Home/Blog2023 Was the Warmest Year In the 45-Year Satellite Record
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2023 was +0.83 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the November, 2023 anomaly of +0.91 deg. C.
The 2023 annual average global LT anomaly was +0.51 deg. C above the 1991-2020 mean, easily making 2023 the warmest of the 45-year satellite record. The next-warmest year was +0.39 deg. C in 2016. The following plot shows all 45 years ranked from the warmest to coolest.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 still stands at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).
It might be partly coincidence, but the +0.51 deg. C number for 2023 from satellites is the same as the surface air temperature estimate from the NOAA/NCEP/NCAR Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS). Note that the CDAS estimate is only partly based upon actual surface air temperature observations… it represents a physically consistent model-based estimate using a wide variety of data sources (surface observations, commercial aircraft, weather balloons, satellites, etc.). [UPDATE: it appears the CDAS anomalies are not relative to the 1991-2020 base period… I recomputed them, and the CDAS anomaly appears to be +0.45 deg. C, not +0.51 deg. C]:
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 24 months are:
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2022 | Jan | +0.03 | +0.07 | +0.00 | -0.23 | -0.12 | +0.68 | +0.10 |
| 2022 | Feb | +0.00 | +0.02 | -0.01 | -0.24 | -0.04 | -0.30 | -0.49 |
| 2022 | Mar | +0.16 | +0.28 | +0.03 | -0.07 | +0.23 | +0.74 | +0.03 |
| 2022 | Apr | +0.27 | +0.35 | +0.18 | -0.04 | -0.25 | +0.45 | +0.61 |
| 2022 | May | +0.18 | +0.25 | +0.10 | +0.02 | +0.60 | +0.23 | +0.20 |
| 2022 | Jun | +0.07 | +0.08 | +0.05 | -0.36 | +0.47 | +0.33 | +0.11 |
| 2022 | Jul | +0.36 | +0.37 | +0.35 | +0.13 | +0.85 | +0.56 | +0.65 |
| 2022 | Aug | +0.28 | +0.32 | +0.25 | -0.03 | +0.60 | +0.51 | +0.00 |
| 2022 | Sep | +0.25 | +0.43 | +0.06 | +0.03 | +0.88 | +0.69 | -0.28 |
| 2022 | Oct | +0.32 | +0.44 | +0.21 | +0.05 | +0.17 | +0.94 | +0.05 |
| 2022 | Nov | +0.17 | +0.21 | +0.13 | -0.16 | -0.50 | +0.52 | -0.56 |
| 2022 | Dec | +0.05 | +0.13 | -0.02 | -0.34 | -0.20 | +0.80 | -0.38 |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.04 | +0.05 | -0.13 | -0.38 | +0.12 | -0.12 | -0.50 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.09 | +0.17 | +0.00 | -0.10 | +0.68 | -0.24 | -0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.20 | +0.24 | +0.17 | -0.13 | -1.43 | +0.17 | +0.40 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.18 | +0.11 | +0.26 | -0.03 | -0.37 | +0.53 | +0.21 |
| 2023 | May | +0.37 | +0.30 | +0.44 | +0.40 | +0.57 | +0.66 | -0.09 |
| 2023 | June | +0.38 | +0.47 | +0.29 | +0.55 | -0.35 | +0.45 | +0.07 |
| 2023 | July | +0.64 | +0.73 | +0.56 | +0.88 | +0.53 | +0.91 | +1.44 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.70 | +0.88 | +0.51 | +0.86 | +0.94 | +1.54 | +1.25 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.90 | +0.94 | +0.86 | +0.93 | +0.40 | +1.13 | +1.17 |
| 2023 | Oct | +0.93 | +1.02 | +0.83 | +1.00 | +0.99 | +0.92 | +0.63 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.91 | +1.01 | +0.82 | +1.03 | +0.65 | +1.16 | +0.42 |
| 2023 | Dec | +0.83 | +0.93 | +0.73 | +1.08 | +1.26 | +0.26 | +0.85 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for December, 2023, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days:
Lower Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
As our resident “expert” Clint has officially declared the “HTE” over, this anomaly clearly indicates where we currently stand in a less-than-strongest El Nino. It also indicates that the total effect of his “HTE” was at most +0.1.
Sorry Ant, but the HTE varied. At a peak, it was probably about +0.6C, and at a valley, about 0.0C.
Please share your calculation/reasoning for that figure.
Also share when these peaks and “valleys” occurred.
Of course you won’t be able to, so will say “you would’t understand” instead. Because of course, only you are permitted to make claims without justification.
Exactly Ant. You’re starting to get it.
You can’t understand because your mind is closed to reality. That’s what cults do to a person.
You actually believe Earth is 33K warmer than it’s supposed to be!
That ain’t science.
All you had to say was “I have no such calculation and pulled that figure out of my ass”.
Instead you pull your usual trick of trying to deflect the argument sideways.
No calculation needed, Ant. It can be easily observed from UAH Global.
But you can’t understand because your mind is closed to reality. That’s what cults do to a person.
It’s amazing how all you cultists have such an anal fetish.
Please explain how you arrive at this “inference.”
In doing so, please account for the fact that UAH monthly anomalies during the 97/98 El Nino were also about 0.9C higher than a year earlier. Did the “HTE” also exist back then?
Ant, you just want to tr0ll here. You have no problem with your “inference” of +0.1C, but you have no ability to go anywhere else. Your mind is closed.
No, I’m looking for answers. Answers you are clearly incapable of supplying.
Fact: The rise in temperatures from pre-eruption to now is pretty normal for a strong El Nino. The only difference is that that rise is being added to a higher baseline.
Are you trying to claim that anomalies would only be +0.3 during this strong El Nino if there were no “HTE”?
“No calculation needed, Ant. It can be easily observed from UAH Global.”
Clint admits that he is looking at the effect: global T rise, and simply correlating to his assumed cause: the HTE, and that is the totality of his evidence.
It is purely correlation = causation.
Weak.
The difference, child Nate, is I described the cause and was able to use it to accurately predict.
THAT is science.
“The difference, child Nate, is I described the cause and was able to use it to accurately predict.”
Nope, you just looked at how much it warmed, then claimed afterwards that you predicted that.
And you speculated on a cause that made little sense and offered no evidence to support it.
THAT is not science.
Wrong again, child Nate.
I was able to predict the large rises because I was monitoring the PV. You weren’t paying attention, as usual. Go back and find my predictions.
You make false accusations, believing you can pervert reality.
THAT is cultism.
Go back, find, and show us your ‘predictions’, so that we can judge if they actually came prior to the outcome.
The circulation pattern of the upper atmosphere is incredibly complex, with the wild meanderings of the jet stream, the PV, and their complex interactions with the troposphere, stratosphere, and water in the stratosphere. Their effect on surface temperatures is quite uncertain.
None of that can be guessed or intuited, as you claim to have done.
It requires sophisticated computer modeling, which you certainly have not done. Nor do you cite other researchers having done that. Even with that capability, predictions beyond a week are incredibly difficult.
So your fantasizing about having predicted any of this is just that, fantasy.
Nate says:
”The circulation pattern of the upper atmosphere is incredibly complex, with the wild meanderings of the jet stream, the PV, and their complex interactions with the troposphere, stratosphere, and water in the stratosphere. Their effect on surface temperatures is quite uncertain.”
But Nate is certain that this complexity stops altogether after a period of time when we can change the word from weather to climate.
Uh huh. . .
Nah, I don’t.
Because, although adding energy to the system definitely results in warming, how that is distributed in the system is harder to predict because of the complexity.
But computer modeling is helpful.
Nate says:
”Nah, I dont.
Because, although adding energy to the system definitely results in warming, how that is distributed in the system is harder to predict because of the complexity.”
Nate backradiation is not an addition of energy to the system.
Willful ignorance.
When are you going to learn about the First Law of Thermodynamics?
the only thing putting energy into the earth system is the sun nate.
Nothing but NET.
“The first law of thermodynamics is often formulated as the sum of contributions to the internal energy (U) from all work (W), done on or by the system, and the amount of heat (Q) supplied or withdrawn from the system in a thermodynamic process.”
Nate says:
The first law of thermodynamics is often formulated as the sum of contributions to the internal energy (U) from all work (W), done on or by the system, and the amount of heat (Q) supplied or withdrawn from the system in a thermodynamic process.
And you feel that description allows you to beg the question as to backradiation providing what? Work? Net energy input?
Where is the evidence of any alleged backradiation contributing to that? Yet without any evidence you just declare: ”Willful ignorance. When are you going to learn about the First Law of Thermodynamics?”
Lets see how willfully ignorant you are in coming up with a source that proves your claim?
“And you feel that description allows you to beg the question as to backradiation providing what? Work? Net energy input?”
Bill, the description makes clear that both the INPUT heat flow and the OUTPUT heat flow matters for the warming of the Earth.
Why play dumb?
You are supposed to know all about this, since we are currently discussing the GHE and how it affects the heat flow OUTPUT from the Earth.
Well obviously if input is greater than output you get warming. But that does nothing at all to prove the input is greater than the output.
The it is at least settled that restricting energy output can cause warming.
yes as long as energy limits have not been met which for a 1360w black body radiator would be any place on the surface of a blackbody object would be 393k.
raising the question as to of what use is a blackbody curve for determining anything in regards to what temperature something is expected to warm to when insolated by a non-blackbody sun onto a non-blackbody object. and you haven’t answered that question nor have you established that a greenhouse effect exists. thats true because a baseline for a greenhouse effect hasn’t been established.
in order to do that properly would require a significant effort probably costing billions if not trillions of dollars.
bottomline is warming is proceeding at a slow pace and we have not ruled out the contribution of natural causes for that.
So going back to the original thing you disputed:
This
“Because, although adding energy to the system definitely results in warming, how that is distributed in the system is harder to predict because of the complexity.”
is valid after all.
“what use is a blackbody curve”
Lots of experiments have tested its validity.
Your claim that it is invalid was unconvincing.
i am sure sb tested it supposedly with a black box as i understand was coated with lamp black.
of interest here would be an experimental test of equilibrium temperatures for non-black bodies exposed to sunlight.
that was the purpose of my post directed to folks like you claiming to know the answer so you can provide evidence.
but you have exposed yourself as a faker with no science support for your beliefs. so just sit back and lets see if anybody else has any science to support your belief which at the moment is looking like a religion.
Nate says:
”The it is at least settled that restricting energy output can cause warming.”
”Can” is the correct word. ”Will” would be incorrect.
but to actually do that one has to fully understand all avenues of energy movement through the atmosphere.
And of course if that had happened we could read about how it was proven that it had happened. . .and you Nate would not be handing out papers that admits to uncertainties while trying to argue that they prove there are no uncertainties.
“but you have exposed yourself as a faker with no science support”
Pfffft, other than ALL the science I have shown to you….
“of interest here would be an experimental test of equilibrium temperatures for non-black bodies exposed to sunlight.”
What do you think is so special about sunlight that the laws of physics don’t apply to it?
‘Non-black bodies’, yes these are called grey bodies, and have emissivities < 1.
And? You think there are no laws of physics that apply to these?
That would be quite ignorant.
The issue with your analysis of the Moon's temperature is that you don't know all the factors very well, such as local albedo, local solar flux, T measurement method and error, with certainty.
You cannot overturn laws of physics with such poorly known parameters in an experiment.
‘Can is the correct word. Will would be incorrect.’
So in your view, a system that has a net heat input, and no work done on it, might gain, or might not gain, internal energy.
1LOT says it is ‘will gain’.
Now of course in the Earth system, some of that will distribute as sensible heat: T gain, and some as latent heat, melt of ice or evaporate water.
Empirically we have seen that the vast majority has gone into T gain of the ocean, which was expected.
Nate says:
” ”but you have exposed yourself as a faker with no science support”
What do you think is so special about sunlight that the laws of physics dont apply to it?
Non-black bodies, yes these are called grey bodies, and have emissivities < 1.
And? You think there are no laws of physics that apply to these?''
———————–
Which laws of physics establishes the expect maximum equilibrium applies to grey bodies Nate. The Stefan Boltzman law only applies to black bodies.
right off the bat you have proven you are a faker.
what happened to you? did somebody grab you out of some homeless shelter and employ you to as a human sandwich board salesman on different blogs?
what you need to do is bone up on why the molecules in the thermosphere can reach temperatures of 2000C and more in thermosphere in violation of what you believe to be laws of physics that you believe would prevent that. and after learning all about that bring forward the science supporting the reason the moon is the temperature it is. I realize this is a blog where people share their opinions on matters but don't falsely flatter yourself that your opinion on this matter has anything even remotely to do with science.
Quick question, Gill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Why do you keep saying that the SB Law has only an emissivity of one?
What does Stefan-Boltzmann law state?
The law states that, ”The total energy emitted/radiated per unit surface area of a blackbody across all wavelengths per unit time is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature. ”
A blackbody has an emissivity factor of 1.0
It’s a simple equation, Gill. Even I can get it.
Perhaps you prefer the detailed explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Detailed_explanation
Hope this helps.
Willard says:
”To find the total power, P P, radiated from an object, multiply the radiant exitance by the objects surface area, A:
P = A ⋅ M = A ε σ T 4 ”
well i can only assume that you know how to solve for T, given that P=342w/m2 and ε=.7
solve first then check the answer below.
answer: its 278.7k and not the 255k that is the base number provided by your daddy that claims a 33k ghe with current temperatures at 288k
> Willard says
Two mistakes in two words, Gill.
Well done!
Yes I posed the wrong question and gave an answer to another question. But I did notice you didn’t solve the problem so I will solve both problems for you.
The answer to the first problem posed above is 304.7K which doesn’t apply to really anything.
The correct problem is solve for T
when:
P=239.5w/m2 (which is the radiation at TOA)
and ε=.7 (which is the emissivity at TOA, the inverse of Albedo)
The answer is the temperature at TOA is 278.7K
Your daddy though pretends ε=1.0 and comes up with 255k when we know that emissivity is not that of a blackbody.
Gill I did not say what you said I said. I quoted thy Wiki. There are citations behind many sentences I quoted.
Now that you know that the SB Law applies to more than blackbodies, do you understand a little better what Norman and Nate are trying to tell you?
Correct Willard thus by the SB Law via your interpretation the actual GHE is only 9.3k
And what would be my interpretation, Gill?
I thought you were trying to guesstimate the temperature of the Moon.
“P=239.5w/m2 (which is the radiation at TOA)
and ε=.7 (which is the emissivity at TOA, the inverse of Albedo)”
As repeatedly discussed, Bill, albedo is for sunlight, ie mainly VISIBLE light wavelengths.
Emissivity is NOT for sunlight. It is for THERMAL IR wavelengths. And emissivity is strongly wavelength dependent!
So emissivity is NOT the inverse of Albedo!
When are you going to get this straight?
nate the equilibrium temperature of the surface at 282.6w/m2 giving a 5.4k ghe is for solar input, not longwave input! you are already in this pool way over your head!
longwave is output not input. you properly worked the equation just fine and you said my doing it like your daddy was a mistake!!!
now you are going to try to change your story? you just fell for the oldest trick in the investigator trick book. . .and thats the reason why you should never answer investigator questions. you need to act like your daddy and not engage in debates. . .they already know what the dangers are.
nate the equilibrium temperature of the surface at 282.6w/m2 giving a 5.4k ghe is for solar input! you are already in this pool way over your head!
longwave is output not input. you properly worked the equation just fine and you said my doing it like your daddy was a mistake!!!
Nate says:
Input = 1361 W/m^2*(1-albedo) = 1198 W/m^2.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1591203
——————-
you even corrected me by you writing the equation correctly.
when being questioned you aren’t supposed to confess.
Bill,
The science in your posts is getting increasingly errant, and when people correct you, you go into denial mode.
It doesnt help your credibility.
“way over your head! longwave is output not input.”
Think about what equilibrium actually means.
Yes indeed:
Input = 1361 W/m^2*(1-albedo) = 1198 W/m^2.
But for some reason you left out the next line,
“Output = sigma*e*T^4 = input = 1198 W/m^2.”
Hint: Why do I mention both input and output? And why are they equal?
Notice Output includes emissivity (e).
Albedo and emissivity are NOT for the same wavelengths, and thus you cannot get one from the other.
If you can’t understand these basic concepts, and refuse to learn them, then you have no business posting about it!
Nate says:
” ”way over your head! longwave is output not input.”
Think about what equilibrium actually means.”
———————-
Output cannot be more than net input.
Nate says:
So emissivity is NOT the inverse of Albedo!
When are you going to get this straight?
——————————
it is for 100% opaque objects. if its not the emissions would exceed the energy available and cool even more than if it only emitted what it absorbed. so is that still your argument?
“it is for 100% opaque objects. if its not the emissions would exceed the energy available and cool even more than if it only emitted what it absorbed.”
Again, NO that is wrong. Repeating the same mistakes over and over is a sign of impairment or insanity.
Kirchhoffs law equates emissivity to absor.btivity, which is 1-reflectance, but only for the SAME WAVELENGTHS!
So we can have WHITE PVC, that reflects visible sunlight quite well, but has an IR emissivity near 1.
“Albedo is the fraction of SOLAR radiation reflected from a materials surface. Concrete has an albedo of 0.4”
https://gccassociation.org/essential-concrete/albedo/
Emissivity
Concrete …0.94
https://www.transmetra.ch/images/transmetra_pdf/publikationen_literatur/pyrometrie-thermografie/emissivity_table.pdf
Notice for concrete
1-albedo = 0.6
while emissivity = 0.94
They are not equal.
Nate says:
” ”it is for 100% opaque objects. if its not the emissions would exceed the energy available and cool even more than if it only emitted what it absorbed.”
Again, NO that is wrong. Repeating the same mistakes over and over is a sign of impairment or insanity.
Kirchhoffs law equates emissivity to absor.btivity, which is 1-reflectance, but only for the SAME WAVELENGTHS!”
LMAO!
OK I get your drift.
But two questions:
1) how does one distinguish between LW emitted versus reflected? Seems obvious that if you measure the LW coming off the ocean that could well include reflected LW from the atmosphere.
2) how would the atmosphere, with only oxygen and nitrogen, be cooled with oxygen absorbing bands of UV, Visible and near IR if there were no cooling GHGs?
HTE warming is still affecting the climate and will only slowly subside. Solar cycle 25 max also has a small warming effect.
The current change from Nov. occurred due to the increase in Antarctic sea ice relative to average. Since we normally see El Nino have its strongest warming influence in Dec/Jan/Feb, some folks may have been surprised by this “cooling”.
Please explain how you “KNOW” what caused the drop. Prove to me that it is more than guesswork.
You also give no mechanism for how it is still affecting the climate. Please provide this mechanism.
I have previously checked the correlation between sunspot counts and UAH temperatures. The correlation is marginally NEGATIVE.
Of course you will likely hide behind Flynnson’s inevitable emetic thread-suffocating say-nothing response to this request. After all, that is his “purpose” here.
Never claimed to “KNOW” anything. Just providing the most likely reason for the small drop. I also said nothing about “sunspot counts”. I’m referring to TSI which varies almost 0.1 C between minimum and maximum. CMEs may add on a little more.
The HTE put lots of water vapor high into the atmosphere. Are you denying that would be a warming effect? Water vapor also reacts with ozone which would lead to more UV reaching the surface. I estimate the two effects could cause 0.2 C additional warming.
All of this is sitting on top of a +AMO which probably adds another 0.3 C of warming.
The last significant influence is the long term millennial warming from the depths of the LIA. From historical data that could be as much as 0.5 C of warming.
“The current change from Nov. occurred due to the increase in Antarctic sea ice relative to average.”
In what sense is that anything but a definite statement? It contains ZERO doubt.
.
.
.
Clint flatly denies that the “HTE” has anything to do with water vapour, because he knows that would be a concession to the greenhouse effect. Are you saying Clint is wrong, and which of you two should we trust?
What data are you using to claim that stratospheric water vapour levels are still elevated? Because that would be the only way to claim “the HTE is still affecting the climate”, right?
.
.
.
Heads up … TSI is NOT measured in degrees Celsius. It is measured in Watts/square metre. (Which Gordon will try to claim are units of energy.)
TSI varies about 0.1 PERCENT between minimum and maximum.
And don’t you think TSI is strongly correlated with sunspot counts?
.
.
.
Where did you pull that 0.3 from for the AMO, and why did you not also factor in the negative PDO? It seems you only manage to find factors that suit your argument.
Richard,
Ozone high in the atmosphere is formed by high energy UV interacting with oxygen. That’s why none of the high energy UV reaches the surface. It gets absorbed in the process of creating ozone.
Even the US EPA now accepts reality, and says –
“Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally through the interaction of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation with molecular oxygen (O2). The “ozone layer,” approximately 6 through 30 miles above the Earth’s surface, reduces the amount of harmful UV radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.” A few weasel-words there – true, but not telling the whole truth.
Here’s a snippet from the WHO –
“Short-wavelength UVC is the most damaging type of UV radiation. However, it is completely filtered by the atmosphere and does not reach the earth’s surface.”
Feel free to believe whomever you want. The chances of a UV-C photon from the Sun getting through the Earth’s atmosphere and reaching the surface are slim to none, as far as I know.
There you go again Ant, misrepresenting me.
There may be several ways H-T water and water vapor can contribute to warming, but just not radiatively.
isn’t supposed to be continued warming from the el nino for 3 to 4 months?
AQ says: “In what sense is that anything but a definite statement?”
I just write what I’m thinking. Can’t help it if you read too much into it. Maybe next time just ask.
“Are you saying Clint is wrong”.
Well mixed GHGs with concentrations over saturation levels do not cause any warming. Water vapor is not well mixed. Low in the atmosphere it has no effect due to saturation. High in the atmosphere is a different situation. It must have an effect. If Clint thinks there is no effect, then he is wrong.
My logic for the effects of HTE is based on differences between the effects of HTE and Pinatubo. We have a good feeling for the cooling effect of Pinatubo.
I assume HTE was similar for SO2 and then worked out what seems like a reasonable combined effect. The H2O and SO2 initially canceled out which means the water vapor effect should be close to the Pinatubo cooling effect.
Since SO2 it is heavier, it should fall out faster. Hence, the (H2O-SO2) difference should show up 6 months to a year after the eruption. That looked possible with the La Nina not getting quite as cold last winter. Then, when the La Nina faded, the warming occurred quickly. The only real possible cause was the H2O.
“dont you think TSI is strongly correlated with sunspot counts?”
There is a correlation but it’s not perfect.
“Where did you pull that 0.3 from for the AMO”
The AMO appears driven by a natural cycle in Arctic sea ice. It’s really the Arctic changes that account for most of the temperature difference. The AMO is a good index for those effects, but doesn’t capture the magnitude.
“why did you not also factor in the negative PDO?”
The PDO is closely tied to ENSO. Hard to factor it in when ENSO is + or -, so I ignore it at those times assuming ENSO is the stronger cycle.
The saturation argument once again:
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
2024 will be a good Climateball year!
Willard obviously has some reading problems. Here’s what his reference told him:
“directly observing the specific, global radiative forcing caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases has – to date – proven elusive.”
There’s a reason for this. After these gases’ IR bands reach saturation the warming effect goes bye-bye. It’s not saturation itself, it’s a byproduct of the state of the atmosphere.
When saturation occurs the concentration of the gases radiating energy back towards the surface is high enough that almost all the energy that reaches the surfaces comes from very low in the atmosphere.
********This induces evaporative cooling w/o warming.
The evaporation is obvious since the Earth is mostly covered in H2O. IR from these gases will increase the odds of evaporation.
The lack of any warming is because an IR emission event causes the lower atmosphere to cool while the surface warms. Because these two areas are in direct contact, the 2LOT finds this a problem and corrects it very quickly. Any energy that doesn’t go into evaporation is conducted back into the lower atmosphere.
The other important factor comes from being “well mixed”. This works with Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation to manage the upward flow of energy. Basically, the net flow is independent of the concentration of the well mixed gas.
Once a person understands all the science it becomes obvious that well mixed gases cannot cause warming. All they do to cause a little more precipitation.
Climate alarmists are the real science deniers.
Willard says:
The saturation argument once again:
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
————————-
no credibility there willard. all you have is john cook who isn’t even a physicist mansplaining why the atmosphere greenhouse effect isn’t saturated without a single scientific reference. thats why his blog is considered to be just a propaganda arm of the climate change cabal.
first the saturation issue can only apply to an evenly distributed gas causing a ghe. there are other arguments against gases even being able to cause a ghe. but i am not going into that here.
in order to understand the saturation issue the blueprint for the physics behind the ghe must be laid out in full detail. some will argue for a saturated ghe of co2 as a single convecting layer having once absorbed a em of the frequency absorbed by co2 doesn’t cause this layer to get warmer by reemitting it and reabsorbing it. in this argument the ghe is for all practical purposes saturated.
that argument is much different than many layers of co2 acting as a rigid long corridor closed off from end to end by numerous rigid oven doors slammed shut. . . as nate is trying to argue here in sync with the nutty john cook and the rest of the climate cabal.
> After these gases IR bands reach saturation the warming effect goes bye-bye.
Since there is no saturation, RM needs to beg the question.
But Gill will follow him wherever he goes, so there is a small, cuddly upside.
“Well mixed GHGs with concentrations over saturation levels do not cause any warming.”
It is a myth that saturation levels have been reached, and that the GHE ceases at that point.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
“A common argument is that the CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated (i.e., does not increase) as CO2 absor.ption of an entire atmospheric column, named absor.ptivity, is saturated. This argument is erroneous first because absor.ptivity by CO2 is currently not fully saturated and still increases with CO2 concentration and second because a change in emission height explains why the greenhouse effect may increase even if the absor.ptivity is saturated. ”
“we show that the increase of the greenhouse effect resulting from an increase of CO2 from its current value is primarily due (about 90%) to the change in emission height. For an increase of water vapor, the change in absor.ptivity plays a more important role (about 40%) but the change in emission height still has the largest contribution (about 60%).”
Nate has no evidence of the claim he made above. His biggest mistake was believing he did and offering up a paper that stated this theory is dependent upon the CO2 effect not being saturated and that the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis was false. . .a long held theorem of meteorologists in examining weather phenomena.
And yet here he is babbling away that the atmosphere is not saturated and of course he doesn’t have any source to back up his babble.
As usual, Bill can’t understand what he skims, and totally misrepresents it.
No quote no credit.
Nate needs a reminder of what he said:
”Here is a recent paper discussing the effect of the height of emission.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml”
and the thread where he said it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574567
Apparently senility is setting in for Nate. Sad. Hope you get better Nate. Watch your nutrition.
Nope. Nothing relevant there.
Are you physically unable to find a relevant quote in the paper to back up your claims, and actually quote it?
No surprise.
“this theory is dependent upon the CO2 effect not being saturated and that the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis was false. . .a long held theorem of meteorologists in examining weather phenomena.”
FYI for the perpetually confused: our atmosphere has a LAPSE RATE.
Its T decreases with height. Thus is is obviously NOT ISOTHERMAL.
I don’t know how anyone can be confused about this?
The paper discusses the NOT realistic ‘isothermal atmosphere’ case simply to find the portion of the GHE that comes purely from abs.or.ption.
It then discussed a realistic atmosphere, with the added effect of the actual lapse rate on the GHE.
It finds there is a much larger GHE due to the emission from high altitude, COLDER, GHG in the atmosphere.
That is the main point of the paper. Obviously you missed it.
I think Richard M is missing the basic science. One needs to think in terms of layers, not the atmosphere in total.
The spectral bands of of CO2 are pressure broadened near to the surface, thus the optical depth is reduced. Thus, surface emissions in the wavelength range around 15 microns will be absorbed in a rather short distance. At the same time, there are emissions from the surface boundary layer as a function of temperature which will occur in both upward and downward directions. The upward emissions will not be completely absorbed by the next layer, since these bands exhibit less pressure broadening. The downward emissions from each layer will be absorbed by the next lower layer.
I think that adding more CO2 means that the modeling the effect requires more layers to characterize the process. More layers implies that the ultimate effect is a warming of the column of air, particularly the lowest layers.
Nate says:
this theory is dependent upon the CO2 effect not being saturated and that the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis was false. . .a long held theorem of meteorologists in examining weather phenomena.
FYI for the perpetually confused: our atmosphere has a LAPSE RATE.
Its T decreases with height. Thus is is obviously NOT ISOTHERMAL.
I dont know how anyone can be confused about this?
———————
the hypothesis Nate is that without pressure or water change in the atmosphere the atmosphere is isothermal. . .carbon dioxide need not apply.
What you are up against is explaining why something that doesn’t matter is placed in the conclusion of your offered proof of the GHE. Its a hypothesis that temperature doesn’t change in the atmosphere with the addition of CO2. Yet the CO2 warming hypothesis through its so called trapping of heat would otherwise cause the atmosphere to warm.
There is a kind of twisted intuitive idea that it does but I would suggest that the exhaust of a fossil burning engine emits the CO2 as hot as its ever going to get and that instead of heating the atmosphere CO2 actually slightly cools it after the initial emission warms it and that would be consistent with the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis.
Bill,
NO QUOTE NO CREDIT.
As I noted, the paper discusses the historical isothermal model, in order to separate out the effect of emission height.
” Arrhenius (1896) made the first estimate of the greenhouse effect and of the sensitivity of the surface temperature to a change in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of the atmosphere. His computation was based on a single layer model where the surface was covered by an isothermal atmosphere ”
” With this assumption, the flux at the tropopause does not decrease any more when the total optical thickness τs increases if τs is larger than 4. It is then said that the greenhouse effect ‘saturates.'”
Nobody who is science literate thinks the atmosphere is actually isothermal. Thus the paper then discusses the realistic case:
“This saturation effect almost disappears when the temperature decreases with height: the greenhouse effect continues to increase when the optical thickness τs increases, even for large values of τs. For a nonisothermal troposphere the altitude where the emitted radiation escapes to space matters. We now present how this effect of emission height can be quantified.”
Maybe read the paper and learn all about it. Then provide quotes to support your understanding.
Well it is easy to rebut Arrhenius. It was done by R. Woods, Seim et al, Vaughn Pratt and countless others.
Here is one rebuttal that specifically points out the flaws in Arrhenius’ model.
https://youtu.be/qRHn9nkVWSQ?si=zfk5SOLEQhJE4Phv
Nate one cannot just claim something to be true to make it true. History is full of such bogus theories.
“Well it is easy to rebut Arrhenius.”
Who cares? The paper makes clear that it is an outdated, simplistic model.
Nice try at distracting from the main point of the paper, which you still seem to have missed, because you didnt read it.
anybody can hypothesize anything they want. Should we believe all those hypotheses until somebody proves them to be wrong?
Maybe read the paper and learn all about it. Then provide quotes to support your assertions. Thus far you havent.
i did read it. its an exercise in logic under the assumption that some warming from co2 has already occurred. under that assumption i largely agree with its conclusion. namely that if the co2 effect isn’t saturated or if the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis is false then more warming could occur from the addition of co2 in the atmosphere.
but we have apriori matters to still resolve. the questions raised by https://youtu.be/qRHn9nkVWSQ?si=3zr_Xg38O8JYobD7 discusses some the issues not addressed by the paper you have referred to.
“but we have apriori matters to still resolve.”
Nope. They have been addressed.
Has he published it?
What specific issue not addressed by the paper you want to bring up?
E. Swanson claims: “I think Richard M is missing the basic science.” and then goes on to say “The spectral bands of of CO2 are pressure broadened near to the surface”.
Except, I didn’t miss anything. I stated, “Its not saturation itself, its a byproduct of the state of the atmosphere.”
I was covering a completely different set of events that occur because of saturation. I showed why they will create a cooling forcing. This forcing counters the warming forcing due to pressure broadening. That’s why I stated the net result was only ” a little more precipitation”/
Willard goes on to claim “Since there is no saturation, RM needs to beg the question.”.
Yes, there is saturation low in the atmosphere. In fact, there’s several orders of magnitude of saturation. It is the “low in the atmosphere” situation that is important. That means all the DWIR radiation which hits the surface originates very close to the surface.
Maybe you should have tried to understand my comment instead of going off on a tangent.
Finally, Nate jumps in with more nonsense: “It is a myth that saturation levels have been reached”
Nope, it is simple analysis using any radiation model. All this statement means is that all the available surface radiation is being absorbed low in the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with the ability of increased levels of CO2 to widen the bands.
What this tells us is 15 micron radiation doesn’t travel very far before being absorbed when close to the surface. That tells us that DWIR absorbed by the surface also comes from very low in the atmosphere.
“, and that the GHE ceases at that point.”
I said nothing about the GHE. Why is it climate alarmists have such a big problem with reading comprehension?
Richard doesnt address my point at all, other than declaring it nonsense.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588819
The paper explains clearly how the GHE actually works, primarily in the upper troposphere. Perhaps you should at least look at the abstract, if not the whole paper, and tell us what is wrong with it.
Your warming produces cooling theory is still speculation lacking evidence.
E. Swanson says:
January 8, 2024 at 11:46 AM
I think Richard M is missing the basic science. One needs to think in terms of layers, not the atmosphere in total.
I think that adding more CO2 means that the modeling the effect requires more layers to characterize the process. More layers implies that the ultimate effect is a warming of the column of air, particularly the lowest layers.
—————————–
yes thats the theory Swanson. the problem is the theory is what needs establishing by science rather than fiat.
” the problem is the theory is what needs establishing by science rather than fiat.”
So often here we find Bill declaring such things by fiat, until others set him straight on what has already been established, observed, or measured.
Richard M, the notion that the CO2 bands are saturated is an old story which has been debunked repeatedly. HERE’s a post from Eli’s site from 5 years ago. Note that Eli’s graphs are based on constant pressure, so they don’t include the effects of pressure broadening which are reduced as pressure altitude is increased.
You wrote:
And the downwelling IR from each layer above is also absorbed by the layer(s) below. Thus, the effects down at the surface are the cumulative result of what happens to the layers above from the Stratosphere downward. And, don’t forget, the convective transport from the surface to the atmospheric boundary layer above is a function of the difference in temperatures. If the air temperature increases, the surface temperature must also increase to maintain the same convective heat transfer between the two. Not to forget that there will also be an increase in evaporation, which is a non-linear function of temperature and which adds H2O, a strong greenhouse gas, to the lower atmosphere.
“Global Warming” is the result of the atmosphere warming and the surface temperature follows along as a result.
Yep Swanson everybody has a theory. The question of science always is. . .have you provided compelling and retestable evidence for the truth of theory. Thats when theory emerges from belief and is on its way to becoming science. . .though it may never arrive as often experiments can produce spurious results of you are not very careful in establishing a valid control model.
Which is the primary skeptic position. Yes most of us recognize warming is occurring and there are lots of reason for why it might be, all seen in proxy data.
Yes, Hunter guy, theories should be backed up with facts, such as the measurements of the atmospheric transmission of CO2 and H2O in the thermal IR ranges. The data is incorporated in the models, such as MODTRAN, which are used to calculate what’s happening in the atmosphere. That data has been referenced many times, yet the “skeptics”, such as you, continue to ignore it.
Eli’s presentation is based on Spectral Calc, a program to calculate the emissions line-by-line as he presented. I hope that you will read the reference, but, it’s more likely that you will continue to ignore the vast amount of real world measurements by claiming that the resulting models aren’t perfect.
Swanson says:
”Elis presentation is based on Spectral Calc, a program to calculate the emissions line-by-line as he presented. ”
Thats your claim and maybe even Eli’s. But you guys are always insisting on having such works peer reviewed and published in a respectable journal. . .which I would define as one that is independent of special interests or corporate profits.
Hunter demands peer review as an indicator of absolute truth. Yet, he has recently posted a link to a YouTube video, claiming that:
.
Is YouTube now a “respectable journal” with scientific peer review and all that, and “one that is independent of special interests or corporate profits”? Did Google (a Giga Corporation) buy YouTube as a search for scientific truth, or did they want to make a profit? How many paper publishing mills have blossomed in recent years, publishing with no evidence of strict peer review involved?
Of course, you still can’t admit that there’s strong scientific evidence behind the problem of Global Warming, in spite what you and other the “skeptics” claim.
Swanson, we are talking about the swamp here.
There is no blueprint for the greenhouse effect and thus anybody’s opinion has weight until a scientifically validate blueprint has been authenticated.
I am not telling to believe the guy in the youtube video I am just highlighting that scientists don’t agree on how the GHE operates, assuming for course there actually is one.
I tend to think there is but without validating science showing our measurements beyond a reasonable doubt demonstrate that there is, we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket.
There are big risks in life. Risks intentionally set out upon and risks that arrive by accident.
By not mandating the entire population take the intentional risk there is a risk of accident. By avoiding a risk by accident by commanding and forcing the human race to forgo fossil fuels which have dramatically improved the way of life for the mass majority of the globe’s population seems to be a much larger risk. Perhaps the wisest choice is for government to stay out of it and allow independent voices convince individuals one by one if they should use fossil fuels.
But oh no you say? I am not going to sacrifice unless the government makes everybody sacrifice. Kind of says what my position is. One I share with Svante Arrhenius:
”We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” Worlds in the Making, 1908
Turns out Svante Arrhenius nailed it. For more than a century fossil fuels have delivered all that and more than at any time in the past. Do you really think that it is no longer true?
Hunter, sorry to take so long to reply, but I’m being blocked lately from reading/posting replies during most of the day.
But, to your comment, you suggest that the greenhouse “theory” must be proven absolutely true (a “blueprint”?) before the world’s people should take action. Of course, the scientific case is quite strong, a fact obscured by the many presentations which claim to debunk it, such as the guy in your video link.
But, it’s clear that you aren’t really serious, as you wrote:
That’s about the dumbest thing you’ve written lately. Of course, some populations might think a few degrees of warming would be good and demand continued emissions. Not to forget the old saying:
There are no “independent voices” in the game and there’s a long time lag between emissions and effects. For example, paleo-climate studies tell us that ~20k years ago, the Earth was about 5deg C colder and much of the high latitude NH was covered with glaciers. If governments can’t even get it together to govern without shooting at each other, why would anyone think that a band of “independent voices” would do any better, especially if those “voices” lack understanding of the science?
Swanson NGOs do nothing but talk about impending doom on every topic under the sun. sometimes they have been right, harm was done and we corrected it. actually that is exactly how the human race has progressed for hundreds of thousands of years. if you meekly don’t test the frontiers you are doomed. we are not the first adaptable animal on the planet.
Hunter, Now you’ve drifted away from the discussion of the science again, first throwing out a mention of “risk”, then moving on to “NGO’s”.
In other words, you have no reply to Eli’s post or any other discussion or the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere. You also refuse to discuss the YouTube video you posted. Since you’ve got nothing to talk about, why bother?
Swanson said:
”why would anyone think that a band of independent voices would do any better, especially if those voices lack understanding of the science?”
Well you opened up the diversion with your conversation suggesting you know better. . .despite your failure to prove a single watt of warming on CO2.
As Will Happer once said roughly as I don’t have the exact quote: When science is settled its easy to explain why to a classroom full of new science students.
But you guys can’t even explain it to top physicists like Lindzen. And Lindzen is just the sort of person to not get pushed around or be fearful of pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.
You say there is virtually no UVC reaching the surface due to ozone. Well there is virtually no CO2 frequency surface radiation that isn’t already blocked by a variety of molecules in the atmosphere. Where is the proof of the claim that isn’t true? Oh yeah maybe a photon or two like with UVC? But you can’t seem to grok that. . .instead you just surrender to the dominate narrative which uh is a political power play.
Hunter claimed that:
Hunter’s taunt is flawed because he presents no basis in physics with which to assess it. What does he mean by “no CO2 frequency” or the phrases “already blocked” and “variety of molecules”? Besides, one can not prove a negative, which Hunter demands.
Hunter still refuses to critique Eli’s analysis, perhaps because it involves models, which Hunter can’t understand.
Models don’t prove anything. Thats backwards. Its the models that need proving.
I have been watching the TV series Outlander than involves time travel. As a kid my favorite book was A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain. That involved time travel too.
A model is nothing but a fiction until its been established as fact. A lot of science fiction over the years turned out to be prescient.
I tend to believe some ghe is possible but I am not going to call my beliefs science.
What we are dealing with here is democracy vs technocracy. Technocracy is a form of oligarchy government and any time you have such a thing you have corruption and unnecessary restriction of freedom.
IMO, the FAA is being unreasonable in its sanctions against Boeing. It should be adequate at this point in time to allow the plugs in each plane be inspected before flying again. Then if the investigation turns up something else of concern later then deal with that at that time. But over regulation seems to be the order of the day. that needs to change to something much more reasonable.
Hunter begins his rant writing:
I’ve built computer models of dynamic systems, I presume that Hunter has not. As John Christy pointed out, the only way to assess the problem of increasing CO2 is to use models but models are never “perfect”. So, Hunter can continue to ignore the problem and all the scientific research work which has been undertaken for more than a century, including the measurements of the atmospheric transmission of various gasses and the modeling which has been developed to describe same.
“But you guys cant even explain it to top physicists like Lindzen.”
Pfft. More like not even top physicist Lindzen, can explain the GHE to you guys, to your satisfaction!
“Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point ‘nutty.’ He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.”
Nate says:
” ”Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point nutty. He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.” ”
Nate you put something in quotes with no attribution nor any such quote in this comment section.
But lets go through it:
”Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science.”
I wouldn’t expect otherwise. The question is what are the tenets of climate science? What you say they are?
”He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point nutty.”
I don’t think anybody in here I am aware of are saying anything different.
”He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity.”
Well that certainly seems to be a reasonable conclusion since some of it in the atmosphere is known to be of anthropogenic origin.
”and that this should warm the climate.”
Well since all the GHGs are in the climate system and they absorb IR is this in any dispute? It says nothing about how much or where in the climate system this alleged warming is occurring. This is in large part a product of climate analysis that for feedback, negative or positive to occur, there must at least be an increase in the energy content of the atmosphere.
So once again Nate goes into the strawman business.
The quote comes from a New York Times article.
Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science.
I wouldnt expect otherwise. The question is what are the tenets of climate science? ”
Now you are just playing dum.b
The tenets of climate science, such as that there is a GHE, that it is causing GW, are things that you regularly dispute.
Then why is Lindzen labeled a denier?
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
For some reason Gill presents a URL with the S-word to whine about the D-word.
the only basic tenet of climate science is that co2 absorbs an exponentially decreasing amount of ir as co2 concentration increases.
the logic then leaps to the sky is warm and skips over proof of how it got warm in the first place and how all natural multidecadal plus changes to that warmth are all bundled up into Milankovitch orbit eccentricities presented to the public as a slow and steady smoothed process occurring gradually over 100,000 years. none of that is basic tenets of climate science thats all pure unadulterated BS.
“the only basic tenet of climate science is that co2 absorbs an ”
Shameless climate science denier Bill ‘defines’ climate science basics!
No quote no credit Bill.
Bill Hunter says:
Nate says:
” ”the only basic tenet of climate science is that co2 absorbs an exponentially decreasing amount of ir as co2 concentration increases.”
Shameless climate science denier Bill defines climate science basics!
No quote no credit Bill.”
——————————-
well unless you need a reference for the climate science tenet listed above accepted by dr lindzen. . .that means i have named and offered a reference for one tenet which is one more than you have listed and offered a reference for Nate.
its really noticeable how you try to reverse the burden of proof. so at the moment basic accepted science wrt to the greenhouse effect is the list provided above. we can leave it at that if you have nothing else to offer.
Sure, replace decades of science research, observations, experiments with ‘the logic then LEAPS’
That is how science deniers deceive themselves.
Hunter has drifted far from the posts by Richard M claiming that the CO2 absorp_tion bands are saturated. As Eli pointed out, this isn’t true for the side bands and his analysis was for constant pressure, not the real world where there’s less absorp_tion in each layer above because of the reduction in pressure. One must also include the emissions of each layer, both upward and downward to more fully describe the situation
Here’s another reference which also provides a basic description of the science. The presentation is much as I described, using stacked layers instead of a single layer of the Tropopause.
Nate says:
”Sure, replace decades of science research, observations, experiments with the logic then LEAPS
That is how science deniers deceive themselves.”
——————————
i guess nate is saying that decades of research hasn’t resulted in any new established tenets of climate science since he was unable to list any additional ones.
Sorry Bill, Lindzen fully understands that the GHE exists and warms the Earth, while you dont. A basic tenet of climate science and meteorology.
Nate by your own rule; no quote, no credit.
Already gave you a quote. None so far from you.
the only quote you gave was unattributed and from a person talking about Dr. Lindzen. Obviously not a Lindzen quote. But hey I believe GHG logically would seem to be capable of causing some warming. It is hard for me to see a reason why Dr. Lindzen would think differently. But what people believe falls far short of the science tree.
“hey I believe GHG logically would seem to be capable of causing some warming.”
As suspected. Then your ongoing efforts to deny the GHE is just you being contrary for entertainment.
Good to know.
Nate says:
”hey I believe GHG logically would seem to be capable of causing some warming.”
As suspected. Then your ongoing efforts to deny the GHE is just you being contrary for entertainment.
Good to know.
—————————–
Well its certainly always a good idea to reserve your judgement on what seems logical until science proves it to be the case. I haven’t at all denied the GHE. I have only expressed certain uncertainties about it. I have a question from you up near the top that nobody seems prepared to answer. . .which is what would the temperature of the atmosphere be if there were no GHGs. I understand the difference between radiation loss from the surface and the measure by which we measure climate change.
I get the idea of GHGs warming the radiating surface but science isn’t gauging climate change by how much the radiating earth’s surface changes. Thats a real messaging problem.
I can even agree there is an energy imbalance. But does it arise from a LIA recovery or does it arise from GHG’s.
So the argument from my perspective boils down to a few questions. the first is What would the temperature be of a pure oxygen and nitrogen (non-ghg) atmosphere be.
I can only assume mainstream climate science didn’t want to answer that as everybody is running around in here claiming it would be 3k as if it didn’t exist and instead that it was some unknown temperature made of a gas transparent to LW.
Climate science went further with this charade and actually pretended that the surface of the earth was painted with a paint that was both a blackbody and reflects 30% of incoming light at the same time.
Any accountant whose ears haven’t perked up at this point either has to have a vacuum in his skull or have chips in the game.
Accountants from day one apprenticeship are trained to look for what is missing in the records.
So climate change would never get in its current state a clean opinion based on the sum total of evidence referred to in this fora.
Of course Nate if you are aware of some proof of what the atmosphere temperature would be before introducing GHGs to cool the atmosphere by all means pony it up. Then we can move on to some other questions. But you need a real foundation first not some totally dumassed null hypothesis that has no connection to reality.
Richard Linzen has said the CO2 contribution to warming is non-linear. The contribution of CO2 doubling is less than predicted and Happer has shown (in his recent paper) that another doubling after the initial doubling will be much, much less contribution. However, Berry has shown that most of the CO2 rise is natural and not due to humans and has falsified the IPCC’s CO2 and AGW model.
Properly … most of the CO2 rise is natural, and not due to humans and so has falsified part the IPCC’s CO2 and AGW model.
Actual science has estimated the HTE warming effect to be quite small or negative.
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-022-01568-2/MediaObjects/41558_2022_1568_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL104634
So the assertion that HTE is largely responsible is not been established.
People are just invoking correlation = causation, without knowing if there actually is a causal link.
“actual science”
lmao
Yep. I have 5 publications related to the topic in my stash. All are between -0.1 and +0.1 C effect. That’s right some even think the net effect is cooling.
DOI: 10.22541/essoar.169111653.36341315/v2
DOI: 10.1038/s41558-022-01568-2
DOI: 10.1007/s13351-022-2013-6
DOI: 10.1038/s43247-022-00580-w
DOI: 10.1038/s43247-022-00618-z
And to the decimal place too!
1 significant figure…the fewest possible.
Only “5 publications”?
Surely you can find more, bdgwx. There must be hundreds of publications supporting CO2 is a “forcing”. Being wrong is too often contagious….
Do you have any publications at all supporting your view? Or are you into post-modernist ‘science’?
barry, if you can’t correctly interpret a simple chart, maybe I can’t help you. Remember, you’re the one that can’t understand “view factor”, or “ARRIVING” flux.
Called anyone a “lying dog” today?
All this may be over your head….
A simple “no” would have been honest, accurate and on-topic. Sadly…
Wrong again, barry. You don’t like “simple” or “truth”.
You’ve been exposed as just another raving cultist, now in full meltdown.
That’s why this is so. much fun.
b,
I hope the rest are better than the first –
“We use chemistry climate model simulations to assess the long-term surface impacts of stratospheric water vapor (SWV) anomalies similar to those caused by HTHH, but neglect the relatively minor aerosol loading from the eruption.”
Do you collect fairy tales due to some uncontrollable urge?
Maybe you should find some scientific research to back you up – not fantasy based on wishful thinking!
Carry on.
bdgwx says:
”Yep. I have 5 publications related to the topic in my stash. All are between -0.1 and +0.1 C effect. Thats right some even think the net effect is cooling.”
From Bdgwx article number:
DOI: 10.22541/essoar.169111653.36341315/v2
”This study
neglects the aerosol effect and examines the consequences
of large stratospheric water vapor anomalies and reveals
that surface temperatures across large regions of the world
increase by over 1.5C for several years, although some
areas experience cooling close to 1C”
Is that out of your range bdgwx???
I just glanced at them all but noted most only assessed the GHE effect from Sulphur aerosols. the one above looked at water injection and ignored the aerosols. We have know from days after the eruption that sulphur dioxide levels in the plume were low.
But did any look at ozone destruction by chlorine in the saltwater?
I didn’t see any evidence of that looking at the abstracts.
I don’t have access to even an abstract from the Science article released on Thursday this week, that I linked to this morning below, but got these quotes online:
”the research team have found that all that saltwater reacting with other chemicals in the atmosphere, resulted in breaking down O3 in the ozone layer.”
”The depletion, they found was due to ocean water reacting with molecules in the atmosphere that contained chlorine, leading to a breakdown of ozonein amounts that had never been seen before in such a short time.”
”the speed of the observed ozone depletion challenges our understanding of the chemistry occurring on the surfaces of these particles and droplets.”
And we know the chlorine as previously detailed surrounding the Montreal Protocol will be recycling themselves for decades in stratosphere destroying ozone. So we still have much more to learn about this unprecedented event. Looks like the chlorine amounts might have been the equivalent of 6 or 7 years of CFC emissions leading up to the ban since the salt in saltwater is about 61% chlorine. My rough calculation based upon the amount of saltwater injected comes up to 2.6 million tons of chlorine out of 150million tons of seawater injected.
BH: Is that out of your range bdgwx???
No. Jucker found that the global effect is only 0.035 C. I have boldened global to reinforce the concept that it is the global average temperature that UAH publishes and which Jucker’s 0.035 C figure is relevant. And just so there is no confusion when I say global I mean the entire Earth; all 510e12 m2 of it.
https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/world/2024/01/04/2022-tonga-eruption-pierced-hole-earth-ozone-layer/72106191007/
We have just had a very warm year.
But I believe that on average the early Holocene humid Optimum,the Minoan warm period,the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period were all warmer than the Modern Warm Period.
Can you post a global average temperature reconstruction that shows that? I have boldened global to reinforce the idea that it is a global temperature I am asking about. And so there is no confusion…by global I mean the entire surface area of Earth; all 510e12 m2 of it.
When there is no conclusive science folks are perfectly entitled to believe what they want.
Where is your conclusive proof otherwise bdgwx?
I don’t know of any conclusive proof that the Holocene climate optimum, Minoan warm period, Roman warm period, and Medieval warm period were all warmer than the modern warm period. It’s why I’m skeptical of Charles Best’s claim and why I’m requesting the global average temperature dataset used to support that statement.
He did say he believed that to be the case bdgwx. Just like you believe that CO2 causes the GHE.
I suspect neither of you have any proof. While we know natural climate change moves several degrees during both glacials and interglacials we can’t say with any degree of certainty what is causing recent warming or since it arises out of recovery from a mini-glacial advance if any of the recovery is due to anything unnatural.
And so we have another fishing story from Gill.
Which post are you referring to Willard?
Does Gill always have to play dumb?
A fish story usually is considered to be an exaggeration. I was wondering what you think I was exaggerating. But if you want to be obtuse, be my guest.
But if I was exaggerating that Best’s opinion was only a belief that must mean you think there is more to it than that.
Personally, I have no opinion one way or the other on that topic; I was just poking bdgwx for asking for a dataset that only exists in bits and pieces like the dataset that argues CO2 is the keystone of climate change.
Yeah, there is a different standard of evidence for GW skeptics.
They merely need to claim they believe something is true, then that stands, until disproven.
Nate,
That’s correct. As Einstein said “one experiment can prove me wrong”.
You lot can’t even say what the GHE is supposed to do, let alone describe it!
“You lot cant even say what the GHE is supposed to do, let alone describe it!”
Nah, been there and done that many times. Many people on this forum have.
Either you have only short term memory, or you are a habitual liar.
Nate is referring to his frequent frantic chicken little narratives regarding runaway greenhouse effects that can’t be reversed for thousands of years. which of course he knows is all a lie.
Tag-team tro.lling again?
Nate doesn’t like it when I point out what a hypocrite he is.
Gill is referring to his screeds against kids on his lawn.
If only he had the integrity to go live in Sierra Leone.
I don’t have a lawn Willard.
Photo or it does exist, Gill.
Obviously then Willard is making up facts.
He wants me to provide him the proof. Well I think I will settle for the obvious lack of evidence for your claim and extrapolate that to all your dialogues. Its not easy getting your credibility back. But in good spirit here are some tips:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-you-regain-credibility-after-making-mistake-mitchell-levy-ccs
Gill obviously has never heard of the Internet.
Or perhaps he’s just as literalist in his mental life than in his Climateball life.
“Kids, get off my lawn”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_kids_get_off_my_lawn!
“Or it doesn’t exist”:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pics%20or%20it%20doesn%27t%20exist
But yeah – I’ve reversed the meme to echo Gill’s peculiar evidence-gathering MO.
Gee Willard I thought Nate was getting senile. Now here you are saying he is just a child playing in this forum.
Well I wished him well with the senility issue but if thats not it I hope he has fun, concentrates on his studies, a grows up to be a contributing member of society.
We already know of your wish that kids get off your lawn, Gill…
Not at all Willard.
Anybody with half a wit understands that the burden is on you to provide the proof. The more you attempt and fail at that the stronger the skeptic case gets.
Like the interchange between Dr. Lancaster and Dr Singer on the Grandfather of Global Warming admitting 24 years after Manabe and Wetherald that the science wasn’t there yet and the brouhaha ginned up by Al Gore over that.
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939326_283.pdf
Auditors and investigators go through this all the time. When you are trying to verify something you ask questions. When you get answers you test the answers. If nothing conclusive comes from the test you ask the question why to get more evidence. If that evidence pans out you are done. If it doesn’t you ask more questions.
On sensitive issues that might cause somebody to get fired it can really get strung out but you have to be a real dog as you don’t want to expose your partners to liabilities.
In a professional setting you can only charge by the hour and not by the job as the government doesn’t want you to be incentivized to cut corners and not tighten down the bolts (alluding to a recent news story)
the more questions you can ask in public and the less evidence that comes out as answers to those questions. . .the better it is for the skeptic position.
So no I don’t want you kids off my grass. I got you right where I want you and you a preforming a public service. Its all good!
Gill has never been an auditor:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-note-about-roger-revelle-julian.html
He just plays one in Climateball.
Thats just BS Willard.
Roger Revelle has a few videos around talking about climate change. He always referred to the issue as a ”potential problem”. Singer and Revelle’s paper does not say CO2 wasn’t a problem. It only said the science wasn’t there yet to identify it as a problem
Lancaster in your link is just whining about not adequately defending Revelle. ”My entire focus was on a wrong being done to Roger Revelle’s career and Roger’s concern for the Earth environment and for humanity.”
And in the note to Eli, he carefully avoids repeating the unfounded accusations against Singer of having duped Revelle. If you ask me claiming Revelle could be duped is a slur against Revelle.
I have seen a video around that time where Revelle carefully characterized CO2 as being a ‘potential’ problem. In fact he slipped once in the video and called it a problem, but he immediately paused and rephrased it as only potentially a problem.
It seems obvious to me he would not be working on the issue if he didn’t think it was potentially a problem. But he was a great scientist and careful with his words and his imagination.
So while Lancaster is lamenting having retracted his statement he ends the entire missive without providing a single shred of evidence that his attack on Singer had any justification.
Sorry Willard. Sour grapes doesn’t add up to evidence. The man should be thanking his wife for keeping him out of deeper trouble.
Hunter, the article by Fred Singer appeared in a Hoover Institute book, published in 2003. That work included several chapters regarding risk assessment, particularly chapter 6 related to the energy industry. There’s a reference regarding the report from the NRC called the “Reactor Safety Study”, aka, WASH-1400)). At the time of it’s release, I had been working on getting an initiative on the California ballot called “the Nuclear Safeguard Initiative” while also becoming a student again at Stanford focusing on renewable energy.
I recall attending a symposium presenting on the report’s conclusions, which were subject to considerable controversy, especially so after the Three Mile Island accident. TMI was a near miss in that it could have been much worse. The clean up took more than 8 years to remove all the damaged fuel (some 20 tons), by which time, little concern remained in the eye of the public. FYI, a discussion of the TMI accident can be found in a book called “Normal Accidents”, which also includes other examples of accidents due to human failures. The recent episodes with BOEING 737 Max 9 aircraft are similar examples of human failures. Climate Change from AGW is another such problem, which was once was easily dismissed as a “potential problem”, but which now appears to be on our door step.
> Thats just BS Willard.
Gill comes out full swing with his most powerful argument.
And he’s suddenly the Defender of the Meek:
Fred Singer is not a good person, so of course he’ll defend him!
And to his imaginary tapes I will counter:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110807205947/ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/revelle-gore-singer-lindzen
E. Swanson says:
”Climate Change from AGW is another such problem, which was once was easily dismissed as a potential problem, but which now appears to be on our door step.”
I just looked out on my door step and I didn’t see it. Perhaps you can elucidate on what it looks like on your doorstep so I can look out for it.
Explicit descriptions work a lot better than something that doesn’t even give us hair color, eye color, height, weight, and complexion. Maybe you can get a police sketch of it.
Hunter:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/01/25/record-warmth-earth-climate-europe/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/01/26/airplane-flight-record-speed-pacific-jetstream/
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/26/record-warm-january-washington
Roger Revelles point was reasonable, that the evidence on AGW was not yet sufficient ….in 1991, when he died.
After 33 more years of GW evidence, that is no longer a reasonable position.
yeah i sent an email to nasa as to why they only referenced tydall and arrhenius on their greenhouse page. they responded in days by putting in a reference to model output.
here we can see the reliability of that. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/new-article-on-climate-models-vs-observations/
also you had the ipcc touting an increasing hotspot combined with a cooling upper stratosphere as empirical evidence for the greenhouse effect. a signature allegedly of the climate models back when they told us the science was settled.
now after no sign of an enlarging hot spot they are now trying to claim it never was a signature of greenhouse warming. but that means they were lying before and had merely imagined it without any scientific evidence. now nate is claiming they finally found the evidence. but nate apparently lost the link to it. probably just another lie on the part of nate.
Not unexpected this month, but still quote remarkable.
The warmest December, by 0.39C. That means, the last 6 months have all be records – and all by some margin.
The average over the last 6 months has been 0.82C, beating the previous Jul – Dec record, set in 2019, by 0.46C.
The big question is how long will this continue. ENSO conditions are still far below 1998 and 2016 levels, and this current heat is happening much sooner than would be expected in a usual El Nino cycle. So will things get much hotter next year, or does it mean that most of the heat has already been released?
Not at all “remarkable” given the multiple natural warming factors currently in play.
El Nino onset was earlier than normal so not at all surprising to have reached its peak earlier. We should continue to see its warming influence on UAH for 2-3 more months. What happens next will probably determine if 2024 ends up to be the “hottest year”. Looks like most models are projecting La Nina next.
If el Nino has peaked, that happened late November, and peak global temps usually follow peak el Nino by 3 to 6 months.
Still in the peak.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Happy new year to all people appreciating science.
And thanks to Roy Spencer for posting a link to CDAS’ year-to-date 2m anomaly picture – I’m not sure it’s available free of charge to anybody.
Happy New Year Bindi
Thanks Rob, happy to read from you again.
The sub-head reads: “2023 Was the Warmest Year In the 45-Year Satellite Record” — simple and correct.
All else is equivocation.
Who do you accuse of equivocation? Just don’t point at Dr Spencer. The commenters here will bloviate, others will obfuscate, none hold much of a candle to him and Christy’s work.
Christy’s work is the structure upon which the commenters hang their disingenuous remarks.
I found Dr Spencer’s site by Google – as a scientifically literate person interested in climate science, it was initially a nice find.
I would have expected (one of) the most active forums discussing global surface temperatures to be screaming about CO2 levels and fossil fuel emmissions. And that to be a fairly uniform discussion.
Nothing else adequately explains the alarming and persistent temperature rises we are experiencing. That’s what the very strong consensus says – not my words.
Imagine my shock at finding the denialst, pathologically obfuscating discussion on these monthly posts. Full of huffing, arrogant busybodies, groping at every inadequate alternative explanation under the sun.
Presumably because recognising the destructive power of fossil fuels is countercultural, ‘woke’ and socialist. Which does not sit with the middle aged ‘conservative’ men.
Humanity is heading for unstoppable calamity. Hope you feel proud of yourselves, denialists. The earth cares not for your disbelief.
Peace out.
Jay, what you’ve found here is the clash between science and cult beliefs. Notice that you avoided any real science. You mentioned consensus, correlation, alarmism, beliefs, and politics, but you avoided any science.
So, you’re at the right place. Now, all you have to do is learn. Start here:
Five reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1572982
“E pur si muove”
And yet–even here at this site–it moves. No argument here in the comments is worth aven a moment’s analysis. The ‘argument’, to the extent there is one, is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Here it’s just equivocation–sometimes with links.
Just like Jay, you avoided any science. But, you got a foreign language in there. Are you Italian, or just pretending to be a phony linguist, like Bindi?
My comment was about science. If you can’t respond with science, maybe you should learn some….
Here is hard core science that shows CO2 isn’t causing climate change.
See figure 4 as it is the ‘money’ slide. If you can understand the graph you’ll realize that CO2 spectrum is saturated.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
Figure 4 of your link doesn’t say what you think it says. Among the many things that it does say are:
1/ CO2 traps a significant amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) energy.
2/ Doubling of CO2 concentration not only increases the amount of trapped OLR, it also raises the emission height to colder levels of the atmosphere further slowing the rate of emission to space.
3/ 1 and 2 above are as predicted for AGW.
A,
You wrote –
“CO2 traps a significant amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) energy.”
And the globe still cools – every night.
You’ll have to do better than that.
Ark, your lack of understanding of physics is showing.
CO2 absorbing infrared does NOT mean CO2 can “heat the planet”. Bananas absorb infrared.
You cult is seriously lacking in both science and common sense. You need to open your eyes. Beliefs ain’t science.
E pur si muove
[ibid.]
I grew up in the 1960s. What I’ve learned so far in life is that there is always somebody somewhere exclaiming that “the end is near,” or that we are heading into the “Apocalypse,” or “if we don’t change our ways, we are going to hell.” And these people always benefit financially in some way, usually by selling books.
When I was young, I was intrigued by this topic. It wasn’t until the 1970s when I asked a meteorology professor of mine at Texas A&M University about some of these catastrophic predictions. He plainly told me these predictions were without merit and unscientific. Ever since he told me that, I’ve dismissed all of these calls for the Apocalypse.
Human-caused global warming is yet another one of these New Age fads that has unfortunately caught on to a huge portion of the global population. Al Gore was a driving force behind this, and he has amassed a tremendous amount of wealth from this scam. Many others have also benefitted from the global warming bandwagon. Dr. Lindzen has stated that our climate science funding has now been completely corrupted by it.
We are in a warming trend. My reaction to this is “so?” The earth has always had warming and cooling trends. Climate has always changed in the past. It is doing one or the other. Climate has never remained static over long periods of time.
Whenever a scientist advocates for policy, that scientist has stepped out of the science. That scientist has become a politician in disguise.
100% speculation & equivocaiton.
I grew up at the same time. Tobacco companies assured us cigarettes did not cause cancer. Gas stations sold us lead poisoning. Entire industries fought against the clean air and clean water acts.
Who benefits from using the same playbook to deny the role of AGW in our increasingly unstable climate?
If you want to finger liars for money, that’s your target, not a bunch of poorly-paid eggheads in academia.
But in the end, the line moves up. None of your equivocations change that.
Tobacco, ethyl gasoline, Nixon’s EPA – all unrelated issues that have nothing to do with the human-caused global warming scam. Ethyl gas was developed during WWII to reduce aircraft engine maintenance. The US Auto industry followed because of the benefits of ethyl gas. But all leaded compounds are poisonous, and it was determined that a replacement for ethyl gas had to be found. Once the chemical engineers found that replacement, the petro-chemical industry, the auto industry, and EPA regulators cooperated with each other to implement the replacement. This was back in the days when the EPA was smaller, more efficient, and focused on the environmental issues that really mattered.
Nowadays, calling CO2 a pollutant is an absurdity that has gone completely off the charts. Dr. Richard Lindzen said it best. “What pollutant is there that when you get rid of it – you die?”
FYI
Wiki:
“Tetraethyllead (commonly styled tetraethyl lead), abbreviated TEL, is an organolead compound with the formula Pb(C2H5)4. It is a fuel additive, first being mixed with gasoline beginning in the 1920s as a patented octane rating booster that allowed engine compression to be raised substantially. This in turn increased vehicle performance and fuel economy”
Yep could be the reason why so many of the kids around here have brain problems.
Rob Mitchell,
you should send your comments to professor Dessler at TAMU. He’d love to hear from a fellow Aggie on this subject.
https://experts.tamu.edu/expert/andrew-dessler/
Whoop!
I attended a debate between Dr. Gerald North of Texas A&M University and Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT back in Jan 2010. It was at the Petroleum Club in Houston. It was the most respectful and informative debate on climate change I had ever seen. North was on the alarmist side, but not to the extent Dessler is. I learned more in that one debate than anything I’ve read or watched about climate change.
The scientific debate about climate change revolves around “positive feedbacks.” Lindzen pointed out that the earth has already done the CO2 experiment a long time ago. If negative feedbacks did not exist back then, we never would have survived.
On January 27, 2010, at the Petroleum Club luncheon event, Gerald North was asked what natural observation over the next decade would cause him, to dismiss the IPCC conclusions?
North responded that he didn’t think any trend or observations over the next 10 years could falsify the prevailing anthropogenic global warming theory, but he did say a general cooling trend – absent an obvious explanation such as a large volcanic eruption – over two decades could disprove the IPCC’s findings.
Now, by the looks of the graph at the top of this page, I’ll bet dollars to donuts that North still holds the same opinion.
Dessler pulls no punches. He gets it from his late father, Alex, founder of Rice University’s space science department, who suffered no fοοls, gladly or any other way.
Ark, you need to ask Dessler or North, or any others of your cult “Can infrared always warm an object”?
Do you have an answer?
Countercultural LMAO
MFA, I am not sure what you are selling, but people like you are part of the problem, not the solution. There is a massive amount of hype about climate. That is a fact. The true real-world effect of increasing CO2 is not well defined and cannot be calculated from basic scientific principles or modeled accurately in the real atmosphere. There is wide disagreement in the various climate models produced by actual climate change “believers”. There is not a consensus, but there is a lot of hot air coming from people such as yourself. Slogans about oil companies and comparisons to tobacco do nothing more than decrease your credibility.
“The true real-world effect of increasing CO2 is not well defined and cannot be calculated from basic scientific principles or modeled accurately in the real atmosphere.”
Say that’s true. Say that there is a very wide uncertainty on the effect of increasing atmos CO2 on global temperature.
This would mean that not only is there a possibility that the effects could be mild to non-existent, but also, because uncertainty cuts both ways, that there is a possibility that the effects could be significant and significantly deleterious.
So, we don’t know which. How should we view the risk within such wide error bars? I think it’s pretty straightforward. We can’t get off planet. We can’t reverse-engineer the atmosphere after loading it with more GHGs. We are conducting a huge geophysical experiment and we are trapped inside the test tube with our atmosphere. It seems very obvious to me that we should mitigate the risk until we understand it better – narrow the uncertainties.
Barry, I agree 100%. We should plan for the best, but prepare for the worst. What sort of message do you suggest? Should we continue to tell populations in the developed countries that it is all our fault, we can fix it ourselves, and we must panic so we can treat it as an emergency? Or, should we be honest and tell them that countries such as China, India, and the rest of the “developing” world get a free pass from the IPCC, and we should prepare ourselves to be at the mercy of these other people who we do not control?
barry, you’re avoiding the established science of physics, again.
Can infrared always warm an object?
http://climateball.net/but-china
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The real issue here is that even skeptics duped and brainwashed themself there is something or everything wrong with warmer temperature when the opposite is true, warmer is overwhelmingly beneficial,
If you keep arguing with cranks about how much warming is too much and what causes the warming you just handed it to them and lose
“warmer is overwhelmingly beneficial”
That seems overly broad and vague. How much warmer *is* better? I have no problem accepting that 0.1 C could be better; I strongly doubt that 10 C warmer is better. Pretending that any and all warming is “overwhelmingly beneficial” is just as misguided as insisting that any and all warming is terrible.
Further, even if people agree that there is some amount of global warming that is “overwhelmingly beneficial”, the *rate* of warming is also important. Rapid change means disruptions to farming, to local flora and fauna, to infrastructure, etc. Warming by 2 C in 2 centuries is very different than warming 2 C in 2 years.
you are constructing impossible scenarios, just painting boogieman on the wall
Perhaps. But no more so than you are “painting flowers on the wall”.
I am looking at the reality how life on the planet flourished when it was significantly warmer than today, you just making up nonsense
Eboy is thrilled by the possibility of a new PTME.
Flourished for who? Where?
Given that there are all different climates on the Earth, the warmest of which nobody thrives in, eg the Sahara, the whole ‘warmer is better’ meme makes no sense.
“I am looking at the reality how life on the planet flourished when it was significantly warmer than today”
And again, rate of change matters. 50 million years ago the earth’s surface was ~ 10 C warmer — perhaps ‘life flourished’ then. Temperatures slowly cooled for much of that 50 million years. That works out to and average of about -0.000002 C/decade. Certainly more or less at various times. That amounts to changes on the order of 1 C over 1,000,000 years. Not changes of the order of 1 C over 100 years.
Species evolve and adapt over 1,000,000 years. Forests grow and shift over 1,000,000. Not so much over 100 years.
My climate just changed 50 degrees F withing the last 6 month you numbnuts
I have seen the lines you typing here 100 times, all you do is regurgitate climate doomsters cult talking points, not anything from critical thinking of your own, you have no brain
“My climate just changed 50 degrees F within the last 6 month”
No. It didn’t.
Changing weather is not climate change.
Changing seasons are not climate change.
Only long-term changes in values count as “climate change”.
Tim,
Like four and a half billion years of the Earth cooling?
Climate is more than temperature, being the statistics of historical weather observations over a nominal period.
Tempered by subjective comments, of course.
According to Wikipedia –
“The concept of Mediterranean climate is characterized by mild wet winters and warm to hot, dry summers . . . ”
A concept? Completely useless, if you think that things like severe unpredictable flooding and raging bushfires won’t occur. Try and measure “Mediterranean climate” in some useful way.
I’m just pointing out that “climate” is a very vague term – like “personality”. It can mean different things to different people.
You still haven’t managed to say whether the GHE results in heating, cooling, or nothing at all. How hard can it be?
Mike Flynn,
Antarctica ice all melted at least once.
What are you braying about?
Makes no sense? Maybe to someone who can’t think. All of modern civilization has occurred during the Holocene. What do you think will happen to civilization during the next glacial period? If what follows is like what has been, will all of civilization be located plus or minus 10 degrees from the equator? By the way, what’s the temperature supposed to be and how do you propose we control it?
” All of modern civilization has occurred during the Holocene.”
Yep.
” What do you think will happen to civilization during the next glacial period?”
Strawman, since no one has suggested cooling back to the level of the glacial maximum would be BETTER than the T of the Holocene.
It may come to a surprise for the alarmists that during the hottest event in geological history, the PETM, there wasn’t a mass extinction.
Life flourished, primates entered America via Alaska, the only local casualties were ocean bottom dwelling cold loving critters, but even those did not go extict globally.
Extiction Rebellion has nothing to rebel against.
It may come as a surprise to Dutch contrarians that their country would not exist during the PETM unless they developed submarine technology back then. Mammals dwarfed, insects thrived, volcanoes partied like no one was watching, and the only anoxic event from the Cenozoic occurred. Paradise on Earth.
Adam MacKay may have been onto something.
But no mass extinction.
Yes there was mass extinction. 35-50% of forams in the deep oceans died due to acidification and anoxia.
The PETM mass extinction is one of the nine documented greenhouse mass extinction events in Earth’s geologic history.
Besides, perhaps our contrarian visitor should read back what I wrote. The PTME is short for the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
The question was whether warming is BETTER, not whether mass extinction results. Another strawman.
PETM is not TPME willard
As I said the only casualties of PETM were ocean bottom cold loving critters.
Primates conquered the world.
Yes, “ocean bottom cold loving critters” which decomposed and putrefied giving the ocean the consistency of gelatin with a purple oily sheen on top. The best part were the large gas bubbles belching from the bottom, hydrogen sulfide.
Enjoy!
My understanding is that during the PTME, the evidence shows that the ice sheets essentially all melted, and sea level rose 100s of meters.
Would that be better for humans?
If you know that “PETM is not TPME,” dearest Hans, why did you invoke the TPME after I said “Eboy is thrilled by the possibility of a new PTME”?
It’s PTME, BTW.
BTW,
The PETM and PTME are two separate greenhouse warming events.
PETM = Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum occurred around 55 million years ago.
PTME = Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction occurred around 200-250 million years ago.
Yes, the rate of warming is possibly the primary problem. That is always ignored by contrarians.
And yet the rate of current and past warming is something we know so little about. Similarly the rate of cooling (i.e. natural variability). The resolution issue between climate proxies (like ice cores) and modern weather is never really discussed by consensus climate scientists.
This recent spike – much as the 98 El Nino spike, are real problems for claims like ‘it’s hotter than its been in 10,000 years’ because averaging period for your signal matters! Shades of Mann’s hockey stick.
Perhaps not coincidentally, that’s also the blind spot in the ‘solar power is cheap’ narrative that is breaking power grids and electricity pricing models around the world. Sure it’s cheap near daytime solar max on a sunny day. But at midnight all that cost saving and more is lost through extra costs for transmission and storage with in a distributed network. And so we get negative electricity prices at times of peak production…that’s alright, who needs cheap, stable electricity supplies hey?
> And yet the rate of current and past warming is something we know so little about.
We should know the difference between years and eons.
Rate of warming? I’d say 1C over 180 years is not exactly fast. Considering that warming is a re-warming from the Little Ice Age, there is nothing to write home about.
Akasofu claimed the re-warming should be about 0.5C/century. That’s about right.
> I’d say 1C over 180 years is not exactly fast.
In geological times, it’s exceedingly fast.
Where’s your evidence?
Start here, grasshopper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale
A comment of utter insanity. The global biosphere is unravelling, and its supposed to be ‘a good thing’?
Is this a climate science forum or a forum for denialists?
Jay, you clearly demonstrate your alarmism. And just as clearly you don’t understand the real science.
For example, can all infrared cause warming?
a. Yes
b. No
Puffman has taken heed:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1586244
It seems Jay didn’t come here to discuss science. As expected, he doesn’t know the science and doesn’t want to learn.
Jay,
You wrote –
“The global biosphere is unravelling, . . . ”
As it has done for billions of years. 99.99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.
The surface is no longer molten, and liquid water covers 70% of the surface. Are you living in a cultist fantasy, perhaps? Open your eyes – accept reality.
Or not – who cares?
Give credit where it is due. Arkady Ivanovich predicted 0.83 +/- 0.05 C.
I’d love to know how this was done.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1582803
Ark hit the bullseye, while bdgwx threw nonsense against the wall.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1583336
Puffman links to another comment he does not understand.
Where are his famous riddles?
I also wondered about that prediction as it aligned almost exactly with what I was thinking. My logic was based on increasing Antarctic sea ice. It would be interesting to know why Ark thought there would be a decrease.
What I’m most interested in is the +/- 0.05 C uncertainty. Given that UAH measurement uncertainty is +/- 0.20 C that puts a floor on any prediction. Unless…Ark had inside information or was processing the raw AMSU satellite feeds on his own and had a high confidence bead on how December was playing out.
Or unless he just got lucky. Surely we’ve all hit the bullseye at least once just by chance.
It would have to be a combination of luck and a miscalculated uncertainty.
FWIW the best I’ve been able to do is +/- 0.22. Had I predicted 0.83 I would have only had a 3% chance of hitting it exactly.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Does anyone have an explanation (other than HTE) for the sudden increase observed these past few months?
There are 4 natural warming factors:
– HTE
– El Nino
– solar cycle 25 max
– decreased sea ice in Antarctica.
There could also be a natural decrease in cloud cover for whatever reason(s) [not just solar activity].
From what I can tell the warm phases of both the AMO and PDO lead to a decrease in cloud cover. Since these are generally longer term factors I tend not to mention them. The AMO has been positive since the 1990s.
Aerosol load – esp in Strat?
Prevailing wind strength and direction (key for Pacific islander ocean navigation of cycles of several years).
We are still getting very bright, lingering yellow sunsets that only started after HTE.
I’m at -32S in probably one of the least cloudy places in earth. It’s been particularly cloudless and windy of late, but we are also one of the windiest places on earth 🙂
It frustrates me that when cloud and wind are such significant factors in air temperature that there isn’t better data on it from ground level. Perhaps modern satellites now have high resolution better data – it may be there, just hard to analyse and so ignored by people whose minds are made up. Wind direction in Perth literally makes a difference of 10C in maxima and minima at this time of year. So very small subtle shifts in the amount of easterly to westerly will easily give you 0.6C changes in average. This is at 1.5m height of course, no idea what happens at higher altitudes, I guess it’s damped, but energy balances are still in play.
Ah…that explains why Vancouver, Canada is as cold as usual this time of year. We have so much cloud we hardly ever see the Sun.
On the Canadian prairies they like to tell us, if you don’t like the weather, wait 10 minutes and it will change. Here in Vancouver we tell you, don’t get used to the Sun, it will be hidden in 10 minutes.
Here in Guelph, ON I haven’t seen even a glimpse of sun since December 21, when it was partly cloudy in the afternoon. The last mostly clear day was on December 19.
September, October and November had some fairly sunny weather.
August was cloudy.
August and November were cool. September, October and especially December were warm.
Vancouver has set multiple daily high temperature records in the last two weeks and none of the North Shore Ski fields or Whistler has snow down low. How can you say that it is as cold as usual when we are in a top 5% temperature year?
The reduction of aerosols and clouds over shipping lanes due to mandated reduction in fuel sulfur content, has been proposed as well.
But, of course, humans had nothing to do with producing the warmest year in Dr. Roy’s records (and likely the warmest year since the start of the industrial revolution.) (Snark!)
For those of you who follow (and snipe) at my climate related videos, you might find my latest interesting:
“What Tree-Rings Tell Us About Climate Change”
https://youtu.be/2_Y_Ew3NI6Q
Mark, have you been able to learn any physics yet?
For example, do you understand why a vacuum tube burning your fingers is NOT proof of the GHE?
Mark,
You wrote –
“But, of course, humans had nothing to do with producing the warmest year in Dr. Roys records (and likely the warmest year since the start of the industrial revolution.) (Snark!)”
Burning hydrocarbons produces both heat and CO2 and H2O.
Thermometers (thermo meters) are designed to respond to heat – not gases.
Maybe your attempted sarcasm missed the point? You are just confused, not necessarily unintelligent.
Swenson,
is this the level this forum has stooped to, in attempt to deny the impossibly obvious?
Jay,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
is this the level this forum has stooped to, in attempt to deny the impossibly obvious.”
I assume you are trying to disagree with something I wrote, but are too gutless to say what it is.
Am I right, or am I right?
[chortles at fact-free commenter]
And your proof that humans had anything to do with it is….?
Here you go, sealion:
https://www.ipcc.ch/
The UN is just a special interest organization still searching for relevance like any other bureaucracy without relevance tries to do.
It votes and its usually the authoritarian states versus the free states. . .though occasionally some of the states can be bought off. . .given exemptions. . .indulgences. . .payola. . .etc.
Area Minarchist Minarchizes.
being against a state that wanders into authoritarianism and corruption doesn’t make one a minarchist Willy.
I am certainly not a minarchist by any stretch of the imagination. I support quite a few social and regulatory programs but object to how many of them become corrupted and operate in the shadows with no accountability and lying about the science behind their unstated true objectives.
[GILL] being against a state that wanders into authoritarianism and corruption doesnt make one a minarchist
[ALSO GILL] I take no political stance beyond being of a mind for minimal government.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Area Minarchist Minarchizes.”
Really? What does that mean?
willard doesn’t understand English and believes minimal to be a noun.
Gill wishes away the definition of minarchism by some wishy-washy Zen in The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance handwaving.
minarchism is a noun and a particular but not the only form of minimal government. Willard must be the CEO of a strawman factory.
That would of course be a time consuming and money losing strawman company.
Perhaps Gill needs the simplified Wiki:
> Those who believe in a night-watchman state are called “minarchists” and they believe in minarchism.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state
There must be a lapse rate in his understanding of how words work.
Apparently the ”anarchist” root of the word ”minarchist” soared like a dodo bird right over his head.
A night watchmen state is a state where government doesn’t do anything at all except provide security and police forces which compared to anarchy isn’t actually anarchy. . .
of course an idea about on par with as socialist that believes that a socialist government is a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. . .which is really a government with so much power it can ignore the needs of the people. . .rig elections. . .prosecute the opposition. . .you name it.
Like Iran declaring itself democratic. . .except to run for office you need the blessings of the Mullahs.
To be a anarchy where you can do anything except what the police powers shoot you for.
Minimal government isn’t a noun like socialist, or anarchist. Its a noun modified by an adjective where minimal can mean anything that’s not excessive.
Obviously Willard must be for excessive government. He will be until that government comes after him.
Maybe he ought to start by learning the language before posting.
Apparently Gill is ready to invent word roots.
Minarchism is a portmanteau made of mini and -archy
Smol gubmint.
No wonder he has so many difficulties following along.
Just as obviously Willard mistakes an adjective for a noun and perhaps unwittingly admitted as a consequence of that grammatic error that he is for excessive government.
Just as Gill can’t grok that “minarchist” is indeed an adjective that exists, he can’t grok that “archy” is the root, not “anarchy”!
Minarchism:
noun
Belief in the desirability and practicality of minimum government.
Adjective (1)
Of, relating to, or characteristic of minarchy.
Noun (1)
An adherent or proponent of minarchy.
https://dunno.ai/search/word/minarchist?hl=en
Indeed you can use any noun as an adjective. But they are more formally referred to be adjectival nouns.
Of course also minarchist government does not equal minimal government. So you are just spinning your wheels on this one Willard.
In “race car” there is an adjectival noun, like in “Sky Dragon crank.” “Related to minarchism” indicates that we’re talking about an adjective that is used as an adjective. Many “istic” endings are shortened to “ist” over time: realist, relativist, opportunist, etc.
Gill is biting more than he can chew once more.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
In five days, the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will form two centers in line with the geomagnetic field to the north.
https://i.ibb.co/7QnbZQx/fnor.gif
https://i.ibb.co/Cn4f3Mv/416855536-873248828135428-5364395726179246908-n.jpg
The center of the Earth’s magnetic field over Canada is weakening and the center over Siberia is strengthening, and the north magnetic pole is moving quite rapidly toward Siberia.
Warm air from over the Atlantic will reach almost to the pole over Greenland, and a frigid high will form in eastern Europe.
Sensible temperature for March 8.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=49.4%3B21.2%3B4&l=feel&t=20240108%2F1200&w=strong&fbclid=IwAR1qkZw1vSDIFkk92qMSNJrAbeB09OUS8Z7BI2PLEU5Sw3sWxpeSrtntxbw
Sorry, sensible temperature on Jan. 8 at 1 p.m.
DR Spencer
Is there any suggestion that ENSO plays any part in the warming, as in, is the reason we are on an upward long term trend?
How could ENSO contribute if its primary role is to redistribute heat? Any discernible trend would arise from an imbalance in Earth’s energy budget.
ENSO is certainly playing a role in the current short term warming over the last several months since it has switched from La Nina to El Nio. However, the long term average and trend in the ENSO phase is neutral so it is not having an effect on the long term warming trend.
simon…we had a mini ice age from about 1300 to 1850. The planet needs to rewarm. That’s what you are seeing with the long term warming.
The SSW will also bring a harsh winter in North America, which could last until April.
https://i.ibb.co/pKMkmw9/gfs-t50-nh-f72.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f000.png
Large ice growth in the Bering Sea.
https://i.ibb.co/sqNZD3X/r12-Bering-Sea-ts-4km.png
In Scandinavia, temperatures drop below -40 C, with thick snow cover.
Thunderstorms in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/LPrX8W7/archive-2-image.png
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Swedish astronomer Anders Celcius died in 1744 at the age of 43.
His rival, Daniel Gabriel Farenheit, was still convinced that Anders was 109.
Wince.
Aaaaaargh!
Did anyone ask Kelvin?
Fwiw, I predicted this suoer el nino back in 2012, based on observed periodicity.
For 2023, I forecast a new super El Nino, in amplitude comparable with the 1998 and 1973 events and with a maximum value of 0.66 degrees. After 2023 the temperature will remain on a new plateau for another 25 years, which will be 0.163 degrees higher than the current plateau.
https://klimaathype.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/the-carbon-dioxide-thermometer-revisited/
Let me know when you get your paper peer-reviewed and published.
AQ,
You wrote –
“Let me know when you get your paper peer-reviewed and published”
What has a published, peer-reviewed paper to do with anything?
All about as silly as another commenter demanding “Please explain how you “KNOW” what caused the drop. Prove to me that it is more than guesswork.”
Non-scientists demand proof. Real scientists like Albert Einstein say “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
You GHE wafflers can’t even describe the GHE – apparently it is a god which cannot be described, only worshipped. Have you ever considered that anthropogenic heat might be causing thermometers to become hotter? All energy use produces “waste” heat. All. Energy consumption, both global and per capita has increased enormously over the last hundred years. I would expect additional heat at a temperature above the natural environment, to be reflected in increased temperature readings.
If you believe otherwise, please support your belief with facts (preferably unknown to me). Don’t start babbling about how much sunlight strikes the Earth. Half the Earth is in darkness, merrily getting rid of the heat of the day.
Over the last four and a half billion years, this has resulted in cooling.
No wonder none of you GHE donkeys can even describe this GHE you worship so assiduously. Just another bunch of religious fanatics, studiously avoiding reality.
@Antonin Querty, This was published in 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
Published in which recognised journal?
AQ,
You can find complete rubbish like this, published in what some might consider a recognised journal –
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”
From the abstract-
” . . . Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.”
GHE cultists probably accept this sort of fantasy without question.
Are you one of them?
Published as is, not peer reviewed, like science was published before 1910.
it is an observation with an extrapolation.
Take it or leave it, let’s wait what 2048 brings.
Hans, the problem is that curve fitting is not science. It’s innovative and fun, but it ain’t science.
At least it won’t be long before we know if that model is tenable! He’s predicting a massive drop in temps shortly.
IF there is a drop, the science of figuring out a plausible mechanism for a 25 year cycle AND the probabilities of such a cycle being coincidental need to be considered. To say it isn’t science isn’t fair, it is a remarkable correlation at face value, though I would rather see the data as a scatter plot than wiggle matching.
I discovered a periodicity for super El Nios of 25 years, coincidence? Who knows, let’s wait 25 years and find out. Could simply be related to the geometry of the pacific ocean, like a swing also has an eigenfrequency.
I don’t know.
I guess it’s down to how you define a “Super el Nino?” By another blogger’s definition, we’ve had SENs in:
“1877-78, 1888-89, 1972-73, 1982-83, 1997-98, & 2015-16”
No 25 year periodicity by this metric.
You “discovered” this from a sample of size …. what?
It’s a good thought Hans, thanks for sharing it. As you say, all we can do is wait and see.
I played a lot with l nin o and periodicity. There does seem to be a resonate frequency at 22 to 24 years. It wasn’t clear if this was amplification from being in phase with the PDO. Or perhaps the Hale solar cycle at 22 yr modulation of l nin o or perhaps both. But the PDO is basically a super L Nin O.
Aaron…Tsonis et al did a study into the phase relationships between the major oscillations and concluded warming occurred when oscillations were in phase and cooling when out of phase.
Re resonance. As someone who has tuned electronics circuits and witnessed the amazing response of a resonant circuit (on an oscilloscope) when excited by a resonant frequency I can only imagine such an impact with resonant conditions in the atmosphere.
Even at the atomic level, resonance is major. Electrons in atoms that absorb and emit EM do so through resonant conditions.
Nice job Mr. Erren!
Is this warming spike simply Tonga?
Don’t know, but I can tell you it is unrelated to CO2.
That’s right Gordon, the difference between this year’s temperatures and last year’s temperatures is not caused by a 3 ppm rise in CO2 concentrations. Find me a scientist who claims it is.
The what are you braying about incessantly? If you know CO2 is not causing the warming why are you an alarmist?
AQ,
You wrote –
“Thats right Gordon, the difference between this years temperatures and last years temperatures is not caused by a 3 ppm rise in CO2 concentrations.”
You are correct. No reputable, sane, scientist claims that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes surface thermometers hotter.
Nutty GHE cultists might, I suppose, but they are too gutless to claim anything at all. Just innuendo and implication – predictions of unspecified doom, by the look of it.
Correct me if I’m wrong – a fact or two might help. Do GHE cultists claim anything at all?
The evidence says no.
DOI: 10.22541/essoar.169111653.36341315/v2
DOI: 10.1038/s41558-022-01568-2
DOI: 10.1007/s13351-022-2013-6
DOI: 10.1038/s43247-022-00580-w
DOI: 10.1038/s43247-022-00618-z
The first one is about CO2 in the ocean! The second one claims a 1.5C rise due to H-T!
I stopped there.
So the sources bdgwx quickly threw against the wall run counter to his beliefs. That doesn’t matter, to cultists, beliefs out rank science.
For the lurkers…
The first is focused on the effects of the water vapor in the stratosphere as a result of HT without the consideration of aerosols. The author states the warming effect is 0.035 C.
The second claims only a few hundredths of degree rise peaking around 2026 as a result of HT.
b,
“The author states the warming effect is 0.035 C.”
Obviously a nutter mired in a fantasy. Radiative transfer models are just silly, and anybody who believes that global average temperatures accurate to 0.005 C have any basis in reality, is obviously away with the fairies.
No wonder people have to pay substantial amounts to have this sort of rubbish published. No reputable publisher would pay an author for poorly written fairytales like this.
