot cope. I feel sorry for your lack, but I have no sympathy. You express no willingness to help yourself.
Not my problem.
Mike,
You say –
“which implies”
You mean, like what you mean implies that a molecule can emit what it does not absorb?
Perhaps you should not be implying!
Cheers.
Yes.
By the way, what do you mean by “You mean, like what you mean . . .”?
[chortle]
wee willy…the CO2 molecule has two oxygen atoms and one carbon atom. Each atom has electrons that can absorb and emit at various frequencies. There is no such thing as ‘a’ molecule absorbing and emitting energy, it’s all done by electrons in the atoms making up the molecule.
Even the hydrogen atom, with only one electron, can absorb and radiate at several frequencies. It’s not a molecule since it is a single atom. H2 is a molecule because it has two hydrogen atom bonded by two electrons.
Look up the Balmer, Lyman, and Paschen series for hydrogen. The Paschen series represents the infrared whereas the Balmer and Lyman represent higher frequency EM up to the UV range.
Each absorp-tion and emission is at a single frequency, and th frequency will change with temperature, as Swenson indicated.
Cool story, Bordo.
Elements and molecules still emit and absorb their own characteristic frequencies. That’s one way we can identify them.
Willard,
You are confused. Maybe you are thinking about spectrometry or spectroscopy.
Mind you, I wouldn’t be surprised if you believed you could tell one gas from another by the wavelength of the photons it was emitting in the unexcited state.
You say the strangest things, Willard. Maybe you could design a gold detector to pick up “gold rays”! Or a gas detector to respond to “CO2 rays”? No need for silly gas analysers using mass spectrometers or gas chromatography.
Let me know how your insights are received by people who actually design and manufacture gas analysis equipment. Or maybe metal detector manufacturers?
You really have no clue, do you?
Mike Flynn,
Maybe you’re thinking, maybe you’re not.
Either way it does not change much what you bray.
Cheers.
Willard,
You are confused. Maybe you are thinking about spectrometry or spectroscopy.
Mind you, I wouldn’t be surprised if you believed you could tell one gas from another by the wavelength of the photons it was emitting in the unexcited state.
You say the strangest things, Willard. Maybe you could design a gold detector to pick up “gold rays.! Or a gas detector to respond to “CO2 rays.? No need for silly gas analysers using mass spectrometers or gas chromatography.
Let me know how your insights are received by people who actually design and manufacture gas analysis equipment. Or maybe metal detector manufacturers?
You really have no clue, do you?
I can tell that you are excited, Mike –
You emit the same comment at regular frequency!
Cheers.
Willard,
You are confused. Maybe you are thinking about spectrometry or spectroscopy.
Mind you, I wouldnt be surprised if you believed you could tell one gas from another by the wavelength of the photons it was emitting in the unexcited state.
You say the strangest things, Willard. Maybe you could design a gold detector to pick up “gold rays”! Or a gas detector to respond to “CO2 rays”? No need for silly gas analysers using mass spectrometers or gas chromatography.
Let me know how your insights are received by people who actually design and manufacture gas analysis equipment. Or maybe metal detector manufacturers?
You really have no clue, do you?
Mike,
Enjoy:
https://files.core.ac.uk/pdf/2612/81545151.pdf
Swenson,
“Can you be certain that electrons have not absorbed photons, and emitted identical photons momentum and direction?”
Of course I am certain this doesn’t happen.
Why would you think that could happen?
Maybe you could find the answer in someone’s description of the greenhouse effect.
CO2 does absorb and emit at 2.7 4.3 and 15 um.
Yes it does absorb and emit at the same frequencies.
Read the wiki article on CO2 for details. Its so simple that even wiki can’t screw it up. But you could go all out and buy a copy of Hitran to make sure …
Ken,
You have no clue. You can’t even say what frequencies CO2 is emitting at 1 K, 100 K or 1000 K, can you?
If you quickly compress air 25 to 1, a temperature in excess of 750 K can be achieved.
Go on, convince others that the CO2 in the air is at a different temperature to the other gases such as oxygen, nitrogen and argon, being unable to interact with photons apart from those you specified. You might also explain which frequencies the constituents of the air absorbed in order to reach 750 K, and where those photons came from. Magic or just physics, do you think?
Now I suppose you want others to believe that frozen CO2 emits the same wavelength photons as CO2 at 750 K. Good luck with that.
Maybe you could use HITRAN?
It doesn’t matter what temperature; its the atomic structure that determines the frequencies. Even if it did matter, Emissivity of CO2 doesn’t change across temperature ranges that we’re looking at in climate.
Frozen CO2 is at ‘zero’ state: its not going to emit anything until it a b s o r b s enough energy to be at ‘one’ state … its not going to still be frozen when that happens.
CO2 freezes at -78. Not a normal atmospheric temperature.
Ken,
You are talking nonsense.
Frozen CO2 emits infrared, whether is at -79 C, or -179 C, just like all other matter. Wavelengths are proportional to its absolute temperature, just like all matter.
CO2 at 10 K emits different wavelengths than CO2 at say, 1000 K.
If you don’t want to accept reality, you don’t have to.
It doesn’t matter what temperature the CO2 is, the frequencies remain the same.
CO2 has to a b s o r b energy to go from zero to one state, just like an LED, before it emits energy. CO2 would change from solid to gaseous state before its energy state is high enough to emit energy.
CO2 at 1000K: the chemistry of CO2 would not be altered by the temperature of the gas and the frequencies will be the same.
You’re wrong.
Ken,
If you want to believe that frozen CO2 gas at -79 C does not emit IR, I suppose you would expect people to believe that frozen H2O gas at -2 C does not emit IR either.
I don’t believe Kensian Physics will catch on, but you never know.
Maybe you could concoct a GHE description utilizing your vast intellectual abilities, but I doubt it. Care to try? Nothing wrong with humour. I’ll have a laugh at your expense.
Carry on.
Ken, are you suggesting that a gas that becomes solidified doesn’t emit any infrared. Only at zero Kelvin would that happen.
Does any solid emit infrared? What about a lump of coal glowing red? Suggest you don’t try to test your theory.
[KENNUI] CO2 does absorb and emit at 2.7 4.3 and 15 um.
[ANON] are you suggesting that a gas that becomes solidified doesnt emit any infrared
So beautiful.
I don’t know if solid CO2 would emit IR at atmosphere pressures. I think that if CO2 a b s o r b s any IR it would change from solid to gas before it goes from zero to one state and emits IR. Gas law etc.
Obviously solids do emit IR when excited. LED is prime example.
H2O is different from CO2 in that it goes solid to liquid to gas. CO2 doesn’t have that liquid stage.
Regardless, behavior of solid CO2 in atmosphere doesn’t have much application to climate.
Sky Dragon cranks threw squirrel at you, Ken.
Gold diggin’ nuts often use frequency gold detectors that pale in comparison to what climate scientists throw at sea ice, e.g.:
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/gpds/about_amsr2.html
Ken, any object that is warmer than zero Kelvin will emit infrared radiation. So yes solid CO2 would emit infrared radiation. Two objects of the same temperatures will both be emitting infrared radiation at the same frequencies as one another, not only to the surrounding environment but also to one another.
Anon,
Don’t expect any of the SkyDragon cultists to believe you.
They are impervious to reality.
“any object that is warmer than zero Kelvin will emit infrared radiation.”
It doesn’t just simply emit, else it would be an energy source. That might be true of radioactive materials. I’m not aware that CO2 is radioactive. It has to a b s o r b enough energy to drive it from zero state to one state before it emits. There is an emissivity time constant for each material too, so not all materials go from zero state to one state immediately on being excited.
Anon for a reason says:
”Ken, any object that is warmer than zero Kelvin will emit infrared radiation.”
not true. https://tinyurl.com/jvfs993u
Hate to tell you Swensongouli,
But you are drooling in your Maypo again.
“emitting photons of wavelengths proportional to its absolute temperature.”
As wavelengths of longer length are weaker radiation in accordance with the formula E = hc/lamda
Shorter wavelengths have more energy.
Do continue to amuse us with your scientific knowledge.
A point relating to Roy’s post on UHI effect. The other night, local temperatures were claimed to be 4C, yet when I was out for a walk at night, there was frost on the winshields of cars. That’s at least a 4C difference in temperature from what was being reported by Environment Canada.
There was no wind blowing, ruling out wind chill.
The temperatures are taken at Vancouver International airport which is not far away so I doubt that the 4C difference was related to altitude or distance from the ocean. Strikes me the difference could be at least partly related to UHI, and partly due to misreporting by Environment Canada, who are notorious climate alarmists.
They changed their name recently from Environment Canada to Environment and Climate Change Canada. Nothing like objective science [/SARC OFF].
The only way to be sure is to take temperature readings at both locations. ‘
Here on Vancouver Island, distance from the water and elevations makes huge swings in temperature. The airport, nearly visible from my home, often shows temperatures on the website that varies from my thermometer by several degrees.
Inland highway can have a foot of snow while the old coastal highway is wet and even comfortably warm.
exactly Ken!
the surface station network was never designed to be representative of microclimates in the first place. all you can look at is temperature rise overtime for individual stations with known consistency of environment at and around the stations and consistent means of collecting data.
translating into a whole planet grid is only going to multiply error.
Ken,
Not even as easy as that. Low level inversion can mean that your screen temperature is markedly different from another, and without simultaneous appropriate ground temperatures also, you might be led astray.
Air temperatures are fairly pointless and meaningless in general. In fact, what is assumed to be air temperature is thermometer temperature, which is sometimes markedly different, and may bear no consistent relationship to that of the air which surrounds it.
Still no GHE, and no good reason to think we are all doomed by rising temperatures due to anthropogenic heat production.
Others are free to panic as they wish.
Do you know what the dew point was? I can predict that it was a clear night. This is a well established effect that cooing by radiation to outer space can cause frost to form when the air temperature is above freezing. This is why farmers often use large fans to keep the air moving so their delicate crops do not freeze on cold nights.
Exactly, Tim S.
Tim, Persians used to make ice in the desert in shallow ponds. Only happened on clear nights despite the day time temperatures being on the warm side.
“This is a well established effect that cooing by radiation to outer space can cause frost to form when the air temperature ”
True.
Surfaces can cool below the air temp by upward radiation.
I have observed that covering garden plants with a thin IR abs.orbing plastic sheet keeps them warmer…. just like the GHE keeps the Earth warmer.
indeed in the conditions outlined by Tim when the air temperature is above freezing an ir blocking sheet will keep plants and the ground from freezing by blocking the ir window through the warm air.
“There was no wind blowing, ruling out wind chill.”
That is NOT how wind chill works!
Wind chill makes you feel colder because it takes heat away from your warm body faster. It does NOT make the air actually colder, and it does not make windows on parked cars colder.
If the air is 4 C, a thermometer will still read 4 C, no matter how fast the wind is blowing.
Tim,
Dang me all over the place! At least we agree on something. I’m not sure whether Bindidon ever accepted reality, though.
Tim was responding to Bordo, Mike.
Why are you mentioning Binny?
The highs in the north clearly indicate that the western circulation has stopped in the polar vortex. These highs are pushing the lows further south. If solar activity remains as low as it is now, the inhibition of circulation may continue.
https://i.ibb.co/ZS0g1fM/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-29-100006.png
https://imgur.com/a/a6IBdOR
Just in time for opening weekend. Hurray!
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=33.8;-90.4;3&l=temperature-anomaly-2m&t=20231101/0000
How many times will I still have to read sentences like
” The temps reported by the weather station most near by mostly are by degrees higher than does my outside thermometer. Something must be wrong. ”
*
What is wrong is the assumption that a home-bought thermometer placed outdoors measures the same temperature as a weather station, in which far more precise thermometers are protected not only from the sun but also from the wind.
There is often a difference of 1 to 3 degrees between the weather station data from our nearest airport, which is 10 km away, and my MinMax thermometer mounted outside (3 only in colder winters however).
Temperatures measured during heavy gusts of wind often are way lower than that of the ambiant air, Tim Folkerts can tell here what he wants.
*
By the way: 5 years ago already, I tried to contradict Watts’ nonsense at his WUWT about the temperatures measured at Anchorage International Airport
https://www.google.com/maps/place/61%C2%B010'08.0%22N+150%C2%B001'40.1%22W/@61.1689,-150.0632105,8597m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d61.1689!4d-150.0278?hl=en&entry=ttu
being too high – by pointing out that although the pristine USCRN station Kenai, 50 km away in the middle of nowhere
https://www.google.com/maps/place/60%C2%B043'25.0%22N+150%C2%B026'53.9%22W/@60.7236,-151.0089943,139494m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d60.7236!4d-150.4483?hl=en&entry=ttu
always measures temperatures ~ 2 degrees lower than that of the airport:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D6Plbj3pZiYE3kQS05B6_6mcgOLxNB5n/view
their deviations from a ~ 10-year average however keep over time practically identical when smoothly filtered:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OhCuDiAFUT80Ws4S8XopciaWQTp4rorn/view
The very best was that while absolute data shows Anchorage warmer in both summer and winter, the anomaly-based comparison shows nearly everywhere deviations from the mean stronger for Kenai than for Anchorage, he he.
Wha’ ya say? UHI? Hmmmmh. Et ta soeur, elle va bien?
Bindidon says:
”How many times will I still have to read sentences like
The temps reported by the weather station most near by mostly are by degrees higher than does my outside thermometer. Something must be wrong.
*
What is wrong is the assumption that a home-bought thermometer placed outdoors measures the same temperature as a weather station, in which far more precise thermometers are protected not only from the sun but also from the wind.”
Bin is such a dik. cheap thermometers are almost always accurate to one degree. apparently our resident dik here thinks he is so much better than anybody else he can speculate about micro climate non-existence and phone in an ignorant opinion and actually believe it makes him look smart.
Maybe some geniuses endlessly blathering their egomaniacal guesses about absorp~tion / emission of radiation try to learn a bit, for example by carefully reading:
https://tinyurl.com/5795hyru
Blocking the polar vortex in the North Pacific is a bad forecast for winter in the US. A lot of energy will be needed.
https://i.ibb.co/y5fyz2Z/gfs-t50-nh-f240.png
Thank you, Bindidon.
–
I’ll read it carefully.
https://tinyurl.com/5795hyru
Very good, and very good material!
Παρακαλώ
Nothing like a genius Bindidong who can power lighs by radiation from ice
Aaah… as always, the ankle-biting dachshund lacks any meaningful contradiction, which is why he has to resort to discrediting and vilification. His bad.
Bindiclown acting as an expert because he found a page on internet while he clearly demonstrated he doesn’t understand any of it.
energy generated by the ice cube would just suffice to light a very small lamp
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1471866
#2
Aaah… as always, the ankle-biting dachshund lacks any meaningful contradiction, which is why he has to resort to discrediting and vilification. His bad.
All you need to do is show a light powered by ice radiation
The fact you can’t is pretty meaningful contradiction
Binbi seldom attempts any real science, but when he does it’s always quite revealing.
Here, he links to a brief discussion of the radiative properties for Hydrogen. Bindi doesn’t understand that Hydrogen does NOT emit/absorb at terrestrial wavelengths!
Like the rest of his cult, he understands NOTHING about the relevant science.
Clint,
Spectroscopy and spectrometry have nothing to do with energy emission wavelengths due to temperature.
Some ignorant people believe that the composition of objects can be determined by measuring the frequency of the radiation which they are emitting due to temperature. Unfortunately, as wonderfully useful as this would be, it is not true. Prospecting for gold would only require a frequency meter tuned to the appropriate frequency. Ah, the simplicity of dreams!
People like Bindidon do not seem to realize that spectrometry normally depends on shining light through a gas. Or, in some cases examining the spectra emitted by a gas which is emitting specific wavelengths of light due to having been excited. Too brief, I know, not having covered the interaction between light and matter generally, but the mechanism is quite different from that which results in the IR emitted as a result of matter being above absolute zero.
The majority of SkyDragon cultists seem to believe that oxygen, nitrogen argon, etc., can not absorb or emit IR, which is just nonsensical. All matter above absolute zero emits IR, whether some ignorant people wish to believe it or not.
Yes Bindi can get things so tangled up that no one can straighten it all out.
Oh the clever Clint R boy thought I would speak about terrestrial wavelengths! Oh oh oh.
Binny,
Have you something to say, perhaps? Or are you just trying to impress with your supposed mind reading skills?
Maybe you could demonstrate your grasp of physics by explaining what happens to the photons emitted by ice which is totally submerged in water. You could attempt to look up the answer on the internet.
Let me know how you go. if you cant find the answer, and are willing to admit that you accept my authority in such matters, I might tell you what happens.
I cant guarantee you will like the answer, though.
Carry on.
getSpencerCommenters.sh https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/new-paper-submission-urban-heat-island-effects-in-u-s-summer-temperatures-1880-2015/#comments|grep Swenson
Output: 99
99 times absolutely redundant trash. Mental onanism, Flynnson?
Binny,
Have you something to say, perhaps? Or are you just trying to impress with your supposed mind reading skills?
Maybe you could demonstrate your grasp of physics by explaining what happens to the photons emitted by ice which is totally submerged in water. You could attempt to look up the answer on the internet.
Let me know how you go. if you cant find the answer, and are willing to admit that you accept my authority in such matters, I might tell you what happens.
I cant guarantee you will like the answer, though.
In the meantime, keep diverting – it won’t make anybody think you are more intelligent than you are, will it?
Carry on.
no doubt after schooling everybody on unique spectral characteristics of different substances; the next lesson from bin should be a lesson on the greenhouse effect using figures pretending that everything is a blackbody.
One of the highest temperature anomalies in the US this year is currently observable in Texas. See our temperature anomaly map https://www.ventusky.com/?p=35.0;-99.7;5&l=temperature-anomaly-2m
https://imgur.com/a/uogtgSQ
The August 2023 CERES data just came in, and the 36 month running mean for the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) just hit a new record high at 1.48 Watts/m^2.
I may be one of the few people looking at this essential data. But, since my tax dollars help pay for its collection, I feel obligated.
Ark, the “EEI” is a bogus concept. Your tax dollars are being wasted…again!
You see, no one knows exactly what Earth emits to space. It’s all guesses, assumptions, and estimates.
No one knows exactly what Earth recieves from Sun. It’s all guesses, assumptions, and estimates.
It’s gets worse — radiative fluxes can NOT be simply subtracted.
The EEI is just the usual cult nonsense.
Clint R
Still at it, no evidence no problem.
What does all guesses and assumptions in your posts mean? Who needs to know “exact” amounts of energy emitted or received? You can still use science without exact values. I do not think anything in science has “exact” amounts of anything. How much does a ring weigh? Maybe you could put it on some scale and you would get a close enough answer but would that be “exact”?
You seem to have problems with science and how it works. Can you give me an “exact” value of anything in science?
Do you have any verifiable information (other than your post) that radiative fluxes can NOT be simply subtracted? Or will you go with your standard operation of no evidence no problem. Just believe me because I post as Clint R?
Norman, I see the therapy is working. You’ve stopped with the anal fixation, but the false accusations continue.
It takes time, I guess.
We’ve been over this before, with no response from you. Radiation is a poor means of removing heat from the surface. Conduction/convection is 260 times more effective and Ceres is not measuring that part of any energy budget. The truth is, the energy budget claimed is fraudulent. It measures only radiation observed from the surface.
The truth is that any bodies warmed by the Sun are running hotter than they should be, and that includes the Moon. The reason is clear, radiation cannot rid the surfaces of those bodies as quickly as the Sun can deliver energy to them. Therefore, they warm.
Not only that, planets with atmospheres, like the Earth, can retain the heating produced by solar radiation for lengthy periods of time.
Gordon Robertson
Are you a broken record? Conduction/convection are NOT 250 times more effective at removing heat from the surface as radiant energy.
Again you fail and get an F in logic rational thinking. You still do not understand emissivity at all.
You still fail to explain why the Moon cools or why it only gets reaches the steady state temperature of the incoming solar, the surface is then emitting around thousand Watts/m^2 to remove the same amount of energy the Moon surface is receiving from the Sun.
I really do not know why you peddle this totally false narrative over and over and can easily be proven wrong.
Once the Moon surface reaches a certain temperature it stops warming. The incoming solar is equivalent to the outgoing IR. I really am lost why you do not know this basic science and why you think you need to peddle the false narrative.
Related…
Guerrero Governor Evelyn Salgado announced on social media that the number of fatalities resulting from Category 5 Hurricane Otis has now reached 43 and there are 36 people reported missing.
I understand that this is the official number, but everybody in Mexico knows that the real number of deaths is much higher. Unfortunately, the Government is hiding the real number because they didn’t warn Acapulco that a Cat 5 hurricane was headed their way, and don’t want to be held to account.
We know why: it’s because data and models all look backwards, at the way things have been. They’re consistently failing to account for how an extra 10 zetajoules of heat per year are powering storms that intensify faster.
Lastly, the lamestream media has been awfully quiet about this disaster.
Arkady, you seem to be cherry picking data by only concentrating on the few hurricane that have increased in category. What percentage have increased vs decreased?
Btw emphasizing loss of life is an appeal to emotion, yes it is sad that people & animals have been killed by nature. It has and always will happen. Is your argument that weak that you try and guilt trip others into accepting your ideology?
I see you: https://imgur.com/a/2ad5RBM
Ark, did you believe all the increase in thermal energy from the HTE and El Niño would have no effect?
Décidément, le vortex polaire est vachement à la mode ces derniers temps, il nous est offert à toutes les sauces et sert donc à expliquer tout et son contraire.
*
Do these wonderful Thames past frost fairs
https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/89610496/atx057_fig1.jpg
really deserve such trivial, so ‘disinterested’ explanation as the polar vortex, which apparently comes here into play only to suggest that its current behavior can’t be due to recent global warming?
How boring.
*
Let us look for other, interesting explanations.
Here is Wiki’s source for the ‘LIA’ Thames:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs
” Even at its peak, in the mid-17th century, the Thames in London froze less often than modern legend sometimes suggests, never exceeding about one year in ten except for four winters between 1649 and 1666.
From 1400 until the removal of the medieval London Bridge in 1831, there were 24 winters in which the Thames was recorded to have frozen over at London. The Thames freezes over more often upstream, beyond the reach of the tide, especially above the weirs, of which Teddington Lock is the lowest. The last great freeze of the higher Thames was in 196263 ”
*
But it’s also interesting to look at
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/58/2/2.17/3074082?login=false
because it shows a much wider picture around and within the LIA. You can focus on an informative graphic in the page:
https://i.postimg.cc/D0hkpRrm/SSN-temps-from-MWP-to-present-281023.jpg
*
In the sum, it appears not only that
– an impressing, persistent series of huge volcanic eruptions (starting with Samalas in 1257) whose aerosol injections in the lower stratosphere cooled the oceans, were probably as much responsible for the LIA than was the solar activity, if not even more,
but also that
– the Thames did very certainly not freeze due to this poor polar vortex, but rather because it was in earlier times much broader, flatter hence slower than since the demolition of the old London Bridge in 1825/1831 and the Thames’ great embankments completed in 1870.
*
Last not least, the monthly mean Central England Temperatures show a clear discrepancy between the exciting Thames freezing winters and the more sober records of temperatures experienced in a wider context as the same times.
A non-exhaustive list of the major volcanic eruptions which occurred between the end of the MWP and the Maunder Minimum
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bh7NjyY970aHBuPn0xD2XP9cdogzvn2E/view
*
Just for having some fun
All the fun of the Frost Fair: why, when and how did Londoners party on the ice?
https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/frost-fairs
*
Frostiana: or a history of the River Thames in a frozen state by George DAVIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH6zzGdDRQY
*
The year the River Thames froze over
https://www.shakespearesglobe.com/discover/blogs-and-features/2014/12/17/the-year-the-river-thames-froze-over/
The polar vortex is not “fashionable” because it has been in operation since the beginning when the polar night falls above the 65th parallel. And it will work during the next winter and the next, etc.
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_nh.gif
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif
Palmowski
My comment was a reply to your clearly unproven assumption:
” Was the Little Ice Age caused by a drop in global temperature? No, it was the inhibition of circulation in the winter polar vortex. The Thames can only freeze if continental air from the east flows into England during the winter. ”
*
Don’t waste your time in trying to teach us what the polar vortex is.
Why don’t you try to understand how nonsensical it is to link Thames’ freezing in the XVII th century to the polar vortex where so many people have much more reasonable explications for it.
Discussion with someone who does not pay attention to facts is pointless.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/10/30/0000Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-120.92,79.27,279
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/10/30/0000Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-82.58,83.58,279
Quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO)
The QBO index is determined by the strength and direction of equatorial zonal winds in the tropical stratosphere. When the winds are in a westerly phase the index is positive and when in an easterly phase it is negative. A correlation between the strength of the jet stream across the North Atlantic and the QBO has been identified. A negative (easterly) QBO favours a weaker jet stream which in turn means a greater chance of cold spells during the winter months.
An easterly QBO is expected to continue through the winter. This is believed to increase the likelihood of a colder than average winter.
Sorry, Palmowski
You are here the one who does not pay attention to any one of the facts I mentioned above.
And amassing lots and lots of earth.nullschool.net pics won’t let you become even a bit more convincing.
Please don’t invent stuff, and try to live with the fact that you have NO SOURCE confirming assumptions like
” The Thames can only freeze if continental air from the east flows into England during the winter. ”
If that was the case, we would have experienced many more Thames freezing episodes because that was often enough the case in recent decades.
But we didn’t.
dup???
binny…”You are here the one who does not pay attention to any one of the facts I mentioned above”.
***
Reality check…no one pays attention to anything you say.
little ice ages only come about infrequently but one can see clearly on the page of this site that temperature excursions of 2 to 4c have occurred numerous times during the Holocene. but numerous times might be only once every 1000 years give or take. solar variation and solar rays reaching the surface is still very much in the game.
In the US, the greatest recorded temperature excursion in one day is more than 57 C.
Averages are meaningless, even if enough appropriate data existed to derive such a silly thing.
Thermometers indicate the temperature of the instrument. Not the air which surrounds it.
The World Meteorological Organisation has extensively documented this phenomenon – which seems to be studiously ignored by climatological measurebators.
Even a difference in the height of the base of a thermometer screen of 60 cm or so, results in differences of more than 0.7 C in recorded temperatures. Surprising, but true. Other peer reviewed studies show that many other screen placement and construction factors result in even larger differences, quite apart from factors such as atmospheric opacity, clouds, temporary adjective, convective or radiative influences.
But simple souls believe that measurements of “air temperature” must mean something – otherwise why would scientists bother?
Why indeed.
Tell me you don’t know thermodynamics without saying you don’t know thermodynamics…
” Whether its 1C over 520 x 10^6 km^2, or a 9′ x 12′ room, it’s still 1C. Absolutely nothing to write home about.”
The energy cost of one of these things is not lake the other’s.
A,
You probably think you are making a point.
Energy cost? External energy comes from the Sun.
Where is the cost?
Tell me you’re retarded without saying you’re retarded…
“we know which was one us is retarded, and it’s not me.”
A,
Why should he tell you anything?
If he doesn’t, what then? Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue, or possibly stamp your petulant little foot?
Ooooooh! That will fix him, won’t it?
[laughing at dim/wit]
duplicate comment…
wee willy…”Elements and molecules still emit and absorb their own characteristic frequencies. Thats one way we can identify them”.
***
wee willy will debate a point whether he has the slightest understanding of the subject or not.
An element is an atom. Each element is distinguished from the other based on the number of protons in its nucleus and the number of electrons orbiting it, which equal the number of protons. The only variation between these elements is when the number of electrons does not equal the number of protons an ion, Or the number of neutrons is grater than normal, an isotope.
Ergo, the word element, like the word molecule, serves only as a descrip.tor to distinguish one set of atoms and their interactions from the other. It like the words kinetic energy, which describes no particular energy but only that some kind of energy is moving.
The word molecule is nothing more than a word. It describes two or more of the aforementioned atoms bonded together by electron bonds in the case of covalent bonding or the charges of electrons in the case of ionic bonds. In order to understand the behavior of molecules you must look at the atoms making up the molecule and the electrons bonding the atoms.
Claiming a molecule emits and absorbs radiation is nothing more than rubbish. It is lazy science indulged in by scientists who don’t understand the meaning of molecule and who have no interest in understanding what they are. In any chemistry class, the molecule is introduced only after atoms and their bonding methodology is introduced. Even at that, any discussion of molecular structure is explained using electron theory in orbitals, especially the valence shell orbitals that produce atomic bonding to form a molecule.
Any radiation being absorbed or emitted by a molecule is due to the electrons in the constituent atoms.
Cool story, Bordo. According to your logic, everything emits and absorbs at the same frequencies all the time.
Something tells me it’s a bit farfetched:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
I’m sure you have another story to cover for that one. Will it be the one about Bohr? We’ll be lucky if it’s the one about Pauling instead.
Willard, you seem to have a habit of misquoting others. Does that explain why your conclusions tend to be categorised
as a non sequitur?
Or are you misquoting intentionally just to get attention?
Dear Anon,
I only quoted thy Wiki.
It’s rather how people misinterpret the concept of non sequitur that is usually at cause.
Those who beg questions tend to be passive aggressive asshats.
Willard,
You quoted –
“As a photon is absorbed by an atom, it excites the atom, elevating an electron to a higher energy level . , , ”
Unfortunately, that describes a process that only occurs in a vanishingly small (though extremely important) portion of light/matter interactions.
You obviously lack the knowledge to understand this.
Take an example where matter at 1 K absorbs energy, and as a result reaches a temperature of 2 K. No atomic excitation there, and the subsequent radiation wavelengths emitted increase, as the matter cools all the way to absolute zero, in the absence of external heat.
Your source stated “Since the energy levels of electrons in atoms are discrete, each element and each molecule emits and absorbs its own characteristic frequencies.”, which is complete nonsense, unless the interacting light is sufficiently energetic to result in excitation.