Before the UAH “pausebuster” anomalies of 2015/16, the overall LT trend stood at 0.11 C/decade. I plotted that and added a couple of lines roughly 2 standard deviations from the mean (2014) trend and extending to the current time, to see how the anomalies after 2014 fit into that envelope.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:13/plot/uah6/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/to:2024/trend/detrend:0.14/offset:-0.0727/plot/uah6/to:2024/trend/detrend:0.14/offset:0.1553/plot/uah6/to:2024/trend/detrend:0.14/offset:0.044
barry…your amateur graphs might impress Binny, but they are quite boring to anyone who understand real science. Anyone who has tried w4t knows how easy it is to turn a negative trend into a positive trend by slightly adjusting one parameter.
Every single choice made plotting the graphs is displayed on those graphs. for all to see. If you have a complaint about what I did, please be specific.
The graph shows exactly what I said it did.
barry, please stop trolling.
What do the satellites show?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2023.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2023.png
Invariably the lowest temperature at 100 hPa.
Global temperature can only rise with a marked increase in the density of the troposphere.
The troposphere contains 75 percent of atmospheres mass- on an average day the weight of the molecules in the air is14.7 lb..(sq. in.)- and most of the atmospheres water vapor. Water vapor concentration varies from trace amounts in Polar Regions to nearly 4 percent in the tropics. Most prevalent gases are nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (21 percent), with the remaining 1- percent consisting of argon, (.9 percent) and traces of hydrogen ozone ( a form of oxygen), and other constituents. Temperature and water vapor content in the troposphere decrease rapidly with altitude. Water vapor plays a major role in regulating air temperature because it absorbs solar energy and thermal radiation from the planets surface.
The troposphere contains 99% of the water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor concentrations vary with latitudinal position(north to south). They are greatest above the tropics, where they might be as high as 3% and decrease toward the polar regions.
In winter, the height of the tropopause decreases and above 60 degrees latitude is an average of only 6 km.
Oh look … it’s the person who stated that there was NO WAY we would get an El Nino this year.
How is El Nino affecting the weather in Australia?
https://i.ibb.co/s5w37Hw/archive-7-image.png
The national average over the last 6 months is +1.7C on the 1961-1990 average.
NSW (where I live) is +2.1C.
Please explain what you believe a count of lightning strikes at one precise time on one precise day is supposed to tell me in relation to El Nino.
AQ, I thought everyone was going to die above +2.0 C (preindustrial). You even need to add another 0.5 C to your values. Are there a lot of bodies in the streets?
AQ,
Nobody at all can usefully predict future states of the atmosphere.
Anyone who believes otherwise is suffering from mental impairment.
Hey Ren … see what Flynnster is saying about you.
You are not that obtuse are you? Ren reports on weather predictions which are localized atmospheric phenomena. Swenson is talking about the atmosphere as a whole which he has already described as chaotic.
Taken as a whole over 30 years, we call that climate. Swenson is merely claiming we cannot predict climate.
AQ,
Oooooooh! What a zinger – or damp squib.
I’m sure you think that Ren needs your help to read my comments, but I assume he is rather more intelligent than you. Why do you think he cannot understand English?
You wrote “Hey Ren see what Flynnster is saying about you.”
Are you really that incompetent as a troll, or do you think otherwise?
Carry on.
Gordon,
Some insist the Earth is ablaze, but the truth is, most places still cycle through the usual range of temperatures, sometimes colder, sometimes warmer. Except for the higher Arctic regions, where Javier Vinos’ perspective seems to offer the most insightful take on what’s happening there.
https://judithcurry.com/2023/11/04/solving-the-climate-puzzle-the-suns-surprising-role/
What El Nino???
December ENSO3.4 average: +2.07
Oct-Nov-Dec ONI: +1.94
https://i.ibb.co/7W0M9nb/coraltemp-v3-1-global-current.png
Yet another graph from you that says nothing in relation to the comment you were replying to.
AQ,
That’s a bit harsh, surely. Your full comment was –
“December ENSO3.4 average: +2.07
Oct-Nov-Dec ONI: +1.94”
Is that supposed to “say something”?
The meaning is completely clear to regulars, except those who are irretrievably dim.
Bumbling Barry,
You wrote –
“The meaning is completely clear to regulars, except those who are irretrievably dim.”
Do GHE cultists talk in tongues, or are you aiming for the appearance of human intelligence through cryptic obscurity?
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
What Barry says is loud and clear.
You’re just playing dumb.
Cheers.
The meaning is clear only to alarmist twits.
Spoken like a true Sky Dragon crank who plays dumb about the simple concept of warming.
Silly Billy Willy,
You wrote –
“Spoken like a true Sky Dragon crank who plays dumb about the simple concept of warming.”
Really? A bit odd, in view of your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”!
Simple? You sound extremely simple. You really believe that warming (increased temperatures) is really “slower cooling” (decreased temperatures), don’t you?
That’s because you are exceptionally ignorant and gullible, I guess. Do you have any other reason?
You’re not just a bit weird, you’re very weird!
“Do GHE cultists talk in tongues”
Only sounds that way to cavemen, or the science illiterate.
barry, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Frigid air from Scandinavia is beginning to flow into central Europe. Soon the high above Iceland will bring Arctic air to western Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/1fbP5vw/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
While most Germans were celebrating the New Year, farmer Dirk Reinecke was frantically getting his three tractors ready to go and bring in 150 tons of potatoes before they rotted in the floods. That would have meant the loss of his entire winter harvest.
Reinicke and other farmers in Lower Saxony, northwestern Germany, have been working non-stop for days, helping to seal off dykes from the floods. “I’m 58 years old and I’ve never experienced a flood like this before,” Reinecke told DW. “We normally see some flooding every four to five years. But we’ve never had water levels in the village as high as they are now.”
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-floods-farmers-fight-to-save-harvests/a-67892023
Still amazing how many newsies Ren misses.
Weather, we willy, weather. Big floods happen every now and then for some unknown reason. Can’t predict them and that means you definitely cannot predict climate.
[BORDO] Weather, weather.
[ALSO BORDO] What El Nino???
Willard,
Your gibberish generator is working well, I see.
Mike Flynn,
Keep braying, one day someone will care!
Willard,
Your gibberish generator is still working well, I see.
Maroon Mike,
That’s it.
That’s the comment.
Maroon Mike.
Willard,
Your gibberish generator is still working well, I see.
Which part of “Maroon Mike” do you not get, Maroon Mike?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
My favourite quote so far is by Jay:
“Imagine my shock at finding the denialst, pathologically obfuscating discussion on these monthly posts. Full of huffing, arrogant busybodies, groping at every inadequate alternative explanation under the sun.”
So true.
S,
Yes, those reality denying GHE cultists are a strange lot, aren’t they?
Can’t describe the GHE, or even say what is supposed to do. Continually predicting doom and disaster, unless mankind changes its evil behaviour, stops despoiling Mother Gaia, and carefully follows the ravings of autistic teenage girls!
What a lot of dingalings these deniers are!
Something needs to be done about them, don’t you think? Re-education camps, maybe?
Mike Flynn,
You deny the greenhouse effect.
You deny having yourself described the greenhouse effect.
You deny having received multiple descriptions of it.
You deny being Mike Flynn.
Is there something you do not deny, silly Sky Dragon crank?
Wonky Wee Willard,
Your fantasy is not reality.
There is no “greenhouse effect”.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years (continuous sunlight notwithstanding), and the surface does so every night, radiating all the heat of the day to outer space.
I don’t deny that you are so mentally afflicted as to reject reality, but that’s your affair. Maybe people more gullible or less intelligent than you (a very low bar, I know), are likely to believe you.
I wish them luck – they’ll need it.
Off you go now.
Moeron Mike,
Your denial is public knowledge.
What are you braying about?
Wonky Wee Willard,
Your fantasy is not reality.
There is no “greenhouse effect”.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years (continuous sunlight notwithstanding), and the surface does so every night, radiating all the heat of the day to outer space.
I dont deny that you are so mentally afflicted as to reject reality, but thats your affair. Maybe people more gullible or less intelligent than you (a very low bar, I know), are likely to believe you.
I wish them luck theyll need it.
Off you go now.
Moeron Mike,
Why do you keep copy-pasting your comments?
Wonky Wee Willard,
Your fantasy is not reality.
There is no “greenhouse effect”.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years (continuous sunlight notwithstanding), and the surface does so every night, radiating all the heat of the day to outer space.
I dont deny that you are so mentally afflicted as to reject reality, but thats your affair. Maybe people more gullible or less intelligent than you (a very low bar, I know), are likely to believe you.
I wish them luck. They’ll need it.
Off you go now.
Maroon Mike,
Do you regret not having started your own blog, like Roy asked you to do when you commented here under your real name?
Wistful Wee Willy,
What are you braying about, little donkey?
Are you still claiming that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”, perhaps? You really arent the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
Keep trying.
[hee-haw]
Maroon Mike,
Ask me again for a description of the greenhouse effect.
Cheers.
It is bombast from the likes of Jay and stoopidb that is causing the warming. You are both full of hot air and low on scientific fact.
Enonteki airport recorded -42.4C at 6.21 UTC, the coldest January temperature in Finland since 2006. Some other reports from Lapland region:
-43.2C Kvikkjokk-rrenjarka, Sweden
-42.9C Karesuando, Sweden
-42.7C Jckvik & Naimakka, Sweden
-42.5C Nikkaluokta, Sweden
-41.8C Kautokeino, Norway
Source: SHMI, Ogimet, FNMI
https://i.ibb.co/PxQwjxf/416833806-770664178429737-5243894640263611999-n.jpg
Your point?
AQ,
Are you trying for the appearance of intelligence through brevity? It’s not terribly effectve.
You really don’t care whether he has a point or not, do you?
Oh well, maybe you can try to be gratuitously offensive for no good reason at all.
Carry on.
Palmowski is a coolista who only reports about cold temperatures.
Never would you hear from him that the nighttime forecast for Nikkaluokta on next Tuesday is +2 C.
Here we see the nighttime forecast for Europe next night:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240106&daytime=night&iid=euro
And here we see how it looks like for next Tuesday:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240109&daytime=night&iid=euro
Lulea in North Sweden moves in 3 days from -30 C up to +2 C at night exactly like Nikkaluokta.
jay…”The global biosphere is unravelling, and its supposed to be a good thing?
Is this a climate science forum or a forum for denialists?”
***
What is a global biosphere and exactly where is it unraveling? I would say Roy’s blog is largely a climate science blog even though Roy’s degree is in meteorology. Roy, being an open-minded scientist allows us to discuss a wide-range of topics.
What is a denialist? What is being denied? I would say that every skeptic on the blog dos not deny the planet has warmed about 1C since 1850, we are simply debating the cause. There is amply evidence that the so-called warming is in fact a re-warming from the 400+ year Little Ice Age that ended circa 1850. Strange that the planet started warming just as it ended, don’t you think?
To be more accurate, the LIA appears to have had peaks around the same time as two major sunspot minima, the Maunder and Dalton Minimas. Do you have any science to refute those facts or are you going to bury your head in the sand and go with your authority figure, the IPCC, who offers no proof to the contrary?
> Roy, being an open-minded scientist allows us to discuss a wide-range of topics.
From the horse’s mouth:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
Woeful Wee Willy,
I believe Dr Spencer referred to “Sky Dragon Slayers”, but you can’t help yourself can you?
That’s why you put your words “Sky Dragon Cranks” in Dr Spencers mouth, in a slimy attempt at social engineering. About your standard, as usual.
As others have pointed out, Dr Spencer allows free-wheeling comments here, whether you think he should, or not.
Maybe he has altered his views since 2013? He certainly has looked at other reasons for higher surface temperatures, apart from the mythical “greenhouse effect”. Are you upset that Dr Spencer is not bending to your will?
Diddums! Run to Mommy – she will kiss it and make it better!
You fatheaded loser!
Only joking, I don’t know your hat size, do I?
Mike Flynn,
Here is how Roy continues:
Op. Cit.
So I got to ask – why are you still braying here?
Woeful Wee Willy,
I believe Dr Spencer referred to Sky Dragon Slayers, but you cant help yourself can you?
Thats why you put your words Sky Dragon Cranks in Dr Spencers mouth, in a slimy attempt at social engineering. About your standard, as usual.
As others have pointed out, Dr Spencer allows free-wheeling comments here, whether you think he should, or not.
Maybe he has altered his views since 2013? He certainly has looked at other reasons for higher surface temperatures, apart from the mythical greenhouse effect. Are you upset that Dr Spencer is not bending to your will?
Diddums! Run to Mommy she will kiss it and make it better!
You fatheaded loser!
Only joking, I dont know your hat size, do I?
Moeron Mike,
Sky Dragon cranks did not slay anything. They are cranks.
You did not slay anything. You’re a crank.
What are you braying about?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Are you upset that Dr Spencer doesn’t seem to be taking much notice of your slimy attempts to determine who comments on his blog?
Oh dear, maybe Dr Spencer is capable of moderating his blog, all by himself.
Have you managed to convince anybody that your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is useful?
I doubt it, but correct me if I’m wrong. There will be two people I can deride.
Moeron Mike,
Do you regret not having started your own blog, like Roy asked you to do when you commented here under your real name?
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Are you upset that Dr Spencer doesnt seem to be taking much notice of your slimy attempts to determine who comments on his blog?
Oh dear, maybe Dr Spencer is capable of moderating his blog, all by himself.
Have you managed to convince anybody that your description of the GHE as not cooling, slower cooling is useful?
I doubt it, but correct me if Im wrong. There will be two people I can deride.
Maroon Mike,
I’m not the one who insists on “slow cooling”:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
You are.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
Are you upset that Dr Spencer doesnt seem to be taking much notice of your slimy attempts to determine who comments on his blog?
Oh dear, maybe Dr Spencer is capable of moderating his blog, all by himself.
Have you managed to convince anybody that your description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” is useful?
I doubt it, but correct me if Im wrong. There will be two people I can deride.
Maybe you could change your GHE description, and agree with Bindidon, that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer is simply nonsensical.
No GHE. Cooling is not heating. You are a peabrain
Carry on.
Maroon Mike,
Are you afflicted by Alzheimer’s disease?
Maybe you could try to change your own description of the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Switching to “heating” does not count.
That’s just one of your silly semantic games.
As I recall, Roy leveled his opinion at a certain extremist element of the Skydragon Slayer crowd. I don’t know, it was before my time on Roy’s site and I have no idea what the disagreement is about. I have never been associated with that group.
I have read some of their opinions and they are quite out there. However, there are good elements in the Slayer community like Philip Latour, a chemical engineer, and mathematician Claes Johnson. Those are the ones involved in writing ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ and I don’t know why Roy associated them with the rest, if he did.
There are scientists expressing skeptical views that I question. The late Fred Singer, who I admire for his work, made a comment about skeptics using the 2nd law to defeat the greenhouse effect, that their argument was wrong. Sorry, I think Fred was wrong and I wrote and laid out my disagreement. No reply.
No matter how anyone argues against the 2nd law, which clearly restricts heat, ‘by it’s own means’ from being transferred only from hot to cold, they are clearly wrong. There is no justification for arguing the opposite, that under certain conditions, heat can be transferred cold to hot.
When that appears to be done, as in an air conditioner, it is done via smoke and mirrors. No heat gets transferred from a colder environment to a hotter environment, the overall effect is accomplished by compressing a low pressure gas to a high pressure liquid and forcing it at high pressure through a cooling’ radiator that is exposed to a higher temperature.
That process represents the pressure/temperature relationship in the Ideal Gas Law and is not about heat transfer per se.
There is no way to perform such a process in the atmosphere, by it’s own means, therefore the notion of transferred heat from colder GHGs in the atmosphere to a warmer surface is pseudo-science.
The overall effect is one of cooling one room and venting the heat extracted to a warmer room but that is not a transfer of heat from cold to hot by its own means, which is the basis of the 2nd law.
I was once in touch with alarmists Stefan Rahmstorf, from whom I first heard the quaint notion that the 2nd law is not contravened if a the flow of IR from surface to atmosphere has a positive balance. Problem is, the 2nd law is about a transfer of heat and not a flow of radiation between bodies radiating EM in the vicinity of each other. You can sum those quantities to your heart’s content and it tells you nothing about heat transfer, for the simple reason that IR is not heat.
BTW, I know of no way of summing EM fields in the atmosphere. They are unrelated fields that simply pass through each other, like communications signals that are EM.
Besides, when two bodies radiate energy at each other and the bodies have different temperatures, the transfer of heat can only be from the hotter to the colder. I use the term ‘transfer’ loosely, in reality, no heat is transferred. When IR is emitted at the surface of one surface, associated heat is dissipated in the same energy conversion. If the target is cooler, then electrons in the atoms of the cooler surface can absorb the IR and convert it back to heat.
Nice word salad, Bordo.
You deny the greenhouse effect. You are a crank. That makes you a Sky Dragon crank.
Roy showed the door to Sky Dragon cranks like you more than a decade ago.
Why are you still here?
Woeful Wee Willy,
I believe Dr Spencer referred to “Sky Dragon Slayers”, but you cant help yourself can you?
Thats why you put your words “Sky Dragon Cranks” in Dr Spencers mouth, in a slimy attempt at social engineering. About your standard, as usual.
As others have pointed out, Dr Spencer allows free-wheeling comments here, whether you think he should, or not.
Maybe he has altered his views since 2013? He certainly has looked at other reasons for higher surface temperatures, apart from the mythical greenhouse effect. Are you upset that Dr Spencer is not bending to your will?
Diddums! Run to Mommy she will kiss it and make it better!
You fatheaded loser!
Only joking, I don,t know your hat size, do I?
Mike Flynn,
Have you misplaced your comment once again?
Woeful Wee Willy,
I believe Dr Spencer referred to “Sky Dragon Slayers”, but you cant help yourself can you?
Thats why you put your words “Sky Dragon Cranks” in Dr Spencers mouth, in a slimy attempt at social engineering. About your standard, as usual.
As others have pointed out, Dr Spencer allows free-wheeling comments here, whether you think he should, or not.
Maybe he has altered his views since 2013? He certainly has looked at other reasons for higher surface temperatures, apart from the mythical greenhouse effect. Are you upset that Dr Spencer is not bending to your will?
Diddums! Run to Mommy she will kiss it and make it better!
You fatheaded loser!
Only joking, I don’t know your hat size, do I?
Maroon Mike,
It’s just a flesh wound.
You’ll get over it.
Woeful Wee Willy,
I believe Dr Spencer referred to “Sky Dragon Slayers”, but you cant help yourself can you?
Thats why you put your words “Sky Dragon Cranks” in Dr Spencers mouth, in a slimy attempt at social engineering. About your standard, as usual.
As others have pointed out, Dr Spencer allows free-wheeling comments here, whether you think he should, or not.
Maybe he has altered his views since 2013? He certainly has looked at other reasons for higher surface temperatures, apart from the mythical greenhouse effect. Are you upset that Dr Spencer is not bending to your will?
Diddums! Run to Mommy she will kiss it and make it better!
You fatheaded loser!
Only joking, I don’t know your hat size, do I?
Maroon Mike,
You say –
“I believe”
Do you?
You’re more the kind of chap who denies having provided a description of the greenhouse effect.
Gordon Robertson
Heat can only transfer from hot to cold, energy transfers BOTH ways in both radiant heat transfer and conduction.
When two molecules collide, one moving faster than the other and they exchange energy the slower molecule will transfer its energy to the faster one and the faster one to the slower one.
You are stuck in a Universe of your own making with your own rules. You will not think outside your created box of ideas.
A cold object will transfer energy to a hotter one. A hot object will transfer energy to a colder one. The hot one cools because it transfers more energy than it receives from the cold one. The cold one warms because it receives more energy than it is losing.
I am wondering why this concept is impossible for you to understand. Can you explain why you think a cold object cannot transfer energy to a warmer one? I have posted experiments showing it does and to you.
Energy can be transferred from cold to hot but will not result in the hotter object becoming warmer still.
"…energy transfers BOTH ways in both radiant heat transfer and conduction. When two molecules collide, one moving faster than the other and they exchange energy the slower molecule will transfer its energy to the faster one and the faster one to the slower one."
So when the green plate is pressed together with the blue plate, back-conduction will result in the heated blue plate rising in temperature to 262 K whilst the green plate will decrease in temperature to 220 K?
“Noman” gets it all confused, again.
He believes conduction is similar to radiation. He confuses molecules with photons.
But, he inadvertently proves the GHE Is bogus — “The hot one cools because it transfers more energy than it receives from the cold one.”. Yes, the sky cools the surface.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why does “the sky” cools the Earth faster when it’s over a desert?
Oh, and how does it do – does it send cool rays?
less water vapor affecting the lapse rate Willard
Gill forgets to tell how water vapor affects anything in the Sky Dragon Crank Universe.
Heat capacity of dry vs. humid air.
Dry air cools the Earth.
Humid air _____?
We live amongst the air, not the actual ground surface itself. Humid air has a higher heat capacity than dry air, so requires more energy to heat, and is harder to cool. You now have all the information you need to understand where you went wrong.
Willard must still be on the surface backradiation theory and hasn’t caught up with advancing science.
The backradiation theory held sway for a few years before being debunked by R. Woods.
Then it popped back into common discourse for those not on the continuing reeducation programs for climate science. Surface backradiation help popularity until finally they awarded a Nobel Prize to Manabe a couple years ago. But some stuck in the muds haven’t yet recognized the shift despite years of hot spot talk.
You know the theory at 10’s of thousands of feet in the sky where its impossible to do an experiment without a NASA-sized budget. Where backradiation is still alleged to work because its colder there.
Gill must have difficulties following the logic of Sky Dragon cranks.
Humid air _____?
Bill got it absolutely right. The complete discussion:
[LITTLE WILLY] Why does “the sky” cools the Earth faster when it’s over a desert? Oh, and how does it do – does it send cool rays?
[BILL] Less water vapor affecting the lapse rate Willard.
[LITTLE WILLY] Gill forgets to tell how water vapor affects anything in the Sky Dragon Crank Universe.
[DREMT] Heat capacity of dry vs. humid air.
That’s it. You have everything you need to understand. Less water vapour affects the lapse rate because the heat capacity of dry air is less than that of humid air. Nothing to do with radiative properties whatsoever.
Bill and DREMT, thanks for babysitting silly willy.
Someone has to do it…..
[PUFFMAN] Yes, the sky cools the surface.
[ME] Why does “the sky” cools the Earth faster when its over a desert?
[GILL] less water vapor affecting the lapse rate
[ME] Gill forgets to tell how water vapor affects anything in the Sky Dragon Crank Universe.
From these two questions Graham D. Warner infers that I’m wrong.
Whacky Wee Willy demonstrates his intellectual capabilities (or lack thereof) by writing –
“[ME] Gill forgets to tell how water vapor affects anything in the Sky Dragon Crank Universe.”
A good example of Willard’s stupid attempts to deny, divert, and dissemble.
Trying to appear intelligent, he assumes he can read minds. He doesn’t indicate what the “Sky Dragon Crank Universe” is supposed to be, nor the way in which water vapour affects anything at all in it!
Wee Willy is just annoyed that Dr Spencer is taking no apparent notice of Wee Willy’s slimy attempts at manipulating Dr Spencer, and is lashing about in a juvenile fashion – with little effect.
Willard seems singularly clueless – unable to even describe his magical GHE any better than, in his words, “not cooling, slower cooling”!
There is no GHE. Over the last century or two, man-made waste heat has increased enormously, and affects thermometers, which indicate higher environmental temperatures.
Willard and his ilk prefer listening to fairytales, and denying reality. Sad.
Willard is confused. The surface temperatures he gets from his local weatherman and used to measure global warming isn’t the surface at all. Its the air 2 to 10 meters above the surface. Heat capacity in the moist air is much higher than the dry air so it cools much more slowly. But Willard is so confused that when you give him the correct answer he is completely baffled. A 3rd grader could understand this but its hard to teach old dogs new tricks.
Mike Flynn,
Speaking of deflection, how would you explain that desert nights cool faster – is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?
Cheers!
Gill teaches lapse rates to 3rd graders every week. Community services was a better option for him than doing time.
Too bad his clients did not get their money back!
"But Willard is so confused that when you give him the correct answer he is completely baffled"
Exactly, Bill…and he just keeps going. He just keeps digging himself in deeper. It’s quite something to watch.
> Can you explain why you think a cold object cannot transfer energy to a warmer one?
Looks like Puffman now accepts that it can:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1587486
LOL!
Wee Willy is definitely a strange lad.
He probably admits that putting ice in your soup cools the soup.
His inability to understand English prevents him from accepting the reality that when the surface is exposed to something cooler – the atmosphere, say, – the surface cools.
He seems astonished that somebody might say “Yes, the sky cools the surface.”, but might not express the same astonishment if somebody said “the ice cools the soup”.
Willard even manages to lose at “silly semantic games”!
What a donkey he is.
Maroon Mike keeps braying.
It’s quite something to watch.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Its quite something to watch.”
Without all the entertainment what actually would get posted here?
Willard especially, it doesn’t matter what is said he simply believes it all adds up to what his Daddy told him.
Whatever the topic, Gill will boldly go wherever Graham D. Warner goes.
Rubber stamping is his mission, however fraudulent it may be.
Yeah, I guess it’s entertaining, Bill…but it would be more rewarding to see him actually learn something.
Not going to happen, though. The more we show him the truth, the more he runs in the opposite direction.
Thats because his daddy has him on a leash and knows how to correct him to keep him going the direction his daddy is headed.
Graham D. Warner’s patting means all the world to Gill.
Too bad he can’t face facts:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588088
He still just keeps going. He still just keeps digging himself in deeper. It’s still quite something to watch.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Never have, never will.
“No matter how anyone argues against the 2nd law, which clearly restricts heat, by its own means from being transferred only from hot to cold, they are clearly wrong. There is no justification for arguing the opposite, that under certain conditions, heat can be transferred cold to hot.”
And it is a strawman.
There is simply NO NEED for heat to transfer from the cool atmosphere to the warm Earth surface in the GHE, since the Earth’s surface has its own heat source. Yet changes in the atmosphere can result in the heated Earth surface getting warmer.
Just as there is no need for heat transfer from the cooler oven door to a warm oven, since the oven has a heat source. Yet closing that door enables the heated oven to get hotter.
No one would claim a 2LOT violation in that case.
nate invokes the insulation argument but still refuses to condemn the 3rd grader radiation model. this demonstrates he holds uncertainty on his claims precisely like a guilty man denying his dishonesty having told the story multiple times while the facts change to fit the holes in his argument. which is it nate? insulation and the sun not having a blackbody limit as described by the Anthony Fauci of the corrupt climate change bureaucracy or is it backradiation? please explain in detail.
Gill parades his ignorance that the SB Law includes an emissivity parameter that can vary between 0 and 1.
Sounds like Willard is ready to accept that the GHE is closer to 10C than it is to 33C. I don’t see anybody in the mainstream science community recognizing the emissivity parameter in estimating the GHE and here we have Willard declaring we should.
Looks like Gill finally took a look at the equation all by himself.
Why else would he try to squirrel his way out of another dead end?
“nate invokes the insulation argument but still refuses..”
Bill has no rebuttal of this straightforward logic. So he tosses out chaff, and dives down familiar rabbit holes.
Nate lives in a world where facts are cherry picked.
Deal with these facts Nate while you support your cherryished ideas of what a GHE is.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588820
Gill portrays his riddle as fact.
A riddle that sinks his lapse rate explanation to boot.
What else is new?
Bill’s lapse rate explanation is correct regardless of whether there’s a GHE or not. Even if there were a GHE, it would just be an additional reason why the sky cools the Earth faster when it’s over a desert. The lapse rate explanation would still apply. Certainly nothing has “sunk” it, nor could it.
Graham D. Warner, like Gill, fails to account for the fact that the Moon has no lapse rate at all.
In what way does the absence of a lapse rate on the moon affect the reality that Bill’s lapse rate explanation applies to the Earth?
Graham D. Warner must be asking the void, for he’s not supposed to be addressing me.
Sky Dragon cranks can believe that greenhouse gases block radiations on their way in, but not on their way out.
The path of a Sky Dragon crank is not a consistent one.
Little Willy attacks another straw man.
[GRAHAM D WARNER] Sky Dragon cranks have no problem with clouds reflecting sunlight, we have no problem with this part of the explanation.
[ALSO GRAHAM D WARNER] You cannot “trap” OLR. You can only slow its progress into space.
By that logic, Sky Dragon cranks might as well argue that clouds cannot “reflect” sunlight!
Clouds are not GHGs, and reflection is not absorp.tion/emission. Your ignorance is mind-blowing.
“Bills lapse rate explanation is correct regardless of whether theres a GHE or not.”
What is Bill ‘explaining’ with it?
I’ll bet he is focusing on one fact while ignoring many other relevant ones.
…your ignorance is mind-blowing.
Nate says:
”Ill bet he is focusing on one fact while ignoring many other relevant ones.”
So you are in denial that water vapor cools much slower than say co2?
Water vapor not only has a specific heat more than twice that of CO2 it also carries more than 2,000 times the specific heat of CO2 per degree C as latent heat that is released as the water vapor condenses. That changes temperatures at altitude resulting in slower cooling.
So not only does water vapor carry vastly more heat into the atmosphere its concentration in the atmosphere is far greater and it has a much shorter life span in the atmosphere of 8 to 10 days versus co2 of about 5 years. So the delivery of heat from the surface to the atmosphere is like many orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emissions.
Gill accepts the greenhouse theory out of a sudden.
There is hope!
Besides:
> per degree C
ROFTL!
“So you are in denial that water vapor cools much slower than say co2?
No. Air containing water vapor contains more thermal energy (enthalpy) than dry air. It takes more solar energy to heat air or soil with water in it.
Hey Willard. Take note Nate agrees with my explanation. That makes the score now 3 for and just you against.
“Hey Willard. Take note Nate agrees with my explanation. That makes the score now 3 for and just you against.”
Notice Bill is confused and misrepresents my post.
I did not agree that the lapse rate is the key factor.
then nate doesn’t agree that the key signature of warming occurring due to emissions occurring at a higher and colder place in the atmosphere is the hot spot theory.
the other condition that from the view of the surface that the effect is saturated is a view already held by the mainstream that for all practical purposes a single layer model of co2 in the atmosphere (i.e. saturated single layer) already exists (give or take a few tenths of a degree).
…ignorance is mind-blowing.
“then nate doesnt agree that the key signature of warming occurring due to emissions occurring at a higher and colder place in the atmosphere is the hot spot theory.”
Mixing up different phenomena.
Bill claims to have read the paper that thoroughly explains how the GHE works, but can’t tell us what specifically it has done wrong.
Your ignorance Nate is astounding.
Trump method.
Whatever his failings, which are many, he just accuses his opponents of having them.
Doesnt work for you.
Tropical tropospheric hotspot is, oddly enough, predicted for the TROPICS.
And it has nothing to do with the basic increasing emission height explanation of the AGW.
As I said you are mixing up different phenomena.
And in case, it has been observed, according to some papers.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007
Nate we already knew that water can change the lapse rate and in the tropics large amounts of water and water variation is found in the atmosphere.
You need to follow Willard’s advice to get away from the water and do the work in the desert instead.
“Nate we already knew…. ”
Obviously you did not, cuz you mixed it all up with the height of emission explanation of the GHE.
It is increasingly apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.
When are you going to realize that it hurts your cause for you to post about science that you have not bothered to learn, and then have others point out the BS?
nate lies again. we know water changes the lapse rate. nws has been using different moist and dry lapse rates in weather forecasting since long before i learned about in the 1960’s.
all you are in here for is to obfuscate for your daddy and you really aren’t doing a good job of it at all.
Did you not say this?
“then nate doesnt agree that the key signature of warming occurring due to emissions occurring at a higher and colder place in the atmosphere is the hot spot theory.”
As i noted, that is WRONG. You are mixing up different aspects of the theory of climate change.
There is the hot spot theory that has to with the increasing water vapor causing faster warming of the troposphere, in the TROPICS.
I showed you a source for this.
And this arises from ANY warming mechanism, not only an increasing GHE. So it is seen during an El Nino, for example.
Then, independently, there is the increasing GHE due to emissions from the increasing GHG, occurring at higher and colder elevations in the atmosphere.
That is an entirely DIFFERENT phenomenon! I also showed you a source explaining this.
Naturally you have mixed these things all together.
Nate says:
”Did you not say this?
”then nate doesnt agree that the key signature of warming occurring due to emissions occurring at a higher and colder place in the atmosphere is the hot spot theory.”
As i noted, that is WRONG. You are mixing up different aspects of the theory of climate change.
There is the hot spot theory that has to with the increasing water vapor causing faster warming of the troposphere, in the TROPICS.
I showed you a source for this.”
———————————
Thats fine Nate. But how does CO2 make the sky warmer during the day? Seems to me that the sun is doing that by shooting a 1361-1380w/m2 solar constant through the atmosphere heating up clouds, ice, water vapor, and CO2 more than 12 hours a day. . .and you expect a colder surface to do that?
The isothermal atmosphere hypothesis is a recognition that if CO2 and other molecules weren’t cooling the upper atmosphere to space (as outlined by Roy) then the atmosphere would be isothermal.
If its not via heating that area of the atmosphere then exactly how does that work? Provide source please I don’t want to hear your jibber jabber without support.
“nate lies again.”
“thats fine nate”
So just to clarify, I didnt lie, correct? Just you being cranky.
“The isothermal atmosphere hypothesis” is a red herring.
You don’t seem to know what the word isothermal means. If you did, you would realize that the atmosphere is not isothermal.
the science paper you produced didn’t say the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis was false. Instead the analysis his analysis of the prospects of a decrease in emissions was conditioned upon it being false.
So for the purpose of describing how warming might proceed it if was false he just assumed it to be false.
And that makes perfect logical sense. The hypothesis essentially states that if cooling of the upper atmosphere is overridden by a greenhouse gas warming effect the atmosphere will trend toward hydrostatic equilibrium and an isothermal state. If that occurs then obviously there will be no reduction in outgoing emissions due to an increase in height of emissions.
If you want to call that the Dr. Lindzen’s theory of emerging phenomena that works. And of course Roy has repeatedly stated that the only reason the upper atmosphere is cooler than the lower atmosphere is because of greenhouse gases cooling the upper layers of the atmosphere.
“the science paper you produced didnt say the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis was false.”
Nor did it say the atmosphere contains oxygen.
Because both are basic facts that every reader should know. Why don’t you?
“The hypothesis essentially states that if cooling of the upper atmosphere is overridden by a greenhouse gas warming effect the atmosphere will trend toward hydrostatic equilibrium and an isothermal state. ”
No it does not. This makes no sense.
Again, NO QUOTE NO CREDIT.
Again Nate. If just above current TOA we have CO2 there reducing the cooling effect of GHGs at TOA that means current TOA will get warmer Which is a movement toward an isothermal atmosphere.
You need to understand that is why there is no blueprint for this effect, namely because as your source stated there is uncertainty.
That doesn’t mean we know what will happen. . .because we don’t.
If you want to argue that yes we do know then you need to provide a source that shows the observation of what you expect occurring. Not the paper you thought was proof, which was only a theoretical discussion. In the case of the paper you offered the author had the integrity to note the uncertainty. Not all scientists maintain their integrity. . .most do though.
Actually Nate, Willard is starting to get it here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588774
Greenhouse gases are making the nights warmer and the days cooler.
Can you think of a better recipe for reducing both deaths from heat and cold?
And thats what Svante Arrhenius said also:
”By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind”
What caused the narrative to change? More people hating? Particularly of other people?
“Again Nate. If just above current TOA we have CO2 there reducing the cooling effect of GHGs at TOA that means current TOA will get warmer Which is a movement toward an isothermal atmosphere.”
So after I point out that your claims about what the ‘isothermal hypothesis’ is supposed to do:
“No it does not. This makes no sense.”
And again pointed out a big issue with your claim:
“Again, NO QUOTE NO CREDIT.”
Then do you provide a quote? NO.
Because your claim was pure unsupportable nonsense, as usual.
FYI, the warming of the global troposphere has been ~ 1C, comparable to the surface warming, as predicted.
Thus there has been negligible change to the lapse rate, which is -6.5 C/km, giving ~ -60 C @ TOA, and thus negligible tendency toward an isothermal atmosphere!
That’s why I said your claim ‘makes no sense’.
Hunter (and Nate), Please be aware that the TOA is not the Tropopause. TOA is outside the atmosphere where satellites can fly instruments which are able to acquire global data. The UAH data is derived from one such data stream provided by the MSU/AMSU instruments.
Hunter, one projected result of greenhouse warming is an increase in the altitude of the tropopause, which has been reported. Another result is a cooling of the Stratosphere above the Tropopause, which has also been observed. Do try to learn some physics, won’t you?
Swanson, please stop trolling.
It is definitely interesting that despite 2023 being the warmest year according to satellite records the arctic ice sheet is the 7th largest since the year 2000.
” … the 7th largest since the year 2000. ”
*
Oh, really?
Here is a descending sort of all December records for the Arctic sea ice extent (15%+ ice) and area (100% pack ice):
Year: extent; area (Mkm^2)
2000: 12.64; 10.96
2002: 12.61; 10.64
2003: 12.59; 10.80
2004: 12.55; 10.98
2001: 12.49; 10.55
2008: 12.36; 10.97
2014: 12.35; 10.89
2005: 12.23; 10.56
2009: 12.20; 10.59
2013: 12.18; 10.87
2021: 12.15; 10.74
2011: 12.15; 10.63
2015: 12.04; 10.64
2007: 12.03; 10.18
2012: 12.01; 10.45
2023: 12.00; 10.31
2006: 11.95; 10.17
2019: 11.90; 10.52
2022: 11.89; 10.27
2018: 11.86; 10.45
2010: 11.83; 10.43
2017: 11.74; 10.26
2020: 11.73; 10.16
2016: 11.46; 9.62
Position 16 of 24 for the extent, and 18 for the area.
Maybe you show us your source?
*
By the way, let’s have a quick look at the Antarctic…
Year: extent; area (Mkm^2)
2007: 11.98; 8.38
2014: 11.93; 8.21
2013: 11.85; 8.34
2008: 11.51; 7.39
2010: 11.27; 6.94
2011: 11.20; 7.40
2002: 10.79; 7.61
2009: 10.74; 7.09
2015: 10.66; 7.09
2020: 10.57; 6.61
2003: 10.56; 7.20
2012: 10.39; 7.38
2001: 10.35; 6.36
2004: 10.23; 6.93
2000: 9.91; 6.95
2006: 9.85; 6.48
2005: 9.68; 6.33
2017: 9.48; 6.23
2019: 9.41; 6.59
2021: 9.24; 5.48
2018: 9.19; 5.59
2022: 8.84; 5.23
2023: 8.67; 5.84
2016: 8.28; 5.51
Position 23 of 24 for the extent, and 20 for the area.
*
Sources
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/monthly/data/N_12_extent_v3.0.csv
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/monthly/data/S_12_extent_v3.0.csv
{ Sorry: the https access to this data for browsers apparently is not available. I use ‘wget’ on a UNIX system to download.}
Ooops?!
Should read
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/N_12_extent_v3.0.csv
instead.
Should read
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/N_12_extent_v3.0.csv
instead.
Funny thing how climate shysters managed to bamboozle retarded masses that more ice is better for the planet
https://youtu.be/1vHl-mSn99E
As always, the ankle-biting dachshund aggressively insults instead of moderately thinking.
As far as the development of the weather situation is concerned: hardly anything worries us here in Western Europe more than the loss of sea ice in the Arctic, because it brings us more turbulence in the northwestern Atlantic, which has had a negative impact on our weather for years.
”It is evident that the reduction in sea ice cover has increased the heat flux from the ocean to atmosphere in autumn and early winter. This has locally increased air temperature, moisture, and cloud cover and reduced the static stability in the lower troposphere. Several studies based on observations, atmospheric reanalyses, and model experiments suggest that the sea ice decline, together with increased snow cover in Eurasia, favours circulation patterns resembling the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation. ”
sea ice loss has greatly accelerated ocean cooling in the downwelling zones that keep the ocean bottom much cooler than any of the layers of the earth system that surrounds it. this massive loss of heat to the atmosphere results in more snow for Europe completely destroying the myth of global warming, being spread at the turn of the century, bringing an end to White Christmas there.
goldilocks whining has shifted from to little snow to too much snow
Yeah, that’s him – Bindiclown
Not sure why anyone would think the sea ice extent in December would be a useful metric for tracking temperature. Also, people often overlook other possible influences on Arctic Sea Ice such as cloud cover, atmospheric circulation (like the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation), and underwater volcanoes. The same goes for temperature, and that’s why averaging temperature is a completely pointless exercise; the Global Average Temperature is not representative of the climate but just a bunch of averages.
The claim was “the arctic ice sheet is the 7th largest since the year 2000,” Walter.
If you want to bite Binny’s ankles, at least be able to follow.
Hogle isn’t at all interested in following but merely wants to show off with egomaniacal, condescending, non-committing blah blah.
No wonder that he calls me a monkey, just like Eben calls me Bindiclown, or Robertson an idîot. I can pretty good live with that.
Binny,
You wrote –
“Hogle isnt at all interested in following . . . ”
Have you any facts to back up your assertion, or are you just having an ad hominem rant?
Maybe you are annoyed. After all, you wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote ” Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Exactly. You now claim that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (between the Sun and a thermometer), does not make the thermometer hotter.
In your words “I never would ever believe such nonsense.” Neither would I. There is no GHE.
Swenson,
It seems I’ve ruffled Binny’s feathers. He’s not a fan of being playfully referred to as a monkey. But maybe he doesn’t know the concept that December temperatures have little to no bearing on Arctic sea ice, especially when they’re comfortably below 0C up there. He also reminisces about his ‘epic cold childhood winter’ from the bygone era of the Korean War or whatever, believing it to be the norm. A quick Google search unveils Berlin’s winter temperatures hovering between 32F to 41Fenough potential for both snow and rain. Binny portrays Berlin as if it’s nestled in the high mountains.
Walter,
Bindidon believes that the future can be determined from rigorous examination of the past. He simply refuses to accept that a chaotic system’s output cannot be determined in any useful fashion. The approximate present does not determine the approximate future in such a system.
Even the IPCC has stated that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
GHE believers have to keep believing that they can predict the future. Otherwise, their lives become totally without meaning, and they might as well line up behind each other, and march off a high cliff, onto the rocks below!
Then they would find that nobody cared, anyway, and the world just kept going without them.
Like much “science” today, just a glorified sheltered workshop for those who can’t do any better.
[me, cynical?]
In a previous thread, ‘Professor’ Hogle wrote about me:
” When I discussed Arctic sea ice with him on this blog, we disagreed about the significance of September in determining the Arctic sea ice trend. ”
I don’t know exactly where Hogle discussed with me the relevance of any specific month with regard to sea ice measurements.
Maybe he’ll finally start to post links to the exact places he means?
All what I remember is a nonsense posted on November 17, 2023 at 2:14 PM:
” Remember when he got confused about the Arctic sea ice and why every month except for September is irrelevant? ”
No idea where I ‘got confused’ about the Arctic sea ice!
*
Coming back to this thread, Hogle writes in his typical condescending tone:
” But maybe he doesnt know the concept that December temperatures have little to no bearing on Arctic sea ice, especially when theyre comfortably below 0C up there. ”
I did not intentionally choose the December nor any other month, of course!
If Hogle had a bit of a clue of how to technically correct me, he would have done that, instead of superficially playing specialist.
*
So let’s do the job for him and show us all how Arctic behaved in September since 2000:
Year: extent; area
2001: 6.73; 4.59 (Mkm^2)
2000: 6.25; 4.35
2003: 6.12; 4.05
2004: 5.98; 4.39
2006: 5.86; 4.01
2002: 5.83; 4.03
2005: 5.50; 4.07
2009: 5.26; 3.76
2014: 5.22; 3.74
2013: 5.21; 3.78
2021: 4.95; 3.47
2022: 4.90; 3.47
2010: 4.87; 3.34
2017: 4.82; 3.35
2018: 4.79; 3.35
2008: 4.69; 3.26
2015: 4.62; 3.42
2011: 4.56; 3.21
2016: 4.53; 2.91
2023: 4.37; 2.79y
2019: 4.36; 3.17
2007: 4.27; 2.82
2020: 4.00; 2.83
2012: 3.57; 2.41
*
Similarly, should we not take for the Antarctic the March month instead of December?
Year: extent; area
2008: 5.28; 3.68 (Mkm^2)
2013: 5.02; 3.49
2015: 4.96; 3.45
2014: 4.90; 3.32
2001: 4.73; 3.36
2012: 4.55; 2.91
2004: 4.53; 3.16
2021: 4.48; 2.82
2009: 4.44; 3.02
2003: 4.44; 3.24
2000: 4.09; 2.67
2005: 4.08; 2.73
2016: 4.07; 2.77
2020: 4.00; 2.59
2010: 3.85; 2.66
2007: 3.83; 2.54
2002: 3.75; 2.36
2018: 3.54; 2.31
2011: 3.37; 2.26
2006: 3.21; 2.01
2019: 3.17; 2.10
2022: 2.82; 1.83
2023: 2.80; 1.75
2017: 2.70; 1.83
*
But now, another ‘specialist’ might come along, and claim:
” That’s all nonsense, Bindidon: only yearly averages can matter here! ”
OK, says Bindidon! Let’s do that at least for the Arctic sea ice extent:
Year: extent
2001 11.62 (Mkm^2)
2000 11.52
2003 11.42
2002 11.39
2004 11.25
2008 10.99
2009 10.96
2005 10.93
2013 10.92
2014 10.81
2006 10.79
2010 10.73
2022 10.65
2015 10.59
2021 10.57
2023 10.52
2011 10.51
2007 10.50
2012 10.42
2017 10.40
2018 10.35
2019 10.21
2020 10.17
2016 10.16
*
And… I repeat here what Willard correctly wrote:
” The claim was ‘the arctic ice sheet is the 7th largest since the year 2000‘, Walter.
As we can see, it doesn’t depend much on the method chosen for a sound contradiction.
*
The rest is cheap polemic, exactly like
” He also reminisces about his ‘epic cold childhood winter’ from the bygone era of the Korean War or whatever, believing it to be the norm. ”
What a dûmb, arrogant statement!
Here is my ‘belief’ to the 1956 winter ‘being the norm’ in Germany:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bj-ZkMcsJDVVf3C5zf22BG9p3UV9X7ZR/view
*
Hogle, it seems, might well be another of these vicious polemicists who love to discredit and denigrate those who disagree with their ‘theories’.
No wonder that he likes to communicate with tr0lls like Clint R (who denîes the lunar spin – does Hogle as well?) or Flynnson (who pathologically repeats his stoopid ‘Earth cools since 4.5 billion years’ in every Spencer thread).
*
So what!
So, it appears that Arctic Sea Ice has been stable since the late 2000s. My point is that the summer months in both the Arctic and Antarctica are much more relevant than October – May and April – November, respectively.
The link that goes to DWD stations has a couple of problems. Are you taking into account possible urban heat island effects? Have those records been homogenous, or have adjustments been applied to them? I did try to use the DWD one time, but I don’t speak German. And this isn’t important, but I am a bit surprised that the DWD was continuing operations even in the 1940s. Finally, anomalies are not temperatures; that graph has absolutely no representation of what has happened to Germany’s climate.
No wonder why you pick 2010, Walter:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
Perhaps you could keep these gorgeous cherries for Tony’s.
Willard,
It’s important to recognize the variability in the graph. I’m not saying there hasn’t been an overall decrease, but, lately, the rate seems much slower compared to the late 1990s and early 2000s. Does that not hold any significance?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Hogle
” My point is that the summer months in both the Arctic and Antarctica are much more relevant than October May and April November, respectively. ”
*
It seems that you keep 100% stubborn, like do Robertson, Clint R, the Hunter boy and DREMT in puncto lunar spin. { But… maybe you too are a gullible follower of their unproven nonsense, he he. }
*
I just did prove above not only that
– Josue’s claim is 100% wrong
but also that
– it doesn’t matter whether you take December, September (Arctic) respectively March (Antarctic) or even the annual averages to support the proof.
But Hogle ignores all that and does as if his wrong assumption about September/March relevance was confirmed.
How dishonest and incompetent!
By the 10th of January, the polar vortex in the tropopause will split into two centers consistent with the geomagnetic field. A harsh winter will befall North America and Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/HPKdqnP/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
” A harsh winter will befall North America and Europe. ”
*
Europe? Really?
https://i.postimg.cc/tTy6Shc8/Screenshot-2024-01-05-at-15-45-54-CFSv2-Seasonal-Climate-Forecasts-Europe.png
We will see.
*
If we look at a weather station 20 km north of us, we see that until now, the winter 2023/24
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=01&year=2024&metparaid=TNLD&period=8&ireq=true
isn’t quite ready yet to challenge its 2010/11 colleague:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10385&gid=10385&month=03&year=2011&metparaid=TNLD&period=12&ireq=true
This winter, sea ice in the Baltic Sea may be at a record level.
https://i.ibb.co/BrBdVht/r13-Baltic-Sea-ts-4km.png
Interesting,
Planet Mars’ the measured average surface temperature is
Tmean =210K
And planet Mars’ the calculated theoretical effective temperature
is also
Te =210K
Thus for planet Mars both, the Te and Tmean are equal, or almost equal:
Te = Tmean = 210K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Now,
The planet Mars at Earth’s orbit and with Earth’s average Albedo will have the same as Earth the calculated theoretical effective temperature
Te =254K
Also for planet Mars always the Te = Tmean,
Thus, planet Mars at Earth’s orbit and with the Earth’s average Albedo would have Tmean =254K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Mars’ cp = o.18 cal/gr*oC
Earth’s cp = 1 cal/gr*oC
N.earth = 1 rot/day
N.mars = 0,9028 rot/day
******************
Mars and Earth are both smooth surface planets (Φ =0,47)
and…the mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
Ok
Let’s apply the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, to calculate (via Mars) theEarth’s without-atmosphere the average surface (Tmean) temperature
Tmean.earth.
Tmean.earth /Tmean.mars1AU =
= [(N.earth*cp.earth) /(N.mars*cp.mars)]^1/16
Tmean.earth /254K = [(1*1) /(0,9028*0,18)]^1/16 =
= (1 /0,1625)1/16 =
= (6,15369)1/16 = 1,120266
Tmean.earth = 254K * 1,120266 = 284,57K
or
Tmean.earth = ~ 284,57K
**************************
planet Earth’s measured Tmean =288K
Thus, the planet Earth’s Atmospheric Total GHE can be estimated
(if there is any) as:
288K – 284,57K = ~ 3,43 C
If there is any…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> Also for planet Mars always the Te = Tmean
Wait.
Does that mean that the SB Law works out of a sudden?
Thank you, Willard.
> “Wait.
Does that mean that the SB Law works out of a sudden?”
No, S-B Law doesn’t work here either.
Also for planet Mars always the Te = Tmean.
–
Planet Mars is a unique coincidence.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CO2
Willard,
Planet Mars is a unique coincidence.
Te = Tmean = 210K
But for the smooth surface (Φ =0,47) planet Mars,
the Te =210K should be corrected as:
Te.correct =210*(Φ)^1/4 =210*(0,47)^1/4 =210*0,82799 =173,887K
Te.correct =174K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Is the SB Law a coincidence?
Enjoy your weekend!
Willard,
You too!
Wow, Wiltard believes in a Creator. Who’d have thunk it? Wiltard, would the Creator have come up with such a terrible design as CO2 causes warming?
Troglodyte disbelieves the SB Law.
Except on Mars.
Prolly just a coincidence.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
There is no frequency component in S-B.
Good morning, Christos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
The SB Law can be derived from Planck’s Law.
Good morning, Willard.
–
Would you, please, help, with the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Rotisserie
“Generally speaking, when a whole animal is being spit roasted, it is best rotated faster in the early part of the roasting, to help interior temperature rise without burning the exterior.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotisserie
Well, it is a long ago known from the million years old the human experimentation.
When using the fire for cooking meat, they used a spit turning it and cooking the animal.
When rotating slowly, the meat’s exterior was burnt, while the interior remained a raw meat.
–
The faster rotation had miraculous results. The meat was perfectly cooked the entire animal through.
There was not a burnt exterior and a raw interior anymore!
–
And they lived happily ever after…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Dig a hole in the earth. Light a fire in the pit. When you have hot coals, put a piece of meat.
You might need to wrap the piece. If you do add veggies and herbs.
Then cover your pit. Wait for a few hours.
No need to rotate anything when you don’t want to cook with air.
Enjoy!
Thank you, Willard.
“No need to rotate anything.”
–
It is the important part.
Rotisserie
“it is best rotated faster”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotisserie
“Generally speaking”
“when a whole animal is being spit roasted”
“to help interior temperature rise without burning the exterior”
“Once the exterior has started to crust, then the rate of rotation is adjusted down so as to minimize dripping”
“This allows juices and drippings to stay on, thus maximizing flavor.”
“The latter is particularly important if using a horizontal spit and coals or an open fire, in which case the drippings cannot be salvaged for basting.”
That has very little to do with the Earth, Christos!
Good morning, Willard.
“That has very little to do with the Earth, Christos!”
Yes it has to do with planet Earth and every planet we know.
–
“The speed of rotation can vary, depending on the type of food being cooked and proximity to the heat source. Large animals, such as whole pigs, are often cooked at speeds ranging from 3 rpm to 1 rpm. Ron Popeil, inventor of the Ronco “Showtime” rotisserie oven, claims that 6 rpm is an ideal speed for cooking a variety of food.”
–
“The speed of rotation can vary, depending on the type of food being cooked and proximity to the heat source.”
–
Well, let’s analyse:
speed of rotation – is N (rot/day)
type of food – is average surface cp (cal/gr*oC)
proximity to the heat source – is the distance from the sun (AU) in comparison to the Solar Constant So (W/m^2)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Do we want to help interior temperature rise without burning the exterior of the Earth, Christos?
Thank you, Willard, for a good question.
“Do we want to help interior temperature rise without burning the exterior of the Earth, Christos?”
–
I think, what we want is to help interior temperature rise without burning exterior of the Earth.
–
Because of the faster rotation, and the presence of ocean, more energy is accumulated in inner layers (“interior temperature rise”), and that is what makes Earth warmer, compared to Moon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Something tells me you’re not the cook in your house.
Is that correct?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Since 2000 cloud cover has reduced which has caused a 2 W/m
reduction in the suns thermal radiation reflecting back out to space. This is known as outgoing shortwave measured by Clouds and the Earths Radiant Energy System (CERES).
The effect
+0.6K Surface Temperature
+0.5K Mid Troposphere Temperature
+0.7 W/m outgoing long wave from the surface
+1.3 W/m outgoing long wave from mid troposphere
+1.3 W/m downwelling
I use the Alt 0178 to make all my units squared. Got robbed again..
Simply use
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
+1.3 W/m²
A year is over in Greenland too, and its ice sheet continues to show over the years its ups and downs.
At the end of 2022, some people didn’t get tired to explain that Greenland’s ice sheet is on the way to recover, and what happens?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hp59N2gopJ_0DYEcgH-XNWM0LsYO8b6E/view
Over 150 Gt less accumulation than last year! So disappointing.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ScaBo3sZvTdwFRx0xawOK9zVux88rc5B/view
I now wait for the first warmista telling us: ‘Oh look! Greenland’s SMB is falling again.’
Source
https://dataverse.geus.dk/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.22008/FK2/OHI23Z
What happens. Uber-alarmist, Binny, produces another one of his fake graphs.
And Robertson the incompetent liar continues to distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and lie – because he never was, is not and never will be able to technically contradict me.
*
See his last nonsense:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1585820
and my reply:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1586988
Who credulously sucks Robertson’s trash 100% deserves it.
How does one even know the state of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the 1840s? Even to make proper comparisons with the much more robust measurements today?
Hogle
1. Why do people like you doubt about absolutely everything – except their own gut feeling?
2. Why don’t you try to understand how the people did their work? On their web site, there is enough info about all that.
Whenever I inquire about logical aspects related to methodologies, I frequently encounter a lack of satisfactory answers. Even upon my own scrutiny, definitive answers seem elusive, leaving me with more questions. Embracing a bit of skepticism might be beneficial. It’s entirely possible to be critical of others without assuming ill intentions, just a thought for you. That’s what I am doing with the link Willard sent to the Arctic report card.
SSW is already in the middle stratosphere and will soon reach the lower stratosphere. Europe be ready for frost.
https://i.ibb.co/Btcg7vZ/pole10-nh.gif
In the past few days, frost locally in Sweden reached nearly -44 deg C., but as it turned out, this was not the apogee of the cooling wave. The highest frost of -44.3 deg. C. the previous night was recorded in Enontekio, Finland. This is the highest frost in Scandinavia in at least several decades. Previously, powerful snowstorms occurred especially in Norway and Sweden. An example is the area of the town of Grimstad, where 70-100 cm of snow fell. There is much more in the snowdrifts. Skis have become the main means of transportation. Another example is the snowdrifts that have formed on the E22 between Kristianstad and Horby in Skne in southern Sweden. Many drivers and their families were stuck in their cars overnight until help arrived.
Are these records homogenous?
According to the November UAH temperature contour maps, that area has been under a mass of low temperatures while areas around it are higher temps.
The Pythagorean Theorem today:
a2 + b2 = c2
A,
Trying to teach mathematics to GHE cultists is hard. Trying to teach them physics, even harder.
They believe in a GHE, but can’t even bring themselves to state clearly what the effect is supposed to do! Heat? Cool? Nothing?
The silence is deafening.
Hence, irrelevant attempts at diversion by such as you.
You aren’t terribly bright, are you?
A Russian proved that applies only to plane surfaces. If you place a, b and C on a sphere, the relationship is no longer true. Of course, if you’d offered that as an argument at one time, you’d have been written of by those dependent on authority figures.
Another way of stating the relationship, which requires a right angle as one angle, is using sines, cosines, and tangents. With c the hypotenuse, and a the adjacent angle, then cos theta = a/c. On a sphere of different diameters, theta changes and the relationship of the triangle sides change.
A fundamental problem is that a, b and c can define the area of the plain triangle. The same triangle mounted on a sphere has a different area. Another is that lines on a sphere are curved.
A way to visualize that is to take 3 point on a sphere that can be projected onto the surface. Joining the points with straight lines forms a planar triangle but it is buried inside the sphere. When projected onto the surface, the lines are now curved and form different angles with each other.
Cool story, Bordo.
How do you explain that spherical geometry dates back to Antiquity?
Is there a point to your question?
Yes, Bordo. There is. The Greeks worked on spherical geometry, whereas Lobachevsky, the guy to whom you are paying lip service, rather worked on hyperbolic geometry.
The Pythagorean theorem exists on a sphere, btw:
https://webpages.charlotte.edu/ghetyei/courses/old/S12.6118/spyth.pdf
Willard, you believe anything, don’t you?
Start at the North Pole of a sphere. Travel south one unit. Travel east one unit. Travel north one unit. Back to where you started. An equilateral triangle with three 90 angles!
Gee, that’s Pythagorean – not!
Which of three equal sides is the hypotenuse?
You are a gullible (and ignorant) wee Chappy.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Travel south one unit.”
What unit?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Albert Einstein
Shlomo Riskin
A,
He would have been positively stumped by the GHE believers, wouldn’t he?
Like the dim-witted ones who rush about saying “prove this!” and “prove that'”.
As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Unfortunately, GHE cultists like yourself cannot even describe their mythical GHE, which makes coming up with a testable hypothesis a complete impossibility.
Maybe you should stick with avoiding reality, and playing “silly semantic games”. That would fully absorb your limited intellect.
Give it a try.
Mike Flynn,
As Einstein once said –
“Life is like a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.”
Why are you braying the same silly talking points over and over again?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Too bad Albert did not stick around long enough to have his misunderstanding of time exposed. I’d love to have seen him trying to wriggle out of the fact that time has no existence.
I suspect Albert would have laughed at his gaffe, as did Linus Pauling, when his stubbornness prevented him winning a 3rd Nobel by identifying the structure of DNA. After Watson and Crick discovered the shape, at the expense of Rosalind Franklin (look her up), they needed Pauling to explain what they had found.
Some scientists of his era did try to expose his ignorance of time but Einstein had been anointed a science god by that time and those people were dismissed. One of them was Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock. It’s pretty sad when an expert on time tries to expose a basic flaw in Einstein’s theory and no one listens.
I doubt that Shlomo Riskin, an Orthodox rabbi, and the founding rabbi of Lincoln Square Synagogue on the Upper West Side of New York City, is in the same league, or even the same sport, as Albert Einstein.
“…time has no existence.”
I don’t know what that statement means in the realm of Physics.
Does it mean that everything happens simultaneously? That there is no progression of events such that today is yesterday, and tomorrow is too? That light travels at infinite speed?
You must be speaking philosophically.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Willard wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Speaking of deflection, how would you explain that desert nights cool faster is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?
Cheers!”
Willard is obviously unaware of basic physical laws. Setting apart his puerile attempt at a diversion – ” is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?”, maybe Willard truly does not understand why an atmosphere with less “greenhouse gases” allows both faster heating in sunlight, and faster cooling at night. Arid deserts are a good example.
I presume Willard is attempting some type of “gotcha”, in his usual mentally defective fashion.
If Willard demonstrates that he has made even a slight effort to find the answer to his question, but has either been unsuccessful or cannot understand the physics involved, I will be glad to assist the poor ignorant chap.
I could point out to Willard that the airless Moon easily exceeds the Earth’s surface temperature range, having no “greenhouse gases” at all! The same physical laws apply to the Moon as to the Earth. Maybe Willard can consult his friend the astrophysicist Ken Rice for assistance, and avoid the embarrassment of having to appeal to my authority in matters of physics,
What a loony Willard is!
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Setting apart his puerile attempt at a diversion”
Do you realize that you’re the one who was trying to attempt a diversion?
Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.
How does it work – by shooting cooling rays?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” Am I supposed to be interested in that statement.
You asked me (or Mike Flynn, or someone) –
” . . . how would you explain that desert nights cool faster is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?”
What has that to do with “Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” You pretended to ask me for an explanation – you seem to have beclowned yourself, and are now trying to blame it on “Puffman”,”Mike Flynn” – or anybody at all!
You have stated before that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”. Maybe you believe that cooling results in increased temperatures, but surely even a peabrain like you isn’t that silly – or are you?
Still seeking an explanation for why arid deserts are the hottest places on Earth because they have the least “greenhouse gases”? Obviously your astrophysicist friend Ken Rice couldn’t help you out. James Hansen is also an astrophysicist, I believe. Have you asked him for help?
The physical laws involved, like you, are quite simple.
Maroon Mike,
It seems I’ve ruffled some your feathers.
You’re not a fan of being playfully referred to as a maroon.
Maybe you don’t know the concept that the sky is colder than the ground?
You also reminisce about “not cooling, slower cooling,” which you seem to forget that they’re your own words.
A quick search reveals that you said it yourself:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
You are portraying your request as if you’ve never been spoon fed.
Was your childhood too hard for you?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” Am I supposed to be interested in that statement.
You asked me (or Mike Flynn, or someone)
” . . . how would you explain that desert nights cool faster is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?”
What has that to do with “Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” You pretended to ask me for an explanation you seem to have beclowned yourself, and are now trying to blame it on “Puffman, “Mike Flynn” or anybody at all!
You have stated before that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling” Maybe you believe that cooling results in increased temperatures, but surely even a peabrain like you isnt that silly or are you?
Still seeking an explanation for why arid deserts are the hottest places on Earth because they have the least greenhouse gases? Obviously your astrophysicist friend Ken Rice couldnt help you out. James Hansen is also an astrophysicist, I believe. Have you asked him for help?
The physical laws involved, like you, are quite simple
Maroon Mike,
You say –
“You asked me (or Mike Flynn, or someone)”
You’re Mike Flynn.
You’re someone.
You’re a maroon.
Hope this helps!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” Am I supposed to be interested in that statement.
You asked me (or Mike Flynn, or someone)
” . . . how would you explain that desert nights cool faster is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?”
What has that to do with “Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” You pretended to ask me for an explanation you seem to have beclowned yourself, and are now trying to blame it on “Puffman”, “Mike Flynn” or anybody at all!
You have stated before that the GHE is not cooling, slower cooling Maybe you believe that cooling results in increased temperatures, but surely even a peabrain like you isnt that silly or are you?
Still seeking an explanation for why arid deserts are the hottest places on Earth because they have the least greenhouse gases? Obviously your astrophysicist friend Ken Rice couldnt help you out. James Hansen is also an astrophysicist, I believe. Have you asked him for help?
The physical laws involved, like you, are quite simple.
Maroon Mike,
You repeat yourself once again.
Is that supposed to impress?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” Am I supposed to be interested in that statement.
You asked me (or Mike Flynn, or someone)
” . . . how would you explain that desert nights cool faster is it the cooling of the Earth since its formation that sends non-radiative rays?”
What has that to do with “Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.” You pretended to ask me for an explanation you seem to have beclowned yourself, and are now trying to blame it on “Puffman”, “Mike Flynn” or anybody at all!
You have stated before that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling” Maybe you believe that cooling results in increased temperatures, but surely even a peabrain like you isn’t that silly or are you?
Still seeking an explanation for why arid deserts are the hottest places on Earth because they have the least greenhouse gases? Obviously your astrophysicist friend Ken Rice couldnt help you out. James Hansen is also an astrophysicist, I believe. Have you asked him for help?
The physical laws involved, like you, are quite simple.
Maroon Mike,
Air does not transfer heat very well, and convection mostly happens in the troposphere.
What are you braying about?
Wayward Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Air does not transfer heat very well, and convection mostly happens in the troposphere.”
You still can’t figure out why deserts heat and cool so fast?
Learn some physics.
Maroon Mike,
There’s a very simple reason why deserts cool faster.
It involves greenhouse gases.
Cheers.
Willard,
How do you know Swenson is Mike Flynn? What if his name is Bob Jones or Zhao Jun?
Walter,
Sorry, just caught your attention.
The reason is simple – I already met Mike Flynn at Judy’s over a year ago. He has a very characteristic “voice.” Also, he has a very limited set of talking points.
He tried to reinvent himself a few times. But as soon as he would get angry, his normal voice would resurface, and the sock would disappear.
wee willy…”Puffman was claiming that the sky cooled the surface.
How does it work by shooting cooling rays?”
***
It cools the surface via direct contact, just as the air in a room cools a cup of coffee. Air molecules in direct contact with the surface gain heat by direct heat transfer. Once they gain the energy associated with heat, they become excited, do handsprings and vault into the air. Cooler air molecules above go, “Oh, Yeah”, and rush in to take their place, not suspecting they too will get hot and excited when they gain thermal energy from the surface.
You might not appreciate that explanation if you live in a temperate climate in winter. However, the surface in Tropical regions gets mighty hot, enough to burn unprotected feet. Same applies to temperate regions in summer.
I imagine if you are an air molecule with a kinetic energy associated with 1000 feet or more, and you descend to a surface with a temperature above 0C, you will gain energy and get excited. I get excited just thinking about it.
Cool story, Bordo:
So there’s more sky over deserts?
You can see the air molecules rising over hot deserts producing a mirage.
Interesting hypothesis, Bordo:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-causes-a-mirage/
So desert nights cool faster because there are less mirages over there than (say) nights in Vancouver?
Wayward Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“So desert nights cool faster because there are less mirages over there than (say) nights in Vancouver?”
Just how stupid are you?
Don’t you understand why deserts cool faster? Look it up on the internet.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1587613
Maroon Mike,
Good idea.
Deserts cool faster because cool rays fall down from the sky.
Sky Dragon cranks said so.
I found that explanation on the Internet.
Thanks!
#2
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1587613
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1587657
Yes, I correctly inferred you were wrong. You didn’t seem to realise that water vapour could affect the lapse rate and it have nothing to do with its radiative properties.
Graham D Warner gaslights again.
Incorrect.
“Because, ELR” explains NOTHING. One might as well argue that water boils because it reaches its boiling point. Besides, “the sky cools the ground” also needs to explain why the Moon gets very cold at night.
We must imagine Puffman happy to posit that the sky shoots cold rays.
Everything has been explained, Little Willy.
You asked:
"Why does “the sky” cools the Earth faster when it’s over a desert? Oh, and how does it do – does it send cool rays?"
Bill answered:
"Less water vapor affecting the lapse rate Willard."
You responded:
"Gill forgets to tell how water vapor affects anything in the Sky Dragon Crank Universe."
I clarified:
"Heat capacity of dry vs. humid air. That’s it. You have everything you need to understand. Less water vapour affects the lapse rate because the heat capacity of dry air is less than that of humid air. Nothing to do with radiative properties whatsoever."
What is left that you need explaining? Less water vapour = steeper lapse rate = cooling will occur faster. So that’s why the sky cools the Earth faster when it’s over a desert.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Here is the dormitive principle in action:
P1. Dryer air cools faster.
P2. Air with more water vapor cools slower.
C. The sky cools deserts faster than less arid places.
How does that explain anything? It doesn’t.
The reason why Graham D. Warner keeps waving his hands with “you have everything to understand” is simple. Sky Dragon cranks like him have no explanation.
Compare and contrast:
https://theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/553/
Graham D. Warner can wish radiative properties away all he wants. They’re needed for an explanation of why deserts cool so fast at night.
I give him a full and complete explanation, he just tells me that I haven’t explained anything. Why bother talking to him?
Graham D. Warner gaslights again. Heat capacity is a mere dispositional concept. To say that deserts cool faster because of the heat capacity of the sky above it explains NOTHING: it’s just saying it cools faster because it cools faster.
And while butting in a thread that is unrelated and where he wasn’t invited, no less.
You are a truly ridiculous, ignorant troll and a colossal waste of my time.
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“To say that deserts cool faster because of the heat capacity of the sky above it explains NOTHING: its just saying it cools faster because it cools faster”
So you still can’t get an answer to your question?
Is that due to laziness or incompetence? You are just trolling, trying to avoid acknowledging the fact that the hottest places on Earth have the least supposed GHGs in the atmosphere above them!
Even your reference says “Deserts occur where there is a lack of moisture and thus an abundance of sunlight.”. Weasel words, to avoid saying that “moisture” is a cunning way of avoiding saying “the most important greenhouse gas, H2O”!
Go on, Willard, twist and turn as much as you like – there is no GHE. Learn some physics, and all will be revealed.
Dimwit.
Mike Flynn,
That must be the most ridiculous rhetorical question you could ever ask –
“So you still can’t get an answer to your question?”
Imagine a silly Sky Dragon crank who keeps asking for a description of the greenhouse effect.
For almost 15 years.
FIFTEEN YEARS, Mike.
Do you realize how self-defeating that question is for your main move?
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote
“To say that deserts cool faster because of the heat capacity of the sky above it explains NOTHING: its just saying it cools faster because it cools faster”.
So you still cant get an answer to your question?
Is that due to laziness or incompetence? You are just trolling, trying to avoid acknowledging the fact that the hottest places on Earth have the least supposed GHGs in the atmosphere above them!
Even your reference says “Deserts occur where there is a lack of moisture and thus an abundance of sunlight.” Weasel words, to avoid saying that “moisture” is a cunning way of avoiding saying “the most important greenhouse gas, H2O”!
Go on, Willard, twist and turn as much as you like there is no GHE. Learn some physics, and all will be revealed.
Dimwit.
This response isn’t for Little Willy, who is beyond hope, but just for anybody reading. He quoted a passage of text and highlighted two sentences. The first was:
“There are also less clouds to reflect the sunlight away.“
Since those that dispute the GHE have no problem with clouds reflecting sunlight, we have no problem with this part of the explanation. Yes, that is an obvious part of why deserts are hotter.
The second sentence was:
“Once the sun goes down, there is a relative lack of moisture in the air to trap outgoing long wave radiation”
You cannot “trap” OLR. You can only slow its progress into space. According to pathway 2), here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1574363
delay is negligible.
Little Willy asked:
“…for an explanation of why deserts cool so fast at night.”
He already has the explanation. The lapse rate is steeper without water vapour than it would be with it, due to the higher heat capacity of humid air, so cooling occurs faster down the steeper gradient.
While Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting, I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all hes the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
I’m not gaslighting.
Graham D. Warner has no business in this sub thread.
You keep smearing your confusion all over the blog. I’m not posting here for your benefit, as I said. I’m aware you’re incapable of learning, or being reasoned with on any subject. I’m commenting here, as is my right, just for the benefit of any readers.
“Flat earth” and “ice cubes boil” fan whines about cold rays.
In a subthread where Bordo claims that the sky “cools the surface via direct contact, just as the air in a room cools a cup of coffee,” no less.
An abject sociopath.
You sure are.
Graham D. Warner goes for the NO U.
…and rightly so.
…in a subthread where he invited himself, no less.
No invite required. It’s the comment section of a blog.
Graham always comes as he is.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There does seem to be confusion about the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states “For an ideal absorber/emitter or black body, the StefanBoltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time (also known as the radiant exitance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s temperature, T” – Wikipedia.
This has nothing to do with the energy impinging upon a body, which is not a black body. As an example, a sheet of highly polished aluminium exposed to, say, 1000 W/m2 of sunlight may reflect 99.96% of the incoming radiation, absorbing 0.04%, or 0.4 W/m2, and will heat far more slowly than say, a bitumenised road surface.
It is impossible to calculate the temperature of an object merely by knowing the radiative flux expressed in W/m2, impinging upon it.
Take ordinary glass, for example. Sunlight consists of many wavelengths from long IR, to UV. Glass lets much of the energy through, but absorbs some – heating as a result. A block of glass refuses to get hot enough to even boil water, no matter how long it is left in the Sun, even though the Sun’s temperature is 5600 K or so.
On the other hand, when glass is heated to orange heat (much colder than 5600 K), it becomes quite malleable. How many W/m2 are required? How can 1200 K heat soften glass but 5600 K sunlight have no effect?
Ask a GHE cultist for answers. Don’t be surprised if the answers make no sense. They really have no clue about physics or reality.
There is nothing in the original Stefan equation about rate of radiation flow. It was a simple…J = sigma.T4. In the S-B version, there is no time factor in the equation yet they manage to turn it into a time-variant EM emission.
Look at the RHS…sigma.e. .T^4
Note that the sigma proportionality constant changed between the simple Stefan definition and the later S-B definition. I wonder if Stefan is related to Gwen Stefani and listened to rock on headphones as he worked?
Internal Editor…Right!!! This silly, stop it, and get on with the reply.
Neither e.A.nor T contain a reference to time, yet sigma has a reference to time. That is cheating, plain and simply. You cannot introduce a proportionality constant that contains a time factor when none of the real variable have one.
The original Stefan formula was a simple statement of the degree of radiation produced from a surface of temperature, T. Stefan simple associated the radiation as a lump sum to the temperature, not to time. There was nothing in the Tyndall experiment that measured a rate wrt time. Tyndall simple measured the colours produced by each degree C of temperature and another scientist converted the colours to a colour temperature, indicating the frequency/wavelength.
Stefan did not go to the immense trouble of trying to correlate frequency/wavelength as it varied with temperature as did Planck. Somewhere along the line, someone has introduced a ***THEORETICAL*** time factor to produce power as measured in w/m^2. Stefan had no means of doing that nor did Boltzmann, I suspect. The notion of measuring EM in w/m^2, which has a time factor, no doubt came from some misdirected theoretician.
Fascinating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Which part of “the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time” you do not get, Bordo?
Whacky Wed Willy,
You wrote –
“Which part of “the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time” you do not get, Bordo?”
Has you comment anything to do with the GHE, which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
The Stefan-Boltzmann law needs to be tempered with reality, on occasion. For example, a container of boiling water at 100 C can radiate between about 1100 W/m2 and 40 W/m2 – depending on the container material.
However, the surface is still 100 C – as you will rapidly discover if you touch it. Trying to convince people that W/m2 somehow represents temperature is fraudulent misrepresentation – no more, no less.
You are either gullible or thick. Accept reality, if you dare.
Mike Flynn,
It has been fifteen years now.
Still have not found what you are looking for?
Have you looked where the streets have no name?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Which part of “the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time you do not get, Bordo?””
Has you comment anything to do with the GHE, which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
The Stefan-Boltzmann law needs to be tempered with reality, on occasion. For example, a container of boiling water at 100 C can radiate between about 1100 W/m2 and 40 W/m2 depending on the container material.
However, the surface is still 100 C as you will rapidly discover if you touch it. Trying to convince people that W/m2 somehow represents temperature is fraudulent misrepresentation no more, no less.
You are either gullible or thick. Accept reality, if you dare.
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Which part of “the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time you do not get, Bordo?””
Has your comment anything to do with the GHE, which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
The Stefan-Boltzmann law needs to be tempered with reality, on occasion. For example, a container of boiling water at 100 C can radiate between about 1100 W/m2 and 40 W/m2 depending on the container material.
However, the surface is still 100 C as you will rapidly discover if you touch it. Trying to convince people that W/m2 somehow represents temperature is fraudulent misrepresentation no more, no less.
You are either gullible or thick. Accept reality, if you dare.
Are you a stutterer, Maroon Mike?
Whacky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Which part of the total energy radiated per unit surface area per unit time you do not get, Bordo?””
Has your comment anything to do with the GHE, which you describe as “not cooling, slower cooling”?
The Stefan-Boltzmann law needs to be tempered with reality, on occasion. For example, a container of boiling water at 100 C can radiate between about 1100 W/m2 and 40 W/m2 depending on the container material.
However, the surface is still 100 C as you will rapidly discover if you touch it. Trying to convince people that W/m2 somehow represents temperature is fraudulent misrepresentation no more, no less.
You are either gullible or thick. Accept reality, if you dare.
I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all hes the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
Here and many places elsewhere in this comment section Willard argues that GHG make hot temperatures cooler and cold temperatures warmer.
He does seem to be coming around some as if we can make cold temperatures at night warmer and hot temperatures during the day cooler by emitting CO2 thats a win win. Fewer deaths both from being too cold and too hot.
Next he is going to argue for more deaths arising from the temperature being just right.
I notice that Gill just discovered why the Moon can get really hot.
If only scientists could notice:
https://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/moontemp.html
Perhaps they did!
the moon has no atmosphere Willard so I expect it to be hotter than the earth which does have one.
but thats not what I was noting. I was noting that the moon’s equator gets hotter than the Stefan Boltzmann blackbody equations say it should.
Worse Stefan Boltzmann blackbody equations are what mainstream science is using to tell us what the temperature of earth would be without an atmosphere.
So if you can manage to rein in your aggressive behavior for a few minutes and explain why that is, it would be greatly appreciated.
> the moon has no atmosphere Willard so I expect it to be hotter than the earth which does have one.
Two things, Gill:
First, you are forgetting an important parameter. A very big one. Very big. Wink wink.
Second, it’s the Moon, with a capital M. It’s a very special one. It’s our only moon. We only have one.
willard continues to dodge the question
Gill still plays dumb.
and willard continues to stonewall a response to the question.
Gill pretends not having noticed being corrected already.
Now Willard is starting to imagine reasons he shouldn’t answer the question.
Gill sure can try to sow division, but can he add?
Well, if you could come up with any quantitative science on the GHE at all you would find out.
That place is already taken by Mike Flynn, Gill.
But we already have two PSTers and too Ennuis, so why not?
Whats your problem Willard? do you think science papers have cooties or something so that you have to get your science from somebody else telling you what is so?
Sky Dragon cranks seem confused about the SB Law.
Here is a very simple explanation as to why:
https://youtu.be/93-_JhGNn1Y?si=BHmeHU3JxRUdH4Cm
“An object that radiates energy well also absorbs well and an object that radiates poorly also absorbs poorly.”
Sky Dragon cranks absorb poorly, thus they radiate poorly.
The formula that represents a change of heat, delta Q/delta t is not in the Stefan formula. We should be immediately suspicious when delta is used rather than the differential dq/dt. But that would mean a differential quantity in the equation RHS as dT/dt. The original Stefan formula was a simple ‘intensity of radiation = sigma. T^4’. He got it from an experiment by Tyndall in which he electrically heated a platinum filament wire till it glowed colours. The colours were translated to a colour temperature hence a frequency between filament temperatures of about 500C and 1500C. Still, there is not reference to frequency/wavelength as in Planck’s equation.
This lecture has no basis in physics for the simple reason that neither Stefan nor his student Boltzmann, knew anything about the source of EM. It was not till 1913 that Bohr discovered the electrons in atoms radiate and absorb EM. Therefore, the S-B equation is an anachronism dating back to the days before quantum theory. That is, one cannot measure the rate of heat dissipation at a surface using it. The rate of heat dissipation is based on Newton’s Law of cooling which states that the rate of heat dissipation at a surface is dependent only on the temperature of the environment of the surface.
As the lecturer claimed, the radiation is related to the temperature of the environment around the radiating body and the temperature of free space is claimed to be around 0K. However, there is nothing there to enable a temperature measurement since temperature is related to mass. Therefore, the rate at which the Sun radiates is likely related to internal processes, which in itself is likely related to the boiling mass of electrons and protons constituting the Sun.
S-B has nothing to do with a rate of heat transfer as indicated in the equation as delta Q. No heat is being transferred!!! If anything, it’s about the rate of heat dissipation, which is an entirely different proposition and outside the scope of S-B.
Wondering Wee Willy,
Maybe you could tell everybody how your pontificating has anything at all to do with your description of the GHE being “not cooling, slower cooling”?
Does the GHE result in cooling? Is that what you are trying to say?
You seem to be doing a lot of diverting and scurrying, but you haven’t yet managed to say why the GHE delivers “slower cooling”, rather than heating.
After all, an Earth cooling at even four millionths of a Kelvin per annum is hardly likely to terrify anyone, is it?
Come on, don’t sneak around in your usual slimy fashion – come forth, stand up, and proudly proclaim what you believe! Or are you too much of a snivelling coward? It’s not that hard – there is no GHE, and you can’t even describe such a nonsensical concept!
Your turn – or you can slime off under your rock.
Cool story, Bordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Care to try again?
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Willard, please stop trolling. ”
Says this blog’s worst, most disingenuous tr0ll, who never stops boring us with his stoopid
” Earth is cooling since 4.5 billion years… ”
despite this tiny detail doesn’t play any role in any discussion.
But… tr0ll Flynnson requests 100% freedom of speech, doesn’t he?
Binny,
It doesn’t help by misrepresenting me. When you quote me, you might as well quote my actual words, rather than making up your own version. Otherwise, people might think that I am as dim as you.
You pretended to quote me, and wrote “Earth is cooling since 4.5 billion years . . .”.
No, that’s your paraphrasing. Try copying and pasting my actual words. The import may be the same, so I cannot see why you intentionally refuse to quote what I really said. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years – the surface is no longer molten. There – quote away!
Do you have another mental problem – apart from your desire to reject reality?
At least you seemed to be improving, when you wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote ‘Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.’ because I never would ever believe such nonsense”
That’s an example of quoting someone’s words (although I did change the internal quotation marks for clarity).
I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all hes the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I posted a comment in response to my good friend barry. For some strange reason I did not receive a reply from anyone at all. The context is my observation that the climate models display a very wide range of results. Here was the response from barry in part:
“How should we view the risk within such wide error bars? I think its pretty straightforward. We cant get off planet. We cant reverse-engineer the atmosphere after loading it with more GHGs. We are conducting a huge geophysical experiment and we are trapped inside the test tube with our atmosphere. It seems very obvious to me that we should mitigate the risk until we understand it better narrow the uncertainties.”
This is my reply:
Barry, I agree 100%. We should plan for the best, but prepare for the worst. What sort of message do you suggest? Should we continue to tell populations in the developed countries that it is all our fault, we can fix it ourselves, and we must panic so we can treat it as an emergency? Or, should we be honest and tell them that countries such as China, India, and the rest of the developing world get a free pass from the IPCC, and we should prepare ourselves to be at the mercy of these other people who we do not control?
It struck me as a fairly charged political reply, so I wasn’t inclined to have a dust up abut policy options. In brief, any course will be imperfect for some. My interest was just to articulate the problem clearly, based on what you said.
No Barry, it was not a political reply, it was one that require you to justify your pseudo-science.
I have experienced this with you before. When I pointed out your error re the IPCC, that they had claimed a 15 year warming ‘hiatus’ from 1998 – 2012, rather than admit your error, you moved the goalposts, claiming a 15 year period as being insignificant.
Another time, I pointed to an article by NOAA, admitting they had slashed the coverage of global surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500. Again, you dodged, this time supported by your buddy Binny, both of you dismissing the very words of NOAA as being wrong.
Tim S said…”Should we continue to tell populations in the developed countries that it is all our fault, we can fix it ourselves, and we must panic so we can treat it as an emergency? Or, should we be honest and tell them that countries such as China, India, and the rest of the developing world get a free pass from the IPCC, and we should prepare ourselves to be at the mercy of these other people who we do not control?”
You had no answer because you alarmists don’t have answers, just ridiculous solutions to a problem that does not exist.
Cool story, Bordo.
Here’s the comment again:
Is that what you call a scientific comment?
Willard, please stop trolling.
The true real-world effect of increasing CO2 is not well defined and cannot be calculated from basic scientific principles or modeled accurately in the real atmosphere. There is wide disagreement in the various climate models
One does not simply *define* what one is looking for, pompous twat.
Uncertainty carries risks, and risks cost money. Ask your friends with serious money.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon, the problem for you and the rest who ridicule the very solid science, that describes heat transfer by thermal radiation in the gas phase, is that it is real and proven by real life application such as fired heating equipment. This includes the gas stove (if you have one) in your house . Try boiling a pan of water with a hair dryer or an industrial strength heat gun. Hot air has very poor heat transfer. Thermal radiation from the combustion gases is essential to make fired equipment effective.
The important question is how to quantify the effect from a trace gas, not whether the basic science is correct. The flue gas from a natural gas flame is about 27% CO2 and water vapor. CO2 in the atmosphere is currently 0.042% up from 0.028%. Combustion of a mixture containing 9% methane in air produces a flue gas that is 9% CO2 18% water vapor and 73% nitrogen. It produces a very large amount of radiant heat at a typical flame temperature.
CO2 feeds everything on the planet, either directly or indirectly. The idea that a colorless, odorless beneficial gas is a pollutant is part of the scam.
Climate is chaotic. It has been in a state of perpetual change for as long as planet Earth has had an atmosphere. Less than 10,000 years age ice between one mile and two miles thick existed where cities like New York, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto now stand. It did not melt because Stone Age man drove gasoline powered SUVs.
I don’t know his source for the data, but Rep. Massie recently said in an exchange with John Kerry that the average level of atmospheric CO2 has been 1000ppm in the era that mammals have roamed Earth.
Before that, when CO2 rates were much higher than 1000ppm, 100 ton lizards roamed the planet. Fossils of 40 foot long crocodiles – twice as large as the largest crocs in the Nile today – have been found NORTH of the Arctic Circle.
Pretty much everybody understands this whole thing is about force and corruption. A tiny intellectual elite want to impose their will about how humans SHOULD live. They fly around the world and hold conferences in lavish hotels in places like Davos, Rio,Cancun, Bali, etc. They fly at taxpayer expense in jets puking up CO2.
And the economic elite play along because they’ve enriched themselves from the TRILLIONS that has already been wasted on this idiocy and the many TRILLIONS more they expect to extract from taxpayers in the years to come.
Here’s the thing: I can guarantee with 100% certainty that after the many multiple TRILLIONS are wasted on this lunacy, the climate will continue to change just as it has done for billions of years.
The whole climate crisis framing, and the movement itself, is the biggest, most corrupt, evil scam man has ever committed against his fellow man.
The end.
http://climateball.net/but-trace-gas
Sometimes TS is just Bordo but with a Johnny Cash voice.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thank you for acknowledging that climate change IS political. Let’s be fair. You very clearly stated the need for action:
“It seems very obvious to me that we should mitigate the risk until we understand it better narrow the uncertainties.”
It is a very legitimate question to ask what it means to “mitigate the risk”? Should we really take drastic action when there is no realistic expectation that the rest of the world will cooperate? Has Greta Thunberg ever tried to protest against China?
> Has Greta Thunberg
There is help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIP2vukNOPc
Don’t be silly, Willy.
The problem with taking any action is that fossil fuel use has a 200:1 benefit cost ratio. Anything you do to reduce fossil fuel use will have greater negative impact on the benefit cost ratio than anything positive regarding climate.
If CO2 emissions do have an impact on climate the effect is very small. So far no one is able to state why modest warming is bad, particularly in light of historical human flourishing that happens when climate is warming
The major risk is economic and comes from reducing the fossil fuel use without an adequate replacement.
The middle Miocene (~16 Million year ago) marks the last time that CO2 concentrations were consistently higher than at present; Greenland was not yet glaciated at that time, and independent estimates suggest that sea level was some 50 m higher than today.
Enjoy!
The actual risk is that fossil fuels are in very limited supply. Peak oil arrived many years ago for conventional crude oil that is easily pumped out of the ground . That topic is no longer discussed because we have fraking which also produces natural gas and propane. The fraking resources are enormous, but still limited. That is the real problem. The answer is to not panic, but apply sound project management principles to make a rational transition to the new energy economy which will include a variety of renewable sources including biofuels. Aviation concepts that burn the fuel and lighten the load along the flight make the most sense. Nuclear power for ground-based electricity is the rational answer, but the green fanatics hate that more than anything else.
Those deep into Oil Drum stuff usually argue that we need to preserve fossil fuels as much as possible. That makes them side with Greta.
For some reason TS is very afraid of Greta.
Weary Wee Willy,
Oil Drum stuff?
You are raving again.
Willard, your inane comments provide good proof that you do not know very much and have little if anything to contribute intellectually. Your website, based on absurd stereotypes, does not help your cause.
My most beloved TS,
The Bingo contains the most silly talking points contrarians could mutter. You find them all, one by one. Your latest one:
https://climateball.net/but-nukes/
What’s the name of the company you’re rooting for, again?
Welcome to Climateball!
Willard, please stop trolling.
josue…”It is definitely interesting that despite 2023 being the warmest year according to satellite records the arctic ice sheet is the 7th largest since the year 2000″.
***
I have discussed this briefly with Walter Hogle on this blog. The warmest year designation has little to do with Arctic ice. It is nothing more than a statement of averaging temperatures in which hot spots on the plate skew the warming more to the hot side than the cool side.
It could warm 10 to 20 C in the Arctic and still not affect the ice extent because it would mean warming from temperatures as low as -60C to temperature of -40C. I can tell you from my experiences living on the Canadian prairies in winter that -40C is brutally cold. It’s so cold you simply try not to spend much time outdoors. So cold, that I would put only a small amount of gas in my car and run inside to pay it. So cold, that oil freezes outside and won’t pour from the container into the car oil inlet.
Meantime, due to the tilt of the Earth’s axis, on the southern side of the planet, temperatures soar into the +30C and 40C range. Those temperatures far out-weigh the Arctic cold but even at that, only manage to skew the average warming to 1C or less.
The claim of record temperatures can be written off as a short-term variability in weather.
> It could warm 10 to 20 C in the Arctic and still not affect the ice extent
Wow.
Just wow.
You might have invented the most efficient freezer ever designed, Bordo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
That’s a good, responsible comment, Gordon. No insults, false accusations, rambling about science you don’t understand, or trying to fake being an engineer.
You can be an effective Skeptic, if you try. Keep it up.
Just remember, Clintella, I was supporting you and minding my own business when you stabbed me in the back. With friends like you, who needs enemies.
Now you’re back to using false accusations, Gordon.
Not good….
clint goes into denial. Show me a dated comment from me attacking you that precedes your uncouth attack on me.