Learn some physics. You may even be able to say where the photons emitted by ice completely submerged in water go, without the water getting hotter, but I doubt you have the intellectual capacity.
anon…misquoting people is all wee willy has. He misquotes then plays dumb, which is not all that hard for him.
I have explained many times in the past to wee willy, that a single atom like the hydrogen atom, with only one electron, can emit several discrete frequencies depending on the number of energy levels over which they drop. First, they have to be excited, however, and the higher the frequency, the higher they will jump.
After thy have their jump, they seems to want to go back to ground level and en route from the highest orbitals they can jump all the way, emitting a photon of UV. However, they may stop to visit en route and only jump an orbital level or two down, in which case they emit IR.
Theexcitation can be caused by absorbing EM energy or by heating the mass in which the atoms reside.
The point Swenson was making is that the electron orbitals are also affected by the temperature of a mass. So, if you start at 0K, which is not really attainable, and you add heat till the mass reaches terrestrial temperatures, each electron will emit a single frequency at each temperature.
However, if you bombard the mass with an array of EM frequencies, like light, each electron will respond to only one discrete frequency, depending on the mass temperature. The distance it jumps from the ground state is dependent on the frequency of the incoming EM. At least, that’s my limited understanding.
I know it’s far more complicated and I offer my interpretation for anyone to rebut.
> I have explained many times in the past to wee willy
That’s untrue, Bordo.
Besides, you said that “Claiming a molecule emits and absorbs radiation is nothing more than rubbish.”
This claim is rubbish.
Cheerios.
Learn some physics. You may even be able to say where the photons emitted by ice completely submerged in water go, without the water getting hotter, but I doubt you have the intellectual capacity.
Or just keep trying to avoid demonstrating your ignorance.
Mike Flynn,
Put down.
Bait.
Put down.
duplicate???
Never heard of ‘energy cost’. Is that something you leaned in home economics classes?
https://education.seattlepi.com/seven-areas-home-economics-1946.html
That should be ‘learned’ in home economics classes… although a Kiwi would pronounce ‘learned’ that way.
trouble posting…
binny…”Here is Wikis source for the LIA Thames:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs
***
If you look under the ‘Talk’ tab at the top of the Wiki link page you will see the name William Connolley mentioned several times. He is an uber-alarmist who is/was an editor at Wiki. Connolley is one of the principle alarmists at realclimate even though he is just a computer programmer.
Connolley made a practice of dogging skep.tics like the late Fred Singer, on Wiki, ensuring that skep.tics would never have anything positive said about them.
It does not sur.prise me that Connolley would permit propaganda about the Little Ice Age to appear even though there are no facts to support it. Using a few fair events over a 450 years period on the Thames is hardly evidence that the Thames did not freeze over far more often than indicated. It froze so often in Dutch rivers and canals that they invented ice skating.
Besides, the LIA peaked in two different eras, one of them in the late 1700s. No one is claiming there was a flat cold trend over 450 years, just that the average was 1C to 2C below normal. It was enough to drive the Vikings out of southern Greenland and enough to cause a famine in the Scottish highlands in the 1790s, when crops failed to grow. There was also famine in North America, extending as far south as the current locations of Florida and Texas.
The significance of the LIA is that the IPCC based their global minimum smack dab in the middle of the 2nd LIA peak, where global temps were at an all-time relative low. They based their anthropogenic theory on a lie, that the base temperature was a normal temperature and that anthropogenic gases caused a warming effect.
“Recreational winter weather events have been much more common in other parts of Europe, such as the Netherlands.”
This means that cold continental air from the east must have flowed into the Netherlands and England. This is only possible as a result of the breaking up of the polar vortex. Warmer air from over the Atlantic flowed over Svalbard, while frigid air flowed in from the east. This often happens when there is a sudden stratospheric warming in winter.
https://i.ibb.co/Vt4DXwV/gfs-z100-nh-f00-2.png
Robertson
Instead of discrediting and denigrating people you don’t understand the work of, try to exceptionally activate your brain and read
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/58/2/2.17/3074082?login=false
a bit more carefully.
No Connolley there on whom you could spew your usual hatred.
And try to finally understand
https://i.postimg.cc/D0hkpRrm/SSN-temps-from-MWP-to-present-281023.jpg
before you once more urge in teaching the world about everything.
” Together these mean that, although the LIA covers both the Spoerer and Maunder solar minima, it also persisted and deepened during the active solar period between these two minima. “
The most recent cold period of the LIA was the Dalton Minimum from about 1780 – 1830.
Robertson apparently isn’t even able to read a simple graph.
https://i.postimg.cc/D0hkpRrm/SSN-temps-from-MWP-to-present-281023.jpg
It is common to understand two LIA periods:
– one with avg temps below -0.22 C
– one … -0.44 C.
And as we can see, LIA 1 extends from ~ 1420 till… ~ 1920.
Feel free to adapt the world to your personal, self-centred guesses. Who cares?
Yep panel 3 shows normal historical temperatures in place over the past thousand years.
Bindidon says:
”And as we can see, LIA 1 extends from ~ 1420 till ~ 1920.
Feel free to adapt the world to your personal, self-centred guesses. Who cares?”
Yes we see you looking at the situation through a narrow lens. Thats one opinion. Some have the LIA beginning with the Wolf Minimum in the late 13th Century not as late as the 15th Century.
and of course most have the LIA ending 1870 with the advent of the industrial age. The fastest ice retreat of glaciers was around the mid 19th century. And the 1910 to 1945 warming rivaled the modern warming before the creatures of the adjustocene started trying to chop it down. . .purely man made warming.
Hunter boy
” Thats one opinion.”
Yes indeed but unlike you, I present the source of this opinion.
*
” Some have the LIA beginning with the Wolf Minimum in the late 13th Century not as late as the 15th Century. ”
Who is ‘Some’, whose existence you are so pretty non-committally insinuating, Hunter boy? Or is your gut feeling once again the only ‘some’ in your storytelling?
*
As usual, no matter what it’s about – lunar spin, data gridding – you bring things into the conversation without any reference to the source that you vaguely hint at.
Binm you must be a newby to climate science if all yo daddy has let you see just one version of everything. this science has huge uncertainties across every issue. spend sometime at dr. curry’s blog and get the non-politized science. she posts a weekly reading list of interesting new findings. other than that i am not your librarian. ask who ever that is to clue you in on how unique your favorite author is.
” other than that i am not your librarian. ask who ever that is to clue you in on how unique your favorite author is. ”
As I said: you are simply unable to bring proofs sustaining what you claim.
You are brazen enough to expect others to look at one or two dozens of blog threads, instead of simply posting what you should post if you were able to.
You are the one of us who has ‘favorite authors’. I haven’t any one.
*
” this science has huge uncertainties across every issue. spend sometime at dr. currys blog and get the non-politized science. ”
I started reading Judith Curry’s blog very probably much earlier than you think, Hunter boy.
*
And above all: unlike you, a typical gullible believer of all the ‘non-politicized science’ which is far more politicized than you ever could imagine, I try since over a decade to get an idea of how climate data looks like – by not only downloading but also processing data, without pasting anything from either side’s Nomenklatura.
You, Hunter boy, would never be able to do that – just like your other friends-in-den~ial.
i completely understand your desperation bin.
make the start late to minimize the drop in temperatures for the purpose of misinforming the public that most of the warming seen recently isn’t simply a recovery from a cold spell. a cold spell that is replicated in the ice core records hundreds of times where by the grand pooh bahs of climate change alarmism simply handwave it away as ‘noise’ in the data.
Old London Bridge acted as a weir, slowing the flow of the Thames and allowing the river upstream of the bridge to freeze.
Once the old bridge was demolished in 1831 the river never froze again.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge
The Dutch canals were much more likely to freeze because of the more continental climate and slower water flows.
Fen skating was common in East Anglia from medieval timeson the drainage cuts and flooded water meadows at sites like Earith through the 19th century and in my youth. Then the climate warned and opportunities became scarce.
Once an annual event, the last Fen Skating championships were held in 1999 and 2010.
Entropic man says
” Old London Bridge acted as a weir,… ”
Indeed, and from
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/58/2/2.17/3074082?login=false
I see that
” The reason why freezing increasingly failed to happen, even though monthly ΔTmin values repeatedly fell below −2.6 °C, is almost certainly that in 1825 (marked by the first vertical black dashed line) the old London Bridge was demolished.
This bridge had many small arches and elements of a weir, which slowed the flow and allowed ice to form and thicken.
The river flow was further increased by the building of the embankments, a programme completed with the opening of the Victoria embankment in 1870 (the second vertical dashed line).
Andrews (1887) notes of the very cold winter of 1881, ‘it was expected by many that a Frost Fair would once more be held on the Thames’, but does not explain why there was none. In 1883 and 1896, ice floes formed on the river but it did not freeze solid.
Hence the end of the frost fairs and Thames freezing was caused by the riverine developments rather than climate change. ”
There seems to exist some little dispute about OLB’s demolition date.
Interesting anyway.
Entropic Man, the first lock on the Thames is at Teddington it has also got a weir. So using your logic then the Frost Fairs should have just relocated a few miles up river.
Oh have I missed your point?
A weir or was it a lack of precipitation? Extended cold weather typically involves less precipitation as it involves less evaporation. Slower flow is what encourages freezing and there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Entropic Man, for any flowing water it needs to be really cold for the water to freeze. So you are actually proving the point that the little ice age was very cold.
So why did IPCC choose the coldest years on record to base their starting point on? It was more political or ideological than scientific.
Yep water is the reason it will be sometime well off into the future when we will understand climate.
Lots of factors at play and the fact that water freezing has a variability of up to 48C between 0C and -48C
https://tinyurl.com/4phwmraw
Bill, interesting article and I agree with you about the complexity of water interactions within weather & climate systems. I think the first hurdle for the alleged climate scientists is to accept that CO2 is not correct foundation to build all hysteria on.
if not CO2 they will find something else. its mission of the business.
” So you are actually proving the point that the little ice age was very cold. ”
No one disputes such a thoroughly evident fact.
It seems that somebody did not understand the origin of this discussion about Thames freezing centuries ago.
I started it as an answer to Palmowski’s surreal assumption that only the polar vortex could have been centuries ago the origin of this Thames freezing, and searched for more consistent explanations.
Of course it was very cold during the LIA! Oh Noes.
But that wasn’t due to the Maunder Minimum, let alone the polar vortex (otherwise the Thames would have frozen over every time it became active, and we would have known that for sure since we know what it is).
George, the IPCC starting point has everything to do with politics than science. Various activists from the eco cult have wanted to move the starting point forward by a century, claiming that mans pollution was still excessive. IPCC have refused.
Perhaps the IPCC is too aware of the little ice age.
” Various activists from the eco cult have wanted to move the starting point forward by a century… ”
Wow! That’s really, really a brazen, incompetent remark.
I followed this LIA discussion at WUWT since a decade, till Watts started to request a login, in the ridiculous hope that then only Heartland and GWPF fans would post.
*
The contrary of your claim historically holds: the pseudo-skep~tical crowd has been all the time claiming that the LIA was exclusively due to a lack of solar radiation, and hence insisted on LIA and the Maunder Minimum being perfectly overlapping.
It was Javier (Vinos) who brought all these ignorant WUWT posters to a correct realization.
You are just joking here, aren’t you?
Is it still October?
https://i.ibb.co/VJ4K5MY/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-30-084059.png
ren…some feedback from Vancouver, Canada. It is currently 1C ad after 12 midnight. The highs are holding above 10C and the lows will be up to 9C next Thursday with rain predicted.
It can’t be very cold in the Arctic yet since the descending air is not that cold. It will get colder, obviously, and we usually get cold, miserable Arctic air in January and February, maybe sooner.
The night of October 30/31 will be frosty in Texas.
” Is it still October? ”
In CO not quite so indeed, at least during the two next nights:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20231031&daytime=night&iid=CL
but what about… Poland? You couldn’t dream of nicer nights for end of October, could you?
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20231031&daytime=night&iid=PL
*
What the heck might that well be due to?
1. Above you, no polar vortex regularly disturbs the current weather patterns since years;
2. While Colorado is the highest state in the US with on average about 2070 meters altitude, Poland has only 173 – yes yes: Tatra included :–)
*
https://climate.colostate.edu/climate_long.html
Nino 3.4 off the cliff ???
https://i.postimg.cc/5yhpKs84/nino3410.png
I wrote earlier that in November the Humboldt Current will deliver cold surface water from melting sea ice in the south to the Galapagos Islands.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Never heard of ‘energy cost’ said no good engineer, ever!
Here’s a very basic example of how to calculate the energy cost of heating a swimming pool: https://youtu.be/9nXDOdda6nY. You can do the same calculation for air (700 J/Kg-C), or an average rock (2000 J/Kg-C).
I will go as far as to say that energy is the “currency” of the physical world. And no, Gordon Robertson, energy is not a literal currency like money, the analogy highlights the importance of energy in the functioning of the natural world.
Energy is the fundamental driver of all physical and chemical processes. In this sense, energy can be seen as a universal “currency” that is exchanged and transformed within the physical world.
The concept of energy is central to understanding the laws of thermodynamics, which emphasize the conservation of energy and the transformation of energy from one form to another.
A,
Well, that’s settled that, then.
https://youtu.be/G4mzH7ETOa8
Do you smell that? Nothing in the world smells like that.
I love the smell of diesel in the morning. It smells like……. victory.
A,
Another irrelevant and pointless link? Why do you bother?
So you still can’t describe the GHE?
Time for you to crank up your gibberish generator again.
Off you go now.
ark…”And no, Gordon Robertson, energy is not a literal currency like money…”
Then the contradiction…”Heres a very basic example of how to calculate the energy cost of heating a swimming pool…”.
Ark appears to do nothing more than opening his mouth and letting his belly rumble.
Ark has al these neat definition of energy but cannot explain what it is. He claims it has a cost, but how do you charge for something that no one can define? Seems we have been had by energy companies selling us a theoretical concept that no one can explain.
I am going to write to my energy company and ask them to define exactly what energy I am paying for.
Yes, and I’m sure you’ll be using green ink to write this letter.
A,
Well, that’s certainly a SkyDragon cultist method of using gibberish to avoid supporting some strange assertion.
What are you trying to say?
“What are you trying to say?”
Glad you asked…
Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics. Back when letters to news outlets were inked on paper, the nutters would always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.
The association of green ink with cranks was well-known by 1985; however, some references date back to 1953.
The term remains a useful metaphor for similar frothing in the electronic age.
A,
I presume you just post using ALL CAPITALS or boldbecause you cannot use green ink on this forum.
Are you trying to justify the use of green ink or other attention getting devices by SkyDragon cultists who cannot even describe this “greenhouse effect” which they profess to believe in?
I accept that frothing lunatics, nutters, cranks, and GHE believing SkyDragon cultists need all the propaganda tools they can lay their hands on. Reality is no help to their cause, as the Earth has actually cooled significantly since the surface was molten.
Of course, you may choose to believe the brightly coloured graphics from NASA stalwarts like Trenberth and Co., which show the Earth as flat, and continuously illuminated by the Sun everywhere, with temperatures apparently represented by W/m2.
Maybe the graphic should have been drawn using green ink, d9 you think?
Interesting,
Do atoms emit photons, in cases when atoms are inside the solid matter (when atoms are surrounded by other atoms) ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, interesting question, CV.
The answer is “yes”, just as interesting.
Christos,
Yes indeed they do.
Ask a SkyDragon cultist what happens to these photons, and be prepared for the sound of silence.
christos…if they do, the photons are not going far.
It’s a good question. Let me know if you get a clear-cut answer.
As I see it, EM from outside the mass cannot reach atoms more than a few atomic layers inside the surface of the mass, so no external EM will affect internal atoms. That leaves only heat or some kind of pressure to raise the temperatures of internal atoms.
Consider an exception, a thin piece of paper inserted into a strong electromagnetic or magnetic field. The fields will pass through the paper without affecting the paper molecules. If it did, the paper should emit EM provided the penetrating EM was the right frequency to affect electrons in the paper molecules. There is no paper I know of that will emit EM after being irradiated by EM.
This is a seriously complex subject. If you try to find information on it on the Net, it’s very difficult because the topic has been reduced to a theory based on equations, and subjective explanations have been abandoned.
With a metal, EM can penetrate metal to no more than a surface level. In metals, it can set up Eddy currents, which are circulating short-circuit electrical currents. I see a confusion on the Net between Eddy currents and induced current by a magnetic field in a metal conductor. There is a big difference.
Induced current is a reference to a conductor moving through a magnetic field in which current is induced into the conductor and can flow along it in a closed circuit. Eddy currents are looped (short-circut) currents in a metal surface that actually runs in loops on the surface. How deep it extends into the surface is immaterial since it goes nowhere else in the surface but in a short-circuit loop.
An induced current is not a short-circuit current unless the circuit in which it is induced is a short-circuit. In a normal circuit, the current does useful work, an eddy current does nothing but heat the metal.
When Clausius developed the theory for internal energy in a solid, he considered only heat in the atomic mass and the work done by atomic vibrations. He said nothing, that I have read, about radiation internally. Of course, his ideas about radiation, a la Bohr, were primitive.
If the internal atoms are heated and the electrons rise to a higher temperature/energy level, there is no need for them to drop to lower energy levels as they would in a gas. Therefore, I get the impression they won’t radiate EM, because the electrons will rise to a certain orbital level and remain there till the temperature changes.
Just to clarify, if an electron absorbs a quantum of EM, it immediately jumps to a higher energy level. For whatever reason, it does not remain at that level for long and transitions back to its original level, emitting a quantum of EM. However, if a mass of atoms is heated, the orbital energy levels all rise and there is no need for them to transition back to a lower energy level.
A reason, in a solid, may be the ambient temperature of the entire mass. If an electron in such a mass receives a quantum of EM that can excite it, the electron gains energy, but that means its temperature (KE) increases. I know it’s silly to talk about one electron getting hotter but I am using it only as an illustration. It needs to give up that energy to maintain thermal equilibrium and transitions downward.
May be the same in a gas with a certain average temperature. Don’t know.
Gordon, CV got a clear-cut answer — “yes”.
Your rambling blah-blah was your usual effort to muddy the water, aka, clog the blog.
Lighten up, Pupman.
Once again, Clint trips over his monstrous ego. You did not answer the question, all you gave was a ‘yes’. Of course, your understanding of quantum theory is nill. If you’d put half the thought into the response that I did, it might have occurred to you, but I doubt it. You rubber stamp anything as rambling that you cannot understand…because you lack the background to understand it.
Put another way, anyone who thinks heat is a mode of energy transfer and not energy itself is an ijit. Furthermore, anyone who thinks entropy is a measure of disorder is an even bigger ijit.
Gordon, satellites & planes have been used to measure the depth of ice on the Antarctic. They use microwave as ice is transparent to those certain wavelengths whereas the underlying rock isn’t and so reflects the microwaves back out again.
You can put a dry ice cube in the microwave oven and it will not melt any faster than it would at room temperature. Just for the Willards of the world, yes the microwave oven would need to be plugged in and turned on.
So at other wavelengths ice stops being transparent. The rock itself could be warmed unless it is 100% reflective to those microwaves.
Those who stumble over heat sources usually deny the greenhouse effect, dear Anon. You must be new to Climateball. Is this why you rediscovered Mike Flynn’s desert argument?
Silly willy, tr0lling in circles won’t make you sound smart. It just shows what a child you are.
Wilard, perhaps you can explain what you trying to say. If you need to use a longer post to try and convey you thoughts in a more coherent way, then please do.
I’m asking if you’re new to Climateball, Anon.
Are you?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Not everyone cares for your opinion, nor your silly gotchas.
How are you going trying to find a description for your GHE?
Do you wish to amplify your “not cooling, slower cooling” nonsense, or do you wish to keep diverting with stupid questions?
What are you braying about, Mike Flynn?
Wonky Wee Willy,
Not everyone cares for your opinion, nor your silly gotchas.
How are you going trying to find a description for your GHE?
Do you wish to amplify your “not cooling, slower cooling” nonsense, or do you wish to keep diverting with stupid questions?
anon…”You can put a dry ice cube in the microwave oven and it will not melt any faster than it would at room temperature”.
***
Then why can I take frozen food from the freezer and defrost it in a microwave more than 10X faster that if I left it to warm at room temperature. I’m not talking about using the defrost cycle available in a microwaVE, I mean straight irradiation.
A microwave defrosts food by exciting the water molecules in the food, even if they are frozen solid. I just tested your theory by putting an cube of ice in a container that does not warm if put in a microwave by itself. With the cube in there, after a minute the ice has melted and the container is warm due to the melted water heating to near boiling temps.
Gordon,fair point, I will try and find the article. Not even going to try and do it from my phone.
Ice does not abs.orb microwaves.
Only after there is some melted ice does the liquid part heat up and melt the ice.
Nate, thanks for the confirmation. For a moment I was wondering if my memory had failed me.
Anon, Willard is one of our resident trulls and the most boring too.
Pay him no mind. Don’t feed the trulls.
Take Anon under your wing, Kennui.
Ken, well aware what Wilard is. Although I do wonder which village is celebrating that he has walk off again with supervision.
What is the surface temperature of the Southeast Pacific right now.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/coraltemp_v3.1_swcl_current.png
Veteran Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: We Got A Cold Winter Coming Up For Europe
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/29/veteran-meteorologist-joe-bastardi-we-got-a-cold-winter-coming-up-for-europe/
Rien de nouveau àl’ouest!
https://tinyurl.com/Trickszone-cold-winter-Europe
We’ve had two record lows this week Vancouver Island.
ken…we are getting abnormal cold over here in Vancouver as well for this time of year. Dang that global warming.
Halloween
https://i.ibb.co/4ZDNNwp/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-10-31-100615.png
Our planet Earth is in millennials long continuous orbital forced warming pattern.
–
When in warming pattern, a planet accumulates more solar energy than planet is capable to emit.
In planet’s effort to emit that excessive solar energy so to establishing the radiative energy equilibrium, the planet average surface temperature rises.
–
When the planetary temperature becomes higher, then, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law, the planet surface becomes capable of emitting IR (infrared radiation) more intensively.
Thus the mechanism of getting rid of energy does establish a close to the planet surface radiative equilibrium energy in /energy out state.
–
The planet surface temperatures from Equator to Poles are very much differenciated.
Here it is when the nonlinearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann’s emission law gets in action!
–
The Polar zone’s temperature rises faster, than the equatorial, or the average planet surface mean.
It is the phenomenon of Polar Temperatures Amplification.
–
Due to the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law nonlinearity, the Polar areas (in order to get rid of the excessive incoming solar energy)…
The Polar areas surface temperatures rise faster – and it is observed in the melting of the ice sheet sea cover.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“millennials long continuous orbital forced warming pattern”
Actually the orbital forcing is currently producing a slow cooling from the Holocene optimum..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#Milankovitch_cycles
Thank you, Nate, for your respond.
–
Actually the orbital forcing is currently producing a slow cooling from the Holocene optimum..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#Milankovitch_cycles
Reply
I was reffering not to Milankovitch cycle, but to the REVERSED Milankovitch cycle.
Milankovitch calculated everything perfectly. Only Milankovitch did his calculations for the 65 degrees North.
When we REVERSE the CYCLE to the South, the cycle shows a culmination of the warming phase.
The nonlinearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann law (T^4) means that with (linear) temperature increase, the emission increases (cools) much faster.
And here it is when comes the Polar Temperatures AMPLIFICATION phenomenon!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, the science is pretty clear that we are in a slow cooling portion of the glacial cycle..
If you can offer some alternative in a science publication that would be helpful.
Exactly, Nate.
And out of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation#Next_glacial_period
we can read:
” Based on orbital models, the cooling trend initiated about 6,000 years ago will continue for another 23,000 years. ”
*
This confirms the information found in
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
which of course, cuz from NASA, will be automatically discredited by the pseudo-skep~tical troop.
Bindi, NASA isn’t incompetent at everything. They’re really good at perverting science and f00ling the children.
And, don’t forget getting funding. They’re even better at that….
As NASA has aged it has moved farther away from science and become more of a has-been deep state cheerleader.
stephen…it’s what Ike feared when he began funding outfits like NASA with government funds in the 1950s. He feared this type of corruption. It’s plain throughout public funded science. Look at Fauci and the way he perverted science while drawing a government-funded salary.
Bindiclown now predicts coolin, who would have thought, But look at the bright side, we will have plenty of ice to power our lights, we will be cold but not in the dark
Binny,
From your authority –
“But about 800,000 years ago, the cycle of Ice Ages lengthened to 100,000 years, matching Earths eccentricity cycle. While various theories have been proposed to explain this transition, scientists do not yet have a clear answer.”
Containing a link to another statement –
“Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages).”
If a period warmer than a glacial period does not involve an increase in temperature , I’ll eat one of my hats! It has to, by definition.
Having said that, as Dr Spencer points out, at least some, if not all, of the measured hotter thermometers in evidence since the Industrial Revolutions in various parts of the world, may well be the result of the processes producing CO2 (combustion of hydrocarbons, for example), rather than the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You may choose to believe in the operation of a GHE which you can’t describe. You may call for the torture, mutilation or death of those who choose to believe otherwise.
How many followers do you have? More than zero?
Bindidon says:
Exactly, Nate.
And out of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation#Next_glacial_period
we can read:
Based on orbital models, the cooling trend initiated about 6,000 years ago will continue for another 23,000 years.
————————
Not at all exact! Of course there is much more to Milankovich cycles than orbital models. . . .not to speak of how they become perturbed by impacts and near misses.
Everything you see in Milankovich theory is based mostly in gravitational physics which is always slightly changing. Add in collisions and or near misses and new perturbations occur.
Seems to me the science of this is in its infancy based upon how ignorant the spinner community is of actual causes of rotations in space seeing it like 3rd graders gazing from a distant star and not being able to move beyond the 17th century in this topic.
One merely needs to look at the ice core record of the past 450,000 years to see what a messy place all this resides in. But nope these guys are fully locked into their cattle guards while they get milked and expect everybody else to be just as dutiful.
“Seems to me ..”
That sums it up.
Ventusky
Deep low pressure system will pass directly across the south of England on Thursday. The pressure at its center will drop to 950 hPa.
Western circulation blocking. Stationary upper-level lows in the North Pacific and Atlantic and plenty of Arctic air in North America.
https://i.ibb.co/0f7M6Ky/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
In a few days, snowfall will move from the Great Lakes to the northeast of the US.
As NASA has aged it has moved farther away from science and become more of a has-been deep state cheerleader.
Stephen P Anderson
It is not NASA that has aged and moved farther away from science, it is you who have. You believe (without doubt or question) the endless lies from the Right-Wing Talking Heads and you believe every lie that your Savior Donald Trump tells you.
If you ever wake up and get out of the brain-dead cult you are in you may have a good chance of restoring your scientific mind. As long as you are into fanatic politics (filled with lies from both sides, neither is scientific Left or Right) you will not achieve a balanced scientific mind that needs evidence to support all claims.
At this time you just believe any and all lies from the Right and think only the lies come from the left. How deluded can you get?
So, Norman, Dr. Spencer, Dr. Ed Berry, Dr. Salby, Dr. Harde, Dr. Singer, Dr. Lindzen, and Dr. Miskokczi are all right-wing conspiracy theorists? You are the Kool-Aid-drinking nut job.
Stephen P Anderson
I think Ed Berry is a right-wing nut job.
Again you are missing what I am hoping with you. You call me a Kool-Aid-drinking nut job. Not sure what that would be about.
You had stated you have a background in Chemistry and Math. I see little evidence of any science background in any of your posts. Mostly they are right-wing political screeds.
Science is about evidence, and logical rational thought. It is not an emotional pursuit. Politics is mostly lies and emotion and sides.
You think you are on some “good” side one of the good old boys (who some members think it is okay to send death threats to members who dare to oppose them). Science has NO sides and it is not a network of “good old boys” club. It is a system that seeks to find the truth of phenomena based upon evidence, logic and rational thought process.
You are currently an emotional basket case with little science or evidence based thinking. Mostly right-wing Conspiracies and the many lies they tell. Like with Clint R. No evidence no problem. Sorry it is difficult to turn the brain down low enough to swallow the endless lies and Conspiracy theories (mostly just made up or intentional lies to deceive the gullible…you being one of them) of the Right. I am moderately Conservative but the lies of the Right are a major turn-off. Just can’t get emotional enough that I reject evidence in favor of feeling.
Norman, are you working with a therapist yet? You no longer use the immature anal references, but you’re still filled with animosity and hate.
Find a good therapist, before it’s too late.
Clint R
It is not hate or animosity. I have a dislike of you personally because I try to engage in intelligent conversation with you but you just react like a jerk. Your personality is one I do not like. You are arrogant but not real Knowledgeable. You resort to belittling a poster rather than engage in good evidence based conversation.
My first attempts are to engage in evidence based discussions.
With Stephen P Anderson. I have hope for him (not so much for you or Swenson) that he is just in the Trump Cult and Right-Wind Qanon nonsense. If he gets away from emotionalism of politics and turns back to the scientific mind then we have hope.
You are a hopeless case. You are not interested at all in Truth and evidence (which is why I state No evidence, no problem for you). You seem more interested in provoking posters to get a reaction. You do not seem even remotely able to change. Others may not be in such a state as you are.
So you’re not seeing a professional therapist then?
I would strongly recommend you find one because you’re totally out-on-touch with reality. You don’t even recognize your own hate and animosity. Maybe a reminder, from one of your latest comments:
“Where is the evidence? You make up shit and act like a total asshole and have a shit eating grin as you ridicule people several times smarter, more logical and rational than you can understand.”
norman…”You call me a Kool-Aid-drinking nut job”.
***
Stephen is being nice, Normie.
Norman,
You wrote –
“You are arrogant but not real Knowledgeable.”
If you are trying to convince others of your humility, wisdom, and knowledge, you are likely to engender more sorrowful sympathy than applause.
Disregarding your woeful command of English, could you provide some factual basis for your unsubstantiated assertions? Your opinions are not facts. I doubt any reasonable person even values your opinions, but feel free to prove me wrong.