I am looking at the blue part of the graph.
If there are fluctuations in temperature, there must be some heat exchange between the relevant observed system and the rest of the universe. But what is the relevant system, what is its thermal capacity and how big are these fluxes (compared, e.g., with the heat comming from the Sun)? Does anybody know some work concerning this?
With all the slop the cult throws against the wall, it’s always good to come back to reality.
Just as the simple ball-on-a-string completely destroys the myth that Moon is spinning. Simple questions like “Does all infrared always warm an object”, reveal the flaws in the GHE nonsense.
Daily Sea Surface Temperature so far in 2024 (as of January 5), indicates that we are going to need a new Y-axis.
https://ibb.co/vV5hMHh
This is par for the course, given the November 2023 EEI of 1.52 W/m2.
Yes Ark, there is an El Niño occurring. Very good.
But sorry, that EEI is just more cult slop. It’s like stating that the average mass of all unicorns on Pluto is 482.4983 kg.
Pure nonsense, even with 4 decimal places….
I encourage you to back up your claims with empirical evidence or data. Assertions or personal opinions without supporting information lack credibility.
I’m surprised you’re unfamiliar with ENSO, Ark. Even your cult has to admit it exists. They don’t like it, but it’s too well known to ignore.
Start here:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Unicorns are bogus, just like your “EEI”. There are none left on Pluto.
The Leprechauns ate them all….
1/ You are not very good at this. Keep reading my posts and you might learn something.
2/ Here’s every ENSO event from January 1950 to November 2023: https://ibb.co/zsZ3zvk
3/ What makes 2023-2024 different vis a vis Sea Surface Temperature?
Its the high accumulated EEI.
4/ Q.E.D.
You’re wrong again, Ark. I can detect cult nonsense and techniques on arrival. Just as here, you present a graph you can’t understand! That graph is “surface” temps, not “ENSO”!
Your bogus EEI wouldn’t correlate with ENSO even if it were real, due to lag.
What will you try next?
1/ Like I said, keep reading my posts and you might learn something.
2/ The “lag” is the 93% of EEI that has been stored in the world’s oceans.
3/ Q.E.D.
P.s.: ” That graph is ‘surface’ temps”
Yep. I already “presented” the graph of Sea Surface Temperatures here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588168
Q.E.D.
A,
You wrote –
“The ‘lag’ is the 93% of EEI that has been stored in the worlds oceans.”
You are fantasising. There is no EEI, and heat cannot be “stored” in oceans, or anywhere else.
Are you gullible, or just away with the fairies?
Carry on.
Swenson beat me to it. Yeah, the bogus EEI cannot warm the oceans. It’s the SUN, stoopid!
But thanks for admitting you didn’t understand the graph, Ark.
Your main problem seems to be a lack of understanding of physics. Let’s try a simple problem:
Can all infrared warm an object?
a. Yes
b. No
c. It depends
Your answer is….
“stοοpid!”
1/ And, there it is.
2/ I was wondering how long it would take you to resort to your usual fall back position of insulting your betters.
3/ See if I ever read one of your replies to my comments again.
Have a nice life!
A,
Decided to accept reality after all? There is no EEI, heat cannot be stored, and the GHE is a figment of the imagination.
Good for you!
I understand, Ark. You can’t answer the simple physics question. No surprise.
Don’t let the door hit you on the butt on the way out.
[None of the cult knows crap about science….QED.]
Hey Puffman riddle me this –
Who wrote this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588168
?
Not you.
So you’re the one who needs to get lost.
Cheers.
EEI is a corrupt theory. It projects more radiation from the atmosphere than the actual solar radiation that produces heat in the surface and atmosphere.
Not only that, it incorrectly presumes the main surface cooling agent is radiation whereas it is conduction/convection.
Jetstream forecast over Europe for Jan. 11.
https://i.ibb.co/qx0c9pq/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-06-182334.png
Solar wind
speed: 326.2 km/sec
density: 1.07 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Jan 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 121
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 153 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.17×1010 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.1% Low
“Solar wind flowing from this minor coronal hole could graze Earth’s magnetic field on Jan. 9th.”
It’s fairly close to equator and moderate size.
It seems most of big spots seen on farside {from Mars robotic missions} have arrived on nearside.
I am guessing Jan will have spot number of about 100 or less. And in coming months less than 100. And we will have some spotless days in coming months- but unlikely soon, or within next week.
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
01 January – 27 January 2024
Solar activity is expected to be low with M-class
(R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) flares likely, and a chance for X-class
(R3/Strong) flares, over 01-14 Jan, particularly from new Region
3536. From 15-27 Jan, solar activity is expected to be at low
levels, with a chance for moderate levels (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate).
There is a chance for the greater than 10 MeV proton flux to exceed
the 10 pfu event threshold on 01 Jan, and a slight chance to reach
10 pfu on 02-15 Jan. No proton events are expected from 16-27 Jan.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit is
expected to reach high levels on 03-06 and 09-12 Jan due to
multiple, anticipated CH HSSs. The remainder of the outlook period
is likely to be at moderate levels. ”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Solar wind
speed: 370.1 km/sec
density: 9.48 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 27 Jan 24
Sunspot number: 52
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 157 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.09×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.8% Low
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The year 2023 shattered the record for the warmest summer in the Arctic, and people and ecosystems across the region felt the impact.
Wildfires forced evacuations across Canada. Greenland was so warm that a research station at the ice sheet summit recorded melting in late June, only its fifth melting event on record. Sea surface temperatures in the Barents, Kara, Laptev and Beaufort seas were nine to 12 F (five to seven degrees C) above normal in August.
[…]
In an area as large as the Arctic, setting a new temperature record for a season by two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit (0.1 degrees Celsius) of warming would be significant. Summer 2023 – July, August and September – shattered the previous record, set in 2016, by four times that. Temperatures almost everywhere in the Arctic were above normal.
A closer look at events in Canadas Northwest Territories shows how rising air temperature, sea ice decline and warming water temperature feed off one another in a warming climate.
The winter snow cover melted early across large parts of northern Canada, providing an extra month for the sun to heat up the exposed ground. The heat and lack of moisture dried out organic matter on and just below the surface; by November, 70,000 square miles (180,000 square kilometres) had burned across Canada, about a fifth of it in the Northwest Territories.
The very warm weather in May and June 2023 in the Northwest Territories also heated up the mighty Mackenzie River, which sent massive amounts of warm water into the Beaufort Sea to the north.
The warm water melted the sea ice early, and currents also carried it west toward Alaska, where Mackenzie River water contributed to early sea ice loss along most of northeast Alaska and to increased tundra vegetation growth.
https://www.thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/01/03/Arctic-Temperatures-Have-Broken-New-Records/
Are these records homogenous?
I’ll investigate.
You and your promises of a good time, Walter!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Elon Musk: SpaceX needs to build Starships as often as Boeing builds 737s
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/elon-musk-spacex-needs-to-build-starships-as-often-as-boeing-builds-737s/
Well, 737s are very complicated and require a lot of time, Starship at the moment is in boilerplate mode. which means as simple as possible. And 737s would likewise have done something like a boilerplate before they went into production mode.
There is a term called big dumb booster, wiki:
“Big Dumb Booster (BDB) is a general class of launch vehicle based on the premise that it is cheaper to operate large rockets of simple design than it is to operate smaller, more complex ones regardless of the lower payload efficiency. As referred to by the Office of Technology Assessment:
The term Big Dumb Booster has been applied to a wide variety of concepts for low-cost launch vehicles, especially those that would use “low technology” approaches to engines and propellant tanks in the booster stage. As used here, it refers to the criterion of designing launch systems for minimum cost by using simplified subsystems where appropriate.”
Big dumb rocket was idea, and was attempted, and I was a fan of doing this.
[And I would also call the idea of Sea Dragon as big dumb booster.]
Starship is not BDB in the sense of his raptor engine, which “was” very complicated and not tried, but Musk has made it much simpler with Raptor 3.
Anyways, Musk calls it a boiler plate rocket, but he is kind of mass producing these “boilerplate rockets”, which isn’t “normal” as you normally make one or two of them.
Rules for thee but not for me.
Not sure of origin of it, but is typically associated with the Left and/or politicians.
The word, hypocrite, can associated with it, but it’s a bit different.
A hypocrite might say say 15 C air temperature is too warm, yet warms their home to higher temperature.
Whereas rules for thee but not for me, could be ruling class making heating a home more expensive. Thee, the poor, simply can’t warm their homes as much as they want.
The rules for cargo cult global warmer is don’t buy anything from China and don’t invest [and profit] from China.
I wouldn’t follow that rule, but I am not thee.
Dr. William Happer says, “there really is a GHE, it’s quite substantial.”
https://youtu.be/GBbwL6f_0fU
A,
It’s a great pity that he cannot describe this GHE in any way thar would enable a testable hypothesis to be formulated, isn’t it?
Maybe he’s appealing to his own authority, hoping that nobody will ask him for a description.
Probably one of these people who says that GHGs are “planetary insulation”, which reduce the rate of cooling (and heating of course). Cooling is not heating. Maybe Dr William Happer doesn’t realise the difference?
Try appealing to a better authority – one that accepts the reality that the surface cools every night, giving up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
Mike Flynn,
I appeal to your own authority:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about? There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled whether you want to believe it or not.
You might as well go off and play with yourself – trying to play “silly semantic games” doesn’t seem to be achieving much, does it?
Has your astrophysicist mate, Ken Rice, managed to explain to you why the Moon (with no atmosphere) gets hotter than the Earth? Did you understand him?
Only joking – you are too thick to accept reality.
Maroon Mike,
You claim that there is no greenhouse effect.
Here is someone who disagrees with you:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
That someone is you.
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about? There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled whether you want to believe it or not.
You might as well go off and play with yourself trying to play silly semantic games doesnt seem to be achieving much, does it?
Has your astrophysicist mate, Ken Rice, managed to explain to you why the Moon (with no atmosphere) gets hotter than the Earth? Did you understand him?
Only joking you are too thick to accept reality.
Do you think you could link to something that actually describes the GHE, sometime?
Mike Flynn has stated many times that the GHE does not exist. Maybe that’s why you can’t quote him saying it does!
You are definitely away with the fairies, Willard.
Maroon Mike,
You are simply repeating your silly comment.
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about? There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled whether you want to believe it or not.
You might as well go off and play with yourself trying to play silly semantic games doesnt seem to be achieving much, does it?
Has your astrophysicist mate, Ken Rice, managed to explain to you why the Moon (with no atmosphere) gets hotter than the Earth? Did you understand him?
Only joking you are too thick to accept reality.
Do you think you could link to something that actually describes the GHE, sometime?
Mike Flynn has stated many times that the GHE does not exist. Maybe thats why you cant quote him saying it does!
You are definitely away with the fairies, Willard.
Maroon Mike,
I have a vague feeling you already said that.
Did you?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about? There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled whether you want to believe it or not.
You might as well go off and play with yourself trying to play silly semantic games doesnt seem to be achieving much, does it?
Has your astrophysicist mate, Ken Rice, managed to explain to you why the Moon (with no atmosphere) gets hotter than the Earth? Did you understand him?
Only joking you are too thick to accept reality.
Do you think you could link to something that actually describes the GHE, sometime?
Mike Flynn has stated many times that the GHE does not exist. Maybe thats why you cant quote him saying it does!
You are definitely away with the fairies, Willard.
I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all hes the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
Wayward Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.”
Presumably you are talking about H2O – in the gaseous form.
Do you have some bizarre reason for calling it “greenhouse gas”?
I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest. That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all hes the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
Hey Nate what do you think of Willard’s narrative here? I asked you a few months ago if GHG can cause the surface to get hotter and you said yes. And here Willard is arguing just the opposite, the less GHGs up there the hotter it gets.
Gill chases Nate everywhere, including where he’s not.
Your concerns about the auditor asking questions is duly noted.
Gill could acknowledge that he misplaced his comment.
He doubles down.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard it was correctly placed. As they say the squeaky wheel is the one that gets the grease.
Let’s see, Gill –
Your comment is addressed to a commenter who is not in this subthread.
Your comment is not related to this subthread.
Yet this comment is well-placed.
You OK, buddy?
Willard says:
”I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.”
thats right Willard the hottest places are the ones without greenhouse gases.
I hope you’re not deploying the same trick I described earlier, Gill:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1590994
Willard says:
”I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest. That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.”
”I hope youre not deploying the same trick I described earlier”
——————————-
No Willard I was just agreeing with you.
Well, Gill, I’m glad you agree that one of the reasons why deserts get hotter during the day is because they have less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over them.
Progress!
Yeah, it’s pretty cold in Enontekiö these days, with -44.3 C even colder than the coldest day found at the beginning of January in the GHCN daily data for the stations near this location (there are 6):
FIE00146442 68.3617 23.4317 306.0 ENONTEKIO HETTA LENTOASEMA
https://www.google.com/maps/place/68%C2%B021'42.1%22N+23%C2%B025'54.1%22E/@68.361702,18.9488867,836973m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d68.3617!4d23.4317?hl=en&entry=ttu
*
But to say that
” This is the highest frost in Scandinavia in at least several decades. ”
is a bit exaggerated when extracting the 2000’s out of an ascending sort of all daily temperature minima found for this region:
Id, name, year, month, day, temperature
SWE00140960 NAIMAKKA 2021 12 6 -43.8 (C)
SWE00140960 NAIMAKKA 2021 12 7 -43.5
NOE00111327 CUOVDDATMOHKKI 2020 12 27 -43.3
NOE00111327 CUOVDDATMOHKKI 2020 12 26 -43.2
SWE00140960 NAIMAKKA 2016 1 7 -42.9
NOE00109485 SIHCCAJAVRI 2016 1 7 -42.8
SWE00140960 NAIMAKKA 2012 2 6 -42.8
FIE00146753 INARI KAAMANEN 2012 2 6 -42.7
SW000002120 KVIKKJOKK-ARRENJARKA 2012 2 3 -42.7
SWE00140958 KARESUANDO A 2014 1 20 -42.7
I’d rather say such very cold temperatures are not quite unusual over there. They just are somewhat ‘less cold’ than earlier ones, e.g.
SWE00140744 VUOGGATJALME 1966 2 2 -52.6
FIE00146508 KITTILA POKKA 1999 1 28 -51.5
NOE00111336 KAUTOKEINO 1999 1 27 -50.3
Lapony is a pretty cold corner during the winters, like is Northeast Siberia.
*
But nevertheless, the average temperatures in the Arctic increase, in Lapony like in Siberia, Alaska and Canada.
Here are trends for those of the stations mentioned above, and having had enough data to compute their trend for the period 1979-2022 (last column).
Id, start, end, years, name, lat, long, trend in C / decade
FIM00002801 1979 2023 45 ENONTEKIO KILPISJARVI 69.05 20.78 0.54
SWE00140960 1961 2023 63 NAIMAKKA 68.68 21.53 0.43
NOE00111327 1966 2023 58 CUOVDDATMOHKKI 69.37 24.43 0.49
NOE00109485 1960 2023 64 SIHCCAJAVRI 68.76 23.54 0.61
FIE00146508 1972 2023 52 KITTILA POKKA 68.17 25.79 0.69
NOE00111336 1960 2023 64 KAUTOKEINO 69.00 23.03 0.52
*
For the 411 of 2260 Arctic stations for which such a trend was computed, their average trend is 0.44 C / decade. Only 35 of them show a negative trend.
*
But if you now select all stations in the Arctic having had a lifetime of at least 10 years and located anywhere on the time axis, the average trend of the then 1468 stations moves down to 0.24 C / decade, with 271 stations of them showing a negative trend, e.g. two other Enontekiö stations:
FIE00146643 1961 1974 14 ENONTEKIO KALMANKALTIO 63 81 68.50 24.73 -1.32
FIE00146442 1999 2023 25 ENONTEKIO HETTA LENTOASEMA 63 81 68.36 23.43 -0.02
Well, that was much ado about not very much at all!
Were you trying to make some point about the GHE which you most recently said had nothing to do with increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Here’s what you said –
“I never intentionally wrote ‘Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.’ because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
I agree. Nonsensical. What’s your latest description of the GHE?
Aaaah… once again being stal~ked by tr0ll Flynnson with his patho~logical need to endlessly babble on about something unimportant.
To best describe tr0lls like you, the Krauts concatenated the words ‘dûmb’ and ‘brazen’ centuries ago, resulting in something like ‘dûmb-bra~zen’, namely: ‘dummdreist’.
You can’t imagine how perfectly that ‘dummdreist’ word fits your brain~less blah blah, Flynnson.
Don’t forget to respond by repeating your post above, as you so intelligently do when communicating with Willard; otherwise I ‘d be so extremely disappointed!
Well, that was much ado about not very much at all!
Were you trying to make some point about the GHE which you most recently said had nothing to do with increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Heres what you said
“I never intentionally wrote ‘Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.’ because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
I agree. Nonsensical. Whats your latest description of the GHE?
I heard the word used by the krauts to describe Binny is dummkopf.
How about monkey? I thought Germany was too cold for monkeys!
But maybe Binny thinks modern climate change will change that.
How is the turbulence over Germany today ???
Which turbulence do you mean, dachshund?
No snow, no rain, no wind – just -8 C right now.
Last 4 weeks:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pcid=pc_rueckblick_data&pid=p_rueckblick_diagram&sid=StationHistory&diagram=true&iid=10376&gid=10385&month=02&year=2024&metparaid=TNLD&period=4&ireq=true
Tomorrow night:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240109&daytime=night&iid=euro
A week later:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240114&daytime=night&iid=euro
*
Et chez vous, tout va bien?
I notice that Willard still can’t accept that the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed GHGs in the atmosphere.
As are the coldest, of course.
The extreme case is the Moon, which has no GHGs at all, and as a result experiences temperatures both hotter and colder than anything naturally occurring on Earth.
Willard still passionately believes a GHE exists. He has to, otherwise he thinks that he will look pretty stupid. No, Willard, there is no GHE. The GHE is just an imaginary manifestation of a shared fantasy.
No amount of inane comments, trolling, or “silly semantic games” will turn fiction into fact.
Feel free to keep trying. Watching your contortions is occasionally amusing, although laughing at the obviously mentally afflicted is not considered good form in some circles. Luckily, I am not politically correct, and don’t care what fools think of me.
troubleshooting failed post…
Ken will disagree with me but this is where I cannot accep.t Happer’s POV on science. He does not explain how his graph translates to a cooling of the Earth and how that relates to warming.
He fails to explain what he means by a greenhouse effect. The word ‘greenhouse’ suggests a real greenhouse with glass but the atmospheric equivalent theorized comes down to trace gases. No one has ever explained how that works. They steal the word greenhouse, which in the minds of those who have experienced a real greenhouse, is quite warm and muggy, even on a cool day.
The word greenhouse, as applied to the atmosphere, is not only misleading, it is an outright l.i.e. The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation proves that CO2 at 0.04% cannot warm the atmosphere any more than 6/100ths of a degree C for every 1C warming. Therefore something else is obviously warming the greenhouse and atmosphere and a moments reflection supplies the answer. Nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of the atmosphere and it is those two gases that also warm a greenhouse.
Happer is wrong. The atmosphere warms due to the 99% that is nitrogen and oxygen and those gases get heated directly by sunlight and by conducting heat directly from the surface.
Ironically, the heating mechanisms are the same as in a real greenhouse. Solar energy heats the infrastructure in the greenhouse and N2/O2 at the same time. Ditto for the atmosphere and surface. The main difference is in the fact that glass in a real greenhouse traps the heated N2/O2 molecules allowing heat to accumulate. The temperature in a real greenhouse is cont.r.o.l.led by opening windows and doors to release the trapped heat.
Happer’s graph covers only radiation but surface cooling is mainly by conduction/convection. Climate alarmists have it exactly backwards, they think the surface cools mainly by radiation which is a poor mechanism for cooling compared to conduction/convection, the latter being 260 times better at cooling a surface than radiation alone.
The above is all related to a post by Ark that claims…
“Dr. William Happer says, there really is a GHE, its quite substantial.
https://youtu.be/GBbwL6f_0fU ”
It’s ironic that Ark likes skeptics when they agree with him. Happer was hired by the Trump admin to advise them on global warming and even though Trump liked him, the backroom boys over-ruled Trump on some of Happer’s suggestions.
[GILL] Its ironic that Ark likes skeptics when they agree with him.
[ALSO GILL] Just remember, Clintella, I was supporting you and minding my own business when you stabbed me in the back. With friends like you, who needs enemies.
> [GILL]
Make that Bordo.
Sorry, Bordo.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I notice that Mike Flynn still can’t accept that there’s a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
That maroon still can’t accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all – he’s the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
Good grief, wee willy, your logic is sinking into a large hole. You are contradicting the alarmist meme that CO2 is well-mixed. According to you, there is less CO2 over desert regions than over other areas.
Cool story, Bordo.
Which part of clouds are made of CO2?
Whinnying Wee Willy,
Ah, so you now admit that H2O is a more important, so-called “greenhouse gas” than CO2, do you? Or maybe not – what are you saying, if anything?
When hydrocarbons are burnt (fossil fuels for example) a minimum of two compounds are formed – CO2 and H2O.
Dummies like Gavin Schmidt blithely claim the CO2 is “well mixed” in the atmosphere – on the basis of wishful thinking, no doubt. H2O is rarely mentioned, as describing it as a “pollutant” or “poison” in the same way as CO2 would probably be laughed at by the general population.
Now, your previously stated description of the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling” might need a bit of fleshing out. What’s the end-result difference between “cooling” and “slower cooling”, and why are GHE cultists seemingly worried about increasing GHE temperatures if, as you say, the GHE results in cooling, either faster or more slowly?
You really have no clue, have you? You are reduced to appealing to the authority of people who clearly state that the GHE does not exist to support your assertion that it does!
It’s all a bit woeful, Willy.
Mike Flynn,
You write –
“so-called “greenhouse gas””
Do you deny that greenhouse gases exist?
Willard,
Trying for some sort of stupid gotcha, are you?
You wrote –
“Do you deny that greenhouse gases exist?”
What in the world is a “greenhouse gas”? All gases emit infrared, so I hope you are not going to be silly enough to use infrared emission as your definition! You probably will, anyway.
So called “greenhouse gas” is just another piece of jargon, concocted by ignorant fantasists.
Are “greenhouse gases” supposed to have anything to do with greenhouses?
Try again, Willard. There is no GHE, and you can’t even describe “greenhouse gases” in any useful way. Go on, try.
A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.
Are you no chemical engineer or something?
Willard just beautifully summarized the totality of science he is aware of behind why GHG’s are called GHGs.
Gill has yet to explain how non-radiative gases can both cool and isolate.
If he can’t, what should we infer from his fellow Sky Dragon cranks’ white knighting?
Willard it is you and your sort making claims about the properties and affects of GHG. I don’t pretend to know the answer. I am just pointing out the inconsistencies in the arguments that you and your sorts bring forth. So don’t ask me what the answer is. I am just trying to get you to tell me how you arrived at believing what you believe.
Obviously with little success beyond ”A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.”
[GILL] I dont pretend to know the answer.
[ALSO GILL] less water vapor affecting the lapse rate
As if more water vapor did not affect the lapse rate. LOL!
Water vapor affecting the lapse rate is standard meteorology.
I haven’t tested it so I am not vouching for it. You can argue its all BS. Seems to be a lot of BS floating around in the halls of science.
But standard meteorology claims that:
The wet adiabatic lapse rate lies in the range of 3.6-5.5 C/km depending on temperature and pressure.
international standard atmosphere (ISA) with a temperature lapse rate of 6.50 C/km
And the dry adiabatic lapse rate is 9.8C/km
So water vapor in the air column results in less temperature drop as you go up into the atmosphere where the air pressure decreases. (i.e. it carries more energy than common air)
I got to test that one from a tower on my University campus as an assignment for an upper division course in meteorology and the test roughly affirmed that’s the case. I suspect its been reaffirmed many thousands of times.
So what is your basis of questioning it? Just being ornery?
> Water vapor affecting the lapse rate is standard meteorology.
Standard meteorology provides the reason why, Gill, just as standard economics explains why interest rates increase, e.g.:
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2020/05/whats-behind-your-mortgage-rate
What’s your favorite meteorological textbook description of how water vapor affects the lapse rate, and how does it explain why deserts cool faster?
Yes, he’s just being ornery.
“So what is your basis of questioning it? Just being ornery?”
Yeah, Willard, you can never compete with Bill in that department!
…he’s just being ornery.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:
"Gill has yet to replace the emphasized bit with Graham D. Warner’s pet model."
There is absolutely no need for him to do so. Bill’s lapse rate explanation is correct, regardless.
The vast majority of what you have quoted, those that dispute the GHE have no issue with. It’s literally just that one sentence you highlighted.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
“Because, lapse rate” does not replace “Once the sun goes down, there is a relative lack of moisture in the air to trap outgoing long wave radiation.”
I’m not gaslighting. "Because, lapse rate" is not the argument that’s been made, as you know. Every detail has been explained to you already. If there’s anything you still don’t understand, research it yourself. Nobody should waste any more of their time on you.
And, even if you believe in the GHE, you still have to accept a place for the lapse rate explanation as to why deserts cool faster. They’re not mutually exclusive explanations or anything.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:
No, they have not.
Graham D. Warner simply pulls the “your mortgage increases because of the interest rate” trick.
In serious business, this can lead to malpractice accusations.
The less water vapour there is, the steeper the lapse rate, due to the much higher heat capacity of humid air vs. dry air. Cooling occurs more quickly down a steeper temperature gradient.
There, I can explain it to you in two sentences.
The more central banks tighten their money policy, the higher the interest rates. Then borrowing becomes more expensive for everybody. But for those with the shakiest credit, a nightmare.
In Graham D. Warner’s world, that counts as an explanation as to why interest rates become “steeper”.
His new technique is just to pretend something hasn’t been explained, when it has.
“Bills lapse rate explanation is correct, regardless.”
But far from the whole story, or even the key part of it, as Willard quote illustrates.
But tag-team doubling-down is par for the course.
Imagine if Gill did all the courses he said he did, Nate.
Oh the debt!
“The vast majority of what you have quoted, those that dispute the GHE have no issue with. It’s literally just that one sentence you highlighted.“
Just a random sentence repeat.
no debt. i started my education on the gi bill and finished it by simultaneously working and going to school with 4 years of gi bill funding, 1 year workers comp funding arising out of a work related accident, and the rest by simultaneously working and going to school, not all in that order. piece of cake. . .only had to give up jacking off half the day away.
Sure, Gill.
And I am a ninja.
Yeah its probably too old school for you and your need to jack off.
If you did half of the things you did, Gill, you’d make a better movie than Forrest Gump.
Oh…wait–that was you?
> If you did half of the things you did
Well, Gill, I’ll accept that you did half of the things you did.
I meant to say – if you did half of the things you said you did.
After all, there’s a reason why you’re Gill-with-a-G.
Willard says:
”If you did half of the things you did, Gill, youd make a better movie than Forrest Gump.”
———————
Great movie! But I wasn’t an all-state high school running back, nor a star running back for Alabama, nor a war hero, nor a ping pong champion, nor walked across the entire country, didn’t create a hugely profitable company. So that would hardly be the case.
But indeed you do have a vivid imagination
My vivid imagination of your CV is only based on what you bragged about over the years here, Gill.
Worth a few movies for sure!
Well you probably ought to not invest in any entertainment ventures Willard. You must really lead a horribly boring existence.
Willard,
You’re getting there.
As Bindidon wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.” I assume you now agree with Bindidon,
I notice you now claim that you understand why the hottest and coldest places on Earth are the ones with the least “greenhouse gases”. Does this mean that you were just trolling before, when you pretended you didn’t understand why highest temperatures are found where “greenhouse gases” are least?
Everybody can now see why you are unable to claim that the GHE makes thermometers hotter – rather the exact opposite!
Are you able to make any useful statements at all about the GHE? No?
No surprises there!
Mike Flynn,
Thank you for acknowledging the greenhouse effect.
Cheers!
Willard,
Youre getting there.
As Bindidon wrote
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.” I assume you now agree with Bindidon,
I notice you now claim that you understand why the hottest and coldest places on Earth are the ones with the least “greenhouse gases”. Does this mean that you were just trolling before, when you pretended you didnt understand why highest temperatures are found where “greenhouse gases” are least?
Everybody can now see why you are unable to claim that the GHE makes thermometers hotter rather the exact opposite!
Are you able to make any useful statements at all about the GHE? No?
No surprises there! That’s because the “greenhouse effect” exists only in the warped fantasies of SkyDragon cultists!
I notice that Mike Flynn still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all – hes the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
Willard,
Whacky Wee Willy,
You still scuttle away from even saying what the GHE is supposed to do, but as far as understanding basic reality, you’re getting there.
As Bindidon wrote
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.” I assume you now agree with Bindidon,
I notice you now claim that you understand why the hottest and coldest places on Earth are the ones with the least “greenhouse gases”. Does this mean that you were just trolling before, when you pretended you didn’t understand why highest temperatures are found where “greenhouse gases” are least?
Everybody can now see why you are unable to claim that the GHE makes thermometers hotter rather the exact opposite!
Are you able to make any useful statements at all about the GHE? No?
No surprises there! Thats because the “greenhouse effect” exists only in the warped fantasies of SkyDragon cultists!
We can Maroon Mike for acknowledging the greenhouse effect.
Cheers!
Wonky Wee Willy,
There is no greenhouse effect to acknowledge!
You are away with the fairies again. No GHE, and during the night the surface gives up all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
Result? The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so.
If you want to call “cooling” the GHE, feel free to do so. I’ll no doubt be joined in my derisive laughter by others.
Carry on.
Willard says:
”I notice that Mike Flynn still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.”
I haven’t noticed that Willard. Seems logical to me that the warmest sky will both slow warming and cooling. I mean isn’t that basic Stefan Boltzmann?
The odd thing is we have been constantly regaled with the notion that the sun first warms the surface, the surface then warms the sky. OK so far, but then does the sky warm the surface or was it the other way around? Which came first the chicken of the egg. Seems to me some folks are trying to make it so the sun warms the surface, the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky, then sky warms the surface, then the surface warms the sky. . .
When does it stop?
Willard
ummmmmmm – no.
Bill Hunter
I had told you I would show you how the GHE works with actual measured values. If you are not a Cult minded illogical poster like Clint R or a science denier like Gordon Robertson, maybe you will look at the evidence. Think about it, ponder it and let the evidence (not belief) guide your thought process.
Here:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_659ab085adb89.png
I just use this graph since there are no clouds on this day.
The Solar Net is the amount of Watts able to be absorbed by a one square meter of desert surface. It is what remains after reflection off the sand.
The other value is how much the surface radiates away from the surface. The values are obtained by one sensor pointing upward and the other pointing down at the surface. You can read up on the sensors if you doubt their validity.
Bill Hunter
You can use math to find out how much (approximately) energy a one square meter of surface receives in 24 hours and how much it radiates away.
to get the amount of energy received use the equation for a parabola and the time the energy is reaching the surface from the Sun.
Equation for Parabola (2/3 Base times Height).
The Base of the Solar input is 14 hours which would be 50,400 seconds. The Height is around 800 W/m^2.
The energy the square meter receives from the Sun would be 2/3 X 800 X 50400 or 26,880,000 joules (this is not an exact value but won’t matter if you look at how much more is radiated away).
Bill Hunter
Now look at the graph again at much energy is radiated away from the surface. The graph shows a low of around 500 and a high above 600. The average might be 550 W/m^2 for the 24 hour period but to demonstrate I will use the lower value of 500 W/m^2.
So to find the energy radiated away in the same 24 hour cycle you would use the 500 W/m^2 x 86,400 seconds in a day. Calculating even for the lower number (the actual amount would be higher) you find you are radiating away 43,200,000 joules from a one square meter surface of sand.
Understanding the 1st Law of Energy Conversation you are losing
43,200,000 joules minus 26,880,000 = 16,320,000 joules a day.
You would have a net loss of energy on a daily basis, it is not sustainable to continue to radiate away considerably more energy than what is received.
Bill Hunter
Based upon the amount of energy received in 24 hours by a square meter of desert in the Summer (July) it would average a temperature around freezing. It does not so the GHE is working to keep the surface warmer than it would be without it.
Now we give you the clear evidence (with real measured values) of the actual GHE.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_659ab7d5a549c.png
Now this is a graph of the GHE in action. Now you add the measured value of the DWIR flux. The surface still radiates away more than 500 W/m^ but it is receiving energy from the atmosphere (less than it is losing so NO VIOLATIOIN of Second Law!).
Clint R thinks the energy cannot be absorbed. He provides zero evidenced for it but proclaims it as a fact. Experimental evidence shows he is totally wrong but he is a Cult minded believer and evidence will not change his beliefs, will it change yours?? I hope so!)
When you add the DWIR the NET HEAT loss is no longer 500 W/m^2 but closer to 150 W/m^2.
In 24 hours the Surface will lose not 43 mullion plus joules but a more modest 150 W/m^2 times 86,400 seconds = 12,960,000 joules.
Now the solar input exceeds the NET radiant loss. The other cooling mechanisms kick in as the surfaced warms and continue to cool the surface (in the desert is would be primarily convection with maybe some evaporation but not a lot).
So you can see the GHE keeps the surface warmer. The atmosphere does NOT directly warm the surface but acts as a radiant barrier to slow the loss of Heat energy from the surface allowing the solar input to reach a higher steady state temperature.
Perhaps, Norman, but have you considered that deserts cool faster because their Sky have more non-radiative gases?
Asking for a musician friend.
Little Willy deliberately misrepresents. For what I have actually argued, see:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588732
Meanwhile, one of his own team members, Antonin, tries to warn him that he’s on the wrong track, but Little Willy soldiers on, regardless.
“Noman”, you STILL can’t understand the SURFRAD charts.
You live in a state of confusion. Here’s just one clear example: “Clint R thinks the energy cannot be absorbed.”. Where did I ever say energy could not be absorbed? It’s ONLY the high-entropy energy that cannot be absorbed. You don’t understand ANY of this.
Frustrating, isn’t it?
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
How are O2 and N2 shooting cold rays on the ground over deserts?
…but Little Willy soldiers on, regardless.
Norman says:
Bill Hunter
Based upon the amount of energy received in 24 hours by a square meter of desert in the Summer (July) it would average a temperature around freezing. It does not so the GHE is working to keep the surface warmer than it would be without it.
————————-
Your problem Norman is you can’t open your mind and listen. Why is this the case?
Well you can start by answering why our moon which has an albedo of .12 and a solar constant according to you folk of 1361w/m2 has deserts on the moon that rise to 400K.(127C)
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/factfile-the-moon.html
By the math your daddy’s sell you on, the hottest spot on the moon should be blackbody temperature that corresponds to 1361 times .88.
In other words 373K (100C). Where does the other 27K come from?
Until you answer that question Norman, there is no sense in pursuing this discussion as you first need to bring yourself up to an acceptable speed for making greenhouse effect claims.
What I suggest it is, is blue light from the sun that is an excellent penetrator of water and whose spectral lines far exceed the that of a blackbody curve fitted as a mean value of its radiation over all frequencies is capable of warming things to higher temperatures than suggested by mainstream climate prognosticators. Such an effect that would seem to throw a pipe bomb into the greenhouse theory currently held by mainstream science and their use of mean blackbody curves on non-blackbody objects like the sun, thereby limiting the use of mean blackbody limits on objects being warmed by non-blackbody objects.
It is also consistent with arguments of a number of skeptics in here who have suggested there is no GHE as described by government approved science.
It is also consistent with arguments that temperature limits are related to the frequency of the light in the aboso-p-tion range of the object. e.g. you can warm something by surrounding something over 0C with icecubes below 0C.
And you rattle on about deserts on earth having a GHE because their temperatures rise to all of 329K for the hottest recorded ”surface” temperature on earth. . .which is actually a negative GHE by 44K by definition and a negative 71k by comparison to the hottest places on the moon.
One needs to also consider the temperature of the thermosphere and why it can rise to well above limits artificially established by the misapplication of blackbody laws to the emissions of non-blackbodies. . .keeping closely in mind that there is no law that specifies that non-blackbody equilibrium temperatures can be deduced using a ”mean” blackbody curve fitted to a non-blackbody emitter will have both emissions above and below the blackbody curve by the rule of means.
Of course I have heard scientists informally stating these issues; it just few wish to point out to their emperor (the guy writing the checks) that he has no clothes. And only a few retired scientists having been actually doing any science. And many more really haven’t done any science (the scientific method) since they stopped doing lab days in school for their entire careers.
So how does this error arise? I recall probably in Junior High School being cautioned against taking mean values of equations with multiple multiplicands or powers. Heck the spinners make the same mistake with Newton’s math and they actually believe Newton thought what they think.
…but Gill soldiers on, regardless.
Perhaps he could tell us how less water vapor leads to steeper lapse rate, and how that makes faster cooling?
What’s a steeper lapse rate, BTW?
The steeper the lapse rate, the more rapid the decrease in temperature with height. Cooling occurs more rapidly down a steeper temperature gradient, via all means of heat transfer. Humid air makes for a less steep lapse rate than dry air.
All of the above can be confirmed through a li’l bit of Googling.
“The odd thing is we have been constantly regaled with the notion that the sun first warms the surface, the surface then warms the sky. OK so far, but then does the sky warm the surface or was it the other way around? Which came first the chicken of the egg. ”
My furnace warms my house, then the house warms the insulation. Ok so far, but then does the insulation warm the house, or was it the other way around?
Some people work awfully hard to stay ignorant of BASIC heat transfer principles at work.
So many learning opportunities wasted!
In any case, Bill already provided this:
"The surface temperatures he gets from his local weatherman and used to measure global warming isn’t the surface at all. Its the air 2 to 10 meters above the surface. Heat capacity in the moist air is much higher than the dry air so it cools much more slowly."
Which should be simple enough for anybody to understand.
Indeed, Nate. Gill might follow Graham D. Warner wherever he goes.
He still needs to rubberstamp RonC’s model. If he could also explain how he justifies that thermal conductivity can be asymmetric in it, that’d be great.
…which should be simple enough for anybody to understand.
…ndeed, Nate.
Gill might follow Graham D. Warner wherever he goes.
Willard says:
but Gill soldiers on, regardless.
————————-
Correction!
but Will soldiers on, regardless and walks around and evades answering the question posed to Norman here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588820
Gill turns to his squirrel galore instead of looking at the evidence presented by Norman just like he turned a blind eye to tax evasion from his clientele:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588775
But then, does he have a choice when his daddy’s position is so shaky?
Indeed I directly addressed Norman’s claims of a GHE by pointing out by his measure the moon also has a GHE without any greenhouse gases.
So the obvious answer for you, norman, or anybody else trying to promote CO2 as the keystone GHG, is why does the moon have a GHE with no atmosphere?
Indeed Gill ignored Norman’s evidence and tried to Just Ask Questions.
He also insinuated that he was in the know with Very Eminent scientists (so eminent they shall remain unnamed) who he portends were on the side of Sky Dragon cranks.
Meanwhile, he has yet to rubberstamp RonC’s model, which his daddy promotes.
Willard, I am just pointing out that your argument is claiming that the GHE doesn’t warm anything. All it does according to your entire line of arguments in this comment section on the topic is slow cooling, a cooling that is partly offset by making daytime temperatures cooler.
In other words its making the climate less extreme. I am sure you haven’t noticed that your narrative for the past week or so is agreeing in large part with what skeptics of most stripes have been saying for move than a generation.
But we still have an issue. Why is the moon’s surface exhibiting daytime temperatures along its equator greater than expected when measured against the mean blackbody curve of the solar constant? In other words without any ”blocking” ghgs why do its deserts actually have a positive greenhouse effect instead of no greenhouse effect or the negative greenhouse effect of the earth as you have been claiming for the last week or so?
That question has to be answered before using a blackbody curve to estimate the expected temperature of anything.
Nate says:
My furnace warms my house, then the house warms the insulation. Ok so far, but then does the insulation warm the house, or was it the other way around?
————————–
Well you need to get your story straight with Willard and Norman first then we can move forward. Willard and Norman are saying your furnace is outside the insulation and as such your house will not get as warm as if the furnace was inside or there weren’t any greenhouse gases.
Gill is just pointing out that his “because, lapse rate” explanation does not work for the Moon.
Sky Dragon cranks are teethless sharks. They can’t bite at anything consistent, thus they need to keep swimming!
Notice how Willard completely avoided talking about the topic under discussion to throw out some weird statement he thinks is an ad hominem.
Willard why does the equator on the moon warm to 400k without an atmosphere? Mainstream science claims it should only warm to 373k.
Thats a 27C greenhouse effect. Why is that?
I am sure the moon scientists wonder as well. They just don’t bring it up because it could dampen their career path from the orchestrated reaction of the crazies and the disappointment thus generated in their bosses
But no doubt you don’t have a career path so you can safely answer the question.
and don’t take that as me being selective. Nate, Norman, or anybody else is welcome to explain that fact.
Notice how Gill ignores the fact that his mouthbreating does not work on the Moon.
Imagine if he told his clientele who asked him why their mortgages were getting more expensive, that it’s because interest rates were higher. “Duh,” would his youngest clients reply, noticing how Gill fails to explain why the interest rates were increasing.
Notice how Willard deflects.
Notice how Gill has decided once again that he was Toastmaster after coming late to the party.
Another tidbit that flies above his head:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588763
Perhaps we should collect the facts Sky Dragon cranks still can’t explain consistently.
Why does Willard and his coconspirators avoid addressing why the moon surface on the equator can rise to 400k when according to the blackbody curve assigned to the solar constant of 1361w/m2 which according to a blackbody curve calculated per Stefan Boltzmann hits an equilibrium at 373K.
This is a simple question that questions the validity of the most basic assumption underlying the foundation of estimating a greenhouse effect via the Stefan Boltzmann blackbody law.
Is the heating capacity of a non-blackbody limited to the maximum temperature specified by Stefan Boltzmann for a blackbody to warm another blackbody. Without this assumption all science on the earth’s greenhouse effect flies out the window. Thus one must explain why the moon’s surface gets hotter than the blackbody limit for the sun which is not a blackbody.
Each step in the process of estimating the mean non-greenhouse surface temperature arises from the 1361w/m2 solar constant derived from a blackbody calculator. It says the temperature limit is 373k and yet the equator as it rotates under the sun on the moon rises to 400k.
I fully expect more beating around the bush but this rabble that pretends to defend mainstream science because its perfectly clear they have no explanation.
Why does Gill needs to generate gibberish to point out that the Moon has no atmosphere – is it because it sinks his “because, lapse rate” armwaving?
Willard continues to stonewall against answering the question.
Gill still dodges what is becoming the monthly theme:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1589102
Oh well, at least Willard now admits that less supposed “greenhouse gases” results in increased, rather than decreased, surface temperatures.
Next, he’ll say that that more supposed “greenhouse gases” results in lower temperatures, giving support to his assertion that the GHE results in lower temperatures – as he said “not cooling, slower cooling”!
Nah, no GHE needed. Just basic physics.
Willard is an ignorant donkey, trying to say the GHE results in cooling – implying he really knew it all the time, and was just having fun!
Maroon Mike slips up –
“less […] greenhouse gases results in increased, rather than decreased, surface temperatures”
He kinda forgot that it’s standard meteorology:
https://climateadaptationplatform.com/climate-changes-effect-on-clouds
Perhaps Gill could have helped him with that.
Weird Wee Willy,
Standard meteorology?
You quoted –
“Without clouds, the Earth could be five times hotter.” Maybe you should appeal to an authority, not another donkey like you. Five times hotter than what? Could be?
I can see why you can’t even say whether your imaginary GHE is supposed to make the planet, hotter or colder. You are just completely detached from reality!
You can’t even troll well. You engender laughter or pity, rather than outrage.
Maroon Mike,
You say –
“I can see”
Can you?
You dressed up in quite a smokescreen, so it is doubtful you can see much around you!
Long live and prosper.
Bill Hunter
On your Moon observation. It is not the GHE. I already went over this with you in a previous post. The 1361 W/m^2 solar Flux is the mean of the yearly orbital fluctuation. At Earth’s periphelion the solar Flux is arund 1453 W/m^2. The moon can get closer to the Sun than the Earth in its orbit so could even receive more. Put the higher value in your calculator and see what temp you come up with. No need to suggest current physics is wrong. You are looking at a specific lunar temperature. Then you need to look at the variation the moon receives and see if then it makes sense. You cannot use a median Flux to use to determine a specific temerature.
“Well you can start by answering why our moon which has an albedo of .12 and a solar constant according to you folk of 1361w/m2 has deserts on the moon that rise to 400K.(127C)”
Bill, your mistake is that the Moon’s average albedo is increased with the angle of the sun away from normal incidence. It scatters more light when the sun is low in the sky.
Whereas, when the sun is directly overhead, the scattering is lower and the albedo lower, thus it can get hotter.
so you are saying we don’t have the technology to correctly measure albedo nate?
Nope, just what I stated, nothing more.
And Norman’s point is also useful.
No clear evidence the Moon gets hotter than it should get from solar heating.
Nate the moon’s albedo is .12 or its not. Meaning that either .12 is correct or that there is a measurement error.
You are just windbagging again Nate. Where is your support? can we properly estimate what the non-greenhouse maximum temperature is or can we not do that?
Gill goes full Columbo –
(Gill, with a Columbo trenchcoat) Look, Nate. Either the Earth receives light from the Sun the same way at all places and all times, or it doesn’t. Which is it?
LOL!
And Nate while you are pondering the answer to that. Consider that with zero albedo the moon still gets 6.5 k hotter than its supposed to.
Willard says:
”Gill goes full Columbo
(Gill, with a Columbo trenchcoat) Look, Nate. Either the Earth receives light from the Sun the same way at all places and all times, or it doesnt. Which is it?
LOL!”
No Willard that wasn’t the question at all. We are talking about receiving light at surfaces with one orientation to the sun, at the same distance and around about noontime.
and what the reported results of those measurement portend for estimating a greenhouse effect using a mean blackbody curve for a non-blackbody heat source and a non-blackbody absorber.
English has to be your second language with very little experience in using it to make the mistake you made above.
What is your basis for questioning that the average albedo, which is for the sun at all angles of incidence, can be different from the albedo when the suns angle of incidence is nearly normal to the surface? Are you just being ornery?
So you are claiming that lit areas of the moon when the sun is low reflect more light despite receiving a lot less per square meter.
Seems unlikely.
But even if true you continue to make claims unsupported by any source if true.
And you haven’t addressed the fact that even if there is some additional warming from less light being reflected from a sun near perpendicular to the moon, the moon surface there is still considerably hotter if there were zero albedo in that region and when we gazed at the full moon it would appear to have a hole in the middle of the moon.
So you need to seriously consider what I am saying here rather than ignorantly waving your hands at it.
> Seems unlikely
Gill’s main trick in a nutshell:
0. Make an outlandish claim.
1. When faced with a rebuttal, express incredulity.
2. Ask for receipts and transfer the burden of proof.
There is no third step, except lulzing perhaps.
Nate and Willards problem is they are nitpicking over how much albedo is if the sun is more than 30 degrees from perpendicular (which would be outside the area of the moon warmed to 400k or more. i.e. a window of around 5 hours in the afternoon.)
However that doesn’t answer the question as I am sure before spouting off they used a blackbody curve to figure out the maximum temperature in this zone with zero albedo and found that limit was also considerably below 400k)
so they continue to refuse to recognize the question much less give an answer to it.
Willard sums up the Bill approach well.
“nitpicking over how much albedo”
Never mind that Bills original ‘Moon getting hotter than it can get” claim was a nitpick dependent on his unrealistic certainty of lunar properties.
well clearly you have no answers to the question nate while oddly questioning why the question is being asked. so just take your seat in the peanut gallery and lets see if anybody has any answers.
Gill clearly has no idea how averaging works.
Has he ever been to the School of Life?
Norman says:
”On your Moon observation. It is not the GHE. I already went over this with you in a previous post. The 1361 W/m^2 solar Flux is the mean of the yearly orbital fluctuation. At Earths periphelion the solar Flux is arund 1453 W/m^2. The moon can get closer to the Sun than the Earth in its orbit so could even receive more.
Put the higher value in your calculator and see what temp you come up with. No need to suggest current physics is wrong. You are looking at a specific lunar temperature. Then you need to look at the variation the moon receives and see if then it makes sense. You cannot use a median Flux to use to determine a specific temerature.”
Well suggesting that physics might be wrong is exactly what one should do when stuff doesn’t add up. In this case you are outlining a well thought out but untypical explanation for why the moon’s surface gets to 400k. The problem with it is one would need to be on the backside of the moon from the earth to actually measure it. whereas if you are measuring the brightest parts of the moon from earth or earth orbit the moon will be further from sun not closer. Also it may be a calculated value but that doesn’t seem to be specified.
But whatever it is it would also need to ignore albedo. I don’t have a problem with that because that is what Stefan Boltzmann thought as well. Which if applied as they would apply it, the earth only has a GHE of about 9.5 degrees per a non-representative near surface station network proxy.
Whatever the explanation, the public needs to increase its level of skepticism as even the public is beginning to witness how much the government and science institutions lie to us. . .something I have been acutely aware of now for well over a generation.
One might want to believe thats an erosion of morality, but I am not sure that hasn’t always been the case as its pretty clear than the history books all the way back to my primary education in the 1950’s of historical events that only could have happened by government and institutional deception. The Scopes Monkey Trial is one great example of that which occurred long before I was born.
As Thomas Jefferson said: ”The price of freedom is eternal vigilance” and for vigilance to work properly you need the freedom to speak against the government/institutional narratives.
Which actually might even be something a conservative Supreme Court will be reluctant in guaranteeing.
Nate says:
”Nope, just what I stated, nothing more.
And Normans point is also useful.
No clear evidence the Moon gets hotter than it should get from solar heating.”
thank you nate. then there isn’t any clear evidence that blackbody calculations apply to celestial gray bodies warmed by our sun and thus we can’t be certain if earth has a ghe.
these are the sorts of things that need to be done to ascertain that our assumptions about earth’s greenhouse effect is based in science. we need to know that albedo reduces the equilibrium temperature of a greybody (used in the calculation of earth’s base temperature without an atmosphere with the moon being a good test case). we need to know the actual mean radiating temperature of the earth’s surface with any ghe, which we don’t currently measure, and that we need to know if a mean blackbody curve for the solar constant correctly establishes the expected ghe free surface temperature for a non-blackbody sphere while correctly applying what we learned from the science obtained in the first need to know.
perhaps there is some science out there related to these issues you are aware of. or perhaps not.
“thank you nate. then there isnt any clear evidence that blackbody calculations apply to celestial gray bodies warmed by our sun and thus we cant be certain if earth has a ghe.”
Yes there is. Why does ‘warmed by the sun’ make the laws of physics not applicable?
Grey bodies? That’s what the EMISSIVITY parameter in the SB law and the Radiant Heat Transfer Equation takes care of.
Have you been to this blog before?
Seems like you need to be constantly re-educated about the basic science, which has been discussed here so many times.
“Why does Willard and his coconspirators avoid addressing why the moon surface on the equator can rise to 400k when according to the blackbody curve assigned to the solar constant of 1361w/m2 which according to a blackbody curve calculated per Stefan Boltzmann hits an equilibrium at 373K.”
The mistake you are making is to consider the Moon to have an emissivity of 1, when in reality it is somewhat less than 1.
If we believe your max temperature, 400 K, and your albedo of 0.12, then we reach equilibrium when output = input.
Input = 1361 W/m^2*(1-albedo) = 1198 W/m^2.
Output = sigma*e*T^4 = input = 1198 W/m^2.
So e = 1198/sigma/T^4 = 0.83
Now I found another source indicating the measured maximum T on the equator is, on average, 390K.
https://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science
With that T, the e = 0.91. This is comparable to Earth.
Nate says:
”The mistake you are making is to consider the Moon to have an emissivity of 1, when in reality it is somewhat less than 1.”
Yes I am aware of that mistake Nate. I was intentionally using your daddy’s method of figuring out earth’s greenhouse effect.
255k at emissivity of 1 gives the output at 239.8w/m2
But if you use emissivity as you suggest for the moon (1-albedo) or ~.7
You get 278.7k giving a greenhouse effect of 9.3K and not 33k.
If I take it a step further and use the range of science paper albedo’s that Trenberth chose between I get a range of GHEs that go from 5.4k to 11.2k. . .thats one heckuva lot different GHE than what your daddy has been looking to tag CO2 for. I am really happy you participated in this exercise. I thought I was only going to get Willard to do so.
if we take the small number science paper for a GHE. 5.4K we end up finding CO2 will only cause about a .5degC increase in global mean temperature. that would leave the rest to natural variation.
Roy should be ecstatic about that because gee thats pretty darned close to his observational estimate he did and published a few years ago.
“But if you use emissivity as you suggest for the moon (1-albedo) or ~.7
You get 278.7k giving a greenhouse effect of 9.3K and not 33k.”
I never suggested emissivity = 0.7. That is all on you.
And it is WRONG. As explained several times!
When are you going to figure this out?
i am using your daddy’s albedo that he derived from several sources.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml?tab_body=pdf
what is your source nate?
Your emissivity is wrong, as explained. So you should know why.
the sum total of Nate’s science sources is him stomping his feet and screaming ”It’s Mine!”
“But if you use emissivity as you suggest for the moon (1-albedo) or ~.7”
This is doubly wrong, Bill.
For some strange reason you are trying to use Earth’s albedo for the Moon.
AND, as discussed several times with someone also named Bill,
(1-albedo) is not the correct way to find emissivity.
Go ask the other Bill why.
Yes Nate the albedo changes between the moon and the earth but the physics doesn’t.
As Willard and you have insisted we measure the GHE using SB with the correct emissivity factor and I agree. End of Story of course unless you prefer not to admit it and lie instead.
“but the physics doesnt.”
Exactly true. And your physics is exactly wrong.
When are you going to learn about the differences between albedo, emissivity, and their very different wavelengths?
It seems you are working overtime to stay ignorant about these issues.
Nate says:
”Input = 1361 W/m^2*(1-albedo) = 1198 W/m^2.
Output = sigma*e*T^4 = input = 1198 W/m^2.”
—————————–
you have the correct physics there Nate.
all you have to do is substitute in the correct earth albedo for the moon’s albedo and solve the equations. . .as indicated several times by Willard.
“all you have to do is substitute in the correct earth albedo for the moons albedo and solve the equations.”
To find what for the Earth?
Something that assumes no atmosphere, nor ocean? And the Earth’s rotation rate is as slow as the Moon’s? And that the day side has time to reach equilibrium?
None of those are valid assumptions. GIGO applies.
Nate says:
” ”all you have to do is substitute in the correct earth albedo for the moons albedo and solve the equations.”
To find what for the Earth?
Something that assumes no atmosphere, nor ocean? And the Earths rotation rate is as slow as the Moons? And that the day side has time to reach equilibrium?
None of those are valid assumptions. GIGO applies.”
I didn’t say substitute in the moon’s parameters. I said use the physics formula you use for the moon and find the base temperature for the greenhouse effect for earth putting in earth’s parameters.
Obviously oceans, atmosphere, contribute to that. What this will tell you is what the temperature of the radiating surface of the earth is. . .and that the difference between that radiating surface and the mean temperature of the earth’s surface at the bottom of the atmosphere will give you a starting point for what the greenhouse effect is.
Then all you have to worry about is errors in measuring the albedo and errors in measuring the earth’s mean surface temperature. No doubt one can estimate some error bars for that out of efforts at ground truthing experiments surrounding those facts.
We already have some basis for constructing such error bars and a close examination of the nature of those differences one could propose specifically-designed ground truthing efforts to test those error bars.
I look at the data and see all sorts of potential error.
UHI
the diversion of rivers for wide spread irrigation
deforestation
Natural orbit variation with the changing positions of planets in an effort to construct a solar system model applying Newton’s laws of gravitation to a complex barycenter motion.
Solar tests in the space program to determine the greybody limits of various materials to insolation.
Climate science is so much in the cradle it seems little has been done to verify the most important numbers. . . while the public has been fed total BS about them.
Do you have another formula to include the rotation rate?
Gill took five days to specify his sammich.
It better be good!
“I didnt say substitute in the moons parameters. I said use the physics formula you use for the moon and find the base temperature for the greenhouse effect for earth putting in earths parameters.”
Ok, what makes the most sense is not to find the equilibrium T just on the day side, since, unlike the Moon, the Earth has much more heat capacity and a much shorter rotation time, and thus does not reach equilibrium on the day side, or the night side.
What can be done is to work with the night/day average T, assuming it reaches ~ equilibrium. Also a global average is better because heat is being transported from the equator to higher latitudes.
So do that with the equations and Earth’s albedo, average abs.orbed solar, and see what you get. BTW CERES has produced the latest best estimate for global average albedo = 0.29, with small error bar.
Nate says:
Ok, what makes the most sense is not to find the equilibrium T just on the day side, since, unlike the Moon, the Earth has much more heat capacity and a much shorter rotation time, and thus does not reach equilibrium on the day side, or the night side.
—————–
LOL! Equilibrium temperature is defined as the temperature where outgoing equals incoming. The initial budget by Trenberth stated that was the case in 1997.
In 2009 he claimed the monitoring system must be wrong and that it was a travesty that warming had not proceeded at his predicted pace.
No great discovery of earth rotation period was discovered so what did Trenbert discover to estimate that .9w/m2 was the imbalance?
He didn’t discover anything he said he plucked it out of the unvalidated climate models. . .as unmeasured heat sinking beyond the reach of thermometers. I am not saying the number is wrong as I fully embrace imbalances. Just we obviously don’t have a monitoring system to either tell us how big it is. We can assume its consistent with the models as Trenberth told us so.
Nate says:
”So do that with the equations and Earths albedo, average abs.orbed solar, and see what you get. BTW CERES has produced the latest best estimate for global average albedo = 0.29, with small error bar.”
So what is your source for that info? It may well be the best science available. I would be interested in a rundown on how CERES determines SW in and reflection out. Plus it seems there will always be an uncertainty about how much LW is reflected as ocean and snow have high amounts of spectral reflection. Certainly LW out being diffuse is much easier to deal with.
And WRT to the small error bars how wide are they in watts/m2?
“LOL! Equilibrium temperature is defined as the temperature where outgoing equals incoming”
I send your LOL back to you, doofus.
It should be obvious that the incoming is greater than the outgoing during the day. Else the surface would not be heating!
Nate fails miserably to provide his source for his claim: ”BTW CERES has produced the latest best estimate for global average albedo = 0.29, with small error bar.”
If you want to bring me along the small error bar needs evaluation and quantification. I already conceded that CERES is the best available platform. I also pointed out that CERES data underlies the range of albedo estimates by various reanalysis efforts documented by Trenberth. . .and there is no indication of small error bars there since the estimates vary by about 6%.
So I fully understand your reluctance since you already pinned your credibility on the energy imbalance being accurate. . .noting that the issues with CERES are the same sorts of issues that the satellite based temperature services such as UAH and RSS deal with.
So if you can’t do better than you are doing you probably such just pack it in as you are not at all helping your own credibility.
Previously provided. No evidence that evidence matters.
And I also provided you with the source showing that CERES directly measures the reflected solar, so they do not need anyone’s measurement of albedo.
But it doesnt seem to penetrate.
tim s…”Hot air has very poor heat transfer. Thermal radiation from the combustion gases is essential to make fired equipment effective”.
***
It is? Hot air can transfer heat fine via convection. That’s how the Earth cools. Oxygen is far more import for combustion than radiation. In fact, I fail to see what radiation has to do with combustion.
—
The important question is how to quantify the effect from a trace gas, not whether the basic science is correct”.
***
What is the point of quantifying the effect of a trace gas when science tells us it is insignificant? Both the Ideal Gas Law and the thermal diffusion equation tells us the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot exceed 0.06%. That is both insignificant and not worth considering. So, why do we have this inane focus on CO2?
I have no problem with you as a poster, Tim. Nothing personal in my comments to you. I just wish you’d try to base your arguments on actual science rather than resorting to comments like “…not whether the basic science is correct”. That’s the meme of climate alarmists, that the science doesn’t matter, it’s the principle.
Interesting that ren and RLH have stopped posting links to this:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Antonym Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Sure thing Synonym Flynn … after you.
Antonyn Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Jeez. Did it again!
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Kind of loses its impact after each error, doesn’t it Flynnster.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
AQ: As far as I know I have never used the global figure (except in the 7 day difference).
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
I you have been observing the huge difference between these graphs and the actual ONI contributions, you would know that you shouldn’t be using this data for anything.
“you shouldn’t be using this data for anything”
Neither should you then.
Willard,
Earlier, after pretending you did not understand why arid deserts with the least supposed “greenhouse gases” were the hottest, you wrote –
“Maroon Mike,
Theres a very simple reason why deserts cool faster.
It involves greenhouse gases.
Cheers.”
Oh, obscurity! Oh, mystery! Oh, crypticism – trying for the appearance of intelligence, are you?
“It involves greenhouse gases.” Or magic – unless you explain what the nonsense term “greenhouse gas” actually means! Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, argon, CO2 and other gases are found in greenhouses – but of course you don’t mean greenhouse gases, you mean “greenhouse gases” – a cunning, yet meaningless piece of GHE cultist jargon.
You donkey, just making meaningless terms like “greenhouse gas” up as you go along is about as silly as describing the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, hoping people will think that cooling is really heating! I suppose SkyDragon cultists might, but nobody with any connection to reality.
Keep trying.
Mike Flynn says:
January 6, 2024 at 11:49 PM
Wonky Wee Willy,
There is no greenhouse effect to acknowledge!
Gill says:
January 7, 2024 at 12:22 AM
Willard says:
I notice that Mike Flynn still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
I havent noticed that Willard.
***
Yes, one comment was on top of the other.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Could some UK rivers freeze over?
https://i.ibb.co/gTNwy0v/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-07-095033.png
Wow – a question instead of an unequivocal claim!
Looks like you’ve learned from your impossible El Nino claim.
One thing’s for sure – there is nothing in the Met Office’s 5-day forecast which indicates the possibility of the Thames freezing over.
Waves of Arctic air are falling on the west and midwest of the US. Frost.
How the Climate System Works (for Dummies)
January 23rd, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The above is all related to a post by Gordon Robertson that claims…
” EEI is a corrupt theory.”
I encourage you to back up your claims with empirical evidence or data. Assertions or personal opinions without supporting information lack credibility.
Yes, scientific theories are subject to scrutiny, evaluation, and refinement based on new evidence and research. However, describing a widely accepted scientific concept as “corrupt” without substantive evidence is misleading.
Ark, can you prove you’re NOT a dummy?
Can all infrared warm an object?
a. Yes
b. No
c. It depends
Your answer is….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Is thermal conductivity asymmetric?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You are just being silly now, trying to imply that the Earth has warmed, due to some mysterious and undefined “EEI”.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and is continuing to do so.
Any person claiming otherwise needs to provide extraordinary evidence to support such an extraordinary claim.
You can’t find any reputable scientist anywhere claiming such a thing, can you?
Keep blathering – implications and innuendo are all you have.
There is no GHE – you cannot describe such a mythical thing, and you are too gutless to even say what you think it might do! Just saying it is “not cooling, slower cooling” and trying to redefine cooling as getting hotter, makes you look like a SkyDragon cultist – out of touch with reality.
Have you thought of trying to trying to get someone like Dr Spencer to back you up?
Give it a try – see how you go.
Mike Flynn,
You are replying to TYSON.
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
No, I’m not. In case Im mistaken, please let me know if you don’t believe that some mysterious “EEI” results in the planet getting hotter.
You can’t even commit yourself to claiming that the mythical GHE does anything at all, can you?
What a pea-brain you are!
Maroon Mike,
To post the comment where you did, you had to click “reply” right under TYSON’s comment.
What I like most about you is your obsessive attention to typos.
Why not apply your OCD to threading too?
Cheers.
Worried Wee Willy,
No, Im not. In case Im mistaken, please let me know if you dont believe that some mysterious EEI results in the planet getting hotter.
You cant even commit yourself to claiming that the mythical GHE does anything at all, can you?
What a pea-brain you are!
Willard,
Who the heck is TYSON, and where is the comment you refer to?
Is TYSON another of your obscure fantasy creations?
Accept reality. There is no GHE, and appealing to an imaginary TYSON is unlikely to help people accept your sanity.
Maroon Mike,
No idea who TYSON really is. He used to work in O&G. Just like you. Perhaps you met him in your Enron times?
He likes Chess. Perhaps you could challenge him.
Continue to play dumb!
Woeful Wee Willy,
When you wrote “Mike Flynn,
You are replying to TYSON.
Cheers.”
you were just trolling for no reason at all?
Good grief, Willard, that’s pretty silly, even for a donkey like you!
Do you play Chess, Maroon Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
If you played Chess, Maroon Mike, you could dust it off with TYSON.
Willard, please stop trolling.
New Report Highlights Green Failure in Europe and Warns America
18 mins ago
Guest Blogger
By Rick Whitbeck January 04, 2024
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/07/new-report-highlights-green-failure-in-europe-and-warns-america/
America should have warned Europe. The US proved these efforts only caused government corruption and we have a long littered history of these failures.
Carter who was once known a the worst US president {and now he is in 3rd place} started this nonsense.
From article:
“Since decarbonization efforts commenced, Britains economy has grown at half the rate as it did from 1990-2008. According to a research study from noted British economic historian Nicholas Crafts, thats the second-worst period of British peacetime growth since 1780.
In addition to the economic malaise, British energy prices have skyrocketed, and Britons are now concerned with how to survive the effect of those costs on their wallets, as they look to heat and power their homes and businesses, travel for work and pleasure and live life as best they can.
The differences between British energy costs and those here in the U.S. are staggering: Britons paid an average of $228 per megawatt hour (MWh) for electricity generated from coal in 2022, whereas Americans paid an average of $27 per MWh. For natural gas, 2022 saw Britons paying $251 per MWh, versus American consumers averaging $61 per MWh for their power. ”
As was well known {even UN knew it} the higher cost of electrical
power was a fundamental reason, poor countries were poor.
Plus lack of cheap water. So, they funded hydro dams as a way to reduce poverty.
And no foreign aid ever worked as well as this did.
SUNDAY MORNING PUZZLE FOR SKY DRAGON CRANKS
When air lifts adiabatically, it ______ because pressure outside the parcel is ______ than the one inside. The temperature of the air parcel becomes _____, because of its own _____ in this process.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The coldest winter month in the northern hemisphere is ahead, and the polar vortex will be shattered. This is a 10-day forecast.
https://i.ibb.co/kgzSbvW/gfs-z100-nh-f240.png
My prediction is certain.
https://i.ibb.co/QDVrfsK/hgt300-2.webp
The uncertainty of Palmowski’s ‘certain predictions’ has proven to keep at levels near 90% during the last years.
What looks a bit less uncertain is that
– while Lapony will be very cold in 10 days (below -25 C day, near -35 C night), and
– Northeast Siberia becomes even colder (below -45 C day, near -55 C night),
– the Northeast Germoney monkey expects in 10 days something like 0 C day and -4 C night.
Dans 10 jours on verra bien qui aura eu raison ce jour, n’est-ce pas?
Bookmarked.
Binny,
You wrote –
“The uncertainty of Palmowskis ‘certain predictions’ has proven to keep at levels near 90% during the last years.”
Which 10% did he get right?
If a coin toss gives 50% accuracy, then simply reversing Ren’s ‘certain predictions’ would give 90% @ccuracy, n’est-ce pas?
You don’t need to thank me.
I see it but I don’t believe it!
Here’s the exceptionally ignorant Willard at his finest –
“Perhaps, Norman, but have you considered that deserts cool faster because their Sky have more non-radiative gases?
Asking for a musician friend.”
What a ninny!
Willard, all matter in the universe radiates infrared. If you don’t like it, create your own fantasy universe.
Oh wait, you already have! Sorry, I forgot.
Carry on.
I notice that Mike Flynn still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest. That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth. And best of all hes the one who insists on deserts. Aw diddums!
I see it but I dont believe it!
Heres the exceptionally ignorant Willard at his finest
“Perhaps, Norman, but have you considered that deserts cool faster because their Sky have more non-radiative gases?
Asking for a musician friend.”
What a ninny!
Willard, all matter in the universe radiates infrared. If you dont like it, create your own fantasy universe.
Oh wait, you already have! Sorry, I forgot.
Carry on.
Maroon Mike,
You say –
“I see it but I dont believe it!”
Is this what she said?
Cheers.
Oh please do it again, Flynnson!
We look forward to seeing your Alzheimer’s disease grow every day.
I see it but I dont believe it!
Heres the exceptionally ignorant Willard at his finest
“Perhaps, Norman, but have you considered that deserts cool faster because their Sky have more non-radiative gases?
Asking for a musician friend.”
What a ninny!
Willard, all matter in the universe radiates infrared. If you don’t like it, create your own fantasy universe.
Oh wait, you already have! Sorry, I forgot.
Carry on.
Maroon Mike,
You say
I see it but I dont believe it!
Is this what she said?
Cheers.
I see it but I dont believe it!
Heres the exceptionally ignorant Willard at his finest
“Perhaps, Norman, but have you considered that deserts cool faster because their Sky have more non-radiative gases?
Asking for a musician friend.”
What a ninny!
Willard, all matter in the universe radiates infrared. If you dont like it, create your own fantasy universe.
Oh wait, you already have! Sorry, I forgot.
Carry on.
Maroon Mike,
You say
I see it but I dont believe it!
Is this what your ninny said?
Cheers.
I see it but I dont believe it!
Heres the exceptionally ignorant Willard at his finest
“Perhaps, Norman, but have you considered that deserts cool faster because their Sky have more non-radiative gases?
Asking for a musician friend.”
What a ninny is Willard!
Willard, all matter in the universe radiates infrared. If you dont like it, create your own fantasy universe.
Oh wait, you already have! Sorry, I forgot.
Carry on.
Maroon Mike,
Your arguments are like noble gases – they do not radiate much!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I notice that Mike Flynn still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ”
Well, gee, Willard, good try at diversion, but it is unlikely to work all that well.
I’ll just point out that you now seem to accept that the hottest places on Earth are that way in spite of, rather than because of, the mythical GHE! Just basis physical laws in operation.
Luckily, none of it matters. All matter in the real universe radiates infrared, and your imaginary “greenhouse gases” (whatever they are supposed to be) are no different.
You are still as ignorant and obsessed as ever. Scuttle away cockroach, go back to your SkyDragon fantasy – or hang about and listen to the snorts of derision, as you try to avoid facing the reality that there is no GHE.
Your choice.
Maroon Mike,
Emitting and absorbing are converse operations.
What are you braying about?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote
“I notice that Mike Flynn still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ”
Well, gee, Willard, good try at diversion, but it is unlikely to work all that well.
Ill just point out that you now seem to accept that the hottest places on Earth are that way in spite of, rather than because of, the mythical GHE! Just basis physical laws in operation.
Luckily, none of it matters. All matter in the real universe radiates infrared, and your imaginary “greenhouse gases” (whatever they are supposed to be) are no different.
You are still as ignorant and obsessed as ever. Scuttle away cockroach, go back to your SkyDragon fantasy or hang about and listen to the snorts of derision, as you try to avoid facing the reality that there is no GHE.
Your choice.
You also wrote –
“Emitting and absorbing are converse operations.” Well gee, Willard, maybe you could try demonstrating your knowledge with something relevant, but I doubt it.
Carry on – you aren’t doing too well so far.
Maroon Mike,
You still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
You still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best you’re the one who insisted FOR YEARS on deserts:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/24/environmentalism-versus-science/#comment-746501
And then you shot for the Moon!
Cheers.
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“That just proves the GHG effect doesnt work without water vapor. By itself CO2 does almost nothing given your example.”
Oh, so CO2 by itself does ‘almost nothing’? What does it do then? Heat? Cool? Nothing at all?
That would make people like Gavin Schmidt complete fools, then, for writing papers titled “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”.
Have you contacted the authors of such papers to tell them that, by itself, “CO2 does almost nothing”? Maybe nobody takes much notice of you.
Not to worry – the airless Moon doesn’t have any water vapour or CO2, and still gets far hotter than any place on Earth, so your mad speculation about some mythical GHG effect (whatever that’s supposed to mean), seems to claim that water vapour makes deserts both hotter and cooler at the same time! Cooler than the Moon, but hotter than more humid places,
You have no clue, do you? You are just lurching from one piece of silliness to another piece – even sillier. Still saying the GHE results in “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Off you go now – dream up something even sillier.
Maroon Mike’s “but deserts” move is legendary, e.g.:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/21/the-tragedy-of-the-horizon/#comment-832176
Bob’s response was funny.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Here’s the important part –
“No GHE, Im afraid. No one has ever demonstrated a method of making a thermometer hotter by using CO2, or by reducing the amount of energy it [A-word].”
Presumably, you meant to say “absorbs”, but are too terrified to do so.
All your dodging and weaving is not helping.
There is no GHE, and you can’t even describe the mythical “effect”, can you? Your effort to date “not cooling, slower cooling”. The phenomenon called cooling has been noticed since the dawn of man. If you want to call it GHE, good for you! You might have trouble trying to pronounce it though. I’ll stick to calling the phenomenon “cooling”.
Maroon Mike,
Here’s the important bit –
[MIKE DISCOVERS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT] The arid tropical deserts, or the surface of the Moon show how hot things get with reduced greenhouse gases.
Congratulations – you discovered the greenhouse effect!
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Willard, all matter in the universe radiates infrared. ”
Oh yes, even nitrogen does, after having absorbed it of course.
But… it does that about 10,000,000 times less than water vapor if I well do remember.
This however doesn’t play any role in Flynnson’s wonderful pathologico-phantasmagorical universe.
Flynnson tr0ll, stop tr0lling – right now would be best.
But I’m sure you can’t.
Binny,
You wrote –
“But it does that about 10,000,000 times less than water vapor if I well do remember.”
Maybe you don’t “well do remember” as well as you think, so here’s your chance to see if your memory is as good as you think it is.
You are just babbling, arent you, and making stuff up as you go along.
Be a bit scientific if you dare. First, at what frequencies and pressures is water vapour 10,000,000 times more emissive than nitrogen? Second, what effect does this have on maximum surface temperatures?
I’ll even help you out a bit. Professor John Tyndall found –
“The vapour was found to act with 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 times the energy of the air in which it was diffused; and no doubt was entertained that the aqueous vapour of the air which filled the Royal Institution theatre, during the delivery of the discourse, absorbed 90 or 100 times the quantity of radiant heat which was absorbed by the main body of the air of the room. Looking at the single atoms, for every 200 of oxygen and nitrogen there is about 1 of aqueous vapour. This 1 is 80 times more powerful than the 200; and hence, comparing a single atom of oxygen or nitrogen with a single atom [molecule] of aqueous vapour, we may infer that the action of the latter is 16,000 times that of the former.”
You can find out what IR wavelengths Tyndall was using, and then look at his meticulous experiments, where he revises his 16,000 figure, and gives his results at various pressures and wavelengths for a range of gases including CO2.
None of this supports your nonsensical GHE. As Willard points out, less supposed “greenhouse gases” actually results in higher temperatures!
You even wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote ” Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Maybe you now believe similar nonsense about water vapour (gaseous H2O)?
You’re running out of places to hide. No GHE. None. Not even a little bit!
” First, at what frequencies and pressures is water vapour 10,000,000 times more emissive than nitrogen? ”
Why do you ask, Flynnsonito?
Look at SpectralCalc – if you are able to – and compare there N2 and H2O over the entire wavelength spectrum, and by the way of course considering the gases’ respective atmospheric abundance.
*
” As Willard points out, less supposed ‘greenhouse gases’ actually results in higher temperatures! ”
This, Flynnson, perfectly shows how stubborn, opinionated and uneducated you are.
Willard merely told you that above deserts, there is much less GHG (here: water vapor) than above tropical forests, for example.
This lack of water vapor above deserts is the cause for deserts cooling faster at night than tropical forests.
The rest is part of your wonderful pathologico-phantasmagorical universe.
*
Flynnson tr0ll, stop tr0lling right now would be best.
But Im sure you cant.
Binny,
I asked “First, at what frequencies and pressures is water vapour 10,000,000 times more emissive than nitrogen?”
You don’t know, do you? A vague appeal to a commercial modelling software seller won’t help.
You wrote –
“Willard merely told you that above deserts, there is much less GHG (here: water vapor) than above tropical forests, for example.
This lack of water vapor above deserts is the cause for deserts cooling faster at night than tropical forests.”
At least you and Willard now agree that more supposed GHG results in lower, not higher, temperatures. That’s a start.
You went further before, and said –
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.”because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
You have now agreed that decreasing water vapour results in higher temperatures, as does decreasing CO2. Go on, dummy, now tell everyone what supposed “greenhouse gases” like CO2 and H2O are supposed to do, again? You agree that more H2O makes the surface cooler, and specifically state that increasing CO2 does not result in increased temperatures!
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE!
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“decreasing water vapour results in higher temperatures”
Have you ever been in a desert at night?
Don’t know who Flynn refers to since MIke Flynn has not been around here for years. However, Swanson was referring to the obvious, that all atoms radiate and absorb at certain frequencies. Of course, if you are using telemetry looking only in the IR range, you will miss most of it. Also, you will miss oxygen radiation in the microwave range.
> MIke Flynn has not been around here for years.
Cool story, Bordo.
I suppose you believe in coincidences:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/22/science-uncertainty-and-advocacy/#comment-713529
Same voice. Same names dropped. Same talking points. Same put downs.
If you really believe that Maroon Mike isn’t Mike Flynn, I’ve got a Stanley Cup bet on Toronto to sell you.
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Also, you will miss oxygen radiation in the microwave range. ”
Sounds exactly as “NOAA uses only 1500 stations worldwide”.
Robertson’s dementia is afflicting.
He has been corrected so often about this stoopid microwave pseudo-argument!
Earth’s major energy output is around 10 micron, and the microwave range is 5000 micron.
How is it possible to be so dense?
Did I read ‘turbulence over Germany’ somewhere upthread?
What about first looking at what happens above the US?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/TM64BYCQ6JDO7KPOHDTPI7PFUY.png&w=916
Binny,
You wrote –
“What about first looking at what happens above the US?”
What about it? Are you just trolling for fun?
same thing over Germany in December and likely still there.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/december2024/202312_Map.png
” same thing over Germany in December… ”
As always, nothing to do with the reality I described.
And as a little extra, the usual nonsense from Flynnson, the blog’s tr0lliest poster.
Earlier, the peabrained Willard wrote –
“Maroon Mike slips up
less [] greenhouse gases results in increased, rather than decreased, surface temperatures
He kinda forgot that its standard meteorology:”
What a donkey! He omitted the “supposed”, (the original was “supposed greenhouse gases”), aiming for some unknown goal, I guess, and accused “Maroon Mike” (presumably me, but my name terrifies him) of a slip-up.
No slip-up, dummy. Just pointing out that “standard meteorology” contains no reference at all to the GHE. Here’s what Wikipedia says “Meteorology is a branch of the atmospheric sciences (which include atmospheric chemistry and physics) with a major focus on weather forecasting.”
You see? Science – not confused nonsense and wishful fantasy.
Try again.
Maroon Mike slips again –
[MAROON MIKE DISCOVERS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT] Less greenhouse gases results in increased, rather than decreased, surface temperatures.
Perhaps he just forgets to average? If he does, then he also forgets that deserts are quite cold at night. Not like the other side of the Moon at night!
What a maroon!
Earth night lasts a few hours, in temperature climates. On the dark side of the Moon, night is two weeks in length, with no sunlight whatsoever. If they had oceans on the Moon, they’d freeze solid for two weeks then thaw for two weeks. Of course, climate alarmists would use the two weeks of thaw as evidence of lunar warming.
> Earth night lasts a few hours
Cool story, Bordo:
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_659ab085adb89.png
(H/T Norman.)
Have you noticed that there’s no atmosphere on the Moon?
What does your reply have to do with anything? Unless you’re trying to tell us that the radiation from a surface depends on having an atmosphere?
You should stick to things you understand wee willy, like home economics classes or maybe basket-weaving.
Funny that the dark side of the Moon cools rapidly and it has no CO2 to do the radiating, as you alarmists claim.
It has been discovered that during the transition from lunar day to night, the Moon does not cool as rapidly as expected. That’s because radiation is a poor means of cooling.
> What does your reply have to do with anything?
Good point, Bordo.
I have no idea how responding to your points have anything to do with anything.
Perhaps you should work on being relevant.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wayward Wee Willy,
There is no greenhouse effect, you donkey.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years.
Willard,
Are you quite mad?
You say “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.”
That includes every gas in the universe, does it? All gases emit IR. Oh, and absorb IR, of course. That’s why they remain gases, you donkey.
Keep dodging – you just look sillier and sillier.
Maroon Mike,
I already responded to your silly talking point –
“All gases emit IR”
Even your comments show some form of intelligence.
Very little.
Very, very little.
Very, very, very, very, …, very little.
Littler than that.
Yeah, I know it’s not standard. Neither are you a standard Climateball player.
Sometimes quantities matter.
Willard,
Are you quite mad?
You say “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.”
That includes every gas in the universe, does it? All gases emit IR. Oh, and absorb IR, of course. Thats why they remain gases, you donkey.
Keep dodging you just look sillier and sillier.
Maroon Mike,
You ask –
“That includes every gas in the universe, does it?”
I don’t think we call every gas a greenhouse gas.
Do you?
Willard,
Are you quite mad?
You say “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.”
That includes every gas in the universe, does it? All gases emit IR. Oh, and absorb IR, of course. Thats why they remain gases, you donkey.
Keep dodging you just look sillier and sillier.
Maroon Mike,
Do you think you have a fortress?
I hope you do, for that’s the only reason why you’d be willing to keep repeating yourself so much.
In Go, such a fortress abides by a simple principle. A territory that lives needs two “eyes.”
Where are your two eyes?
Your silly confusion about how much IR non-radiative gases emit or absorb isn’t an eye.
Your silly semantic game about the concept of greenhouse gas isn’t one either.
Radiative gases. Non-radiative gases. Learn the difference.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Radiative gases. Non-radiative gases. Learn the difference.”
All gases radiate infrared. All gases at the same temperature radiate the same frequencies of infrared.
You sound like one of those SkyDragon cultists who believe in supposed “greenhouse gases” – none of which managed to prevent the Earth cooling to its present temperature.
You might just as well keep trying to be annoying.
[laughing at inept troll]
Maroon Mike,
Not every gas efficiently absorbs infrared radiation, and becomes heated as a consequence.
You did not know?
So sad, too bad.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote (in a fit of ignorance) –
“Not every gas efficiently absorbs infrared radiation, and becomes heated as a consequence.”
Name one, peabrain. Oh, and specify what “efficiently” means in this context. See, trying to sound sciency just makes you look silly.
Carry on.
Name one what, Maroon Mike – a greenhouse gas?
You snottily call them “so-called greenhouse gases” and you don’t know any?
Have you tried the Internet?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote (in a fit of ignorance)
“Not every gas efficiently absorbs infrared radiation, and becomes heated as a consequence.”
Name one, peabrain. Oh, and specify what “efficiently” means in this context. See, trying to sound sciency just makes you look silly.
Carry on.
Mo‌ron Mike does not know what’s a greenhouse gas, yet he keeps referring to greenhouse gases.
What a moro‌n!
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote (in a fit of ignorance)
“Not every gas efficiently absorbs infrared radiation, and becomes heated as a consequence.”
Name one, peabrain. Oh, and specify what “efficiently” means in this context. See, trying to sound sciency just makes you look silly.
Carry on.
Methane, Mike.
No, not Methane Mike. That is another guy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy should stick to science he understands…
“Your arguments are like noble gases they do not radiate much!”
***
https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/neontable2.htm
What do you think they use in neon signs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon_lighting
“The color of the light depends on the gas in the tube. Neon lights were named for neon, a noble gas which gives off a popular orange light, but other gases and chemicals are used to produce other colors, such as hydrogen (purple-red), helium (yellow or pink), carbon dioxide (white), and mercury (blue)”.
Note that neon radiates a frequency we see as orange and another noble gas, helium, radiates a pink to yellow colour. Note also, that CO2, often associated with IR frequencies, radiates white, a conglomeration of visible wavelengths.
Note that nitrogen radiates blues and reds, meaning just below UV and just above IR. Oxygen emits a greenish-yellow light representing the peak of Planck’s curve and also a red light. Both radiate UV as well. That’s on top of the microwave radiation used by UAH satellites.
Maroon Mike Flynn has found a fancy way to say that neon gas does not emit light in the visible spectrum.
Why does he hide his violent agreement?
“Maroon Mike Flynn has found a fancy way to say that neon gas does not emit light in the visible spectrum.
Why does he hide his violent agreement?”
Are you now claiming that Gordon Robertson is the fantasy figure Maroon Mike Flynn?
Or have you just completely taken leave of your senses? No need to answer.
Maroon Mike,
You got me there.
Sorry, Bordo.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard has allayed everybody’s concerns about “greenhouse gas”.
He says “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.
Are you no chemical engineer or something?”
Well done, Willard. You and your pals call cooling warming, and explain it by saying any gas is a greenhouse gas, which has magic properties – can make thermometers hotter, colder, or have no effect at all!
At least neither Willard nor his nutty companions have anything at all to say about the GHE. Just as well, they will probably claim that the greenhouse effect is any effect they call the greenhouse effect!
Brilliant, if you are really, really dumb, and really, really, gullible.
Maroon Mike Flynn,
“So-called” greenhouse gases.
“Call cooling warming.”
All you got is silly semantic games to power you sadism.
Cheers.
Willard has allayed everybodys concerns about greenhouse gas.
He says “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.
Are you no chemical engineer or something?”
Well done, Willard. You and your pals call cooling warming, and explain it by saying any gas is a greenhouse gas, which has magic properties can make thermometers hotter, colder, or have no effect at all!
At least neither Willard nor his nutty companions have anything at all to say about the GHE. Just as well, they will probably claim that the greenhouse effect is any effect they call the greenhouse effect!
Brilliant, if you are really, really dumb, and really, really, gullible.
Maroon Mike has very little to say.
He knows that the atmosphere makes a difference.
It keeps the Earth warmer on average than it would be without one.
He knows that clouds make a difference.
It keeps the Earth under it cooler on average than it would be without them.
He just does not know reconcile these two facts together.
A bit sad, really.
Willard has allayed everybodys concerns about greenhouse gas.
He says “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.
Are you no chemical engineer or something?”
Well done, Willard. You and your pals call cooling warming, and explain it by saying any gas is a greenhouse gas, which has magic properties can make thermometers hotter, colder, or have no effect at all!
At least neither Willard nor his nutty companions have anything at all to say about the GHE. Just as well, they will probably claim that the greenhouse effect is any effect they call the greenhouse effect!
Brilliant, if you are really, really dumb, and really, really, gullible.
Maroon Mike ignores the fact that not every gas is a RAG.
He could learn, but prefers to rag.
What a drag!
Willard has allayed everybodys concerns about greenhouse gas.
He says “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.
Are you no chemical engineer or something?”
Well done, Willard. You and your pals call cooling warming, and explain it by saying any gas is a greenhouse gas, which has magic properties can make thermometers hotter, colder, or have no effect at all!
At least neither Willard nor his nutty companions have anything at all to say about the GHE. Just as well, they will probably claim that the greenhouse effect is any effect they call the greenhouse effect!
Brilliant, if you are really, really dumb, and really, really, gullible.
Maroon Mike,
Do you know what RAG stands for?
Cheers.
Willard has allayed everybodys concerns about greenhouse gas.
He says “A greenhouse gas is a gas we call a greenhouse gas, Maroon Mike.
Are you no chemical engineer or something?”
Well done, Willard. You and your pals call cooling warming, and explain it by saying any gas is a greenhouse gas, which has magic properties can make thermometers hotter, colder, or have no effect at all!
At least neither Willard nor his nutty companions have anything at all to say about the GHE. Just as well, they will probably claim that the greenhouse effect is any effect they call the greenhouse effect!
Brilliant, if you are really, really dumb, and really, really, gullible.
So you say, Mo‌ron Mike.
So you say.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ark…”[Roy]Anything that changes the balance between energy input and energy output of the Earth has the potential to change its temperature. This energy-balance-determines-temperature concept is basic physics, and is fundamental to the calculation of the temperature (or change in temperature) of anything, and is accounted for in the design of most energy-consuming devices humans have invented”.
***
First, I want to express my utter contempt for you bringing Roy into this as an authority figure, especially when your alarmist principles and arguments contradict Roy’s work. It puts him in a no-win situation and pits skeptic against skeptic. But that’s what I have come to expect from alarmist scumbags like you.
Roy couched his words carefully claiming that energy balance has the ***POTENTIAL*** to change temperature. He is correct in claiming that the energy-balance principle is basic physics, but not as stated in the Trenberth-Kiehle energy-budget theory.
For one, temperature is a human-defined measure of thermal energy based on the freezing and boiling points of water, and is not applicable all forms of energy, including electromagnetic energy. A thermometer cannot measure EM, it can only measure EM converted to heat in a body. Therefore, an energy budget related to temperature must involved a heat budget and no other form of energy. That rules out Trenberth-Kiehle.
The Trenberth-Kiehle pseudo-science is thoroughly confused about the relationship between heat and electromagnetic energy. For one, it has the heat dissipation qualities of radiation and conduction/convection backwards, and by a long shot. Shula proved that a heated element in a vacuum cools very slowly due to radiation alone yet when a gas is introduced into the tube it cools very quickly. We have all witnessed the same with an ordinary thermos bottle.
For another, the T-K energy budget claims more radiation from a trace gas than from solar input. It contradicts the 2nd law by claiming that radiation from a source colder than the surface can be absorbed by the surface. So, not only does it disrespect the 2nd law it creates heat in the energy budget that is simply not there.
I know Roy and I disagree on the 2nd law. Enough said.
I am not going to engage in taking shots at Roy since I respect him as a professional and the good work he has done challenging alarmist pseudo-science. I get it that he has to walk a fine line between accepted science, alternative POVs, like mine, and his professional opinions.
I disagree with Roy on some points and I’d love to have a one-on-one with him to discuss them. All the same, the overall message is more important than my opinions. Roy and John Christy have made their positions clear on alarmist claims and I support them fully on that. If all people agreed on science it would be a boring world.
> It puts him in a no-win situation and pits skeptic against skeptic.
Cool story, Bordo. Here’s Roy having no qualms throwing all Moon Dragon cranks under the bus in one fell swoop:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
You’ve been here for more than a decade.
I don’t think you ever met Roy’s challenge.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wee willy just posted an article by Roy with his response to certain Sky Dragon Slayers. I have never been associated with them nor do I know what they posted so I’ll have to go on what Roy finds wrong with their arguments.
The following is not intended as a shot at Roy but an expression of frustration on my part that the science simply lacks answers to pertinent questions. My aim is to hopefully get a constructive discussion going on these points. Therefore, if I make an assertion, it is intended more as an equation looking for a rebuttal.
I am aware that certain people associated themselves with the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ written with input from scholars like Claes Johnson, a mathematician, and Philip Latour, a chemical engineer with plenty of experience applying the 2nd law.