[chuckling at strangely obsessed SkyDragon cultist]
Norman says:
”I think Ed Berry is a right-wing nut job.
Again you are missing what I am hoping with you. You call me a Kool-Aid-drinking nut job. Not sure what that would be about.”
—————
Well I don’t agree with Ed Berry’s numbers but would point out with certainty they are a lot closer than the IPCC’s cherry picked numbers regarding the significant lifetime of the elevation of human-caused CO2 increases in the atmosphere. So I guess that does make you a kool-aid drinking nut job.
Norman says:
”You think you are on some good side one of the good old boys (who some members think it is okay to send death threats to members who dare to oppose them). Science has NO sides and it is not a network of good old boys club. It is a system that seeks to find the truth of phenomena based upon evidence, logic and rational thought process.”
———
It isn’t just a network of ”good old boys” clubs. But you are sooooo naive if you believe there aren’t any good old boys networks holding megabucks in scientific research dollars and handing it all out to get the results they want.
You may as well be just a pawn of the good old boys networks the way you spew out naivete idealisms.
Norman says:
”No evidence no problem. Sorry it is difficult to turn the brain down low enough to swallow the endless lies and Conspiracy theories (mostly just made up or intentional lies to deceive the gullibleyou being one of them) of the Right. I am moderately Conservative but the lies of the Right are a major turn-off. Just cant get emotional enough that I reject evidence in favor of feeling.”
Being tight fisted doesn’t make you a conservative. Perhaps you should take a close look at how radiation ”forces” surface warming. There is a lot packed in a word that doesn’t appear to apply to radiation which by all science I am aware of is a very passive effect. Once you get skeptical of authority then you might have a chance of being conservative. They aren’t the good guys they are the good old boys.
Norman, are you going to use any facts to back up your, frankly bizarre, claim? Why do you think a person beliefs in how much the state should control finance is a good indicator of climate alarmism.
If anything the recent covid lockdown & vaccination programmes have shown that political beliefs don’t predict scientific acumen.
Anon for a reason
I need some specifics of what my bizarre claim would be?
I can’t decipher your question as I have no understanding of where they came from in my post to Stephen P Anderson.
YOU: ” Why do you think a person beliefs in how much the state should control finance is a good indicator of climate alarmism.”
I need context to answer you question as I do not know from what part of my post you formed it from. Thanks.
Norman,if you are going to quote try and include the punctuation.
The leftwing vs right-wing in politics is referencing how much the state controls finance. The very left wing wants to control all the money aka communism. Whereas the very right wing wants the free market. There is another dimension to politics and that is of the individual. So authoritarian vs liberal/anarchy. Hence Marxist want to control both state & the individual.
So if you are going to insult people try and understand the terms you are using.
The problem with the extreme Left and Right is that the Left want to redistribute the wealth until it’s all gone, while the Right don’t want to redistribute it at all.
Anon for a reason
I think you may be getting the terms incorrect. Radical Right would be Fascism with a strong Dictator in charge and Freedom of citizens greatly curtailed when expressing any opinion against the ruling regime. Radical left would be communist with a Dictator greatly curtailing the citizens complaints about the rulers.
Both extremes are really bad for the average citizen. They are great for a few elites in the inner circles.
I believe what you describe is Conservatism, that would be a smaller limited government that allows mostly free exchange of goods and services. This is a great ideal but does not seem to work at all with the broken nature of humans. Have you read why FDA was created? People were making horrible poison foods and selling them.
You can have a system where a certain percentage of people must die before finding out food is poison but I would rather have an authority prevent it in the first place.
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/when-and-why-was-fda-formed
It seems what works the best for the average citizen is somewhere in the middle. A hard place to find and maintain but that seems to work the best.
Norman, it’s fascinating how you think that fascism is extreme right wing. It’s mainly linked to authoritarian national socialist parties both past & present.
A growing number of academics are left wing, which also results in a growing attitude that instead of using reasoned argument they will instead, do what you do and, insult & denigrate anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Rather than trying to further science they will close down all questions or audit.
Thankfully there are still scientists who are honest and manage to ignore their political biases.
Btw, just for perspective on your biases what culture do you live in?
Norman says:
”Anon for a reason
I think you may be getting the terms incorrect. Radical Right would be Fascism with a strong Dictator in charge and Freedom of citizens greatly curtailed when expressing any opinion against the ruling regime. Radical left would be communist with a Dictator greatly curtailing the citizens complaints about the rulers.”
———————-
That would be totally and completely incorrect. Its what yo daddy tells you when he pulls your puppet strings.
The modern right is about individualism the exact opposite of a dictatorship.
If you want to confine the discussion to dictatorships then maybe you might want to put fascism on the right, but I am not so sure of that.
Now the extreme radical right is in fact simply no restrictions on your behavior. A motorcycle gang. A corporate polluter. The worst extreme righty in America be the Ku Klux Klan. But don’t mistake the KKK as being an organization that would promote a dictatorship. . .it was mostly a ”not in my backyard” kind of thinking similar to most elitist groups now more popular in the parties of the left.
Norman says:
”I believe what you describe is Conservatism, that would be a smaller limited government that allows mostly free exchange of goods and services. This is a great ideal but does not seem to work at all with the broken nature of humans. Have you read why FDA was created? People were making horrible poison foods and selling them.
You can have a system where a certain percentage of people must die before finding out food is poison but I would rather have an authority prevent it in the first place.”
———————-
There you go yo daddy jerking on those puppet strings. Mainstream conservatism doesn’t object to regulation for business when its based on unassailable science in order to ensure relatively safe products on the grocery shelves and such. Anybody who tells you different doesn’t know what they are talking about or they have you at the end of that puppet string.
Take cigarette regulation. A lot of it makes sense. But it never stops with what makes sense. Very shaky science on 2nd hand smoke for example leads to not just excessive government involvement in prohibitions. I am an ex-smoker now by over 30 years. . .after 30 years of smoking. Like Larry Hagman I don’t like it when somebody lights up and blows smoke in my face. And in response to that the free market was increasingly providing smoke free choices. But government can’t stop there. When you delegate power the power will be abused. Realization of that is what modern conservativism is based upon. And by modern I mean since 1788.
Eman.
What you said isn’t true. Most conservatives understand the need for limited government. Like Franklin said, the government that governs best governs least. We’re a long way from there.
“Its mainly linked to authoritarian national socialist parties both past & present.”
FYI, the Nazi party grew out of a socialist millieu, but in its final form was not socialist. It privatized industries and supported large private corporations and suppressed unions, and of course was militarist and authoritarian.
Stephen, some of the departments at NASA are respectable, the ones that have to show real time results, in other words the original NASA. The other departments which don’t have to answer for their poor results, as you put it, have moved away from science.
Don’t tar all scientists or departments with the same brush. Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Judith Curry, etc should never be confused with Mann, Dressler and other activists that pretend to be scientists.
Anon,
Some at NASA were slow learners, resulting in needless deaths.
“The CAIB believed that “the causes of the institutional failure responsible for Challenger have not been fixed,” saying that the same “flawed decision-making process” that had resulted in the Challenger accident was responsible for Columbia’s destruction seventeen years later.”
At the time of the Rogers Commission into NASA performance, Richard Feynman summarized by saying “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
Many at NASA continue to try.
Swenson, yep just sounds big corporate incompetence.
Anon,
Yeah, I understand and agree with what you said. I’m pretty familiar with NASA. I had a permanent badge and was a contractor to NASA for over a year. I worked with many of the young PhDs selected for research projects on the International Space Station. But I’m not talking about those people or the Astronauts. I’m talking about the senior leadership and most long-term NASA employees. They were the Deep State, nothing more.
Stephen, impressive experience.
Which NASA center or facility were you based at during your contract?
What was the nature of the work you were involved in during your contract?
Did you receive any certifications, clearances, or training while working for NASA?
A,
Ooooooh!
A perfect plethora of pointless questions!
Why do ask?
Are you trying to imply that everyone employed by NASA is perfect? That NASA as an organisation has not shown itself to be incompetent in the past, and refusal to acknowledge its imperfections has not resulted in needless deaths?
Quite apart from supporting people like Schmidt, Trenberth, and all the rest, who live in some sort of fantasy world disconnected from reality. Would you really put them in charge of anything more complicated than a toaster?
Maybe you could find a description of the GHE which accords with reality. What does NASA say?
I worked at the Kennedy Space Center, and yes, I had a clearance. For the area I supported I had to have a clearance. I also had a TS/ESI clearance in the Navy. Most of NASA was very disappointing. The place I supported was not. They were young PhDs whose projects were selected for the Space Station. Very sharp people.
Anon for a reason
I need some specifics of what my bizarre claim would be?
I can’t decipher your question as I have no understanding of where they came from in my post to Stephen P Anderson.
YOU: ” Why do you think a person beliefs in how much the state should control finance is a good indicator of climate alarmism.”
I need context to answer you question as I do not know from what part of my post you formed it from. Thanks.
Norman, not knowing how to place your comments is another sign your are out of control.
Get help.
Clint R
You confirm what I do not like about you. You just post to belittle no other reason, no other purpose. You have zero interest in science, truth or reality. You just want some reaction.
Just an unpleasant unlikable guy. I mostly think you are a belligerent drunk who consumes alcohol and jumps in comments for amusement, it is easier in your old age then when you mouthed people in bars and got a fist to the mouth.
Norman,
And if I wait a while, you will tell me what you really think of him!
Can you name anybody who values your opinion?
[snigger]
Poor Norman is unable to comprehend that he is his own worst enemy. He accuses me of things he’s done. I’ve never insulted and falsely accused him to anywhere the level he has me. He hates me because I bring reality to his face. He really hates reality, not me.
He will continue to prove me right.
Clint R
Clint R if you wish you be rational, scientific and honest (traits you are not indicating on any of your posts) I will be as well.
I do not hate you but do dislike you. I do not like anything at all about your posting personality. You are the one to first belittle some poster, I will always attempt rational debate if the other poster is willing. I will provide supporting evidence for my posts and use logical analysis.
I do not hate you for bringing “reality” to my face. You have never done this. You basically divert away when I ask you for evidence. You make up stuff I have never said and repeat it over again as if it was factual (which is blatant dishonest lying from you which I do not like at all). One case is you claim I said “Square Orbit”. No I never said that at all but you keep repeating it as if I did making you a liar and dishonest with malicious intent. These are the things I do not like about you. Also you have no science and claim anyone who uses real science is a “cult member”. Just belittle and diminish others.
If you provide science and evidence I would like that. So far you don’t and do not seem interested in doing so.
Change your posting style and see what happens. Becomes logical, rational and support any and all of your claims and quit lying about things. All these would help.
Swenson and Clint R.
Norman is 100% right about you.
We’d all be better off without your diatribes. Not one word of science have either of you ever written; just insults designed to shut down the very discussion that people participating in a science blog should embrace.
Ken,
You are entitled to your opinion. As am I.
You may choose to feel insulted, offended, bullied or anything of that nature. I am sure you can find somebody who cares what you think, but I certainly don’t.
If you could describe the GHE, I could see if your description agrees with fact. If you can’t, or won’t, I presume you are just another waffling SkyDragon cultist, all mouth and no trousers.
Over to you.
swenson, please stop tr0lling.
DREMT impersonator, please stop destroying the integrity of the entire system.
Integrity?
Norman,
A bizarre claim might be to claim you have described the GHE on many occasions, when a search of available literature and the internet fails to support such a claim.
You don’t claim to have described the GHE, do you?
Maybe you could use this NASA description “As you might expect from the name, the greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse! A greenhouse is a building with glass walls and a glass roof. Greenhouses are used to grow plants, such as tomatoes and tropical flowers.
A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during the winter. In the daytime, sunlight shines into the greenhouse and warms the plants and air inside. At nighttime, it’s colder outside, but the greenhouse stays pretty warm inside. That’s because the glass walls of the greenhouse trap the Sun’s heat.”
Luckily, the description is completely bizarre, isn’t it? You believe it of course, because it is published by NASA, and so must be believed.
Do you have a better description that exists outside your imagination? If so, where might a copy of this description be found?
Reality s a concept you have difficulty with, obviously.
Carry on.
Swenson
I have already attempted you request. It is given to you. You ignore it completely than you go on that no one has given a description of the GHE. It is endless with you. Not sure why.
I give you actual measured values to look at but that does not help you.
I will explain it again but it will not change anything with you. You will totally ignore the explanation and a few posts later will claim no one has explained the GHE.
Here it is. The GHE for Earth results in a warmer average Steady State surface temperature. It works because the Earth is a HEATED surface, it continuously is receiving energy from the Sun (solar input). The GHG in the atmosphere reduce the amount of heat lost to space via radiant means. The surface will warm to a temperature (via continuous solar input) higher than it would be if the GHG reducing radiant heat loss were not part of the system.
It is similar (but not identical) to any other form of heat reduction (we will not use the word insulation as it produces endless debate about the exact meaning of such a word choice). If you have a heated body and reduce the heat loss rate, the surface will reach a higher temperature. Don’t believe it, fine, do you own experiment. Wrap a heater in some form of insulation and see if you get an increase in heater surface temperature. If you don’t let me know.
Norman,
Don’t be silly.
Three quarters of the Earth is cooling at any given time. At night, and after the sun reaches the zenith. You may not have noticed it, but it is a fact.
Not only that, but the atmosphere prevents about 35% of the Suns radiation from reaching the surface.
According to you, then, reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter. That’s about as silly as saying wrapping a blanket around a cooling corpse will heat it up and bring it back to life!
The surface of the Moon has no atmosphere, no CO2 surrounding it. That’s why it gets hotter than the Earth. You may not accept it, but the Earth’s surface is no longer molten. The surface has cooled – in spite of four and a half billion years of “continuous solar input”, CO2, and all the rest of your imaginary “forcings”.
Try coming up with a description that agrees with fact. Where may this “GHE” observed, measured, and documented? What reproducible experiments do you have to support it?
The Earth has cooled, just as the surface does every night. Be sure to include that in your “description”.
Off you go now, provide some more nonsense for me to laugh at.
Swenson
It will not matter what evidence I provide. You will not understand what you are given.
I can correct some of your false claims in your post. The radiant energy absorbed by the atmosphere does not just vanish. It becomes on the the inputs of energy to the atmosphere and the atmosphere loses radiant energy in two directions, one is back to the surface (measured), the other is out to space (also measured).
GHE does not prevent the surface from cooling read this please. It increases the AVERAGE surface temperature.
The surface has NOT cooled for 4.5 billion years! The Earth as a whole has lost a few degrees when you include the core that is very slowly cooling. The surface (shere I live) will get cold in winter with less solar input with an average temperature of 23.5 F in January and an average of 76.5 in July. So you are wrong to say the surface is cooling despite continuous solar input. The solar input will raise the temperature 50 F in one season.
Swenson
You ask: “Where may this GHE observed, measured, and documented?”
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_654248d06e7bb.png
This shows NET incoming solar (what will be absorbed by the surface, incoming minus reflected away) it is the green line and yes it shows no solar input at night.
Then you have the upwelling IR as the blue line, this is surface emission. Then you have the red line which is the energy the atmosphere returns to the surface lowering the amount of heat the surface loses by radiant means. Heat loss by radiant energy is the amount of energy emitted away minus what it receives from the environment. Some on this blog do not accept this well established physics that a hot object does indeed absorb energy from a colder body. It will not increase the temperature of a non heated surface (why the surface cools at night) but it will reduce the rate of heat loss keeping it somewhat warmer (an radiant insulation effect). So yes night cools but not as fast.
Refer to Roy’s post for details.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/
Swenson
Here is the source of measured and observed GHE.
I linked to a graph, this is the source that generates the graph so you can make your own and study the effect yourself…like when DWIR equals UWIR the surface temperature does not drop. Imagine that…you may have to do some work to find this effect.
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
Norman continues his futile effort to pervert science with links he can’t understand and his circulatory rhetoric.
He claims one thing, then claims the exact opposite! Paraphrasing him: “GHE warms the surface but the GHE does not warm the surface”, “the GHE acts as insulation, but the GHE doesn’t act as insulation”.
“NET incoming solar (what will be absorbed by the surface, incoming minus reflected away)”
–
I’d rather say:
NET incoming solar (what will be absorbed by the surface, incoming minus reflected away, minus at the spot instantly IR emitted away).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos…you might add to your list the amount of solar absorbed by the atmosphere. That is variable, depending on the frequency of the EM. The problem is far more complex than the simplistic theories of climate alarmists.
norman…”I need some specifics of what my bizarre claim would be?”
***
Let’s start with your bizarre claim that bona fide scientists/mathematicians like Peter Duesberg, Stefan Lanka and Claes Johnson are nutjobs.
Dr. Peter Duesberg was the youngest scientist of his era ever to be inducted into the National Academy of Science. He was inducted based on his discovery of the first cancer gene. He was also named California Scientist of the Year. When he claimed HIV could not possibly cause AIDS, he went into great detail as to why he thought so. His detractors were unable to refute any of his arguments and his only sin seemed to be going against the established view, which was a theory accepted without peer review.
The scientist credited with discovering HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, although he claimed only to have inferred it, later agreed with Duesberg that HIV could not cause AIDS. Montagnier claimed AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle, exactly what Duesberg said many years before.
You have denigrated Dr. Stefan Lanka, who discovered the first virus in the ocean. Based on his expertise, his experience, and his detailed research into the basis of viral theory, he has proclaimed current viral theory to be not only wrong, but fraudulent. In other words, pioneers in the field, like Louis Pasteur, cheated to produce their results.
You have taken shots at mathematician Claes Johnson for daring to challenge the effect of back-radiation and for clarifying black-body radiation for the layman. His explanation of blackbody theory is the most accurate and revealing that I have ever read.
Is there no pleasing you?
Gordon Robertson
So why do you think a couple crackpots are right but everyone else in the field of study are all wrong?
You pick and choose a couple contrarians and fall in love with their work but you apply zero skepticism for any of their claims.
You would think Claes was the most accurate because you have never read the real science so any of his strange claims sounds good to you. He is just a crackpot you can believe him if you need ot.
You forgot your favorite loon, Gary Novak.
Australian researcher Barry Marshall was right about the bacteria h. pylori causing stomach ulcers and everyone else was wrong. Circa 1915, an employee of the FDA, investigating an outbreak of pellagra in southern US states concluded it was a dietary problem. Mainstream researcher rejected his offer and spent another 30 years investigating a viral/bacterial cause until it was found in the 1940s that pellagra is caused by a vitamin B deficiency.
As an aside, Einstein faced similar issues. On the subject of one of his papers, a journal editor told him several hundred scientists thought he was wrong. Einstein replied that it only took one to prove him wrong.
The problem with the appeals to authority upon which you depend is that authorities are often wrong. That’s what we skeptics are challenging, namely that authority figures like the IPCC, NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut are wrong about global warming/climate change.
Clint R
The statements I make about you are fairly accurate. You do not know the meaning of the word “asshole” and think it refers to the body part of a human where feces comes out so you use that to conclude I have some anal fetish problem. It can mean that but there are other possibilities I offer you the alternative.
For you to help.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/asshole
“Slang.
a s9tupid, mean, or contemptible person.
the worst part of a place or thing.”
Norman,
Why use foul language when you know better? If you think someone is stupid, mean or contemptible, why not just say so?
Are you terrified that others might just laugh at you for making unsupported assertions?
Why is he a stupid, mean or contemptible person? Can you show you are not an asshole yourself? You can’t even say where the photons from a piece of totally submerged ice go, can you? Do you think this makes you appear intelligent?
You seem pretty dim to me, but others can make up their own minds.
Swenson
That post was for Clint R since he does not seem to understand that words can have more than one meaning. I was helping educate him on this. He seemed confused by my slang word choices to make a point. Maybe a excessive but rational thoughtful reason are not Clint R’s strong points. I think he needs the stronger language to get through to him. He did react to it, but then he selected the incorrect interpretation of the words I used so I am hoping to educate him.
Norman,
Why use foul language when you know better? If you think someone is stupid, mean or contemptible, why not just say so?
Are you terrified that others might just laugh at you for making unsupported assertions?
Why is he a stupid, mean or contemptible person? Can you show you are not an asshole yourself? You cant even say where the photons from a piece of totally submerged ice go, can you? Do you think this makes you appear intelligent?
You seem pretty dim to me, but others can make up their own minds.
You didnt seem to comprehend my initial comment, so I have repeated it for you.
Norman uses foul language because he is an immature, uneducated cultist. He rejects science and reality, in favor of making up his own “science” like “square orbits”.
NCAR Study: Otis Rapid Hurricane Intensification was Not Driven by Climate Change
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/31/ncar-study-rapid-hurricane-intensification-is-not-driven-by-climate-change/
–Trying to find the holy grail behind rapid intensification is the wrong approach because there isnt just one holy grail, said NCAR scientist Falko Judt, lead author of the new study. There are at least two different modes or flavors of rapid intensification, and each one has a different set of conditions that must be met in order for the storm to strengthen so quickly.–
Frost in northern Alabama and Georgia. A cold front is moving southeast.
https://www.wunderground.com/wundermap
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Notice:
The W/m should be read as: W/m^2.
I still await your Φ assumption successfully passing even the most tolerant review.
Νομίζω ότι μπορώ να περιμένω πολύ καιρό για αυτό.
Blinny,
It is undeniable that CV’s knowledge of physics and astronomy far surpasses yours.
Stephen P Anderson
What do you base your opinion on. As far as I can tell Christos knows very little physics or astronomy. He makes up an equation with strange unphysical values so he can force it to agree with measured temps. It is basically the normal equation used to determine planetary temperatures but he adds made up variables to make it give him the answer he wants. Not sure that is good physics at all.
Gimme a break, Norman, Christos has a degree in mechanical engineering. To get such a degree you must study advanced math and physics and take about 20 more credits per year than an average science student.
Norman is famous for making up crap to support his childish beliefs, so he believes everyone else must be doing the same.
He’s an uneducated child with an anal fetish.
Norman,
Do you think anybody values your opinion?
Can you name him?
Anderson
” It is undeniable that CVs knowledge of physics and astronomy far surpasses yours. ”
How do you know that, Anderson? You, the guy who spends his time on this blog in discrediting, denigrating ans insulting?
Like you, Vournas has never never shown any experience in astronomy.
You never REALLY read anything of Newton’s Principia, let alone any astronomy treatise about the Moon. I did.
And I repeat: I still await his Φ assumption successfully passing even the most tolerant review.
I proposed him many times to send a paper to an open review journal; he never did it, and perfectly knows why.
The only experience you show is name calling.
Bindi, you don’t anything about the physics discussed here. And, you don’t know anything about orbital motion.
Blinny,
I know the difference between a scientist/engineer and a bookkeeper. You and Norman are bookkeepers.
binny…Christos doesn’t need a degree in physics or astronomy to work out energy calculations. He simply has an interest and the ability to do the math. Is that now against the law?
A black body doesn’t have a rate of warming, or a rate of cooling.
–
A black body has only a steady temperature, at which temperature the black body emits EM energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Planet is not a blackbody.
Planet reflects the (1-Φ + Φ*a)S part of the incident on the planet’s surface solar irradiation “S”.
Here “a” is the planet’s average albedo and “Φ” is the planet’s solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth planet without thick atmosphere, Earth included,
Φ=0,47
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I have never been satisfied with the albedo being a single number, especially for a planet.
Firstly, it treats all wavelengths as the same.
Secondly, doesn’t Stefan Boltzmann Law states the relationship is to the fourth power.
Thirdly, now it’s obviously autumn in the northern hemisphere the albedo is changing on a daily basis. Is the albedo of a forest really the same between summer & winter?
And now fourthly, you raise the issue of the planets atmosphere thickness. Happy admit, I never thought of that one, thanks.
anon…just to clarify your comment, are you referring to albedo or temperature to the 4th power?
A bit of history that may or may not interest you. The T^4 figure came from Stefan, before he began collaborating with his student, Boltzmann. He had worked it out roughly using an ingenious system that prevented heat loss via conduction/convection as best as possible and had a rough calculation. However, it was an experiment by Tyndall that cemented the relationship for him.
Tyndall heated a platinum filament wire electrically and observed the colours (EM) it produced when it began to glow. Another scientist calculated the colour temperature levels for each colour, and from that, Stephan derived a T^4 relationship between the temperature of the radiator and the intensity of the radiation it emitted.
This experiment took place in the temperatures range of about 500C to 1500C. I have read nothing from Stefan to indicate the T^4 figure applies anywhere outside of that temperature range. Many scientists have supposed it applies generally across all temperature ranges but I question that.
Boltzmann muddied those waters by drifting off into probability theory as applied to particles that had no existence. Therefore S-B moved away from an actual, physical glowing metal wire to an airy-fairly world of probability theory. One has to be careful today when comparing theories from those days. Clausius worked only with real matter whereas others, like Boltzmann, Planck, and Maxwell indulged in intangibles based on pure math, hence the definitions of heat and entropy became muddled.
For example, the S-B relationship gives ice an ability to radiate an intensity of 315 w/m^2. Here’s Norman’s favourite author, Gary Novak, on the S-B equation…
https://nov79.com/stf.html
Gordon,
Your link contains a wee bit of nonsense. Watts per square meter is not a proxy for temperature in general.
300 W/m2 from ice will not heat water, no matter if you have a zillion of those Watts.
300 W/m2 from sunlight can raise metal to white heat, boil lead, burn the wings off flies, and so on. Quite enough to generate electricity from your solar panels, unlike the radiation from ice.
The link contains many statements that don’t seem to be factual, and based on either ignorance or lack of comprehension, but to each his own.
Just trying to say that 300 W from ice is not the same as 3 x 100 W incandescent light globes. Incandescent light filaments emitting 300 W are very hot. Ice emitting 300 W is below freezing.
Unfortunately, the example at the link includes the same mistake made in the GHE nonsense. He’s simply adding fluxes. That ain’t how it works. The floor of the room is emitting about 300 W/m^2, so he believes that means it is emitting nearly 15000 W.
He’s trying to boil water with ice cubes, just like the GHE cultists. Gordon erroneously believes the mistake is in the S/B Law.
Sadly, many Skeptics don’t know the science any better than the cultists.
swenson…”Watts per square meter is not a proxy for temperature in general”.
***
I agree and I have written on that before. We have to be a bit careful here. Although w/m^2 is not a measure of temperature, it is an indirect measure (and I claim incorrect) of the radiative power given off by a surface at temperature T. Remember, T is a measure of heat and once energy laves a surface at temperature, T, the heat is gone. There is no heat is radiated EM, hence no temperature or power. Temperature or power can only occur if that radiation is absorbed by a surface and converted back to a heat that can do work.
I still think he is right, that ice being rated with such a high power rating (315 w/m^2) indicates how flawed S-B actually is at terrestrial temperatures. That was the thrust of the article.
When a 100 watt bulb is rated at 100 watts that is not the radiated power, it is the electrical power of the current through the filament of the bulb. With a tungsten lamp, most of that power is wasted as heat and only a fraction is emitted as radiation.
Radiation carries no heat and heat cannot technically be measured in w/m^2 because the watt is a measure of mechanical energy. It is used for heat only because the physicist Joule discovered an equivalence between the two (but not an equality. When they rate radiation is w/m^2, it is not specified that it is an equivalent measure, and not an actual measure.
The equivalence came about by turning a paddle mechanically in water and measuring the increase of the water temperature. There is no direct ‘physical’ relationship between the mechanical energy input and the heat added to the water. You could claim that a flame, as a heat source, has a direct relationship to the temperature of the heated body, but not a paddle turning in water. The flame is causing a direct transfer of heat to the heated body, but the paddle is not adding thermal energy, only mechanical energy.
The paddle does not add the heat, it is the breaking of water molecule bonds that produces the heat. The water molecules are very loosely bound by weak hydrogen bonds and they are easily broken by a paddle. The heat is caused by water molecule bonds being broken by the paddle and the faster the paddle turns the more heat is released by the water molecules. Therefore, the heat comes from the water molecules themselves.
Clausius pointed that out in his papers, that heat cannot be measured in watts because it is defined based on the calorie, the amount of heat required to raise a CC of water by 1C at a given temperature. He was referring to the 1st law, which is a contradiction. It states heat in watts but heat cannot be measured in watts.
Clausius made it clear that the 1st law is a contradiction in terms. We know from basic math that quantities cannot be added unless they have the same units of measure. The 1st law is actually adding calories and watts and it should always be specified that the watt used for heat is a work-equivalent, not an equality.
The watt is a unit of mechanical energy related to the work done (horsepower) initially by a horse in raising a weight a certain distance in a period of time. There are 746 watts in one horsepower but no one can state how much heat there is in one horsepower. Oh what a tangled web we weave…
Radiation carries neither heat nor mechanical energy, so specifying it in watts is silly. It’s not till it is absorbed by matter and converted to work or heat that you can claim such a measure, but like the paddle in water, it is not the EM causing the rise in temperature of the receiving body. By the time heating occurs, the EM has disappeared.
I did not see that in the link mainly because I was not looking for it. However, I have had to hold my nose while reading interesting articles because none of them abide by the pure laws of physics.
Gordon, I was referring to the temperature. However, as the energy emitted is related to the 4th power of temperature, just for this discussion, then I would suggest that the albedo of that object is then affected by its temperature. As the albedo is a measure of emitted energy.
Of course the other effect of temperature on albedo is whether the planet is in an ice age or not.
An object with an albedo according to Stefan Boltzmann equations emits less radiation at every temperature as compared to a blackbody.
This fact is made necessary by a number of discoveries about radiation.
And object can only emit the radiation it receives. If it reflects certain frequencies and is receiving light from our sun at 1au distance. The solar constant is 1365w/m2. In receiving only certain frequencies that surface must heat up to the blackbody equilibrium in order to produce enough wattage to match the wattage received.
So an object with an albedo of .5 will be as hot as an object with an albedo of zero or .7.
This can be confirmed via SB equations.