The following article by Roy and referenced by wee willy was written in 2013, 10 year ago, and maybe Roy has different thoughts on this subject.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Roy replies later in the comments…
“Scott, are you unaware that the Slayers are disputing science which has been published literally hundreds of times in the peer-reviewed literature? Im not saying that necessarily makes it true, only that the Slayers have yet to offer the same physical rigor in advancing their argumentsstarting with a surface energy balance model. If they cannot take that simple step, they should be ignored”.
***
I don’t believe in unvalidated models as proof of anything. Therefore, I’d prefer an explanation using words, backed up by math if necessary, not the other way around, where equations have taken over and subjective explanations lacking. Overall, I feel that an assertion without proof in words, establishing a person’s understanding of the basics, indicates an incomplete understanding of the subject. If you read Clausius circa, 1850, he presents no math without a subjective explanation.
No models, no thought experiments, just known science.
—
As the basis of his argument, Roy states…”As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called greenhouse gases that emit thermal infrared radiation downward”.
If that is their view, then I agree with Roy. I don’t call such gases ‘greenhouse’ gases because I don’t think they operate in any way that leads to warming in a real greenhouse. However, it has been known since Tyndall’s experiment circa 1850, that gases like CO2 can absorb and emit IR isotropicaly and that part of the direction of emission has to be straight down to the surface.
Roy goes on…”A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature”.
I think they are wrong on that too. The reason a trace gas has no effect is related to the heat diffusion equation as applied to gases. Diffusion is relate to the ability of a member gas in a mix to transfer heat into the overall mix. It has nothing to do with conduction, which is insignificant in a gas, so it has to cover any means by which heat can be transferred, whether by collision or what.
The diffusion agrees with the Ideal Gas Law that the amount of heat that can be transferred to a larger volume of gas by any other gas is based on its relative mass percent. What the heck is that?
Any molecule’s mass is determined by the mass of each atom in the molecule. Therefore the total mass of CO2 is about 44 grams/mol (add the amu’s of each atom), while O2 is about 32 g/mol and nitrogen about 28 g/mol. However, N2 + O2 makes up 99% of the atmosphere and CO2 only 0.04%. When all is said and done, the ratio works out to about 99% to 0.06%
That is about the ratio of heating in the atmosphere between those molecules. The IGL and the heat diffusion equation agree on that.
—
[Roy]”For the adiabatic lapse rate to exist in the real atmosphere, there must be convective instability, which requires BOTH lower atmospheric heating AND upper atmospheric cooling. But the upper atmosphere cannot cool unless greenhouse gases are present! Without greenhouse gases, the atmosphere would slowly approach an isothermal state through thermal conduction with a temperature close to the surface temperature, and convection would then be impossible.
In other words, without the greenhouse effect, there would be no decrease in atmospheric temperature with height, and no convection. The existence of weather thus depends upon the greenhouse effect to destabilize the atmosphere”.
***
A problem I have with Roy’s reply is that a column of air with a lapse rate, cannot have a turbulent convection. The lapse rate is regarded as a constant in so many degrees C/metre or km. However, with turbulence, air of different temperatures and pressures is moved around. I don’t see why the convection has to be vertical, since a lot of convection takes place N-S and vice-versa, between areas of different temperature in those regions.
A counter argument is as follows. There is nothing adiabatic in a gas in a container with no walls. Insulated walls are required to prevent heat entering or leaving.
Modelling the atmosphere as an air column is disingenuous since such a column can neither prevent heat escaping nor entering via convection. I think this theory is wrong.
We must treat the atmosphere as some kind of container with no walls and a roughly located ceiling. Obviously there must be a transition from pressure to no pressure therefore we need to establish an altitude where that takes place. If we cannot do it in bulk, then we need to break the atmosphere into concentric spheres and establish an IGL relationship within each.
The upper atmosphere cools naturally as pressure decreases. As pressure decreases so does temperature (Ideal Gas Law). However, at altitudes toward the stratosphere there are so few molecules of air that temperature becomes unpredictable. Claiming that the upper atmosphere warms is meant in a relative sense. Warming from -60C to less than 0C is hardly warming. Given the thinness of the air at such altitudes, warmer and cooler lose their meaning. It’s just plain cold, like the Arctic in winter.
This is all Ideal Gas Law…PV = nrt with a peculiar condition, the pressure changes fairly linearly with altitude. What causes the pressure change…gravity? In a container at the surface, gravity is negligible unless the container extended significantly into the atmosphere.
I find it somewhat absurd that some sciences ignore gravity with relation to the atmosphere. I agree that weather depends on turbulent convection but weather takes place in a relatively stable atmosphere with the stability established by gravity.
I agree with Roy that temperature near the surface cannot be established based on gravitational attraction, but without gravity there would be no atmosphere. Gravity is the force that binds air molecules to the surface forcing them to turn with the planet. Since gravitational force changes with altitude, and air molecules are almost infinitesimally light, they can be ordered in layer of variable pressure.
Convection cannot explain STP at sea level, but gravity can. Convection cannot explain the drop of air pressure to 1/3rd sea level the top of Everest, but gravity can.
Turbulent convection certainly cannot explain the variability of pressure which is constant around the planet with altitude. If that was not the case, UAH would be out of work since the telemetry on sats depends on it.
Cool story, Bordo.
Does it have a point?
How is it related to what I just said?
Take deep breaths. Focus.
One point that relates to what you said is that Dr Spencer is not throwing what you call "Sky Dragon cranks" under the bus in one fell swoop, since you classify everyone who disputes the GHE as "Sky Dragon cranks"; but as Gordon points out, "Slayers" are a small group of people associated with the book. IMO most people who dispute the GHE would not call themselves "Slayers".
The second point, which Gordon made quite subtly, is that the arguments Dr Spencer associates with the "Slayers", Gordon does not agree with. That would be the case for most people who dispute the GHE. Those arguments appear to be straw men, in other words.
Does it have a point? It might (probably not) but we’ll never discover it buried as it is under a load of useless verbiage.
Here could be a point:
[ROY, ON SKY DRAGON CRANKS] they must first provide a time-dependent model like that above which involves energy gain and energy loss terms, which is the only way to compute the temperature of something from theory.
[BORDO] I don’t believe in unvalidated models as proof of anything. Therefore, Id prefer an explanation using words, backed up by math if necessary, not the other way around, where equations have taken over and subjective explanations lacking.
Sir Bordo is bravely running away!
I think a good point is that this:
"Here’s Roy having no qualms throwing all [Sky] Dragon cranks under the bus in one fell swoop"
is obviously wrong, for the reasons I (and Gordon) pointed out.
Graham D. Warner tries really hard to escape Roy’s challenge.
And once again he tries special pleading.
His imbecility knows no bound.
The false accusations begin.
[ROY] As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] You cannot “trap” OLR. You can only slow its progress into space.
GHGs emit thermal IR radiation in all directions, including downward. So Dr Spencer’s straw man remains a straw man, as far as I’m concerned.
Graham D. Graham keeps denying the obvious:
[ROY] A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature.
[BORDO] It is also not possible for a rare gas like ACO2 to intercept enough IR, and re-transmit it to the surface, so as to create the positive feedback programmed into models. You have admitted that most surface energy escapes to space, bypassing the GHGs.
In other words, he’s gaslighting.
Gordon is not saying the same thing that Dr Spencer is saying "Slayers" say. You’ll keep going, no doubt.
Roy clearly targets those who keep denying the greenhouse effect.
Graham D. Warner still tries to racehorse his way out of that scope.
He’s not welcome here, and he knows it.
Sure, Dr Spencer would prefer discussion not be about the existence or absence of a GHE. Well aware of that. Nevertheless that’s what most of his regulars seem to want to spend all their time discussing, and it’s why his monthly updates have comments running into the thousands. People still love discussing the GHE!
And now Graham D. Warner tries to minimize the fact that Sky Dragon cranks are responsible for Sky Dragon cranks stuff…
No shame. No honor.
Those that dispute the GHE are responsible for what they say. Those that defend the GHE are responsible for what they say. Discussions involve more than one "side". It’s a bit silly to blame it all on one side, don’t you think?
Out of a sudden Graham D. Warner rediscovers symmetry. But are the roles between Team Science and Sky Dragon cranks really reciprocal here? Our cranks are obviously trying to pretend they have a ball to play, whereas Team Science mainly plays defense by pointing out they have none.
Which was the point of Roy’s post – no model, no nothing.
Besides, when Team Science was away from Roy’s, Sky Dragon cranks were already screetching. Yet when only one Sky Dragon cranks disappears, by some magic Sky Dragon discourse subsides.
So childish.
Graham D. Warner, who tries to pass himself as Roy’s moderator even after Roy directly told him how PSTing people was silly, who pretends not reading Nate’s comments, who keeps addressing me as if we were on speaking terms, who keeps trying to last word every thread in which he decides to chimes in, has strong opinions about childishness.
Listen to Willard whine about getting responses to his posts. LMAO!
In an exchange about maturity, Gill lulzes.
ROLFCOPTER^ROLFCOPTER^ROLFCOPTER
Willard, please stop trolling.
Oh, and I forgot to add –
Graham D. Warner keeps using the T-word, which is now banned.
Thank you or reminding me, Mike Flynn!
Obsess over someone else, child. Maybe you could even take responsibility for your own shortcomings.
Graham D. Warner, who keeps responding to my comments even when he has no business doing so, like in this other subthread, has strong opinions about obsession.
Another abuse in the life of a guy who keeps using a banned word, a word that has been banned right after Roy directly told him that his PSTing was silly!
…over someone else, child. Maybe you could even take responsibility for your own shortcomings.
Graham D. Warner still does not own the fact that he kept PSTing even after Roy challenged him directly and banned the T-word.
He still does, tho Mike Flynn is now trying to compete with him.
Little Willy is desperate to try and get me banned. Absolutely desperate. He’s so, so obsessed with me. I guess I just live rent free in his head after winning so many arguments against him. That he’ll respond to this message is more certain than his failure in every aspect of his life.
Graham D. Warner has no shame and no honor.
He knows that the T-word is banned.
He still PSTs people.
See?! He actually responded!
Graham D. Warner has no response to the facts laid down to his feet.
He uses the T-word even it has been blacklisted. And the word has been blacklisted right after Roy directly responding to his PSTing.
He stands them aside, and offers another silly Kafka trap.
What else is new?
Graham D. Warner has no shame and no honor.
Yes, I use the "T word" after it has been blacklisted. Indeed. That seems to annoy you even more than it did before. In which case, I’d better keep it up. When bad people get annoyed by something, you know you’re doing something right.
Graham D. Warner admits to a fact even himself cannot deny:
Then he goes for the deflection, which works better without acknowledging the other fact, which is the T-word has been blacklisted right after Roy responded to his PSTing.
The issue isn’t about me.
It’s about how Graham D. Warner bypasses Roy’s policies.
Graham D. Warner has no shame and no honor.
Dr Spencer has never said anything about my "PSTing." He mentioned that I impersonate a moderator, though. I explained that I didn’t think anybody would take it seriously, with the word "emergency" in there.
Why has the sub-thread become all about me, again? Oh, because I’m talking to Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner returns to gaslighting:
http://tinyurl.com/roy-speaks-to-graham-d-warner
Graham D. Warner once again tries to minimize what is being said and done. Not unlike why he appeared in this subthread to exclude himself from Roy’s challenge, come to think of it.
Graham D. Warner has no shame and no honor.
Little Willy handily posts a link which confirms what I said in my 11:38 AM comment was correct.
Graham D. Warner confirms that head he wins, tails he wins too!
It’s bad for me to use one of Dr Spencer’s banned words, but fine for Little Willy to.
Unless Graham D. Warner tells me that I win, I win!
You’ve completely lost it today, Little Willy.
Thus Graham D. Warner returns to gaslighting.
That can only mean one thing –
I WIN.
You win the "biggest bell-end" contest. Well done.
Meanwhile, Graham D. Warner took the time to PST me in another subthread. Since every PST is a win to those PSTed, I’ll gladly take it!
Yeah, right.
Graham D. Warner forgets the magic words.
Sure, sure.
Graham D. Warner keeps forgetting the magic words!
Uh huh.
Still no magic words from Graham D. Warner.
Abracadabra.
Graham D. Warner must have forgotten.
That would explain why there’s only one PSTer.
Geez Louise, you’re boring.
repost…
Wee willy just posted an article by Roy with his response to certain Sky Dragon Slayers. I have never been associated with them nor do I know what they posted so I’ll have to go on what Roy finds wrong with their arguments.
The following is not intended as a shot at Roy but an expression of frustration on my part that the science simply lacks answers to pertinent questions. My aim is to hopefully get a constructive discussion going on these points. Therefore, if I make an assertion, it is intended more as an equation looking for a rebuttal.
I am aware that certain people associated themselves with the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ written with input from scholars like Claes Johnson, a mathematician, and Philip Latour, a chemical engineer with plenty of experience applying the 2nd law.
The following article by Roy and referenced by wee willy was written in 2013, 10 year ago, and maybe Roy has different thoughts on this subject.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Roy replies later in the comments…
“Scott, are you unaware that the Slayers are disputing science which has been published literally hundreds of times in the peer-reviewed literature? Im not saying that necessarily makes it true, only that the Slayers have yet to offer the same physical rigor in advancing their argumentsstarting with a surface energy balance model. If they cannot take that simple step, they should be ignored”.
***
I don’t believe in unvalidated models as proof of anything. Therefore, I’d prefer an explanation using words, backed up by math if necessary, not the other way around, where equations have taken over and subjective explanations lacking. Overall, I feel that an assertion without proof in words, establishing a person’s understanding of the basics, indicates an incomplete understanding of the subject. If you read Clausius circa, 1850, he presents no math without a subjective explanation.
No models, no thought experiments, just known science.
—
As the basis of his argument, Roy states…”As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called greenhouse gases that emit thermal infrared radiation downward”.
If that is their view, then I agree with Roy. I don’t call such gases ‘greenhouse’ gases because I don’t think they operate in any way that leads to warming in a real greenhouse. However, it has been known since Tyndall’s experiment circa 1850, that gases like CO2 can absorb and emit IR isotropicaly and that part of the direction of emission has to be straight down to the surface.
Roy goes on…”A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature”.
I think they are wrong on that too. The reason a trace gas has no effect is related to the heat diffusion equation as applied to gases. Diffusion is relate to the ability of a member gas in a mix to transfer heat into the overall mix. It has nothing to do with conduction, which is insignificant in a gas, so it has to cover any means by which heat can be transferred, whether by collision or what.
The diffusion agrees with the Ideal Gas Law that the amount of heat that can be transferred to a larger volume of gas by any other gas is based on its relative mass percent. What the heck is that?
Any molecule’s mass is determined by the mass of each atom in the molecule. Therefore the total mass of CO2 is about 44 grams/mol (add the amu’s of each atom), while O2 is about 32 g/mol and nitrogen about 28 g/mol. However, N2 + O2 makes up 99% of the atmosphere and CO2 only 0.04%. When all is said and done, the ratio works out to about 99% to 0.06%
That is about the ratio of heating in the atmosphere between those molecules. The IGL and the heat diffusion equation agree on that.
—
[Roy]”For the adiabatic lapse rate to exist in the real atmosphere, there must be convective instability, which requires BOTH lower atmospheric heating AND upper atmospheric cooling. But the upper atmosphere cannot cool unless greenhouse gases are present! Without greenhouse gases, the atmosphere would slowly approach an isothermal state through thermal conduction with a temperature close to the surface temperature, and convection would then be impossible.
In other words, without the greenhouse effect, there would be no decrease in atmospheric temperature with height, and no convection. The existence of weather thus depends upon the greenhouse effect to destabilize the atmosphere”.
***
A problem I have with Roy’s reply is that a column of air with a lapse rate, cannot have a turbulent convection. The lapse rate is regarded as a constant in so many degrees C/metre or km. However, with turbulence, air of different temperatures and pressures is moved around. I don’t see why the convection has to be vertical, since a lot of convection takes place N-S and vice-versa, between areas of different temperature in those regions.
A counter argument is as follows. There is nothing adiabatic in a gas in a container with no walls. Insulated walls are required to prevent heat entering or leaving.
Modelling the atmosphere as an air column is disingenuous since such a column can neither prevent heat escaping nor entering via convection. I think this theory is wrong.
We must treat the atmosphere as some kind of container with no walls and a roughly located ceiling. Obviously there must be a transition from pressure to no pressure therefore we need to establish an altitude where that takes place. If we cannot do it in bulk, then we need to break the atmosphere into concentric spheres and establish an IGL relationship within each.
The upper atmosphere cools naturally as pressure decreases. As pressure decreases so does temperature (Ideal Gas Law). However, at altitudes toward the stratosphere there are so few molecules of air that temperature becomes unpredictable. Claiming that the upper atmosphere warms is meant in a relative sense. Warming from -60C to less than 0C is hardly warming. Given the thinness of the air at such altitudes, warmer and cooler lose their meaning. It’s just plain cold, like the Arctic in winter.
This is all Ideal Gas Law…PV = nrt with a peculiar condition, the pressure changes fairly linearly with altitude. What causes the pressure change…gravity? In a container at the surface, gravity is negligible unless the container extended significantly into the atmosphere.
I find it somewhat absurd that some sciences ignore gravity with relation to the atmosphere. I agree that weather depends on turbulent convection but weather takes place in a relatively stable atmosphere with the stability established by gravity.
I agree with Roy that temperature near the surface cannot be established based on gravitational attraction, but without gravity there would be no atmosphere. Gravity is the force that binds air molecules to the surface forcing them to turn with the planet. Since gravitational force changes with altitude, and air molecules are almost infinitesimally light, they can be ordered in layer of variable pressure.
Convection cannot explain STP at sea level, but gravity can. Convection cannot explain the drop of air pressure to 1/3rd sea level the top of Everest, but gravity can.
Turbulent convection certainly cannot explain the variability of pressure which is constant around the planet with altitude. If that was not the case, UAH would be out of work since the telemetry on sats depends on it.
I did not touch on the 2nd law in my novella because Roy did not raise the 2nd law in his 2013 article. The 2nd law makes it clear, however, that any radiation radiated from GHGs to the surface cannot warm the surface.
The surface is either in thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere, or warmer. That rules out any heat transfer from atmosphere to surface. There is the odd inversion and Roy has far more expertise on that than I.
Some have used arguments that the 2nd law can be bypassed under certain conditions but that is akin to claiming water will run uphill by its own means or that a bolder will raise itself off the surface by its own means.
It’s all about energy transfer which must be from a state of higher potential energy to a state of lower potential energy. Heat is energy and must obey that principle, even though I acknowledge that nature can do what it likes and out laws are no good. To satisfy the human mind we make up cute stories about our laws governing nature.
Jay:
“Imagine my shock at finding the denialst, pathologically obfuscating discussion on these monthly posts. Full of huffing, arrogant busybodies, groping at every inadequate alternative explanation under the sun.”
Gordo still can’t figure out what Roy wrote:
Gordo jumps into a discussion about vertical convection, still ignoring Roy’s main point, about which I’ve tried to inform him several times.
Convection is a cycle, warm air mixed with H2O rising because it’s less dense than the rest of the atmosphere, then cooling and sinking back toward the surface to complete the loop. Without the upper air cooling by greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, there would be no convection.
Dr Spencer apparently wrote –
“But the upper atmosphere cannot cool unless greenhouse gases are present . . .”
Given that all gases radiate IR, losing energy thereby, I believe Dr Spencer might have accidentally phrased his sentence incorrectly.
Obviously, as Dr Spencer has correctly pointed out previously, a loss of energy from a gas will cause the gas to cool. All gases share this property, and if allowed to cool sufficiently, become liquid.
Maxwell in about 1870, in relation to the dynamical theory of gases, said “I have now put before you what I consider to be the greatest difficulty yet encountered by the molecular theory. As Richard Feynman subsequently said “These words represent the first discovery that the laws of classical physics were wrong. This was the first indication that there was something fundamentally impossible, because a rigorously proved theorem did not agree with experiment.”
Not to belabour the point, but the atmosphere becomes more tenuous with altitude, and the concept of “temperature” changes. For example the thermosphere is nominally at 2,000 C or so, but ice would not melt if shielded from direct sunlight or at night.
The radiation from the 2,000 C thermosphere does not warm the surface at all, even though it is nominally far hotter.
SkyDragon cultists live in a fantasy.
Mike Flynn,
The concept of “temperature” changes?
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Given that all gases radiate IR …”
That is like saying “given that all materials have electrical resistance, then all materials are insulators.” Or “Given that all objects have mass, I must include the gravity of Pluto when calculating earth’s orbit.”
While there is some TINY effect in each case, the practical result is that we can safely ignore some factors when doing practical calculations.
And the fact here is that GHGs radiate SO MUCH more effectively than non-GHGs, that gases like N2 and O2 can safely be ignored. N2 and O2 account for maybe 0.1% of the radiation to space (and I suspect it is actually much less that that).
I believe Dr Spencer got it exactly correct.
“the concept of temperature changes”
In the lower atmosphere, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of molecules. At what altitude does this stop being true, and what is “temperature” then?
tim if you know why are you asking?
Only Mike Flynn can know that, Gill.
So Willard are you saying Tim knows shitt?
No, Gill.
I’m saying that it’s hard to tell what Mike Flynn means with his “the concept of temperature changes” bit.
And that comes from the most constructivist guy I know.
Willard says:
”No, Gill.
Im saying that its hard to tell what Mike Flynn means with his ”the concept of temperature changes” bit.”
————————–
Perhaps you should spend a bit of time looking into why the thermosphere is so hot with no sun or energy source nearby that can account for it using blackbody calculations.
Perhaps you should dig a little deeper into the concept of conceptual change, Gill.
Didn’t you have any jesuit teacher to tell you about it or something?
Willard’s science arguments have devolved down to screaming ”HERETIC!!!”
Gill seems to forget those who invented modern epistemology.
No real change Willard. Just a desire by egos of the elite to call all their beliefs to be knowledge while peering down their noses at the deplorables.
You know about how it worked under the era of monarchies. More like reinventing the past.
No, Gordon Robertson, you’re not a skeptic. You’re a denier.
Skeptics have no need to overturn standard physics in order to justify their interpretation of the physical world.
You even deny the existence of Time itself!
I believe he rejected the existence of photons as well if my memory is correct. It makes it hard to have a genuine discussion on radiative heat transfer when the person on the other end is rejects fundamental principles like time and photons.
b,
You wrote –
“It makes it hard to have a genuine discussion . . . ”
You’re right, of course.
You point blank refuse to discuss the mythical GHE! Not surprising, given that you can’t even describe it!
Carry on.
> It makes it hard to have a genuine discussion on radiative heat transfer when the person on the other end is rejects fundamental principles like time and photons.
OTOH, it makes it really easy to make claims like we can find in Sky Dragon lands, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78984
Exactly like Roy said.
Bordo is a real card-carrying member of the Sky Dragon cranks’ fight club.
"Exactly like Roy said"
Nothing like what Dr Spencer said. Little Willy just can’t help himself.
See?
Graham D. Warner does it again!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bdgwx says:
”I believe he rejected the existence of photons as well if my memory is correct. It makes it hard to have a genuine discussion on radiative heat transfer when the person on the other end is rejects fundamental principles like time and photons.”
Hardly a science case there bdgwx. You should know better. Its not a matter of rejecting the concept of time and photons its questioning whether we know everything we should know about them.
So in one sentence you made just about the most inane statement you could possibly make.
And Gill tries to shield Bordo too.
LMAO!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Actually Willard I was defending the notion that: We know there is something about time that seems to warrant constant consideration but that its a mistake to claim we know everything about it.
I actually don’t know if Gordon claimed nothing exists that can be considered to be time or light quanta or not. . .
So my comments were simply a response to bdgwx who appeared to be trying to defend his concepts of time and light quanta as being the be all and end all.
I guess it worked. got the right reaction out of you anyway
But hey I am not claiming many points on that wrt to bdgwx. I expect that usually bdgwx does much better than that.
I know having once been a juvenile that juveniles tend to award more points, as a joke, for running down things that can’t run to avoid being run down.
Your responses taken in whole hasn’t demonstrated that you can do better. So maybe those juveniles will give me a whole load of points wrt to you. . .as a joke of course.
Gill was indeed defending his and the Sky Dragon cranks’ abuses of quantifiers.
Photons and time are posits. Disputing posits isn’t scientists’ cup of tea. In fact it’s really hard to have scientific exchanges when we dispute the basic elements that structure them.
Worse is when cranks keep abusing basic pragmatic maxims, like Quantity or Quality. But this time Gill is mostly failing Relevance.
We should grant him that it’s what he does best.
Willard says:
”Worse is when cranks keep abusing basic pragmatic maxims, like Quantity or Quality. But this time Gill is mostly failing Relevance.”
thats only a problem when you are arguing a point where your scientific support is absolutely piss poor.
Having a good replicable experiment or a verifiable blueprint of the physics are both ways to avoid you guys arguing for the existence of mirages.
Models are not supposed to be blackboxes where parameters are locked in by fiat. . .and kept obscure from the public to avoid accusations of begging the question. Such ploys do not stand up in any court room in America. Only court rooms of authoritarian mostly 3rd world countries.
Gill believes that failing maxims of conversation is OK when one has a good scientific case.
LOL!
There is irony that I’m being lectured regarding my defense of the existence of time and photons by someone who questions (if not outright rejects) the 1LOT.
It might be interesting to some that this isn’t even the most absurd line of discussion I’ve been a part of this week. Over on WUWT there are brothers that genuinely think that the derivative of x/n is 1, that sums are the same thing as averages, that plus (+) and divide (/) are equivalent, and a bunch of other beliefs that are so ludicrous even elementary age school students would question them and all to call into question the uncertainty in the global average temperature measurements (even those from UAH). And the WUWT site is so indifferent to the nonsense that they now post articles devoted to the topic and let commenters have a free for all making one dumb algebra mistake after another.
Are they really brothers?
At least Bordo and Gill have different personas…
The Gormans claim to be different people, but you’d think one of them would tell other that they should at least double check their algebra steps so who knows. And at this point I’m inclined to think it is all a joke since no one can be so obtuse as to conflate addition (+) with division (/). But the most disturbing part is that WUWT so indifferent that they now frequently post entire articles that is really meant as a disguised attack against mathematics based at least in part to the inspiration of the Gormans. And many (most?) people there (like Walter Hogle who also posts here) defend it without question. How messed up is that?
Walter is indeed a natural.
What’s the thread?
FWIW…
d/dx(x/n)= 1/n
Yeah, it’s one of the easiest derivatives to do so it only requires the constant rule. How someone can fail to see that it is 1/n defies credulity. But what’s worse is when I told him to use a computer algebra system he told me they are wrong.
BTW…this relates the law of propagation of uncertainty via equation 10 in JCGM 100:2008. When the function is y = sum(x_i, 1 to N) / N (which is an average) the partial derivative dy/dx_i = 1/N for all x_i which means the uncertainty of an average scales with 1/sqrt(N). This is why the uncertainty of global average temperatures is always less than the uncertainty of the individual elements that went into that average. WUWT has published a few articles that blatantly reject this fact just in the last couple of years alone.
bdgwx says:
”There is irony that Im being lectured regarding my defense of the existence of time and photons by someone who questions (if not outright rejects) the 1LOT.”
bdgwx, thats a strawman. I have never rejected 1LOT. If you feel I have you should actually provide evidence of that rather than claiming you are right about it without saying what you are right about.
You said: ”I believe he rejected the existence of photons as well if my memory is correct. It makes it hard to have a genuine discussion on radiative heat transfer when the person on the other end is rejects fundamental principles like time and photons.”
If your memory is correct? you consider that proof positive evidence? Not difficult to see how you get sucked into ”fundamental principles” for which you have zero evidence. Now you are responding that I am not worth responding to because of another strawman you erected to avoid getting into a science debate that you have learned well around here you have to bail out of again and again because you can’t produce any evidence of those fundamental principles you keep trying to bring to the table and then runaway from casting ad hominems to cover your retreat.
BH, I am, of course, referring to your conversation with Nate above. In your defense it looks like you’ve come around to the idea that your challenge of Nate’s statement (which is based on the 1LOT) didn’t have a lot of merit.
Willard,
Here’s the thread in which the Gormans make 7 algebra mistakes in a single post and then proceed to make 16 more algebra mistakes in defense of the first 7.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/03/unknown-uncertain-or-both/#comments
I have labeled each as ALGEBRA MISTAKE #X for easy searching.
JFY:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/09/in-memoriam-professor-ray-bates/#comment-3845188
He invites me to discuss “But the Arctic” at Tony’s, and the first question he asked me he plays Me Too behind Pat’s back.
A natural, I tell you.
OK, I read up to here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/03/unknown-uncertain-or-both/#comment-3663069
And I wrote up to here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/09/in-memoriam-professor-ray-bates/#comment-3845276
Mr. Nice has Walter to thank.
bdgwx says:
”BH, I am, of course, referring to your conversation with Nate above. In your defense it looks like youve come around to the idea that your challenge of Nates statement (which is based on the 1LOT) didnt have a lot of merit.”
Which argument? Nate has lots of ignorant statements he makes about the existence of scientific evidence that nobody can ever produce.
I have a lot of questions for Pat Frank that are either answered unsatisfactorily or are just ignored entirely.
Pat has a history of hubris, arrogance, and uncivil behavior so I find it ironic that he is lecturing other people on civility.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/391B1C150212A84C6051D7A2A7F119
BH, I might have to retract my statement that you are coming around to the legitimacy of the 1LOT. It seems as though you may still be resisting the full implications of it. It depends on what you are thinking of when you say “will” is incorrect.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1590782
I suppose you may say that Gill could believe in the First Law. But what Gill believes does not matter much. At least, not to him – just look at his comments!
bdgwx, perhaps you would like to participate and respond to the last couple of posts in this thread on the same topic.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1590863
I don’t know what to do for Willard. He seems hopelessly lost.
Right after you find the Moon’s albedo, Gill.
That could take a while.
bdgwx,
Oh, and here’s a little tidbit for you:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/propagation-of-nonsense-part-ii/#comment-162373
If we add this tidbit to Carl’s already disavowal of the paper, i.e.:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/391B1C150212A84C6051D7A2A7F119#5
and you might have another question to ask Pat.
Willard,
This is what makes Frontiers in Earth Science a predatory journal. They have been notified about the egregious mistake of switching the units from W/m2 to W/m2.year to justify the erroneous multiplication by years to accumulate more uncertainty than what is really there, but don’t retract the publication or even so much as put a note on it.
And it defies credulity to think that someone could actually believe that an annual mean flux figure in W/m2 should actually be interpreted W/m2.year in the first place. That is no less absurd than thinking the UAH TLT anomalies actually have units of C/month which is what Frank is trying to suggest.
bdgwx that also explains why you can’t find a complete blueprint to the physics behind the GHE in any journal. . .all you can find is stuff spoofing it.
Another tidbit, bdgwx:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/propagation-of-nonsense/#comment-162286
As for Gill, you can ignore him. One day he believes in the greenhouse effect but is more of a luckwarmer, another day he has trouble understanding emissivity and keeps hugging Sky Dragon cranks.
and oh yeah Willard thinks he has the key to climate for some reason he having problems getting it published.
Gill tries to get attention with more abuse.
Willard I apologize. Good luck on your endeavors.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
There is almost no atmosphere on the Moon, which means it cannot trap heat or insulate the surface.
In full sunshine, temperatures on the Moon reach 127C, way above boiling point. There are 13 and a half days of high temperatures followed by 13 and a half days of darkness, and once the Sun goes down the temperature at the bottom of craters can plummet to -173C.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/factfile-the-moon.html
So much the worse for Bordo’s silly idea that the dark side of the Moon cools rapidly and it has no CO2 to do the radiating, whatever that might mean!
WTH would Team Science claim–what exactly?
Witless Wee Willy,
Exactly so. There is no GHE. The Earth’s atmosphere reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, compared with the Moon.
Hence, maximum terrestrial surface temperatures do not exceed 85 C or so.
Why are you bothering to confirm well-known facts which show the nonsensical nature of any claims that a GHE of any sort exists?
You might as well keep going – it’s about the only way you might convince people that you are not completely detached from reality!
Neither CO2 nor H2O nor anything else managed to stop the earth cooling to its present temperature from the molten state. No GHE. Feel free to quote Mike Flynn telling you there is no GHE.
Worth repeating – no GHE, not even a little bit.
“Hence, maximum terrestrial surface temperatures do not exceed 85 C or so.”
Gee, I wonder why the Moon’s dark side is never mentioned? Is it by any chance colder than the Earth’s dark side? I wonder how much colder it gets?
Nate,
You agree with me then?
You can mention the Moon’s dark side if you want – nothing to stop you, as far as I know.
You wrote –
“I wonder how much colder it gets?”
Are you really that ignorant? Good to know.
Maroon Mike Flynn,
If “the sky” cools the Earth as Puffman keeps saying, why does the Moon gets colder than the Earth at night?
No need to answer. You obviously know that it’s the absence of an atmosphere, especially one with greenhouse gases.
Cheers.
“You can mention the Moons dark side if you want nothing to stop you, as far as I know.”
Swenson’s specialty is cherry picking only the facts that seem to support his narrative and ignoring all others.
Does Swenson know why the Moon gets so much colder on its dark side than the Earth?
If he can figure that out, then he will get a clue why it gets so much warmer than the Earth on its sunny side.
Nate,
Yes, I am fully aware of the reasons for the Moon’s extremes of temperature compared to the Earth. No atmosphere to impede the flow of radiation from the Sun, nor to radiation from the surface.
Please stop trolling.
Maroon Mike,
“nor to radiation from the surface”?
What are you braying about?
Nate,
Yes, I am fully aware of the reasons for the Moons extremes of temperature compared to the Earth. No atmosphere to impede the flow of radiation from the Sun, nor to radiation from the surface.
Please stop trolling.
Moron Mike,
“No atmosphere to impede the flow of radiation from the Sun”
OK.
“nor to radiation from the surface”
Wut?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“I am fully aware of the reasons for the Moons extremes of temperature compared to the Earth. No atmosphere to impede the flow of radiation from the Sun, nor to radiation from the surface.”
Fantastic. Then you could see how someone could easily use your cherry picking technique to lead people to the OPPOSITE conclusion:
There must be a GHE. The Earths atmosphere reduces the amount of IR leaving the surface, compared with the Moon.
Hence, lunar temperatures on its night side get much much colder than they do on Earth.
But there are other neglected factors that keep the Earth from getting as hot.
-Rotation period of Moon is one twelfth that of Earth. So more time to heat up.
-No ocean on the Moon. Earth’s ocean abs.orbs > 90% of the solar heat, and its vaporization cools the surface.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Then you could see how someone could easily use your cherry picking technique to lead people to the OPPOSITE conclusion:”
Only some GHE cultists who refuse to accept reality, and say silly things like “cherry picking technique”.
You, for example.
Nate says:
”-No ocean on the Moon. Earths ocean abs.orbs > 90% of the solar heat, and its vaporization cools the surface.”
Indeed since the vaporization provides a large boost in cooling to the fractions to the top millimeter or so of surface water compared to the water we gather by buoy sensors that are a foot or so below the surface we overestimate how much the ocean actually radiates. Same issue exists as a result of plant transpiration compared to a dead and dry stevenson screen shelter or a paved road or a roof, etc. And this transpiration also affects the air temperature moving large amounts of heat into the air column.
None of this generally is an issue with the local folks who really could care less if the temperature is 20C or 23C as it really doesn’t make that much difference.
You guys treat Arrhenius work like the work of a God where you don’t question why but just believe. But then you turn around and don’t believe Arrhenius who also said:
”We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” (p. 63)Worlds in the Making, 1908
> None of this generally is an issue with the local folks who really could care less if the temperature is 20C or 23C as it really doesnt make that much difference.
Those who died of heatwaves recently might have demurred were they still alive. And we’re far from living in a +3C world. In a few decades, we might.
Willard said:
I notice that Maroon Mike still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
Not sure where you are going with this, Bill?
FYI, the sea surface temperature is mostly determined by measuring the IR emitted from its surface by satellite.
It’s the same trick as Mike Flynn’s, Nate:
– the Moon can be hotter, so greenhouse gases can’t “warm” the Earth;
– deserts can be cooler, so greenhouse gases “warm” the Earth;
– all gases radiate something, so greenhouse gases can’t really “warm” the Earth;
Sky Dragon cranks will do everything except averaging, quantifying, and minding their units properly.
> deserts can be cooler, so greenhouse gases warm the Earth;
Forgot the “can’t” in that one.
I might as well add Gill’s own pet argument:
– the SB Law doesn’t work in reality because some measurements don’t exactly coincide with model estimates
As if scientists were hobbyists like them, and had the time to make sure they find the most perfect model of the actual situation that would replicate every single measurement ever made. Like normal people, they simply move on.
Nate not so for the most used one in the world
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst4/
ssts are used for coral bleach monitoring because of better spatial detail than thermometer reading because most stations are either drifting or on a ship underway.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/product/vs/map.php
the problem with using 24/7 ssts for coral bleach monitoring overlaps the problem with using them for surface anomaly monitoring. that is because they are not representative of the water temps affecting corals (for the reasons i already stated and this from the coral bleaching site that affects there use.
”The CoralTemp SST provides a measurement of the nighttime ocean temperature at the sea surface, calibrated to 0.2 meters depth. Nighttime-only satellite SST observations are used to reduce the influence of daytime warming caused by solar heating at and near the sea surface and to avoid contamination from solar glare. Furthermore, at night, water temperatures at and near the sea surface are more vertically uniform. Compared with the daytime SST and blended day-night SST, the nighttime SST measurements provide more stable estimates of heat stress conducive to coral bleaching.”
so this also poses problems for measuring albedo (contamination from glare) and restates the problems with determining how much ir is being reflected. otherwise glare would not be a problem. i would expect that is the reason why uah reads oxygen molecule temperatures also to avoid the problems with reflected ir from reflective surfaces.
and willard please put a cork in it. you have no idea about which you are talking.
Thus spake the guy who did not know that the SB Law applied at any emissivity.
Indeed Willard one should always always use the Stefan Boltzmann
q = ε σ T4 A with the ε factor as it is only blackbodies where the ε factor equals 1.0 so that leaving it out for blackbodies has zero impact on the final number.
OK SST is not all done by satellite.
“The NOAA 1/4 Daily Optimum Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature (OISST) is a long term Climate Data Record that incorporates observations from different platforms (satellites, ships, buoys and Argo floats) into a regular global grid. The dataset is interpolated to fill gaps on the grid and create a spatially complete map of sea surface temperature. Satellite and ship observations are referenced to buoys to compensate for platform differences and sensor biases.”
But when satellite measurements are used, they are using the SB equation, which is checked with the other methods. It works.
Yes Nate. As I said OISST is not used in the NOAA mean global temperature record.
The NOAA Global Surface Temperature Dataset (NOAAGlobalTemp) is derived from two independent analyses: the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) analysis and the land surface temperature (LST) analysis using the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) temperature database.
The SST data ERSST is a reanalysis of ICOADS which is ship, buoy, platform actual thermometers in the water about a meter or more below the surface.
OISST and other products using satellites are for better specific spatial resolution important for local uses but its not a ”mean” temperature because these products are nighttime products to avoid problems with solar glare reflecting off the surface and suffer in spatial resolution due to the size of the area being measured by the sensor beams and that does not lend itself to specific spaces important to other uses. So the satellite products are heavily used by the blue ocean economy like tourism, fishing, coral watch, etc. where folks are looking for specific small areas of ocean temperatures to locate marine life or send out a squad of divers to check for effects on particular coral gardens. Here one or two degrees farenheit accuracy works just fine.
And yes the reason that the temp records are in broad agreement is they are all using virtually the same data and it seems likely they use similar or identical means of gridding the data.
I think one major problem with this is how land based stations, particular along the northern coasts where there simply few ships, buoys, and platforms are gridded using the land based stations from which ice retreated and that is homogenized out 1500km to the poles and to the south with few weather stations
https://icoads.noaa.gov/images/pt_jul.gif
https://daac.ornl.gov/CLIMATE/guides/CDIAC_NDP41.html
Why dos the portion of the Moon on the Dark Side cool, wee willy? The dark side is dark to us only, the Sun sees all sides of the Moon and bakes them equally.
Heads up Gordon … “dark side” does NOT refer to “far side”, at least where scientists are concerned.
When he said “dark side” he was literally referring to the side that is not facing the sun. NOT the far side.
You are really having issues with the moon aren’t you Gordon.
Does anyone but you believe that the moon’s phases are caused by the earth’s shadow.
AQ,
Still no GHE to be found anywhere, is there?
Are you just trying to be annoying, like the other fantasist, Willard?
Keep trying – you might succeed if you put a bit more effort in.
You certainly have a nose for when one of your buddies needs saving.
How many times have you had to distract people from Gordon’s inanity?
No skin off your nose though … as long as they keep paying you for it. Looking forward to your next RDO?
AQ,
Still no GHE to be found anywhere, is there?
Are you just trying to be annoying, like the other fantasist, Willard?
Keep trying you might succeed if you put a bit more effort in.
Mike Flynn,
You certainly have a nose for when one of your buddies needs saving.
How many times have you had to distract people from Bordo’s inanity?
No skin off your nose though…as long as they keep paying you for it.
What’s RDO?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Rostered Day Off.
Let’s hope they give him one soon.
Thanks.
Mor‌on Mike was on sabbatical…for a long while. He seems to have bifurcated to a company with a vision of supporting Net Zero.
I hope he leads the Net Zero initiative!
Willard, please stop trolling.
What I meant is obvious. If you have a planetary body like the Moon, in an environment with no means of conducting heat from the surface, radiation is the only means of cooling. It is obvious that the dark side of the Moon cools rapidly when moving from direct solar input to the absolute coldness of space. It does it all without CO2.
Do you think Earth cannot radiate directly to space? It does and that radiation represents 90% of the cooling due to radiation. Our planet does not need CO2 to radiate energy to space.
Thanks, Bordo. That explains the “Funny that the dark side of the Moon cools rapidly and it has no CO2 to do the radiating” part.
It’s the rest of the sentence that makes no sense. Greenhouse gases slow down radiative cooling. They should not speed it up!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ENSO3.4
Week ending:
Nov 04 … +1.8
Nov 11 … +1.8
Nov 18 … +1.9
Nov 25 … +2.1
Dec 02 … +2.0
Dec 09 … +1.9
Dec 16 … +2.0
Dec 23 … +2.0
Dec 30 … +2.0
Jan 06 … +1.9
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
As I’ve said countless times, that bears little connection to the real data.
I get it, real data is data you define as being real, not what is measured.
When the source itself states that their methodology is old and that they recommend using more recent data sets. THAT is when the data is not real.
But of course your description describes deniers to a T. Why do they insist of using data that is recommended against by the supplier?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
See?
Graham D. Warner keeps PSTing people he has not said he finds bad!
…and, I never said that I PST’d people because they were bad people. I said that because Little Willy is a bad person, and he gets so annoyed by my PSTing, that I must be on the right track in doing it. I notice that most other people don’t even really react to it.
Little Willy either can’t read properly, or can’t comprehend what he reads.
Graham D. Warner still tries to resist one the most basic implications ever.
He justifies his PSTing of me by his judgement that I am a bad person:
It’s really not that hard to see that Graham D. Warner is simply gaslighting right now.
Wrong again, Little Willy. I justify asking you to please stop trolling because you are a troll. Pretty simple really.
Now, please stop trolling.
See?!
Graham D. Warner still resists the most transparent implications!
His belief that I am a bad person supports his PSTing.
HOW THE HELL DOES HE THINK WE CALL THIS KIND OF SUPPORT???!???
No, the fact that you are a troll supports my PSTing. The fact that you are a bad person, and that you get annoyed by my PSTing, indicates that I am on the right track.
Again, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner still resist the most basic implication in the history of informal argumentation.
Beliefs that confirm why he is PSTing (i.e. “I am on the right track”) also supports his PSTing!
Another very fascinating defensive ploy, another win for Team Science.
I don’t PST you because you’re a bad person. I PST you because you’re a troll.
You seem to think everything is debatable. It isn’t. I’m instructing you on the reasons I do what I do. It’s not up for debate. You don’t get to tell me I’m wrong about it.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner still resists a most obvious implication.
Over the years he has expressed many reasons why he PSTs people. The one he held the longest is was because he had a little fun. But now that Roy banned the T-word, bypassing Roy’s policy just for “a little fun” would look bad. So he has to find another excuse.
So he fabricated a story in which he had to PST people. And he expressed righteousness in annoying people, especially he believes they’re Very Bad. Bypassing Roy’s policy looks less silly when duty calls instead of lulz.
But now he’s stuck – he wants to target me as Very Bad, but he wants to continue to PST other people too. And so he backtracks to PSTing because of the T’s.
T’s are not Very Bad. But he still must do what he must do. Because, well, they’re T’s.
It’s all so ridiculous.
All wrong, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Here are other directives he issued:
So three other reasons to PST:
1. To have a little fun.
2. To get the last word.
3. To upset people.
These are less self-serving than his actual self-righteousness.
Incorrect interpretations, as always. Little Willy refuses to provide a link so that people cannot read the complete quote, and all the necessary context. What a fraud he is.
Graham D. Warner thus confirms the veracity of the quote. If he wants to deflect on other things he said, he can find the citation himself.
Astute readers will note that once again Graham D. Warner resists the most obvious implications.
The full quote:
"Norman, I’m not a real moderator. Real moderators are able to just delete any comments they feel like, on a whim, to indulge their fantasies of having some sort of control over other people. Real moderators are here to censor, and suppress freedom of expression. I’m just having a bit of fun. When I write "please stop [T-word]", it doesn’t actually have any effect. People are still able to say whatever they want to say, and it will be posted and there for posterity, no matter how many times I repeat my "please stop [T-word]".
I think what people are really upset about by the "please stop [T-word]" is…they don’t get to have the last word."
So, compared to real moderators, I’m just having a bit of fun. In other words, what I’m doing is not to be taken seriously, unlike real censorship, which is. What I’m doing is not removing any people’s comments, or preventing them from expressing themselves. What I’m doing is something light-hearted in comparison to real censorship.
I’m not saying to myself, "tee hee hee, this is so much fun" as I PST, which is what you try to imply, Little Willy. You read into my words whatever you want to see. Then, when I correct you, you tell me I’m wrong about what I’m trying to say!
"2. To get the last word.
3. To upset people."
Little Willy again reads into my words things that aren’t there. I don’t PST to get the last word, or upset people. What I said was:
"I think what people are really upset about [my PSTing] is…they don’t get to have the last word."
Acknowledging that it upsets/annoys some people is not the same thing as saying that I do it to upset/annoy people! And, although people are prevented from getting the last word, it doesn’t mean that I’m doing it to get the last word. If they are upset/annoyed with not being able to have the last word, or their "team" not being able to have the last word, that’s something they need to be questioning about themselves.
Graham D. Warner refuses to provide a link so that people cannot read the complete exchange, and all the necessary context.
Another win for Team Science!
It’s not letting me post links, for some reason. Otherwise I’d have put a link there.
If that’s all you’ve got, I’m guessing you concede the point. Great. It’s not really something you can debate, anyway, I’m simply telling you what I meant.
You interpret most people’s comments wrongly, so it’s not just me. I don’t feel singled out, so that’s OK.
[GRAHAM D WARNER] Little Willy refuses to provide a link so that people cannot read the complete quote, and all the necessary context. What a fraud he is.
[ALSO GRAHAM D WARNER] Its not letting me post links, for some reason. Otherwise Id have put a link there.
Is that the reason you didn’t post a link then? Because it wasn’t letting you post one? If so, fine, I take back the criticism. I have a feeling you’re perfectly able to post links, though, as I saw down-thread that you have posted one.
Graham D. Warner almost admits to be saying stuff in order to get room service. Just like the people he suspects are T’s, which excludes Puffman, and perhaps also Bordo and Mike Flynn. All this is par for his antisocial course. Let’s focus instead on a more revealing fabrication:`
Here Graham D. Warner conflates justification with intention. He assures us that he has no intention to seek fun. It just so happens that he has a little fun. A mere happenstance.
Really? I have my doubts, but it’s hard to tell, even for his own frst-person standpoint. Intentions are notoriously opaque. We should stand them aside. Nobody really cares about what Graham D. Warner really seeks with his PSTing.
What matters is what he did admit having a little fun. That counts as a reason, whether he intends to have a little fun when PSTing or not. So once again Graham D. Warner resists the most basic implications.
Another win for Team Science!
Little Willy doesn’t listen, again…accuses me of fabrication, again…hopelessly over-analyzes my every word, again…
I’m telling you what I meant. You don’t get to tell me I’m wrong about that. If you’re going to accuse me of lying, we’re done.
Graham D. Warner clearly gets caught making a baseless accusation. His misdirection toward his “real” intentions gets exposed. Now is whining time.
Having a little fun remains a reason why he keeps PSTing. He offered are many others, more or less plausible.
Let astute readers judge if they justify his ignorance of Roy’s banning of the T-word.
Another win for Team Science!
"Graham D. Warner clearly gets caught making a baseless accusation"
What!?
"Having a little fun remains a reason why he keeps PSTing"
No, and it never was. Not if you listened to what I said. Whine away.
(VLAD) Estragon refuses to provide a link so that people cannot read the complete quote, and all the necessary context. What a fraud he is.
(ESTR) If Vladimir wants to deflect on other things he said, he can find the citation himself.
(VLAD) The full quote: […]
(ESTR) Vladimir refuses to provide a link so that people cannot read the complete quote, and all the necessary context. What a fraud he is.
(VLAD) It’s not letting me post links, for some reason. Because it wasn’t letting you post one? If so, fine, I take back the criticism.
(ESTR) Vladimir almost admits to be saying stuff in order to get room service.
*Vladimir goes in the ditch. Rips off his shirt. Stomps boot. Throws dirt on his face. Starts to cry.*
(VLAD) Estragon doesn’t listen, again…accuses me of fabrication, again…
(ESTR) Vladimir clearly gets caught making a baseless accusation.
(VLAD) WHAT??&?????????????
God this is silly.
You’re still on about the link thing!?
I can’t currently post links. You can. So why didn’t you post a link to the comment? I still think it’s because you wanted to exclude the first part of the comment, and didn’t want readers to see it. It completely changes the meaning of the "having fun" line that you’re so obsessed with.
And you know it.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner does not resist the simplest implications after all. I’m starting to think he just cannot make them. He has no inkling as to how people interact unless everything is made explicit.
And even then he’ll try with all his might not to connect the dots been drawn right in front of his own eyes.
I might be the commenter who posts the most links on this damn website. I *do* cite my sources. Graham D. Warner’s accusation is more than offensive: it is utterly devoid of any realism.
Some links trigger the filter. Some other links are redundant. Others I may forget. There are many other reasons why I don’t always abide by my citation practices. Nevertheless, when I usually cite something, just looking at the comment is enough to indicate that it is mine.
Now, why the hell would I provide room service for this silly sociopath after he accuses me of being a fraud?
We’re not even on speaking terms. It has been more than a year now. And he still pretends he’s speaking to me.
A truest asshat is really hard to find.
Yes, it’s the fact that you usually include links with everything that makes it seem so suspicious that you didn’t include a link to a comment that you quoted only half of, and left out the crucial context from the other half which completely changes the meaning of the sentence you’re obsessed with.
One thing I agree with you on though – this is all very silly. In that it’s all very, very trivial, and not worth discussing. You brought it up, though, and you won’t let it go. Ever. So, here we are.
See?
Graham D. Warner keeps acting as if nothing happened.
All this to evade the fact that he admitted having “a bit of fun” when PSTing.
No, that does not mean all the time. No, that does not mean that this is his intention. Yes, Graham D. Warner can resist almost indefinitely every single implication, be it by evasion, deflection, denial, and all the other techniques he displays in every single thread.
Above and beyond, yes – having a bit of fun is a reason to PST. This reason may explain, but cannot justify bypassing Roy’s ban. Graham D. Warner must presume so himself too, for otherwise he would not go out of his way to tell us about his self-righteousness stance.
He’d just do like Mike Flynn does, which is whatever he pleases.
"Graham D. Warner keeps acting as if nothing happened."
What exactly did happen, Little Willy? You get that I wasn’t asking you for "room service", right?
I’ve been criticising you for leaving out half of the quote. You quote-mined, basically. And you didn’t include a link to the comment, as you normally would, and that seems suspicious. Makes it seem like you didn’t want people to read the full comment. Now you’ve thrown your toys out of the pram. Oh well.
"All this to evade the fact that he admitted having “a bit of fun” when PSTing."
Wrong. That is the wrong interpretation of my words. For the correct interpretation, re-read my 11:10 AM comment.
Graham D. Warner still can’t resist the most basic implication. Let’s revisit the informal dialogue, for expendiency. Graham D. Warner will cry anyway:
(VLAD) Estragon refuses to provide a link so that people cannot read the complete quote, and all the necessary context. What a fraud he is.
(ESTR) If Vladimir wants to deflect on other things he said, he can find the citation himself.
(VLAD) The full quote: […]
(ESTR) Vladimir refuses to provide a link so that people cannot read the complete quote, and all the necessary context. What a fraud he is.
***
Let’s stop here. What does Graham D. Warner do after I return his words to him?
He goes find the citation. Here is the evidence:
(VLAD) Its not letting me post links, for some reason. Because it wasnt letting you post one? If so, fine, I take back the criticism.
But now of course he won’t even admit that has challenged me to provide the citation!
I went and found the full comment, but was unable to link to it, at 11:10 AM. Obviously. That’s when I provided the full quote, after all. You appear to be trying to pretend that I only went and found the full comment at 1:32 PM! How would that work, exactly!? How would I have quoted the full comment at 11:10 AM if I only actually went and found it at 1:32 PM!?
I wasn’t asking for "room service". I wasn’t asking you to provide a link to the comment after the event. I was pointing out that you hadn’t provided a link in the first place.
Which seems suspicious, because you normally provide links with all your quotes.
Watch Graham D. Warner wriggle over a simple implication once again.
Let’s try a shorter version:
(VLAD) Estragon refuses to provide a link []
(ESTR) If Vladimir wants to deflect on other things he said, he can find the citation himself.
(VLAD) The full quote: []
(ESTR) Vladimir refuses to provide a link
(VLAD) Its not letting me post links
Why is Graham D. Warner talking about quotes right now might always remain a mystery. Even to him.
I’m at a loss as to what your problem is. I’m not wriggling, I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say. We’re talking past each other and getting nowhere.
You quote-mined and didn’t link to the comment so people could see what it said in full. This left out important context which changes the meaning of the sentence you’re obsessed with.
I called you on that.
You told me to go and link to the comment myself, but I couldn’t, as it was (and still is) not letting me post links. However, I quoted the full thing, so the context could be understood.
You then turned my complaint to you back on me, which doesn’t make any sense, because I had quoted the full comment, which meant the context was there. So you suggesting that I hadn’t linked to the comment in order to avoid the context was nonsense.
You wrote your 1:57 PM comment. This made me think you were maybe trying to say that you were also unable to post a link for the same reason I couldn’t. In which case, my complaint would have been unwarranted. However, that didn’t quite add up, since I’d seen that you’d posted a link down-thread. So it didn’t seem like you were having any problems posting links.
Then you wrote:
"Graham D. Warner almost admits to be saying stuff in order to get room service."
Which also really didn’t make any sense. I wasn’t trying to get you to link to the comment. The relevant context had been provided, at 11:10 AM anyway. There was no need.
Little Willy…most of what you say makes no sense. It’s really, really hard to have a discussion with you about anything. We’re on two completely different wavelengths and you don’t ever try to make yourself clear even when I point out this out.
Graham D. Warner now resorts to gaslighting, all this for a citation he now admits not being being able to provide. It could have ended there, but no – he really, really needs to redirect to his quote.
Wasn’t I talking about the quote? Why don’t I talk about the quote? Isn’t that obvious that the quote etc?
And on and on and on and on and on we go.
My quote was perfectly fine. I only needed to establish that Graham D. Warner indeed said that he had “a little fun” PSTing. To support my point that “a little fun” is indeed a reason to PST, something he had to relitigate!
As if having “a little fun” was not a reason for doing things.
I really hope he does not pull that kind of verbal stunt with his spouse.
"Graham D. Warner now resorts to gaslighting, all this for a citation he now admits not being being able to provide."
OK, let’s look at this sentence. Starts with a false accusation of gaslighting, then says "now admits" as if I didn’t say ages ago that the website that we comment at was preventing me from being able to post links. It still is, by the way. What’s his excuse for not posting a link to the comment he partially-quoted, in the first place!? He’ll never say.
"It could have ended there, but no – he really, really needs to redirect to his quote."
Redirect!? Do you actually think the link to the comment is more important than the content of the comment!? You excluded half of the content of the comment. That half contained the necessary context to understand the sentence about "fun" that you’re so obsessed with. Then, you failed to link to it in the first place, so that people could see that was the case.
"Wasn’t I talking about the quote? Why don’t I talk about the quote? Isn’t that obvious that the quote etc?
And on and on and on and on and on we go."
This is just gibberish.
"My quote was perfectly fine."
Obviously not, as you excluded half of the content of the comment.
"I only needed to establish that Graham D. Warner indeed said that he had “a little fun” PSTing. To support my point that “a little fun” is indeed a reason to PST, something he had to relitigate!"
…and, you didn’t establish that. The full comment, with the context you excluded, shows I’m saying compared to a real moderator, compared to real censorship I’m just having a little fun, i.e. I’m not doing anything to suppress people’s freedom of expression, just (if anything) making fun of those that do. And, that’s with the name I use, as well. Not just the act of PSTing.
"As if having “a little fun” was not a reason for doing things."
Sure, it can be, if you mean it that way when you write "a little fun". If you don’t, then people really ought to listen when you explain what you did mean.
"I really hope he does not pull that kind of verbal stunt with his spouse."
I’m not pulling any verbal stunt.
Graham D. Warner entertains us with another spurious analysis. His clarification on his administrative status does not change the fact that “I’m having a bit of fun” is a reason to PST. It does not warrant his false accusation.
When Graham D. Warner sees himself quoted, about eight times out of ten he will cry about being quoted out of context. That’s just how he rolls. Se we’re going through the motion once again.
Why? Because he really really really insists in discussing other parts of the quote. Parts that have nothing to do with what is being discussed here.
“I’m having a bit of fun” is a reason to PST, and that’s the end of it.
Here’s more immediate that social norms are of little concerns for Graham D. Warner:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1591134
Were he constrained by any moral or ethical principles, he would need at least one valid justification to PST people when the T-word has been banned.
"Graham D. Warner entertains us with another spurious analysis."
Incorrect. I simply instruct you on what I meant.
"His clarification on his administrative status does not change the fact that “I’m having a bit of fun” is a reason to PST. It does not warrant his false accusation."
It might be a reason to PST for some, but it’s not one of the many, many reasons I do it. As explained.
"When Graham D. Warner sees himself quoted, about eight times out of ten he will cry about being quoted out of context. That’s just how he rolls. Se we’re going through the motion once again."
False accusation.
"Why? Because he really really really insists in discussing other parts of the quote. Parts that have nothing to do with what is being discussed here."
Incorrect. The first part of the quote is essential to understanding the sentence you’re obsessed with, as explained.
"“I’m having a bit of fun” is a reason to PST, and that’s the end of it."
It might be for some, but not for me, as explained.
"Were he constrained by any moral or ethical principles, he would need at least one valid justification to PST people when the T-word has been banned."
The justification for you often using Dr Spencer’s banned words is?
Here comes Graham D. Warner’s famous quote fest.
I’m having a bit of fun is a reason to PST.
I don’t need any “excuse” exempts his PSTs from any justification.
That’s all there is to this silly episode.
Since Graham D. Warner will resist just about any implication, he soldiers on.
If you refuse to listen, you refuse to listen. That’s fine with me.
You don’t get to tell me what I mean. I know you wish you did, but you don’t.
That’s all there is to this silly episode.
Graham D. Warner sill resists a very simple implication. While he claims not needing an excuse. He did provide one:
[GDW] I justify asking you to please stop [t-word] because you are a [t-word].
Compare and contrast:
[MF] The insulating effect of the atmosphere is due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere.
Notice any similarity?
Let’s put Graham D. Warner’s newly discovered excuse into its proper form: he justifies bypassing Roy’s moderation because he believes that the word moderated applies to [t-word]s.
But but but the quote indeed.
I’ve found that asking "T-words" to PST is actually quite an effective way of dealing with them.
Your justification for bypassing Dr Spencer’s moderation was that you were "making a point".
Same here. By PSTing, I’m "making a point". It’s OK, I wouldn’t expect you to understand the point, and there’s certainly no "point" trying to talk to you about it, as there’s no "point" talking to you about anything. You don’t listen, and can’t learn anyway.
So, two justifications:
1) "T-words" can be effectively dealt with through PSTs.
2) I’m "making a point".
Graham D. Warner stops resisting the most obvious implication to seal himself in self-righteousness.
Here is the perfect example that reveals the quality of his judgment:
Cf. the 2010/10 thread that can’t be cited.
Graham D. Warner simply found a way to have the last word. Now he’s stuck with the fact that his lastwordism is at the expense of Roy’s moderation.
At last Graham D. Warner stops resisting the most obvious implication. He now seals himself in self-righteousness.
Here is the perfect example that reveals the quality of his judgment:
Cf. the 2010/10 thread that can’t be cited.
You’ll never understand, and that’s fine with me.
Graham D. Warner goes for gaslighting. It was bound to happen. So let’s recap.
Of the Sky Dragon cranks frequenting this website, there are four main ones.
There is Puffman, who has been banned many times from this website. Graham pretends he does not see him T-ing.
There is Mike Flynn, who has been told to make his own blog. He return under other sockpuppets. And now he is on the PST Patrol. Graham won’t even throw him under the bus.
There is Graham D. Warner, whose main contribution is to PST. He abused the T-word so much that Roy banned the word. He still PSTs, using a simple coding trick Mike Flynn slipped up.
And of course Graham D. Warner keeps his silly moniker, even if Roy hinted that he was a pretender.
And then there is Bordo. Whatever his demerit as someone who reinvents just about every domain of knowledge he lays his eyes on, he plays Climateball properly.
The three first one are T’s in the purest meaning of the term. Roy banned Sky Dragon cranks more than ten years ago. Here we are.
Hence Graham D. Warner’s gaslighting.
I’ve never gaslighted, and never will.
You think Dr Spencer banned the "T word" because of me, but you have absolutely no evidence of that. He banned a lot of words at the same time. The "T word" has been one of the most commonly used derogatory terms at this blog regardless of my PST invention (the PST invention which absolutely bothers you to the very core of your being).
I have every right to dispute the existence of the GHE. So does everybody. The null hypothesis is that there isn’t one, after all. I’ve been waiting some time to be convinced that there is one, and remain open to the idea, but there just doesn’t seem to be one. Oh well.
Only one response from me each day, from now on. So this will be the last one for today.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
P1. Roy banned the T-word.
P2. Graham D. Warner is the commenter how used the T-word the most, by a very big margin.
C. Roy banned the T-word because of Graham D. Warner’s abuse of the T-word.
Graham D. Warner resists the most obvious implications.
So, by your logic, whoever wrote each of Dr Spencer’s banned words the most, is solely responsible for that word getting banned. That’s a great way for people to avoid taking collective responsibility for the words getting banned, and thus missing the point of him banning them in the first place.
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Graham D. Warner just can’t accept any implication that does not help him get his way. This is the engine that perpetually powers cranks in general, and Sky Dragon cranks in particular.
Here is another inference he will resist:
P1. Graham D. Warner claims that he PSTs people to shut people off.
P2. Graham D. Warner often PSTs people days after they left the subthread he PSTs.
C. Perhaps Graham D. Warner’s “bit of fun” is more solitary than he usually portrays it.
“Graham D. Warner just can’t accept any implication that does not help him get his way. This is the engine that perpetually powers cranks in general, and Sky Dragon cranks in particular…”
…and, it’s another false accusation. Your logic was flawed, and I pointed that out. You resist taking any responsibility for Dr Spencer’s banning of words you’ve used yourself (and you’ve used far worse than that). I accept my part in it, as should all the regulars here. Can you?
“P1. Graham D. Warner claims that he PSTs people to shut people off.”
Do I? First I’ve heard of it.
“C. Perhaps Graham D. Warner’s “bit of fun” is more solitary than he usually portrays it.”
I’m not sure what you’re even trying to insinuate here. I notice you’re still referring to the “bit of fun” sentence even after I explained what I meant by it. You can either accept my explanation of what I meant, or you can tacitly call me a liar. If you’re going with the latter, there’s no point in us continuing to communicate. If you don’t believe what I’m saying to you, why bother talking in the first place?
Next response tomorrow, if necessary.
Graham D. Warner invents a logic that is not there, armwaves, and almost denies having said:
Let astute readers wonder what this counterfactual imply.
“…invents a logic that is not there…”
False accusation.
“…armwaves…”
False accusation.
“…and almost denies having said:
‘Of course, Dr Spencer might well be all for PSTs once he realises they’re the only thing that shuts you up.’
Let astute readers wonder what this counterfactual imply.”
That was a joke, Little Willy.
“‘armwaves’
False accusation.”
DREMT is the boy who constantly cried ‘False accusation’.
Eventually, people stopped believing him.
Another joke from Graham D. Warner:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-717124
[Wipes a tear of laughter from his eyes] Oh, the old ones are the best.
Two comments later:
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] RLH, [PST].
Four comments later:
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Willard, [PST].
And then three days later, in the same thread:
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] #6 RLH, [PST].
And? Some people who were trolling me were politely asked to stop. So what?
Astute readers might notice the connection between PSTing and asking people to shut up. Graham D. Warner will do as he please. Just as he is trying to pretend that his politeness does not hide a kid who just wiped a tear of laughter from his eyes out of lulz.
Little Willy often over-analyses my every word, but this is getting a bit silly.
Graham D. Warner will deny everything until all receipts are laid down. As soon as there’s the smallest inference to be made, he will refuse to make it. And then he will complain that his words are overanalyzed!
If only he could release his repressed feelings musically…
You don’t get to tell me what I meant, and you can’t handle being wrong. Those two facts account for most of our long back and forths at various places in the comments this month.
Graham D. Warner does not get to gaslight met into thinking that what he did to me is a normal thing to do. And he does not get to gaslight me about what he did. It is unsettling, creepy, violent, and tasteless.
If he was a person 1, he would know that. And he should also reflect on the fact that he did the person 1/2 thing to Barry.
Barry, for Christ sake!
Graham D. Warner is an abject Machiavellian.
What I did to you? Erm…you were doxing me with links to Parades Underground, so I shared with you one of their songs. Don’t like what you hear? Then don’t go doxin’.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
He PSTed people for more than five years; he kept PSTing people even after the t-word has been banned; he is still PSTing after Roy directly hinted at him that he was taking his role “too seriously” (h/t Walter); he came here using an abusive nickname based on the real name of a scientist who goes by a nom de plume because he found it “funny”; now he has an ironic nickname that mentions the owner of this blog; he keeps trying to last word every thread in a blog where Sky Dragon cranks have been uninvited more than ten years ago; he keeps resisting the simplest implications possible; he just tried to play the victim about information he himself made public; and to top it all he quoted a Very Serious song in which he projected murderous thoughts while suggesting I might have them.
Those misdeeds remain unchecked, and he hasn’t admitted to them. They are still there to pollute the blog, and he persists. If he was person no. 2, like Gill, that would be his aim. To leave them there.
When will Graham D. Warner show that he’s a person Number One?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1599907
The beast from the east will reach England.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/europe/mimictpw_europe_latest.gif
Snowfall is beginning in England as a result of the “lake effect” as frigid winds from the east blow over the warmer North Sea.
The following is in response to Gordon Robertson’s 413 word diatribe against me.
1/ I repeat, I encourage you to back up your claims with empirical evidence or data. Assertions or personal opinions without supporting information lack credibility.
2/ I quoted Dr Spencer’s words here because they reflect standard physics.
3/ Explanations of Earth’s warming that overturn standard physics are wrong.
4/ No, temperature is not merely a human invention; it is a physical quantity that can be objectively measured. Humans have devised various scales in order to quantify those measurements.
5/ Temperature is closely related to thermal energy, and it is not solely based on the freezing and boiling points of water but reflects the overall thermal state of a system.
6/ While temperature is directly related to thermal energy, it is not limited to just thermal energy. In physics, temperature is a fundamental property applicable to various forms of energy, including electromagnetic energy. The relationship between temperature and the energy of a system is well-established and extends beyond the context of water’s phase transitions.
Since my wife occasionally reads these pages, I apologize to her in advance for the indelicate language that follows…
Gordon Robertson, opinions are like a$$holes, everybody’s got one, and they all stink.
Ark says: “3/ Explanations of Earth’s warming that overturn standard physics are wrong.”
Correct Ark. That’s why we know the GHE nonsense is wrong. The explanations of the bogus GHE overturn standard physics.
While temperature is related to the thermal energy in a system, entropy can NOT be ignored. For example, more energy can be added to a system without increasing the system’s temperature. The added energy MUST decrease the system entropy, to increase temperature. That’s why adding ice to hot coffee does NOT increase the temperature of the coffee. More energy was added to the coffee, but the temperature would decrease. Just as adding more low energy CO2 15μ photons can NOT increase Earth’s 288K surface.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
So you still believe that the atmosphere cools the Earth by shooting cold rays?
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are being very sloppy defining your “system”, which you name as “the coffee”. This leads to sloppy thinking and sloppy conclusions.
Is “the coffee” …
a) only the hot water molecules originally in the coffee cup?
b) the water molecules in the cup plus the water molecules in the ice as well?
c) all the molecules in the cup (an open system with more water molecules at the end than the beginning)
If you intended (a) then energy was REMOVED from “the coffee”, not ADDED to “the coffee”. (the same as if you simply placed a cold piece of metal into the liquid). The REMOVED energy DECREASED the entropy of “the coffee”.
If you intended (b) then no energy was added — all the energy was already there in “the coffee”. The entropy INCREASED as temperature equilibrated (the hot water cools and the cool ice melts and warms).
If you intended (c), then temperature both decreased (for the hot molecules initially there) and increased (for the cold molecules that were added to the system). The energy increased (since the cold molecules still have energy). But the entropy INCREASED overall.
Which ever definition you try to use, some part of your conclusion is dramatically wrong! It seems you are sloppily switching from one definition of “the coffee” to the other mid stream, which is a HUGE no-no in thermodynamics.
Sorry “Fokerts”, but blah-blah ain’t science.
I specifically keep my comments simple and easy to understand. That is to help those that don’t have a strong background in physics. But, it also reveals those that want to pervert science, when they try to confuse the issue.
If you want to believe adding ice to hot coffee makes the coffee hotter, there’s no reason to waste time trying to correct you.
That’s why this is so much fun. Reality always wins.
“I specifically keep my comments simple and easy ”
Simple and easy and wrong is nothing to be proud of. You can’t even state what your “system” is, which is a simple and easy but critical step in any thermo problem.
You could pick any one of the three systems I simply and easily laid out for you. Or you could try proposing your own system. Then at least we would know exactly what errors you are making. That is “reality”.
“If you want to believe adding ice to hot coffee makes the coffee hotter”
I never said anything remotely like this. In fact, my reply specifically said that hot water molecules cool in every one of the three scenarios I outlined. You need to work on your reading skills. That is “reality”.
“theres no reason to waste time trying to correct you.”
Well, of course not. Because I am right and you are wrong. That is “reality”.
And reality always wins.
Wrong “Fokerts”, as usual.
The issue is not about the definition of “system”. The issue is ice can not raise the temperature of hot coffee. You can’t face that simple reality. You’ve claimed, along with your cult, that ice can boil water.
You distort, twist, spin, and pervert reality.
“The issue is ice can not raise the temperature of hot coffee. ”
Well, the ultimate issue is if/how radiation can raise the temperature of the earth’s surface. Not if/how dunking ice into coffee can raise the temperature of the coffee.
These are two completely different scenarios, with different heat transfer mechanisms. If you don’t recognize the fundamental differences here, you won’t ever understand the solution.
Here is the analogy you need to understand.
There is hot coffee in a heated pot, sitting outside on a -20 C day. The heater holds the coffee at some temperature (say 50 C). I now surround the pot with ice at 0C. The heated coffee pot will warm up because the surroundings are warmer (maybe to 60 C).
The ice (in conjunction with the electrical heater) raised the temperature of the hot coffee. We could argue semantics like “the ice allowed the heating element to warm the coffee warmer than it had been without the ice”. But there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between (ice vs no ice) and (warmer vs cooler).
THAT is the analogy you need to consider to understand the earth and the GHE. There are no large cold objects coming to earth and cooling the earth.
So, if the "surroundings" warm, the heated surface warms. Why do the "surroundings" warm, in the first place!? The "surroundings" (atmosphere) are what we’re actually living in! That’s the temperature we’re concerned with. Not the temperature of the heated surface.
1) Don’t go giving space a temperature, in your answer.
2) Remember that I’m asking wrt the enhanced GHE, not the GHE itself (neither are real, but just to clarify).
> Remember that Im asking wrt
Graham D. Warner does not always appears in a subthread, but when he does it becomes about what he is asking.
No, just tearing apart Tim’s point, with ease.
Every time Graham D. Warner wins with an irrelevancy, everybody wins!
Oh, it’s relevant alright, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner keeps trying to insist that his point about enhanced greenhouse gases is relevant to Tim’s simple point about entropy.
Another splendid win!
I’m responding to his 11:01 AM comment, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner responds to a comment that does not mention the enhanced greenhouse effect by asking for his enhanced greenhouse effect sammich.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts says:
” ”The issue is ice can not raise the temperature of hot coffee.
Well, the ultimate issue is if/how radiation can raise the temperature of the earths surface. Not if/how dunking ice into coffee can raise the temperature of the coffee.
These are two completely different scenarios, with different heat transfer mechanisms. If you dont recognize the fundamental differences here, you wont ever understand the solution.”
Now Tim after admitting the ice cube isn’t going heat the coffee by dunking ice cubes in it. He is going to regale us with a claim of heating the coffee by waving an ice cube at it.
Tim didn’t clarify if his “one true, perfect analogy” was meant to be for the enhanced GHE (i.e what supposedly happens when we add more GHGs to the atmosphere) or for the GHE (the supposed 33 K temperature enhancement). He left it vague. Could be either, or perhaps both. I was clarifying (with my 2) that my question related to the enhanced GHE, but also tried to anticipate Tim responding regarding the 33 K GHE (hence my 1).
Graham D. Warner’s reading skills continue to amaze:
“Well, the ultimate issue is if/how radiation can raise the temperature of the earths surface. Not if/how dunking ice into coffee can raise the temperature of the coffee.”
Radiation raised the temperature of the Earth’s surface before humans were here. It actually would work however alternative chemical properties atmospheric gases had, as Tim is making a point about thermodynamics only.
I’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. Nothing. The lack of response from Tim speaks volumes to those who are able to follow my line of thought. That rules you out, Little Willy, as you can never follow anything. So please just butt out of the discussion.
Graham D. Warner made many mistakes in the beginning of what will become another death thread because he will resist every single inference, however trivial and inconsequential it might be.
His point about not giving temperature space is very silly but less irrelevant.
His enhanced greenhouse effect sammich request is less silly, but more irrelevant.
There’s nothing wrong per se in trying to make silly and irrelevant points. However, these points were made by a little sociopath who tries to peddle in one of the three talking points that always make threads degenerate.
Why? Because Graham D. Warner will always resist every single inference that does not go his way, however trivial and inconsequential it might be.
But since his obduracy requires a fair level of creativity, that’s a win for Team Science!
All wrong, Little Willy.
See?
Tim’s supposedly incredible analogy for the enhanced GHE:
"Here is the analogy you need to understand. There is hot coffee in a heated pot, sitting outside on a -20 C day. The heater holds the coffee at some temperature (say 50 C). I now surround the pot with ice at 0C. The heated coffee pot will warm up because the surroundings are warmer (maybe to 60 C).
The ice (in conjunction with the electrical heater) raised the temperature of the hot coffee. We could argue semantics like “the ice allowed the heating element to warm the coffee warmer than it had been without the ice”. But there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between (ice vs no ice) and (warmer vs cooler).
THAT is the analogy you need to consider to understand the earth and the GHE."
Is quite easily trashed by simply asking the question, "with the enhanced GHE, why do the surroundings warm in the first place?"
If he’s not talking about the enhanced GHE, but is rather talking about the 33 K GHE, then he can come and clarify that.
Everything else is just Little Willy’s hyper-obnoxious BS.
See? Graham D. Warner responded again!
What will be seen by any astute reader is that you have no rebuttal.
Astute readers can see that Graham D. Warner still tries to bait me into his usual peddling after being called for it.
Which splenditly illustrates what I just said: he’s just trying to peddle crap that has been refuted a thousand times where it does not belong.
And so he’ll try to resist a little more, say by still appealing to pride or whatever, after which he ends up whining about the response he receives…
Graham D. Warner’s Machiavellian routine is getting a little old.
Still no rebuttal.
More bait from Graham D. Warner.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Still no rebuttal.”
Nor is one needed.
Until people here acknowledge that the BASIC heat transfer principles illustrated by Tim’s example are valid, there is NO point in getting into the weeds of the GHE.
If they ever do, they will understand why the Green plate causes the Blue plate to warm, and they will stop with the ice-cube nonsense.
…Willy, please stop trolling.
Tim,
Oh dear, playing the wannabe scientist again, are you?
Maybe you could let everybody know why your description of the mythical GHE –
“The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations., followed shortly thereafter by –
“A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface”.” is of any use at all.
You are being very sloppy defining your GHE”. This leads to sloppy thinking and sloppy
conclusions, wouldnt you agree?
Rather than just looking like a deranged Skydragon cultist, thrashing about in all directions and trying to appear wise and powerful instead of ignorant and impotent, why not just describe the GHE?
Only joking – you can’t, can you?
Just like the rest of the nutters! Accept reality, Tim. The Earth has cooled since the surface was molten. Even the quite fanatical Willard now says “By itself CO2 does almost nothing . . . ” – actually, more CO2 in the atmosphere reduces maximum temperatures, but “almost nothing” is a start.
Maybe you should just stick with your fantasy and ignore reality totally.
Mike Flynn,
What relevance does your comment have with Tim’s physics lesson, or with rationality for that matter?
Willard, please stop trolling.
One misconception at at time, Swenson. Do you disagree with anything specific I wrote to Clint? If so, you are welcome to bring that up.
Timmy Twinkletoes,
You wrote –
“Do you disagree with anything specific I wrote to Clint?” Why do you ask? Why should I care?
You avoided commenting when I wrote –
Oh dear, playing the wannabe scientist again, are you?
Maybe you could let everybody know why your description of the mythical GHE
.The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”, followed shortly thereafter by
“A slightly better description would be reduces the cooling from the surface”. is of any use at all.
You are being very sloppy defining your GHE. This leads to sloppy thinking and sloppy
conclusions, wouldnt you agree?
Rather than just looking like a deranged Skydragon cultist, thrashing about in all directions and trying to appear wise and powerful instead of ignorant and impotent, why not just describe the GHE?
Only joking you can’t, can you?
Just like the rest of the nutters! Accept reality, Tim. The Earth has cooled since the surface was molten. Even the quite fanatical Willard now says “By itself CO2 does almost nothing . . . ” actually, more CO2 in the atmosphere reduces maximum temperatures, but “almost nothing” is a start.
Maybe you should just stick with your fantasy and ignore reality totally.
Are you really trying to say that you agree with everything I wrote? Or can’t you bring yourself to say anything definite?
Off you go then, scuttle away like a cockroach, if that’s your preference.
Why should I care about your tangents and misunderstandings?
If you would actually engage in a discussion, that would be one thing, but you never engage. You just repent the same old red herrings and misconceptions and ad homs.
Several things that one must consider.
1) is there a GHE.
2) how big is it.
3) how much does water contribute by being able to affect the lapse rate.
4) do you still need more warming after considering the above?
5) Much to Arrhenius’ error the atmosphere is NOT disconnected from the surface thus each time the sun comes up in the morning hot air will move up into the atmosphere until its as hot as the hour before.
I am sure thats just a partial list.
A,
You wrote –
“Gordon Robertson, opinions are like a$$holes, everybodys got one, and they all stink.”
No, you have many – most of them wrong.
To demonstrate this, you might give your description of the “greenhouse effect”, indicating where it may be observed, documented and measured, and give your “opinions” on the validity of this “effect”.
You’re right – Im just having a laugh at your expense because all your posing and poncing around is quite humorous.
There is no GHE, you dill. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and continues to do so, losing energy at a rate of about 44 TW. It was you that quoted Dr Spencer saying that if energy out exceeds energy in, then cooling results (or words to that effect)?
You are just another peabrained cultist – trying to appear intelligent.
“The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years …”
Specifically earth’s INTERIOR has cooled for four and a half billion years.
But the earth’s SURFACE has not. The earths surface has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled many times in earth’s history. Since the GHE is about surface temperatures and not about interior temperatures, this four and a half billion years of core and mantle cooling is not particularly germane to any discussions here.
Tim,
Don’t be silly.
You wrote –
“But the earths SURFACE has not. The earths surface has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled many times in earths history.”
The surface is no longer molten. It has cooled – no longer molten.
Your fantasies are not reality.
Mike Flynn,
You forgot to read the very next sentence that follows –
“The earths surface has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled many times in earth’s history.”
Most of your word games are based on implicit quantifiers that are worse than silly.
Cheers.
ark…what you have revealed with your 7 points of stoopidity is an unenviable lack of understanding of science.
1)Was the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusivity equation not enough science for you? Oh, I forgot, climate alarmists have forsaken mainstream science and replaced it with pseudo-science hence their new reference to ‘the science’.
Was my claim that an adiabatic process cannot exist in a column of air offensive to your alarmist sensibilities? Check out the meaning of adiabatic, a reference to a process in which heat can neither be transferred into or out of a system. How does a column of air prevent heat being transferred into and out of the air column via convection?
The ***THEORY*** of an adiabatic process is being misapplied here. It is being presumed that pressure is being changed due to a change in volume which causes a temperature change internally without heat being added or removed. In reality, the volume remains constant.
Pressure is in fact being changed by a varying gravitational field within a constant volume container. It is a change in gravitational force that is causing the temperature change, not a classical adiabatic process with a changing volume and pressure.
The theory is wrong!!! There is no adiabatic change taking place, only a change in gravitational force, a condition not present when the adiabatic process was defined. It is obvious that the people who applied this theory to an atmospheric column neither understood that fact nor heat itself, which can easily leave or enter the column via convection. Furthermore, they erred by ignoring gravitational force and its variability. Perhaps the biggest error was considering a column of air with no walls or ceiling on the container.
2)You quoted Roy because you are an animal of authority, even if the authority figure is one you disrespect by being here arguing the alarmists cause.
3)your arguments have nothing to do with standard physics, whatever that means. I have presented so-called standard physics and you fail to recognize it.
4)temperature is a human invention which is based on the boiling point and freezing point of water. Other human inventions like density are based on properties of the same natural phenomenon, water. Time is another human invention. Ark cannot distinguish real phenomena from artificial means of measuring it.
5) temperature is a measure of the relative amount of thermal energy present. The only function it provides is a means for humans to keep tract of changes in heat intensity.
6)ark fails to offer scientific evidence that temperature is an independent phenomenon. Like his theories on climate change, he simply asserts pseudo-fact and hopes for agreement. If temperature is an independent phenomenon, where does it go at 0K? In fact, why do we need a scale to describe it? What is being described is thermal energy and the measurement is temperature.
Seems your opinions are the stinkiest of them all.
When based on the blackbody-planet theory, it was wrongly calculated:
“The earths surface emits on average 240 W/m^2. ”
–
Also it was very much wrongly concluded:
“Without greenhouse effect, Earth’s surface would be some 33C (59F) cooler.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Our planet Earth is in continuous atmospheric CO2 depletion pattern for many hundred thousands and many millions years now.
If we humans had not used wood and fossil fuels burning planet Earth would have been in a much worse atmospheric CO2 depletion ecological problem.
Natural carbon cycle inevitably leads to the Earth system carbon depletion, by sequestering it in fossil fuels natural deposits.
It is a one way natural ecological process.
Numerous species have flourished and dissappeared in that process.
–
Live still exists on planet Earth because of the presence of some atmospheric CO2 gas. Planet Earth is in urgent need for more atmospheric CO2, not less.
–
Atmospheric CO2 content is so small it is called trace gas.
The trace gas CO2 does not make planet warmer.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Also governmental “efforts” are not lowering global CO2 levels.
One could argue {and I have} that Governmental “efforts” have increased global CO2 emissions.
One simple way to reduce global CO2 emissions is to lower governmental spending and lower taxes.
One way not to do is by burning trees or what is generally called biofuels or “renewal energy”.
And of course, solar panels and wind mills, don’t work.
Another thing is to plant trees. Now, the best way to plant trees is by planting them as cheaply as possible. And govts don’t do it cheaply and they lie about it and do it wrong.
It’s possible to plant a trillion trees and do it cheaply and correctly, but that not what governments do.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Plasma (from Ancient Greek πλάσμα (plsma) ‘moldable substance’) is one of four fundamental states of matter, characterized by the presence of a significant portion of charged particles in any combination of ions or electrons.[1] It is the most abundant form of ordinary matter in the universe, mostly in stars (including the Sun), but also dominating the rarefied intracluster medium and intergalactic medium. Plasma can be artificially generated, for example, by heating a neutral gas or subjecting it to a strong electromagnetic field.
The presence of charged particles makes plasma electrically conductive, with the dynamics of individual particles and macroscopic plasma motion governed by collective electromagnetic fields and very sensitive to externally applied fields. The response of plasma to electromagnetic fields is used in many modern devices and technologies, such as plasma televisions or plasma etching.
Depending on temperature and density, a certain number of neutral particles may also be present, in which case plasma is called partially ionized. Neon signs and lightning are examples of partially ionized plasmas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
Willard, are you losing your mind?
What relevance does plasma have to the GHE – or the SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE, for that matter?
Mike Flynn,
You do not know?
That’s too bad.
Perhaps you could ask around?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Maroon Mike,
Deserts get colder at night because it has not enough of them.
The Moon gets really cold at night because it has none of them.
We can find them in the Earth’s atmosphere.
What are they?
Do you not think the fact that the lunar night is about 14 days long might have something to do with it getting "really cold"?
Here are the temperature swings that Graham D. Warner tries to attribute to time exposition alone, and not to the absence of an atmosphere:
https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/lithos/LROlitho7temperaturevariation27May2014.pdf
Perhaps he could try to prove himself useful for once and find himself the LRO data?
Willard says:
”Diviner even found a place in the floor of the Moons Hermite Crater that was detected to be -410 degrees Fahrenheit (-250 C, 25 K), making it the coldest temperature measured anywhere in the solar system! ”
Willard is mired in dated science. too bad! so sad!
The sensor on the James Webb telescope reached its final operating temperature below 7 kelvins (minus 447 degrees Fahrenheit, or minus 266 degrees Celsius). April 2022.
https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/webb-telescopes-coldest-instrument-reaches-operating-temperature/
Noice.
A crater. An instrument. These are obviously the same kind of things to Gill.
Willard, it’s a temperature, you donkey!
You quoted “the coldest temperature measured anywhere in the solar system!”
I believe the telescope referred to is in the solar system, and its temperature was measured.
Please stop trolling.
Let me get this straight, Maroon Mike –
Instruments are meant to measure themselves?
Willard, its a temperature, you donkey!
You quoted “the coldest temperature measured anywhere in the solar system!”
I believe the telescope referred to is in the solar system, and its temperature was measured.
Please stop trolling.
Is an instrument a place, Maroon Mike?
Willard, its a temperature, you donkey!
You quoted “the coldest temperature measured anywhere in the solar system!”
I believe the telescope referred to is in the solar system, and its temperature was measured.
Please stop trolling.
Moron Mike,
Think of some place somewhere.
Hold that thought for a while.
Think about it, hard.
No, harder than that.
…
…
…
…
Are you still thinking about that “somewhere”?
Good.
Is it an instrument?
Cheers.
Willard, its a temperature, you donkey!
You quoted “the coldest temperature measured anywhere in the solar system!”
I believe the telescope referred to is in the solar system, and its temperature was measured.
Please stop trolling.
Moro‌n Mike,
Where is the instrument?
Willard, its a temperature, you donkey!
You quoted “the coldest temperature measured anywhere in the solar system!”
I believe the telescope referred to is in the solar system, and its temperature was measured.
Please stop trolling.
Mor‌<on Mike,
Air is cooled radiatively.
What are you braying about?
Willard, its a temperature, you donkey!
You quoted “the coldest temperature measured anywhere in the solar system!”
I believe the telescope referred to is in the solar system, and its temperature was measured.
Please stop trolling.
Willard says:
”A crater. An instrument. These are obviously the same kind of things to Gill.”
According to the conditions you listed Willard all they have to have in common is to be in the same solar system.
Gill believes that an instrument satisfies “anywhere” like a crater on the Moon does. He also believes that the point of the quote rests on the crater being the coldest place in the solar system. All this to evade the fact that an atmosphere can provide a shield that reduces the speed at which radiation gets out of a system.
I suppose there is consolation in the idea that most of Gill’s CV is imaginary.
Willard, its a temperature, you donkey!
You quoted “the coldest temperature measured anywhere in the solar system!”
I believe the telescope referred to is in the solar system, and its temperature was measured.
Please stop trolling.
Willard that would be an REFLECTIVE shield and not a blackbody shield.
And its purpose is not to cool the instrument it is to reduce the rate at which the instrument is warmed by the sun so that the powered cryogenic cooler of the instrument can cool it down to 7k while moving far less heat.
You really do need a primer in insulation technology before coming in here and spouting nonsense.
I’d settle for a REFLECTIVE Sky Dragon crank, Gill.
Do your instruments come with an atmosphere?
“I’d settle for a REFLECTIVE Sky Dragon crank, Gill.
Do your instruments come with an atmosphere?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
To PST is a simple task, Mike.
Try again.
” the powered cryogenic cooler of the instrument can cool it down to 7k”
Ummm, humans have cooled things much lower than that right here on Earth!
Willard quoted –
“the coldest temperature measured anywhere in the solar system!”
Looks like that appeal to authority failed, doesnt it.
Someone should have expressed themselves more clearly. Even you can find a much lower measured temperature claim in a lab – on Earth, even!
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Someone should have expressed themselves more clearly.”
You must mean the one who said:
Willard, please stop trolling.
"…permanently shadowed craters…".
Yes, some place "permanently shadowed" might well get extremely cold. What’s interesting is that it’s not nearer to 3 K.
Graham D. Warner basically has a confirmation bias engine instead of a mind. Next paragraph reads:
https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/lithos/LROlitho7temperaturevariation27May2014.pdf
Astute readers will no doubt notice the parenthesis.
It just goes to show how NASA continues to believe nonsense promoted by NASA employees who believe in a GHE which they can’t even describe!
Maroon Mike Flynn,
NASA can describe the greenhouse effect:
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
So can you:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Cheers.
Wacky Wee Willy,
It just goes to show how NASA continues to believe nonsense promoted by NASA employees who believe in a GHE which they cant even describe!
Pity they can’t describe the GHE, in spite of your strange fantasy belief.
Do you actually bother reading what you link to? Others might, and then realise what a fantasist you are.
Keep it up – you don’t need my help to look mentally afflicted.