Mainstream science pollutes this idea by noting the surface of the earth has a different albedo that the earth as viewed from space. But the unexplained problem with that idea is that there is more than one way of warming something within the atmosphere. They try to dodge that issue with the 3rd grader radiation model. When cornered on the failure of the 3rd grader radiation model they begin talking about forcing by lapse rate but won’t go into details because that would open the discussion about how heat actually travels within the system and it is primarily NOT by radiation.
Obviously a more reflective, high albedo, surface like new concrete, does not get as hot in direct sun, as a low albedo surface, like asphalt.
Christos,
A black body absorbing radiation has no temperature at all. It’s a theoretical object, which absorbs all frequencies, at any angle of incidence.
Here’s one definition –
“A blackbody is defined as an ideal body that allows all incident radiation to pass into it (zero reflectance) and that absorbs internally all the incident radiation (zero transmittance).
They key is that it absorbs all the radiation, and transmits none. It’s theoretical, not real.
However, definitions vary. If the black body emits precisely as much radiation as it receives, both in regards to frequency and quantity, then it also has no temperature, as it emits all the radiation it receives.
However, if you have a theoretical black body with a certain temperature, it will theoretically emit a characteristic black body spectrum. You will note that this black body will emit its energy forever, never changing temperature at all. Theoretical, not real.
This from a “quantum mechanics” course, at an obviously American university –
“A black body is one that absorbs all the EM radiation (light…) that strikes it. To stay in thermal equilibrium, it must emit radiation at the same rate as it absorbs it so a black body also radiates well. (Stoves are black.)”
Probably written by a SkyDragon cultist, because it is nonsensical. A black body has no “thermal equilibrium” requiring it have any particular temperature per se. A black body doesn’t just radiate “well”, it radiates perfectly.
“Stoves are black” is just silly. The vast majority are not, either white, stainless steel, or pastel colour enamel.
Tricky buggers, black bodies. Best left alone, sometimes, as they may lead you down the wrong path.
swenson… re blackbody and temperature, I don’t pretend to have expertise on blackbodies, in fact, I wish they’d go away. I regard them as an unnecessary complication that is not helpful.
I am wondering too, if you might be mixing up the initial definition of Kircheoff, which requires thermal equilibrium, with the actual blackbody theory. In other words, he defined the blackbody at thermal equilibrium, suggesting it has a temperature.
This is the best paper I have read on blackbody theory. It explains the related history as well as the theory. Of course, it has been black-balled by Norman as written by a lunatic, even though the author has a degree in math. It may seem overly complex, but try to wade through the readable parts and it is very informative.
https://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf
If you consider that a star is regarded as a blackbody, and it has a temperature, then you consider Wein’s displacement law, which is about the change of temperature in a blackbody, in which the spectrum is shifted according to the temperature difference between BBs, then it would appear they must be specified at a temperature.
Claes Johnson takes that further. BB’s not only absorb and radiate equally. The radiating BB has a cutoff frequency wheres its absorp-tion is infinite.
Gordon,
Unfortunately, Claes does seem a bit confused. He writes “A blackbody is a theoretical idealized object described as something “absorbing all incident radiation” commonly pictured as a cavity or empty bottle/box in which waves/photons are bouncing back and forth between walls at a certain temperature defining the temperature of the cavity. The bottle has a little peephole through which radiation is escaping to be observed, as . . . ”
I hope you will agree that a theoretical object continuously absorbing all incident radiation does not have any fixed temperature. How could it? Oh, of course, you can simply define it to be emitting radiation theoretically consistent with a given blackbody temperature!
He also writes “Consider two blackbodies labeled 1 and 2 described by the model (11.2)
with different defining parameters . . . “. Models? Different black bodies defined to be the same but different? Impossible. Maybe the author meant to write something else.
Claes has his own speculation about the nature of quantum mechanics – the interaction between light and matter.
I can only repeat the words of Feynman “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Claes disagrees with Feynman. Feynman’s speculations about QED have been verified by the most rigorous experiments in human history. I disagree with Claes.
You are free to believe any speculation you wish, as am I. I’ll go with Feynman, until shown to be wrong by experiment.
swenson…”I hope you will agree that a theoretical object continuously absorbing all incident radiation does not have any fixed temperature. How could it? Oh, of course, you can simply define it to be emitting radiation theoretically consistent with a given blackbody temperature! ”
***
Not challenging you on this, I am no expert on blackbodies. However, if BB absorbs all the radiation claimed, it must have a temperature. The energy it absorbs must produce heat. I am going on the theory that a body absorbing EM must warm.
Johnson is pointing out how BBs are actually theorized in physics, as a cavity resonator. That’s another name for a BB. The cavity absorbs all the radiation input to it then re-radiates it within the cavity, where it bounces around.
Here’s an alternate explanation…
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Blackbody_radiation
This is a weakness in BB theory, it is presumed that once absorbed, the EM bouncing around inside cannot escape through the walls. Therefore they have defined the cavity resonator as having a small peep hole through which radiation of certain frequencies can escape. Johnson points out how this produces a cut-off frequency for emission from the BB.
If you read Johnson on this, he actually mocks the idea of this cavity with its peep hole. He is only describing the theory, not promoting it. He does not accept Planck’s theory on quanta, offering instead his own mathematical derivation that explains Planck’s theory without quanta.
I regard Johnson as a skeptic.
Swenson, if we accept that infrared radiation is a form a heat then saying that a black body is only to do with visible light is a bit of an over simplification. Both Infrared and coloured light are EMF then they are both emitting photons. So only photons that are over excited past a whimsical threshold are counted. Politely put it seems a bit arbitrary aka daft as a Wilard.
“If the black body emits precisely as much radiation as it receives, both in regards to frequency and quantity, then it also has no temperature, as it emits all the radiation it receives.”
Nobody claims that is what a Black Body does. Obviously, Swenson is confused.
What is claimed is that its emissivity = abs.orbtivity = 1.
Which means it abs.orbs all that it receives.
And it emits the maximum, which is still proportional to its Temperature to the 4th power.
It does not emit all that it receives.
Nate, you silly fellow.
You wrote –
“And it emits the maximum, which is still proportional to its Temperature to the 4th power.”
And what is the temperature of this miraculous black body of yours? Can’t say? Won’t say?
You haven’t a clue, have you?
Go on, tell me the temperature of a theoretical back body exposed to the radiation of a body with a surface temperature of 5600 K. (Oh, the emitting body is a cube of 1 cubic mm volume.)
Oh wait, I made a mistake – it’s the size of the Sun!
So what’s the temperature of your theoretical black body?
[laughing at nutty SkyDragon cultist)
We are laughing at you..
That would be you and your imaginary friend, would it?
[derisive snort]
According to Wikipedia (you know, this strange web site to which pseudo-skep~tical people agree only if it matches their narrative), a black body is defined as follows:
“ A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.
The radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium with its environment is called black-body radiation.
The name ‘black body’ is given because it absorbs all colors of light. In contrast, a white body is one with a ‘rough surface that reflects all incident rays completely and uniformly in all directions.’
A black body in thermal equilibrium (that is, at a constant temperature) emits electromagnetic black-body radiation.
The radiation is emitted according to Planck’s law, meaning that it has a spectrum that is determined by the temperature alone (see figure at right), not by the body’s shape or composition.
An ideal black body in thermal equilibrium has two main properties:
– It is an ideal emitter: at every frequency, it emits as much or more thermal radiative energy as any other body at the same temperature.
– It is a diffuse emitter: measured per unit area perpendicular to the direction, the energy is radiated isotropically, independent of direction.
Real materials emit energy at a fractioncalled the emissivityof black-body energy levels. By definition, a black body in thermal equilibrium has an emissivity ε = 1.
A source with a lower emissivity, independent of frequency, is often referred to as a gray body. “
Binny,
You quoted “By definition, a black body in thermal equilibrium has an emissivity ε = 1.”
I suppose you can find a theoretical black body with an emissivity other than 1, but only in your imagination. A black body is not in thermal equilibrium with anything at all (well, except by accident). It is not real, it’s an imaginary concept. You can’t mix theory with reality and expect anything meaningful to result. It has an emissivity of 1 at all frequencies – otherwise it is not a black body. It has no temperature, except that which is assigned to it.
Here’s Wikipedia –
“A black body in thermal equilibrium (that is, at a constant temperature) emits electromagnetic black-body radiation. The radiation is emitted according to Planck’s law . . . ”
Somebody at Wikipedia has thrown in the words “in thermal equilibrium” for no good reason. A black body emits radiation regardless of its surroundings. No thermal equilibrium needed. A 10000 K black body will theoretically emit the same radiation if it is surrounded by nothing at all. 0 K, if you wish.
Even a real body held at a constant temperature is not necessarily in “thermal equilibrium”. A container of water held at boiling. A refrigerator at 4 C.
Maybe your touching faith in Wikipedia is misplaced.
binny…now read the real explanation…written by a professional…
https://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf
You are such a poor guy, du~mb enough to show a contrarian source and think I’m also du~mb enough to gullibly believe in what you believe.
But… no surprise!
You ONLY know contrarian sources, regardless what they are about.
Binny,
Presumably you can state your objections and support them?
Otherwise, you’re just whining.
How dumb would that make you look? Pretty dumb, I guess.
Bin handwaves away Gordon’s source because it doesn’t fit his personal narratives and pecuniary interests.
It has a chapter Planck-Einstein tragedy??
So it is by a professional crank.
Nate, yourself an undisciplined member of a completely undisciplined community of academics. . .you need to actually come up with a criticism based on science and facts rather than just tossing gang signs at the other side in provocation. . .doncha think?
Or, you need to come up with a science reason to dumb established physics which is supported by loads of experimental evidence.
Arrgh..
to dump established physics.
And if you continue to throw ad hom grenades I will dump this discussion.
In the next few days, 3m of snow may fall in the Alps in places.
Source?
Crystal ball?
Why do you ask?
Bin asks for a source so he can handwave it away.
Earlier, Norman was unable to even describe the GHE, instead linking to graphics showing some the fraction of some frequencies of solar radiation reaching the surface at some times of the day.
He wrote, after not being able to describe the GHE, “Imagine thatyou may have to do some work to find this effect.” Indeed. Without a description of the GHE, finding it is not only difficult, but completely impossible.
Norman provides the following words of SkyDragon cult wisdom –
“GHE does not prevent the surface from cooling read this please. It increases the AVERAGE surface temperature.
The surface has NOT cooled for 4.5 billion years!”
Pardon my laughter – the GHE does not prevent cooling (falling temperature) but increases the temperature (warming). A miracle! An indescribable effect which allows the surface to cool by making it hotter!
Finishing off with the implication that the surface is still molten – not having cooled from its molten state to its present non-molten condition. The temperatures has dropped. It’s called cooling. Fairly obvious to anybody who casts their eyes downwards.
Oh well, it takes all kinds, I suppose.
Swenson
I think you miss the point. The GHE does not stop the surface from cooling (response to your cools at night…guess you did not follow the reference even though you made it).
Look at your post just above mine.
YOU: “The Earth has cooled, just as the surface does every night. Be sure to include that in your description.”
MY RESPONSE to this: “GHE does not prevent the surface from cooling read this please. It increases the AVERAGE surface temperature.”
You have to view my response in context to your post. Makes sense when you connect the two. GHE does not prevent the Earth surface from cooling at night as less DWIR is returned to the surface than it losing via UWIR (things explained in the graphs if you would take a moment to look at them). Now for the context, it will increase the Average Temperature of the Earth surface (note the important word average) because Heat loss by the surface is reduced.
I would suggest really try to understand the graphs. They show that GHE will not stop cooling (at night) but it will reduce night time heat loss so the surface will be warmer than without GHE.
Swenson
Also the graphs are not showing “instead linking to graphics showing some the fraction of some frequencies of solar radiation reaching the surface at some times of the day.”
The graphs are of the total solar energy reaching the surface not fractions. They are also showing the total IR emitted by Surface UPIR and the energy coming from the atmosphere DWIR.
I think you should reconsider your thought process on that one and really try to understand what the graphs are showing.
Swenson
Do you even think a little before you post or are you on Auto-Pilot?
YOU: “Finishing off with the implication that the surface is still molten not having cooled from its molten state to its present non-molten condition. The temperatures has dropped. Its called cooling. Fairly obvious to anybody who casts their eyes downwards.”
Cooling from a molten state to a solid state does not suggest that a surface keeps endlessly cooling and can’t have a temperature maintained by solar input.
Hawaiian Islands some were molten a mere 500,000 years ago. They solidified. You can put a thermometer on the surface of these recent molten land masses and find that the temperature goes up when the sun shines on them and goes down at night. It does not appear your hypothesis, that once molten surface, must keep cooling endlessly even after it has solidified. I really do not understand your logic, can you elaborate and explain how the surface temperature actually increases during the day and does not keep cooling? Inquiring minds really would like you to explain how you come to these conclusions.
Norman, now you’re implying “It’s the Sun, stoopid”.
You’re all over the board, making things up, grasping at straws, and advertising your anal fetishes.
Norman,
You still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
What is it supposed to do? Create hotter temperatures than now? If not, what is causing “global warming”? Are temperatures supposedly increasing due to a GHE which you refuse to describe? You won’t actually commit yourself to anything, will you?
You wrote –
“Cooling from a molten state to a solid state does not suggest that a surface keeps endlessly cooling and cant have a temperature maintained by solar input.” I agree. I have never suggested otherwise. I just point out that the Earth has cooled – neither four and a half billion years of sunlight, nor an atmosphere laden with CO2 nor anything else at all stopped the Earth from cooling, and it continues to do so. Research the peer reviewed literature of geophysicists and others.
You ask “can you elaborate and explain how the surface temperature actually increases during the day and does not keep cooling? “. Of course I can. Don’t you already know why this happens?
If you do, then you are just posing a silly gotcha.
If you truly don’t understand why the surface cools at night, and cannot find an answer anywhere else, ask me and I will explain it to you – once you have convinced me that you cannot find the answer elsewhere.
You conclude “Inquiring minds really would like you to explain how you come to these conclusions.” Really? Name one.
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Willard,
Are you quite mad, laddie?
Willard,
ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
[laughter ensued]
swenson, please stop tr0lling.
Willard,
ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!
[laughter ensued]
Swenson, please continue. DREMT impersonator, please stop destroying the integrity of the entire system.
Clint R
I have never denied the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth surface. Your lack of physics knowledge does not allow your mind to comprehend that the temperature a surface can reach is not just dependent upon the incoming energy but also a combination of incoming energy (which will increase the temperature…generally) and how much of this energy is exiting the surface (with Earth it has all three heat loss mechanisms removing surface energy…radiant, conduction and convection).
If you reduce any of the heat loss mechanisms the surface will reach a higher temperature with the same solar input. You can easily demonstrate this yourself by having your car parked in a sunny spot (even in winter it works). By reducing heat loss mechanisms within the car interior, with the same solar input, the interior of the car reaches a higher temperature than the outside air that does not have the same heat loss restrictions.
Does that clear it up for you? Probably not.
Swenson
Do you want to be another Clint R who believes No Evidence, No Problem? Or will you provide your evidence that the Earth SURFACE (not the core or underneath parts…just stick with the surface) has continued to cool?