Maroon Mike,
Confer to the first footnote.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
"The Moon lacks an atmosphere that would limit extreme temperatures by transferring heat around the planet."
Yes indeed, by advection. They ain’t talkin’ ’bout radiation, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner keeps racehorsing.
“Transferring heat around the planet” is one of the things an atmosphere does.
Now, the questions that our little Sky Dragon crank is racehorsing away from is: how can an atmosphere transfer heat around if its job is, pace Puffman, to cool?
Weird Wee Willy,
When NASA wrote “The Moon lacks an atmosphere that would limit extreme temperatures by transferring heat around the planet.”, someone was talking specious nonsense.
Heat does not get “transferred” around the Earth by the atmosphere. When the Sun goes down, the atmosphere and the surface cool.
You are just another gullible fanatic. Try learning some physics, rather than just accepting what every passing nutjob tells you.
Or not – as you wish.
Maroon Mike,
Here you go:
https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/definitions/Transfer_Heat_Energy/Transfer_Heat_Energy.htm
Cheers.
Wanting Wee Willy,
Yes, yes, you have already described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, and pointed out that “the [undefined] GHG effect doesn’t work without water vapor. By itself CO2 does almost nothing”.
As Tyndall pointed out, without an atmosphere, nighttime temperatures in England would drop well below freezing, and life would cease to exist – just like the Moon, you donkey.
Are you sticking with your view that the GHE results in cooling? That would seem superfluous, unless you want to discard known physical laws, and substitute your own.
Here’s a thought – maybe you could try being a silly troll! You probably won’t be very good at it, but at least you can try.
[laughing at peabrained SkyDragon cultist wriggling on his own hook]
No, no, no Maroon Mike.
The “not cooling, slower cooling” was all yours.
Wanting Wee Willy,
Yes, yes, you have already described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, and pointed out that “the [undefined] GHG effect doesnt work without water vapor. By itself CO2 does almost nothing”.
As Tyndall pointed out, without an atmosphere, nighttime temperatures in England would drop well below freezing, and life would cease to exist just like the Moon, you donkey.
Are you sticking with your view that the GHE results in cooling? That would seem superfluous, unless you want to discard known physical laws, and substitute your own.
Heres a thought maybe you could try being a silly troll! You probably wont be very good at it, but at least you can try.
[laughing at peabrained SkyDragon cultist wriggling on his own hook]
You already said that, Maroon Mike.
It was false the first time, now you’re lying.
Cheers.
Wanting Wee Willy,
Yes, yes, you have already described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, and pointed out that “the [undefined] GHG effect doesnt work without water vapor. By itself CO2 does almost nothing”.
As Tyndall pointed out, without an atmosphere, nighttime temperatures in England would drop well below freezing, and life would cease to exist just like the Moon, you donkey.
Are you sticking with your view that the GHE results in cooling? That would seem superfluous, unless you want to discard known physical laws, and substitute your own.
Heres a thought maybe you could try being a silly troll! You probably wont be very good at it, but at least you can try.
[laughing at peabrained SkyDragon cultist wriggling on his own hook]
You keep repeating your lie, Mo‌<ron Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Simple Willard advection simply moves warm air to places replaced by other air. Net effect is zero.
To Gill, (-1,-1,-1,-1) and (0,0,0,-4) are the same.
Willard, please stop trol‌<ling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thanks again for telling me which code you type to escape Roy’s blacklisting of the T-word.
I was simply reminding Gill that -4 was lower than -1.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Well, same thing with an ideal thermally conductive bit of an Ideal
Thermally conductive black body in a vacuum.
Or why lunar surface in vacuum has low average surface temperature, it’s surface is a magically good insulation and it has a long day.
And a large part of why a meter below the surface has higher average temperature [about -40 C] is that though it has a magically good insulation, it’s surface not an ideal insulation.
Earth is much more like an Ideal thermally conductive body as compared to the Moon [or Mars} because Earth has a transparent ocean covering 70 percent of it’s surface, has short day, and has an atmosphere with tropical ocean heat engine that transports heat globally.
Gill just said the opposite of what you just said, gb.
Which is the opposite of what Bordo holds.
Yet it’s not clear if you and Bordo agree with one another.
And then Sky Dragon cranks whines that people find them hard to follow…
“Gill just said the opposite of what you just said, gb.”
Did he?
I can’t read minds.
Let’s look at definition of advection, google:
“the transfer of heat or matter by the flow of a fluid, especially horizontally in the atmosphere or the sea.”
I didn’t mention oceanic ocean flows. It’s a reason that Europe which has average yearly air temperature of about 9 C isn’t about
0 C.
and I would call that warming.
But also I believe, advection is used with air, also, and I did mention the tropical global heat engine.
Cells go up and down but also a lot horizonal movement of air is involved.
“I cant read minds.”
You can’t read words either, gb, so it’s a wash.
Wanting Wee Willy,
Yes, yes, you have already described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, and pointed out that “the [undefined] GHG effect doesnt work without water vapor. By itself CO2 does almost nothing”.
As Tyndall pointed out, without an atmosphere, nighttime temperatures in England would drop well below freezing, and life would cease to exist just like the Moon, you donkey.
Are you sticking with your view that the GHE results in cooling? That would seem superfluous, unless you want to discard known physical laws, and substitute your own.
Heres a thought maybe you could try being a silly troll! You probably wont be very good at it, but at least you can try.
[laughing at peabrained SkyDragon cultist wriggling on his own hook]
Mike Flynn,
You spam your lie again.
Wanting Wee Willy,
Yes, yes, you have already described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”, and pointed out that “the [undefined] GHG effect doesnt work without water vapor. By itself CO2 does almost nothing”.
As Tyndall pointed out, without an atmosphere, nighttime temperatures in England would drop well below freezing, and life would cease to exist just like the Moon, you donkey.
Are you sticking with your view that the GHE results in cooling? That would seem superfluous, unless you want to discard known physical laws, and substitute your own.
Heres a thought maybe you could try being a silly troll! You probably wont be very good at it, but at least you can try.
[laughing at peabrained SkyDragon cultist wriggling on his own hook]
Mike Flynn,
The Earth temperatures at night are prevented from dropping as low as the Moon due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere.
Would you agree?
Willard, please stop trolling.
What’s "racehorsing"?
Can’t an atmosphere do more than one thing?
Willard is a fool. He doesn’t want to accept that a cooler atmosphere cannot make a warmer surface hotter.
He refuses to believe that even when a low-level inversion produces air that is hotter than the surface, the surface cools anyway.
He’s a dingaling. A fantasy dweller.
[MAROON MIKE] a cooler atmosphere cannot make a warmer surface hotter.
[PUFFFAN] Yes, the sky cools the surface.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Can’t an atmosphere do more than one thing?
It’s "random quote juxtaposition" time.
Graham D. Warner will never throw Puffman or Mike Flynn under the bus.
All kinds of sadz.
“Graham D. Warner will never throw Puffman or Mike Flynn under the bus.
All kinds of sadz.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please, Maroon Mike.
No quotes in PSTs.
“Graham D. Warner will never throw Puffman or Mike Flynn under the bus.
All kinds of sadz.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
There’s a quote again, Maroon Mike.
PM
“Graham D. Warner will never throw Puffman or Mike Flynn under the bus.
All kinds of sadz.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
A real PST has no quote, Moron Mike.
“Graham D. Warner will never throw Puffman or Mike Flynn under the bus.
All kinds of sadz.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
That’s not how it works, Moron Mike.
Come to think of it, how come you took away Graham D. Warner’s main contribution to this blog?
“Graham D. Warner will never throw Puffman or Mike Flynn under the bus.
All kinds of sadz.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Morron Mike,
How do you feel about bypassing Roy’s moderation by writing a verboten word using the “‌” trick?
Willard, please stop trolling.
That’s better, Mike.
I think you mean “tro‌lling.”
Why would you feed them that idea?
Willard and AQ, please stop trolling.
> Why would you feed them that idea?
Mor‌ron Mike found it himself:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1589793
Try to type the T-word or the M-word without it.
His research skills might be good enough to find out about radiative cooling!
“Mor‌ron Mike found it himself:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Theres a quote again, Moron Mike.
“Theres a quote again, Moron Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
That’s not how it works, Morron Mike.
“Thats not how it works, Morron Mike”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Keep trying.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ark can’t help sticking his foot in it…
“Heads up Gordon dark side does NOT refer to far side, at least where scientists are concerned”.
Dark side and far side are relative expressions. To people on Earth, the dark side and far side are the same thing. The near side always faces Earth. However, the Sun sees both sides over a 28 day lunar orbital period.’
Same with a car moving around an oval track, An observer inside the oval sees only one side of the car while an observer outside the track sees all sides.
That is absolute proof that the Moon is not rotating on a local axis. The Moon passes between Earth and Sun on an orbital plane that is tilted 5 degrees to the ecliptic (the Earth-Sun orbital plane). When the Moon is between the Earth and Sun we on Earth see the near side and the far side (our dark side) is illuminated by the Sun. When the Moon is on the far side of Earth from the Sun, we see the same near side and it is illuminated by the Sun, as the former heated side (dark side) freezes in cold space.
Of course, we can’t see the Moon when it’s between Earth and Sun except for slivers illuminated when the Moon is in quadrature. If we could see it, we’d see exactly the same near side that we see when it is illuminated.
The only way a body can move in such a manner is when it’s motion is pure curvilinear rotation without local rotation. That is the motion described by Newton yet translators erred by presuming he was talking about a rotating Moon.
I am willing to bet that all people who are climate alarmists also believe the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit.
I wonder if Ark is Norman. Both have their wives checking in occasionally and both are equally obtuse when it comes to science. Then again, Binny used to have his girlfriend check in, going so far as to masquerade as her.
“Binny used to have his girlfriend check in, going so far as to masquerade as her.”
LMAO WHAT???😂😂😂😂
Hogle
” LMAO WHAT??? ”
*
I’m not surprised at all that a guy like you credulously sucks any trash written by Robertson.
{ Years ago I posted a reply to someone on the blog – but unfortunately did that from Rose’s notebook, without reminding that her Firefox had, like mine at that time, an add-on automatically prefilling name and mail fields in the reply edit form. Unfortunately, this intelligent add-on has been dropped off.}
And by the way, Hogle: I’m not at all surprised too that you gently support an ignoramus who denes not only GHE and surface global warming (both are 100% OK for me), but also, among many other things, the lunar spin about its polar axis, the existence of time, time dilation of course as well, and, as a consequence, the need to consider relativistic effects in GPS.
Maybe you even believe him when he tells you that NOAA has only 1500 stations worldwide, that there is only one weather station in the Canadian Arctic, or only three in California, all near the sea of course, or that O2’s microwave emissions in the 60 GHz range play a big role in Earth’s radiative balance, etc etc etc.
I wouldn’t wonder!
“Maybe you even believe him when he tells you that NOAA has only 1500 stations worldwide, that there is only one weather station in the Canadian Arctic, or only three in California, all near the sea of course, ”
I believe the “GHCN” weather stations serve no purpose other than measuring the temperature in that tiny space they occupy.
Walter,
Bindidon doesnt even believe that CO2 in the atmosphere makes any of those 1500 thermometers hotter. He wrote –
” I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Maybe he believe that increasing the amount of water vapour between the Sun and thermometers makes them hotter, but then he couldn’t explain the hottest places on the planet – arid deserts.
He’ll just have to keep complaining about what a bad dog he thinks I am, bearing bad tidings rather than than a flask of medicinal brandy.
Maroon Mike still denies the very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Less of them to block the Sun makes it hits the hardest. Less of them to block the radiation leaving the Earth makes it cools faster.
Aw diddums!
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Maroon Mike still denies the very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less of them to block the Sun, which then hits the hardest.”
Errr, no. I don’t know about Mike, but as you correctly point out, the effect of supposed greenhouse gases is to lower maximum temperatures. Why would anyone deny an obvious fact?
Is this why you say that the GHE results in “not cooling, slower cooling”? Maybe you really mean “not heating, cooling”? As you indicate above.
You are not making much sense if you are trying to imply that the mythical GHE somehow makes thermometers hotter, are you? How would this come about?
You seem rather confused – as usual. Maybe you should try trolling. How hard can it be?
Maroon Mike,
Compare and contrast:
– Less of greenhouse gases to block the radiation leaving the Earth makes it cools faster.
– The Earth temperatures at night are prevented from dropping as low as the Moon due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere.
Do you see any difference?
Wondering Wee Willy,
You may compose as much silliness as you like.
The facts don’t change one iota.
Writing something like “Less of greenhouse gases to block the radiation leaving the Earth makes it cools faster.” just makes you look like a complete dingaling!
If you want to know about physics, learn some. Learn English usage first.
Thank you for your concerns, Mike Flynn.
Is someone who says that “the Earth temperatures at night are prevented from dropping as low as the Moon due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere” a dingaling too?
Asking for your puppet master.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard is an octopus.
Only the Monctopus is, Walter.
And you are new to Climateball.
Please send Mr. Nice my regards.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
And still nobody has the backbone to say what the GHE is supposed to do. Heat? Cool? Neither? Both?
No wonder the GHE can’t be described. It has less substance than the unicorn, the kraken or phlogiston.
Mike Flynn,
You moro‌&nically keep lying about the description of the greenhouse effect.
Infrared radiation can pass through dry, clear air in the wavelength range of 813 m. What are you braying about?
And still nobody has the backbone to say what the GHE is supposed to do. Heat? Cool? Neither? Both?
No wonder the GHE cant be described. It has less substance than the unicorn, the kraken or phlogiston.
An example of complete irrelevant nuttiness –
“Infrared radiation can pass through dry, clear air in the wavelength range of 813 m.”
Meaningless word salad, and nothing to with what the GHE is supposed to do!
Maroon Mike,
A layer of a material that is (mostly) transparent to incoming high frequency light (eg sunlight) and (mostly) opaque to outgoing low frequency light (eg thermal IR from the earth) will have a warming on surfaces below that layer.
http://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-dummies
Keep lying!
And still nobody has the backbone to say what the GHE is supposed to do. Heat? Cool? Neither? Both?
No wonder the GHE cant be described. It has less substance than the unicorn, the kraken or phlogiston.
Some nitwit quoted –
“A layer of a material that is (mostly) transparent to incoming high frequency light (eg sunlight) and (mostly) opaque to outgoing low frequency light (eg thermal IR from the earth) will have a warming on surfaces below that layer.”
Complete nonsense. The Earth has cooled – in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight. It might also be noted that the surface cools at night.
The GHE remains more mythical than the unicorn, the kraken, and phlogiston.
I notice that Mike Flynn still cant accept that theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
That maroon still cant accept why the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.
And best of all hes the one who insists on deserts.
Aw diddums!
Thank you, Willard, for your very substansial and informative comment. Youare absolutely right when saying:
“…theres a very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less greenhouse gases to block the Sun when it hits. So it hits the hardest.
… the hottest places on Earth cool the fastest. There are less greenhouse gases to block the radiation that leaves the Earth.”
Today we had in Athens a cold sunny day. The cold and, therefore, very dry Northern winds blowing, and the sun shinning in the clear sky.
You know, Willard, it was unbearably hot in the sun, we used the shaded side in the street, just like we use to do in summer. But today it was even more necessary.
I think the sun on our bodies was at 1362 W/m2, and not less. There was not any Albedo a=0,3 there. The sun was definitelly burning.
–
Well, I used to live in dessert. During the day it was unbearably hot. And during the night it was very cool.
The explanation they had was the very dry climate they had in there.
–
Also, I have experienced in winter a sudden cloudy sky getting us warmer.
And, there are places in Greece, at seaside, when at summer there are times there is not any kind of air movement, and the moisture in the air is very much thick, and the sun from above is not so much burning, but the hot is deadly.
–
All those are examples of the water vapor and of the clouds greenhouse warming effect.
–
But, from that point, of some greenhouse warming effect at some places, at some times,
it is a too small in magnitude phenomenon, when compared with alleged +33C atmospheric global greenhouse effect.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Glad you could find a cooler place…in the middle of Athenian winter, Christos.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Our planet Earth is in continuous atmospheric CO2 depletion pattern for many hundred thousands and many millions years now.
If we humans had not used wood and fossil fuels burning planet Earth would have been in a much worse atmospheric CO2 depletion ecological problem.
Natural carbon cycle inevitably leads to the Earth system carbon depletion, by sequestering it in fossil fuels natural deposits.
It is a one way natural ecological process.
Numerous species have flourished and dissappeared in that process.
Live still exists on planet Earth because of the presence of some atmospheric CO2 gas. Planet Earth is in urgent need for more atmospheric CO2, not less.
Atmospheric CO2 content is so small it is called trace gas.
The trace gas CO2 does not make planet warmer.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Stop making sense Christos. Science is in Peril so BAMN.
Stefen,
“Stop making sense Christos. Science is in Peril so BAMN.”
–
What is BAMN?
By Any Means Necessary
Christos, it is similar to the current Democrat (Marxist) mantra. DEMOCRACY IS IN PERIL, THEREFORE IT IS OK TO CHEAT (BAMN).
Another day passes without even one of the cult being able to answer the simple physics question:
Can all infrared always warm an object?
There are two groups in the cult. One group doesn’t know the correct answer. And the other group knows the correct answer, but doesn’t like it.
That’s why this is so much fun.
If in a room with floor, ceiling and 4 walls the IR emitted by the 6 surfaces is not heating anything. What matters is the air temperature in the room.
And if air temperature of the room is 15 C, it’s a cold room.
If room is on Mars, and at Mars pressure or quarter of Earth’s pressure and it’s 15 C, it’s not a cold room. Or lacks any significant temperature.
Vacuum of space has no temperature. Quarter Earth pressure or Mars pressure is close enough to a vacuum.
That puts you in Group 1, gb.
If you were Group 2, you would believe that the flux from the six surfaces would add and melt the room.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Looks like Graham D. Warner revised his “just having a little fun” theory:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1590291
Is Roy bad people?
You’re still using the "M word" after it has been blacklisted, Little Willy. Most of the regulars here are still using blacklisted words, just with some alteration or other, e.g. stoopid.
Graham D. Warner really has no idea how making a point works.
Every comment he makes proves me right!
If you say so, Little Willy.
Every time Graham D. Warner responds to me, I win.
Then, since there’s nobody here commenting by that name, I guess you lose.
Every time Graham D. Warner tries to pretend he’s not Graham D. Warner, I win.
How many “stoopid” on this page?
How many T-words?
I said "commenting by that name". I comment by the name "Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team". I suggest you start using it.
How many "maroon", "mor-on", etc. etc? You must have called Swenson that about seventy times or something.
Graham D. Warner almost admits that his response was completely irrelevant. That’s a win, right?
The M-word was there to make a point, something Graham D. Warner may never get. But if he ever does, that’d be a win for everyone.
As for “Maroon,” that’s exactly what Mike Flynn told thousands of times.
Has it ever occurred to you that the "T word" is there to "make a point", bell-end?
Graham D. Warner almost admits that the point behind using the T-word after being banned is because Roy got annoyed by it.
That’s a win.
When will he admit that he thinks that Roy is not a good person?
Either way, it’s a win.
"Graham D. Warner almost admits that the point behind using the T-word after being banned is because Roy got annoyed by it."
Wrong. You lose.
"When will he admit that he thinks that Roy is not a good person?"
I don’t think he’s a bad person. I think you’re a bad person. You lose.
Graham D. Warner somehow tries to pretend I’m the one who banned the T-word.
Another win!
Non-sequitur. You lose again, I’m afraid.
Graham D. Warner does not hesitate to switch between two false accusations. Another win!
Roy does not always ban words, but when he does it’s certainly not because he’s annoyed by their usage.
The mind of the Sky Dragon crank is so wonderful!
Dr Spencer might be annoyed by the usage of the "T word", but that’s not why I use it. Simple, really. Guess you lose again.
Graham D. Warner finally admits that the inference he tries to evade is more than plausible.
An important win. It would have been preferable if Graham D. Warner resisted a little more. After all, resisting the most obvious inferences is what Sky Dragon cranks do best.
Onward!
Little Willy just plain makes shit up.
More gaslighting by Graham D. Warner, more winning!
When Roy gets annoyed so much by a word that he bans it, Sky Dragon cranks know they’re doing something right when they keep using it!
Incorrect interpretation. Another loss for Little Willy.
I said when bad people get annoyed by something, you know you’re doing something right. The fact that you’re so obsessed with "PSTing", and me generally, shows how much it annoys you. Since you’re a bad person, that means I’m on the right track. So, I’ll keep doing it.
Now, if Dr Spencer (who isn’t a bad person) is also annoyed by the usage of the "T word", then that’s not so good…but, unfortunately, it’s just the price that must be paid for doing what needs to be done. My hands are tied. Ts must be PST’d. It’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it.
Graham D. Warner confuses his own personal vendetta with a very simple (like, very, very simple) application of the silly special pleading that he presents as a justification.
Graham D. Warner treats Roy as if he was a bad person, and there’s no amount of rationalization that will do.
No vendetta’s, just a cherry blossom tree.
Just a cherry blossom tree.
To bypass Roy’s policy not to use the T-word, a word that must have annoyed Roy since he banned it, is the price to pay for Graham D. Warner. Also for Mike Flynn, these days.
Who will become the PSTer-in-Chief?
Stay tuned!
A stray apostrophe went into that last comment. Whoops.
No vendettas, just a cherry blossom tree.
Just a cherry blossom tree.
Willard wrote –
“To bypass Roys policy not to use the T-word, a word that must have annoyed Roy since he banned it, is the price to pay for Graham D. Warner. Also for Mike Flynn, these days.
Who will become the PSTer-in-Chief?
Stay tuned!”
What a fool he is! His endeavours to annoy and confuse don’t seem to be getting much traction. He’s just a SkyDragon cultist who utters inanities such as the the GHE produces “not cooling, slower cooling” and complains that adding H2O to desert atmospheres reduces their maximum temperatures, so the planet must be getting hotter!
A wonderful myth this nonsensical GHE – both heats and cools, simultaneously! Even Bindidon agrees that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not result in heating. He wrote –
“I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Willard himself wrote –
“the GHG effect doesnt work without water vapor. By itself CO2 does almost nothing . ..”
No wonder he can’t describe the GHE, except to agree with Bindidon that Gavin Schmidt and the rest of the nutters must be mad, writing papers like “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”, peer reviewed and all!
Was it Mike Flynn or Graham D. Warner who discovered the “‌” (followed by an “;”) trick?
My money’s on Maroon Mike.
Willard wrote
.To bypass Roys policy not to use the T-word, a word that must have annoyed Roy since he banned it, is the price to pay for Graham D. Warner. Also for Mike Flynn, these days.
Who will become the PSTer-in-Chief?
Stay tuned!”
What a fool he is! His endeavours to annoy and confuse dont seem to be getting much traction. Hes just a SkyDragon cultist who utters inanities such as the the GHE produces “not cooling, slower cooling” and complains that adding H2O to desert atmospheres reduces their maximum temperatures, so the planet must be getting hotter!
A wonderful myth this nonsensical GHE both heats and cools, simultaneously! Even Bindidon agrees that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not result in heating. He wrote
“I never intentionally wrote Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Willard himself wrote
“the GHG effect doesnt work without water vapor. By itself CO2 does almost nothing . ..”
No wonder he cant describe the GHE, except to agree with Bindidon that Gavin Schmidt and the rest of the nutters must be mad, writing papers like “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature” peer reviewed and all!
Mike Flynn,
Assume a Grotesquely Discordian Weakling (GDW).
GDW constantly does some action A.
GDW tells you that he believes that A is annoying.
Do you think that GDW tries to annoy?
Willard wrote
“To bypass Roys policy not to use the T-word, a word that must have annoyed Roy since he banned it, is the price to pay for Graham D. Warner. Also for Mike Flynn, these days.
Who will become the PSTer-in-Chief?
Stay tuned!”
What a fool he is! His endeavours to annoy and confuse dont seem to be getting much traction. Hes just a SkyDragon cultist who utters inanities such as the the GHE produces “not cooling, slower cooling” and complains that adding H2O to desert atmospheres reduces their maximum temperatures, so the planet must be getting hotter!
A wonderful myth this nonsensical GHE both heats and cools, simultaneously! Even Bindidon agrees that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not result in heating. He wrote
“I never intentionally wrote Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Willard himself wrote
“the GHG effect doesnt work without water vapor. By itself CO2 does almost nothing .”
No wonder he cant describe the GHE, except to agree with Bindidon that Gavin Schmidt and the rest of the nutters must be mad, writing papers like “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature”, peer reviewed and all!
Maroon Mike still denies the very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less of them to block the Sun, which then hits the hardest. There is also less of them to block the radiation that leaves the Earth, which is why it cools faster.
Aw diddums!
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Maroon Mike still denies the very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less of them to block the Sun, which then hits the hardest.”
Errr, no. I don’t know about Mike, but as you correctly point out, the effect of supposed greenhouse gases is to lower maximum temperatures. Why would anyone deny an obvious fact?
Is this why you say that the GHE results in “not cooling, slower cooling”? Maybe you really mean “not heating, cooling”? As you indicate above.
You are not making much sense if you are trying to imply that the mythical GHE somehow makes thermometers hotter, are you? How would this come about?
You seem rather confused – as usual. Maybe you should try trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“I don’t know about Mike.”
Err, no. You do:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/15/global-warming-a-trojan-horse-of-modernity/#comment-400206
You’ll never guess which gases are responsible for that insulating effect.
Whining Wee Willy,
You wrote
“Maroon Mike still denies the very simple reason why the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are less of them to block the Sun, which then hits the hardest.”
Errr, no. I dont know about Mike, but as you correctly point out, the effect of supposed greenhouse gases is to lower maximum temperatures. Why would anyone deny an obvious fact?
Is this why you say that the GHE results in “not cooling, slower cooling”? Maybe you really mean “not heating, cooling”? As you indicate above.
You are not making much sense if you are trying to imply that the mythical GHE somehow makes thermometers hotter, are you? How would this come about?
You seem rather confused as usual. You do realise that cooling is not heating, do you? Maybe you should try trolling.
Maroon Mike,
The Earth temperatures at night are prevented from dropping as low as the Moon due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases are responsible for that effect.
Thus the name greenhouse effect.
Cheers.
Willard,
You wrote –
“The Earth temperatures at night are prevented from dropping as low as the Moon due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases are responsible for that effect.”
As you said, you use the name “greenhouse gas” to mean any gas at all. If you want to call the atmosphere “greenhouse gas”, go for it. You probably won’t attract many followers.
You also wrote “Thus the name greenhouse effect.”
You surely dont mean that the mythical “greenhouse effect” is responsible for the surface cooling at night? That would be a certain indication of madness in some form or other!
Hard to deny what you yourself said, Mike Flynn, isn’t it?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“GDW tells you that he believes that A is annoying.”
I did no such thing. I don’t believe that A is annoying, personally. What I observe is that it seems to annoy you. Since you’re a bad person, that means I know I’m on the right track.
If it also annoys Dr Spencer, that’s a shame…but it’s not my intention to annoy him, or anybody else for that matter. However, we don’t know if it annoys him or not, because he’s never commented on the PSTs directly. We know he banned the “T word”, but he also banned a lot of other words at the same time. So, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. Everyone was calling each other the “T word”, all the time, after all. You assume it’s because of me that he banned it, but that might not be the case.
Graham D. Warner identifies with GDW.
I wonder why.
Did I say he was GDW?
That’s just a thought experiment.
“That’s just a thought experiment.”
Yeah, right.
Of course, Dr Spencer might well be all for PSTs once he realises they’re the only thing that shuts you up.
Graham D. Warner will resist every single inference that may displease him, however inconsequential it might be.
This behavior illustrates fairly well how Sky Dragon cranks become Sky Dragon cranks.
In that sense, Graham D. Warner is a gift that keeps on giving!
At least until he PSTs, in which case he simply gives away the win, and stops.
I’m pointing out that the claim it was “just a thought experiment” is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.
If you were being honest, you would admit that you intended GDW to be me and for A to represent PSTing.
Obviously.
Instead you go for some manipulative nonsense, proving you are every bit as bad as you constantly (and wrongly) make me out to be.
And I’m just pointing out that Graham D. Warner’s claims that he “did no such thing” and that he does not “believe that A is annoying, personally” is more than dishonest.
It amounts to gaslighting.
Little Willy starts with his false accusations.
Graham D. Warner indeed admitted that he was PSTing because he believed he was annoying the hell out of his victims.
The fact that he himself did not find it annoying is utterly irrelevant to what I said or to any fact that matters.
This behavior is more than dishonest.
Pure gaslighting.
No, Little Willy. Just you. It seems like it annoys you, a great deal. Hence why we keep ending up having these big back and forths over such a trivial subject. I mostly PST you…but there’s a reason for that. The reason is that you smear your crap everywhere, all over this blog. You’ve written hundreds of comments already. You just can’t help yourself! You interject in just about every thread going, and of course any thread you start in, you have to try and have the last word. No wonder people are so fed up with you!
[a huge No U from Little Willy is about to follow, no doubt…]
While due diligence deserves to be paid to Graham D. Warner’s current gaslighting, his “If it also annoys Dr Spencer, that’s a shame…but it’s not my intention to annoy him” is worst. It is not Graham D. Warner’s intentions that matters here, but Roy’s.
Roy’s intentions behind banning the T-word are loud and clear.
You assume Dr Spencer’s intentions in banning the "T word" are to stop PSTs. It might be, but you don’t know that. Dr Spencer banned a lot of words. I would have thought, personally, his intention was to stop pointless squabbling about personal issues like we are currently engaged in. I would have thought his intention in banning those words was to try to keep his blog about science, rather than this sort of crap.
So now, let’s see…to the best of your knowledge, Little Willy, have I ever started a thread that is just a personal attack on you? Or an attempt to humiliate you in some way? I can’t recall any.
Now…be honest, Little Willy…exactly how many threads have you started which are just personal attacks on me, or some attempt to humiliate me in some way? Thirty? Forty? Fifty? I’m not sure. It’s a lot, though.
Every time Graham D. Warner keeps resisting the simplest implications Team Science wins.
Another win for Team Science!
Out of 1253 comments, you have contributed 362 of them. That’s 29% of the total comments under this article, Little Willy.
You’re the problem. If you think that’s a win, good for you I guess.
Responding to you is pushing my number of comments up. I’m not happy about that. I want to start commenting less, if anything.
So I may have to PST you soon, to bring this to an end.
Graham D. Warner still tries to wriggle away from his ad hoc policies. Let’s review them –
He PSTs because it amuses him. No, he PSTs because he believes it annoys people. No, not people, only me.
Now, he PSTs even if Roy banned the T-word, because bad persons are worth bypassing the ban. So much the worse for Roy’s authority on his own blog. Property rights be damned.
That means he only justified his PSTs toward me. Unless he considers that the other commenters he PSTs (e.g. Barry) are bad persons too.
Or perhaps he also PSTs commenters that are not bad persons…but then how is that worth bypassing Roy’s ban?
However Graham D. Warner wriggles away from this one, another win for Team Science!
I PST for many reasons. None of those reasons are "because it annoys you". That’s just an indicator that I’m doing something right.
I’ll continue to do so, with my head held high. No wriggling here.
And, I’m no more "bypassing a ban" than are all the regular commenters, when they consistently use Dr Spencer’s banned words just with minor alterations. You included, Little Willy.
[Whenever the spotlight is shone on Little Willy, he focuses in on his opponent. He never takes responsibility for any of his own actions.
He never even defends himself. He just attacks others.]
Either Graham D. Warner believes every single person he PSTs is bad, or else he needs another excuse to bypass Roy’s ban.
Whatever horn Graham D. Warner chooses from this dilemma, another win for Team Science!
I don’t need any “excuse”. You’re the problem, I’ve shown everyone the solution.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
At least Graham D. Warner owns the fact that he has no reason to bypass Roy’s ban the way he does.
Just like most of the other Sky Dragon cranks here, he’s just a little sociopath.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard, you are trying to be annoying.
Mike Flynn,
Please stop projecting.
Willard, please stop tro$#8204;lling.
Mike Flynn,
You keep messing up your code.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Starvation Policy due to climate change narrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5_7hk1SVSk&ab_channel=KeeanBexte
Why did Keean leave Rebel News, again?
Willard, please stop trol‌ling.
Mike Flynn,
You forgot your “;”.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Interesting video.
As I understand it, growing food removes nitrogen from the soil and it needs to be replaced to continue growing. Otherwise, the soil loses its ability to nourish plants. So, adding nitrogen fertilizer is not adding something for nothing, it is replacing nutrients in the soil that we end up ingesting.
We need to do something about the alarmist hordes who are infringing on our democratic rights. I am not advocating anything but I wonder what is next if we can’t do this legally at the ballot box? We have already seen people getting violent with alarmists who sit on a highway to block traffic. In the US, some alarmists groups are arming themselves, supposedly for self-protection.
Unionists faced the same violence a century ago but they targeted only businesses who hired scabs to replace them. The alarmist protestors today are targeting every human who fails to agree with them for no known reason.
Why all the insanity? Why do people feel so entitled to stifle the rights of others? Canadian PM Trudeau called the trucker’s freedom convoy an insurrection. An insurrection is an armed uprising aimed at removing a government illegally from office. I did not see any armed truckers in the convoy or with the crowd who raided the White House. Yet Trump is being blocked from running in some states because they think he lead an insurrection.
The lunatics are running the asylum.
When looking at
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
I thought ENSO would soon drop down below the ‘0.5’ El Nino treshold.
But now I see the MEI index moving in the opposite direction:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
What a salad.
Mei is a month old data, CFSv2 is prediction that is yet to materialize,
the salad is is in your head you trottel
As always, the dachshund didn’t understand what I wrote and as always, he couldn’t think of anything more intelligent than insulting me instead.
People like him always think that others would overlook simple, trivial things like
” CFSv2 is prediction that is yet to materialize… “.
Incredible. How stûpid is one actually allowed to be?
Wer hier der wahre Trottel is, dürfte jedem auf diesem Blog klar sein, der über ein funktionierendes Gehirn verfügt.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-population/
Polar Bear Update:
IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group said in 2021:
– 3 subpopulations are in decline
– 2 subpopulations are increasing
– 4 subpopulations are stable
– 10 subpopulations are data deficient
Here’s their prediction:
– “By 2040, scientists predict that only a fringe of ice will remain in Northeast Canada and Northern Greenland when all other large areas of summer ice are gone. This Last Ice Area is likely to become important for polar bears and other life that depends on ice.”
– “Global polar bear numbers are projected to decline by 30% by 2050.”
Wonder where Polar Bears went the last time the Arctic Ice melted? Answer: Anywhere they wanted.
I think the CAGW advocates know they’ve lost the polar bear narrative.
When the ice melts in Hudson Bay, Canadian polar bears raid the garbage dumps.
Are there not enough seals?
Seals take more energy to get.
It’s like me and Mike Flynn. I’m the seal, Mike’s garbage.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Not-so-wily Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Graham D. Warner almost admits that the point behind using the T-word after being banned is because Roy got annoyed by it.
Thats a win.
When will he admit that he thinks that Roy is not a good person?
Either way, its a win.”
OK, you win. Do you get a prize?
Keep on trolling. You can’t help yourself, can you?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Do you get a prize?”
I get more than that.
You get nothing, since you were wrong on both counts.
Another win against Graham D. Warner!
Willard, please stop trolling.
[Gordon Robertson] EEI is a corrupt theory.
[Me] I encourage you to back up your claims with empirical evidence or data.
[Gordon Robertson] Was the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusivity equation not enough science for you?
Your assertion and the supposed evidence are incongruent because:
1/ The IGL is simply an equation of state.
2/ You cannot derive the diffusivity equation for heat flow without first establishing an energy balance relationship. The energy balance equation accounts for the conservation of energy and serves as the basis for subsequent mathematical formulations.
Q.E.D.
A,
You wrote –
“You cannot derive the diffusivity equation for heat flow without first establishing an energy balance relationship. The energy balance equation accounts for the conservation of energy and serves as the basis for subsequent mathematical formulations.”
You seem to be blathering, but if you wish to explain what you are blathering about, others might be able to make some sense out of your blather. Is it related to the mythical GHE, perhaps?
There is no “conservation of energy” relating to the Earth. I sincerely hope that you are not implying that the Earth is a “closed system”! That would be incredibly silly, even for a nutty SkyDragon cultist like yourself.
Are you instead referring to some fantasy bearing no relationship to reality?
Mike Flynn,
Are you trying to annoy again by any chance?
Willard, please stop trolling.
The only incongruence here is the incongruence between the way you think and the real world. You are obviously trying to introduce red-herring restrictions that don’t apply here.
What do you mean that the IGL is ‘simply’ an equation of state? Of course it’s an equation of state, it can relate the variables P, T, and V with initial conditions to P, V, and T in final conditions, but that is not required to use it.
What does that have to do with proving that the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.06C for every 1C increase in the overall gas temperature? In other words, the other 0.9994 C comes from the other gases. We are not comparing one state to another we are simply applying the IGL to determine the relationship between P, V, and T in the atmosphere in one state.
The IGL is PV = nRT. Used as a state function we would be comparing the states P1V1 = nRT1 to P2V2 = nRT2. If the number of moles is constant for one gas then…
P1V1/T1 = P2V2/T2
This is normally done isochorically (constant volume), isobarically (constant pressure) or isothermally (constant temperature). That means keeping one variable constant while varying the other two. That is how Clausius established the 2nd law, hence proving that heat can be transferred, by its own means, only from hot to cold. Reversing the process from cold to hot dos not work.
Your point 2) is nonsense. You can derive the heat diffusion relationship wherever heat is diffused from one body into another, whether those bodies are solid, liquid, or a gas. What we want to know here is how much heat can be diffused by a trace gas of 0.04% into the atmosphere. Not enough to be significant.
Energy balance is not an issue and is understood. The equation above, between the P,V, and T of two different states is based on energy balance. However, the fictitious energy budget offered by Trenberth-Kiehle offers fictitious energy flows to arrive at a silly conclusion. It’s like Swannie’s experiment in which he confused heat dissipation with a heat transfer and concluded heat could be transferred from cold to hot.
Gordo repeats his confusion, writing:
Gordo still refuses to describe how his “heat dissipation” would work in a vacuum, such as that which I used in my Green Plate Demo. All he offers are repeated assertions that “back radiation” violates the 2nd Law of Thermo, without proof.
Gordon, Again, why do you always avoid mentioning optical properties of molecules?
Maybe because you might discover a GHE?
Nate, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM QUIZ
Who wrote this:
A: The IPCC
B: NASA
C: Mike Flynn
D: Mike Flynn’s sock puppet
Willard, have you gone completely mad?
You quoted “The Earth temperatures at night are prevented from dropping as low as the Moon due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere.”
I assume you agree, but are just attempting to be a troll (without success).
You quote a well k known fact, and hope that people will think you are lying, is that it? What a peculiar tactic.
I’ll repeat for you, the Earth’s surface temperatures at night are prevented from dropping as low as the Moon due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere.
Quote me if you like – I have clarified your quote to refer to the Earth’s surface.
Are you in denial of reality? Do you think cooling increases temperature? It’s cooling, you donkey, not heating!
Try another diversion – equally silly, if you like.
Mike Flynn,
A diversion?
What are you braying about?
The question isn’t if I agree with the claim, but if you do.
Do you?
I hope you do.
Willard, have you gone completely mad?
You quoted “The Earth temperatures at night are prevented from dropping as low as the Moon due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere.”
I assume you agree, but are just attempting to be a troll (without success).
You quote a well k known fact, and hope that people will think you are lying, is that it? What a peculiar tactic.
Ill repeat for you, the Earths surface temperatures at night are prevented from dropping as low as the Moon due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere.
Quote me if you like I have clarified your quote to refer to the Earths surface.
Are you in denial of reality? Do you think cooling increases temperature? Its cooling, you donkey, not heating!
Try another diversion equally silly, if you like.
You’re the one who tries to divert, Mike Flynn.
The Earth temperatures at night are prevented from dropping as low as the Moon due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere.
The insulating effect of the atmosphere comes from greenhouse gases.
Hence why it is called the greenhouse effect.
How will you evade what you yourself said?
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote (in a fit of fantasy) –
“The insulating effect of the atmosphere comes from greenhouse gases.
Hence why it is called the greenhouse effect.”
No, the insulating effect of the atmosphere is due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere – unless you can show otherwise (which you can’t).
In any case, are you now claiming that the mythical greenhouse effect is really why the surface cools at night?
That’s just silly!
Stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“the insulating effect of the atmosphere is due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere”
Do you mean in the same way that your braying is caused by your braying?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I have to admit that at first I was brainwashed by the mainstream media about the dangers of climate change and greenhouse effect.
I started to belive that a 1 degree change in “global temperature” could cause devastating effects on global climate. Cause die offs of species etc etc.
Then I started to dig deeper and found forums that were skeptical.
I found out that first of all it is not possible to even measure the “global temperature” with such an accuracy like 0,5 degrees or what they claim to be the change in recent decades.
This kind of accuracy is absolutely nonsense.
How do you measure the ” global temperature” of earth?
The inside of the earth is molten and the surface area of the earth is about 500 million km2.
Measuring some kind of “global temperature” with an accuracy of half a degree is complete nonsense.
Also, like Swenson has pointed out, the surface was at once molten and now is supposed to be aroung +15 degrees celsius on average.
That means there has been an enourmous amount of cooling over the millions and millions and billions of years.
So the overall trend has been cooling not warming. Also, why do people belive in “snowball earth”? I think it is unlogical.
Why should an earth turn into snowball out of the blue? I think the earth has been historically always warmer than it is today.
The molten core inside the earth cools slowly and with it the average temperature of earth also decreases. The earth cools.
What about ice ages you may ask. But continents move.
Over hundreds and hundreds of millions of years a place that is at the moment sitting near equator may drift to north pole and get an ice age there.
No need for snowball earth and ice age myth.
The greenhouse effect is also not logical.
When the earth was historically a lot warmer, lets say when the oceans were gaseous then all the enourmous amount of CO2 which is now dissolved in oceans was in the atmosphere.
But that enourmous amount of CO2 in the atmosphere did not prevent the earth from cooling down.
The reason is simple – the CO2 is not an energy source. It itself needs an energy to even be in the atmosphere.
Without energy the CO2 would collapse on the earth due to the gravity.
All gases would collapse on earth without an energy which is needed for the gas molecules to move around and rise from the surface of the earth.
This raw energy comes from the sun and from inside the earth from the molten core.
This baseline continuous raw energy is needed to sustain the current atmosphere.
For example burning a gallon of gasoline is a one time warm up.
This king of energy will fade quickly and the gas would collapse.
The atmosphere is not getting thicker by this kind of burning.
So in overall the CO2 and other gases do not cause any heating.
They themselves need heat to even float in the air.
This heat comes from the sun and from the molten core of the earth.
And this raw energy is decreasing because the molten core inside the earth is cooling.
Greenhouse effect is a scam to milk taxpayers. Nothing more.
Good bot.
Willard, please stop trolling.
yonni…I came into the debate as a curious onlooker. I had just read the IPCC claim that it is 90% likely humans are causing global warming. Having studied a year of probability and statistics at the uni, I was curious as to how they had reached such a confidence level, which is pretty well a representation of truth in science.
I began researching that claim on Google and one of my first hits was an article by Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist teaching at MIT. That caught my eye because my background is in engineering and MIT is one of the top engineering schools on the planet.
Lindzen’s article soon convinced me something is not right with the IPCC. He revealed that the IPCC appoints 2500 reviewers on each review, with politically-appointed lead authors making the selections. However, before the report generated by the 2500 can be released it is audited by 50 politically-appointed lead authors and re-written to agree with the Summary for Policymakers, written first by the lead authors.
Here’s the clincher. Many of the original 2500 protested the actions of the IPCC. They wanted to wait and see what developed. They were allowed to protest but nothing they said could overturn the Summary for Policymakers, hence the amendments to their report. That represents to me a politically-motivated corruption that is present in much of modern peer-review.
Further investigation over more than 15 years has revealed to me just how stinking rotten and corrupt the alarmist message is. They have perverted the basic principles of science to get their sleazy message across.
BREAKING NEWS
Sky Dragon cranks finally found a complete framework to explain away the greenhouse effect:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1590667
It also lets go of causality altogether, which is a small price to pay.
Onward!
Wonky Wee Willy,
The insulating effect of the atmosphere is due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere.
If you want to refine the atmosphere as mythical “greenhouse gases”, go your hardest.
No “greenhouse effect”.
Mike Flynn,
Any explanation that is the form of “A is due to A” does not belong to the empirical sciences. Imagine if we read papers that read:
– Mortality is due to mortality
– COVID is due to COVID
– Smoking addiction is due to smoking addiction
– Climate change is due to climate change
Someone should have expressed themselves less trivially, and that someone is you.
Here is an explanation that belongs to science:
The insulating effect of the atmosphere is due to greenhouse gases.
Do you have anything against it except word games, or are we going through the motion with your inane prose around “heating”?
Wistful Wee Willy,
If you choose to call air “greenhouse gases”, you won’t get a lot of converts to your cause.
If you don’t believe that air is an insulator, you are away with the fairies.
Mike Flynn, meet Mike Flynn:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/21/the-tragedy-of-the-horizon/#comment-832176
I believe that GHGs stand for greenhouse gases.
Air is air, greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases are recognized by their specific radiative properties.
Cheers.
Willard,
All gases have radiative properties. All gases absorb and emit radiation.
You absorb and emit nonsense.
If all you can do is emit pointless inanities like –
“I believe that GHGs stand for greenhouse gases.
Air is air, greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases are recognized by their specific radiative properties.”,
then you are just trolling.
You are a recognised peabrain.
Mike Flynn,
You make another irrelevant claim –
“All gases have radiative properties.”
So every gas is a greenhouse gas, right?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I check-in every once in a while to see if anything interesting has been posted. Sadly, the majority of the posts involve juveniles insulting each other with pet names. Someone using the name Willard even has a website that is about as sophisticated as a grammar school science project.
The posts with substance seem to just get lost in the noise. It really is disgraceful that Dr Spencer gets blamed and abused for trying to uphold the concept of free speech.
Some of you might consider behaving yourselves, but somehow I do not think that will happen.
I get your point, Tim, but every serious blog needs some kind of comic relief. I get a laugh out of Swenson swatting down the pest wee willy.
Although long, some of your posts are humorous. The problem is that some people think you are being serious. I suspect it would be difficult to be so wrong, and also so precise about being wrong with details, without at least knowing something.
Otherwise, I see that at one of the offenders is proud of being a pest, and thus confirms the intent.
That job has already been taken, TS:
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
But then we have two PSTers, so why not?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I now wee willy is just being stoopid, but…
“[ww]Greenhouse gases are responsible for that effect.
Thus the name greenhouse effect”.
***
That means nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc., are greenhouse gases. It is 99% N2 and O2 that cause warming in a greenhouse therefore they must be greenhouse gases.
Gordon,
It would be equally appropriate to replace “greenhouse” with “unicorn”.
At least people would not be misled into thinking the “unicorn effect” or “unicorn gases” had anything to do with reality.
NASA are still saying ” Gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat similar to the glass roof of a greenhouse.” Dills who have no clue about physics, quite obviously. The Earth has cooled over the last four billion years – the surface is no longer molten, and the Earth currently loses about 44 TW. Of course, this means the planet is cooling – more energy out than in.
I suppose dills like Willard will keep believing in their greenhouse (or unicorn) effect – or whatever other silly name they ascribe to something which doesn’t exist.
All good fun.
Cool story, Bordo:
“That means nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc., are greenhouse gases.”
That clarifies what you wrote earlier:
You seem to suggest that nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc can absorb IR isotropically and that part of the direction of emission has to be straight down to the surface.
Am I correct?
Willard,
You wrote –
“You seem to suggest that nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc can absorb IR isotropically and that part of the direction of emission has to be straight down to the surface.”
Oooooooh! You seem to be trying for a stupid gotcha!
Am. I correct?
Are you querying what Gordon stated? If you believe he is wrong, why not just point out his error and back up your opinion with fact? Others can then decide with whom they agree.
Or are you just being a slimy gutless troll?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
It’s hard to tell what Bordo means most of the times.
Are you Bordo too?
Willard,
You wrote
“You seem to suggest that nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc can absorb IR isotropically and that part of the direction of emission has to be straight down to the surface.”
Oooooooh! You seem to be trying for a stupid gotcha!
Am. I correct?
Are you querying what Gordon stated? If you believe he is wrong, why not just point out his error and back up your opinion with fact? Others can then decide with whom they agree.
Or are you just being a slimy gutless troll?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
I’ll take your repetition as a “no.”
Let’s wait until Bordo logs on.
Willard,
You wrote
“You seem to suggest that nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc can absorb IR isotropically and that part of the direction of emission has to be straight down to the surface.”
Oooooooh! You seem to be trying for a stupid gotcha!
Am. I correct?
Are you querying what Gordon stated? If you believe he is wrong, why not just point out his error and back up your opinion with fact? Others can then decide with whom they agree.
Or are you just being a slimy gutless troll?
Carry on.
You already said this, Mike.
That makes TS sad.
Willard,
You wrote
You seem to suggest that nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc can absorb IR isotropically and that part of the direction of emission has to be straight down to the surface.”
Oooooooh! You seem to be trying for a stupid gotcha!
Am. I correct?
Are you querying what Gordon stated? If you believe he is wrong, why not just point out his error and back up your opinion with fact? Others can then decide with whom they agree.
Or are you just being a slimy gutless troll?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
I’m still waiting for Bordo’s answer.
If I ask you, I’ll get something like “a gas is like CO2 due to the fact that it is like CO2.”
Move along.
Willard,
You wrote
“You seem to suggest that nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc can absorb IR isotropically and that part of the direction of emission has to be straight down to the surface.”
Oooooooh! You seem to be trying for a stupid gotcha!
Am. I correct?
Are you querying what Gordon stated? If you believe he is wrong, why not just point out his error and back up your opinion with fact? Others can then decide with whom they agree.
Or are you just being a slimy gutless troll?
Carry on.
Bordo responded, Mike Flynn.
Your whiteknighting was to no avail.
Willard,
You wrote
“You seem to suggest that nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc can absorb IR isotropically and that part of the direction of emission has to be straight down to the surface.”
Oooooooh! You seem to be trying for a stupid gotcha!
Am. I correct?
Are you querying what Gordon stated? If you believe he is wrong, why not just point out his error and back up your opinion with fact? Others can then decide with whom they agree.
Or are you just being a slimy gutless troll?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
I asked Bordo a question.
He responded.
I thanked him.
And you’re still here, trying to whiteknight him?
I did not say that N2 or O2 absorb IR. My comment is a play on the notion that gases in the atmosphere that absorb IR are greenhouse gases.
In a real greenhouse, the majority gases, N2 and O2 are responsible for the heating effect. Therefore they should be called greenhouse gases. Gases in a greenhouse that absorb IR hardly contribute at all. Therefore, in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases should refer to N2/O2 since they account for 99% of the warming.
The idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is based on an anachronism dating back to the mid-19th century. After Tyndall’s discovery that certain gases could absorb IR, it was presumed that meant they absorbed heat. That false notion emanated out of the incorrect idea that heat could flow through the atmosphere as heat rays. Therefore, an equally ridiculous theory evolved that it was the trapping of IR by glass in a greenhouse that caused the warming.
The alleged heat ray turned out to be IR but the methodology was not discovered till 1913 when Bohr related EM(IR) to electrons in atoms. In the interim, scientists unaware of Bohr’s discovery continued to use the ancient idea that IR is heat. In fact they incorrectly call IR, thermal radiation.
What does ‘thermal’, a reference to heat, got to do with electromagnetic energy? Nothing!!! They are different energies with vastly different properties. In fact, when IR is produced, the associated heat is dissipated at the same time.
Thank you for backtracking, Bordo.
Greenhouse gases are indeed gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation in the wavelength range emitted by Earth.
Glad you agree.
He didn’t backtrack. You just interpreted what he said wrongly. As always. Then he clarified (which wasn’t really necessary for people who can follow discussions, but he did it anyway, so you should be grateful), and you immediately falsely accuse him of backtracking. Typical Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner is once again looking for a silly fight.
And he’ll end up whining.
Another great win for Team Science in perspective!
Just briefly pointing out that you were wrong again. Not interested in any long exchange.
See?!
Graham D. Warner keeps responding!
Bordo said that O2, N2, and Argon must be greenhouse gases.
Then he said he was just joking.
That’s backtracking.
But since that’s a damn inference, Graham D. Warner will once again display his pragmatic deficiencies to everyone.
You wrote:
“You seem to suggest that nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc can absorb IR isotropically and that part of the direction of emission has to be straight down to the surface.
Am I correct?”
When it should have been obvious to everyone that was not what Gordon meant. He didn’t backtrack, you just misinterpreted. As usual.
Now, please stop trolling.
See?!
Graham D. Warner still prolongs his silly drive-by to rationalize away Bordo’s “just joking” excuse:
Bordo is not being facetious here.
This is as clearcut a by-your-logic argument as one can find.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
troubleshooting…
swenson…”NASA are still saying Gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat similar to the glass roof of a greenhouse.”
***
I can understand this anachronism over at SkS but it’s beyond me to understand why NASA insists on making a fuel of itself. The notion dates back to the 19th century when it was believed that heat flowed through air as heat rays. Apparently, NASA still thinks it does and is trapped by the glass in a greenhouse.
More enlightened souls have known since 1913 that heat and IR have nothing in common. In fact, as far back as 1850, without knowing anything about electrons and their relationship to EM, Clausius hypothesized, like Tyndall, that heat is a mode of motion related to matter.
Since no one has yet identified exactly what energy is, that’s about as close as we can get. Heat is associated with moving atoms/molecules. Whatever it is, heat causes them to move through air, or in a liquid, and to vibrate in place in a solid. More heat and they move/vibrate faster, less heat, more slowly.
Found this interesting link…
https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/CLAUSIUS57.html
Clausius refers to heat as a motion and in this paper he is laying the framework for the kinetic theory of gases, which he started, before he left it to Maxwell to develop. He calls kinetic energy ‘vis viva’. However, kinetic energy is not an energy per se, but a descrip.tion of any kind of energy in motion. Therefore KE, or vis viva, is simply describing an energy in motion. In this case, there is little doubt that the energy in motion is heat.
We could confuse this energy with mass, as in KE = 1/2mv^2 if we are not careful. The m = mass could confuse KE with a mass, or particle, but the equation is about energy and not mass. It describes the energy associated with a mass moving at velocity, v. As I see it, KE describes the energy heat. Heat causes a particle to move at velocity, v, so that KE is describing heat.
Not sure I am any further ahead, but the fog is beginning to lift.
Gordon is trying to fake being an engineer, again.
He has indicated he doesn’t understand the basics, such as the definition of :”heat”. He has confused “heat” with “thermal energy”. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy from hot to cold. Gordon can not understand that simple definition.
I predict he STILL won’t understand, but will only resort to his usual tr0ll techniques.
clint…can you try to desist from being a total buffoon? Heat is the word we use to describe thermal energy. Clausius called it heat, Planck called it heat, and just about every article you read on the Net calls it heat.
Answer my question. If heat is only a description of energy transfer from one place to another what energy is being transported? The problem is your utter naivete as to the meaning of energy.
BTW…I am quite willing to end this nonsense with no concession from you. I think it is far more important that skeptics don’t squabble amongst each other or take stoopid shots. Swenson and I can disagree on things amicably. What is your problem?
Just as I predicted, you can not understand the simple definition Gordon.
You’ve changed the simple definition to fit your cult nonsense, leaving out “hot to cold”, and “thermal energy”. You’ve got your own cult, full of your personal false beliefs and invalid opinions.
What kind of person would go on a blog, for years, pretending to be an engineer without any knowledge of basic physics?
Now, clog the bog some more.
Over the next few days, the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will completely split into two vortices, the stronger of which will be over Siberia.
https://i.ibb.co/VCQbKY5/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
https://i.ibb.co/JxFCYkL/gfs-t100-nh-f120.png
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf
No idea where Bordo read his “90% likely” claim, but here’s what the IPCC says right now. In fairness, my quote may be hard to find. It is after all the first sentence of the report.
RTFR if you want to criticize it, guys.
You’re full of nonsense. Please stop boring us. Grow up.
Dearest Kennui,
When you’ll stop posting ethno-nationalist crap, we’ll see.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop tro$#8204;lling.
Aaaargh!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Try again, Mike Flynn.
You can do it.
Willard,
You wrote –
“RTFR if you want to criticize it, guys.”
Just say what you want to say. How hard can it be? Based on past experience, I am guessing that the “first sentence of the report” is not what you quoted.
In any case, the IPCC report is worthless – unless it can be shown to be otherwise. The IPCC makes bizarre statements like “Carbon dioxide is responsible for most of global warming, although methane and other greenhouse gases also warm the climate”
Even you don’t believe this. You wrote recently “That just proves the [mythical] GHG effect doesnt work without water vapor. By itself CO2 does almost nothing . . . ”
As to “warming the climate” – climate is the statistics of historical weather observations.
Human energy use has increased markedly over time. All this energy eventually manifests as waste heat – affecting thermometers. Human activities, but nothing to do with any mythical GHE!
At least the IPCC admitted it is not possible to predict future climate states – for better or for worse!
No need to “criticise” the IPCC report. Willard. Why waste time reading a worthless and pointless report?
Mike Flynn,
You ask –
“Just say what you want to say.”
RTFR if you want to criticize it, guys
Willard, not even a good effort at trying to get people to waste their time.
Please stop trolling,
Mike Flynn,
The acronym over which you play dumb shouldn’t be that hard to decipher.
And that’s not a real PST. Make an effort.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Not hard to find if you want to find it. They have since raised it to 95%. The other word they use is unequivocal.
https://climate.ec.europa.eu/news-your-voice/news/ipcc-science-report-climate-change-unequivocal-human-influence-least-95-certain-2013-09-27_en
ps. even I will admit that CO2 should be able to warm the atmosphere even though the amount is completely insignificant. The IPCC tells us only that the chance is 95% likely, not by ho much. The IPCC are akin to snake oil salesmen.
> They have since raised it to 95%.
Your source dates back to 2013, Bordo.
I must agree with TS – you are the most unserious Sky Dragon crank here!
wee willy…are you trying to tell me the IPCC have raised the likelihood higher than 95%? They certainly would not lower it.
Are there times when you actually have an inkling of an idea what you are talking about?
I am rather trying to tell you the idea of RTFR, Bordo.
I even gave you the link.
It is now virtually certain that humans contributed to the warming of the climate system since preindustrial times.
Virtual certainty is a bit more than 95%.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Well, I do not have a vehicle, and I am not going to have one.
Governments subsidize EVs markets on my expence too.
Also I would like to have cheap electricity.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
At night there is not any solar panels electricity production.
So one has to charge overnight at home from the grid’s storage batteries.
–
How expensive the electricity is going to become?
And for no reason at all…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…don’t worry, when the alarmist governments tell people they can no longer drive cars, or heat their homes with fossil fuels, there will be a wholesale revolt.
Related…
1/ While the IGL is invaluable for understanding the state of a system at an instant, it inherently lacks information regarding the dynamic processes that led the system to that specific state. It does not provide information on the mechanisms or pathways the system followed to attain that state, and is of no use in determining the details of the processes that might have occurred during the evolution of the system.
2/ An energy balance is a statement of the principle of conservation of energy. In equation form:
Energy In – Accumulation = Energy Out.
The Earth is a closed thermodynamic system and by definition can be analyzed by means of its energy balance.
3/ If Greenhouse Gases are such a Small Part of the Atmosphere, How Do They Change Its Temperature?
June 17th, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
1/ Irrelevant.
2/ Energy can accumulate without causing a temperature increase. That’s why you can’t heat your house with ice cubes — even tons of ice cubes!
3/ A molecule with low momentum does not necessarily transfer energy to a molecule with higher momentum.
Clint R
Do you have supporting evidence for your assertion: “3/ A molecule with low momentum does not necessarily transfer energy to a molecule with higher momentum.”
You may be correct on this but I would like evidence of your assertion. You claim that you like science and abhor cult thinking.
You know the difference. Cult thinking is belief with no evidence. Science is acceptance of conclusions based upon evidence and rational thought process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
Norman,
You wrote –
“You may be correct on this but I would like evidence of your assertion.”
What you would like is up to you.
If you don’t believe what Clint R wrote, you could say so, and provide some facts to support your reason for disagreement.
Linking to something about “elastic collision” is pointless.
If you are trying to imply that a colder body can lose energy to a warmer one, thereby raising the temperature of the warmer, without additional work being involved, then you are simply being ridiculous. Given that energy is conserved between the two bodies, if the temperature of one rises, then the other must fall – spontaneously. Really? I’d like to see that – I would immediately convert, join the SkyDragon GHE cult, and run around waving a placard saying “Stop Climate Change”!
Here’s your chance. Convert me – with reproducible experiment, not cultist fantasies.
Off you go. How hard can it be?l
> Linking to something about “elastic collision” is pointless.”
True for Sky Dragon cranks like you, Mike Flynn.
For those who want to learn about elastic collision, false.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Norman, the medication appears to be working. You made no reference to your anal issues. As long as you behave like an adult, I don’t mind helping you.
The “evidence” is in the very first sentence of your lihk: “In physics, an elastic collision is an encounter (collision) between two bodies in which the total kinetic energy of the two bodies remains the same.
That means, Norman, there is NO increase in kinetic energy, meaning there is NO increase in thermal energy, meaning the temperature does NOT increase. You need to lower the entropy to increase temperature.
Clint R
You are not answering the question I asked.
I will try again.
YOU: “3/ A molecule with low momentum does not necessarily transfer energy to a molecule with higher momentum.”
In which situation would a low momentum molecule not transfer its energy to a molecule with higher momentum?
In the link it shows what happens in a head on collision of two objects with different energy or momentum. The higher energy object transfers its energy to lower energy object and the lower energy object transfers its energy to the higher energy object. You state that there are cases where the energy is not transferred. I am requesting you provide such a case.
Clint R
YOU: “That means, Norman, there is NO increase in kinetic energy, meaning there is NO increase in thermal energy, meaning the temperature does NOT increase. You need to lower the entropy to increase temperature.”
With the Earth system there is a continuous supply of energy from the Sun. If you reduce the Heat (which you understand correctly but are not having any luck in convincing Gordon Robertson) loss of the surface by having a radiant barrier (atmosphere with GHG) the surface will reach a higher steady state temperature than without such a barrier.
I have already given you a real world example of this with a car in the Summer Sun with windows rolled up. You reduce a heat loss mechanism (possibly both convection and radiant barrier) and with the same Solar energy input, the interior air of the car reaches a much higher temperature than the surrounding air which still has the convective cooling removing surface heating.
You can see the effect in a car (reduce a heat transfer process) and the air reaches a higher temperature but your brain cannot connect that a similar process takes place with an atmosphere with gases that absorb radiant energy.
Clint R
What happens when a heat transfer process is removed.
https://www.scottsfortcollinsauto.com/how-hot-do-cars-get-in-the-summer/
Same input energy for outside the car as it is within the car.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Same input energy for outside the car as it is within the car.”
Why are you babbling, Norman? Your comment makes no sense at all.
Yes, an object in the Sun generally warms. Maximum measured temperature in an enclosed car do not exceed 76 C. Ground temperatures exceeding 80 C have been recorded. Measured surface temperatures on the Moon exceed 125 C.
You aren’t claiming that a colder atmosphere can warm a hotter surface, are you?
That would clearly be ridiculous.
Norman, this is a good example of why you can’t learn. I answer your question, but you just keep throwing slop against the wall. You make no effort to understand.
I’ll only stick with your first question. If you can’t grasp it, there’s no need to sort through all the slop on your wall.
What prompted your first question was my response to this: “…that’s when they transfer part of their thermal energy to another molecule.”
That was when I explained that transferring energy does not result in a net increase of energy. The energy gained by one molecule is lost by the other molecule. No temperature increase.
norman…”Do you have supporting evidence for your assertion: 3/ A molecule with low momentum does not necessarily transfer energy to a molecule with higher momentum”.
***
Norman…a molecule is not a solid object. It has solids in it, especially in the nucleus but it is surrounded by electrons with equal and opposite charges to the protons on the nucleus. If molecules are going to collide, they must deal with electron orbitals that are negatively charged and which tend to repel each other.
Also, the positively charged nulceii will repel each other especially when they are within 6 atomic radii of each other. I think if two molecules collided there would be damage to each molecule, therefore it appears there is no solid contact between particles.
Besides, circa 1910, Rutherford tried firing positively charged particles (protons) into a thin metallic leaf with the hope of colliding with the nucleus of the metallic atoms. It was very difficult to make contact because the distance between the nucleii and surrounding electrons is relatively immense and finding a nucleus is very difficult.
He did notice eventually that a few of the protons were diverted by the positively charged nucleus. So, it’s not as simple as firing one snooker ball at another. It’s likely that the protons were diverted without contact, therefore no energy would be exchanged.
His experiment involved a tightly packed arrangement of atoms in a thin metallic leaf. In a gas, the molecules have far greater separation.
Gordon Robertson
An elastic collision is one where the energy is conserved after a “collision”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elacol.html
This article will explain molecular theory to you and it explains why the Rutherford Experiment was considered to be elastic “collisions”. You do not need to have solid objects hitting for an energy exchange to take place. Two molecules are moving toward each other. There electron clouds interact and repel and it is the same as a solid object hitting in the macroscopic world. The total energy of the two molecules is conserved but each can have a new kinetic energy as a result of energy exchange after they intermingled.
Norman,
A colder atmosphere does not make a warmer surface hotter.
… except when your colder atm. replaces the even colder brightness temperature of deep space at your warmer surface.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Greenhouse gases are indeed gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation in the wavelength range emitted by Earth.”
All gases satisfy your requirement, unless you can specify one that doesn’t.
And of those, you claim at least one, CO2 apparently, has almost (whatever that means) no effect. You wrote “By itself CO2 does almost nothing.”, which is supported by Bindidon, who wrote “I never intentionally wrote “Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.” because I never would ever believe such nonsense.”
Why do you refer to all gases (all both emit absorb infrared radiation in the wavelength range emitted by the Earth) as “greenhouse gases”?
Have you some sort of bizarre obsession with greenhouses?
Mike Flynn,
Have you misplaced your comment?
norman…maybe one day, if you are lucky, and your brain starts miraculously operating more efficiently, you will be able to discuss subjects like these without rushing off to authority sites and/or textbooks.
I told you what molecules are and why they are unlikely to engage in elastic condition. The fact that you cannot rebut my explanation scientifically, by your on means, indicates a complete and utter lack of understanding of the subject.
b4…what colour is associated with 0K? Colour temperature is for theoretical blackbodies and based on the actual colour a metal glows when heated beyond about 500C.
Gordon 12:50am, a common glass of ice water is not a black body and yet its brightness temperature is measured equivalent to its thermometer temperature. Think that through properly.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“A common glass of ice water is not a black body and yet its brightness temperature is measured equivalent to its thermometer temperature. Think that through properly.”
The IR thermometer will give a different temperature than a contact or immersed thermometer.
Before you start appealing to the authority of Wikipedia – “This article has multiple issues”.
In any case, why are you waffling about “brightness temperature”? Have you lost your mind?
No Swenson, both measure the same 32F. It is Swenson doing the laughable waffling. Decent entertainment though.
Ball4,
You are dreaming. IR thermometers assume a nominal emissivity. You have no clue what this is, do you?
In any case, why are you babbling about “brightness temperature”? Have you lost your mind?
Keep wriggling.
No wriggling, Swenson just doesn’t realize the “nominal emissivity” (Swenson term) used is that of a common glass of ice water thus IR thermometers read the same 32F as mercury thermometers deep in the ice water. Funny comment though.
Apparently Gordon is still thinking that through.
Ball4,
The emissivity of glass differs from that of water. Your IR thermometer cannot be giving the same temperature for both.
You just make this stuff up as you go along, don’t you?
What has any of your nonsense to do with the mythical GHE? Nothing?
Why am I not surprised?
Unfortunately Swenson, having not done the experiment, gets it wrong. This is humorously expected from a commenter that hasn’t ever been able to understand the tests demonstrating the greenhouse effect.
“2/ Energy can accumulate without causing a temperature increase.”
True. For example, ice can accumulate energy and melt, all while staying at 0 C.
However, this in not why ton’s of ice cannot heat your house. Other than things like phase transitions, accumulating thermal energy raises the temperature:
Q = m c Delta(T).
“3/ A molecule with low momentum does not necessarily transfer energy to a molecule with higher momentum.”
Dr Roy’s statement is about a molecule with HIGH energy and momentum transferring energy to one with LOWER energy and momentum.
2/ People don’t heat their homes with ice cubes.
3/ Elastic molecule collisions do not raise temperature
4/ The atmosphere does not shoot cold rays on the ground.
2/ People certainly do not heat their homes with ice cubes. But that has no bearing on my comment.
3/ If I place a hot solid block in a room, the elastic collisions of the air molecules with the molecules in the solid can and do raise the temperature of the air. The same is true if I put hot air in the room.
3a/ The collisions in question are not elastic anyway! They are super-elastic. The CO2 molecules absorb 15 um photons, giving them vibrational energy. In a collision, that extra vibrational energy can become extra KE in the two molecules. So the two molecules come out with MORE KE tan before the collision; ie hotter than before.
3/ and 3/a are exactly what Dr Spencer said to begin with. The CO2 molecules are continuously heated by absorbing 15 um photons. When they bump into other molecules, the collisions can and do heat the cooler air molecules around them.
A,
You wrote –
“The Earth is a closed thermodynamic system and by definition can be analyzed by means of its energy balance.”
Well, it’s not a “closed system” by any stretch of the imagination. The Earth loses mass to its surroundings, and receives mass, similarly.
You may not like it, but e=mc2, so in thermodynamic terms, you are talking rubbish.
You are also talking rubbish from the point of view of reality. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and is currently losing energy at the rate of 44TW or so. Cooling. Very slowly.
You are simply confused or ignorant.
ark…your entire argument is a red-herring argument. You are avoiding dealing with the reality of the IGL for describing gases in the atmosphere by trying to rig an ad hoc argument as to why it is not applicable in the atmosphere, which it is.
As long as a gas has pressure, volume and temperature, the IGL is applicable. I have not tried to present it in a formal manner, only to support my theory that CO2 at 0.04% can contribute no significant heat to the atmosphere. A more scientific approach for you might be to defeat my argument base on the IGL rather than trying the court room approach of having the case thrown out of court.
Besides, I have applied mainly Dalton’s law of partial pressures. I suppose now you’ll try to find a reason why Dalton’s law is not applicable. Following that reasoning we could find all sorts of reasons not to use Newton II.
Let me give you a hint. I have relied upon the theory, based on Dalton, that partial pressures should apply to partial temperatures. Prove me wrong and you’ll have a case. However, you’ll then have to defeat the heat diffusion equation based on isochoric heat transfer.
With regard to the argument that CO2 heats the atmosphere significantly through collision, that is more theory than fact. Alarmists have a name for it, thermalization, but they fail to quantify it. I have acknowledged that fact and all I have done using the IGL and the heat diffusion equation is to quantify the amount of heat that CO2 can possibly diffuse into the atmosphere. It is roughly 0.06%.
1/ Blatant propagandist’s trickery alert:
“Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.”
And,
“If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it and you will even come to believe it yourself.”
2/ You keep trying to divert and deflect from the original topic, your assertion that “EEI is a corrupt theory.”
3/ You need to open up your aperture and look beyond 19th century theories to understand the implications of CO2 being most radiatively active near the same energy range where Earth’s emission is at its highest.
A,
You wrote –
“You need to open up your aperture and look beyond 19th century theories to understand the implications of CO2 being most radiatively active near the same energy range where Earths emission is at its highest.”
Is that supposed to mean something? CO2, like all matter emits IR at frequencies proportional to its temperature. Wien’s displacement law makes no exception for CO2 or any other gas.
You really have no idea about physics, do you?
You refuse to believe that the gases inside a greenhouse are greenhouse gases, and believe in some mythical greenhouse effect which is supposed to do something or other which you can’t quite decide.
Carry on looking silly.
“The insulating effect of the atmosphere is due to greenhouse gases.”
You have got the cause and effect completely upside down.
We have the atmosphere because of the continuous raw energy coming from the sun and from the molten core inside the earth heats up gas molecules so that they can rise up into the air.
Without an energy the atmosphere would collapse down to the ground due to the gravity.
Continuous raw energy sources are needed to maintain current atmospheric conditions.
If you burn a gallon of gasoline it is only a one time heat up and when the gases lose their energy as they cool then there is nothing that would keep them up in the air.
Energy is needed to levitate up in the air.
So in overall the atmosphere does not heat anything. It itself needs to be heated to be able to maintain the current atmospheric conditions like pressure and temperature.
If you do not belive this then think about the time when the oceans were gaseous.
Think about what kind of atmosphere must have been back then.
All the CO2 that is now dissolved in the oceans was up in the air.
And also water vapour. According to the mainstream the water vapour supposed to be even many times more potent greenhouse gas than the CO2.
But the earth still cooled despite this enourmous amount of “insulation” floating up in the sky.
It cooled because the molten core of the earth has been cooling for billions of years.
And with cooling the energy available to maintain certain atmpspheric conditions also decreases.
So in overall the earth continues to cool down.
The molten core is cooling inside the earth and that brings the whole temperature of the earth down.
The earth also moves away from the sun due to the tidal forces( similarily the moon drifts away from the earth).
The effect is probably minuscule but nevertheless, when you move away from the fire you get cooler.
“But the earth still cooled despite this enourmous amount of insulation floating up in the sky.”
Our present atmosphere is said to allow about 40 watts per square meter of longwave IR directly up thru the atmosphere.
And a 1 mm depth of water blocks all longwave IR, or presently our atmosphere is not a lot of radiant “insulation”. And even Venus allows it’s hot surface to radiate some shortwave IR directly up thru the atmosphere, as Parker Solar Probe recently [“accidentally”} detected.
“It cooled because the molten core of the earth has been cooling for billions of years.”
Molten rock will radiate lot energy, and convect heat, and it’s bubbling outgasing of various gases [cause evaporative transfer heat to atmosphere].
But with scab of solid rock less a meter thick floating on it, the top of surface solid rock isn’t that hot.
Earth’s present and it’s past, has had large out flows of lava. And seems this will continue for a long time.
One thing about the Moon is it’s falsely said it’s not currently volcanic active, and it’s been “dead” for 3 billions years. This is false, rather it’s unknown when the Moon last was significant volcanically active in some regions, probably less than billion and may have been tens or hundreds of millions of year ago.
That is been less volcanic than Earth, is given, but not completely dead and not for 3 billion years.
yonni…”Without an energy the atmosphere would collapse down to the ground due to the gravity”.
***
Interesting point, I am curious about why air molecules remain in suspension at different concentrations by altitude. Also, why it is that CO2 molecules don’t settle in the bottom layers. If you have CO2 in an open container it remains there and you can pour it, like a liquid, from one container to another.
In fact, what is it that accelerates air molecules in the first place. The closest I have come is an article by Clausius, circa 1850, in which he defines the kinetic energy of molecules as heat.
It’s obvious that gravity grows weaker with altitude and that lighter masses like molecules, with their natural accelerations can actually counteract gravity, but why do the molecules arrange themselves in concentration with altitude? Is this related to statistical averaging?
It is obvious to me that whoever devised current atmospheric theory has not examined this problem closely enough. I think it ingenuous that an adiabatic lapse rate has been declared and blamed on heat itself while gravitational force is completely ignored.
“Interesting point, I am curious about why air molecules remain in suspension at different concentrations by altitude. Also, why it is that CO2 molecules dont settle in the bottom layers. If you have CO2 in an open container it remains there and you can pour it, like a liquid, from one container to another.”
At lower atmosphere, air molecules have high velocity but they they don’t go anywhere. Go high enough in atmosphere and they go about a foot distance and go very high they go hundreds of meters or interact with another molecule in less than a second.
Slower molecules get hit more often or CO2 is mixed by faster molecule which will go direction of CO2 being uniform.
If there was a big blob of CO2 it take long time for other gases to effect it. And CO2 near surface can be clumps. Or is reason it measured at elevation {why on volcanic mountain, on other hand is….
The point is, gb, the pressure layering by altitude is quite precise. It’s predictable and the UAH telemetry depends on it for oxygen alone. The temperature associated with each pressure layer is predictable as well. If it was about heated air rising, the profiles would vary wildly from the Tropics to the Poles and I don’t think they do.
The troposphere is significantly lower near the Poles. That would suggest that hotter air above the Equator is expanding more, however, the pressure gradient seems to be the same as at the Poles. I am assuming that, don’t know.
Lapse rate theory seems to base it on rising heat itself (convection) but that makes no sense to me. Heat is the energy associated with molecular motion, it is ‘something’ that affects the speed of atomic and molecular motion in a gas.
The uprising convection is caused by gravity in part since it is the gravitational force on colder air molecules that causes them to descend as hotter air rises, helping to force the hotter air upwards. Still, that does not explain why the pressure gradients are uniform and predictable.
I don’t think any explanation will be simple.
“If it was about heated air rising, the profiles would vary wildly from the Tropics to the Poles and I dont think they do. ”
It is about heated air expanding and density of air is about 1.2 kg per cubic meter when surface air is about 15 C. {it, the density of surface changes with temperature as does the entire column if air of the troposphere, changes with temperature, cold denser, warm less dense.
But in terms of weather you have bodies of air rising and falling, or wind, horizontal, and up and down drafts. And in terms of climate matters, the Hadley cell:
“Hadley Cells are the low-latitude overturning circulations that have air rising at the equator and air sinking at roughly 30 latitude. They are responsible for the trade winds in the Tropics and control low-latitude weather patterns.”
“Interesting point, I am curious about why air molecules remain in suspension at different concentrations by altitude.”
I have been reading Zoe Phin blog where she made that point.
Basically, an atmosphere forms when an available energy is present. Without an energy at zero kelvin planet all the gases would collapse onto the ground due to the gravity.
If you take one gas molecule and throw it up in the sky it would fall back to the ground. This is what I mean by one time heat up.
Burning a gallon of gasoline would give a short time energy boost for the gases to lift up but as soon as the fire has ended the gases are going to lose their energy and would fall to the ground eventually.
Continuous raw energy is needed to lift gases up into the sky. The atmospheric conditions like pressure and temperature are dependent of that available energy.
The earth has been historically much much more hotter and the atmosphere was quite a bit different back then. There was much more energy available to lift gases from the ground and the atmosphere was much thicker and hotter.
The mass of oceans is 270 times more than the mass of the current atmosphere. Imagine the atmospheric pressure back then when the oceans were gaseous.
In overall the earth at once has the energy to hold the oceans in gaseous state but as the earth has been cooling this kind on energy is lost forever.
Burning fossil fuels is a one time heat up which will not add up over time to this kind of raw continuous energy which could boil the oceans.
“If you take one gas molecule and throw it up in the sky it would fall back to the ground. This is what I mean by one time heat up.”
If take tons of very cold air and “drop it” from high elevation it will hit the ground hard {and be hotter}.
Rockets, they use liquid oxygen, can explode, and so would do, roughly, what I am talking about, but rockets go fast. And I meant if stationary at high elevation.
But still, it’s curious, I never heard of this kind effect from an exploding rocket, or it is the bits metal that is generally most of the concern.
> I have been reading Zoe Phin
The name rings a bell:
Cf. a thread in 2022/10
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon, learn about “Kinetic Theory”. It can answer your questions about molecules ‘remaining suspended’ and ‘why CO2 doesn’t settle’.
” … an adiabatic lapse rate has been declared and blamed on heat itself while gravitational force is completely ignored.”
Given that g=9.8m/s^2 is in the formula for the adiabatic lapse rate, gravity was definitely NOT ignored!
Tim, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson,
Would you care to expand on what you mean when you say: “NOAA has only 1500 stations worldwide, that there is only one weather station in the Canadian Arctic, or only three in California, all near the sea of course”?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1590156
Gordon can’t be relied on to get anything right. Thats why his posts are so obtuse as to be illegible; it hides the lack of knowledge.
https://weather.gc.ca/forecast/canada/index_e.html?id=NU
Exactly, Ken
Here are the 145 GHCN daily weather stations currently located in Nunavut:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pF55tSlXwXiIsf6sfJWi6o_qNknKzl5L/view
No problem for me to generate a time series out of them – absolute temperatures or anomalies, as you wish.
Ken (cntnd)
And… here is the origin of Robertson’s ‘knowledge’:
Musings from the Chiefio — Techno bits and mind pleasers
GHCN Up North, Blame Canada!, Comrade
Posted on 27 October 2009 by E.M.Smith
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
Other utter nonsense out of the very same corner:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/nitrogen-active-in-the-ir-a-ghg/
This is all so incredibly brazen.
I contradicted EM Smith aka chiefio’s nonsense many times on this blog but Robertson always restarted posting it from scratch again.
*
His 1500 NOAA stations lie is of the same vein but comes from a different source.
Robertson appears to suffer from an insurmountable hatred of NOAA.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
I have not seen one constructive critique of E. M. Smith from you yet. When NOAA admits to slashing global surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500 and you contradict them. based only on your opinion, it only proves what a stubborn, ignorant ijit you really are.
” I have not seen one constructive critique of E. M. Smith from you yet. ”
Robertson, you are not only incompetent but also dishonest – or, alternatively, dement.
This is exactly the same lie you wrote many times about me never having shown to you the proof that Tobias Mayer wrote a treatise about the lunar spin:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1586988
*
I have shown often enough reconstructions of Smith’s incompetent ‘work’ about Bolivia.
You were not even able to understand what I did here, despite explanations certainly present in earlier Spencer threads:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/125hoAWPb-C9t1X4WCUuBrQxBBvaxowap/view
This clearly shows that GISTEMP was not at all wrong with their interpolations.
Like all people who – despite their claims – do not understand anything about how anomalies are constructed, you also do not understand why they can be transposed over longer distances – as opposed to absolute temperatures which have only local character.
*
I have also shown that NOAA’s data which you brazenly claim not to be used by them very well matches station data used for example by GISTEMP for California.
*
Furthermore, your reply to Ken
” NOAA uses one station in the Arctic at Eureka. ”
shows an incredible level of stûpidity and incompetence.
Did you poor ignoramus ever look at where this station
CA002401200 79.9833 -85.9333 10.0 NU EUREKA
is located?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/79%C2%B058'59.9%22N+85%C2%B055'59.9%22W/@69.4202377,-121.7930653,3z/data=!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d79.9833!4d-85.9333?hl=en&entry=ttu
Do you know that the Arctic starts at 60N, and what that means? How is it possible even to think that a station located at 80N could ever replace over 1000 of them located between 60N and 80N?
Only 100% incompetent people like you can believe such a nonsense.
*
A few months ago, I have posted a comparison of NOAA’s Climate at a Glance data to GHCN V4 used by both NOAA and GISTEMP, but you were unable to respond other than by discrediting and denigrating.
*
You, a technically 100% uneducated person who doesn’t know anything about station data, nevertheless discredit what I do, despite being absolutely unable to technically contradict anything of it.
You are so totally ignorant that when I compare NOAA data to UAH data
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2022-0-28-deg-c/#comment-1365217
your ridiculous reaction is to claim I would have ‘the temerity to show NOAA and UAH in lock-step’.
*
If you were able to show any result due to own data engineering activity, you would be credible.
But all you are able to do is to blather on this blog on the base of contrarian blogs you credulously follow, and hence lack yourself any credibility.
***
But… who knows, Robertson? Maybe Hogle prefers your nonsense to my technical considerations!
Did you ask him what he thinks about the existence of time and about the lunar spin?
Bindidon,
You wrote –
“But all you are able to do is to blather on this blog on the base of contrarian blogs you credulously follow, and hence lack yourself any credibility.
***
But who knows, Robertson? Maybe Hogle prefers your nonsense to my technical considerations!”
Please stop trolling.
ken…your reply is about as dumb as your claim that the Moon is orbiting the Sun. You present a weather map and compare it to NOAA’s temperature series. They have nothing in common.
NOAA uses one station in the Arctic at Eureka. How else do you expect them to cover the entire surface of the planet using less than 1500 stations?
Like I said to the dweeb Clint, it does not bode well when skeptics start stabbing other skeptics in the back. You are just sore at me because I rightly criticized your sole authority figure, Happer.
You should feel ashamed of yourself when your reply is so stoopid that Binny jumps to your defense. Heck, Binny the Klown even applauds Klint the Klown these days. See how low you have sunk?
Walter,
Just for fun, I had a quick look at NOAA, and discovered that reference climatological station network has fifteen station fo the US.
Depending on circumstances, you could use this worldwide figure – “GHCN is an integrated database of daily and monthly climate summaries collected from over 100,000 ground stations in 218 countries and territories . . .”, or the World Meteorological Organisation figure – “Each station is set up to collect meteorological and hydrological information that contributes to a global network of 8,000+ ground-based . . .”.
It looks like the “climate science” foundations may be a bit rubbery.
All a bit pointless, really. Future states of a chaotic system like the atmosphere are unpredictable with any better skill than a reasonably intelligent 12 year old – or even me.
Real time observations from airports and some other places are valuable. Historical observations might be interesting or curious, but not much more.
walter…let NOAA speak for itself…
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time”.
Over at chiefio, the site owner has done extensive research into actual NOAA, NASA, etc., practices. He independently confirms the 6000 to 1500 station slashing. That’s where I got the info that NOAA uses only 1 station to cover the entire Arctic and only 4, near the ocean to cover California.
Of course an alarmist like Binny, or an alarmist butt-kisser like Ken, would shoot the messenger rather than listen to a person who has actually tracked down all the stations used by NOAA. Since NASA gets their data from NOAA, it applies to them as well.
Binny is aware of this site but rather than go into the work done there and disprove it, he resorts to shooting the messenger. That’s because Binny is a loud-mouthed ijit who talks the talk but cannot walk the walk. Now his buddy Ken is supporting him.
Part 1…Something on GHCN from chiefio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX3NxkzUIE8&ab_channel=KUSINews
Part 2…The connection between NOAA and GISS explained…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTdrjvnxG6U&ab_channel=KUSINews
Go through the entire site, it’s all there…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/temperatures-now-compared-to-maintained-ghcn/
Thank you Gordon.
Flynnson wrote above:
” Just for fun, I had a quick look at NOAA, and discovered that reference climatological station network has fifteen station fo the US. ”
*
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
And such a dum~bie posts endlessly his 4.5 billion year cooling 44 TW nonsense!
Just as brazen and incompetent as is Robertson.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
binny can’t tell the difference between all the stations listed on GHCN and the actual number NOAA uses in their computations. If you watch the videos I posted earlier for Walter, featuring E.M. Smith of chiefio, he explains the chicanery.
Go easy on him, he riding the turbulence over germany
tim s…”Although long, some of your posts are humorous. The problem is that some people think you are being serious. I suspect it would be difficult to be so wrong, and also so precise …”
***
Tim…I have openly invited anyone, including you, to prove me wrong. I would be quite happy to be proved wrong. Like anyone else with the smatterings of an ego, I likely wouldn’t take it well at first, but I’d adapt. Along the way, I have gone to great lengths to understand my ego and have come to understand it is nothing more than a thought-related distortion like time. It is useless baggage that interferes with the ability to be in touch with intelligence.
Thus far, you have not even come close. I am looking for absolute fact to prove me wrong. A while back I made a stoopid claim that the phases of the Moon are related to shadows cast by the Earth on the Moon. We all have our bad hair days. I have not engaged any criticism on that gaffe because there are absolute ijits on this blog that wait for a gaffe so they can pounce. None of them can offer any legitimate science to back their maroonic claims, but make one mistake and they pounce like vultures.
BTW…I laugh at myself over that lunar gaffe. I am not driven by ego and it is not important for me to be right, or to win.
So, prove me wrong on anything you seem to think is laughable. I have invited you before and got nothing but psycho-babble.
Gordon, As a trivial example, you were stubbornly wrong about continuous functions.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1585937
More examples of Gordon’s incompetence: He can’t understand Heat, Energy, Entropy, Photons, Flux, 2LoT, Gravity, Current Flow, S/B Law, Vectors, Watts, IR thermometers, Electron Charge and Electron Transitions!
clint cannot engage in a scientific discussion related to any of his claims about me, mainly because he gets his butt kicked every time he tries.
Gordon can not engage in scientific discussions because he doesn’t understand the science. He only has his false beliefs and invalid opinions, like Norman.
And like Norman, Gordon is obsessed with is anal fixations.
Clint R
You are a strange person. What you do, you attribute to others.
In this case you accuse (falsely) me of this: “He only has his false beliefs and invalid opinions, like Norman.”
No I am not the one who peddles beliefs and opinions. I link to valid science in most my posts to support any claims I make. You are the Cult minded person who gives opinions and beliefs with NO SUPPORT! No one is so blind as the one who cannot see themselves. You are blind to your own flaws and attribute them to others.
You claims fluxes don’t add with no evidence, you claim IR is reflected by nitrogen gas, you claim energy from a cold object cannot be absorbed by a hotter one. I have not seen any evidence for any of your claims or opinions.
You do not understand science at all nor do you understand your own mind. Sad but true. You are the Cult minded non-science guy who peddles endless beliefs and opinions with no evidence to support any of it.
Another worthless rant from poor Norman.
He forgets his own history, like his childish anal fetishes and “square orbits”.
But, like Gordon, he abuses his keyboard relentlessly.
tim…your amateurish reply re continuity revealed you lack even a basic understanding of calculus. So why do you bother responding and making a fohl of yourself?
You have sunk to the level of Clint, who appears to agree with you.
Psst, Bordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1586252
The “without lifting a finger” trick is rock solid.
> a finger
Erm. The pen.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon, the definition of “continuous function” can be found in any calculus text. f(x) = |x| is continuous at x=0 even if there is no derivative at x=0.
Try this one: https://openstax.org/books/calculus-volume-1/pages/2-4-continuity
tim…it’s an interesting problem but it is not stated as required. Also, we need to keep in mind that Binny was freely mixing curves with straight lines inserted.
For f(x) = |x|
It must be approached from the left and from the right, as in
f(x) = |x|
equals x if 0 is less than or equal x, or,
equals -x if x is less than or equal to 0.
Essentially, it is two separate functions with a common point at x = 0.
Stating it as f(x) = |x|, which is the absolute value, is a shorthand way of stating the above. It needs to be understood that we are dealing with two separate functions that are limited in their range due to the stipulation that y must always be positive.
Another way of stating the function is y = sq.root(x^2). That keeps all values of y positive. If you state it as y = |x^2 + 1| things become more complicated.
Essentially, you have two separate lines, one with slope = 1 and the other with slope = -1. Obviously, at 0 the slopes change direction and that represents a discontinuity ***in calulus***. However, the limit exists on both curves as x -> 0. The point is, they have different slopes which change direction at 0. That is a discontinuity.
The problem is that continuity is not normally applied to straight line unless you have something like a step function where it exists only between discrete values of x say between x = 0 and 1, 1 and 2, 2 and 3, etc. That gives a staircase effect.
Continuity is better defined using curves. I find a lot of this in math where theorists use pure theory to make a claim. In one class we had a math prof who claimed it is possible to take the root of -1. I called out bs. and got myself in trouble with him. When he asked what I meant I asked him to show me two roots that could be multiplied to produce -1. Of course, he couldn’t but in his theoretical bs he claimed it is possible and I became a marked man.