I have given you evidence that shows it has not, What is your evidence the SURFACE (have to all cap it so you are not confused in what I am asking) has cooled?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356606430/figure/fig3/AS:1095462799060993@1638190092136/Global-mean-temperatures-over-the-last-500-000-years-11.ppm
If the link works it is a graph of Global Temperature the last 500,000 years based upon some proxy I believe in most these they use oxygen isotope variance to determine the temperature of the past.
The graph shows a cyclic pattern of warming and cooling but shows no consistent cooling in 500,000 years. I think you need to examine your thinking.
Norman, as usual, you can’t understand any of this.
To raise temperatures requires the “right kind” of energy. CO2’s 15 μ photon can NOT raise Earth’s 288 K surface temperature. Just as ice can NOT boil water, no matter how much ice is used.
If you’re trying to claim the atmosphere is insulation, that would be the effect of N2 and O2. CO2 emits to space. “Trapping” the “right kind” of energy can definitely raise surface temperatures, as we saw with the HTE.
You’re clogging the blog with your rambling rants filled with insults and false accusations.
Clint R
I already know your line of reasoning. “Right kind of energy” just something made up with no supporting evidence. Can you provide any evidence that shows a colder body cannot increase the temperature of a hotter one? Roy Spencer already did an experiment to prove you wrong. Do you offer any evidence to support your claims or will you persist in No Evidence, No Problem?
I guess it is obvious you will divert away and continue on with your usual posting style. Say unscientific concepts and offer zero evidence of any of them. It is what you do.
N2 and O2 would have almost NO insulating ability to reduce the amount of IR energy emitted from the surface from going straight to space. The amount of heat loss via radiation would be considerably higher than it is with GHG present as they provide DWIR which lowers the radiant HEAT loss from the surface (that is the energy is absorbed by the surface and it loses internal energy slower since the surface has both internal and external energy sources). The 15 micron photons emitted by CO2 can be absorbed by the surface regardless of its temperature. Sorry you don’t understand basic thermodynamics. Crack open a textbook and read up on the topic then you will know how ignorant of real science you are.
Norman, as usual, you can’t understand any of this.
You’re clogging the blog with your rambling rants filled with insults and false accusations.
Not to mention your anal fetishes.
Clint R
You are back to diversion tactics, back to NO Evidence, NO Problem. Same old same old. Make up false claims about science that you can’t understand hoping to deceive some gullible posters. You get called out then divert and run away. No Evidence, not Problem endlessly on this blog with you.
Norman,
You were silly enough to write –
“If you reduce any of the heat loss mechanisms the surface will reach a higher temperature with the same solar input. You can easily demonstrate this yourself by having your car parked in a sunny spot (even in winter it works).”
Well, no. The airless moon has surface temperatures in excess of 125 C. You cannot achieve this temperature in a parked car, a passive solar water heater, or in the middle of the Lut desert at midday.
The atmosphere reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface by about 35%. That’s why the surface can’t get as hot as it does on the Moon.
Not only that, but at night, all, repeat all, of the radiation emitted by the surface flees to outer space, and the temperature falls as a result.
So carry on trying to deny reality. Good luck.
Norman has avoided mentioning his anal fetishes, but now prefers incoherent rambling.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Norman,
You asked “I have given you evidence that shows it has not, What is your evidence the SURFACE (have to all cap it so you are not confused in what I am asking) has cooled?”
Because it is no longer molten. Now is your cue to complain that I answered the question that you posed, and claim that you really meant to say something else!
The plain fact is that the surface has cooled to its present temperature over the last four and a half billion years or so. If you wish to believe that it cooled even further, then commenced to heat up again due to some mythical GHE, you are of course free to do so.
I am feee to laugh at your refusal to accept reality.
A beautiful frosty high from Texas to South Carolina. Certainly a little warmer in the cities.
Hey Bin maybe you could use your 17th century sources to explain what Entropic Man refuses to explain.
If a rock is resting on the earth’s surface it is deemed part of the earth and the rock is deemed by both spinners and non-spinners as rotating around the central axis of the earth.
However, spinners would maintain that if you lifted the rock off the surface of the earth, the rock would then be orbiting the earth and spinning on its own axis at the same rate it was when rotating around the earth’s central axis.
Can you link us to your 17th century sources that explains this phenomena so educate us non-spinners on the strange transformation?
Norman,
“Stephen P Anderson
What do you base your opinion on. As far as I can tell Christos knows very little physics or astronomy. He makes up an equation with strange unphysical values so he can force it to agree with measured temps. It is basically the normal equation used to determine planetary temperatures but he adds made up variables to make it give him the answer he wants. Not sure that is good physics at all.”
–
–
“He makes up an equation with strange unphysical values so he can force it to agree with measured temps. It is basically the normal equation used to determine planetary temperatures but he adds made up variables to make it give him the answer he wants.”
–
Thank you, Norman, for demonstrating how strange the equation still appears to look, in spite of my efforts to explain every term and every variable it consists of.
–
LINK to my site, where I have the equation developed:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
–
–
Let’s, Norman, approach the whole issue of the equation with a NEW, with a very different way.
Let’s forget everything we knew, and have a simple and a practical look at the proposed equation.
–
Every planet and moon in solar system has (inevitably) an average (mean) surface temperature.
–
Inevitably there should be an equation, which equation is capable theoretically calculate (based on the every planet’s and moon’s the surface major charachteristic parameters), which equation is capable theoretically calculate those average (mean) surface temperatures…
The fact, that those theoretically calculated average (mean) surface temperatures, they match so very much close to those measured by satellites, the fact they match so very much…
–
–
Why to reject an equation which is capable to theoretically calculate the solar system planets’ and moons’ without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere (Earth included) the average (mean) surface temperatures?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I will tell you why, Christos, because it doesn’t match Norman’s political agenda. The IPCC is a political entity and not scientific. All Norman has to do is show mathematically why your equation is wrong. Then you and he could debate. But he won’t do that because he can’t. So, he resorts to disparagement. That is a political tactic.
Stephen P Anderson
It is not me who is the political animal on this blog. You are nothing but right-wing politics. I have yet to see any science in any of your posts. Mine have links to various science yours have none. Just fanatic right-wing politics from you. That is why you think I am a political animal your viewing lens is distorted that you can only see political agenda.
Why do I think Christos is wrong? Here:
“Planet reflects the (1-Φ + Φ*a)S part of the incident on the planets surface solar irradiation S.
Here a is the planets average albedo and Φ is the planets solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth planet without thick atmosphere, Earth included,
Φ=0,47”
His phi variable is just made up. He has zero evidence that there exists such a made up concept (energy no one else is aware of even though satellites are monitoring energy emitted and received by the Earth). So he pulls out a Rabbit’s Hat number that has no meaning in any way or has any measurement to verify it.
Stephen P Anderson, you can believe this mush science all you need to as it helps you feel right in your right-wing Universe. The Evil left science is complete lies and fabrications but Christos makes up a new value and gives it a number and you accept it without question. You have definitely lost any semblance of a scientific mind or even skepticism.
Sad to see a human fall into the mindless world of made up ideas and one where he buys Trump T-shirts to support the lying grifter. He will take you money send him some more. You are one gullible human Stephen P Anderson.
Norman,
You seem gullible enough to accept without question that the Earth’s Energy Imbalance has been measured.
Here’s what Trenberth and Cheng have to say –
“It is not (yet) possible to measure EEI directly, although changes measured from satellites are believed to be reliable, albeit biased.”
You remember Trenberth, I presume? Couldn’t find his missing heat, and thought it was a travesty?
Seems like any claimed “measurements” are a matter of “belief”. This from a world famous “climate scientist”, but I suppose you know better.
Still claiming the Earth’s surface hasn’t cooled since it was molten, or have you accepted reality?
Carry on.
Swenson
I am not aware of making the claim you said I made.
YOU: “You seem gullible enough to accept without question that the Earths Energy Imbalance has been measured.”
Earth Energy Imbalance would be a hard quantity to measure directly.
I have given you links to actual radiant energy measurements in a given location at a given time. Solar NET, UPIR and DWIR. I am at loss to see how you take the information I linked you to and transform it to something else. Strange bit of magic on you, like an alchemist transforming one set of information into an entirely different one then claiming I accepted one without question.
I also have not stated the Earth’s surface was not cooled from molten to solid. My claim is that it is not continuing to cool at the present time as it is currently warmed by solar energy and will not cool any further until the Solar output changes. My claims are considerably different than what you think I am saying.
The Core could cool solid and be cold but the surface would still be the same temperature as long as the Sun shines on it.
Norman,
You wrote –
“My claim is that it is not continuing to cool at the present time as it is currently warmed by solar energy and will not cool any further until the Solar output changes. My claims are considerably different than what you think I am saying.”
At least you have finally claimed something.
When did the planet stop cooling, and start warming? You say it is currently warmed by solar energy. When was it not? You surely don’t believe that solar energy is a recent phenomenon, do you?
So I repeat, when did the planet stop cooling? Why?
You really are backing yourself into a corner here. You say the planet cooled, then stopped cooling, and then you imply it is getting hotter, but you can’t or won’t say why! Maybe it’s something to do with a GHE which you can’t actually describe, is that it?
Time for you to claim you really meant to say something else, I guess. Your current claim seems to fly in the face of reality. The sun has been shining for four and a half billion years, while even you admit the surface cooled!
Try again – you don’t seem to be doing too well so far.
Norman, you wrote –
“The Core could cool solid and be cold but the surface would still be the same temperature as long as the Sun shines on it.”
The core is above 5000 K, and is definitely not cold.
Are you ignorant, or just trying to be silly?
Carry on.
Swenson
I think you need to take a course in reading. Your ability to read is very poor. That is not so much the point as that you are a poor reader and in your inability to properly read you choose to attempt proving me in error over a point I made that you read incorrectly.
Here: I never said the Core was cold! I stated IF it cooled and was cold then the surface would still be warmed by the Sun. You do not understand the words Surface and Earth. One describes a part of the Earth the other is the whole planet. Yes the Earth is slowly cooling (very slowly) but the surface of the planet is not currently cooling at all. It cooled at some point from molten to solid then cooled more for some time (Some scientists estimate a few hundred million years) after it cooled to the point that liquid water could exist on the surface its cooling days were done. Then it has cycled from warmer to colder periods but does not show a continuous cooling at this time. If you look at Roy’s blog graphs it shows some current warming not cooling.
Norman, the core “could” become cold, and you “could” accept reality.
Now you claim that the Earth cooled to below its present temperature, then heated up – more than once, while the core continued to cool.
You write – “The Core could cool solid and be cold but the surface would still be the same temperature as long as the Sun shines on it.” in your imagination, of course. The core has not cooled solid and become cold, Michael Mann has not won a Nobel Prize, and Gavin Schmidt is not a scientist.
I suppose the list of things that “could” happen is infinite, along with the universe and human stupi dity (according to Einstein).
But the fact remains that the surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and does so every night. Reality, whether you like it or not.
norman…”His [Christos] phi variable is just made up”.
***
What makes you think the other one is not made up?
bill h …” They try to dodge that issue with the 3rd grader radiation model. When cornered on the failure of the 3rd grader radiation model they begin talking about forcing by lapse rate but wont go into details because that would open the discussion about how heat actually travels within the system and it is primarily NOT by radiation”.
***
Great points in your entire response. I have cherry-picked this part since it is not normally noticed. The alarmist claim, as you point out, that the radiation budget is mainly due to surface radiation, is seriously in error. The radiation budget, a la Trenberyh-Kiehle, seriously understates the actual surface heat dissipation effect by conduction/convection. It misrepresents any actual budget, which is essentially unknown.
Re lapse rate. It astounds me that the cause of the lapse rate by alarmists is normally credited to heat itself. They seem to suggest that rising heat convected from the surface produces the lapse rate. No mention is made of gravity and it’s obvious effect on decreasing air pressure with altitude. Are we supposed to accept that the negative pressure gradient is also due to heat loss with altitude?
As you point out, the lapse rate is ignored in the heat budget because they have reduced heat dissipation via conduction/convection to a point where this dissipation is only a fraction of that created by radiation. How do they make that claim and explain the lapse rate using radiation?
The fact is, radiation cannot explain the lapse rate which can really only be understood wrt to gravity and its effect on pressure. If you accept the lapse rate theory while acknowledging the effect of gravity in ordering air molecules into a negative pressure gradient, you cannot ignore the same effect on the negative heat gradient, which is proportional to the decrease in pressure with altitude. That’s no coincidence.
If you don’t accept the effect of gravity on air molecules, you have no explanation for a negative pressure gradient. Heat cannot cause that since heat is dependent on the number of molecules per unit volume, and it is the reduction in that density that reduces heat as well with altitude.
Norman,
“Why do I think Christos is wrong? Here:
Planet reflects the (1-Φ + Φ*a)S part of the incident on the planets surface solar irradiation S.
Here a is the planets average albedo and Φ is the planets solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth planet without thick atmosphere, Earth included,
Φ=0,47
His phi variable is just made up. He has zero evidence that there exists such a made up concept (energy no one else is aware of even though satellites are monitoring energy emitted and received by the Earth). So he pulls out a Rabbits Hat number that has no meaning in any way or has any measurement to verify it.”
–
–
“The Evil left science is complete lies and fabrications but Christos makes up a new value and gives it a number and you accept it without question.”
–
–
Norman, I have explained about the Φ -factor, what exactly it is and how it was measured. It is all has been gathered in my site.
–
Does equation theoretically calculate every planet’s and moon’s without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere, (Earth included), does equation calculates the average (mean) surface temperature?
–
Yes, the equation calculates the average (mean) surface temperature.
–
Shouldn’t there exist an equation which could do the job?
–
Yes, there should be an equation theoretically calculating the average (mean) surface temperature.
–
–
The equation is valid for every planet and moon wihout atmosphere, or with a thinatmosphere (Earth included).
Let’s examine the equation:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
–
The equation considers a planet surface as a whole, thus equation calculates the whole planet’s average surface temperature.
–
Φ(1-a)So it is the correct estimation of the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux. It is the TOTAL amount of solar energy which interacts with planet surface.
–
N is the planet’s rotational spin.
–
cp is the planet’s average specific heat.
–
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
–
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
–
4 – the number “4” comes from the fact that equation calculates the AVERAGE surface temperature of the entire planet surface.
–
Conclusion:
We deal here with a unique equation, which is capable to theoretically calculate the AVERAGE SURFACE planet temperature!
–
And, it is not mistakenly should be considered (for the very good job the equation is doing), it should be considered the right equation, because the results of its theoretical calculations are matching very much close to those measured by satellites.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Hansen: https://tinyurl.com/44zpf8sp
Mann: https://tinyurl.com/yndb5n9d
The fact that you’d use Hansen and Newton in the same sentence indicates your utter misunderstanding of science.
Newton was a genius who brought us out of the science dark ages. Hansen is a wannabee genius, in his own mind, who has mired us in serious pseudo-science.
swenson…”And what is the temperature of this miraculous black body of yours?”
***
Obviously, it’s imaginary, like the black body, and you have to use an imaginary thermometer to measure it, and have an imaginary friend to sense it for you. ☺ ☺