Although continuity can be defined in a pure theoretical sense, it’s not till you apply it that you see the use of it. If you have a function representing a curve and you want to know if it is continuous at all point on the curve you find the first derivative. If it exists over the entire range of the function then you know it is continuous. If not, then you need to state which ranges over which it has a derivative.
The absolute value function leads to the bs about being able to keep your pencil on the paper. You can do that with any discontinuous function involving a curve. You can draw a circle, jut off in a spike at one point, without lifting your pencil, and it is discontinuous at that point. That’s because the derivative is no longer valid at that point nor does it have a tangent line for the circle.
If you state the absolute value function without specifying that it equals +1 if x is greater than or equal to 0 and -1 if x is less than or equal to 0, it makes little sense. The braces | | are simply a way of stating the obvious. Although the function exists at every point on the function, it does not tell you that the derivatives at 0 belong to two separate lines with two different slopes.
Suppose you use the line equation…y = mx + b
If it crosses through 0,0, I can write it as y = mx. If y = x for all points on the line then I can write it as y = 1.x where the slope is 1. If y = 2x, the slope is 2, meaning the change in y is twice the change in x. As the slope value changes, the angle the line makes with the x-axis changes.
If I differentiate, y = 2x, dy/dx = 2. That means the slope of a tangent line at any point is 2. Of course, the tangent line will coincide with the line itself. However, with y = |x|, if we approach from the left, dy/dx = -1 and from the right, dy/dx = 1. Therefor the limits are not the same therefore no derivative exists at x = 0.
As far as I am concerned, if the derivative does not exist, there is no continuity. Some math students will likely argue your point, based purely on theory, that y = |x| is continuous because both lines continue one into the other. However, that misses the point of continuity in calculus that a derivative must exist at all points in the function.
These conditions pass the pen test:
Op. Cit.
Bordo is just confusing continuity with differentiability. The latter implies the former, but not the other way around. There is an explanation on this page:
https://calcworkshop.com/derivatives/continuity-and-differentiability/
By serendipity, it involves the very function he used as an example.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The arctic ice sheet keeps recovering. Good news for everyone, except for the cultists.
Right now, the arctic ice sheet extension is the 5th highest since 2000. Actually it is almost a tie with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th highest, probably within margin of error; these are 2000, 2001 and 2002 (in no particular order). Only 2003 had a significantly higher arctic ice extension.
So you too fell for the nonsense that more ice is good for the planet
Ice in my backyard is not that great for the planet but in the poles, I would say it is an indication that things are continuing to be normal. In the end not even the most catastrophic climate change would be bad for the planet, the planet would adjust accordingly, it would be a threat for human habitation, that’s it.
More and more REAL Skeptics are showing up. That’s good.
Josue, Walter, and Yonnipun might appreciate knowing they’re on the right side of the issue:
Five reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1572982
And all 5 reasons were shown to be wrong in that month’s post. Funny that Clint R keeps making the same mistakes.
People that can think for themselves will see through Ball4’s false claims.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Clint R is unable to learn.
No point trying to explain anything to him.
You have to be kind and not make fun of his disability.
Ken, please stop trolling.
All wrong, Ken. I’ve learned plenty. I’ve learned there are people, with absolutely NO knowledge of science, trying to clog up this blog.
Canucks in Vancouver seem to be the most egregious offenders….
Chief among those “people” being Clint R, the long running blog laughing stock.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started!
Ball4, please stop trolling.
A few days ago, on January 5, 2024 at 4:16 AM, the same Josue told us:
” It is definitely interesting that despite 2023 being the warmest year according to satellite records the arctic ice sheet is the 7th largest since the year 2000. ”
But now, without any change in between, we are suddenly informed that
” Right now, the arctic ice sheet extension is the 5th highest since 2000. ”
Wonderful. Except that
– he still doesn’t present any source confirming his claim, based on what else than personal gut feeling, please?
– his claim looks, according to sea ice data, still wrong again.
Yearly average for the Arctic sea ice extent since 2000:
2001 11.62 (Mkm^2)
2000 11.52
2003 11.42
2002 11.39
2004 11.25
2008 10.99
2009 10.96
2005 10.93
2013 10.92
2014 10.81
2006 10.79
2010 10.73
2022 10.65
2015 10.59
2021 10.57
2023 10.52
2011 10.51
2007 10.50
2012 10.42
2017 10.40
2018 10.35
2019 10.21
2020 10.17
2016 10.16
*
A similar sequence is obtained when operating a sort over the September months.
In graphic form
– yearly averages
http://tinyurl.com/yc5x2djm
– September months
http://tinyurl.com/43v5fkrb
*
There is no doubt: no decline in sea ice extent can be seen in either graph since 2007.
But to claim the 2023 extent would be 5th since 2000: sorry, that’s too much.
*
Addendum
Suddenly, I had an inspiration: maybe Josue meant the daily sea ice extent data? Who knows?
Let’s download today’s daily values right now, to be 100% sure:
2003 01 11 14.219 (Mkm^2)
2000 01 11 14.139
2001 01 11 14.088
2004 01 11 13.917
2002 01 11 13.885
2009 01 11 13.777
2012 01 11 13.749
2008 01 11 13.744
2022 01 11 13.726
2010 01 11 13.695
2005 01 11 13.550
2016 01 11 13.493
2006 01 11 13.491
2014 01 11 13.475
2013 01 11 13.474
2019 01 11 13.389
2015 01 11 13.363
2020 01 11 13.317
2007 01 11 13.227
2021 01 11 13.218
2011 01 11 13.212
2023 01 11 13.193
2017 01 11 12.994
2018 01 11 12.892
Hmmmh. Wrong again.
*
Source
Arctic sea ice extent & area, monthly
http://tinyurl.com/MASIE-monthly
Arctic sea ice extent, daily
http://tinyurl.com/G02135-north-daily
*
I repeat: though being denigrated as an alarmist by several pseûdo-skep~tics on this blog, I have nothing against sea ice recovery in the Arctic.
Simply because there is growing evidence that sea ice loss is the cause of increasing low pressure weather perturbations in our region.
*
You like these nice 3-5 Beaufort wind speed we experience since over 10 years nearly every day, except below -10 C at night?
We don’t.
Bin-Laden is still using annual averages to analyze trends in Arctic sea ice, despite numerous explanations as to why that is feeble. Summer months are the only reliable months for determining temperature increase in the region. Can’t expect more from a MONKEY.
> Summer months are the only reliable months for determining temperature increase in the region
OK:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-summer-minimum
Should I go on, or are you gonna ask if these data are HoMOgenOuS?
More trendologist nonsense. Paying absolutely ZERO attention to the dominant natural variability apparent in the data. Does the temperature in the Arctic go above freezing in October to May, Willard?
But thanks for raising the question of homogeneity. That is very important. Inhomogeneous records are completely useless and uncorrectable (that cannot be overstated).
Willard,
You wrote “Should I go on . . .”, which is a silly question, as you will anyway.
As Walter has pointed out, “Inhomogeneous records are completely useless and uncorrectable (that cannot be overstated).”
The atmosphere behaves chaotically, and averages are just pointless mathematical operations, indicating nothing about the future. Just about as meaningless as the number represented by “average global temperature”.
Maybe there is a rational point to your bizarre comments, but it appears elusive.
Have you got any further explaining why the gases in a greenhouse are not greenhouse gases?
No? I didn’t think so.
Nice fighting words, Walter. Good to get your blood flowing. But you can’t simply gesticulate and expect room service.
I’d be more than happy to serve you one and only one sammich. As a token of appreciation for our friendship. But first I must ask – why do you ask about winter data out of a sudden?
You little devil!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
Cocaine is not good for you.
Dear Walter,
Is there any dataset you like, or are you just another High Expectation Auditor for whom incredulity is a permanent mindset?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“But first I must ask why do you ask about winter data out of a sudden?
You little devil!”
Binny was using annual data to describe the state of the sea ice extentnot just annual data but averaged data in the first half of his response. That approach ignores seasonality. I aimed to provide additional insights in response to the tone of your earlier comment.
Additionally:
“More trendologist nonsense. Paying absolutely ZERO attention to the dominant natural variability apparent in the data.”
This is my reply to your mention of the sea ice extent in September. Your baseline was set in the 1970s, it’s worth noting the considerable variability in the data. Between the 1990s and late 2000s, there was a notable phase of rapid decline. However, from the late 2000s to the present, the rate of decline has slowed considerably. In the Arctic, feedback loops in response to warming are said to be present and to persist. Nevertheless, it remains a puzzle why there has been a significantly slower decline in recent times.
[WALTER] Bin-Laden is still using annual averages to analyze trends in Arctic sea ice, despite numerous explanations as to why that is feeble. Summer months are the only reliable months for determining temperature increase in the region.
[ALSO WALTER] Does the temperature in the Arctic go above freezing in October to May, Willard?
“Is there any dataset you like, or are you just another High Expectation Auditor for whom incredulity is a permanent mindset?”
A non-average index that is completely homogeneous and falls under the conditions of repeatability in the GUM:
“B.2.15 repeatability (of results of measurements)
Closeness of the agreement between the results of successive measurements of the same measurand carried out under the same conditions of measurement.
NOTE 1 These conditions are called repeatability conditions.
NOTE 2 Repeatability conditions include:
The same measurement procedure
The same observer
The same measuring instrument, use under the same conditions
The same location
Repetition over a short period of time
NOTE 3 Repeatability may be expressed quantitatively in terms of the dispersion characteristics of the results.”
Good luck!
Thanks, Walter.
Impossible demands are easier to ignore.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson said: “The atmosphere behaves chaotically, and averages are just pointless mathematical operations, indicating nothing about the future. Just about as meaningless as the number represented by average global temperature. ”
I couldn’t agree more. I demonstrated this myself earlier this month: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-3841760.
I call art:
Which average?
Walter, serious question…do you accept the GUM in its entirety and all of the consequences thereof or do you only accept portions of it?
Little Willy, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
bdgwx,
Why are you asking that question?
Walter, I ask because you mentioned the GUM (JCGM 100:2008).
I’m curious of your hesitation to accept the GUM (JCGM 100:2008). Is it because you searched the document for “temperature” and saw examples of where 1) temperature is averaged and 2) where adjustments are applied to temperature observations?
“Is it because you searched the document for temperature and saw examples of where 1) temperature is averaged and 2) where adjustments are applied to temperature observations?”
No.
“Walter, serious questiondo you accept the GUM in its entirety and all of the consequences thereof or do you only accept portions of it?”
Pinpoint the specific section of the GUM that contradicts my point, instead of attempting a Gotcha question.
Walter,
JCGM 100:2008
Section 4.4 averages temperatures.
Section H.3 adjusts temperature readings.
Walter, it’s been 10 days so I’ll ask again…do you accept the GUM in its entirety and all of the consequences thereof or do you only accept portions of it?
Hogle
” Summer months are the only reliable months for determining temperature increase in the region. ”
Again, you behave as a dishonest person.
Here is a copy of what I wrote above:
So lets do the job for him and show us all how Arctic behaved in September since 2000:
Year: extent; area
2001: 6.73; 4.59 (Mkm^2)
2000: 6.25; 4.35
2003: 6.12; 4.05
2004: 5.98; 4.39
2006: 5.86; 4.01
2002: 5.83; 4.03
2005: 5.50; 4.07
2009: 5.26; 3.76
2014: 5.22; 3.74
2013: 5.21; 3.78
2021: 4.95; 3.47
2022: 4.90; 3.47
2010: 4.87; 3.34
2017: 4.82; 3.35
2018: 4.79; 3.35
2008: 4.69; 3.26
2015: 4.62; 3.42
2011: 4.56; 3.21
2016: 4.53; 2.91
2023: 4.37; 2.79
2019: 4.36; 3.17
2007: 4.27; 2.82
2020: 4.00; 2.83
2012: 3.57; 2.41
As Willard explained to you already, my one and only point was to contradict the poster Josue claiming that 2023 was 7th highest in Arctic sea ice extent since 2000.
*
I didn’t talk about temperature increase in the region. Why?
You are the one who did, Hogle.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/02/proof-that-the-spencer-christy-method-of-plotting-temperature-time-series-is-best/#comment-1645716
A major Arctic air attack is beginning in the Midwest.
We have our own invasion of Arctic air here in the Vancouver, Canada region.
Still rainfall in Australia. Tropical depression (tropical low) in the north.
https://i.ibb.co/CB4s686/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-11-115219.png
TEST
W/m
W/m2
W/m²
W/m
All this technological innovations should not be implemented at the expence of the poor.
The poor cannot benefit, because they cannot afford it.
Meanwhile, the awfluent part of population benefits from this technological innovations, it worsens the live of the poor part of population.
The electricity and the grossery becomes more and more expensive, and governments subsidize the innovations implementation.
christos…the alarmists say they are doing it to help the poor. They can’t just give them money or help them in other ways, they have to stop the use of fossil fuels altogether by lying to the world about global warming and its cause.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
[WALTER] Willard is a monkey.
[ME] Does that mean I’m a monkey-octopus, Walter?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/09/in-memoriam-professor-ray-bates/#comment-3845494
My thanks goes to Walter for the invitation. Twas fun. Pity he did not follow up on the setup, for I would have suggested that this makes me a monk-topus!
Willard, please stop trolling.
I never invited to that specific thread, even though you said that. And you didn’t fare very well back there with Mr. Nice.
I’m sorry if you felt I needed to wait for your prompt to go there, Walter.
I ended up scoring so many points against Mr. Nice that I stopped counting. A bit sad that he left so soon. I was getting into a zone.
Things went rather quickly, however, and you’re a Climateball rookie. Should we compare notes?
“I ended up scoring so many points against Mr. Nice that I stopped counting. A bit sad that he left so soon. I was getting into a zone.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Please learn to PST properly.
Swenson,
Why does Willard call you Mike Flynn?
“Please learn to PST properly.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
No need to ask Mike, Walter:
https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/15/global-warming-a-trojan-horse-of-modernity/#comment-400525
Once upon a time, Mike was at least creative.
Willard, please stop trolling.
walter…Mike Flynn was a good guy who posted here years ago. Wee willy thinks he was banned, which he never was, otherwise you would not be able to post his name. He thinks Swenson is Mike Flynn.
As you know, wee willy is not dealing with a full deck.
Thank you for lying about what I believe, Bordo.
It allows me to quote what really happened:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/#comment-387873
A bit later Mike Flynn changed to a sock puppet.
Cheers.
Walter,
Willard has apparently has empowered himself to determine what pseudonyms or real names people are allowed to use on Dr Spencer’s blog.
You may have noticed that Willard refuses to call me Swenson, being obsessed with the belief that I used to the pseudonym Mike Flynn in the past. He is apparently trying to manipulate Dr Spencer into banning anyone who questions Willard’s bizarre beliefs.
An example is Willard’s refusal to acknowledge that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and that it is presently losing energy at the rate of 44 TW – ie cooling.
He believes that a GHE with undefined results exists (he actually wrote that the GHE results in “not cooling, slower cooling”), and somehow involves greenhouse gases, which are not the gases found in greenhouses, but some magical form of gas with properties not possessed by normal gases!
All part of the rich tapestry of life. Yes, I use Mike Flynn’s phraseology at times, also Feynman’s, Shakepeare’s, and others. At the end of the day, a rose by any name would confuse Willard. His fixation is a source of laughter at times – I should be flattered that he goes to such efforts to get me banned! I must terrify him.
Walter,
Mike Flynn might have forgotten to clarify that he uses Mike Flynn’s timezone, not Feynman’s or Shakespeare’s.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Related…
“…all I have done using the IGL and the heat diffusion equation is to quantify the amount of heat that CO2 can possibly diffuse into the atmosphere. It is roughly 0.06%.”
Whatever that means, it clearly doesn’t mean that you have accounted for the fact that CO2 has 4 vibrational degrees of freedom compared to only 2 each for O2 and N2, and by the equipartition principle a CO2 molecule is 29% more energetic than each the O2 or N2 molecule.
More importantly though, the CO2 vibrational bands are in the range of Earth’s peak emission wavelength.
Related…
THE BREAKDOWN OF CLASSICAL PHYSICS
A,
And it’s quite obvious that GHE cultists don’t accept the basic principles of quantum mechanics, and therefore have precisely no interest in understanding reality.
Go on, tell me that you understand the theory of quantum electrodynamics, as espoused by Richard Feynman, for example.
Hopefully, you are not quite that silly. Answer in the affirmative if you wish, and don’t be surprised if you quickly get asked questions that you can’t answer.
Thanks for bringing a bit of reality into unreal GHE cultist beliefs.
There has been no breakdown in classical physics, it is still the number one method used in physics today. Quantum theory was developed because classical mechanics has no instrumentation that can measure to the atomic level. Neither does quantum mechanics. So a method was developed for guessing at what is going on at the atomic level.
Quantum theory accomplishes nothing by itself. It cannot be visualized because the concepts are far too vague for that. So, what good is it other than as a vague theory? The basis of it is rather simple, it is based on electrons and their relationship to protons in the nucleus of an atom. However, such a relationship cannot be measured because, once again, we lack the instruments to do that. So, QM is based on a method developed by Schrodinger, which is an extension of Bohr’s theory of 1913 that electrons orbit a nucleus in quantized orbits.
Schrodinger expanded Bohr’s theory mathematically using differential equations. His theory basically relates the orbital potential energy of electrons to their kinetic energy and from that the solution to the associated differential equations produces theorized orbitals where finding an electron in the orbit is based on a probability factor.
Quantum theory is nowhere near an exact science, in fact, it is so obscure that it cannot be visualized. It finds a use basically in chemistry and electronics theory but is never used in the practical side of either discipline where Newtonian theory is still in place. Many of the theories used in either field were developed long before quantum theory was developed. Quantum theory is just that, a theory to guess at the workings of the atomic level.
Newtonian physics still rules.
Gordon,
Newtonian physics is fine for normal use.
As Richard Feynman said “Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment.”
Reality suits me, and reproducible experiments reflect reality. Some experimental results just cannot be explained by anything other than magic or quantum mechanics.
I’m not that impressed with the predictive powers of magic.
In any case, no GHE.
1/
Since 1721 the smallest distances explored have shrunk a hundred million fold.
2/ The word “anachronism” has been used three times in this month’s comments, all by you; proving what I posted here yesterday: you always accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.
Ark, you continue to display your ignorance of physics.
It doesn’t matter how many degrees of freedom a molecule has. A 15μ photon from CO2 can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
What will you try next?
Clint R
YOU: ” A 15μ photon from CO2 can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.”
Perhaps. But many 15 micron photons emitted from CO2 will be absorbed by the near black-body (in IR band) of the Earth’s surface and slow down the heat loss. The surface will emit more energy than it receives from the CO2 but the NET effect of this absorbed energy is that the Surface has three sources of energy. Internal stored energy from previous heating, solar input being absorbed by the surface and now IR energy from CO2 absorbed by the surface. The 15 micron photons will not warm the surface but they will reduce the amount of heat it is losing. The NET (emitted minus absorbed) acts to slow down the cooling.
I have shown you this multiple times. You deflect from real science and use diversion by claiming I link to things I do not understand. Since your flaw is your inability to see yourself you project your flaws on to others and pretend it is them who do not understand. The real person who cannot understand my links is you.
One more time (you are a little slow at learning as pointed out by other posters…I think it was Ken who observed your very limited learning ability. It is okay it happens when you get old).
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_65a16eeab8c92.png
Let me explain the graph (that you will not understand).
This shows the DWIR does NOT warm the surface. It is lower than the UPIR. The NET heat loss is greatly reduced. The energy of the DWIR is absorbed by the surface so now it only loses around 150 W/m^2 (average) instead of what it would without any GHG (note the DWIR is a combination of all GHG not just CO2).
Can lead a horse to water but that does not mean they will drink.
Poor Norman cannot understand that “slowing cooling” is NOT warming.
This is all way over his head. That’s why he can’t understand the Surfrad graphs.
And, like Gordon, he can’t learn.
A,
You wrote –
“More importantly though, the CO2 vibrational bands are in the range of Earths peak emission wavelength.”
Oooooh! Trying to impress, are you?
Vibrational bands? Earth’s peak emission wavelength?
Are you really silly enough to believe in a mythical greenhouse effect which nobody can actually describe? Maybe you are dreaming that “CO2 vibrational bands” are connected to the mythical greenhouse effect?
At the risk of sounding coarse, it sounds like your hand has been vibrating too much in your trousers. You seem to have lost control of your senses.
Please provide some facts to correct me if I’m wrong.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Please provide some facts to correct me if I’m wrong.”
It would quicker to tell you when you’re right.
And it would be even quicker to tell you when you’re relevant!
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
What is “Earths peak emission wavelength.”?
Glad you ask, Christos:
https://open.library.okstate.edu/rainorshine/chapter/11-2-radiation-basics
Emphasis in the original.
That’s a calculated surface temperature. No one has been close enough to measure it directly.
I doubt a peak emission wavelength is a calculated surface temperature, Bordo.
Wondering Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“I doubt a peak emission wavelength is a calculated surface temperature, Bordo.”
Why do you doubt it? Have you found a magical “Terrestrial peak emission wavelength meter” somewhere?
You’re just being silly now.
Mike Flynn,
I doubt it because it’s untrue.
Would you say that the Earth’s peak emission wavelength is due to the Earth’s peak emission wavelength, like you believe that the insulating effect of the atmosphere is due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere?
What a buffoon!
“I doubt it because its untrue.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
This is not the correct incantation, Mike Flynn.
Try again.
“This is not the correct incantation, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Still incorrect, Mike Flynn.
Sooner or later your license to PST will be revoked.
“Still incorrect, Mike Flynn.
Sooner or later your license to PST will be revoked.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
That ain’t it.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ark…’whatever that means’.
It means exactly what it states, that CO2 can contribute no more heat to the atmosphere than 0.06%. That’s a proof, not a guess.
Gordon, CO2 in the atm. does not burn a fuel thus doesn’t contribute any “more heat to the atmosphere” not even your 0.06%. The sun does all the significant atm. warming burning a fuel.
One basic tenet of AGW is that CO2 absorbs IR from the surface and warms. Then it spreads the converted heat to the rest of the atmosphere an alarmist theory called thermalization.
That is the basis of the GHE, that CO2 acts like glass in a real greenhouse by trapping heat. Have you forgotten your basic pseudo-science?
Gordon, CO2 and other IR active gases warm by absorbing IR energy from the sun as well as the surface until steady state equilibrium is achieved along the lapse rate(z) in the troposphere (not the whole atm.). That troposphere T(z) can be disturbed by convection in the atm. fluid warmed from below in a gravity field.
Since the IR energy radiated from the surface is more and more absorbed by added ppm CO2 and fluctuating humidity in the troposphere, there is less and less IR from the surface to be absorbed in and thus warm the lower stratosphere. So, that stratosphere cools being isothermal(z) due to nil convection since stratosphere fluid is warmed in T(z) from above by the sun in a gravity field.
Try to think that through.
Bumbling Ball4, all gases emit IR above absolute zero. IR active, as you say.
Even the gases in a greenhouse are IR active, as you put it.
You aren’t silly enough to think this is the reason for the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years, are you?
Mind you the Earth is losing IR at the rate of about 44 TW. Do you think the Earth is not absorbing enough IR from the Sun to prevent it cooling? Off course you don’t – silly question.
Off you go now. Don’t think about anything, as usual.
Apparently Gordon isn’t up to thinking that through.
Yes, another silly Swenson question. Earth climate is warming now as shown in top post. Some farmer’s greenhouse gases are emitted from cats with digestive issues. O2,N2 in there are IR inactive compared to CO2, H20 et. al.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Earth climate is warming now as shown in top post. Some farmers greenhouse gases are emitted from cats with digestive issues. O2,N2 in there are IR inactive compared to CO2, H20 et. al.”
No, some thermometers get hotter, some cooler. Thermometers respond to heat, not climate. Man-made waste heat has increased markedly over the last century or two, and it is totally unsurprising to find thermometers responding to this extra heat.
If a sample of air is at a particular temperature, all gases in it are at thermal equilibrium, both emitting and absorbing the same range of photons. You may not believe it, but experiment shows that the laws of thermodynamics apply to gases, whether found in a greenhouse or not.
Or expelled by cats.
Swenson now agrees the laws of thermodynamics apply to gases. And thermometers respond to avg. KE of the constituent particles of air. Progress.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Swenson now agrees the laws of thermodynamics apply to gases. And thermometers respond to avg. KE of the constituent particles of air. Progress.”
What are you trying to say? Are you agreeing with me that the greenhouse effect is mythical?
As to you saying “And thermometers respond to avg. KE of the constituent particles of air.”, are you trying to deny that thermometers respond to radiation from hotter bodies – no air, KE or anything else necessary?
You are not making any progress at all.
At least your attempts to wriggle out of describing the mythical GHE are getting shorter.
Carry on.
“Man-made waste heat has increased markedly over the last century or two and it is totally unsurprising to find thermometers responding to this extra heat.”
Science is quantitative. Your ‘theory’ is not. Is this extra heat significant compared to natural heat flows?
You provide no numbers. It is just hand waving. Thus there is no way to judge if thermometers would respond significantly ‘to this extra heat’.
Feynman would be very disappointed.
Ball4,
You wrote “The sun does all the significant atm. warming burning a fuel.”
What part of atmospheric warming is not due to the sun? You said “significant atm. warming” only.
Are you referring to mankind’s waste heat production heating, or something else?
At least you haven’t been silly enough to mention the GHE as playing any part – significant or insignificant!
That’s a start.
The part of the troposphere warmed by surface IR energy not from the sun burning a fuel of course. Swenson could try to pay more attention to the science to avoid asking such silly questions repeatedly in such a humorous manner.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“The part of the troposphere warmed by surface IR energy not from the sun burning a fuel of course.”
That’s the part you consider “insignificant”. I agree.
So insignificant, of course, that at night, the surface cools – no sunlight, you see.
Are you quite mad? Dogs and small children realise that lack of sunlight results in cooling.
I was unsure just how ignorant you were. Maybe I misunderstood.
Still no GHE, though, is there? Not one you can actually describe, because it’s mythical.
clint…”Ive learned there are people, with absolutely NO knowledge of science, trying to clog up this blog.
Canucks in Vancouver seem to be the most egregious offenders.”
***
I know of a Scotsman in the Vancouver area but not a Canuck, who must be born in Canada to qualify.
Clint is one of those types who observes reality while excluding himself from it. Hence, he tends to look at science from his own withered perspective while mistaking those who understand science from those who want to understand it but can’t due to a gross interference from their biased minds.
For example, Clint thinks entropy is about disorder, a quaint idea he picked up from wiki, where any ijit can comment. Wiki states…”Entropy is a scientific concept that is most commonly associated with a state of disorder, randomness, or uncertainty”. Then…”Entropy is central to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system left to spontaneous evolution cannot decrease with time”.
Then they offer an “Oh, by the way…”…”In 1865, German physicist Rudolf Clausius, one of the leading founders of the field of thermodynamics, defined it as the quotient of an infinitesimal amount of heat to the instantaneous temperature. He initially described it as transformation-content, in German Verwandlungsinhalt, and later coined the term entropy from a Greek word for transformation”.
Still, they fail to acknowledge that Clausius invented the concept, named it, and developed the theory. He did not define it as a quotient, but as a sum of infinitesimal changes in heat, dq, at temperature T. Clausius stated entropy as the integral of dq/T.
Wiki continues…”Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann explained entropy as the measure of the number of possible microscopic arrangements or states of individual atoms and molecules of a system that comply with the macroscopic condition of the system. He thereby introduced the concept of statistical disorder and probability distributions into a new field of thermodynamics, called statistical mechanics…”.
No one has any interest in Boltzmann’s re-definition of a concept that had already been defined and invented by Clausius. He stole the idea from Clausius and in a state of supreme arrogance, decided to re-define entropy using his own terms. Of course, Boltzmann failed to prove entropy using his statistical methods and ended up committing suicide in a fit of despair.
Later, wiki makes a poor definition worse with this comment…
“The second law of thermodynamics requires that, in general, the total entropy of any system does not decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system. Hence, in a system isolated from its environment, the entropy of that system tends not to decrease. It follows that heat cannot flow from a colder body to a hotter body without the application of work to the colder body”.
If one takes the time to read Clausius, he developed the 2nd law before he defined entropy. He based the 2nd law on the fact that heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a hotter body. He proved that using a meticulous explanation of a heat engine and at the same time disproved the claim by Carnot that not heat was lost in a heat engine.
That is the 2nd law, the direction of heat transfer by its own means. However, modernists have thoroughly confused that simple meaning by stating the 2nd law via entropy, which muddies the definition completely.
That’s where Clint came in, reading the obfuscated version and failing to grasp why it is wrong. Although wiki credits Gibbs with creating the statistical methods, Gibbs is known for his free energy equation which states in words that the free energy in a system equals the total energy minus the energy used to do work, the heat associated with entropy. That makes it clear that entropy is about heat, not disorder.
Gibbs…
at any instant…G = H – TS
TS is the heat lost doing work and it comes from…
It should be obvious that free energy is a statement about heat and each element must be about heat. TS is about heat.
S = integral dq/T as written by Clausius.
BTW…Gibbs greatly admired Clausius. It’s clear from the Clausius equation where TS is derived…it comes from a transformation of the Clausius entropy equation. TS is a measure of heat as is H and G. Therefore, entropy is about heat, not disorder.
Clint fails to grasp any of this because he is the type who learns his science from wiki. A script kiddie, someone who steals the reverse engineering of a cracker and presents it as his on.
Wrong again, Gordon. I learned about entropy decades before wiki even existed.
But, I’m enjoying your meltdown.
Entropy is about heat. It is ALSO about disorder.
Entropy is about classical thermodynamics. It is ALSO about modern statistical mechanics.
In simple terms, there were 3 discoveries involving entropy.
The first was Clausius, as he developed 2LoT, which dealt with the “macro”. Entropy explains why “cold” cannot warm “hot”. “Cold” is more “disordered” than “hot” — it has higher entropy.
Boltzmann then developed the concept further, for the “micro”, with his S = klnW equation, which relates to the statistical mechanics mentioned by Folkerts.
Finally, Claude Shannon took it to an even higher level as he related entropy to information. Information entropy explains the relation of information to intelligence. All the information on the Internet does NOT mean someone can be intelligent, as we see with the cultists here. The information must be “organized”.
Clint R, entropy also explains why colder atm. must warm hot surface such as when a cooler than surface atm. replaces surface contact with deep space in a planetary & star system planetary system entropy MUST increase in that process. Cold is not necessarily more disordered than hot since order depends on system phase. To wit:
Tim 10:09am, entropy & disorder is interesting discussion. Entropy is about change in internal thermodynamic energy via a temperature difference and the objects temperature & is a precisely defined thermodynamic variable that in principle is measurable. Disorder is not such a variable.
Criticisms of the disorder interpretation of entropy are neither new nor original. In 1944, K. K. Darrow, in a great expository article on the concept of entropy noted that “We cannot . . . always say that entropy is a measure of disorder without at times so broadening the definition of ‘disorder’ as to make the statement true by definition only.”
For a physically contrary example, P.G. Wright (and earlier M. L. McGlashan) discussed crystallization in a supersaturated solution that reduces disorder but increases isolated system entropy. The appearance of the crystal certainly would be defined as an increase in order, while in this physical example entropy increases.
“Disorder is not such a variable.”
“Disorder” is a shorthand for a more subtle and complete description of what is going on.
A (slightly) more complete description is that all microstates are equally likely. Read about microstates if you truly want to know more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstate_(statistical_mechanics)
There is a “but” after “equally” in that link which you left out.
Thermodynamics applies to macroscopic systems, and thermodynamic variables are averages for such systems. Pressure and temperature, and hence entropy, are averages thus do fluctuate locally about the system avg. and have meaning only for systems composed of many & enough molecules. A fluctuation so large that all the gas molecules in a room spontaneously migrate into one corner is not impossible, merely exceedingly improbable, which their “but” attempts to point out.
"…colder atm. must warm hot surface such as when a cooler than surface atm. replaces surface contact with deep space in a planetary & star system"
When a surface is in direct contact with space, it cannot cool by conduction/convection, and can only cool by radiation. So it’s at the "maximum temperature it can be".
When a surface is in contact with an atmosphere, it can now cool by conduction/convection and radiation, so it will be cooler than that maximum temperature. That’s because it now has more means of cooling than before.
If you could warm the atmosphere, somehow, then the solar-heated surface would also warm, because it (the surface) is at a temperature lower than the aforementioned "maximum". The surface temperature is able to return towards that "maximum". Of course, you would need to posit some mechanism by which the atmosphere itself is warmed in the first place.
“The appearance of the crystal certainly would be defined as an increase in order …”
That might seem obvious on the surface, but leaves out one important factor — temperature.
The crystallization is an exothermic reaction. We are comparing the ‘disorder’ of a warm solid to a cool liquid. Fast moving atoms in a warm solid are not necessarily “more ordered” than slow moving atoms in a cool liquid.
But of course, go back the the ACTUAL statistical mechanics definition involving microstates for real understanding.
Not quite DREMT 2:03pm, you forgot that energy in downdrafts=energy in updrafts and release of latent enthalpy that equally warms the surface after evapo-transpiration over many annual periods, for instance:
When a surface is in contact with an atmosphere, it will now be at a temperature resulting from equal up/down conduction/convection and any added atm. radiation & cool by evapo-transpiration up and equally warm by latent enthalpy release so surface temperature will be above that of surface radiation to space only temperature.
Three modes of cooling are more effective than just one, Ball4. Waffle away.
Three modes of cooling AND warming DREMT over many annual periods vs. one mode. Continue to be mistaken if you wish.
Tim 4:19pm, of course you modify defn. of ordered with heroic effort, but in this example the temperature of the isolated system could decrease. Can’t retain the disorder interpretation of entropy when the system has undergone a partial transition from liquid to more ordered solid and its temperature also has decreased (meaning an increase in entropy).
You can pull these articles for more complete understanding of the physics: Kark K. Darrow, 1944: ‘The concept of entropy.’ American Journal of Physics, Vol. 12, pp. 183-96; M. L. McGlashan, 1966: ‘The use and misuse of the laws of thermodynamics.’ Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 43, pp. 226-32.
"Three modes of cooling AND warming DREMT over many annual periods vs. one mode. Continue to be mistaken if you wish."
How could the surface be warmed by conduction, on net? Overall, conduction is simply another means for the surface to cool that was not there without an atmosphere.
The w/atm. surface isn’t warmed by conduction, on net. See the word “equal”.
Overall, conduction/convection is simply another means with updrafts=downdrafts for the surface to cool & equally warm (so neutral on net) as observed over many annual periods that was not there without an atmosphere.
Talk me through a 24-hour cycle with conduction, Ball4. Explain how it works out "equal", rather than cooling, overall.
With the Sun up, the hot surface conducts heat to the atmosphere in contact with it, which is convected and advected away, to be replaced with other air which can now be warmed again through conduction. An efficient process.
With the Sun down, there is no reverse process by which convection can assist conduction in cooling the atmosphere and warming the surface. A less efficient process.
So, over a 24 hour cycle, surely conduction has a net cooling effect compared to a surface with no atmosphere.
First of all, a 24 hour cycle is weather. Some nights the surface air warms as it will do in my location tonight so busts your 24hr. cycle hypothesis right there. Droughts, storms come and go so even conversion of latent enthalpy back to warming doesn’t cycle to net in 24 hours.
Second, air rising at the surface during the day is replaced by same temperature air advected into the lowered pressure.
Convection/conduction and evapo-transpiration/rain are weather that cycle to net over many annual periods adding up to net zero for climate.
"…air rising at the surface during the day is replaced by same temperature air advected into the lowered pressure."
Then heat transfer by conduction from the surface to the air above it would cease.
Ball4,
You wrote “Second, air rising at the surface during the day is replaced by same temperature air advected into the lowered pressure.”
Not always. Heated air generally expands, and may expand sideways, if of sufficient density. You are probably aware of a meteorological phenomenon called a “heat dome”.
Another example is a stifling humid tropical day, not a breath of wind, air just getting hotter and hotter. Convection is suppressed.
Maybe you are just ignorant of the physics involved. Making broad statements which obviously deviate from reality won’t help your credibility.
Writing about a day’s worth of weather subtracts from Swenson’s and DREMT’s credibility on climate trends.
I’m not trying to write about "climate trends". I’m trying to explain that a surface without an atmosphere can’t cool by conduction, whereas a surface with an atmosphere can. You’re trying to tell me it warms by conduction just as much as it cools. I can’t see how that’s possible. I tried to get you to elaborate, but you haven’t really, just dismissing everything as "weather" whilst asserting that over long enough periods it nets to zero. Not terribly convincing, Ball4.
Actually Ball4 has no clue at all.
As we know on clear nights the ground surface will cool considerably faster than the air above it. This can result in frost coming from squeezing water vapor out of the atmosphere as dew and freezing on cold surfaces. The cold air in contact with these frozen surfaces is denser than the air above it so it will tend to create an inversion of temperature very near the surface like adding liquid water to oil. . .the denser water will pool at the bottom.
Just the opposite happens during the day. The sun must rise high before it stops heating the air faster than the surface. The air molecules from first light are abs.orbing sun beams just like the Air Force experiments showed CO2 laser beams are absorbed by CO2.
Thus it takes for the sun to reach a high angle before it starts heating the surface faster than it heats the air. Thus its false to claim absolutely that the surface heats the atmosphere. It does only during the high angle sunlight hours.
”Nitrogen, oxygen and ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere and stratosphere absorb ultraviolet light from the Sun, providing a shield that prevents this radiation from passing to the Earth’s surface.” – -except of course for the UV that gets all the way to the surface and cause sunburns and suntans.
The ozone layer helps prevent UV from reaching the surface but doesn’t stop it and doesn’t stop UV from warming the atmosphere.
But do you see any acknowledgement of that in the IPCC work? I haven’t read every single passage of all the IPCC reports by a longshot. But do you hear of the effects of anything on the surface, its variations, its affects of early and late day heating of the atmosphere. No all you hear about is backradiation coming from the atmosphere from GHGs reflecting surface radiation.
Heck we don’t even measure the surface radiation or temperatures. No way we just keep jogging on with a surface monitoring system not designed as well as an 8th grade student could design in his first project. And to estimate total warming we use a couple dozen trees and try to reach accuracy levels the surface station network can’t do with thousands of professionally run local weather stations.
Bill writes: “Heck we don’t even measure the surface radiation or temperatures.”
Bill claimed previously: “we know on clear nights the ground surface will cool considerably faster than the air above it.”
If there are no measurements of surface temperature according to Bill, how does Bill know the surface “will cool considerably faster”? Talk about clueless.
It is physically true clear nights favor the formation of dew or frost. But a clear night is not sufficient: Winds must be light. You don’t have to know much about convective energy transfer to know that cooling increases with wind speed. Bill learned this the first time Bill stood shivering in a cold, howling wind.
Thus, when convection dominates the total energy flux near the surface, that surface cannot fall (much) below air temperature by radiation which is required for dew & frost to form, and hence neither dew nor frost is likely to form on clear, windy nights.
Bill also wrongly claims: “all you hear about is backradiation coming from the atmosphere from GHGs reflecting surface radiation.”
No Bill, GHGs and water droplets in our atm. reflect nil surface IR radiation. Bill’s eyes deceive him: Bill cannot see infrared radiation. Merely because thick clouds (or anything else) highly reflect radiation Bill can see does not mean that they necessarily highly reflect radiation Bill cannot see.
Bill should thus learn emission by clouds is greater than that by air at the same temperature thus can actually be warming the calm wind surface air temperature as observed occasionally at weather stations overnight.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Bill should thus learn emission by clouds is greater than that by air at the same temperature thus can actually be warming the calm wind surface air temperature as observed occasionally at weather stations overnight.”
You are definitely away with the fairies.
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE!
Ball4 says:
Bill writes: Heck we dont even measure the surface radiation or temperatures.
Bill claimed previously: we know on clear nights the ground surface will cool considerably faster than the air above it.
If there are no measurements of surface temperature according to Bill, how does Bill know the surface will cool considerably faster? Talk about clueless.
——————–
Ball4 doesn’t refute the statement at all. He didn’t even think through what he wrote nor applied his own belief system of backradiation of a colder surface warming the sky.
So how does Bill know the surface will cool considerably faster given Bill’s written absence of measurements?
Bill, if the thermodynamic internal energy of an object increases, the avg. KE of its molecules increases, then so does its temperature increasing entropy. As required by 2LOT for all real processes.
Well you can certainly call that into question. But. . .
1. The budget for surface cooling has the atmospheric window spewing out 40watt/m2 unimpeded by the atmosphere.
2. the rest goes to heat the atmosphere slowing its cooling.
That makes the surface cool faster1 and faster2 than the atmosphere on average.
.
Bill now writes fixing his “we don’t even measure the surface radiation” with measuring 40 “spewing out” to space in the window region. Ok. “The rest” is also being measured now fixing up Bill’s opinion given 2.
troubleshooting…
Earlier, Tim Folkerts wrote –
“The collisions in question are not elastic anyway! They are super-elastic. The CO2 molecules absorb 15 um photons, giving them vibrational energy. In a collision, that extra vibrational energy can become extra KE in the two molecules. So the two molecules come out with MORE KE tan before the collision; ie hotter than before.”
CO2 molecules can interact with photons of any wavelength depending on circumstances.
A simple example is heating CO2 to say 50 C with radiation from a white hot filament. The heated CO2 then radiates photons with a wavelength proportional to its temperature. It both interacts with photons shorter than 15 um, and emits photons shorter than 15 um.
Or just compress CO2 quickly – to say 500 C. The photons emitted are the same wavelength as any other gas at 500 C.
Tim’s self heating gas is just more fantasy.
“CO2 molecules can interact with photons of any wavelength depending on circumstances.”
The interactions are only appreciable at certain wavelengths. One set of wavelengths is near 15 um. Another is near 4.2 um. Outside of a few bands dictated my quantum mechanics, the interactions are negligible.
As a very simple example, if there were significant interactions by CO2 (or H2O or N2 or O2) in the visible range, then sunlight would get absorbed before reaching the surface. Our eyes give us simple, indisputable evidence that no molecules in the atmosphere interact strongly with such photons.
“The heated CO2 then radiates photons with a wavelength proportional to its temperature. ”
No … for several reasons.
It would be correct to say that a BLACK BODY radiates photons with a PEAK wavelength INVERSELY proportional to its temperature. Given three significant errors in that one sentence, it is tough to know what more to say.
Are you saying thermalized CO2 can’t radiate photons?
No. Any other questions?
Timmy Twinkletoes is adept at saying nothing, and complaining bitterly if anybody accuses him of actually committing himself to anything connected with reality.
For example, here are a couple of Timmy attempts at describing the GHE –
“The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”, and
“A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface”.
So don’t accuse Tim of claiming that the GHE warms anything at all!
He’ll just complain that he never said such a silly thing!
Tim Folkerts,
I wrote –
“The heated CO2 then radiates photons with a wavelength proportional to its temperature.”
You responded –
“No for several reasons.”
Well Tim, CO2 radiates photons at wavelengths in proportion to its temperature. If you know the temperature, the wavelength of the emitted radiation can be calculated. If you believe that CO2 cannot be heated by compression, you are simply demonstrating your ignorance.
When the air is compressed in a diesel engine to 500 C or so, all of the gases are in thermal equilibrium with each other. The CO2 does not stubbornly keep emitting, say, 15 um photons out of spite! What happens when it runs out? Does it cease to emit photons of any wavelength, and sulk at absolute zero? Only joking, do dont accept reality, do you?
Maybe you need to play some silly semantic games, and avoid the reality that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and is currently losing energy (cooling) at a rate of 44 TW or so.
There is no GHE. Keep dreaming.
“If you know the temperature, the wavelength of the emitted radiation can be calculated. ”
If you know the molecules involved, the wavelengths of the emitted radiation are known.
If you know the temperature, the intensities of radiation at the various temperatures can be calculated.
Temperature alone is insufficient. Temperature alone can only tell you the radiation from an ideal blackbody.
“If you believe that CO2 cannot be heated by compression, you are simply demonstrating your ignorance.”
That has nothing to do with the previous sentences.
That has nothing to do with what I believe.
Of course CO2 can be heated by compression.
I am not the one demonstrating ignorance here.
“The CO2 does not stubbornly keep emitting, say, 15 um photons out of spite!”
Quite right! CO2 stubbornly keep emitting, say, 15 um photons because of quantum mechanics. And 4.3 um photons. But not 10 um photons (at least not enough to make a difference).
“Does it cease to emit photons of any wavelength, and sulk at absolute zero?”
What a quaint conclusion! If you followed the previous answers, you would know it does emit photons in allowed bands, and the intensities are governed by the temperature of the gas.
Tim,
You wrote –
“If you followed the previous answers, you would know it does emit photons in allowed bands, and the intensities are governed by the temperature of the gas.”
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would accept the reality that all gases at thermal equilibrium are emitting precisely the same frequencies.
Your ignorance results in you saying “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface””, when trying to describe the GHE.
Accept reality. The Earth has cooled. There is no GHE – that’s just fantasy!
tim f…”sunlight would get absorbed before reaching the surface. Our eyes give us simple, indisputable evidence that no molecules in the atmosphere interact strongly with such photons”.
***
Then why does the sky appear to be blue, or even red, orange or purple in the evening? Why are there Northern lights? And why does any sunlight get through at all? It’s because air molecules are so far apart wrt the wavelengths of sunlight that the Sun’s EM simply penetrates the atmosphere easily.
Same with surface radiated IR. Over 90% of it radiates to space without ever seeing a CO2 or WV molecule.
“Then why does the sky appear to be blue…”
Because the molecules interact weakly with light, scattering blue light more than read light. But still the vast majority of visible photons get through.
“or even red, orange or purple in the evening? ”
Because then the light has to pass through many times more atmosphere than at noon. And many times more dust and water droplets. The scattering is greater. (But you can still see the sun on a clear evening, so much of the light is still getting through unscattered or unabsorbed.)
“Over 90% of it radiates to space without ever seeing a CO2 or WV molecule.”
Not sunlight, so not germane to what I wrote. (It is much smaller than 90%. But yes, a cloudless atmosphere does allow considerable thermal IR to escape through the ‘atmospheric window’.)
This is all readily available on the internet. Why not educate yourself before asking? It would save everyone time.
Tim,
Have any of your silly diversionary attempts enabled you to come up with a better GHE description than –
“A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface.”
That’s completely pointless. Surely the GHE is supposed to have some effect which is different to current physical knowledge?
Go on, try another diversion – see how irrelevant and pointless you can be.
You still can’t describe the GHE any better than your present “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface”. “, can you?
Tim Folkerts says:
”It would be correct to say that a BLACK BODY radiates photons with a PEAK wavelength INVERSELY proportional to its temperature. Given three significant errors in that one sentence, it is tough to know what more to say.”
Maybe it would be more worthwhile for you to stay on point rather than constantly trying to divert the conversation away from that point. Especially ignorantly.
Inverse Proportion – GCSE Maths
”Inverse proportion is a type of proportionality relationship. If two quantities are inversely proportional then as one quantity increases, the other decreases. ”
The inverse companion of inverse proportion is not proportion it is ”direct proportion”. Both inverse and direct proportions are proportions.
Speaking of trying to divert …
1) Unless otherwise specified, “proportional” by itself pretty much always implies directional proportional. c.f.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)
2) I made three points. The two most important were about the physics involved — that only PEAK wavelength is (inversely) proportional to temperature and that this only holds for BLACKBODIES. You could have agreed that Gordon had two clear physics errors. Instead you chose to call out me for something that was not really a mistake.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Unless otherwise specified, proportional by itself pretty much always implies directional proportional.”
Pretty much always – except when it doesn’t, of course, as you state,
You also became confused and wrote –
“The two most important were about the physics involved that only PEAK wavelength is (inversely) proportional to temperature and that this only holds for BLACKBODIES.”
No Tim, the wavelengths of emitted energy varies with temperature – for all matter. You can measure the frequency with a suitable instrument, or just heat a piece of wire. As the temperature rises, visible light will be emitted – dull red, bright red, orange, white not etc. progressively shorter wavelengths, you see.
No wonder you think “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface””, has some meaning in relation to your mythical GHE.
Keep avoiding reality, if you wish.
Tim Folkerts says:
As a very simple example, if there were significant interactions by CO2 (or H2O or N2 or O2) in the visible range, then sunlight would get absorbed before reaching the surface. Our eyes give us simple, indisputable evidence that no molecules in the atmosphere interact strongly with such photons.
———————–
Thats not at all true! Of the amount of sunlight impinging on the earth’s climate system a lot more is reflected, absor.bed, or passes through the atmosphere without hitting the surface than is absor.bed by the surface.
Only 481w/m2 out of the 1368w/m2 of the impingement is absor.bed by the ‘lit’ surface. Thats only 35%. You are so far off its ridiculous.
“Thats only 35%. You are so far off its ridiculous.”
You are at least trying to use real numbers and real science. But are missing the key point. Let me reiterate that key point:
Our eyes give clear evidence that GAS MOLECULES absorb little of the VISIBLE LIGHT.
So reflection from clouds doesn’t count. Reflection from the ground doesn’t count. Absor.p.tion of UV by ozone doesn’t count. Absor.p.tion of IR by GHG’s and clouds doesn’t count. Scattering by dust doesn’t count.
The number you should be thinking about is that of the ~ 1360 W/m^2 impinging on the earth, ~ 1000 W/m^2 reaches the surface on a clear sunny midday. A significant majority DOES get through — 74%! And of the part that does get absorbed before reaching the ground, much is UV or IR. I suspect the number is closer to 80% or 90% for visible wavelengths at noon (but I don’t have a specific reference).
So, no, I am not so far off. Certainly closer than you.
Swanson says:
”Our eyes give us simple, indisputable evidence that no molecules in the atmosphere interact strongly with such photons.”
Our eyes actually aren’t a measure as we don’t look at the sun much on the ground and zero above the atmosphere. But since clouds cover about 50% of the planet and block out a great deal of sunlight, while most is reflected, a good deal is still absor-bed. How much is that?
Its difficult to talk intelligently about this as the different reanalysis projects differ on albedo by 21% from each other when you figure in the different solar constants.
For instance Trenberth shows cloud albedo and surface albedo but has no estimate for how much surface albedo gets intercepted going back up by the various forms of water in the atmosphere as he shows it all going to space. Just another source of error on top of the huge uncertainties listed above.
Also Trenberth just lumps any radiation from clouds that originated from absor/bing sunlight and just lumps that into backradiation.
And nobody seems to be recognizing that our 1000km atmosphere represents more than a 33% increase in the area of the disk of the earth’s diameter with the earth disk making up ~75% and the atmosphere part of the disk ~25%.
Tangent to the surface the pathway is twice as long and tangent to the outside of the atmosphere it is zero length. So one would have to run some exponential functions on the abso-rp-tion rates in that huge area by the atmosphere enlarging the system disk. We know the thermosphere gets very hot because of uv being absor-bed there with no IR molecules to cool it by collisions.
As it is about one third of non-reflected light is actually abso-rbed by the atmosphere.
Of the sunlight that hits the ocean surface about 50% is absorbed 10 meters or more below the surface, making that energy unavailable through portions of the year until storms can gin up 10 meter and larger waves. Winter storms dissipate that temperature gradient to the surface down to 30 to 40 meters where about 5% to 10% remains unmixed.
So basically for immediate availability more than 50% of sunlight (considering that the atmosphere disk is 25% larger than the earth disk and the oceans make up about 75% of the earths surface) is initially absorbed by the atmosphere as is absor.bed by the surface (excluding amounts absor-bed at depth in the ocean).
The land warms at a faster rate than the ocean because of that.
Sorry, Hunter, you are confused, as usual. I’m not TF.
E. Swanson says:
”Sorry, Hunter, you are confused, as usual. Im not TF.”
Gee that must mean I am right if you want to distance yourself from Tim.
Tim,
It seems like you’re kind of pulling stuff out of your arse. That’s the problem with Greenhouse Theory, too much unknown but many act as if it is known. There’s a lot of speculation in the place of data.
swenson…”A simple example is heating CO2 to say 50 C with radiation from a white hot filament. The heated CO2 then radiates photons with a wavelength proportional to its temperature. It both interacts with photons shorter than 15 um, and emits photons shorter than 15 um”.
***
Much shorter than 15 um. Super-heated CO2 glows white, meaning it is radiating energy from right across the EM band.
Now Germany has a chance to freeze.
https://i.ibb.co/Dtb2hR4/gfs-z100-nh-f72.png
Iowa’s is way greater.
Heavy snowfall is expected in the Great Lakes region, with more than half a meter of snow expected to fall in two days. The lake effect, which adds moisture, will be an important factor. Since the lakes did not freeze after the warm December, the effect will be significant.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=44.9%3B-85.4%3B5&l=new-snow-ac&t=20240114%2F0100&fbclid=IwAR1RLpiMCvixtev6-CpnoLtShMedv6KP3GofcZfVZCYQekIkp0hDYpUj0MA
I was surprised to read above that concerns still exist regarding atmospheric lapse rates. I’ve notes that Spencer (2009), Brown (2012) and W&H (2023) decided atmospheres void of GHGs should be isothermal. Maxwell (1866) and Boltzmann (1875) offered proofs that systems in thermodynamic equilibrium are isothermal regardless of gravitational fields. Today, nevertheless, climate science unquestionably asserts lapse rates are set by an equilibrium property, Cp. My view has long been that dissipative fluxes should be proportional to thermal gradients with coefficients favoring convection at low altitudes and radiation higher up. To that end, a thermodynamic model with temperature and flux specified at two boundaries and model-specific functions connecting their endpoints was drafted. A thermal profile was calculated as that function for which the sum of all fluxes was independent of altitude. For a set of 8 model functions, presumably exaggerating various physical realities, the surface temperature changes corresponding to 3.7 W/m2 (CO2 doubling ?) were:
Case I: 0.84K 0.04K
Case II: 2.78K 0.79K
Case I assumes boundary temperatures are independent variables. Case II assumes boundary temperature differences are unchanged, e.g. an adiabatic lapse rate. For details,
https://pdq2021.000webhostapp.com/Adiabatic_Lapse_Rate.pdf
Interesting paper Paul, but I don’t have time to give it the study it deserves. (I did enjoy the opening quote.)
Can I reasonably assume it proves the lapse rate is due to the movement of thermal energy from surface to tropopause?
Yes, but perhaps better phrased as “the lapse rate is due to the resistance to the movement of thermal energy between surface to tropopause.” (radiation has a downward component)
Seems pretty simple to me.
The base of a column of atmosphere has a higher temperature than the top – which is nominally at 4 K or so.
A temperature field exists such that the temperature profile of the column shows a decrease in temperature from hot to cold.
Unfortunately, the temperature of a gas at low pressure is misleading if based on the average velocity of the gas molecules, leading to anomalies such as the thermosphere with nominal temperatures in excess of 1000 C, which have no real significance in terms of heating ability.
All smoke and mirrors. The lapse rate in the troposphere is just the rate at which temperature decreases with altitude under normal conditions. If the measured temperature differs from a calculated temperature, the calculation is wrong.
It’s plainly obvious that the origins of the lapse rate have been completely misunderstood. The theories simply cannot explain why air pressure varies directly with altitude. They are going at it backwards, presuming temperature affects pressure whereas it is obviously gravity affecting pressure, which in turn affects temperature.
If the Sun suddenly turned off, would the air pressure in our atmosphere suddenly become isobaric? Don’t think so.
“The theories simply cannot explain why air pressure varies directly with altitude. ”
Oh come on! This is freshman physics! Not some mystery of the universe,
Tim, please stop trolling.
Today in Kansans.
https://i.ibb.co/kDvT51D/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-12-160116.png
Sorry, Kansas.
You are certainly an advocate of the deceitful DuByne method.
“You are certainly an advocate of the deceitful DuByne method.”
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
There’s only one way to PST.
That one ain’t it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
1/ Daily Sea Surface Temperature continues at or above 6σ so far this year.
https://imgur.com/a/cDBKhtO
2/ We know that >90% of the EEI is being stored in the world’s oceans.
Here’s an explainer video: https://youtube.com/shorts/EddFpyiOKkg
3/ Science, it works!
1/ This area includes equatorial waters which are being greatly affected by the El Niñ:o.
2/ The bogus “EEI” has no validity in science. EEI is nothing but cult beliefs. The video is interesting because it has a rapidly spinning plastic cup being heated with a torch. The torch can melt the cup above the water line, but is unable to melt the cup below the waterline. That type of plastic melts at about 500°F. Using S/B to convert 500°F to flux, we get about 4580 W/m². Divide that by 4, and we get 1145 W/m², which corresponds to about 220°F. The cup would not melt, especially spinning!
The cult won’t understand the significance of that. That’s why this is so much fun.
3/ Cultism — It tricks many.
“Using S/B to convert 500F to flux, we get about 4580 W/m. Divide that by 4, and we get 1145 W/m, which corresponds to about 220F. The cup would not melt, especially spinning!”
Can you explain what you are trying to calculate here? It makes little sense.
“The cult won’t understand the significance of that. That’s why this is so much fun.”
A,
You wrote –
“We know that >90% of the EEI is being stored in the worlds oceans.”
No you don’t. Nobody can store sunlight in water. You are just being silly.
There is no positive EEI. The Earth is losing energy at a rate of about 44 TW currently.
You may call that heating, but a body losing energy is not getting hotter.
Where is it stated in the Trenberth-Kiehl energy budget that >90% of the EEI is stored in the oceans. Not a mention of it there. All they are concerned about is promoting radiation while ignoring heat.
In figure 7, Bordo, what’s the surface?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster.
–
Earth receives about ~ 30% less solar energy than Moon.
–
Yet why Earth gets warmer due to Earth rotating faster?
–
It is because the faster rotation rises the temperature!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Because the faster the spin, the more it accumulates!
Faster rotation is just one of MANY reasons the average surface temperature of the earth is higher than the moon. Don’t get too obsesses with rotation at the expense of other factors that are at least as important.
Thank you, Tim.
“other factors that are at least as important.”
–
Yes, the presence of ocean on Earth is as important.
christos…and distance from the Sun.
Tim,
You wrote –
” . . . other factors that are at least as important.”
Of course, the mythical GHE is not one of them, otherwise you would have mentioned it, wouldn’t you?
I believe man-made heat is responsible for the majority of the increased temperatures shown by thermometers near the ground. Apart from obvious influences like increases or decreases in cloud cover, atmospheric particulates, crustal hot spots and so on, what factors do you believe would lead to hotter thermometers?
Mike Flynn,
You ask a great question, and the answer is yes, it is, i.e.:
http://tinyurl.com/the-ghe-for-dummies
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“A layer of a material that is (mostly) transparent to incoming high frequency light (eg sunlight) and (mostly) opaque to outgoing low frequency light (eg thermal IR from the earth) will have a warming on surfaces below that layer”
Complete nonsense. The surface cools at night. No warming to be seen.
Try accepting reality. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and continues to do so, losing energy at the rate of about 44TW.
Only dummies believe your appeal to authority. Oh well, it did say “the ghe for dummies”.
Appropriate.
Mike Flynn,
You said –
“You wrote”
Incorrect.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“I believe …”
You are free to believe whatever you like. Can you provide data and/or calculations to back this up?
“Of course, the mythical GHE is not one of them” … but the actual greenhouse effect is.
“crustal hot spots” … would be a minor influence at best. Geothermal heat flows are estimated to average less than 0.1 W/m^2, which would be minimal.
Tim,
You wrote –
” . . . but the actual greenhouse effect is.”
So far, your attempts at describing the GHE are “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”, which is completely devoid of meaning, followed by “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface”.
Tim, reduced cooling is not heating. The Earth is only cooling at the rate of about one millionth of a Kelvin per annum (being conservative), losing energy at the rate of 44 TW or so.
You are free to call this cooling “heating” if you want to look like an ignorant GHE cultist.
You mention “”crustal hot spots” would be a minor influence at best.”” I agree. Mentioned only to demonstrate that observed temperature variations from space are not consistent across time or location, owing to the chaotic nature of nature.
You wrote –
“You are free to believe whatever you like. Can you provide data and/or calculations to back this up?”
Indeed. Thermometers record the increase in man-made waste heat. The amount seems to vary, depending on who is “interpreting” the measurements. Pick whichever interpretation you fancy.
No GHE – certainly not one that you can describe.
[TIM] A layer of a material that is (mostly) transparent to incoming high frequency light (eg sunlight) and (mostly) opaque to outgoing low frequency light (eg thermal IR from the earth) will have a warming on surfaces below that layer.
[MIKE FLYNN] Tim, reduced cooling is not heating.
Whacky Wee Willy,
Are you claiming Tim Folkerts also appeals to the authority of “the ghe for dummies”, or are you just trying to make him look as stupid as you?
Maybe you want people to believe that slow cooling is really heating. I’m sure there are dummies out there who do.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Are you claiming Tim Folkerts also appeals to the authority”
Nope.
Willard,
Why are you trying to make Tim Folkerts look as stupid as you?
Is it because he agrees that the GHE is “not cooling, slower cooling”?
After all, Tim did write about the mythical GHE –
“A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface”.”
Slower cooling, in other words. Fair enough, that way neither of you can be accused of claiming that the mythical GHE causes heating.
Carry on claiming that cooling can’t exist without a mythical GHE.
Dumb and dumber – cooling means getting hotter, or maybe not!
Mike Flynn,
You keep asking silly questions.
Tim said “warming.” You swiched to “heating.” Why?
“Tim said “warming.” You swiched to “heating.” Why?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Cat got your tongue, Mike?
Don’t forget that you’re on probation on the PST patrol.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson: “So far, your attempts at describing the GHE are ..”
You list a couple of 1-sentence descriptions I have made of the effects of the GHE. I have also posted many times in much more detail about the physics behind the GHE (which you could also find at myriad websites and in myriad textbooks).
If you are just going to ignore what has been written, then no one can help you.
Tim,
You wrote –
“I have also posted many times in much more detail about the physics behind the GHE . . .”.
Unfortunately, your last description of the GHE was “A slightly better description would be reduces the cooling from the surface”.
The physics behind cooling are well known.
Your bizarre attempts to imply much while saying nothing, just makes you look like a GHE cultist who can’t even describe that which he claims to explain.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and continues to do so, albeit very slowly.
Maybe you could at least disagree? I don’t mind a good laugh now and then.
tim…Christos was talking specifically about the Earth-Moon system.
[TIM] Faster rotation is just one of MANY reasons the average surface temperature of the earth is higher than the moon.
[BORDO] Christos was talking specifically about the Earth-Moon system.
Willard, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Jupiter is the fastest spinning planet in our Solar System, rotating on average once in just under 10 hours
Therefore it must be the warmest planet in our solar system.
Venus is the slowest spinning planet in our Solar system, rotating on average every 243 Earth days.
Therefore it must be the coolest planet in our solar system.
For more, cf. https://www.cristos-vournas.com.
“Therefore it must be the coolest planet in our solar system.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Your incorrect incantation is due to your incorrect incantation.
Revise and resubmit your PST.
Willard, please stop trolling.
2023 Average (all converted to UAH’s 1991-2020 baseline)
UAH +0.51
JMA +0.53
RSS +0.54
NOAA +0.55
GISS +0.56
Had.CRUT +0.56
Mean +0.54
(Berkeley Earth December data not out yet)
I guess Roy and “HG” must be doing 94% of the “fraud” of the others, eh Gordon.
Antonin Qwerty,, please stop trolling.
And the difference between UAH and RSS is caused by what?
You do understand that the satellite readings don’t give temperatures, right? The conversion to temperatures requires a degree of interpretation. The massive 0.03 difference is down to the difference in the way the conversion is done. Of you will declare UAH to have the better approach with no reason other than it gives a lower value.
AQ
You wrote –
“The conversion to temperatures requires a degree of interpretation.”
That would be right. Some people even manage to “interpret” an “average temperature” for the Earth – completely meaningless, but “interpreted” by various “interpreters”, anyway.
What’s your interpretation? Would you interpret the GHE as resulting in “not cooling, slower cooling” (like Willard), or would you like to share a different interpretation?
You are really just trolling, arent you, trying to appear intelligent by uttering inanities of the form “You do understand [. . . ], right?”, which generally indicates that you haven’t got facts to back up your attempts to mislead!
You don’t accept (obviously) that NOAA/STAR places much less reliability on RSS than UAH, especially in the recent years.
Eeny meeny miny moe,
Will I support NOAA this week or treat them as foe …
Antonin Qwerty , please stop trolling.
Do you accept what NOAA/STAR are concluding?
I get +0.48 C for 2023 on the 1991-2020 baseline for STAR. Does that mean STAR is committing 89% of the fraud?
The fact that all the different systems are pretty close is not the fraud, bdgwx. Different systems and methods will produce varying degrees of accuracy. Again, because all are so close increases the believability. But a warming trend is NOT evidence that CO2 is the cause.
Here are examples of the fraud:
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
test…
Aping a bit helps sometimes.
” And the difference between UAH and all others is caused by what? “
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
So Blinny now claims that NOAA/STAR got it wrong.
And the stubborn Brit still can’t stop insinuating.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
And the hyperstubborn Flynnson can’t stop behaving like a baby as if this blog was his preferred kindergarten.
How afflicting!
So Blinny, what do you have to sat about others comments?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1593013
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
So Blinny now claims that NOAA/STAR got it wrong.
“the STAR team decided to start over from scratch. One issue among the MSU analysts has been that there are weather balloon records for atmospheric temperatures from many parts of the world to compare against, and the UAH record conspicuously lines up better with them than did RSS or STAR. The NOAA team went step-by-step through the data construction process and ended up with results almost identical to those of the UAH team”
And the stubborn Brit still cant stop insinuating.
In fact, this is more than insinuating: it is a lie.
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2023/04/19/noaas-star-has-fallen/
Now Blinny says that others are lying!
https://www.realclimate.org/images/tlt_comp_baseline1981-1990-600×513.png
https://www.realclimate.org/images/tlt_comp_baselline2001-2010-600×513.png
here are some images from RealClimate. No doubt they are wrong also.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Antonin Qwerty
I just downloaded NOAA NESDIS STAR TLT for December out of
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/emb/mscat/data/MSU_AMSU_v5.0/Monthly_Atmospheric_Layer_Mean_Temperature/Global_Mean_Anomaly_Time_Series/NESDIS-STAR_TCDR_TLT_Combined_With_TMT_TUT_TLS_Monthly_S198101-E202312_V5.0_Regional_Means_Anomaly.txt
*
2023 average wrt 1991-2020: 0.47 !
*
” TLT_Combined_With_TMT_TUT_TLS ”
They have now even beaten UAH :–)
Those who have quit smoking are the most vicious anti-smokers.
Who is doing the averaging? I don’t see any sources so I must presume it is you, an alarmist klown.
I guess when Roy Spencer averages his monthly data that also makes him an “alarmist clown”.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
You really have a problem reading names don’t you Flynnster.
Mike Flynn has no problem reading antonyms tho.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Two names, one PST, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
First strike.
9 to go.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“I guess Roy and “HG” must be doing 94% of the “fraud” of the others, eh Gordon.”
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Two incorrections, Mike Flynn.
Tsk tsk. You will never get that job.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Why did this brazen Flynnson tr0ll start aping the impersonating immoderator?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
His aim is to be as destructive as possible for the minimum effort.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
tim f…”3a/ The collisions in question are not elastic anyway! They are super-elastic.”
***
We need to be careful here. An elastic collision is define as one in which KE and momentum are conserved. An inelastic collision is one where momentum is conserved but not KE.
I don’t like the conservation of energy theories involving complex situation because KE is not defined as a specific energy. What kind of energy is being conserved and which energy is lost in an inelastic collision? We have mechanical energy of motion, we have thermal energy, likely electromagnetic energy, electron bond energies, and the energies between electron orbitals.
It is just not clear in atomic theory how energy is transferred. It is still theory because no one can measure the energy involved in a single molecular collision.
Understanding the elastic collisions of snooker balls is fairly easy to visualize. Both masses are dense and when they collide the masses don’t give much, hence momentum and KE is well transferred. I don’t think individual molecules as in a gas can be compared to bazzillions of atoms bonded via covalent bonds into a solid structure like a snooker ball.
How can we be sure that a molecular collision in a gas is elastic, never mind super-elastic?
—
“3/ and 3/a are exactly what Dr Spencer said to begin with. The CO2 molecules are continuously heated by absorbing 15 um photons. When they bump into other molecules, the collisions can and do heat the cooler air molecules around them”.
***
Yes, but the heat they can transfer is directly related to their mass percent in a gas. The theory you offer is loosely translated by alarmists to claim CO2 can transfer 9% to 25% of the heat of a gas mixture. Those umbers were obviously pulled out of a hat and contradict the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusing equation. They both limit the amount of heat CO2 can add to air as about 0.06%, not 9% to 25%.
“We need to be careful here. … I dont like … It is just not clear … I dont think …”
Collisions are basic freshman physics. If you really are this confused by ‘what kind of energy is lost’ or ‘KE is not defined as a specific energy’, you should go back and review.
“the heat they can transfer is directly related to their mass percent”
This is not true. CO2 molecules receive IR energy, making them warm up and they act like heaters. It is really no different from an the atoms in a 1 kg heating element absorbing electrical energy and warming 1000 kg of water molecules. The heater supplies 100% of the heat; it is not somehow limited to supplying 0.1% of the heat because it is 0.1% of the total mass.
Small, warm actively-heated objects can warm much larger, cool, passive objects.
Tim,
You wrote –
“CO2 molecules receive IR energy, making them warm up and they act like heaters.”
So do all gases.
You really don’t accept physical reality, do you?
Tim wants to attribute the UV absor-bed by oxygen and nitrogen and full spectrum sunlight light absorb-ed by water to CO2. . .not to speak of the sensible and latent heat of water warming the atmosphere by convection. So shame on you for popping his bubble.
Those numbers are so guessed at its ridiculous. For instance latent heat is estimated from measured precipitation, but precipitation isn’t measured over the oceans. You can’t even measure it because that which falls just goes back to the surface to get another load of latent heat with some of it falling on land. Even on land they don’t measure the trace amounts observed and none of the falling dew that evaporates again in the morning. The whole exercise is about pinning the tail on the donkey without the ability to peek.
Meanwhile Nate lies and tries to convince us that the energy imbalance which is about 4% of the size of the error bars in the observation program. Its probably only the inherent honesty of hard working scientists taking pride in their work that prevents the NGOs from claiming the energy imbalance is about 25watts. . .but they still try to claim we are locked in for that much warming if not more. Any error bar to them simply is intolerable.
Here’s Tim’s description of the GHE – “reduces the cooling from the surface”.
Completely useless to man or beast.
Commits himself to absolutely nothing, so he can complain “I never said that!”
He probably regrets saying about the GHE, earlier, “The only claim is that CO2 causes a small, long-term slope in addition to the short-term variations.”, because it begs the question “in which direction, Tim, hotter or colder?”.
Tim won’t say, because he doesn’t want to admit that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, and continues to do so, losing energy at about 44 TW.
Typical ignorant GHE cultist.
Mike Flynn proffers –
“Completely useless to man or beast.”
Except perhaps for the fact that without the greenhouse effect man or beast wouldn’t exist?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Meanwhile Nate lies and tries to convince us that the energy imbalance which is about 4% of the size of the error bars in the observation program.”
False. This is yet more BS, shamelessly made up by Bill.
Nate I already gave you the source on this. Did you fail to read it because you think you already know it all?
Kevin Trenberth here where .9w/m2 imbalance was introduced has science sources arguing the difference in albedo varies from 27.9% to 34.2%. That alone is a range of 95 to 117 watts or 22watts.
22/.9=24.4
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml?tab_body=pdf
Neither of the two methods that measure the energy imbalance, the ARGO ocean heat content (OHC) rise, nor the CERES satellite, require an albedo value..
The OHC measurement is simply a measurement of the rise in heat content of the ocean, which is where all agree that > 90% of the energy imbalance must go.
And I previously showed you a paper that measured the deep ocean OHC rise and found that it is ALSO rising, but contributing a tiny amount to the total.
The CRES satellite directly measures reflected solar radiation from the Earth, thus does not need separate determination of albedo.
Thus as usual, you misunderstand and misrepresent the science. Then label those who do understand, and don’t misrepresent it, liars.
Shameless.
Nate says:
Neither of the two methods that measure the energy imbalance, the ARGO ocean heat content (OHC) rise, nor the CERES satellite, require an albedo value..
The OHC measurement is simply a measurement of the rise in heat content of the ocean, which is where all agree that > 90% of the energy imbalance must go.
And I previously showed you a paper that measured the deep ocean OHC rise and found that it is ALSO rising, but contributing a tiny amount to the total.
The CRES satellite directly measures reflected solar radiation from the Earth, thus does not need separate determination of albedo.
————————
ocean heat content isn’t measured. its modeled like gridding non-representative samples from weather stations to get a gmt. . .as provided in my link the .9watt/m2 imbalance is modeled using unvalidated climate models.
and of course ”reflected solar radiation” is albedo and the range of uncertainty as to solar reflected was sourced from ceres also as indicated in the link to the source i provided you.
now if you have a source to contest my source the conversation can continue or you can just give up.
All well!!!
and of course reflected solar radiation is albedo and the range of uncertainty as to solar reflected was sourced from”
There is no albedo needed to directly measure reflected solar by satellite.
Thus the range of values reported for Earths albedo is irrelevant.
“ocean heat content isnt measured.”
Yes it is.
Just more ignorance.
Source
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/
“The CERES instruments provide direct measurements of reflected solar radiation and emission of thermal infrared radiation to space across all wavelengths between the ultraviolet and far-infrared.”
Nate says:
January 16, 2024 at 5:17 PM
and of course reflected solar radiation is albedo and the range of uncertainty as to solar reflected was sourced from
There is no albedo needed to directly measure reflected solar by satellite.
Thus the range of values reported for Earths albedo is irrelevant.
—————————
that makes no sense.
albedo definition.
”the proportion of the incident light or radiation that is reflected by a surface, typically that of a planet or moon.”
“There is no albedo needed to directly measure reflected solar by satellite.
Thus the range of values reported for Earths albedo is irrelevant.
that makes no sense.
albedo definition.
“the proportion of the incident light or radiation that is reflected by a surface, typically that of a planet or moon”
Simple. You need to know albedo in order to CALCULATE the reflected solar radiation from the Earth, and thus find how much is abs.orbed.
But if you are directly MEAURING reflected solar radiation by satellite then you don’t need to calculate it!
thats ridiculous!
if you are accurately measuring reflected solar and the solar constant. . .you know the albedo.
but accurately measuring albedo involves essentially simultaneously measuring from every angle rays that can reflect from the toa and surface from every part of the globe over any given period of weather. the accuracy of the sensor has its own level of accuracy but by far the largest error arises from the above and we see scientists processing that information from ceres in different ways and coming up with numbers that vary by more than 6%.
you also have insurmountable problems of measuring reflected ir in bands emitted by earth as no sensor can distinguish between them.
and i would only assume that some error arises from the greybody differences between the frequencies absorbed by the material of the sensors and the mixed materials of the earth. . .while that might largely be combined in the bench testing of the sensors there isn’t a way to bench test a sensor with the earth on a bench.
”
but accurately measuring albedo involves essentially simultaneously measuring from every angle rays that can reflect from the toa and surface from every part of the globe over any given period of weather. the accuracy of the sensor has its own level of accuracy but by far the largest error arises from the above and we see scientists processing that information from ceres in different ways and coming up with numbers that vary by more than 6%.”
Bill, your incredulity of remote sensing methods, that have been perfected over several decades, is not an argument. Particularly since you lack any expertise in that field.
It is an average over the globe over a period of time, eg a month, so it doesnt need to be simultaneous, as you ignorantly assume.
You don’t seem to realize the limits of your science knowledge, and thus constantly man-splain stuff, like this, that you actually don’t know very well at all.
When are you going to learn that giving your uninformed opinion about what science knows, then having to walk it back, or have it debunked, over and over, means that people learn to not take your posts seriously.
“So do all gases.”
No (at least not in appreciable amounts). I don’t know why you can’t grasp this simple fact.
Gases like N2, H2, and H2, or like He, Ar, and Ne, simply do not absorb terrestrial thermal IR (4-40 um) to any appreciable extent.
Gases like CO2, H20, and CH4 DO absorb particular bands of thermal IR.
You really dont accept physical reality, do you?
Tim,
You wrote –
“No (at least not in appreciable amounts). I dont know why you cant grasp this simple fact.”
Your usual weasel words. “No” – followed by a vague statement that means “Yes, but I don’t accept reality”.
What are appreciable amounts, and why is this important or relevant?
You also wrote –
“Gases like N2, H2, and H2, or like He, Ar, and Ne, simply do not absorb terrestrial thermal IR (4-40 um) to any appreciable extent.”
“Terrestrial thermal IR”? Who cares? Who wants them to?
The surface cools at night, and the Earth itself has cooled for four and a half billion years.
No GHE. Your latest silly statement “The claim is that the GHE makes the earth hotter than it would be if there was no GHE.” is completely pointless. The Earth is as hot as it is. If your bizarre calculations indicate otherwise, then your calculations are wrong.
Reality wins.
“The surface cools at night..”
That’s not always reality given observations. Reality is the surface air temperature goes both up and down at night depending on its avg. molecular speed due to state of its thermodynamic internal energy.
That reality always wins, not Swenson’s faulty imagination.
Ball4,
If you believe that night is hotter than the day, you are truly away with the fairies.
Carry on.
Not a belief Swenson, it’s what the weatherperson shows occasionally. Just pay a little more attention.
Tim Folkerts says:
So do all gases.
No (at least not in appreciable amounts). I dont know why you cant grasp this simple fact.
Gases like N2, H2, and H2, or like He, Ar, and Ne, simply do not absorb terrestrial thermal IR (4-40 um) to any appreciable extent.
Gases like CO2, H20, and CH4 DO absorb particular bands of thermal IR.
You really dont accept physical reality, do you?
—————————–
Tim or Nate why are GHG’s limited to gases that absorb terrestrial IR? Did your Daddy train you to think that way?
As Swenson points out when all molecules absorb energy from the sun. Why do you argue against his notions on the matter there is clear science they do.
Obviously a molecule that absorbs sunlight is going to warm and emit radiation towards earth just as ably so in strict accordance with the energy of the wave length they emit. Why do you believe the ghe must come only from intercepted earth radiation? When there is clear evidence that oxygen and nitrogen in the thermosphere absorb UV and warm up to 6000k. In addition O2 and N2 and O3 absorb UV throughout the atmosphere due to their presence there.
“Tim wants to attribute the UV absor-bed by oxygen and nitrogen and full spectrum sunlight light absorb-ed by water to CO2”
Then Bill again shamelessly tries to claim his opponents have said things, like this, that they NEVER STATED, SUGGESTED, or even IMPLIED.
Sadly, Bill has no credibility.
Stop babbling Nate. You said nothing of substance. If you want to reinforce Tim’s case then do so.
Quote him saying any such thing.
He says it in his proclamations as if a gas needs to absorb a surface photon to warm the surface. There is more than one way to heat atmosphere molecules than by radiation. Its amazing how you guys think. Like as if the only thing required to heat the surface with a ghg was by absorbing a photon from the surface. Thats the problem with the theory it never gets past that.
“He says it in his proclamations”
Interestingly, you are unable to quote him saying anything like that for some reason.
No quote, no credit!
ark…If UAH does not offer a temperature, why is the temperature series in degrees C?
I suppose you think surface thermometers give a better temperature reading? What are they measuring?…the expansion of mercury in a narrow vial.
What causes the mercury to expand? Is it not the KE of air molecules hitting the bulb at the base of the vial holding the mercury pool? That KE, of course, is heat, even though that seems to confuse Clint.
What do you call the emissions from oxygen molecules in the atmosphere that are detected by AMSU telemetry? I call it microwave energy in the 60 Ghz range. What produces the energy? It is a natural emission for O2 molecules as the electrons in the oxygen atoms transition between orbital levels. Or, maybe it is the lower frequency transitions between the electrons bonding two oxygen atoms into an O2 molecule.
At any rate, the microwave frequency is proportional to the temperature of the oxygen molecule and the frequency varies as well with altitude. Therefore, the AMSU telemetry is detecting a proxy for the temperature at various altitudes in the atmosphere just as mercury expansion is a proxy for the temperature in air.
Actually it was AQ who made the dumb claim that UAH does not produce temperature series. Same thing, however, AQ and Ark are equally stoopid. Like dumb and dumber only its dumb and dumb.
Gordon Robertson, go f&%k yourself you miserable POS.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Some people become quite sensitive when their lack of scientific understanding is exposed. Raises the question as to actually why you are commenting here. You seem to think you can come in here and spread any kind of manure around in lieu of science. I am calling you on it and you have failed to respond, leading you to behave like an snotty-nosed teenager in frustration.
Take a deep breath, and crack the textbooks, kid. It’s never too late to learn.
Indeed, someone here got very salty after his claim that lunar phases are caused by earth’s shadow was challenged.
Still no admission, so we have to assume he still believes it.
Given that phases are visible during the day, apparently he believes the earth can redirect its shadow.
I’ve forgotten his name … do you recall Gordon?
Why can you not control your lying, Gordon?
Because of course no one could possibly be dumb enough to actually believe that saying temperatures are inferred from non-temperature readings is the same as saying “UAH does not produce temperature series”. Right Gordon?
“Why can you not control your lying, Gordon?”
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Perhaps you need motivation.
You got ten chances.
At zero, you lose PST privileges anymore.
I’ll give you this one if you correct it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, someone quoted the following –
“A layer of a material that is (mostly) transparent to incoming high frequency light (eg sunlight) and (mostly) opaque to outgoing low frequency light (eg thermal IR from the earth) will have a warming on surfaces below that layer.”
Place “a layer” of such material on a block of ice in a freezer, on the ground at night, on the surface of the Lut Desert at 70 C, or anywhere at all, and there will be no extra warming at all of the surface below that layer.
Just more GHE cultist dreaming.
Unless there is a solar pond, which will be 80 C below a meter of water.
I think it’s interesting to have solar ponds on Mars.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“someone”
Who?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Place a layer of such material on a block of ice in a freezer …”
It’s like you are actively trying to misunderstand. A freezer does not have ‘incoming high frequency light’. It does not meet the criteria you yourself just listed.
Tim,
The specifications for the plate –
“A layer of a material that is (mostly) transparent to incoming high frequency light (eg sunlight) and (mostly) opaque to outgoing low frequency light (eg thermal IR from the earth) will have a warming on surfaces below that layer.”
No indication that the plate only worked its miracle in sunlight. Ordinary window glass allows sunlight through, and is relatively opaque to “thermal Ir” (whatever that is supposed to be).
Place a layer of window glass on a block of ice in a freezer, on the ground at night, on the surface of the Lut Desert at 70 C, or anywhere at all, and there will be no extra warming at all of the surface below that layer of glass.
If you are merely claiming that objects get hot in direct sunlight of sufficient intensity, you will get no argument from me. If you claim the GHE only “reduces the cooling” (your words) in direct sunlight, then you are just being silly.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and continues to do so, losing energy at a rate of 44 TW or so. No GHE making anything hotter, Tim. Even you say so yourself. “Reduces the cooling” is not heating.
Try another silly diversion.
“No indication that the plate only worked its miracle in sunlight.”
Well, the fact that it needs to be transparent to sunlight would lead any reasonable person to conclude that sunlight was involved.
“If you are merely claiming that objects get hot in direct sunlight of sufficient intensity, you will get no argument from me. ”
Again, any reasonable person would realize that is NOT the argument.
“No GHE making anything hotter”
And yet again, any reasonable person would know the difference between “hotter than before” and “hotter than it would be otherwise.”
No one claims the GHE should earth is hotter than 4.5 billion years The claim is that the GHE makes the earth hotter than it would be if there was no GHE.
Timmy Twinkletoes,
“Well, the fact that it needs to be transparent to sunlight would lead any reasonable person to conclude that sunlight was involved.”
So, no GHE without sunlight. Still doesnt work, Timmy. Put a thermometer on the ground in sunlight. Put a sheet of glass over it. The temperature will drop. No, Im not kidding. On average, 8% of photons normal to the glass will be reflected. Yes, it puzzled Sir Isaac Newton too, so it will be a complete mystery to you, I guess.
Dancing around reality won’t help you.
“The claim is that the GHE makes the earth hotter than it would be if there was no GHE.”
Does this negate your previous GHE claim “reduces the cooling from the surface”?
You previously claimed that there is no GHE without sunlight, and cooling takes place in the absence of sunlight. No GHE to make anything “hotter than it would be . . .”.
In any case, the Moon reaches far higher temperatures than the Earth – no atmosphere, you see. In addition, the hottest places on Earth are those with the least supposed GHE!
No Tim, “The claim is that the GHE makes the earth hotter than it would be if there was no GHE.” makes no sense at all. You can’t even describe the GHE, in any way that shows you are not getting the mythical effect confused with sunlight.
Try again, but try harder next time. At least you are expressing a written view, as meaningless as it may be.
“Put a thermometer on the ground in sunlight. Put a sheet of glass over it. The temperature will drop. “
You seem to be describing a standard greenhouse – sheets of glass over the ground. Every greenhouse I have seen is WARMER than the surrounding area, not cooler.
And even if you open up windows to allow for air flow in the greenhouse, it will still be warmer inside than out. Even with small amount of light reflected away.
“Does this negate your previous GHE claim “reduces the cooling from the surface”?”
Nope! Just like adding insulation around my house “reduces the cooling” through the walls and “makes it warmer than it would be” without the extra insulation. Two sides of the same coin.
“In any case, the Moon reaches far higher temperatures than the Earth”
The GHE is about AVERAGE temperatures, not MAXIMUM temperature. The moon also reaches far lower temperatures than the earth, a fact you conveniently leave out. The average temperature on the moon is LOWER than earth even though it absorbs MORE sunlight.
0 for 3. Try again, but try harder next time. At least you are expressing a written view, as meaningless as it may be.
Timmy Twinkletoes,
You wrote -“You seem to be describing a standard greenhouse sheets of glass over the ground.” Read what I said. It’s fact.
You also – wrote –
“The GHE is about AVERAGE temperatures, not MAXIMUM temperature. The moon also reaches far lower temperatures than the earth, a fact you conveniently leave out. The average temperature on the moon is LOWER than earth even though it absorbs MORE sunlight.”
Which GHE are you referring to? Your latest description is “The claim is that the GHE makes the earth hotter than it would be if there was no GHE.”
Nothing about any measured temperatures at all! You cannot measure a “would be” temperature, can you?
You are simply being silly, trying to dance around the fact that “hotter than it would be” is completely meaningless. About as realistic as saying you are more ignorant than you would be if you knew what you are babbling about!
The Earth has cooled, Tim, and continues to do so.
If you think it should be colder, good for you! It isn’t. It is what it is – no more , no less.
As Richard Feynman said “Nature cannot be fooled”.
Greenhouses are a fact. And that is what you described – a sheet of glass above the ground.
Even though such a sheet reflects a few percent of the incoming sunlight (a cooling effect) it also provides additional IR (a warming effect). In this case, the warming effect is stronger than the cooling effect. (And that is ignoring any additional warming that might occur by blocked convection.)
Tim Folkerts says:
Greenhouses are a fact. And that is what you described a sheet of glass above the ground.
Even though such a sheet reflects a few percent of the incoming sunlight (a cooling effect) it also provides additional IR (a warming effect). In this case, the warming effect is stronger than the cooling effect. (And that is ignoring any additional warming that might occur by blocked convection.).
——————————–
your problem with all this arises from your misunderstanding of the energy flows. the sheet heated by the sun (yes mildred the sun and the surface and the air in the greenhouse can heat the glass) and the glass primarily cools by convection accelerated conduction upwards. it has been shown that the absorbing properties of the glass only has a local effect on the upper airs of the greenhouse such that convecting air trapped at the top of the greenhouse if blocked by ir opaque glass will simply and rapidly conduct through the glass at an accelerated rate due to the hotter glass.
repeated experiments have shown the radiative properties of glass does not contribute to an ir warming effect of the greenhouse surface.
> Its like you are actively trying to misunderstand.
In Mike Flynn’s case, there is no try.
Misunderstanding comes to him naturally.
Willard, please stop trolling.
tim…disorder is the result of an irreversible process. If heat is released during that process, it can be measured as entropy. If not, there is no entropy involved.
The concept of entropy was define by Clausius who gave it the name. He Later defined it mathematically as S = integral dq/T and described that process subjectively as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat at temperature, T.
Gibbs later employed the Clausius definition in his free energy equation…G = H – TS. Although he called it a free energy equation, it is actually a free heat equation since all terms are in heat quantities. The TS is obviously from the Clausius equation, representing the total heat released and not available to do work. Gibbs is stating that the heat available to do work is the total heat of the system, the enthalpy, minus the heat lost during the process, the entropy.
The Boltzmann equation does not successfully represent entropy. He failed in his attempt yet ijits continue to apply it even though he became so depressed he took his own life over his failure.
Entropy cannot be stated without a reference to heat, no matter how hard Clint whines about it. It has nothing to do with particles, or the imaginary particles used in the work of Boltzmann. Clausius started that work, related to the kinetic theory of gases, and he would have known the difference. At no time did he associate entropy with disorder or particles.
What he stated is what I claimed above. During an irreversible process, disorder is produced. That is, the reaction cannot spontaneously reverse itself. However, any measure involved is a measure of heat released during an irreversible process, therefore an increase in heat, aka an increase in entropy, is related to the disorder but not a direct measure of it per se.
It is ingenuous to claim that a release of heat, as energy, is the same as a disorder of atoms. Clint’s problem is that he lacks the ability to go into the subject deeply enough to gain that insight. So, he merely takes the word of authority figures.
All wrong, Gordon. Your constant display of your ignorance of science is proof you never got an engineering degree. Even so, your continuing meltdown is one of the reasons this is so much fun.
In simple terms, there were 3 discoveries involving entropy.
The first was Clausius, as he developed 2LoT, which dealt with the “macro”. Entropy explains why “cold” cannot warm “hot”. “Cold” is more “disordered” than “hot” — it has higher entropy.
Boltzmann then developed the concept further, for the “micro”, with his S = klnW equation, which relates to the statistical mechanics mentioned by Folkerts.
Finally, Claude Shannon took it to an even higher level as he related entropy to information. Information entropy explains the relation of information to intelligence. All the information on the Internet does NOT mean someone can be intelligent, as we see with the cultists here. The information must be “organized”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw8qwvCS3FU
Now We FINALLY Know! The Truth Behind SpaceX Starship’s Explosive Mystery!
It seems engineers need a hover pen.
They were cutting up the water tanks, I am thinking to would worked for test floating breakwaters.
I just started playing Kerbal.
Musk reason for Starship blowing up was a bit confusing for me.
Elsewhere:
-William Barton
January 12, 2024 at 12:04 PM
I have my doubts AG stations are even possible. Somebody should try anyway, as if it did work, it would solve a lot of problems.
David Spain
January 12, 2024 at 1:39 PM
Tether two Starships in rotation, someday.-
I wonder what he means by Artificial Gravity station being even possible.
I don’t know how well they would do as substitute for real gravity and part of it, is how much radius of spin do you need.
It’s commonly thought that short radius {say, 10 meter} is too short.
It seems to me human can adapt to things and they could adapt to spinning at 10 meter radius.
But in simple terms if one adapts to 10 meter, does human body then require a short 10 meter radius spin.
Say had AD with a 10 and 50 meter radius, you adapt to 10 meter, and spend a month in it, and then you move up to the 50 radius and then spent a month there. What physical changes occur between 10 and 50 meter radius.
And question is how much artificial gravity do you need. And what happen if live in say artificial gravity of 3 earth gravity force?
gb, you don’t even know what planet you’re on!
Now, THAT must be fun….
troublehooting…
ark…You are too immature and obtuse to understand this level of science.
Here it is from Max Planck, an authority figure who will likely appeal to you. Then again, with your nose out of joint from being proved wrong, you will just as likely go off on another tantrum.
You can find the following excer.p.t in Gurenberg Project book ‘The Theory of Heat Radiation’ by Planck on page 219 of 289.
164. Natural Units. All the systems of units which have hitherto been employed, including the so-called absolute C. G. S. system, owe their origin to the coincidence of accidental circumstances, inasmuch as the choice of the units lying at the base of every system has been made, not according to general points of view which would necessarily retain their importance for all places and all times, but essentially with reference to the special needs of our terrestrial civilization.
Thus the units of length and time were derived from the present dimensions and motion of our planet, and the units of mass and temperature from the density and the most important temperature points of water, as being the liquid which plays the most important part on the surface of the earth, under a pressure which corresponds to the mean properties of the atmosphere surrounding us.
***
Note…”…unit of length and time were derived from the present dimensions and motions of our planet…”
Also…”…and the units of mass and temperature from the density and the most important temperature points of water…”
The second statement relates mass to the density of water and temperature to the most important temperature points of water. As I tried to tell you, temperature is derived, as a measure, from the boiling and freezing points of water. Temperature is nothing but a means of measuring the relative levels of heat.
One might wonder how Planck knew that time is derived from the rotation of the Earth whereas Einstein completely missed that fact. Einstein thought magically appeared on the hands of a clock.
I have never seen someone misunderstand “natural units” to quite such a degree!
“Time” is not derived from the rotation of the earth! The “unit for time” that people choose to use (the second) is derived from the rotation of the earth. HUGE difference!
The whole point of “natural units” is that they relate to UNIVERSAL constants — not to terrestrial coincidences like the time it takes the earth to turn or the abundance of liquid H2O on the surface.
Planck choose units such that four universal constants are defined to have a numeric value 1 when expressed in these units:
c, the speed of light in vacuum,
G, the gravitational constant,
ħ, the reduced Planck constant, and
kB, the Boltzmann constant.
So for example, this leads to the universal unit for time — the “Planck time” as 5.391247(60)10−44 s. Any scientist in any race on any planet would get this same value.
Tim,
You wrote –
“I have never seen someone misunderstand “natural units” to quite such a degree!”
Maybe you could let me know why your assertion means anything to anybody?
According to NIST,
“The second (s) is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the cesium frequency ∆νCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the cesium-133 atom, to be 9,192,631,770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s−1.”
Time is defined, and not a natural unit. Your Planck tine is measured in seconds.
Maybe you are confused about units.
Have you come up with an even better description of the GHE? Your last one “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface”. ” plainly indicates that the GHE results in cooling.
Is that really what you meant to say?
Mike Flynn,
Tim tries to make Bordo understand that there’s a difference between what is being measured from how it is measured. A clock measures time. It is not time.
Your comments could measure universal silliness. We’re not there yet.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson, You still confuse time itself with the units we use to measure it.
Without getting too metaphysical, quantities like time, mass, distance, and electric charge exist in the universe. They existed before humans invented units for measuring them. They existed before the earth even formed.
NIST is defining a UNIT for measuring time. They are not defining time itself.
Planck time can be CONVERTED to seconds. Or to hours. Or to the period of Cs atoms. Planck time is only MEASURED in seconds on earth. Some civilization on another planet would measures it their units.
The beauty of “natural units” is that you could tell a scientist on any other planet “create units such that h-bar = G = c = kB = 1” and they would know how big the units for mass, time, and distance would be!
Tim, you dimwit.
The Planck constant is a proportionality constant. It must be measured experimentally, as it cannot be calculated.
Yes, its a fixed ratio, much like the ratio of radius to circumference of a circle.
You are just being silly, trying to weasel your way out of acknowledging you are ignorant about many things – physics amongst them.
Who is likely to respect a person who describes the GHE as “reducing the cooling from the surface”. That doesn’t increase anybody’s understanding, does it?
Maybe you could find a better description of the GHE? How hard can it be?
Wow, you really don’t get it!
The Planck constant relates (among other things) the energy of a photon to the frequency. E = h-bar omega.
Yes, h-bar is measured experimentally. But the VALUE you measure will depend on the units you CHOOSE to use. If you measure in joules and seconds, the value is 1.0546 10−34. If you measure in eV and seconds, the value is 6.582 10−16. If you measure in eV and minutes, the value is 1.097 10−17. h-bar is the same — a universal value, just the numbers are different. But with a different choice of units, the numerical value is different
Now … think carefully. There must be at least ONE set of units where the numerical value is exactly 1. Planck units are CHOSEN so that this value is 1.
PS the difference with pi is that pi is dimensionless. No choice of units will make pi anything other than 3.14159…
Tim,
From Wikipedia –
“As already stated above, Planck units are derived by “normalizing” the numerical values of certain fundamental constants to 1. These normalizations are neither the only ones possible nor necessarily the best. Moreover, the choice of what factors to normalize, among the factors appearing in the fundamental equations of physics, is not evident, and the values of the Planck units are sensitive to this choice.”
Are these the Planck units you are talking about? Defining a numerical value to be 1? That’s fine , but as Wikipedia mentions “there are large uncertainties in their values.” Does this mean your “1” is maybe something not “1”? Oh well, just renormalise, and make it “1” again.
About as silly as saying about the GHE “The claim is that the GHE makes the earth hotter than it would be if there was no GHE.”
No it doesnt. The Earth is as hot as it is, having cooled from a much hotter temperature.
You are in denial of reality, and trying to dance your way out of the hole you have dug yourself.
“Are these the Planck units you are talking about? “
Yes, those are the units that Gordon brought up in his original post. You finally are catching up to the whole point of this thread.
Tim, please stop trolling.
There is a football game this weekend in Kansas between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Miami Dolphins. Already they are talking about the predicted cold setting records.
Kansas City is on about the same latitude as San Fransisco and Washington, D.C. With wind chill they are talking -20F, about -29C.
So where is this cold coming from? The Arctic. That’s the same Arctic where it’s supposed to be ice free soon.
We are getting it here too on the Pacific Coast at Vancouver, Canada. It’s currently -12C, predicted to reach -14C overnight.
Anyone who thinks this planet is warming for real can go take a flying jump. I was out in it tonight shopping and the cold is biting cold. It’s nothing compared to the -40C I have experienced on the Prairies, but its effing cold. As a French Canadian buddy used to exclaim, It’s colder dan a brass brassiere, dere”.
I am sure there has been slight warming from the Little Ice Age, but it’s not enough to write home about.
The weather in Kansas is not the same as Global Temperature.
Likewise the weather Gordon Robertson is experiences, is not the same as the planet’s climate.
Cool story, Bordo. That’s weather.
If cold leaves the Arctic, then the Arctic is less cold, right?
No. -38C at Eureka.
https://weather.gc.ca/forecast/canada/index_e.html?id=NU
… and YellowKnife was at -39C, Fort Mc Murray had -41 C; coldest was according to our weather service Leedale, north of Calgary, with -49 C.
Last six months in the Arctic:
+0.26
+1.16
+0.92
+1.13
+1.54
+0.91
Cf. the top of this page.
Also note:
http://tinyurl.com/this-is-the-arctic
The Arctic might not mean what contrarians might make it mean. Mr. Nice tried to pull that stunt recently. For some reason Walter did not correct him.
I wonder why.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
Why do you wonder?
And what are you trying to show with your link?
Your numbers are temperature anomolies. So when you state +0.26 then the temperature at -38C would usually be -38.26C.
Indeed. And you’re trying to minimize the fact that only 5C separates us from an ice age.
> what are you trying to show with your link?
The Arctic, Walter. That’s why I named it “this-is-the-arctic.”
I thought you followed my exchange with Mr. Nice.
Willard, please stop trolling.
More Canadian weather (by ‘dissecting the past’)
Coldest daily reports
CA002101000 YT_SNAG_A_____________________ 1947 2 3 -63.9 (C)
CA002100700 YT_MAYO_A_____________________ 1947 2 3 -62.2
CA002101000 YT_SNAG_A_____________________ 1947 2 2 -62.2
CA002101000 YT_SNAG_A_____________________ 1952 1 19 -60.9
CA002100880 YT_PELLY_RANCH________________ 1968 2 3 -60.0
CA002100880 YT_PELLY_RANCH________________ 1968 2 4 -60.0
CA002101000 YT_SNAG_A_____________________ 1947 1 30 -60.0
CA002100800 YT_OLD_CROW_A_________________ 1975 1 5 -59.4
CA002100940 YT_ROSS_RIVER_A_______________ 1968 2 3 -59.4
CA002100940 YT_ROSS_RIVER_A_______________ 1975 1 9 -59.4
CA002201998 NT_FORT_RESOLUTION____________ 1936 1 18 -59.4
CA002101200 YT_WATSON_LAKE_A______________ 1947 1 31 -58.9
from these stations below, of course carefully kept by NOAA out of their ‘Climate at a Glance’ processing, cuz ‘too cold 4 us’:
CA002101000 62.3667 -140.4000 587.0 YT SNAG A
CA002100700 63.6167 -135.8667 504.0 YT MAYO A
CA002100880 62.8167 -137.3667 454.0 YT PELLY RANCH
CA002100800 67.5667 -139.8333 250.0 YT OLD CROW A
CA002100940 61.9667 -132.4333 705.0 YT ROSS RIVER A
CA002201998 61.1667 -113.6667 159.0 NT FORT RESOLUTION
CA002101200 60.1167 -128.8167 687.0 YT WATSON LAKE A
Central & North Queensland Weather & Stormchasing
Some interesting scenarios are showing up on some modelling towards the latter part of next week. A stronger monsoon burst could induce a E movement of the tropical low over the NT. An upper low and trough over the southern states could make the scenario even more interesting. If it amplifies more northward it could just capture the low in the NT moving it E or SE into Queensland. If it does not amplify the low will slowly move W or SW before a S movement through SA. The low in the coral sea forecast to develop off the north tropical coast around Monday will move E initially. If the NT system is not captured after the upper system clears a new ridge could turn the coral sea system westward. Quite a complex and fascinating setup over the nest couple of weeks. As to which scenario plays out is to complex to tell currently but these are a couple of the scenarios.
Highs in the Midwest.
https://i.ibb.co/qrMxRFT/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-13-145012.png
https://i.ibb.co/jgJXHSc/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-13-145218.png
I posted above NOAA STAR’s source link:
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/emb/mscat/data/MSU_AMSU_v5.0/Monthly_Atmospheric_Layer_Mean_Temperature/Global_Mean_Anomaly_Time_Series/NESDIS-STAR_TCDR_TLT_Combined_With_TMT_TUT_TLS_Monthly_S198101-E202312_V5.0_Regional_Means_Anomaly.txt
*
But… Robertson the all-time incompetent boaster is so incredibly ignorant that he is not even able to see the source (despite 100% visible upon clicking the link), and to compute the average of the 12 months in 2023.
Instead, the genius typically urges to write:
” Who is doing the averaging? I dont see any sources so I must presume it is you, an alarmist klown. ”
*
Let alone would he be able to understand that simply averaging these 12 months to a year is not enough, as the NOAA STAR reference period is not 1991-2020 like UAH’s: otherwise, the average of their anomalies during that period would be near 0.0. It isn’t (-0.034).
And such an idîot claims to be an engineer. What a lie!
*
Mais… paraphrasons l'ami La Fontaine, et admettons humblement que l'on a parfois besoin d'un plus bête que soi.
Cuz I had overlooked that these brazen STAR people really have had the temerity to modify their anomaly sequence without notifying me!
Even Jan 1981 moved from the old -0.1952 value in the spreadsheet down to a newer -0.2577.
Thus the new, final 2023 average for STAR is now 0.485 -> 0.49, a bit nearer to UAH’s 0.51.
*
Their trend with now 0.138 +- 0.007 C / decade for 1981-2023 is a lot lower than UAH’s for the same period (0.149 +- 0.007), despite having kept a residual LT sensing in their LT averaging (as Roy Spencer explained, UAH’s LT no longer contains original sensing of the lower troposphere: it is an average of 1.538*MT 0.548*TP + 0.01*LS).
*
No wonder when looking at a graph comparing the two:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FokuomlQXMRAkpSwNeWA5Zq-w6XOOSkm/view
*
Looking now at an older comparison made till end of 2022, we can see that when UAH’s LT is averaged with Zoe’s factors (1.430*TMT — 0.462*TUT + 0.032*TLS), the difference to Spencer’s factors in the graph below is much smaller than in the graph above:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fieMom2Vbn2hdQyR1AoD9IgJ6qViLEk0/view
Thus, the much higher STAR anomalies from 1981 till 1995 must have another origin.
Maybe someone knows.
*
For those who do not know yet that since UAH’s revision 6.0, the LT data no longer is made out of own microwave sensing but is a 100% average out of the MT, TP and LS sensing channels, please read:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
See 2.1 ‘LT Calculation’.
Alternatively NOAA/STAR might know what they are talking about as does UAH.
Blindsley H00d is opinionated to such an extent that he does not even realize that if he would be a 100% warmista, he would write exactly the contrary.
I am neither a coolista nor a warmista, Blindsley H00d, and simply show things how they are.
Nowhere have I rated UAH, NOAA STAR or RSS positively or negatively, simply because I lack the knowledge about what they do.
You, on the other hand, give them pluses or minuses according to your personal, ideological views and not on the basis of any knowledge that you, like me, lack.
Does NOAA/STAR know what they are talking about, or does UAH.
RLH, Both UAH and NOAA/STAR “adjust” the data using theoretical model calculations. RSS still uses the original UAH approach while removing data over the Antarctic, Greenland and high mountain regions. My view is that RSS is more likely to be correct than either UAH or that from NOAA/STAR, the latter exhibiting more influence from the surface. All three may be influenced by the reduction in Arctic summer sea-ice area, as sea-ice appears warmer than the open water which now is viewed.
why is that your view Swanson?
Because the RSS result is more directly connected to the actual data and excludes data from the Antarctic includes lots of input from the surface where the elevations can be as high as 4km. Both UAH and NOAA/STAR use theoretical equations to combine 3 channels compared to RSS which uses that from only one. Not to forget that RSS also produces another corrected TMT product, the “TTT”, which exhibits greater warming than the LT from UAH.
As I’ve pointed out many times, the UAH v6 equation is based on an assumed temperature profile which may not be appropriate for all seasons and latitudes, especially so over the Arctic in winter, where the Tropopause height is much lower.
what do you mean by theoretical model calculations? I agree that all models need validating or their output is only useful for measuring how out of sync the model is. So what are you talking about here?
Hunter wrote:
The calculations used to create the LT v6 equation.
Is that all you know that they were used by the LT v6 equation?
Seems prejudice doesn’t need much of an explanation.
Hunter, please decode your response for the rest of us.
What needs validating in the V6 equations?
Hunter still doesn’t know how the equation combining the three channels is derived so he wanders off into “validation” land. Is it “valid” to assume that the equation can be applied to all latitudes and seasons? Is it “valid” to ignore the effects of declining summer sea-ice on the retrievals? Inquiring minds want to know.
Where is Palmowski?
I miss a clear reference from him about the harsh temperatures North America is currently suffering from:
https://i.postimg.cc/jd5TPykz/Screenshot-2024-01-13-at-17-35-14-North-America-temperatures.png
Even -13 C in Vancouver!
Now, Robertson can tell us about real record cold in his corner, compared to his surreal claims about alleged record cold in last October, visible nowhere in his region.
Exactly ONE station reported an unsually low Tmin:
CA001103510 BC_HOLLYBURN_RIDGE____________ 1984 10 31 -14.0 (C)
CA001105658 BC_N_VANC_GROUSE_MTN_RESORT___ 1984 10 31 -11.5
CA001105658 BC_N_VANC_GROUSE_MTN_RESORT___ 2023 10 25 -9.0
CA001106180 BC_PITT_POLDER________________ 2003 10 31 -9.0
Grouse mountain’s station north of Vancouver is at ~ 1200 m altitude.
{ Of course: these stations exist only in my fantasy – let alone would NOAA use them. }
*
About 50 km south of Berlin, we currently enjoy +3 C, and had 0 C last night; no snow, no cold. Perfect, to say the least, after a few nights near -10.
Do not worry, Berlin will get snow before freezing.
Palmowski might mean this:
https://i.postimg.cc/TwGjCqbY/Screenshot-2024-01-13-at-21-59-02-2-weeks-of-snowy-frezing-near-Berlin.png
So much snow and ice! My goodness! What will become of us?
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
binny…”{ Of course: these stations exist only in my fantasy let alone would NOAA use them. }”
***
I have never claimed the stations don’t exist, I have claimed only that NOAA does not use most of them to create its temperature series.
NOAA admitted they use less that 1500 stations to compute surface temperatures.
Currently, the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is divided into two vortices.
https://i.ibb.co/8YJqjsb/gfs-z100-nh-f00-1.png
The low from over Svalbard drops into central Europe. It will bring snowfall and Arctic air.
https://i.ibb.co/dBcqJyC/mimictpw-europe-latest.gif
Temperatures in Athens
January 13 14 15 16 17
Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday
night 1 C 5 C 12 C 8 C 9 C
day 8 C 10 C 13 C 16 C 14 C
–
So it is best on Tuesday to go out shopping.
The temperature considered ideal for the human body is from 36.5 to 37 degrees Celsius;
The body, however, can adapt to extreme temperatures up to a certain degree. More than five million people die each year from extreme heat or cold.
I had imagined Athens as a balmy Mediterranean climate that is always warm. Your temps are not much different than ours in Vancouver, Canada.
Do you ever get Arctic air down as far as Athens?
Yes, we get Arctic air down as far as Athens. It is for short periods, few days at most.
The periods were colder and longer 40 years ago.
–
Yesterday it was cold and cloudy. The place I study had +14C +15C temperature.
Today is very strong sunshine outside. It is unbearable on naked skin.
Yet, it is still, where I am sitting now +14C +15C temperature.
Solar flux doesn’t get absorbed!!! It doesn’t get absorbed by the walls of my appartment!!!
Only when it penetrates thru the windows, it warms the inside. It is like a small greenhouse.
–
Another important observation:
Yesterday the roof solar heater of volume 200lt and 4 m2 solar panel, which is covered with glass (like a greenhouse) the water was very cold about 8 C
–
Today the water is very hot, it is about 70 C.
–
The outdoors air temperature now at 2:15 PM is +9 C.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for SpaceX Starlink unit
https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/us-agency-will-not-reinstate-900-mln-subsidy-spacex-starlink-unit-2023-12-13/
NOAA/STAR are incorrect but RSS is definitely correct!
I wrote above:
” Even -13 C in Vancouver!
Now, Robertson can tell us about real record cold in his corner… ”
*
But… I was of course kidding a bit. Simply because we should first have a look at historical daily lows:
CA001103510 BC_HOLLYBURN_RIDGE____________ 1968 12 29 -26.7 (C)
CA001103510 BC_HOLLYBURN_RIDGE____________ 1968 12 30 -26.1
CA001106180 BC_PITT_POLDER________________ 1969 1 23 -23.3
CA001103510 BC_HOLLYBURN_RIDGE____________ 1964 12 16 -22.8
CA001103510 BC_HOLLYBURN_RIDGE____________ 1968 12 31 -22.2
CA001105658 BC_N_VANC_GROUSE_MTN_RESORT___ 2011 2 26 -22.0
CA001012570 BC_DUNCAN_FORESTRY____________ 1968 12 30 -21.7
CA001103510 BC_HOLLYBURN_RIDGE____________ 1969 1 29 -21.7
Recording GHCN daily stations:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1npNOdMxZxHpweBzG0plDdyWRWKt943td/view
Hint: while Hollyburn Ridge is at 930 m and Grouse mountain at 1128 m, Pitt Polder is at 5 m!
Here is the monthly data processed out of the stations.
Absolute:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QRnWT8KyaBVg2ZaSQXdw7VcNcCz3L9TT/view
Anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LMSDw1x33P-JKIynVH63OuMAqfgfZMUo/view
Coldest month was January 1950, with on average -9.8 C Tmin and -2.8 C Tmax for the absolute temperatures.
During this January, daily temperatures were not lowest; but they were more continuously low, e.g.
CA001107710 BC_STEVESTON__________________ 1950 1 25 -19.4 (C)
CA001101890 BC_COQUITLAM_LAKE_____________ 1950 1 25 -18.9
CA001105550 BC_NEW_WESTMINSTER____________ 1950 1 14 -18.9
CA001107710 BC_STEVESTON__________________ 1950 1 18 -18.9
CA001107710 BC_STEVESTON__________________ 1950 1 28 -18.9
CA001107710 BC_STEVESTON__________________ 1950 1 31 -18.9
CA001107710 BC_STEVESTON__________________ 1950 1 4 -18.3
CA001101890 BC_COQUITLAM_LAKE_____________ 1950 1 30 -17.8
CA001101890 BC_COQUITLAM_LAKE_____________ 1950 1 3 -17.8
CA001105550 BC_NEW_WESTMINSTER____________ 1950 1 18 -17.8
What is autumn like in Berlin?
Grouse Mountain Lodge is at an altitude of 3800 feet while Vancouver Airport, where temperatures are taken is at sea level. The elevations you supply is not correct.
Hollyburn Ridge is at least 3000 feet…Hollyburn is also called Hollyburn Mountain, or CYpress Bowl. Looking north, you see Hollyburn on the left, Grouse Mountain in the middle, and Mount Seymour on the right. Whistler is to the left of Hollyburn but another 100 km or so inland. There are several mountains in between like Black Tusk and Garibaldi.
Of course, the entire area has mountain to the North, but you can’t see them at sea level. You need to drive inland (east) a bit.
https://mapcarta.com/24298172
Pitt Meadows is at 5 metres elevation but Pitt Polder is 15 km NNE of Pitt Meadows, it’s an eco-region in the mountains. By the time you hit Pitt Meadows, which is 55 km inland from Vancouver Airport, you are hitting colder temps, although not by a while lot. It can be 10C warmer at times in summer but not a whole lot colder in winter.
Steveston is at sea level, directly south of Vancouver Airport, and at the mouth of the south arm of the Fraser River where it enters the oceans through the Fraser River delta. New Westminster is a bit inland, east of the city of Burnaby. It too is on the Fraser River and I am wondering if the moister air contributes to the slightly lower temperatures.
I have said nothing about record cold here in Vancouver. It has gone as low as -18.3C at times. Vancouver ranges in altitude from sea level to 600 feet where Vancouver gives way, to the East, to the city of Burnaby. So, I am sure there are unrecorded record lows in the higher regions.
The point is, we’ve been close to that record low several times recently, in a city known for mild winter temperatures, in a climate that is allegedly warming. Having lived her for decades, I don’t think the climate has changed at all. The record low was set in 1968 but here we are 56 years later and still experiencing the same kind of cold.
That’s because the Arctic has not warmed, as claimed, and still sends that type of cold air south. It’s a lot colder in the Canadian Prairies and the central US region because they have no warmer Pacific air to mediate the cold air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Vancouver
The heavy frost in the US will not let up.
https://i.ibb.co/LCfR323/Zrzut-ekranu-2024-01-13-204716.png
Cold is the new hot!
Our Ice Age has been going on for about 34 million years.
Certainly it got colder around the the time, polar bears and humans evolved, couple million years ago. But Earth for very long time, has been cold.
A problem with spacefaring is that human adapt to microgravity, and we don’t know how well other life on Earth adapt to microgravity.
likewise, humans have adapted to living in a cold world.
Humans very adaptable, but it seems they less adaptable to communism, which is a good sign.
Tucker Carlson / Dr Willie Soon Climate Change Interview
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/10/tucker-carlson-dr-willie-soon-climate-change-interview/
Please note the caveat at the end of this essay Anthony
“CAVEAT: While there is certainly the possibility that hydrocarbons originated elsewhere and methane and oil could have dual origins of their base components, there isnt a clear and compelling case for the formation of abiotic oil.
Methane formation from base components seems far more plausible, because it is a simpler process.
This overview below provides a simplified comparison of the two theories (organic based vs abiotic), and the subject is much more complex and nuanced in scientific literature. Both Anthony and Charles contributed to this caveat.”
Hmm, if explore Mars, maybe we will find crude oil.
Perhaps it best reason to explore Mars, not because it would be valuable on Mars. But if find oil, then it means life on Mars or oil doesn’t need life to form.
Anyhow this argument has been going on for quite a long time, and doing crew mars exploration might fastest pathway to end the argument.
Or drilling deep into Earth is far too hard and would very expensive.
gb…” if explore Mars, maybe we will find crude oil…”
***
It would be tough building a pipeline.
Mars has more CO2 in it’s atmosphere than Earth’s got in it’s atmosphere, but eventually, a Mars civilization would run out of CO2 in the atmosphere {and in general have shortage of carbon} this particular the case if Mars is breadbasket of a spacefaring civilization with far more people not living on Mars as compared to number living in Mars.
Crude oil on Mars could allow more people living on Mars and more export of foodstuff to rest of solar system.
And Hydrogen is also useful.
Oh, but, also have find a lot nitrogen, though you got enough in Mars atmosphere- unless, one is exporting a lot food.
Anyways, crude oil gives you plastics, and I was always thinking of planet which wouldn’t have much of an abundance of plastics- as Earth does.
Why the faster rotation makes the Earth warmer?
Because the faster rotating planet absorbs more solar energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If you have a land surface, ocean doesn’t care much.
Or effectively with having 70 percent ocean surface, you are effectively having a faster rotation.
Of course Venus doesn’t have ocean, it’s got massive atmosphere and it rotates. If Venus was at Earth distance it’s atmosphere would rotate slower.
And be colder than Earth is.
christos…if the Earth had no atmosphere or oceans, but rotated at the same speed, would it be the same temperature as the Moon?
test
If the Earth had no atmosphere or oceans?
Thank you for the good question.
christosif the Earth had no atmosphere or oceans, but rotated at the same speed, would it be the same temperature as the Moon?
For Earth without atmosphere the (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ = 3,5
For Earth without atmosphere and ocean
the (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ = 2,26
like Mars, because Mars rotates almost the same as Earth.
Earths Tmean =288K
Lets calculate:
(288K)^4 = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )
[( 6.879.707.136 ) /3,5 ] * 2,26 = 4.442.325.179
Earths without ocean Tmean = (4.442.325.179)^1/4 =258K
Moons Tmean =220K
Thank you again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, faster rotation makes the Earth warmer because faster rotation evens out the temperature. it has to do with T^4 dependence of thermal radiation.
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
“faster rotation makes the Earth warmer because faster rotation evens out the temperature. it has to do with T^4 dependence of thermal radiation.”
–
That is exactly what I thought about the Tmean =288K, when I saw the CO2 trace gas content in Earth’s atmosphere was too small to affect the greenhouse effect.
–
Yes, faster rotation makes planet’s surface temperature (for Earth and other planets), faster rotation makes the surface temperature less differentiated.
Only the faster rotation doesn’t “evens out the temperature”.
–
The faster rotation makes the surface to absorb more solar energy, because there are many more absorbtion cycles (many more diurnal cycles) so less IR energy is re-emitted during the each solar lit daytime.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Also, what I have shown in my research, is that a solar EM energy doesn’t get absorbed in the inner layers. The incident SW solar energy interacts with planet surface matter; only a small portion of the incident solar energy gets absorbed.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim,
“Neither the rotation rate nor the emitted IR impacts this calculation.”
–
It is a mathematical calculation.
“The absorbed solar energy is (solar constant)*(cross-sectional area)*(1-albedo).”
–
The incident solar flux doesn’t interact with a cycle =(cross-sectional area), solar flux interacts with a hemisphere.
When the sphere is smooth (like Earth is) there is a strong specular reflection too.
–
Solar flux is EM energy. EM energy doesn’t get in the matter. EM energy interacts with matter.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“there is a strong specular reflection too.”
That should already be included in albedo.
Tim,
“there is a strong specular reflection too.
That should already be included in albedo.”
–
It was supposed to, but it is not.
So you say, Christos.
At this point you’re supposed to branch to planet smoothness.
The absorbed solar energy is (solar constant)*(cross-sectional area)*(1-albedo).
Neither the rotation rate nor the emitted IR impacts this calculation.
Ooops!
Wrong place…
Tim,
“No, faster rotation makes the Earth warmer because faster rotation evens out the temperature. it has to do with T^4 dependence of thermal radiation.”
–
Correction:
Yes, faster rotation makes planets surface temperature (for Earth and other planets), faster rotation makes the surface temperature less differentiated.
Only the faster rotation doesnt evens out the temperature.
–
Yes, the faster rotation evens out the temperature.
–
Thank you.
It warmed up here in Vancouver, Canada…it’s only -10C. Hopefully, we will be ice-free in a week, but the Arctic won’t be ice-free even in 6 months during their one-month summer.
wee willy…”Last six months in the Arctic:
+0.26
+1.16
+0.92
+1.13
+1.54
+0.91
Cf. the top of this page”.
***
Wee willy, those are anomalies, which are deviations from an average temperature, for that region, calculated over 30 years. Even at that, you likely got the info from the UAH temperature anomalies and those change location regularly.
If you are trying to be funny, try to understand that humour does not translate well via the Net. If you get it, please try to explain anomalies to Binny. He has great difficulty grasping the concept, even though NOAA has explained it well.
Take the first anomaly, 0.26 C. That means, in that region of the Arctic the temperatures were 0.26C above the average for that region. So, if the 30 year average was -50C, the current average is -49.47C.
Please do pay attention. Only a strange duck or a mad polar bear would claim that as warming.
Bordo,
In the last few days you were confused about spherical geometry, continuity, entropy, heat transfer, and so many other things it is hard to keep track.
Your latest blunder was to conflate measurand with measurement. And now you’re trying to ridicule the idea that energy moves around in our climate system.
Instead of acting like a patronizing asshat, think about how much energy this anomaly translates into. The Arctic is 16,500,000 km^2. BC is not 1M km^2. That’s lots of energy right there!
After all, this is why we have weather channels:
Weather does not happen by magic. The cold you get comes from somewhere. And that cold moves: the Arctic is not a cold copycat machine. At least as long as the anomalies are positive!
Good night.
Forgot the link:
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/news/weather/forecasts/heads-up-canada-the-coldest-air-on-earth-is-sinking-south
Check the image!
Willard, please stop trolling.
tim f…”I have never seen someone misunderstand natural units to quite such a degree!
Time is not derived from the rotation of the earth! The unit for time that people choose to use (the second) is derived from the rotation of the earth. HUGE difference!
The whole point of natural units is that they relate to UNIVERSAL constants not to terrestrial coincidences like the time it takes the earth to turn or the abundance of liquid H2O on the surface”.
***
No, Tim, I mean, time has no physical existence. It’s not there anywhere in the universe except in the minds of humans.
There is no past and future except what resides in your memory. We cannot travel through time for the simple reason there is no such dimension through which we can travel, yet Einstein’s relativity theory is closely related to time as a 4th dimension.
You claim above that time is not derived from the rotation of the Earth but the basic unit of time, the second, is derived from the rotation of the Earth. That makes no sense, It appears you are claiming that the human-derived second is a measure of ‘a time’ that no one can find or explain other than via vague inferences.
Look at the history of clocks. Going back to the simple sundial, all they did was track the relative position of the Sun in the sky. They were no good at night. Then water clocks were invented but they measured nothing related to time. Even modern clocks measure only the rotational period of the Earth.
Atomic clocks are based on the transition of electrons in the Cesium atom. Nothing to do with time. Their function is to act as a very accurate maintainer of the second which is derived from the rotation of the Earth.
There is no clock that measures time. A clock is a machine that is run by various means and synchronized to the rotation of the Earth.
Humans talk about an arrow of time but there is nothing upon which to base the arrow. It can have no units unless you steal the second derived from the rotation of the Earth. It’s a concept that has validity only in human thought.
Our long-term time reference is broken into the time before Jesus and the time after Jesus. So, consider Jerusalem in the times of Jesus. What has changed physically since then? People have been born and people have died. Buildings have been constructed and buildings have been torn down. Mountains have eroded slightly and rivers have eroded their beds.
Where is this thing you call time? If you consider the 2000+ years since Jesus there has been no such thing as a temporal change. Based on the only reality, here-and-now, we are in exactly the same space as Jesus.
What’s a universal constant? We have pi, which is the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference. Maybe the gravitational constant but we have no idea if gravity on Earth or in our solar system is constant throughout the entire universe.
Are you claiming that time is a universal constant?
> Atomic clocks are based on the transition of electrons in the Cesium atom. Nothing to do with time.
Once more, for the peanut gallery:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
192631770 vibrations of the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom =df one second
Willard
Petite correction
1. From your own link
” Definition of the second
In 1968, the duration of the second was defined to be 9192631770 vibrations of the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom. ”
2. From the German Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt
https://www.ptb.de/cms/en/ptb/fachabteilungen/abt4/fb-44/fragenzurzeit/fragenzurzeit13.html
” Per definition, after 9 192 631 770 periods of the microwave field one second has elapsed. ”
*
What people like Robertson are completely unaware of:
– development beyond microwave caesium fountains
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock#Optical_clocks
and above all,
– the International Atomic Time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
Thanks, Binny. You’re right. My old mouse is acting weird.
If you don’t even admit that time exists, then how can you possibly think it can be measured with clocks? You’ve got some weird metaphysics!
It seems timelessness is the realm of God.
And it was made give order and a non reversible direction.
So, can we time travel?
It seems according to torah, yes.
God is above nature, humans were meant to be above nature,
but it wasn’t going to be easy for godlike creation that we call
humans.
That could explain why there is no space aliens.
Star travel is very hard to do, and apparently and currently
there are no other stars close to us.
But in the past [long, long time ago] there were stars close to us.
And in the distant future there will stars closer to us.
But then again, space faring civilizations, probably don’t need to live anywhere near stars. And once we get big enough telescopes {which is fast approaching] we get a better idea of what in our solar system, beyond Pluto, and the bodies [“planets”} between the stars.
Anyway I have various answers to Fermi paradox, and one is our solar system is not a good solar system for star traveler.
And it will take a lot work to make it into solar system which is good solar system for star travelers.
tim f…”If you dont even admit that time exists, then how can you possibly think it can be measured with clocks?”
***
I have stated several times that clocks do NOT measure time, they generate time. There is nothing there to measure. Instead, clocks are machines that rotate and are synchronized to the rotation of the Earth. As such, they represent proxies for angular speed and not a mysterious time.
> clocks do NOT measure time, they generate time.
So if I have two clocks, do I have twice more time?
In your case, it’s a serious question.
“So if I have two clocks, do I have twice more time?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Not the magic word, Mike Flynn.
Try again.
“Not the magic word, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
More than 8 hours, Mike Flynn.
Make an effort.
Do rulers generate distance?
Do thermometers generate temperature?
Do speedometers generate velocity?
Do ammeters generate current?
Do scales generate mass?
I suppose the idea that devices “generate” the quantities, rather than just “measuring” them is one possible metaphysical view of the universe. It just doesn’t seem very satisfying or productive to say that nothing is ‘real’, that nothing exists outside of human measurement.
“I have stated several times that clocks do NOT measure time, they generate time.”
Do rulers generate distance?
Do thermometers generate temperature?
Do ammeters generate current?
Do speedometers generate speed?
I will agree that clocks and calendars ‘generate’ the *numbers* that we *assign* to time. But it is a very strange metaphysical stance to say that the very concept of time (or distance or mass or charge) doesn’t exist without a human device to measure it.
Dang — the comment that didn’t appear suddenly appeared, so we have a duplicate.
wee willy…the point you are missing re atomic clocks is this. The so-called time base in atomic transitions is related to electrostatic forces within the cesium atom, not to time. In fact, the period of the transitions must be adjusted, by a factor of at least a million, to meet the length of our second, which was defined based on the rotation of the Earth.
The only advantage of a cesium clock is its fine regularity. The Earth’s rotational speed changes slightly and I presume they wanted something as a timebase that would not change as much.
Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock, points out that errors do occur within atomic clocks, small as they are. Therefore, if the Earth does change its angular speed enough to no longer represent the second, we will be in trouble if atomic clocks begin losing time as well.
Bordo…the point you are missing is that the concept of systematic error depends on the distinction between how we measure and what we measure.
It’d be odd to inexactly measure something that does not exist, don’t you think?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“The only advantage of a cesium clock is its fine regularity.”
Its hard to see how you can know it is regular in time, without knowing that time exists!
This time Gordon is on to something. We do not exactly measure time. Most clocks display the result of some action that occurs at a known rate. The clock has to do something that is then observed. One exception might be a digital clock running on alternating current and then effectively counting the frequency cycles, but that depends on the alternating current being manufactured at a power plant.
“The clock has to do something that is then observed.”
No different from many other measurements.
For example: temperature, pressure, etc are inferred from changes observed occurring in a substance or a device.
Actually it is different. Other measurements are looking at the state of something at that time. Temperature and pressure do not have to change for the device to indicate the current condition. With the possible exception of a stop watch, a clock is measuring the change in some effect generated by the clock.
Here is another source of the greenhouse effect I have never seen discussed.
The earth disk that absor.bs sunlight is about 40,680,000sqkm.
The atmosphere is believed to be 1000km thick thus
The earth climate system disk is about 54,436,000 sqkm
That is 34% larger than the earth disk used for climate studies. Indeed the atmosphere is thin at 1000km and only absorbs uv which causes the thermosphere to be so warm but what does that mean in terms of a ”virtual” surface?
Seems to me the IPCC should look into this sd the moment the sun rays come off the earth disk, which is the point where the atmosphere is the thickest wrt to sunshine, that distance instantly doubles then depletes to nothing at 1000km away from the earth.
Since allegedly 78w/m2 is absorbed by the atmosphere how much more is absorbed by the fringe atmosphere that makes up 34% of the earth climate system disk?
the area figures above are good for ratios but should be multiplied by pi for actual sq km
I would guess the solar wind heats the very thin atmosphere more than
sunlight {with it’s X-rays and UV light}.
Ie: Solar wind
speed: 355.5 km/sec
density: 4.89 protons/cm3
Mainly due to volume rather than the cross section.
100 x 100 x 100 is: 1000000 x 4.89 is 4,890,000 protons per cubic meter at 355.5 km/sec {793476 mph} going thru “many” many cubic meters of the upper atmosphere.
Of course it doesn’t cause molecules of air to go at escape velocity. But our thermosphere can and does get hotter with causing molecules to escape, At moment it’s barely called warm:
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.24×10-10 W Warm
Hot is 5 times hotter and that increases it’s diameter and cause more drag to things in orbit. No reports I know of, of it causes more gases leaving Earth.
what are you using for a source?
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Right now, solar wind:
Solar wind
speed: 336.5 km/sec
density: 3.32 protons/cm3
Which btw, is fairly low.
bill…the IPCC has no interest in reviewing papers that do not support the anthropogenic theory.
By greenhouse effect, I am guessing you mean an effect similar to a real greenhoue effect. That is, one that produces warming above and beyond what the atmosphere ‘should’ produce from solar radiant energy alone.
Yes I agree Gordon. The UN is like any other institution doing everything it can to be relevant.
Like the way the FAA is handling the Boeing investigation of locking bolts missing from the door plug. It seems obvious some duffus either forgot to put the bolts in (most likely) or he forgot to put the cotter pins in to lock the nuts. The jets should simply be inspected and then cleared to fly. If the FAA suspects some systemic problems then investigate that and deal with any other findings.
the secret of good government is give them more relevant work then they can handle rather than giving them people whose job is to find work.
For those who are interested in absolute UAH data
UAH’s 2.5 degree grid for the four atmospheric layers has been updated on Jan 10. The grid time series now includes December 2023, here LT (the lower troposphere):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jzo5nyJM2nFfVk05mAkOD-kX7GX2v0e6/view
*
Source for LT
In the directory
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
all monthly anomaly files from tltmonamg.1978_6.0 till tltmonamg.2023_6.0
plus
the LT climatology file tltmonacg_6.0 which contains the grid baseline for the reference period 1991-2020.
*
The absolute data for any of the four layers is constructed by adding to each monthly data grid cell the value of the climatology grid cell with the same cell offset in the same month.
Nota bene: all data files and the climatology file contain lots of ‘-9999’ values at their begin resp. end.
This is due to the fact that unlike UAH’s revision 5.6, the three bottommost resp. topmost latitude bands don’t contain data anywhere, which is restricted to 82.5S – 82.5N.
*
The baseline’s monthly averages for LT are as follows:
Mon : Kelvin | Celsius
Jan: 263.180 | -9.97
Feb: 263.269 | -9.88
Mar: 263.428 | -9.72
Apr: 263.843 | -9.31
Mai: 264.449 | -8.70
Jun: 265.099 | -8.05
Jul: 265.419 | -7.73
Aug: 265.234 | -7.92
Sep: 264.638 | -8.51
Oct: 263.946 | -9.20
Nov: 263.407 | -9.74
Dec: 263.191 | -9.96
*
The annual cycle (the seasonal ups and downs in the chart above) which was removed during anomaly construction now is back again; hence, the red 13 month running mean might look a bit strange when compared to the running mean in Roy Spencer’s anomaly chart:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
Blinny now uses 13/11/8 instead of the reasonable 12/10/8 for yearly summations. Of course the year is 13 months long isn’t it?
Here is UAH Global figures for Dec 2023 with each data point calculated to the nearest day of the year for mean and median 12 month low pass data.
Sorry, forgot the data url.
Here is UAH Global figures for Dec 2023 with each data point calculated to the nearest day of the year for mean and median 12 month low pass data.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2024/01/uah-global.jpeg
Blindsley H00d
As usual, you show off with your egomaniacal stuff, instead of trying to contribute to the discussion.
No one is interested in your 12 month mania.
What matters here is ONLY how a 13 month cascaded running mean behaves to a simple 13 month running mean as shown by Roy Spencer, and NOTHING else.
Did you ever see Roy Spencer posting a UAH graph with a 12 month running mean?
No you didn’t, and hence you should refrain from putting your whims all the time in front of everything.
Now Blinny claims that 13 months make a year! If you place things on a day of the year basis then you can also use 12 months as a filter instead.
And the very best here is that once more, Blindsley H00d is opinionated to such an extent that he did not spend a second to discover why the C3RM is present in this graph.
I assume that you agreed that C3RM is a better solution.
” I assume that you agreed that C3RM is a better solution. ”
#2:
And the very best here is that once more, Blindsley H00d is opinionated to such an extent that he did not spend a second to discover why the C3RM is present in this graph.
Because Blinny agrees that C3RM is better than running simple means. QED. Now to get him to agree than a year has only 12 months.
#3:
And the very best here is that once more, Blindsley H00d STILL is opinionated to such an extent that he did not spend a second to discover why the C3RM is present in this graph.
*
” Because Blinny agrees that C3RM is better than running simple means. ”
Of course, no, and Blindsley H00d still did not look at all relevant positions in the graph. Otherwise he would understand what I mean.
*
This persistent insisting on what is irrelevant becomes more and more afflicting, as Roy Spencer and I we don’t use simple running means as data sources, but only want to show a convenient path through a time series telling a bit more to readers than does a bloody linear trend.
*
And Blindsley H00d of course very certainly never uses cascaded running means as data source!
Otherwise he would himself have had to understand that a 60 month cascaded triple running mean, composed out of three consecutive running means (60, 50, 39 months) has the same dataless window as a simple 149 month running mean, what is 100% disturbing.
*
By the way, I wrote last year a mail to Vaughan Pratt to ask him what he means about Richard Linsley Hood and his pathological fixation on CRMs.
StanU Emeritus Pratt answered that he had abandoned this CRM stuff years ago because it was of much less help in his work than he thought, and didn’t react on Blindsley H00d’s behavior at all.
*
But we can be sure that Blindsley H00d will endlessly continue to stalk me with his personal, over and over opinionated fixations, instead of trying to meaningfully contribute to the discussions.
What has the width of a data window to do with its filtering characteristic?
How does gaussian response effect the accuracy of that response?
P.S. VP has never said he refutes what he said about simple running means.
MY PROJECT TO USE ENVIRONMENTALISTS TO DESTROY THE IRRIGATION NETWORK THAT MAKES CALIFORNIA HABITABLE PROCEEDS APACE: The largest US dam-removal effort to date has begun.
Eventually the only alternative will either be to evacuate California, or to build nuclear-powered desalination plants.
Posted at 2:30 pm by Glenn Reynolds
https://instapundit.com/
Link: https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/the-largest-us-dam-removal-effort-to-date-has-begun/
Well could also make freshwater in ocean settlements- using solar ponds:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/solar-pond
Climate boogie man Scary Kerry out of the climate children frightening job
https://youtu.be/BmbUNJKdN3M
From what I have sen of Scary Kerry, it appears obvious that he is mentally challenged. I think he has likely watched Al Gore get wealthy preaching climate alarm and wants in on the cash flow.
Willard,
“Indeed. And youre trying to minimize the fact that only 5C separates us from an ice age.”
A 5C increase or decrease is a physically meaningless figure. A central tendency will never be able to accurately represent a non-linear, chaotic system. For instance, a daily average of 30.5F may be a high of 36F and a low of 25F, while another day with an average of 31.5F could have a high of 34F and a low of 29F. Yet, the latter day is considered warmer by an average of about 0.6C. That is silly nonsense, and a violation of the Central Limit Theorem in the real world. What happens when you average 30 or 31 central tendencies together, each of which can represent a variety of different days? If a central tendency is incapable of accurately representing the weather for a single day in one tiny square that constitutes 0.00000000009% of the Earth’s surface, why would it be able to represent the Earth’s weather as a whole?
GIGO
Walter,
A 5C increase or decrease is a physically figure full of meaning to those who are not cranks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20191021_Temperature_from_20,000_to_10,000_years_ago_-_recovery_from_ice_age.png
Being a crank is a choice.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
You are a panda. Why didn’t you attempt to rebut any of what I said?
There’s no need to rebut irrelevant nonsense, Walter.
You need to try harder if you want to succeed in peddling your pet topic every where you go.
Willard,
That’s difficult to argue if you yourself couldn’t muster a meaningful response.
There’s nothing very difficult in making a rational argument, Walter. It’s just not your bag. I spent a year or two with Richard here on various statistical concepts and won’t repeat the experience. The point I was making about the 5C that separates us from an ice age is that the “from -40 to -37,74 ahahah” is kinda silly. For that purpose, that figure is more than good enough.
Your verbiage has nothing to do with it.
When anomalies keep swinging on the same side, they can’t be confused with natural variability anymore anyway.
> -37,74 ahahah
To keep with the quarter of a C, I should have written “39.74.”
Next time, Bordo and Kennui ought to try Kelvins instead.
Willard, please stop trolling.
walter…that’s wee willy’s MO and is often the MO of alarmists, who have no scientific response. They mutter incoherently and think that will suffice.
“When anomalies keep swinging on the same side, they cant be confused with natural variability anymore anyway.”
An upward trend could occur solely due to draw of the baseline averages, and when the anomalies move in a pattern not consistent with a persistent force, it does matter. The rate of increase is also slower in the second half of the record than in the first. After each major El Nio, a pause occurs; in 1982-83, the volcano eruption offset that influence, but the same step-up phenomenon occurred then too.
wee willy…”When anomalies keep swinging on the same side, they cant be confused with natural variability anymore anyway”.
***
We are recovering from a mini ice age that ended circa 1850. Syun Akasofu thinks we should recover at about 0.5C/century. There is simply not enough in that recovery to suggest a catastrophic outcome.
That recovery is perfectly logical. What is not logical is presuming it is caused by a trace gas. There is zero evidence that a trace gas has anything to do with this.
> An upward trend could occur solely due to draw of the baseline average
And redrawing of the baseline average occurs because…?
> What is not logical is presuming it is caused by a trace gas.
It’s not a presumption, Bordo, and without that trace gas there would not be any life on Earth.
No need to blather incoherently to suck up to Walter, you know.
“And redrawing of the baseline average occurs because..”
Can you please elaborate on this question? What are you asking?
It’s difficult to know where your reasoning is at fault since all you do is arguing by assertion, Walter. You said that “an upward trend could occur solely due to draw of the baseline averages.” That’s not quite correct. One just has to recall how a baseline depends on its underlying data. Hence the question.
Besides, don’t imagine that you can call me names and ask me for room service.
“Besides, dont imagine that you can call me names and ask me for room service.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
That’s not how we PST, Mike Flynn.
8 errors to go.
Actually, I like the quotes. Shows what part of the comment Swenson is objecting to. Please continue, Swenson.
“Thats not how we PST, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
These are not the magic words, Mike Flynn.
“Its difficult to know where your reasoning is at fault since all you do is arguing by assertion”
Does this look like arguing by assertion, Willard?:
“For instance, a daily average of 30.5F may be a high of 36F and a low of 25F, while another day with an average of 31.5F could have a high of 34F and a low of 29F. Yet, the latter day is considered warmer by an average of about 0.6C.”
“One just has to recall how a baseline depends on its underlying data.”
Maybe initially, when the first averages are computed. The 1970s, for example, had many longer and more extreme episodes of harsh cold. Averages are highly sensitive to extreme events. If those cold episodes did not occur, and we used the 1970s decade as our baseline, the trend would likely be different. However, in the end, these extremes get averaged in with thousands of other central tendencies, all of which can represent very different days, as I showed. While extremes play a role, the luck of the draw of averaged noise in regions with their typical, non-extraordinary weather will also significantly influence the baseline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_wave_of_1978
“Its difficult to know where your reasoning is at fault since all you do is arguing by assertion, Walter.”
This is arguing by assertion, Willard?:
“For instance, a daily average of 30.5F may be a high of 36F and a low of 25F, while another day with an average of 31.5F could have a high of 34F and a low of 29F. Yet, the latter day is considered warmer by an average of about 0.6C. “
Yes, Walter. It does. You’re not supporting your claim, you’re explicating it! But you’re right – it’s also what I’m tempted to call an argument by confusion.
The 5C I’m talking about is on a very different timescale than day-to-day variation. The daily noise gets cancelled out on longer terms. If we get to 5C in a few decades, the speed of the warming may very well be unprecedented. And if we keep on that pace, this could take a century, give or take a few decades.
“But but but in the absolute 5C is smol” is completely beside that point.
The S&P swings between -1% and 1% regularly. When it loses more than 10% in less than a week, we feel it. So far, it always got its losses back. Therefore we can say that the S&P has mean-reversion properties within a long-term uptrend. This upward trend isn’t caused by any kind of normalisation. It’s just how the markets roll.
This concludes the only sammich I’m willing to serve you for free. The other ones come at a cost.
Enjoy!
“This concludes the only sammich Im willing to serve you for free. The other ones come at a cost.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
You almost got the job, Mike Flynn.
Perhaps next time?
Maybe at first, when the first averages are computed. The 1970s, for example, had many longer and more extreme episodes of harsh cold. Averages are very sensitive to extreme events. If those cold episodes did not occur, and the 1970s decade was used as our baseline, the trend would probably be different. However, in the end, these extremes get averaged in with thousands of other central tendencies, all of which can represent very different days, as I showed. While extremes play a role, the luck of the draw of averaged noise in regions with their non-extraordinary weather will also significantly influence the baseline.
> thousands of other central tendencies
No idea why you speak of a statistical concept in the plural, Walter.
Any event E tends to be cancelled out by its opposite. If E is extreme, there ought to be a -E somewhere. When your E stands out, you have two choices: either you reject it as an outlier, or you use it as a signal.
When E is the very thing you are studying, it’d be silly to eliminate it.
When E is the very thing contrarians and cranks seek to minimize or deny, it’s more than normal (pun intended) that they wish it away.
Climateball ought to be simple. You’re rediscovering medians and means. Give it time.
“No idea why you speak of a statistical concept in the plural, Walter.”
In the context of temperature data, each daily average serves as a central tendency for that specific day and location. There are numerous daily averages across various weather stations or grids, each forming a distinct central tendency.
“Any event E tends to be cancelled out by its opposite. If E is extreme, there ought to be a -E somewhere. When your E stands out, you have two choices: either you reject it as an outlier, or you use it as a signal.”
The climate system is non-linear. Climate phenomena can exhibit asymmetrical responses to extreme events unlike other statistical principles whether extremes are symmetrical to their opposites. For example, an intense heatwave might not be perfectly offset by an equivalent cold event, and the impacts can linger or propagate differently through the system.
“When E is the very thing you are studying, itd be silly to eliminate it.”
You cannot effectively study the unique characteristics of a specific weather event (denoted as ‘E’) if it gets averaged with other noise. For instance, if a cold front arrives late at night within a 24-hour observation period characterized by otherwise ‘typical’ weather, the recorded minimum temperature during the cold front episode would be averaged with the recorded maximum temperature from the afternoon, representing the ‘typical’ weather conditions.
> In the context of temperature data, each daily average serves as a central tendency for that specific day and location.
OK. You must be referring to a measure of central tendency:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/understanding-statistics/statistical-terms-and-concepts/measures-central-tendency
(Emphasis added to prevent an old discussion to creep in.)
Central tendency itself is a statistical property according to which a distribution can be described (or has) at least once central location. There are of course distributions that has no such thing, and distributions that have many locations.
Most realistic data set has many locations. In that case, the more the merrier. If you are looking for a specific model of a used car, you not only want to know the average price on the website, you also want the median. And if you want to sell one, the mode will help you find at which price most buyers find sellers.
> The climate system is non-linear.
Yes, and everything I said accounts for that fact. Statistics deals with the largest range of possible outcomes imaginable.
As an aside, assuming linearity only attenuates the climate response. I certainly don’t mind that you insist that our current models ought to consider that the warming accelerates instead.
Perhaps contrarians ought to beware their wishes from time to time.
“Perhaps contrarians ought to beware their wishes from time to time.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Notation is power, Mike Flynn.
“https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/understanding-statistics/statistical-terms-and-concepts/measures-central-tendency”
Willard,
In the “Limitations of the mean” section, it explicitly states, “As the mean includes every value in the distribution, the mean is influenced by outliers and skewed distributions.” This aligns seamlessly with my argument, asserting that all measures, including the means\, are susceptible to the influence of outliers, leading to skewed distributions. In the dynamic and intensive context of weather, especially concerning temperature, numerous external factors contribute to the temperature at a given time. These individual outliers aren’t confined to specific weather stations or grids but are present across ALL weather stations or grids. That’s the problem – you’re wrong when you say:
“Most realistic data set has many locations. In that case, the more the merrier.”
“Yes, and everything I said accounts for that fact.”
No, it doesn’t. You just attempted to draw an analogy between analyzing long term temperature data and cars.
The Law of Uncertainty:
Level of uncertainty is always positively correlated to personal liability and inversely correlated to personal income.
> You just attempted to draw an analogy between analyzing long term temperature data and cars.
Car markets, Walter. Markets are notoriously noisy. They’re basically random walks.
And no – your conclusion does not follow from what everybody knows about means. You just think that climate scientists are dummies. Outliers are only outliers when they’re not part of the signal.
no willard. climate scientists aren’t dummies. only some climate scientists are dummies, and some climate scientists are corrupt, etc. just as seen in the general population.
Why is Gill still trying to deflect toward his pet topic?
“Car markets, Walter. Markets are notoriously noisy. Theyre basically random walks.
And no your conclusion does not follow from what everybody knows about means. You just think that climate scientists are dummies. Outliers are only outliers when theyre not part of the signal.”
Willard,
I’m not arguing the case of imperfect correlation here. There is rarely a complete deterministic and linear relationship between variables in the real world. I’m referring to the non-linearity of the climate system, making it impossible to fit it into a simplistic statistical model in the first place. Every single measurement is influenced by outliers that are not only not random but also interactive with each other in dynamic ways.
Also, I’m confused when you refer to “random walks” because just below, you were talking about systematic error, which, as you pointed out, doesn’t cancel out when averaging; hence, the need to correct for it.
Walter,
The climate has a deterministic part and a stochastic part. That’s why climate scientists model it that way. You can argue that it’s random walks all the way down all you want. Physics is physics.
To return to outliers, consider extreme events. It would be silly to filter them out, yet that’s what those who keep mindlessly harping about “robust statistics” would suggest. In that case, using weighted averages could make more sense than a median, which is unweighted. The fact that extreme events increase the mean *is* significant!
“The climate has a deterministic part and a stochastic part.”
But you can’t isolate and quantify them. You, yourself, said that you need to correct it before averaging.
“To return to outliers, consider extreme events. It would be silly to filter them out, yet thats what those who keep mindlessly harping about robust statistics would suggest. In that case, using weighted averages could make more sense than a median, which is unweighted. The fact that extreme events increase the mean *is* significant!”
Doesn’t every measurement’s context inherently involve outliers? Consider a weather station in Northeast Brazil, situated on a beach close to the Amazon Rainforest, amid a network of 1,000 stations worldwide. The temperature at this specific location is influenced by numerous external factors, each considered an outlier. For instance, the Brazil current, flowing southward along the coastline, can elevate coastal temperatures by bringing warm water closer to the shore. The nearby rainforest, characterized by consistently high temperatures and humidity, further contributes to elevated humidity levels.
Now, contrast this with a station on the Mongolian Plateau. Its high altitude plays a role; as elevation increases, air pressure decreases, resulting in lower temperatures. The specific elevation determines the relative height or depth concerning sea level. Being landlocked, there’s no moderating influence from a nearby large body of water. Consequently, the region experiences more significant temperature variations between day and night, as well as across different timescales such as days, months, and years. During winter, the Siberian High introduces cold and dry airdistinct variables impacting measurementsfrom Siberia. Additionally, the station’s geomorphology, whether located in a sheltered valley or exposed highlands, can lead to varying temperature patterns.
The weight assigned to one average compared to another is indeterminableyou can only make assumptions. Hence, creating a weighted average becomes an arbitrary statistical exercise.
> But you cant isolate and quantify them
Oracular denial is basically what powers every single contrarian here.
***
> The weight assigned to one average compared to another is indeterminableyou can only make assumptions.
And this is just nonsense.
” As the mean includes every value in the distribution, the mean is influenced by outliers and skewed distributions.”
Walter, this is only a problem for some contexts, such as when we want to know what a typical income is, and with a small number of huge incomes, the mean will be skewed very high. So we use median in that case.
But in the context of climate, I would argue that we are interested in knowing what is the total thermal energy available in the system.
If so, then we don’t want to neglect outliers, which are genuine signal. They are part of the total thermal energy available in the system, which will get redistributed daily
Then we need to use the mean, and it is meaningful.
Willard,
“Oracular denial is basically what powers every single contrarian here.”
-Explain my “oracular denial.”
“> The weight assigned to one average compared to another is indeterminableyou can only make assumptions.
And this is just nonsense.”
Provide me an example of how a weighted average is used. In your example, use a specific region.
nate says:But in the context of climate, I would argue that we are interested in knowing what is the total thermal energy available in the system.
———————–
lmao! well in that case surface temperature doesn’t even come close no matter what statistical average you use, not to even speak of the issue of huge non-representation of the surface sampling program.
Nate,
How can a measurement (*not temperature*) capture the total thermal energy available in the system if we can’t isolate the total thermal energy from the noise in the measurement in the first place? The morning measurement for the day has its own outliers that are all statistically inseparable from each other, and yet that gets averaged with the afternoon measurement (with the same dilemma). The signal is the climate itself; it is the inseparable systematic error.
And Bill Hunter brings up another good point: the huge non-representation of the surface sampling problem. All weather stations at the near surface monitor the weather in that small area; near that river, near that highway, near those trees. Measurement uncertainty associated with the instrumentation is yet another big factor.
> Provide me
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Provide+me+an+example+of+how+a+weighted+average+is+used.
“lmao! well in that case surface temperature doesnt even come close no matter what statistical average you use,”
Strawman. Climate scientists understand that more than 90% of the thermal energy is sored in the ocean.
“How can a measurement (*not temperature*) capture the total thermal energy available in the system if we cant isolate the total thermal energy from the noise in the measurement in the first place?”
I dont know what you mean. All measurements have noise. Yet we do them and find useful information.
“The morning measurement for the day has its own outliers that are all statistically inseparable from each other, and yet that gets averaged with the afternoon measurement (with the same dilemma). The signal is the climate itself; it is the inseparable systematic error.”
What outlier? Why do you consider a valid T measurement to be an outlier?
“And Bill Hunter brings up another good point: the huge non-representation of the surface sampling problem.”
Assertion without evidence. The stations are selected to be representative of sampling regions, and there are many different groups with somewhat different methods of selecting and sampling. Yet the trends they find agree with each other very well, within error.
Even better, IMO, is Reanalysis data, which uses data from all stations, including pressure, humidity, cloudiness, jet streams and put them in the numerical weather model to solve for temperatures worldwide.
Obviously the daily success of weather forecasting gives confidence that the output of this model is quite good. The global average T can be found daily from this model, and it is less likely to be corrupted by local station error.
The trends found thru reanalysis are in good agreement with the station only methods. For example:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/ftp-data/temperature/2023/12/ERA5_1991-2020/ts_1month_anomaly_Global_ERA5_2t_202312_1991-2020_v01.1.png
Nate says:
”Assertion without evidence. The stations are selected to be representative of sampling regions, and there are many different groups with somewhat different methods of selecting and sampling.”
Assertion without evidence? Why is there no evidence of your claim? |Does that mean you can’t even tell me what the mean elevation of the GHCN station network stations are?
“Assertion without evidence?”
Yes indeed. Many different groups are reporting global temperature trends, and have published there methods of sampling. You have done zero research to demonstrate problems with their methods.
It is just bloviation from an armchair quarterback, IOW assertion without evidence.
walter…anyone who has studied probability and statistics understand the truth in what you say. Even someone with a smattering of common sense would understand it.
Bnice said that too. It can’t be a coincidence that two different folks are saying the same thing about the same person.
Oops posted under wrong comment.
Exactly Gordon. The people who don’t understand either don’t because they are so unbelievably r3tarded or willful ignorance.
Oh, Walter.
Are you trying to get my attention?
“walteranyone who has studied probability and statistics understand the truth in what you say. Even someone with a smattering of common sense would understand it.”
Willard,
What objections do you have to this statement? Anything evidence-based?
Are you asking for evidence because you want to reserve pontification to yourself, Walter?
Bordo is not far from being a pathological liar, so caveat emptor.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
You still haven’t provided any evidence-based rebuttal. I’m seeking an intellectual engagement. I would prefer that over an attack on Gordon.
Walter,
I don’t have to refute what you haven’t proved.
Besides, don’t you think you’re taking silly jab a bit too srsly?
” Besides, dont you think youre taking silly jab a bit too srsly?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Improper form, Mike Flynn.
“Improper form, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Too late, Mike Flynn.
walter…when you add to the central tendencies the conditions in the Arctic you have another problem. They have regions where the temperature anomalies are 5C above the norm. Wait a month, and the 5C area has moved to another region, often being replaced by a negative anomaly.
In fact, all anomalies appear to move month to month, except maybe in the Tropics where the average seems to be fairly constant over a greater area.
We are clearly looking at weather patterns, not global averages. Warm air is apparently being moved randomly by weather and ocean oscillations.
[BORDO] We are getting it here too on the Pacific Coast at Vancouver, Canada. Its currently -12C, predicted to reach -14C overnight. Anyone who thinks this planet is warming for real can go take a flying jump.
[ALSO BORDO] We are clearly looking at weather patterns, not global averages.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson,
Yes, there is a a lot of variance in Arctic regions, especially during winters. In regions with such large variance, a central tendency can represent a VERY large sample of different days. Take the weather for the past week or so at Dawson City, Yukon Territories for example.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/dawson-city/historic
“In fact, all anomalies appear to move month to month, except maybe in the Tropics where the average seems to be fairly constant over a greater area.”
Central tendencies ignore all variability both for temperature but also the details like snow, rain, wind, nearby large bodies of water that can affect what the recorded maximum and minimum temperatures are. It makes even less sense to average Arctic temperatures with the Tropics, because there is much less variance over the tropics as you point out; it’s a more extreme violation of the Central Limit Theorem in the real world.
“We are clearly looking at weather patterns, not global averages. Warm air is apparently being moved randomly by weather and ocean oscillations.”
Linear regression, in the context of analyzing temperature change, is like giving a monkey a ruler. Each data point comes with its specific context, making it unfair to compare them solely based on relative warmth or cold. When plotted on a graph, temperature data often yields a low R-squared value, typically below 10%. This low value indicates that the linear trend poorly captures the fluctuations and patterns inherent in the data. The inadequacy of the linear trend is attributed to factors beyond temporal progression playing a more significant role in shaping temporal variability. Temperature anomalies in a given year may result from regional climatic conditions, localized phenomena, or short-term events that disproportionately affect the average. Examples from UAH data, such as the years 2020 and 2023, highlight the impact of these contextual factors. Additionally, the beginning of the temperature record includes volcanic eruptions that produced cooling, as observed in ’83 during a large El Nio event.
WH: For instance, a daily average of 30.5F may be a high of 36F and a low of 25F, while another day with an average of 31.5F could have a high of 34F and a low of 29F. Yet, the latter day is considered warmer by an average of about 0.6C. That is silly nonsense, and a violation of the Central Limit Theorem in the real world.
That is not what the CTL says. As has been explained to you previously the CTL only says that the mean of repeatedly and randomly selected samples from a population tends towards a normal distribution even when the population itself is not normally distributed. That’s it.
WH: What happens when you average 30 or 31 central tendencies together, each of which can represent a variety of different days?
The distribution tends towards normal.
WH: If a central tendency is incapable of accurately representing the weather for a single day in one tiny square that constitutes 0.00000000009% of the Earths surface, why would it be able to represent the Earths weather as a whole?
In the context of a global average temperature what the CTL says is that repeatedly and randomly selecting 30 cells from UAH’s 9508 cell grid mesh and computing the average from those 30 cells over and over again will create a normal distribution whose mean approximates the mean of the original 9508 cell population. The standard deviation of that distribution is the uncertainty of the global average temperature using random sampling of size 30.
“That is not what the CTL says. As has been explained to you previously the CTL only says that the mean of repeatedly and randomly selected samples from a population tends towards a normal distribution even when the population itself is not normally distributed. Thats it.”
I meant in the sense of the REAL WORLD, there is a violation. They don’t represent anything physically meaningful. I’ll keep saying that until it penetrates your thick skull.
“The distribution tends towards normal.”
Only because when you have a large number of samples, the distribution behaves more Gaussian.
> Only because when you have a large number of samples, the distribution behaves more Gaussian.
…which is one way to formulate the Central Limit Theorem!
Willard, please stop trolling.
WH: I meant in the sense of the REAL WORLD, there is a violation.
First…if you cannot find meaning it is not because of the CTL because the CTL neither validates nor invalidates the meaning behind the value in question. Second…I don’t think you are as convicted regarding your position on the matter as you let on. Afterall, many stations (eg. ASOS) actually average many instantaneous measurements internally and only report the average value externally. I suspect you would find meaning in the official hourly temperature reports here in my hometown of St. Louis despite each value actually being an average of 30 values over a 5 minute period.
https://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KSTL.html
WH: Only because when you have a large number of samples, the distribution behaves more Gaussian.
Indeed. That’s the CTL!
“Firstif you cannot find meaning it is not because of the CTL because the CTL neither validates nor invalidates the meaning behind the value in question.”
That is not correct. When dealing with temperature data represented by central tendencies, the assumption of a unimodal normal distribution is challenged. Each central tendency introduces multimodal distribution; within a single average, there are various temperature profiles, each representing different conditions or scenarios. When the individual averages themselves exhibit multimodal distributions, it raises questions about the applicability of the CLT.
“SecondI dont think you are as convicted regarding your position on the matter as you let on. Afterall, many stations (eg. ASOS) actually average many instantaneous measurements internally and only report the average value externally. I suspect you would find meaning in the official hourly temperature reports here in my hometown of St. Louis despite each value actually being an average of 30 values over a 5 minute period.”
This does not help your argument. All this approach does is enhance temporal resolution. There is a multitude of diverse temperature profiles within the 5 minute averages, influenced by various NON RANDOM factors. What happens when uncertainty is not random? It is not cancelled out, and variance increases.
> What happens when uncertainty is not random?
Systematic error isn’t uncertainty.
WH: When the individual averages themselves exhibit multimodal distributions, it raises questions about the applicability of the CLT.
No it doesn’t. Again…the CTL does not say that two averages of the same value must have come from the same (or equivalent) samples. Likewise it does not say that it is not possible for two averages from samples of two different populations to have the same value.
WH: All this approach does is enhance temporal resolution.
It actually reduces temporal resolution from 0.1 Hz to 0.003 Hz.
WH: There is a multitude of diverse temperature profiles within the 5 minute averages
It’s not unlike how there is a multitude of diverse temperature profiles within the daily averages, monthly averages, yearly averages, etc. The only thing different is the length of the averaging period.
WH: What happens when uncertainty is not random? It is not cancelled out, and variance increases.
When averaging…uncertainty does not cancel out only when the correlation between measurements is r = 1 meaning that none of the uncertainty is random.
When subtracting…uncertainty cancels out completely when correlation between measurements is r = 1 meaning that all of the uncertainty is systematic.
It is important to point out that uncertainty is never only random or systematic. It contains components of both. That’s why in the real world the correlation r is between 0 and 1.
“Systematic error isnt uncertainty.”
Willard,
I’m not referring to systematic error. I’m referring to the diverse influences on temperature profiles within the 5-minute averages, arising from external factors such as precipitation, poor station placement, wind, etc.; hence, non-random uncertainty. Non-random uncertainty does not conform to the traditional idea of errors cancelling out through averaging.
Walter,
Most observational errors are considered random until one can establish a specific bias. When one is found, a correction can be applied. Before that, we expect them to average out.
Systematic errors are, like their name implies, systematic. Which means they are irreducible. This is the contrast seeked between random and not random. I prefer observational/instrumental, for it carries less metaphysical baggage; for instance, instruments could come with random components. As long as we understand each other, you can do as you please.
It usually takes a week of Climateball or so for appeals to ignorance to reach their limits of justified disingenuousness. But the propagation of nonsense in the Contrarian Matrix is nearly infinite.
“It usually takes a week of Climateball or so for appeals to ignorance to reach their limits of justified disingenuousness.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
WH: Im not referring to systematic error. Im referring to the diverse influences on temperature profiles within the 5-minute averages, arising from external factors such as precipitation, poor station placement, wind, etc.; hence, non-random uncertainty. Non-random uncertainty does not conform to the traditional idea of errors cancelling out through averaging.
None of those effect the uncertainty of the measurement.
bdgwx,
You wrote –
“It is important to point out that uncertainty is never only random or systematic. It contains components of both.
When subtractinguncertainty cancels out completely when correlation between measurements is r = 1 meaning that all of the uncertainty is systematic.”
A bit confusing. You say that all of the certainty is systematic, except when it isn’t.
Do you actually know what you are talking about, and what does it have to with the mythical GHE?
Not this one either, Mike Flynn.
bdgwx,
“When averaginguncertainty does not cancel out only when the correlation between measurements is r = 1 meaning that none of the uncertainty is random.”
That is not accurate. In statistical terms, perfect positive correlation implies that the relationship between two variables is deterministic and linear. In the context of uncertainty, when correlation is perfect, any uncertainty or variability in one variable is entirely explained by the other, leading to a complete cancellation of uncertainty. Chaos is not strictly random or systematic; it operates with complete unpredictability. It, additionally, has a very weak relationship with time, specifically the human calendar – it doesn’t matter the granularity or width of averaging intervals.
“None of those effect the uncertainty of the measurement.”
Those are the uncertainties of the measurements.
“The central limit theorem says that the sampling distribution of the mean will always be normally distributed, as long as the sample size is large enough. Regardless of whether the population has a normal, Poisson, binomial, or any other distribution, the sampling distribution of the mean will be normal.”
Walter, the whole point of the CLT, is that it takes a bunch of non-Gaussian distributed random variables, and when averaging enough of them, they become Gaussian.
WH: That is not accurate.
Yes it is. If weren’t for the fact that your position aligns with NIST being a heretic I’d tell you to use the NIST uncertainty machine and verify this yourself.
https://uncertainty.nist.gov/
WH: when correlation is perfect, any uncertainty or variability in one variable is entirely explained by the other, leading to a complete cancellation of uncertainty.
I’m assuming the context is still perfectly positive (r=1). The obvious counter example is the measurement model y=a+b. The uncertainty u(y) when r=1 is greater than u(y) when r=0.
Nate,
What is the point of attaining a Gaussian distribution in this context? To obtain a result an accurate representative of an entire sample; in this case the weather at a particular location on a particular day.
*
bdgwx,
The measurement model y=a+b doesn’t apply here because we can never know what ‘a’ (the baseline temperature measurement) is, given the numerous external factors ‘b’ contributing to the OBSERVED measurements. These factors interact with each other in complex and different ways. For example, consider the urban heat island effect and snow cover; snow cover typically has an albedo effect, making the measurements throughout a day’s entire diurnal cycle colder than otherwise. The relative warmth and cold would certainly depend on the depth of the snow cover. However, factors like the urban heat island effect or surface station misplacement can make the microsite warmer. The interactions between these factors are unknown, as there are also numerous other influencing variables simultaneously.
“When one is found, a correction can be applied. Before that, we expect them to average out.
Systematic errors are, like their name implies, systematic. Which means they are irreducible. This is the contrast seeked between random and not random. I prefer observational/instrumental, for it carries less metaphysical baggage; for instance, instruments could come with random components. As long as we understand each other, you can do as you please.”
Willard,
Once again, I’m not referring to *simplistic* systematic errors because weather (chaos) is not consistent and does not have a pattern or regularity. It’s impossible for you to correct in a straightforward manner – as I just told bdgwx in the context of the measurement model y = a + b, there are numerous possible ‘a’s and ‘b’s (a1, a2,…, a(n)), (b1, b2,…, bn).
EMPHASIS ON *SIMPLISTIC*
Walter, the context is the global mean temperature, or large region mean temperature.
In both cases CTL is useful.
It could even apply to the monthly means for one location.
“Walter, the context is the global mean temperature, or large region mean temperature.
In both cases CTL is useful.
It could even apply to the monthly means for one location.”
It isn’t useful anywhere because systematic errors in the measurements cannot be isolated in a straightforward manner. This problem only worsens when averaging averages two different locations on the globe together the Arctic, a place where snow and ice cover the terrain and large bodies of water year-round, and the Tropics, where water from the ocean is evaporating into the atmosphere.
WH: he measurement model y=a+b doesnt apply
It is a counterexample to your statement “when correlation is perfect, any uncertainty or variability in one variable is entirely explained by the other, leading to a complete cancellation of uncertainty.” y=a+b is an example where perfect positive correlation (r=1) does not cancel even partially. In fact, it causes the uncertainty u(y) to expand.
WH: snow cover typically has an albedo effect, making the measurements throughout a days entire diurnal cycle colder than otherwise.
That may cause the temperature to be cooler than it would be otherwise. But it does not bias the measurements too colder if that is what you are saying.
WH: However, factors like the urban heat island effect or surface station misplacement can make the microsite warmer.
Same response as above. UHI may cause the temperature to be higher than it would be otherwise. But it does not bias the measurement too warm if that is what you are saying.
WH: The interactions between these factors are unknown, as there are also numerous other influencing variables simultaneously.
There countless factors that modulate the temperature. That does not mean that we cannot measure the temperatures. In fact, measuring the temperature is one step in the process of figuring what factors modulate the temperature.
WH: I just told bdgwx in the context of the measurement model y = a + b, there are numerous possible as and bs (a1, a2,, a(n)), (b1, b2,, bn).
Yes. a and b are random variables so there are many possibilities. Those possibilities fall into a probability distribution function.
WH: It isnt useful anywhere because systematic errors in the measurements cannot be isolated in a straightforward manner.
Remember, different sites have different systematic errors. When aggregated those systematic error experience a context switch in which they behave randomly. So when you take the average of multiple sites each with there own and different systematic error the CTL tells us that the distribution of those systematic errors tend towards normal. See JCGM 100:2008 section E.3 regarding the context switch and section G.2 regarding why the CTL is important in regards to uncertainty.
Yes it’s rather clear that water is tremendously more absorbent per mole in the 15 micron band than CO2. Additionally Mean water in the troposphere is about 50 times that for CO2.
Thus one can extrapolate that downwelling emissions from increasing emission height is absorbed by atmospheric water rather than the surface.
Also it seems the only possible definition of the tropopause is as roughly the point where water becomes near extinct due to condensation. The fact that the tropopause is represented as a place of isothermal layers in the atmosphere means according to Nate’s source a problem for modeled CO2 theory.
So since by definition of multiple layers of CO2 emissions from TOA (having risen to a new level due to increasing concentrations) and not blocked by water suggests those emissions are originating in an isothermal portion of the atmosphere. And downwelling emission are absorbed by water. And emissions from within the troposphere for both upwelling emissions and downwelling emissions are both absorbed by water.
Then you have the physics of water which condenses as it rises in the atmosphere due to decreasing temperature and you have the water vapor content of the atmosphere increasing with altitude as air holds more water vapor with decreased pressure.
Also the condensation of water occurs at based upon how cold its environment is. So you have a convecting vehicle to intercept downwelling CO2 emissions, while extending its convection run upwards before condensation and establishing the 0C isotherm.
Well at least its a deeper dive in the fate of energy absorbed at TOA than simply saying ”the energy must return to the surface”
bdgwx,
“When aggregated those systematic error experience a context switch in which they behave randomly. So when you take the average of multiple sites each with there own and different systematic error the CTL tells us that the distribution of those systematic errors tend towards normal.”
That is a simplified illustration and does not hold true in this context. Hence the reason I said above:
“EMPHASIS ON *SIMPLISTIC*”
It is impossible for those variables to undergo a ‘context switch.’ The value representing the interaction between the urban heat island and snow cover, for example, wouldn’t mediate; what would a normal distribution even look like in that context? What value can represent the two interactive variables equidistantly? I shall remind you again that we don’t completely understand that relationship; it’s not a random variable, contrary to your claim that it is. How is it not absurd to claim that they are random variables when you are unable to effectively isolate them in the first place? You cannot quantitatively state *exactly* how these factors modulate the baseline temperature (‘a’). These are not even the only variables; there are numerous others because it’s at a specific place, at a specific time, on a specific day.
> EMPHASIS ON *SIMPLISTIC*
Refutation is refutation.
“Yes its rather clear that water is tremendously more absorbent per mole in the 15 micron band than CO2. Additionally Mean water in the troposphere is about 50 times that for CO2.”
False.
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/earthspectra-c02-p17.html
“Thus one can extrapolate that downwelling emissions from increasing emission height is absorbed by atmospheric water rather than the surface.
Also it seems the only possible definition of the tropopause is as roughly the point where water becomes near extinct due to condensation. The fact that the tropopause is represented as a place of isothermal layers in the atmosphere means according to Nates source a problem for modeled CO2 theory.
So since by definition of multiple layers of CO2 emissions from TOA (having risen to a new level due to increasing concentrations) and not blocked by water suggests those emissions are originating in an isothermal portion of the atmosphere. And downwelling emission are absorbed by water. And emissions from within the troposphere for both upwelling emissions and downwelling emissions are both absorbed by water.”
Nah, not at all. More confusion and sciency-sounding gobbldegook from Bill.
In general, lacking any quotes, Bill’s stream-of-consciousness posts cannot be taken seriously.
nate unable to mount an argument to match the facts regarding the abso-rp-tion rate comparison of water and co2 instead provides us with an irrelevant look down picture of combined water and co2 abso-rp-tion with the co2 on top of the water.
Is the Robertson genius on some path to Dementia Land?
Upthread, he brazenly claimed:
” I have said nothing about record cold here in Vancouver. ”
Incredible!
*
1. On November 15, 2023 at 6:37 PM, climate genius Robertson wrote, in reply to a poster reporting about the planet’s ‘warmest October on record’:
” NOAA should send a delegation to Vancouver, Canada, the warmest part of Canada in winter. Over the past several weeks we have set records for cold weather in October and the last couple of days have been seriously cold by our standards. Meantime, the rest of Canada regard us as wimps because it is much colder in those parts of the nation in October. ”
*
2. On December 3, 2023 at 8:10 PM, he wrote
” Thats the thing, Walter, we set records for cold weather here in the Vancouver, Canada area in a climate claimed to represent recodrs for warming. ”
*
Well: Robertson is well-known on this blog as a 360 degree denŷer, from the lunar spin over Einstein, the existence of time {and a fortiori, of time dilation} until partially manmade global warming and, last not least, the GHE.
But that he even denîes what he himself wrote: that was really new to me.
***
Conversely, the long path to Dementia Land can also be paved with strange stones like this one:
” If you get it, please try to explain anomalies to Binny. He has great difficulty grasping the concept, even though NOAA has explained it well. ”
*
Oh yes, NOAA has ‘explained it well’. From the POV of an ignoramus a la Robertson, for sure!
” A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value. ”
But for people who – unlike him – wrote lots of software generating anomalies out of various absolute data, this utterly trivial NOAA sentence sounds like a joke.
It mentions nothing of what is relevant in anomaly construction and makes them so different from the absolute values they are generated out.
No mention for example that anomalies must be generated such that all seasonal dependencies (which Roy Spencer calls ‘the annual cycle’) are removed; this means that e.g. in a monthly time series, anomalies wrt a 30 year period aren’t computed as departures from the period’s global mean, but as departures from the mean of their own month.
This is the reason why unteachable people like Robertson regard a baseline in an anomaly chart as a simple line separating cold from warm:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2023_v6_20x9.jpg
That this baseline in fact is an array (of in this case 12 months)
Mon : Kelvin | Celsius
Jan: 263.180 | -9.97
Feb: 263.269 | -9.88
Mar: 263.428 | -9.72
Apr: 263.843 | -9.31
Mai: 264.449 | -8.70
Jun: 265.099 | -8.05
Jul: 265.419 | -7.73
Aug: 265.234 | -7.92
Sep: 264.638 | -8.51
Oct: 263.946 | -9.20
Nov: 263.407 | -9.74
Dec: 263.191 | -9.96
out of which anomalies are computed is a basic fact he never has understood.
*
But… it gets worse!
Robertson never has understood that the baseline above is an arbitrary construct, which is the result of the averaging process in the reference period chosen – here: 1991-2020.
Changing the reference period automatically changes all values in the baseline array, and with them all anomalies. When the new reference period contains warmer absolute termperatures (or sea levels etc) than the older one, all anomalies move down, and vice-versa.
This means of course that suddenly, lots of negative anomalies (showing ‘colder’ than average) can become positive (‘warmer’ than average) – or vice-versa.
I tried to make that clear by posting links to graphs representing the UAH LT time series (1) wrt the mean of 1979-1998 (UAH’s oldest reference period), and (2) wrt the mean of 1999-2018, but it didn’t help.
*
And so it is that Robertson’s knowledge about anomalies keeps at the trivial level of Clint R’s ball-on-a-string ‘model’ for Moon’s ‘orbital motion without spin’.
And so it is that when I post a graph like this one below which compares in anomaly form, within a single 2.5 degree grid cell centered at [48.75N, 123.75W], the data of about 60 GHCN daily stations with that of UAH 6.0 LT:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_oeAWwh7o_vUrUHdDx83QELa72U-TuE4/view
Robertson will always resort to discrediting what I do, saying
” Binny posts a faked, unsupported graph made out of fudged NOAA data, and has the temerity to show that fudged data in lock-step with the honest UAH data! “.
*
Yeah.
*
More about this GHCN daily vs. UAH 6.0 LT compyarison in a later comment. 03:00 at GMT+1 is late enough.
*
Sources: GHCN daily and UAH’s grid data as usual.
binny…”But for people who unlike him wrote lots of software generating anomalies out of various absolute data, this utterly trivial NOAA sentence sounds like a joke.
It mentions nothing of what is relevant in anomaly construction and makes them so different from the absolute values they are generated out”.
***
I don’t call you an ijit out of a need to insult you, I call you an ijit because you are one.
NOAA supplied a perfectly accurate definition of an anomaly and you think you know better based on some amateur programming you have done.
The concept of an anomaly is simple. You have a set of averaged measured data points over a time period. Rather than state them as absolute measurements you decide upon an average temperature over the time period and you compare each absolute value to the average, arriving at a plus or minus value above or below the average.
The average, of course, is the baseline, and in the case of UAH it is a 30 year period from 1990 – present. So, the values shown on the UAH graph at top of this page represent deviations from that 30 year average.
I have made it clear that I don’t like the concept of anomalies, I’d prefer absolute temperatures. Even then, you need to very generously average the temperatures, to a point of distortion, based on two a day readings to get the monthly averages shown in the graph. If you used absolute temperatures, the scale would be so large the current global warming would appear almost like a straight line. People would then wonder what all the fuss is about.
However, when all is said and done, an anomaly above the baseline represents a warming wrt the baseline. Those below the baseline represent a relative cooling.
For the record, I think it all a load of nonsense. None of it means anything in an overall sense. The concept of a global average is just that, a concept. In reality, it has no meaning.
> I call you an ijit because you are one.
To be filed under Very Deep Crank Thoughts, along “the insulating effect of the atmosphere is due to the insulating effect of the atmosphere.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
It’s hopeless: Robertson once more didn’t understand how anomalies are constructed because he doesn’t want to learn anything.
Look at this nonsense:
” The concept of an anomaly is simple. You have a set of averaged measured data points over a time period. Rather than state them as absolute measurements you decide upon an average temperature over the time period … ”
Fantastic.
Let’s do it exactly as he explains. We ‘decide upon an average temperature over the time period’, and choose 264K: it looks so nice.
(In fact it is, not quite by accident, pretty near the average of all absolute values for UAH’s current reference period: Jan 1991 – Dec 2020.)
*
Here we start:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ZhsMnlcw0gEOObGA3VBwjNS4yPu14H8/view
{ As Robertson always discredits me as an ‘amateur programmer’ or so, and hence might doubt my result: I strongly recommend him to have a look at Roy Spencer’s thread about the annual cycle:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
He will then see a similar graph (posted in Celsius instead of Kelvin) and a 12 month baseline (at that time, wrt the mean of 1981-2010 of course). }
*
Now let’s continue to follow Robertson’s specification meticulously:
” … and you compare each absolute value to the average, arriving at a plus or minus value above or below the average. ”
And here we are:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YZeCS8pvGE094aUnohv16IiQ2MXGPYWp/view
*
Ooops?! What’s that? What the heck did happen?
Well: nothing else than that Robertson’s trivial gut feeling about anomalies is utterly wrong.
All what happened is that instead of obtaining anomalies, Robertson’s specification simply represents the difference between the absolute values and their average (here: the mean of 1991-2020). It is merely a shift of exactly the same data.
*
Would he have learned and understood how the job must be done instead of arrogantly discrediting me as amateur, so he would have done the same job as everyone (beginning with… Roy Spencer), namely by subtracting, for each monthly absolute value, the corresponding monthly baseline averaging value shown below
Jan: 263.180 (K)
Feb: 263.269
Mar: 263.428
Apr: 263.843
Mai: 264.449
Jun: 265.099
Jul: 265.419
Aug: 265.234
Sep: 264.638
Oct: 263.946
Nov: 263.407
Dec: 263.191
and he would then have obtained (below in blue) what Roy Spencer shows all the time in a slightly different format:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zMrnVDsGrI63WWKdlKmt2ez_RWvNpyag/view
In light green he sees his own failure once again.
*
It would be fine if Robertson would finally keep his damn cheeky mouth shut – but that will never happen:
360 degree denŷers likme Robertson never admit being wrong.
“It would be fine if Robertson would finally keep his damn cheeky mouth shut ”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Hey, Mike Flynn –
Enjoy your last day of PSTing privilege!
“Enjoy your last day of PSTing privilege!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
binny…”In 1968, the duration of the second was defined to be 9192631770 vibrations of the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom. ”
***
Perhaps you can explain why, well before 1968, the second had already been defined as 1/86,400th of one rotation of the Earth. Even a school child could figure that out, yet Binny has trouble with it.
There are 24 hours in a day x 60 min/hr x 60 seconds/min = 86,400 seconds in a day.
So, some dweeb decided to redefine the second based on vibrations in the cesium atom. But those vibrations occur at about 9,192,631,770 vibrations per second. So, how do we get 1 second from such a high frequency? Why, we divide it down 9 billion times.
But why do we need to divide the frequency down? Is it not obvious? We want to keep the length of the second as close as possible to the length derived from the rotation of the Earth. So, we take a relatively accurate vibration and divide it down till it equals the approximate length of the second we had already defined, based on the Earth’s rotational period.
After all this stuff about atomic clocks, has the length of the second changed? Not by a significant amount, otherwise we’d be in serious trouble world-wide.
> After all this stuff about atomic clocks, has the length of the second changed?
Atomic clocks make second change less and less, Bordo:
https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/think-you-know-what-second-it-will-likely-change-next-decade
Will add it to your list of blunders.
“Will add it to your list of blunders.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
I’d say your now have five errors left.
“Id say your now have five errors left.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Last one, Mike Flynn.
“Last one, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Perhaps the genius Robertson will tell us how to measure the electron transfer between molecular atoms that takes less than an attosecond, when the second itself is based on a quantity that fluctuates so much that its standard deviation is dimensions higher than the values being measured.
Yeah. The ‘ball on a string’ syndrome is everywhere.
Flynnson: don’t forget to post your stûpid ‘please stop tr0lling’.
After exposing some bad theory from wee willy, he replies indignantly…
“In the last few days you were confused about spherical geometry, continuity, entropy, heat transfer, and so many other things it is hard to keep track.
Your latest blunder was to conflate measurand with measurement. And now youre trying to ridicule the idea that energy moves around in our climate system”.
***
As Walter noted, wee willy cannot respond scientifically to a point, he must obfuscate with red-herring arguments.
When have you ever responded in a meaningful, scientific manner to my view on spherical geometry, continuity, entropy, heat transfer and so many other things it is hard to keep tract of?
Your function here is one of an alarmist klown. You have something to say about everything but never anything of substance. From the time you first arrived here, it has been obvious that you are here only to disrupt, a primitive alarmist notion that skeptics can be neutralized through simply agitating.
When you take the time to attempt a legitimate response, you resort only to authority figures. That indicates to me that you have no ability in physics, or math, to think problems through for yourself.
It took me years after graduation to begin thinking for myself. We were never encouraged at university to think for ourselves, rather the focus was on accepting what you were taught in lecture and regurgitating it on exams.
If I thought you were thinking for yourself, and trying to learn by doing so, I would not hesitate to encourage you. You can begin anytime by trying to engage in a debate rather than flinging doo doo at a wall and hoping it will stick.
When you insist on telling me I have no idea what I am talking about, I know immediately that you have never studied physics and math nor have you even begun to think for yourself.
As Swenson puts, it, carry on.
> When have you ever responded in a meaningful, scientific manner to my view on spherical geometry
Right under it, Bordo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1587959
Your rants don’t count as scientific. They’re meaningful insofar as we can refute them. It has almost become a sport at this point.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tropical storm in northern Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/VL7Rp3V/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
> It makes even less sense to average Arctic temperatures with the Tropics, because there is much less variance over the tropics as you point out; its a more extreme violation of the Central Limit Theorem in the real world.
It’d be interesting to see how Bordo explains that sentence.
“Itd be interesting to see how Bordo explains that sentence.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
That is not how it works.
Try again.
“That is not how it works.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re losing your PST license points like no one else, Mike Flynn.
Please, do continue.
“Youre losing your PST license points like no one else, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
It takes you less time to copy-paste your comments than to PST, Mike Flynn.
#2
“It takes you less time to copy-paste your comments than to PST, ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Not in my own thread, Mike.
“Not in my own thread, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wrong, Mike.
“Wrong, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re still wrong, Mike.
“Youre still wrong, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
You know that’s not right, Mike.
It’s fine, as I said. The quotes add clarity. Swenson should continue to PST as he pleases.
Little Willy just wants more attention, and to clog up the blog with even more comments. He’s on about 570 as it is.
Graham D. Warner is about to lose his PST privileges too!
584.
424 + 176 + 140 + 66 = 806
Little Willy tries to justify his trolling by adding up the comment totals of the people he’s obsessed with. Besides the fact that this doesn’t make any sense, if it wasn’t for Little Willy’s presence here, Swenson’s total and mine would be massively reduced. There is a problem at this blog, and it’s him.
Graham D. Warner keeps forgetting that of the Sky Dragon cranks frequenting this website, there are four main ones.
There is Puffman, who has been banned many times from this website. Graham pretends he does not see him T-ing.
There is Mike Flynn, who has been told to make his own blog. He return under other sockpuppets. And now he is on the PST Patrol. Graham wont even throw him under the bus.
There is Graham D. Warner, whose main contribution is to PST. He abused the T-word so much that Roy banned the word. He still PSTs, using a simple coding trick Mike Flynn slipped up.
And of course Graham D. Warner keeps his silly moniker, even if Roy hinted that he was a pretender.
And then there is Bordo. Whatever his demerits as someone who reinvents just about every domain of knowledge he lays his eyes on, he plays Climateball properly.
The three first one are T’s in the purest meaning of the term. Roy banned Sky Dragon cranks more than ten years ago. Here we are.
Graham D. Warner also seems to forget that his PST privileges were privileges, not rights.
They are thereby revoked.
Erratum:
Mike Flynn was on PST Patrol the first time I wrote that comment, above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1595684
He is not anymore.
Yes, those are the people you’re obsessed with, that I mentioned. You have a massive problem with anybody who questions the existence of the GHE. Like, a massive, deep-seated, emotional problem. You think you have the right to treat anyone who questions the existence of the GHE like dirt, because you seem to believe yourself better than them.
And, you’re completely out of control.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2018-0-22-deg-c/#comment-327616
Let readers decide if I was responsible for the behavior of our Dark Triad (feat. Bordo) five years ago.
…and, now, you’re regularly the worst offender, by a long shot.
Graham D. Warner is behaving like a 12-year-old that broke into his parents liquor cabinet.
He should sober up, and I’ll try to help him tomorrow.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Let’s thank Graham D. Warner for his count. There’s a lot of pseudoscience to squash.
He should not be frightened. Reality doesn’t really hurt. The only thing he has to fear is Tears for Fear themselves.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
23:12
#3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
#4
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2024/01/uah-global.jpeg
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2024/01/uah-tropics.jpeg
There is not any +33 C Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect on Earth’s surface.
The +33 C figure comes from a very much mistaken mathematical abstraction.
The currently observable global warming is a natural process caused by the Earth’s position while orbiting sun, it is the so called the ORBITAL FORCING.
There is nothing we can do to reverse the ORBITAL FORCING.
It is a natural process.
We shoud adapt…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correct CV. The “mathematical abstraction” used is an imaginary sphere! They compare Earth to an imaginary sphere. That ain’t science.
That’s like comparing a racehorse to a tortoise because they both have 4 legs!
The “33C (33K)” nonsense is just one more reason CO2 warming is bogus.
Reason #1 — The bogus “CO2 forcing equation”
Reason #2 — The bogus “33K”
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
Reason #4 — The bogus “CO2 causes surface warming”
Reason #5 — The bogus “CO2 insulates Earth”
All 5 reasons were shown to be wrong last month Clint. Got anything else with which to humor the blog readers?
Stalker4 responds in 12 minutes! I must be doing something right….
But there was no “shown to be wrong”. That’s just another false claim.
Watch for 5 MORE reasons the GHE is bogus, as time allows.
Sure, 5 more Clint reasons will be humorously wrong also.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
B4,
So if CO2 causes warming, which causes more CO2 emissions, which causes more warming, how are we here?
Clint, of course it is all bogus.
Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis has proven that.
Links:
https://www.itia.ntua.gr/2371/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2023.2287047
It is a new published paper, I am sure you do not know yet! Koutsoyiannis definitely has proven it!
Article: Revisiting the greenhouse effecta hydrological perspective
Journal: Hydrological Sciences Journal (THSJ)
Article ID: THSJ 2287047
That’s behind paywall.
Better would have been to show it free of charge:
https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/
I’m wondering to see you suddenly admit a GHE based on water vapor.
CO2 will be a problem in say two or three decades.
Sorry I was too quick: it’s not the right paper.
You can read the preprint for free:
https://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/getfile/2371/2/documents/RevisitingGreenhouseEffect_pp.pdf
Thank you.
Blinny,
Two or Three decades? How did you come up with that? AOC only gave us 12 years.
AOC a politican, and has a better idea of how much the scam has got.
But Einstein said something about acceleration of …
https://climateball.net/but-12-years
Willard, please stop trolling.
Congratuliations, Christos!
congratulations*
Willie,
Do you consider your Climate Ball a journalism site? Do you consider yourself a member of the 4th Estate?
Don’t you have anything better to do than asking silly leading questions, Troglodyte? Aren’t there some extra-large sudokus on your tablet that you haven’t done?
“Arent there some extra-large sudokus on your tablet that you havent done?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Revise and resubmit, Mike Flynn.
#3
“Revise and resubmit, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hmmm…
“Hmmm”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Just curious how you see yourself. Are you a journalist?
Had you any reading skills, Troglodyte, you’d know I’m not who you suspect I am.
Willie,
Hate to burst your bubble but I, like most, don’t read about 90% of your writings. Now, sincerely interested, are you a reporter, an educator, what?
The reason I ask is because for instance you felt compelled to explain AOC’s hyperbole on your site, or supposed hyperbole according to you. Was Blinny’s comment also hyperbole? Or is it 20-30 years and it’s all over?
Counterpoint, Troglodyte – the main reason you did not ask a better question is because your reading skillz are not very sharp.
Thank you, Willard!
Good to see another published CO2 enhanced GHE annihilator. So, so many of them now. The GHE has to be the most thoroughly debunked sub-conjecture in history.
Of course, Koutsoyiannis may be holding on to a bit of belief in a water vapour GHE. One step at a time, though.
Excellent work, overall.
Good 1, Evil 0.
” Small changes in the angle of Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit around the Sun cause changes in climate over a span of 10,000 to 100,000 years, and are not causing climate change today. “
Bindidon,
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations.
The atmosphere behaves chaotically.
It is not possible to predict future states resulting from any changes, no matter how small, to present conditions.
In a chaotic deterministic system, the approximate future cannot be determined from the approximate present.
If you disagree, you might care to provide some facts to support your disagreement. Fantasy and fanaticism are not suitable substitutes for fact.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
What about the Sun? The flux were getting from the Sun has increased by a couple of tenths of a Watt per square metre since the LIA. Alone, this should increase surface temperatures by about 0.1oC. To produce a 1oC increase therefore requires a very large amplification. This is problematic since it would then suggest that our climate is very sensitive to small changes in Solar flux. Paleo-climatological research suggests that this is not the case. Our climate is thought to be remarkably stable. Also, what would provide such a large amplification? As far as I can tell, if you want such an amplification to be stable then you need it to be a lot of small effects rather than one big effect (you want the amplifications to be similar to or smaller than the driver). If its one big effect then it would seem hard to reverse if the small driver (changes in solar flux) were to reverse. Also, the Solar flux has been dropping since the late 1960s, so why are we still warming if this is the driver? So, no it cant really be the Sun.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/watt-about-akasofu/
Ah, the good ol’ days.
Willard says:
”Also, the Solar flux has been dropping since the late 1960s, so why are we still warming if this is the driver? So, no it cant really be the Sun.”
———————
Willard calls BS on his own side when they say warming is locked in for x decades. fill in the X because it always is multiple decades to multiple centuries.
Looks like Gill found the 9,90C missing for the “It’s the Sun, stoopid” crowd to have a case.
When will he produce receipts?
“When will he produce receipts?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I am just pointing out that arguing that cooling should have shown up by now is your argument, not mine.
One must consider the nature of feedbacks from extremely slow ocean changes, slow changes in ice sheet coverage, multi-decadal ocean oscillations, the gravity of other planets in affecting the earth’s distance from the sun, volcanic activity, and ENSO.
Since I am not arguing for a date when feedbacks end and the climate reverses I don’t need receipts. But you are in need of receipts from past events for your claim it should have happened by now for the ”It’s CO2, stoopid” crowd to have a case.
So where are your receipts?
Gill is just pointing out that he can’t walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.
“Gill is just pointing out that he cant walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Revise and resubmit, Mike Flynn.
#4
Willard, please stop trolling.
Alright, Mike.
Please stop this.
Willard merely is a guy that claims deductions without any receipts to back him up. Does he do the same with his tax returns?
Gill is that old crank who keeps shouting at clouds.
A gubmint conspiracy, no doubt.
“A gubmint conspiracy, no doubt.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Alright, Mike.
Please stop this.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
“Next Generation E&P Company with a Vision of Supporting the Net Zero CO2 Energy Transition”
Does that ring any bell?
“Next Generation E&P Company with a Vision of Supporting the Net Zero CO2 Energy Transition”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Looks like it does, Mike.
Want me to go on?
“Looks like it does, Mike.
Want me to go on?.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Looks like you do, Mike.
“Looks like you do, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Very well, Mike Flynn.
It follows – “in Australia and Asia-Pacific through developing low CO2 unconventional gas resources in the Northern Territory of Australia.”
”A gubmint conspiracy” is known as a redundant expression. . .all governments are conspiracies. the only question is who has the most influence in the conspiracy.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again, in my own thread to boot.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Climate change is driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents. There is no artifact of CO2 in any climate data. Only the really stu.pid think you can fight climate change.
Technocrats have no limits to their corruption. They actually believe they know what a perfect world is and it runs contrary to empirical evidence. They know better but are more interested in finding paths to more power than they are interested in seeking what is best for the general public.
When I agree with you on this, why don’t you take shot at my understanding of science?
Indecipherable. Your posts have too much verbiage with too little ‘meat’. I can’t be bothered when there is a lot of much better quality reading to be had elsewhere.
ENSO regions, week ending Jan 13:
1.2 … +0.9 (down 0.1)
..3 … +2.0 (unchanged)
3.4 … +1.9 (unchanged)
..4 … +1.5 (up 0.1)
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
FYI, that graphic is today’s temperature compared to one day a week earlier.
fyi nate change week over week has been the topic of this subthread.
Earlier, Willard wrote –
“Most observational errors are considered random until one can establish a specific bias. When one is found, a correction can be applied. Before that, we expect them to average out.”
Completely irrelevant and misleading if a deterministic chaotic system is being observed.
Willard is completely ignorant of the difference between randomness and chaos, as are “climate scientists” and GHE cultists in general.
Making corrections in support of expectations, where a chaotic system is involved, is either ignorance or fraud.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Completely irrelevant and misleading if a deterministic chaotic system is being observed.”
Pray tell more.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Flynnster: Tro11s Willard unprovoked by calling him ‘ignorant’ without justification.
Willard: Asks for more information.
Flynnster: The tro11 states that Willard is tro11ing just for making this simple request.
Now the tro11-child will again claim without justification that my calling out of his tro11ing is itself tro11ing. Who is paying these nutters.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
This automaton will never second-guess my crystal ball.
“This automaton will never second-guess my crystal ball.”
Antonin Qwerty,please stop trolling.
“This automaton will never second-guess my crystal ball.”
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Ooh – twice. Definitely crying out to be noticed.
“Ooh twice. Definitely crying out to be noticed”
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling. .
Whose going to win in the Big Lottery tonight, Mikey?
Sixers or Scorchers?
“Whose going to win in the Big Lottery tonight, Mikey?
Sixers or Scorchers?”
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
I predict it will be the S______s.
“I predict it will be the S______s.”
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
What must it be like to sit at home all day every day, without a novel thought, angrily posting the same endless trash hour after hour, day after day, year after year, with no prospects for further progress, just waiting for the end to come. I shudder to think about it.
Anyway Mikey, the floor is yours. Get your self-validating drivel out of the way, then perhaps sit back with your bottle of bourbon and your packet of Winnie Blues, and reflect on how meaningless your life has become.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
Do these so-called corrections, which I call fudging, apply to going back to the 1930s and arbitrarily fudging temperatures to reduce the extent of their hotness? Or, how about NOAA retroactively fudging the SST to remove the flat trend from 1998 – 2012?
You are a gully bull, wee willy. A nincowpoop. As B. Bunny would put it. A total maroon.
You must already know that the answer to your leading question is no, Bordo, but then there’s no bottom to what you don’t know.
Here’s an example of what I have in mind:
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1941/
One redeeming quality of scientific lichurchur is that it moves on, whereas cranks and contrarians are stuck in Climateball circa 2010.
“One redeeming quality of scientific lichurchur is that it moves on, whereas cranks and contrarians are stuck in Climateball circa 2010.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“We combine the ensemble of climate model simulations which contributed to the PlioMIP projects, with compilations of proxy data analyses of sea surface temperature (SST)”.
then…
“The regional scale information in the reconstruction may not be reliable as it is largely based on the patterns simulated by the models. Nevertheless, despite the uncertainties, there is some indication that polar amplification may be underestimated in the models”.
***
Duh!!! and Double Duh!!!
They use unvalidated models that can never be validated, and proxy data, and find an uncertainty.
Go on!!! Your kidding!!!
Don’t tell me you are falling for the meteorological fallacy too, Bordo!
No wonder you keep butchering the concept of validation!
I have expertise in modeling, wee willy. We use it in electronics all the time to model circuits while designing them.
When we use models, we can validate them by building the circuit designed in the model to test the validity of the model output. That can never be done with climate although it can be applied to weather. The effects of weather systems can be validated in real time but there is still an uncertainty, which good meteorologists acknowledge.
There is no way…repeat, no way… to validate a model based on the past.
“Dont tell me you are falling for the meteorological fallacy too, Bordo”
Willard, please stop trolling.
> I have expertise in modeling
Sure, Bordo.
And I’m a ninja.
“And Im a ninja.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
It’s an Internet expression, Mike Flynn.
“Its an Internet expression, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“And I’m a ninja” expresses incredulity regarding putative bragging rights made on the Internet by keyboard warriors like Bordo.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Mike Flynn’s thread. Mike Flynn’s PST.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
This spread is frustrating to some folks who want (but will not get) a clear answer to the 1.5C question, but I would argue that this frustration is largely misplaced. The level of uncertainty that exists (around 0.2C) is simply not policy relevant (in the sense that no decisions related to mitigation or adaptation depend crucially on this number). Mitigation of CO2 and CH4 emissions is a worthwhile to reduce future climate risk regardless of whether we are at 1.4 or 1.6C above 1850 (the WMO has 1.450.12C (90% CI)), and adaptation to current and foreseeable future changes is a good idea regardless.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/not-just-another-dot-on-the-graph/
realclimate??? The mother of all climate alarmist sites???
Get serious wee willy and refrain from posting trash.
Thank you for responding to my comments in such a “meaningful, scientific manner,” Bordo.
There is nothing meaningful or scientific posted on realclimate to which I can respond. It’s all trash, as I indicated.
Try posting something from your own understanding of science.
stay tuned for a response to your previous post below. I am having trouble posting it.
“Thank you for responding to my comments in such a “meaningful, scientific manner,” Bordo.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Yes, Bordo, there is:
Willard, please stop trolling.
Too late, Mike.
“Too late, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You are not part of the PST patrol anymore.
“You are not part of the PST patrol anymore.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’m sorry for you, Mike Flynn.
“Im sorry for you, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Already 298 PSTs on the page, Mike Flynn.
Why is that?
Willard, please stop trolling.
You misplaced your erroneous comment, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
It was really misplaced, Mike.
“It was really misplaced, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Indeed it was, Mike, and you’re in my thread.
“Mitigation of CO2 and CH4 emissions is a worthwhile to reduce future climate risk.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Lots of public natural gas companies support the net zero CO2 energy transition, Mike Flynn.
Something stinks of pink fish around here.
“Lots of public natural gas companies support the net zero CO2 energy transition, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Looks like Bordo might dispute your professional choices, Mike.
“Looks like Bordo might dispute your professional choices, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Get out of my thread, Mike.
“Get out of my thread, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
OK, Mike.
Let me ask you – what could you buy with 0.17 AUD?
“Let me ask you what could you buy with 0.17 AUD?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
A penny stock on the ASX, Mike Flynn.
“A penny stock on the ASX, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Do you know what are penny stocks, Mike Flynn?
“Do you know what are penny stocks, Mike Flynn?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
A penny stock is a company whose stock sells not much more than a penny, Mike Flynn. Lots of penny stocks in the mining industry.
“A penny stock is a company whose stock sells not much more than a penny, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Lots of “energy consultants” can get rich with these penny stocks, Mike Flynn.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling
Record cold in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and consumers alerted to reduce electrical demands.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/gunter-saturday-s-electricity-panic-in-alberta-shows-how-unready-alternate-energies-are-for-the-dead-of-winter/ar-AA1n1pnD?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=820df002315a4ac58942da6c88e51a44&ei=25
Requiring people to rely on green energy is tantamount to genocide. Climate alarmists are advocating murder.
troubleshooting…
The author of this article, Ken Rice, posted by wee willy…
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/watt-about-akasofu/
has this to say about himself…” My research interest is in theoretical and computational astrophysics and I focus primarily on the evolution of accretion discs and how this relates to the formation of stars and planets”. Yet he has the temerity to take on Syun Akasofu with brutally stoopid observations about his paper. Akasofu has a degree in geophysics and is an authority on the solar wind.
The author’s critique of Akasofu is so obtuse as to be not worth repeating. He wonders how, following a 400+ year cooling from the LIA, that we could re-warm naturally.
The author is talking about an amplification of heat. He does not explain how that works. How does one amplify heat? Especially in the atmosphere?
Heat is the energy associated with atomic motion. It is the energy that causes atomic motion. Therefore, to amplify heat, one needs a means of increasing that energy or finding a way to get the molecule moving faster, like by compressing them in a constant volume.
There are two sources of heat on this planet: internal heat from the core and external heat produced by the Sun. Since the core heat is constant, as far as we know, the only variable is solar energy. It is obvious that an amplification of heat can only come from the Sun.
The recent Little Ice Age occurred over a 400+ year period. That rules out volcanic activity as its cause. Since there is no other apparent cause, it had to be a variation in the solar output that caused it. Zharkova has laid out the evidence to support that theory and she expects another mini ice age starting by 2030, due to sunspot activity in the Sun.
> The authors critique of Akasofu is so obtuse as to be not worth repeating.
That’s one way to say that you don’t understand it, Bordo.
I could explain it very slowly for you.
Please ask nicely.
I understand it perfectly and I stated why. It is you who is terminally naive about it.
> I stated why.
No, Bordo. You actually didn’t.
You simply used it as a springboard for your usual crap.
Here’s a hint: mechanism.
“You simply used it as a springboard for your usual crap.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
The fact that you cannot comprehend what I explained about heat makes you a blithering ijit.
I understand it perfectly and I stated why. It is you who is terminally naive about it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mechanism, Mike Flynn.
Do you have one to explain the current warming since the Little Ice Age?
“Mechanism, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Do you have a mechanism to explain the current warming since the Little Ice Age, Mike Flynn?
Yes.
The cooling of the Earth since its formation?
Willard, please stop trolling.
That’s what I thought!
I might add, based on a recent post I made about record cold temperatures in Edmonton, Alberta, and seriously cold weather here in the Vancouver, BC area, that we are still dealing with record cold temperatures in an era where global warm alarm is prevalent.
I hope Zharkova is wrong about an imminent mini ice age but something is causing very cold weather to persist, while alarmists are claiming it is warming catastrophically.
The cold air originates in the Arctic which is supposed to be warming catastrophically. Yeah, right!!!
> I hope Zharkova is wrong
Your hope might be fulfilled:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/03/04/zharkova-et-al-retracted/
“. . . editor has correctly interpreted what was said in the paper.”
I am not asserting that the paper should or should not have been retracted.
Retraction based on someone’s “interpretation” seems odd. If the papers conclusions are not supported by experiment, then the paper is quite possibly speculation supported by nothing more than wishful thinking.
It is not possible to predict future climate states.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
There are no thermometers which measure what the temperature should be, only what it is.
> I am not asserting that
Plausible denial.
***
> It is not possible to predict future climate states.
Ringtone.
***
> The Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Bait.
***
> There are no thermometers which measure what the temperature should be, only what it is.
Oracular crap.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson says:
”Retraction based on someones interpretation seems odd. If the papers conclusions are not supported by experiment, then the paper is quite possibly speculation supported by nothing more than wishful thinking.”
What are you trying to do Swenson? Kill off the glossy full color coffee table journal industry? My gawd think of the number of lost jobs!!
Bill,
You wrote –
“What are you trying to do Swenson? Kill off the glossy full color coffee table journal industry? My gawd think of the number of lost jobs!!”
Serendipity? A few days ago –
“Publisher Frontiers to cut 600 jobs”.
I didn’t do it!!
Frontiers isn’t glossy, Mike Flynn.
Why do you keep missing slam dunks?
“Frontiers isnt glossy, Mike Flynn.
Why do you keep missing slam dunks?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nature would be an example of a glossy paper, Mike Flynn.
“Nature would be an example of a glossy paper, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Science is another glossy paper, Mike.
No, not the field of enquiry. The paper.
“Science is another glossy paper, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Well it is true that journals published by public advocacy groups for scientists don’t spend money on glossy paper. . .they design their pages to look clinical.
Gill is competing with your PSTs, Mike Flynn.
All this work for nothing?
Show him!
A clarification is required from mindless alarmists like wee willy et al. This is not a retraction, it is censorship. The paper was apparently accepted and published then some ijit complained and the paper was withdrawn by the publisher.
Sounds a lot like the interference in peer review by Trenberth when he complained so much about a paper by John Christy et al that the editor, who had accepted the paper, resigned.
One of two things have to happen to clean this up. The more extreme is that peer review should be scrapped and a mthod found to get papers to the viewing stage. The other is that no one should be allowed to interfere in the publication of a paper by a scientist. Peer review was designed primarily to prevent laymen from polluting science with unscientific claims. These days, it is used by whiners and malcontents to prevent legitimate scientists from publishing.
Shame on wee willy for supporting censorship.
https://climateball.net/but-debate-me#censorship
Willard, please stop trolling.
When do you think Bordo will discover ArXiV, Mike Flynn?
“When do you think Bordo will discover ArXiV, Mike Flynn?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
As you may well know, Mike Flynn, ArXiV is a perfect example of a “mthod found to get papers to the viewing stage”!
“As you may well know, Mike Flynn, ArXiV is a perfect example of a “mthod found to get papers to the viewing stage”!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
There are other open repositories for scientific papers, Mike Flynn.
Don’t you know any in chemical engineeering?
“Dont you know any in chemical engineeering?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
How about this one, Mike Flynn –
https://engrxiv.org/
“I hope Zharkova is wrong about an imminent mini ice age but something is causing very cold weather to persist, while alarmists are claiming it is warming catastrophically.”
It is winter in the northern hemisphere and I have had not much snow
on local hills or none locally. Though one could argue that it’s too cold to snow or too dry particularly when one allows it’s in the rainy season. Though rainy season is about infrequent dumping of large amount of water from the sky and I haven’t lost faith that this place can and will pour at some point. We had some strange light rain, or most might call it “normal” raining. And when these rain clouds roll in, it gets too warm to snow. Or too warm to snow and too cold to snow, but mostly too cold and dry. People from other places {cold places: Europe, Canada, and the middle of US} might call it perfect, since it’s winter.
Of course we still living in best of times, despite the wars we are in and our all of your “elites” being vastly uneducated.
Zharkova doesn’t think it’s going to get as cold as little ice age but rather we could get conditions similar to little ice age.
The little ice age lasted a long time and it had several huge volcanic eruption.
One could argue the volcanic eruptions were worse than the cold weather.
We can’t predict volcanic eruptions nor the weather.
We are doing not bad, at predicting if and when Earth is going to hit
by a space rock.
And more 50 years ago, we had no clue about space rocks hitting Earth.
The primary reason we are less clueless about this serious threat, is US wanted to beat the Soviets to the Moon.
Or we wanted flags and footprints on the Moon- mostly a PR thing for the cold war {one could say played a significant role in that war}
anyhow, we needed to find out how to do this, and for appearance sake, did some “science” on the Moon.
To say we explored to Moon, is a bit over the top, but did bring back a fair of lunar samples and some other stuff.
And it changed our world.
“There are two sources of heat on this planet” … and one sink — thermal IR to space.
“the only variable is solar energy” .. and thermal IR to space.
Tim, please stop trolling.
[GR] The concept of an anomaly is simple. You have a set of averaged measured data points over a time period. Rather than state them as absolute measurements you decide upon an average temperature over the time period
[Binny van der Klown]Fantastic.
Lets do it exactly as he explains. We decide upon an average temperature over the time period, and choose 264K: it looks so nice.
***
No, Mr. Expert, we do not arbitrarily decide on an average, we take the actual average of temperatures over the past 30 years to establish a baseline. If you look at the UAH graph at top of page, the y-xis, representing anomalies states…’Departure from the ’91 – ’20 avg. (deg.C.)’.
And here you have been doing it wrong all along, which might explain your fudged graphs.
Robertson keeps, as predicted, in stubborn denial.
” If you look at the UAH graph at top of page, the y-xis, representing anomalies states… ‘Departure from the ’91 ’20 avg. (deg.C.)’. ”
Why does Robertson not understand that when constructing the anomalies in the trivial way he described above, we obtain the green line, and not the blue one (which exactly matches Roy Spencer’s graph) ?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zMrnVDsGrI63WWKdlKmt2ez_RWvNpyag/view
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Says for the umpteenth time the tr0lliest of this blog’s tr0lls.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Feedbacks referenced in climate science cannot produce global warming.
Just want to point out that these kinds of feedbacks are not the same as feedbacks that lead to the theorized tipping points. In other words, they cannot lead to a catastrophic warming effect.
Roy hit the nail of the head a few years back when he claimed that a positive feedback in climate science is a not-so-negative, negative feedback. In other words, all of the feedbacks to which alrmist refer are negative feedbacks that can create no warming.
An example from electronics. The feedbacks to which alarmists refer involve no amplification in normal practice. When amplification is involved it is to amplify a feedback signal over a long distance.
We call that a servo-type feedback where all that matters is the voltage sign of the feedback signal. Essentially, if we want to control a motor, by changing the current to the armature, we need a feedback signal that indicates the R.PM of the motor. If the motor R.PM drops, a sensor send a +ve feedback signal to the motor control.ler and it increases the armature current, which speeds up the motor. If the R.PM increases beyond a set point, the opposite signal is sent back to decrease the current.
Depending on the sign of the feedback voltage +ve or -ve, the feedback is signed +ve or -ve. Nothing to do with amplification.
All feedback on Earth are of that type. A change in one location affects a change in another location. For example, a change in cloud cover affects the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface, which could affect the local weather. There is no gain in such a system, just a redistribution of heat produced by the Sun.
The feedbacks being inferred to affect the amount of heat in the system, that could eventually lead to a runaway effect (tipping point) cannot exist in the atmosphere. The notion of heat amplification is sheer pseudo-science for the simple reason that no heat amplifiers exist in the atmosphere. In fact, I have no idea how a heat amplifier could be implemented short of shooting hot gases into the atmosphere.
Feedback involving amplification requires an amplifier. The formula representing it has an amplifier (gain function) built into it…
G = A/[1 + bA]
Here, A is the amplifier gain and G is the overall gain with feedback, b. If b has the proper sign, G increases exponentially. If b has the opposite sign, G decreases.
There is no other way to implement such a feedback without gain. The fact that Gavin Schmidt of GISS does not understand that, and he is programming climate models, is downright scary.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-39877-x
1/ Sea-ice albedo feedback involves the reduction of sea ice, which leads to more open, dark ocean surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase temperatures. Additionally, the remaining sea ice’s reflectivity is affected by factors such as meltwater ponding.
2/ An analysis of the data from 2014 to 2019 revealed a 20% to 35% decrease in total reflectivity over the Arctic summer. Of this loss, one-third is attributed to fully melted ice, as indicated by microwave sea-ice extent measurements.
The open sea waters have higher emissivity than the snow covered sea ice.
Surface emits 24/7, when on the other hand the high reflection occurs only a few hours a day.
Open sea waters also have a very strong specular reflection.
The sea ice covered waters have a warming and not a cooling effect on the global temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not sure what supports your claim, Christos.
Considering this chart:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/light-material-reflecting-factor-d_1842.html
I’m inclined to suspect you are making stuff up.
There are only negative feedbacks in Earth’s system
1. The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
It is true that the sea ice has a higher reflecting ability.
It happens because ice and snow have higher albedo.
But at very high latitudes, where the sea ice covers the ocean there is a very poor insolation.
Thus the sea ice’s higher reflecting ability doesn’t cool significantly the Earth’s surface.
On the other hand there is a physical phenomenon which has a strong influence in the cooling of Earth’s surface.
This phenomenon is the differences in emissivity.
The open sea waters have emissivity ε = 0,95.
The ice has emissivity ε = 0,97.
On the other hand, the snow has a much lower emissivity ε = 0,8.
And the sea ice is a snow covered sea ice with emissivity ε = 0,8.
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table
Also we should have under consideration the physical phenomenon of the sea waters freezing-melting behavior.
Sea waters freeze at – 2,3 oC.
Sea ice melts at 0 oC.
The difference between the melting and the freezing temperatures creates a seasonal time delay in covering the arctic waters with ice sheets.
When formatting the sea ice gets thicker from the colder water’s side.
When melting the sea ice gets thinner from the warmer atmosphere’s side.
This time delay enhances the arctic waters IR emissivity and heat losses towards the space because of the open waters’ higher emissivity e = 0,95, compared with the snow covered ice ε = 0,8.
It needs to be mentioned that Earth’s surface emits IR radiation 24/7 all year around.
And the Arctic region insolation is very poor even in the summer.
That is why Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
On the other hand it is the open Arctic sea waters that have the cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
Feedback refers to the modification of a process by changes resulting from the process itself.
Positive feedbacks accelerate the process, while negative feedbacks slow it down.
The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
It is a negative feedback.
The melting Arctic sea ice slows down the Global Warming trend.
This process appears to be a negative feedback.
2. The cloud-radiative feedback.
Increased cloud cover, increases the reflection of solar radiation away from the Earths surface.
This process appears to be a negative feedback.
In general all the feedbacks occurring in Earth’s system eventually are proven to be negative feedbacks.
Feedback refers to the modification of a process by changes resulting from the process itself.
Positive feedbacks accelerate the process, while negative feedbacks slow it down.
Since it is already proven that Earth’s climate is changing due to the orbital forcing, there should be only negative feedbacks in the Earth’s system.
Otherwise Earth wouldn’t be able to venture in and out of Ice Ages.
In general all the feedbacks occurring in Earth’s system eventually are proven to be negative feedbacs.
This appears to be a self-proven postulate.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Snow is white.
Ice is white and blue.
Water is blue.
That should be enough to indicate that you’re making stuff up.
What color clouds are?
“The color of a cloud depends primarily upon the color of the light it receives”
https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/clouds/color-of-clouds
The ice floating sea water can be at higher temperature than the sea water.
( -1C vs -2C ).
What is ice-albedo feedback?
Willard, please stop trolling.
263
Willard 2:40 pm, to me origination of sky color is interesting. In part, because there is a lot of defiance of logic and history in the physics of color. Your NASA article (unknown author and reference) contains: “The colors result from a combination of Rayleigh and Mie scattering… Mei scattering scatters all remaining wavelength colors equally within the cloud.”
Gustav Mie never considered any particles other than homogeneous spheres. Your 2:40 pm article would then imply homogenous spheres are generated in clouds at some point & color band to do the Mie scattering. No, by hobbling one’s thinking with a supposedly sharp boundary between Rayleigh and Mie scattering, one risks throwing some interesting physics out the window in answering Christos’ 2:01pm.
You are right though elsewhere, Christos 2:01 pm would better look into science of spectroscopy and certain atm. radiation texts for his answer.
> one risks throwing some interesting physics out the window
Which?
For particles other than imaginary homogeneous spheres doing the light scattering, you know, as in the real atm. since Mie scattering is not a physical process as is molecular scattering.
Looks like you found yourself another quest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mie_scattering
However, to convince fellow Wikipedians, you might need to use complete and clear sentences.
Willard says:
”Im inclined to suspect you are making stuff up.”
Why? Your link supports what Cristos is saying.
With rare exceptions: emissivity equals 1/albedo, thus for a flat surface perpendicular to the sun, without influences from other sources, changes in emissivity will have no effect equilibrium temperature. Your acceptance elsewhere in this comment section for the SB equation. . .q = ε σ T4 A with the ε parameter establishes that as the default condition.
So the idea that abs-or-ption increases with ice converting to water by default has an equal effect of increasing emissivity, thus no change in temperature.
However in this case for the poles there is an identified ‘other source’. That is that the poles emit more than they absorb because of the transport of heat to the poles by water convective loops that operate horizontally via the thermohaline circulation.
Thus water when not insulated by ice increases its emissions over abs-or-ption due to this imported heat.
We have heard estimates that CO2 will decrease losses of heat from the arctic, which may or may not be true. But that doesn’t matter as the decrease will be a set percentage no matter if its ice or water. Thus the loss of ice has a cooling effect on the arctic over all, spurs downwelling of super cold brines to the bottom of the ocean and explains that despite hypothesized accelerated warming occuring over the past 150 years, still the Northern shipping passages opened in the 1930’s and 1940’s, closed again and didn’t reopen again until 2006 or 7.
That is empirical evidence of a natural cycle of ice coming and going in the Arctic. I fully realize that folks of your ilk, Willard, will try to proclaim that was merely a regional effect. But the fact is we didn’t get a handle on ice extent in the Arctic until the advent of the satellite era so empirical evidence of that counterpoint is insufficient to make the case for just a regional effect.
Gill confuses addition with multiplication.
Here is the problematic claim:
“The sea ice covered waters have a warming and not a cooling effect on the global temperature.”
Sea ice reflects more light than ocean water. Less sea ice, more light enters the oceans, warmer oceans. Just like TYSON said, and the opposite of what Christos tried to intimate.
Willard,
“Sea ice reflects more light than ocean water. Less sea ice, more light enters the oceans, warmer oceans.”
–
“Less sea ice, more light enters the oceans, warmer oceans.”
–
There is not sea ice at the tropics, Willard!
–
And there is not solar light absorbtion in Arctic!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> There is not sea ice at the tropics, Willard!
It does not matter, Christos!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Solar energy mostly absorbed in sea water at tropics.
The Tropics don’t change spectroscopy, Christos!
“The Tropics dont change spectroscopy, Christos!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hello again, Mike Flynn.
“Hello again, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Is it 10:45 or 11:15 where you are, Mike?
“Is it 10:45 or 11:15 where you are, Mike?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Please keep working, Mike Flynn.
Please keep working, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Don’t chemical engineers use spectroscopy, Mike?
“Dont chemical engineers use spectroscopy, Mike?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Perhaps you’re not a chemical engineer anymore, Mike Flynn.
“Perhaps youre not a chemical engineer anymore, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Just so that it’s not lost in your spam, Mike Flynn –
emissivity + albedo = 1
emissivity = 1 – albedo
emissivity – 1 = albedo
You may have the last word.
Willard, please stop trolling.
willard
if Q=240w/m2 and emissivity is 0.7 solve for t with your sb equation.
then do the same with Q=342w/m2 and emissivity is 1.0
[GILL] emissivity equals 1/albedo, thus for a flat surface perpendicular to the sun, without influences from other sources, changes in emissivity will have no effect equilibrium temperature.
[ALSO GILL] oh, and here is a new sammich request
This discussion can not advance until you solve for T and report your findings as indicated above. That’s just a fact.
[GILL] emissivity equals 1/albedo, thus for a flat surface perpendicular to the sun, without influences from other sources, changes in emissivity will have no effect equilibrium temperature.
Well we agree that at a minimum thats the null hypothesis.
According to Gill, we all agree that profit/credit equals debit at first approximation.
Still waiting on Nate.
He believes thats true for the moon and said so; but he has avoided saying its true for earth.
“Still waiting on Nate.
He believes..”
Bill cannot win against the facts and my actual arguments.
So as usual, he tells me what my beliefs are. Oddly enough, I don’t recognize them.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1591665
Yet another occasion where Bill gets albedo and emissivity all confused and gets corrected.
In Greece the new renewables projects are limited to enter grid to the 45% of they maximum capacity.
The measure is taken because of the grid’s overloading at hours of maximum production.
Exactly the same thing has been happening in Germoney for years.
Dozens of small wind energy providers on the North and Baltic Seas have not been able to deliver their production for years and have to decouple their systems from the grid through legally protected measures (Eisman regulation) every time it is overloaded .
This is because the existing power grid infrastructure in Germany is completely outdated: the most important north-south connection between wind power at sea and large industrial consumers in Bavaria and Baden-Wrttemberg still is not completed.
This in turn is due to the fact that over the last 25 years, with the help of Angela Merkel’s right-wing parties CDU/CSU, the electricity supply companies have repeatedly refused to invest in newer infrastructure.
More reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #6 — The bogus “Climate Sensitivity”
“Climate Sensitivity” is the term used for the fudge factor, since a fudge factor is needed to cover up for the discrepancy between the GHE anti-science and reality. It is pure nonsense.
In the cult’s false science, the bogus “CO2 forcing equation” predicts the imaginary additional flux due to adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. For example, currently the claim looks like this:
F = 5.45 * ln(C/Co) = 5.45 * ln (420/280) = 2.2 W/m².
Then, the cult perverts the S/B equation to get about 0.7°C of warming. Since this current warming trend is now about a full degree, the cult claims the feedbacks add the difference. See, they can’t lose! No matter what occurs, they just adjust their “climate sensitivity”. That’s why there is so much discussion about what the “climate sensitivity” is. They don’t have a clue. More funding needed….
And, as we see here, the cult children hungrily gulp it all down.
Yes Clint, you are absolutely right!
–
The 1,94 times more than Moon’s surface IR EM emission the Earth’s atmosphere downward IR EM emission impossible !!!
Solar flux at Earth’s distance (R=1AU) from the sun
So =1361 W/m
Earth’s Albedo a=0,306
Moon’s Albedo a=0,11
Earth’s Tmean=288K
Moon’s Tmean =220K
Solar irradiance (Moon’s surface /Earth’s surface) ratio
(1-0,11)So /(1-0,306)So = 0,89 /0.694 = 1,2824
or 28,24% more SW EM incident energy available on the Moon’s surface.
(Earth’s Tmean=288K /Moon’s Tmean =220K) ratio
288K/220K = 1,3091
(Earth’s Tmean⁴ =288K⁴ /Moon’s Tmean⁴ =220K⁴) ratio
(288K /220K)⁴ = 1,3091⁴ = 2,9368
The simple and logical conclusion:
Earth’s surface emits 2,94 or almost three times as much IR EM energy than Moon’s surface does.
On the other hand Moon’s surface receives almost 30% more solar SW EM energy than Earth’s surface.
This huge (gigantic) discrepancy cannot be explained by the Earth’s thin atmosphere’s trace greenhouse gases content. It cannot be explained by the GHE whatsoever!
There is no way Earth’s atmosphere can balance this huge (Moon’ s surface /Earth’s surface) IR emission difference:
2,9368 – 1 = 1,9368 or 1,94 times more
the 1,94 times more than Moon’s surface IR EM emission the Earth’s atmosphere downward IR EM emission impossible !!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Some of the more obvious errors in Christos’ work:
Earths Tmean=288K is a surface air thermometer kinetic temperature
Moons Tmean =220K is a solid surface regolith brightness temperature
Thus, these temperatures are not comparable, in part because the emissivity of the lunar global regolith, its diffraction, and variations of each are not known to date.
—-
288K/220K = 1,3091
Temperature is an intensive property of matter and cannot be meaningfully divided as shown.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Temperature is an intensive property of matter . . .”, and yet you give both 255K and 288K as Earth temperatures.
Average temperatures, whether of the Earth or the Moon, are the first refuge of scoundrels.
Completely pointless and meaningless, unless you can show otherwise.
The earth surface has known diffraction & emissivity Swenson hence the 288K has been proven reliable using measured extensive properties of matter.
Ball4..
You wrote –
“Temperature is an intensive property of matter”
and also –
” . . . using measured extensive properties of matter.”
Do you really understand what you are talking about, or are you incapable of expressing what you mean?
255 K and 288 K are different temperatures. I hope you aren’t claiming that they are temperatures of the same object at the same time. That would be bizarre, and in denial of reality.
Swenson (or even Christos) should do the work to convert the input to the 288K avg. into an extensive property, perform the avg. meaningfully then convert that extensive avg. (comparable to 255K) back to intensive T and obtain back the 288K. Swenson would learn something. Yes, I do know Swenson is not up to the task. Pity, Swenson not learning but the resulting physics mistakes ARE entertaining.
Ball4..
You wrote
“Temperature is an intensive property of matter”
and also
” . . . using measured extensive properties of matter.”
Do you really understand what you are talking about, or are you incapable of expressing what you mean?
255 K and 288 K are different temperatures. I hope you arent claiming that they are temperatures of the same object at the same time. That would be bizarre, and in denial of reality.
Thats a decent hope Swenson. For once.
“Thats a decent hope Swenson. For once.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
New blog post, with thanks to Walter, and dedicated to bdgwx:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2024/01/16/how-to-cavil-like-cranks/
Willard, please stop trolling.
I know you can’t, Mike Flynn.
“I know you cant, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I know you cant, Mike Flynn.
But what I am doing?
“I know you can’t, Mike Flynn.
But what I am doing?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I know you cant, Mike Flynn.
But what I am doing?
“I know you cant, Mike Flynn.
But what I am doing?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I know you cant, Mike Flynn.
But what I am doing?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I know you cant, Mike Flynn.
But what I am doing?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
#3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The world’s population is about 8 billion.
But governments can’t count and lie.
Governments do predict that global population will crash, none of them know what to do about it, other than ignore, or even think it’s good thing.
It’s never been a good thing. And governments thru out history have trying and succeeding at lowering their local populations. History is littered with crashing civilizations all of them with politician/”leadership”, wanting lower their populations.
There are reasons, one being related to human waste management, but generally it’s usually related or driven by various “racial” ideas.
Or when is there talk about problem “over population” I ask where is it over populated? And it’s always about “other people”.
Anyways, the answer is India.
I tend think India will be the next super power.
One can argue about it. You might say it already is. You might say Africa will be it.
But unlikely for you to say a country with falling population, such as Japan {which is great nation with government which one might say is admirable, and not too long ago, the headlines were Japan as the superpower- or at least, soon to be “unstoppable”}.
More recently China is regarded as a super power, I would say, mostly hype, though definitely a super power in terms of CO2 emissions and massive amounts of unregulated pollution. Though the small region London was much more productive in such terms, as were many US cities, in terms of per capita. One thing outstanding about China is it’s ghost cities, in terms that, China gets the top prize, and is very “impressive”.
Anyhow US and Canada solution is having more immigration, Canada doing it somewhat reasonably, and US is not a shining example for other nations.
California seems to have chosen to be leader in lowering the state’s population. They have always wanted to be the national leaders.
Chinese Women Are Voting Against Communism With Their Uteri
Stephen Green | 10:45 AM on January 17, 2024
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2024/01/17/chinese-women-are-voting-against-communism-with-their-uteri-n4925570
I don’t think, Chinese Women Are Voting Against Communism With Their Uteri.
And I don’t think, American women are voting against the American Govt with their uteri.
It seems both Chinese and American women “can’t do anything about it” other than complain about the men, which they do. And have done so, from the beginning of time.
They could love babies, and move mountains to have them.
But even if they did that, there is history aspect about it- they would have to time travel. And most regard that as impossible.
Or they waited too long. Government and people can make women wait too long. So, if you wait too long, you can be too late.
Anyways, it’s linked from: https://instapundit.com/
At bottom of article, it says:
Communist China is America’s greatest threat.
Which is about as silly, as America is Communist China greatest threat.
Our govt is greatest threat, all governments from the beginning time have and always are the greatest threat to it’s people.
What the China govt did to cause it’s women to wait, is the disaster, which is certainty, coming.
Current Arctic sea ice extent as of mid-January is lower than the extent was at this point in the winter every year from 1979 through 2004.
Sea ice extent as of January 15 was 13.92 million Km².
The trend of Arctic-wide sea ice extent on January 15 each year 1979 to 2024 indicates that more than 1.5 million Km² of northern hemisphere ocean that used to have significant ice in mid-January is now open water.
Sea ice thickness is low even compared to most recent years. Northwest of the Canadian Arctic Islands there is noticeably less ice that is 3 meters or more thick this year compared to last year. Similarly, north of the Russian coast, this year there is less of the 2-3 meter thick ice.
Frequent stormy weather across northern and western Alaska since New Year’s Eve has created many areas of lower concentration ice near the coast. Thin ice has been readily moved around, and in the southeast Bering Sea there has been some ice melt.
In the Beaufort Sea substantial areas of open water and low concentration ice have developed from the northern Yukon Territory coast northwest to north of Prudhoe Bay. In the Chukchi Sea areas of low concentration have developed in many areas from the northern Seward Peninsula coast into Kotzebue Sound and then to north of Point Hope. Open water was seen offshore of Shishmaref the second week of the month, and on January 14 strong winds moved ice through nearshore open water and onto land just west of town. In the Bering Sea, ice has melted out in Bristol Bay, and in the central Bering Sea the ice edge has retreated north about 100 km (60 miles), while ice has increased significantly in the Gulf of Anadyr.
Ivanovich
Here is a somewhat less alarmistic variant of the very same data you report about:
2009 01 15 14.115 (Mkm^2)
2001 01 15 14.088
2004 01 15 14.056
1996 01 15 14.037
2000 01 15 13.981
2024 01 15 13.926
2022 01 15 13.889
2010 01 15 13.846
2008 01 15 13.822
2013 01 15 13.733
2012 01 15 13.703
2015 01 15 13.661
2005 01 15 13.604
2020 01 15 13.580
2014 01 15 13.574
2019 01 15 13.537
2021 01 15 13.523
2007 01 15 13.523
2016 01 15 13.512
2011 01 15 13.489
2006 01 15 13.474
2023 01 15 13.435
2018 01 15 13.107
2017 01 15 12.883
And by the way: what is the sense of reporting sea ice data measured every year on the same day?
I much prefer my style of presentation. If you have a problem with that, tough.
Not to mention the fact that your data is cherry picked in typical denier fashion.
” … cherry picked in typical denier fashion. ”
Ooops?!
Since when are the 24 last lines of a descending sort of G02135’s daily Arctic sea ice extent data ‘denier fashion’?
You are kidding us here, aren’t you?
Source
http://tinyurl.com/G02135-north-daily
Are you daft, is that it?
[Me] Current Arctic sea ice extent as of mid-January is lower than the extent was at this point in the winter every year from 1979 through 2004.
Cherry pick much?
Sorry, Ivanovich: with restricting your data ‘by accident’ from 1979 through 2004, you are here the cherry picker.
I presented all 24 lowest Arctic sea ice extent values available in the data set I mentioned above, independently of the end date.
And… as we can see, there are LOTS of years with an extent value for Jan, 15 lower than 2024’s.
What part of Current Arctic sea ice extent as of mid-January is lower than the extent was at this point in the winter every year from 1979 through 2004 do you not understand?
I understand the whole sentence, Ivanovich.
But… I see no reason for you to stop in… 2004.
“But… I see no reason for you to stop in… 2004.”
Because, contrary to what deniers say, while total Arctic sea ice extent is higher than in recent years it is not at record high levels. In fact, current Arctic sea ice extent as of mid-January is lower than the extent was at this point in the winter every year from 1979 through 2004.
Arkady Ivanovich, please stop trolling.
Finally, when we present the Arctic sea ice extent as anomalies wrt the daily means for 1981-2010
http://tinyurl.com/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Clim
we see that 2024’s extent anomalies were on Jan 12 pretty near to this 30 year daily mean (the ‘0’ line in the chart, of course):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
No wonder: here is the anomaly list for Jan 1, starting with 2011, together with the 2018-2022 mean:
2012 -0.43 (Mkm^2)
2022 -0.48
2024 -0.57
2020 -0.68
2015 -0.71
2014 -0.77
2013 -0.82
2011 -0.88
18-22 -0.88
2019 -0.90
2023 -1.04
2016 -1.06
2021 -1.07
2017 -1.14
2018 -1.29
*
I don’t deny anything, Ivanovich. I just present data ‘as is’:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17RBeTrCw6bTcvnUOI3Sxvr_-jXx81VvS/view
You are the worst kind of denier; a denier in denial.
Perfect!
Arkady Ivanovich, please stop trolling.
“Perfect!”
A lead-pipe cinch!
“A lead-pipe cinch!”
Arkady Ivanovich, please stop trolling.
Here’s the source of the data: http://tinyurl.com/4d8dxhxk
“what is the sense of reporting sea ice data measured every year on the same day?”
Sorry, but I don’t need to explain myself to you.
Arkady Ivanovich, please stop trolling.
Your graph shows exactly as Bindidon says. Lots of years with lower ice extent as now. This year is in the normal range.
Let us know when you have something of interest.
Contrary to what you deniers say, while total Arctic sea ice extent is higher than in recent years it is not at record high levels. In fact, current Arctic sea ice extent as of mid-January is lower than the extent was at this point in the winter every year from 1979 through 2004.
Q.E.D.
Interquartile range.
Do you know what that basic statistics term means?
By any statistical measure the following remains unchanged:
https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1747669767165796437
Another straw man.
Thanks:
https://dailysceptic.org/about/
“Let us know when you have something of interest.”
I take it that by “us” you mean deniers.
“I take it that by “us” you mean deniers”
Arkady Ivanovich, please stop trolling.
That’s a typical alarmist dodge. Of course you don’t need to explain yourself. However, if your interest is in science you’d be happy to explain yourself unless you have something to hide.
This nonsense about equating sea ice extent to a trace gas is plain stoopid. The cause is obvious, the Earth’s orbital path and the tilt of its axis. Only an ijit would claim the amount of ice melt during summer is related to a trace gas. During the rest of the 11-month winter, it is plain that ice production is due to the orbit and axial tilt.
Gordon,
He actually said, “it is not at record high levels.” Seems like he’s struggling to grasp the concept of cycles.
Walter,
Tell your new buddy that nobody is “equating” sea ice extent to CO2.
If you could also remind him that without this trace gas there wouldn’t be any life on Earth, that’d be great.
“If you could also remind him that without this trace gas there wouldnt be any life on Earth, thatd be great.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
Arkady is inferring a connection between reduced sea ice extent and global warming, which is supposedly relentless due to the constant increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
Yes, Walter.
There is a connection between CO2 and warming.
There is a connection between warming and ice.
You didn’t know?
“There is a connection between CO2 and warming.”
I’m not sure because I haven’t studied GHE. I’m currently reading Christos’ new paper, and I’ll have a better understanding after I finish. What do you think of Christos’ new paper, Willard?
Walter,
You’re doing the same thing you did with Pat at Tony’s. Speaking of which, quick question:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/09/in-memoriam-professor-ray-bates/#comment-3845173
How do you reconcile your admission of ignorance with this leading question?
Simply admitting that your “equating” was a tad too strong might have been more prudent than trying to misdirect toward another bait. Once it’s fine. Twice it becomes a habit.
There’s no “admission of ignorance.”
I was referring to the measurements. The Moncton pauses have shown no significant and observable relationship in the UAH anomalies. I explained this earlier in the thread when I mentioned that the anomalies aren’t following a persistent and upward trend consistent with ever-increasing CO2 concentration. This is a different matter altogether; now, we’re discussing whether there is any effect at all.
[WALTER] Im not sure because I havent studied GHE.
[ALSO WALTER] There’s no “admission of ignorance”
“[WALTER] Im not sure because I havent studied GHE.
[ALSO WALTER] Theres no admission of ignorance ”
What I’m saying are different things. It’s possible to lack a linear and deterministic relationship between increasing CO2 concentration and temperature anomalies in a time series, even when a greenhouse effect is concurrently present. The effect of the greenhouse can be minimal, making it indiscernible in the time series and ultimately getting obscured within the noise.
Walter,
You said you did not know if there was a connection between CO2 and warming. Thus your suspicion on the prematurity of the actual consensus is based on contrarian prejudices. You have every right to hold any prejudice you like. It may not be supported with more hypnosis sessions in which fancy words get thrown around.
First you need to master these words properly.
You overthink way too much.
Must be my monkey brain, Walter.
It’s all your fault.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
‘Nice’ weather forecast for Warburton, AS next sunday:
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240121&daytime=day&iid=AU
The Earths atmospheric greenhouse effect is on average less than 0,5 C.
When comparing the 0,5 C with the 1,5 C global temperature rise since predindustrial, it is obvious the global warming is caused by orbital forcing and not by the fossil fuels burning.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
However, as Christos has mentioned, satellite radiometers continue to measure Earth system global avg. brightness temperature over many annual periods at ~255K and the near surface air thermometer kinetic temperature measured in the same period at ~288K, a difference of some 33K.
Whatever Christos means by “Earths atmospheric greenhouse effect is on average less than 0,5 C.” must be something else and only theoretical.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“However, as Christos has mentioned, satellite radiometers continue to measure Earth system global avg. brightness temperature over many annual periods at ~255K and the near surface air thermometer kinetic temperature measured in the same period at ~288K, a difference of some 33K”
Obviously, 255 K is not 288 K.
Measuring the temperature of two completely different things with two completely different instruments gives completely different results, and you are surprised?
Rather like measuring air temperature with a liquid in glass thermometer, and ground temperature with an IR thermometer, and discovering that the ground is hotter than the air by a wide margin!
There are no “should be” thermometers, so anybody who says the surface temperature “should be” something is refusing to accept reality.
If you are claiming that the measured surface temperature is less than the measured air temperature, you have obviously made a mistake somewhere. Heat moves from hot to cold.
Try again – you can’t just ignore the laws of thermodynamics because they don’t suit you.
Oh, the morbîdly derânged Flynnson boy seems to have finished his breakfast in Aussie land.
His utterly stûpid '…please stop trôlling' already 9 times in a row and the tenth will probably come soon, I guess.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Swenson makes yet more laughable mistakes: temperature is NOT heat and heat is not EMR. What a pity. Swenson could spend the time learning but doesn’t; instead preferring to be humorous entertainer.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4 remains confused about “brightness temperature”. It makes NO sense to compare 255K to 288K. There is NO scientific relationship.
This is so far over Ball4’s head he will NEVER get it.
That’s why this is so much fun.
That would be true Clint 5:49pm if, like the lunar surface, the earth’s surface emissivity and diffraction were not known. But they are known so the 288K input can be converted to extensive properties, meaningfully averaged, and then converted back to temperature. The result after all the work is still avg. ~288K.
Thus the earthen 255K and 288K CAN be properly compared with some work if you care to do it. You just aren’t informed enough to do so but instead prefer to provide great entertainment making so many physics mistakes.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Thus the earthen 255K and 288K CAN be properly compared . . .”
An object has one temperature. It may be expressed in different degrees [of hotness], but at one time it has one temperature.
If you manage to calculate different temperatures for the one object, using the same scale, you are away with the fairies.
Quite mad.
Didn’t use one object Swenson 7:05pm, you would know that if you were better informed.
“Didnt use one object Swenson 7:05pm, you would know that if you were better informed.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
” … the global warming is caused by orbital forcing… ”
Certainly not like you think.
Imbrie & Imbrie
Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations (1980)
Science 207: 943953.
Berger & Loutre
Climate: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead? (2002)
Science 297: 12871288.
*
We are in a relatively warm, but nevertheless slowly cooling interglacial phase since 6000 years.
I am curious about your 1.5 C figure. The pre-Industrial era was during the Little Ice Age. The Industrial Era started about 1750 and the LIA peaked in 1790 with the Dalton Minimum. It is estimated that temperatures were 1C to 2C cooler during the LIA. There was a cooler period before the Dalton Minimum during the Maunder Minimum, therefore there were two periods of intense cooling during the LIA.
The figure normally used is a 1C warming since 1850, which was about 60 years after the Dalton Minimum. Syun Akasofu, an expert on the solar wind, estimated recovery from the LIA would happen at 0.5C/century. We are now 174 years from 1850 so we should be close to full recovery.
There is really no room for anthropogenic warming in the recovery. As you know, an average is just a number. The number 1.5C is not much different than 1C or 2C when it comes to global averages.
We need to look at the effect of the LIA cooling. In the French Alps, the Mer de Glace glacier expanded so much it destroyed villages and farms in its path that had been established for a long time. In the Scottish highlands, in the 1790s, during the Dalton minimum, people were starving because it was too cold, even in spring and summer, to grow food. They had the same problem in North America as far south as modern day Florida and Texas.
There was no way through the Northwest Passage, even in summer. When they finally broke through, it was not by ship. An explorer approached from the west circa 1850 and had to walk across ice for miles before meeting up with an explorer from the east. They had no way of knowing either was there, it was sheer luck.
Amundsen claims he made it through circa 1905 and we’ll have to take his word for it. The first passage both ways was not till the 1940s. Even at that, the expedition was stuck in ice on the eastward journey and had to spend the winter in ice.
Solar wind
speed: 466.0 km/sec
density: 5.50 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 16 Jan 24
Sunspot number: 150
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 183 sfu
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.51×10-10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low
“All of these sunspots have stable magnetic fields that pose little threat for strong flares”
There are 10 numbered sunspots, with 1 coming from farside- not
numbered, yet.
“…
Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
15 January – 10 February 2024
Solar activity is expected to be primarily at low levels with a
chance for M-class (R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) flares on 15 Jan-10 Feb.
No proton events are expected at geosynchronous orbit.
..”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
density: 5.50 protons/cm3
I have never heard of a 1/2 proton. Is that new particle?
I’m wondering where they measure 5.5 protons/cm^3. You might as well say there are no protons there since 5.5 in a cm^3 is insignificant in such a relatively large space.I don’t think 5.5 protons/cm^3 will produce the colours we associate with the northern lights.
I asked you before why there are no electrons listed? Don’t recall the answer.
Well, I doubt they measure cubic cm, but convert it to cubic cm, and
I imagine it not really accurate if gave it in cubic meters whole numbers.
In terms electrons it’s mostly hydrogen protons- which btw, get implanted in the lunar surface {a small portion over the millions of years] Or idea of mining helium on Moon was the helium from the sun.
{and can mine about same amount of helium as hydrogen, and has higher amount of the helium isotope which supposedly, could be used in fusion reactor {or very rare on Earth and much less rare on the Moon.
Well looked it a bit and found it not measured “good enough”:
“The need for accurate measurements of thermal velocity distribution functions in the solar wind”
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2022.1063841/full
Also anyone could measure it:
https://solarchatforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=31048
But we have spacecrafts measuring and first link mentions a couple of them which are “better” and one being my favorite, Parker Solar Probe.
But there a fair number satellite in orbit which probably measure it and as we get more of them, they likely do it better.
But though you could do in backyard, I assume spacecraft {in places like Earth’s L-1} can do it a lot then one could do in your backyard.
And wiki gives history of it. Such as question of why comet tails point in one direction and guesses of how much the sun loses:
“The total number of particles carried away from the Sun by the solar wind is about 1.31036 per second. Thus, the total mass loss each year is about (23)10−14 solar masses, or about 1.31.9 million tonnes per second. This is equivalent to losing a mass equal to the Earth every 150 million years.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
And other factoids:
“On December 13, 2010, Voyager 1 determined that the velocity of the solar wind, at its location 10.8 billion miles (17.4 billion kilometres) from Earth had slowed to zero. “We have gotten to the point where the wind from the Sun, which until now has always had an outward motion, is no longer moving outward; it is only moving sideways so that it can end up going down the tail of the heliosphere, which is a comet-shaped-like object”, said Voyager project scientist Edward Stone.”
Wiki stuff.
Robertson
Why are you so stubborn?
” … we take the actual average of temperatures over the past 30 years to establish a baseline. ”
*
1. No. Not over ‘over the past 30 years’, but according to the WMO recommendations for reference periods.
Until December 2020, Roy Spencer used the previous recommendation: 1981-2010. By January 2021, he switched to 1991-2020.
His first baseline was using the 20 year reference period 1979-1998.
*
2. No. ‘We’ do NOT ‘take the actual average of temperatures over the past 30 years to establish a baseline’, Robertson.
The baseline is not a simple value as you think.
The average of all monthly LT absolute temperatures for the period Jan 1991 till Dec 2020 is 264.09 K.
When computing anomalies wrt the mean of 1991-2020 by simply subtracting this mean value from all absolute values, you obtain the green line:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zMrnVDsGrI63WWKdlKmt2ez_RWvNpyag/view
*
I repeat: what you need as baseline is a 12 month array, exactly as shown by Roy Spencer in his 2016 head post (for the period Jan 1981 – Dec 2010 which was valid at that time):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
In the head post you will find:
UAH LT global average annual cycle
Mon. Kelvin
JAN 263.037
FEB 263.108
MAR 263.299
APR 263.721
MAY 264.324
JUN 264.966
JUL 265.288
AUG 265.108
SEP 264.471
OCT 263.786
NOV 263.273
DEC 263.072
Look at the absolute temperatures:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-thru-feb-2016-with-anncyc-1.jpg
I still have the old 1981-2010 climatology on disk and could therefore easily reproduce Roy Spencer’s values, even for UAH5.6 LT.
*
Here is, one more time, the 12 month baseline for 1991-2020, which I computed out of the UAH LT climatology file located in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
Mon. Kelvin. | Celsius.
Jan: 263.180 | -9.97
Feb: 263.269 | -9.88
Mar: 263.428 | -9.72
Apr: 263.843 | -9.31
Mai: 264.449 | -8.70
Jun: 265.099 | -8.05
Jul: 265.419 | -7.73
Aug: 265.234 | -7.92
Sep: 264.638 | -8.51
Oct: 263.946 | -9.20
Nov: 263.407 | -9.74
Dec: 263.191 | -9.96
*
Don’t you understand the analogy? Are you THAT DENSE, Robertson?
*
” And here you have been doing it wrong all along, which might explain your fudged graphs. ”
Why don’t you have enough balls to finally ask Roy Spencer what he means about
– your uneducated, gut feeling based thoughts
and
– your endless urge to discredit all what I do – despite being absolutely unable to technically contradict it?
Will you finally get it now?
year |mon | T absol | basel month | diff |Spencer anoms
1978 | 12 | 262.715 | 263.191 | -0.476 | -0.48
etc etc etc
Is that really so difficult to understand, Robertson?
“Is that really so difficult to understand, Robertson?”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
You are the one who is obviously confused about it. It’s simple to me. I wonder if you have a brain defect that takes simple solutions to problems and obfuscates them to the point of the ridiculous?
I remember you trying to explain to me that UAH has discarded the satellite readings and now used a fixed equation to calculate the average. When I asked where they get the data for the equation, there was no response.
You fail to grasp that Mayer did no calculations to determine the Moon spins, he was merely talking about libration.
Robertson
You are really becoming dement.
1. ” You are the one who is obviously confused about it. Its simple to me. ”
Why dont you have enough balls to finally ask Roy Spencer what he means about
your uneducated, gut feeling based thoughts
and
your endless urge to discredit all what I do despite being absolutely unable to technically contradict it?
*
2. ” I remember you trying to explain to me that UAH has discarded the satellite readings and now used a fixed equation to calculate the average. ”
Wrong, Robertson. I never explained that ‘UAH has discarded the satellite readings and now used a fixed equation to calculate the average’.
I simply wrote that Roy Spencer HIMSELF explained in 2015 the impossibility to further use satellite readings for the LT, and that UAH would from then on replace the LT readings by a weighting of MT, TP and LS:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
Look in 2.1 LT calculation
” The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU2,3,4 or AMSU5,7,9 (aka MT,TP, LS):
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS ”
This is not my ‘equation’, Robertson: it is Spencer/Christy’s specification of how to replace LT readings by the combination above.
I posted a comparison of UAH’s MT/TP/LS weighting with the public LT
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
but of course you did not understand it.
Hint: NOAA does nearly the same for their STAR time series for LT.
*
3. ” You fail to grasp that Mayer did no calculations to determine the Moon spins, he was merely talking about libration. ”
This is really 100% dementia, Robertson.
Did you forget?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1586988
Here is, as I explained so often to you, the one and only place where Mayer uses the word ‘libration’ in his treatise about the lunar spin:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&output=text&id=EJqRdI1nLI4C&q=libration&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=libration&f=false
How, do you think, does an astronomer manage to write a treatise about libration in which the word occurs only once?
**
Maybe your new friend Walter R. Hogle can explain all that to you?
“Why dont you have enough balls to finally ask Roy Spencer what he means about your uneducated, gut feeling based thoughts and . . .”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
binny…”1. No. Not over over the past 30 years, but according to the WMO recommendations for reference periods”.
***
Then why has Roy written along the y-xis that the anomalies are based on the average from ’91 – ’20. And what does the WMO know about satellite telemetry? They are a load of alarmists who use the surface data.
Go peddle your propaganda elsewhere.
Robertson
” Then why has Roy written along the y-xis… ”
*
And why, do you think, did Roy Spencer write, till December 2020, ‘along the y-xis that the anomalies are based on the average from ’81 ’10?
*
Why aren’t you able to find the thread in which he posted his graph based on the average from ’79 ’98 for the last time?
Answer: because you are an ignorant and arrogant boaster.
“. . . because you are an ignorant and arrogant boaster.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Your not that obtuse are you? They were using the old 30 year average, ’81 – ’10, till recently.
That’s what alarmists have been wailing about. When UAH moved to the newer 30 year average, the anomalies all moved to show cooling.
> When UAH moved to the newer 30 year average, the anomalies all moved to show cooling.
No, they did not:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/
Robertson
There is only one obtuse, ignorant person here, and that’s you.
When you write:
” When UAH moved to the newer 30 year average, the anomalies all moved to show cooling. ”
you prove once more that you STILL did not understand that anomalies do not show cooling just because they become lower.
The level of anomalies does not tell anything about how warm or cool it is at the point they are computed: this level only depends on the reference period chosen.
Is the period’s average colder, so are the anomalies higher and vice-versa.
Here is a graph superposing UAH’s
-absolute LT temperatures (blue);
– anomalies wrt their oldest reference period (1979-1998, red);
– anomalies wrt an arbitrary chosen period (1999-2018, green).
Both anomaly time series were equally displaced by 264K; otherwise we couldn’t see them.
*
The lower green anomalies do not ‘show cooling’ compared to the red ones: they are constructed out of a temperature average warmer than that used to construct the red anomalies:
Mon | 79-98 || 99-18 || Diff
Jan | 262.93 | 263.22 | 0.29
Feb | 263.00 | 263.30 | 0.30
Mar | 263.20 | 263.46 | 0.26
Apr | 263.64 | 263.88 | 0.24
May | 264.26 | 264.46 | 0.20
Jun | 264.93 | 265.09 | 0.16
Jul | 265.23 | 265.42 | 0.19
Aug | 265.05 | 265.24 | 0.19
Sep | 264.38 | 264.66 | 0.28
Oct | 263.69 | 263.98 | 0.29
Nov | 263.19 | 263.43 | 0.24
Dec | 263.00 | 263.22 | 0.22
Avg | 263.88 | 264.11 | 0.23
*
The green anomalies do not show cooling: otherwise, their trend would be lower than that of the red anomalies.
*
You are repeating the same mistake as when comparing NOAA anomalies wrt the mean of 1901-2000 to UAH anomalies wrt the mean of 1991-2020:
https://i.postimg.cc/ncDph2XL/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022.png
The NOAA anomalies do not show, as you wrongly claim, an unduly warmer world: they were computed out of a period much colder than that chosen for UAH.
Displaying the NOAA anomalies wrt the same period as UAH’s then gives
versus
https://i.postimg.cc/xT6mR007/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022-wrt-1991-2020.png
*
You can tell all what you want about what I do, Robertson.
That won’t change anything.
*
By the way, Robertson: I don’t spend my time to convince you: that has been until now 100% useless.
There are lots of people watching this blog, with on average way more interest in understanding such matter than you will ever be able to show.
The graph
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pl0raX2xigkGianPkfKpTCBx2kena0VW/view
Gordon Robertson,
If you could elaborate your position, that would be of great help.
But Binny seems right on this one. The value of those data points don’t change. The reference point or baseline adjustment just alters the perception of whether a particular point is warmer or colder in relation to the updated baseline.
Walter R. Hogle
” But Binny seems right on this one. The value of those data points don’t change. ”
Thank you for this insightful remark.
I’m afraid however that it might not have the expected effect.
But I don’t write the stuff in the hope to convince people like Robertson.
I write it for interested persons who are not sure about who is correct.
The same holds for utter nonsense like ‘NOAA has only 1500 stations’, ‘The Moon does not spin about its polar axis’, ‘Mayer was talking about libration’, ‘Time does not exist’ etc etc etc.
“Why dont you have enough balls to finally ask Roy Spencer what he means . . . ”
Bindidon, Willard, please stop trolling.
“Why dont you have enough balls to finally ask Roy Spencer what he means . . . ”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Please stop losing your footing, Mike Flynn.
“Please stop losing your footing, Mike Flynn.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Holding premium acreage in the highly prospective Beetaloo/McArthur basin, Tamboran is strategically positioned to commercialise these resources to address a forecast domestic energy shortfall and as a feed supplier to existing Australian LNG plants.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Tamboran Resources Corporation is headquartered in Sydney, Australia with a global management team leveraging a significant depth of experience in the successful commercialisation of unconventional gas throughout North America. The team brings a wealth of knowledge, including modern shale reservoir assessment, as well as cutting-edge drilling and completion design technology.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Since it is your thread, Mike, I’ll stop right here.
“Since it is your thread, Mike, Ill stop right here.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
aq…”What must it be like to sit at home all day every day, without a novel thought, angrily posting the same endless trash hour after hour, day after day, year after year, with no prospects for further progress, just waiting for the end to come. I shudder to think about it”.
***
Don’t you have the slightest bit of awareness that Swenson has your number and wee willy’s number as well? He plays you both like an old fiddle and both of you bite, like the alarmist brain-dead you are.
Swenson’s have a good time, asking over and over for an explanation for the unexplained GHE, and you two think he is disturbed. We know who is disturbed and it’s not Swenson.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A blast from Bordo’s past:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/10/proof-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-arthur-smith/#comment-65869
As a wise man says a bit later on: It’s easy to be a parrot, much more difficult to seek the truth.
I’ll never forget Robertson’s
” As I took a year in astronomy, … ”
*
One day I’ll get enough, and extend my 10 line script printing
2024-01-17 03:50:14 (GMT + 1)
Willard: 614
Swenson: 475
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 179
Bill Hunter: 173
Gordon Robertson: 144
Nate: 92
Bindidon: 79
Clint R: 67
Walter R. Hogle: 53
Christos Vournas: 49
…
and download all the trash Robertson wrote on this blog since beginning.
If you find a way to script the network of comments so that we can see that most of my comments are in response to silly ankle biters that should know better, Binny, I could try to reconstruct Bordo’s CV based on all his bragging over the years, here and at Jennifer’s.
Wouldn’t it be easier just to discuss advanced electrical/electronics theory with me? I’d be happy to oblige.
Or, is that how you get your jollies, stalking people in the hope of finding information to discredit them? If you had half an ounce of intelligence you could study what I am talking about and try to find inconsistencies in my arguments. I find them all the time.
After leaving university, I would estimate I forgot 90% of what I had learned within 5 years. When I contacted a buddy who had also studied electrical engineering but who had specialized in electric motors, and asked him to clarify some theory, he replied, “How the hell do you expect me to remember that stuff’?
The advantage to having studied engineering is the familiarity you gain. You can forget a particular theory but once you begin reading on it again, it comes back quickly. At least, it does if you understood it in the first place. Another advantage to review is getting a completely different insight into a problem.
That’s what I am doing a lot these days in general physics and math. I am finding stock answers and beliefs to be inadequate. However, I am being criticized for simply questioning rather than on the merits of my arguments.
Some people seem to be under the impression that whatever is taught at a university, or written in a textbook, is the truth. It’s bad enough within a discipline like engineering, where concepts are presented, not on truth, but as convention, let alone in disciplines where physics and math are not taught rigourously but more as asides.
I am finding egregious errors in the reasoning of climate modelers who have obviously never studied physics from a rigourous POV.
“Wouldnt it be easier just to discuss advanced electrical/electronics theory with me? Id be happy to oblige.”
How many advanced theories, are there {that could be possibly be proven}?
“most of my comments are in response to silly ankle biters ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
> Some people seem to be under the impression that whatever is taught at a university, or written in a textbook, is the truth.
Then why do you insist so much on telling these silly stories about your university years, Bordo? Casual mentions from time to time are fine. But now you’re trying to suggest that you know just about everything related to physics and engineering because you took a few undergraduate courses!
The timeline is still obscure. One year of physics, then engineering, in which you had geology. And now electronics and electronics. How does any of this add up?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I will honor that request of getting Bordo’s CV, Mike Flynn.
What are you going to do about it – whine to Mr. Stoneburner?
“SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
Are you aware that this ‘please stop trolling’ nonsense occurs on this thread 233 times right now?
“Are you aware that this please stop trolling nonsense occurs on this thread 233 times right now?”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Hey, Mike Flynn –
Did you know?
Every PST is a concession.
That’s 234. Does my mention count as 235?
What mention, Bordo?
“Every PST is a concession.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
You already conceded, Mike Flynn.
No need to thank me.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wrong subthread, Mike Flynn.
Wrong thread, Mike Flynn.
Those were good days on Jen’s site. You highlighted ‘when I studied physics’ as if that means something. I took a full year of physics before being admitted to the engineering faculty and then we did two different physics courses in 1st year. Then we specialized in physics with courses in semiconductor theory (solid state), circuit analysis, electrical machines, amplifier design, etc.
It’ all physics of the applied variety.
What’s your interest in following me around the Net? Are you a weirdo?
> You highlighted “when I studied physics” as if that means something.
In your case, Bordo, it definitely means very little!
TYSON might prefer this instant classic:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/gordon-robertson-on-a-molten-core/
Mike Flynn still entertains that bit. He might still be Amazed by this coincidence!
In any event, you forgot to tell when you studied a bit of geology.
Geology was part of my engineering core courses in first year. I suppose you want a date so you can stalk me more efficiently. Or an age so you can apply ageism.
Are you alarmists so desperate to discredit a skeptic that you will resort to any kind of scumbag techniques? That was certainly the case at the uber-alarmist site Desmogblog where they tried hard to discredit skeptical professionals, including Roy and John of UAH.
I have suspected since you showed up here a few years ago that you were on some kind of mission to convert or expose skeptics. Thus far, all you have accomplished is revealing yourself as a complete twit.
“In any event, you forgot to tell when you studied a bit of geology.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
So Bordo took a full year of physics before being admitted to the engineering faculty. That must be where he learned that angular was always constant and that, if the derivative does not exist, there is no continuity. And then geology was part of his engineering core courses in first year. That’s where he learned that the Earth’s shape was “apparently comes from the stress of the gravitational pull of the Sun the Moon.”
Since the more courses he took the more convoluted his beliefs became, he must still be taking courses!
> angular
…rate, that is.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey Mike Flynn,
You’re in my thread.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“and download all the trash Robertson wrote on this blog since beginning.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
ark the snark…”…current Arctic sea ice extent as of mid-January is lower than the extent was at this point in the winter every year from 1979 through 2004″.
***
How can anyone possibly measure sea ice extent to any degree of accuracy when the ice is moving around all the time, being piled on top of itself up to 40 feet high, and being dumped into the North Atlantic?
This is not related to a trace gas in any way. It’s due to a combination of natural factors. One of them is recovery from the Little Ice Age and the other is natural circulation processes in the Arctic Ocean that transports ice constantly to new locations. As a result, some ice is dumped into the North Atlantic and other masses get forced atop the other to produce huge ridges of ice up to 40 feet high.
Explorers, thinking they had a clear walk to the North Pole found to their great dismay that they encountered these natural barriers so regularly as to cause great frustration. You can only carry so much food to sustain yourself and using tremendous amounts of energy dragging sleds over 40 foot ridges tasks the body’s endurance and calorie requirements.
“How can anyone possibly measure sea ice extent to any degree of accuracy … ?”
Take a satellite picture and count the pixels with ice in them. Ice extent is simply area; it ha nothing to do with thickness.
“recovery from the Little Ice Age …”
After a large volcanic eruption, the climate is disrupted. Typically there is cooling after the eruption, due to excess dust in the atmosphere. As the dust clears out, the climate ‘recovers’ back to pre-eruption conditions (ie it tends to warm back up). Clear cause-and-effect.
To claim a ‘recovery’ from the LIA, you would need a clear cause for the cooling that lasted for ~ 3 centuries and a removal of that cause that allowed ‘re-warming’ for the last ~ 2 centuries. Without that, any “recover” is just an ex post facto justification.
Thanks for the reminder:
https://climateball.net/but-data/#sea-ice
https://climateball.net/but-mwp/#lia
Willard, please stop trolling.
That one I can ignore, Mike Flynn.
So you have to know the cause of the data before you can claim the data has changed? So that’s science? Or is it possible you can just say through observation the data has changed?
What’s “the cause of the data,” Troglodyte, and if you knew about it why care about the data in the first place?
“So you have to know the cause of the data before you can claim the data has changed?”
No, data is data and it speaks for itself.
However, if you DO claim a cause (“recovery from the LIA”), then you should have some evidence for that claim. Like “why did the LIA occur?” and “when did that cause stop?” and “why should that change cause a century-long warming trend?”.
first an imbalance that has been allegedly building for more than a hundred years might take as many decades to unwind. second feedback from changes in ice extent may take many decades to centuries to reach an equilibrium extent, third likewise for the lower ocean to equalize to change upwelling cooling effects. the current narrative does nothing to give any thing but a cherry picked view of how this plays out. if you want to scare people you will argue how one must make an immediate decision to mitigate ”locked in warming” out of one side of their mouth while verbally minimizing away longterm natural feedbacks as an alternative explanation to continued warming out of the other side of their mouth
ken…”Your posts have too much verbiage with too little meat”.
***
My posts are crammed with the ‘meat’ you seem to require which makes me wonder what you mean by meat. Are you referring to the presumptuous natterings of your favourite authority figure, Happer, who actually supports the alarmist argument on the GHE and differs only in a few details?
The physics related to this is complex and cannot be adequately covered by a simplistic model like the GHE. I take it to the atomic level at times because I have been trained in that aspect of physics in my engineering studies. I have dealt with atomic theory much of my adult life, mainly with the application of electrons and related theory, such as EM fields (not to be confused with W.C. Fields).
BTW…my beef about the GHE is that it is not even remotely associated with a real greenhouse. As Lindzen puts it, the GHE model is a one-dimensional model trying to explain a far more complex 3-D climate. On top of that, Lindzen points out that the GHE completely ignores convection, by which most heat is transferred Tropics to the Poles in our atmosphere.
It’s not possible to talk about this stuff without going into great deal. If I was talking to a fellow engineer, or someone conversant with atomic level theory, I could be far more concise. But I am dealing with people like you who obviously have no idea what I am talking about even though I dumb it down considerably.
I am suggesting that rather than pointing the finger at me as the source of your lack of comprehension, to point it at yourself and ask why you cannot be bothered to ask me what I am talking about. I would be happy to clarify anything I write. I am willing to dumb it down as far as possible to communicate what I have to say.
“The physics related to this is complex and cannot be adequately covered by a simplistic model like the GHE. ”
Gordon,
That sounds all too familiar. I’d like to diversify my knowledge; I know next to nothing about GHE. But if you’re willing to help, where you would start if you had to learn all over again?
Start with the planetary energy budget.
Energy enters Earth’s atmosphere as visible light and is absor*bed, mostly by the surface.
The surface reradiates that energy as infrared radiation. Some radiates directly to space through a transparent gap in the infrared spectrum known as the atmospheric window.
The rest interacts with the atmosphere on its way out, which brings us to the greenhouse effect.
Ent believes without knowledge: “The rest interacts with the atmosphere on its way out, which brings us to the greenhouse effect.”
The “rest”, being back-radiation, has ALREADY interacted with the atmosphere. CO2’s 15μ photon can NOT warm a 288 K surface.
Entropic man does not understand entropy!
EM,
“brings us to the greenhouse effect.” – which you can’t actually describe!
Very clever, although at one time you claimed “The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets.” I can’t quite see why infrared radiation allowing the Earth to cool by losing energy has any relation to a stack of blankets.
Neither can you.
Walter R. Hogle
In reply to
https://imgur.com/a/ZjoognP
Theoretical background for terrestrial peak IR emission around 10 microns is Wiens empirical Displacement Law which says
wavelength ~ 2897 / T
(wavelength in microns, T in Kelvin).
*
I read about measurements performed at different places on Earth which demonstrated this peak frequency, but don’t know anymore where to find back to these sources.
(I have over 500 pdf files but can’t search in them for such info on my Linux system, they are opaque.)
*
Apart from this, there is a good head post by Clive Best about CO2:
The CO2 GHE demystified (2013)
https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4597
One of the major sentences in the thread is in the abstract already:
” The result for CO2 is surprising as it shows that OLR from the central peak of the 15 micron band originates from high in the stratosphere. It is mostly the lines at the edges of the band that lie in the troposphere.
The calculation can then show how changes in CO2 concentrations affect the emission height and thereby reduce net outgoing radiation(OLR).
The net reduction in OLR is found to be in agreement with far more complex radiative transfer models.
This demonstrates how the greenhouse effect on Earth is determined by greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere and not at the surface. “
Thank you entropic man.
Walter Boyle
I’ve been thinking more about your request.
The first thought is that you are in the wrong place. An echo chamber full of people who do not believe in the greenhouse effect is not a good place to learn about it.
The second thought is to wonder what level of scientific education you already have. As an old teacher I know that you need to know what your pupil already knows, so you know what level to start at.
Thirdly, are you a conspiracy theorist? If you think all the scientific evidence is a con, then there’s no point in further discussion.
If a “teacher” tries to convince you that passenger jets fly backward, just to protect his cult beliefs, then he’s no “teacher”. He’s a cult propagandist indoctrinator.
If Puffman tries to bite your ankle, ask him why he believes that the Sky shots cold rays on the ground.
Walter Hogle
For example, this is a Modtran generated graph showing the outgoing radiation measured from space during a Summer afternoon in Winsconcin.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
It makes a good starting point for a discussion of the greenhouse effect for someone who already has a background in physics .How much of it do you already understand?
[E-man has no background in physics, by the way].
DREMT
You’d be surprised. As a test for the student I invite you to explain the graph to Walter.
Ent, that graph is bogus. It has been used by your cult for years. It is obviously invalid. Do you know why?
Of course you can’t answer. You can’t even answer a basic physics question like:
Can all infrared always warm an object?
You’re a phony that can’t answer for yourself. When you get caught perverting science, you depend on cult children to cover for you.
That’s why this is so much fun.
"You’d be surprised"
I’d be very surprised, since you have previously described your background as being in biology. Nothing wrong with that, but don’t go saying things like:
"It makes a good starting point for a discussion of the greenhouse effect for someone who already has a background in physics"
If you don’t have such a background yourself.
Entropic man,
I understand the concept of incoming solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation. The atmospheric window is the range of wavelengths in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is how energy absorbed by the surface leaves the Earth because greenhouse gases are transparent. How do we determine the size of the atmospheric window?
Wavelengths, in the context of light and electromagnetic radiation, refer to the distance between consecutive peaks or troughs of a wave. The infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum encompasses various electromagnetic waves such as radio waves, gamma rays, visible light, etc.
I’m encountering difficulty visualizing these concepts in my head, let alone understanding how they interact with each other. If I could accurately visualize the atmospheric window, I believe I could gain a better understanding.
Walter, the good thing about the GHE nonsense is that you don’t have to be an expert to know how to shoot it down. It’s such bad science that even people can trash it just with common sense!
The starting (false) concept that adding CO2 to the atmosphere can warm the surface violates the laws of thermodynamics. You don’t even have to know the laws of thermodynamics! If you bring bananas into your house, will they start a fire? You know intuitively they won’t, yet that’s a model of the bogus GHE. More mass to the system means higher temperature, in the cult’s false science.
It doesn’t work like that.
Walter,
If you could answer bdgwx’ question over there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1594749
that’s be great.
Don’t forget to ask Puffman how the sky shoots cold rays!
Clint R 2:27 pm, your humorously faulty wording leaves out sunshine. Since the sun is always shining somewhere on Earth, adding CO2 ppm well mixed to the troposphere enables the sun to warm the near surface air driving up the starting point of the atm. T lapse curve.
yeah its a real joke Willard.
How about this passage at the bottom of the list of possible uncertainties:
”Of course, an unrecognized systematic effect cannot be taken into account in the evaluation of the uncertainty of
the result of a measurement but contributes to its error.”
So how would that be handled by somebody facing zero liability for not quantifying an unrecognized systematic effect like a non-representative population?
Well nothing. All you have to do is put on the horse blinder mask and not recognize anything you want to not recognize.
Thats not an enforceable standard.
Of course, an unrecognized systematic effect cannot be taken into account in the evaluation of the uncertainty of
the result of a measurement but contributes to its error.
Ding Ding Ding!!!
You still haven’t replied to bdgwx, Walter.
The mask is wearing off.
Walter R. Hogle
I read above:
” The atmospheric window is the range of wavelengths in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. ”
Sorry, this is not correct.
This window is an analogy to a window in a wall: it is that part of ‘the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum’ in which (nearly) no IR sensitive gases absorb radiation.
O3 aka ozone is the exception confirming the rule but plays only a minor role compared to water vapor (H2O) outside:
https://i.postimg.cc/sDmzCZhs/Atmospheric-window-8-12-mu.png
The absorp~tion intensity is around 4E-20 (18 powers of 10 less than H2O).
Theoretical computations and practical measurements agree upon a range between 7.5 and 12.5 microns. Earth main IR emissions are around 10 microns.
*
Without this atmospheric window we wouldn’t be here to discuss about it.
If I understand well, a problem in the future might be the broadening of the water vapor absorp~tion band into this atmospheric window:
https://i.postimg.cc/P5nXdk6Q/Atmospheric-window-7-5-12-5-mu.png
*
My good old source unfortunately is in French:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques-Treiner/publication/275205925_L'effet_de_serre_atmospherique_plus_subtil_qu'on_ne_le_croit/links/555642e008aeaaff3bf5f055/Leffet-de-serre-atmospherique-plus-subtil-quon-ne-le-croit.pdf
And Adobe Inc. does its very best to protect such sources from a copy/paste into e.g. Google Translator :–(
Who’s entered the sub-thread to divert us all off-topic? Ah, it’s Little Willy again.
“You still havent replied to bdgwx, Walter.
The mask is wearing off.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“You still havent replied to bdgwx, Walter.
The mask is wearing off.”
It’s not my fault you guys can’t separate a temperature from a statistic.
> It’s not my fault
Team Science Makes Area Contrarian Do It
Having trouble posting here.
Bindidon, Entropic man, Clint, DREMT, Ball4, etc.
Click on the link; it’s my post in Imgur.
https://imgur.com/a/ZjoognP
Walter Hogle.
You’re a long way ahead of most here. It took me years to get it all sorted.
It’s past my bedtime, so I’ll just field the atmospheric window for now.
Between wavenumbers 900 and 1200 the atmosphere is transparent to longwave radiation because none of the gases it contains absorb at those wavenumbers. All the radiation leaving the surface escapes to space and there is no greenhouse effect.
Goodnight.
DREMT
I realise that most scientists can function within their own specialities while knowing very little outside their field. It is why so many of you make such complete asses of yourselves when moving outside your specialities to discuss climate.
Biologists have no such luxury. To understand the physics of living organisms requires me to have a working knowledge of many branches of physics.
You sure are full of yourself.
Ent is a cultist. That means, to him, “reality” is anything he wants it to be. He only has to “believe”.
So, he believes he’s a scientist as he perverts science to fit his cult beliefs.
He fears reality because reality always wins.
Walter from your “Imgur” link:
You stated — “The issue is whether there is remaining greenhouse gas absorp.tion that remains unaccounted for.”
* This site does not like the word “absorp.tion”, without some kind of modification.
* You might want to consider always using “bogus GHE”, instead of just “GHE”. The cult can’t even provide a scientific description/definition it’s so bogus.
You asked — “Earth is a warm planet in the cold surrounding universe. So what would be providing Earth with the warmth necessary for life.”
This is where you get to state It’s the Sun, st00pid”
Yes, Clint stumbles into something correct for once, it IS the sun that drives the GHE, the added IR active atm. gases, clouds, and reduced albedo are just enablers.
Entropic man says:
”To understand the physics of living organisms requires me to have a working knowledge of many branches of physics.”
Hmmm, is EM claiming he has proof of how heat at TOA gets to the surface?
“Team Science Makes Area Contrarian Do It”
Willard,
I am arguing that position to you in the upthread.
For convenience for the 3 of us, here are the links:
bdgwx & Nate: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1596878
Willard: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1596908
Clint R,
“This is where you get to state Its the Sun, st00pid
It makes sense that the sun would provide enough warmth for the Earth during the day. However, considerations arise for nighttime and winter, especially when the Northern Hemisphere is tilted away further from the sun’s tilt than the Southern Hemisphere. In the Arctic, there is a period from late November through January when it receives no sunlight, and yet, life persists in that region. The question emerges: What prevents temperatures in the Arctic from dropping drastically during this period, similar to the levels observed in outer space?
By the way, I understand how tedious it can be to spoon-feed someone when teaching a new concept. I’ll do my best to comprehend your explanations, and you’ll have to bear with my novice knowledge. This will include questions that challenge your assumptions.
Walter, Earth is always receiving solar energy. ALWAYS. The fact that Earth nights don’t get as cold as outer space involves “heat capacity”. The reason you’ve veered off topic is because the cult has no scientific explanation of the bogus GHE. You need to learn why the GHE is bogus. Start here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1572982
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1595590
You’re doing fine, I don’t mind responsible questions. That’s science. Science can answer responsible questions, the GHE cult can’t.
"What prevents temperatures in the Arctic from dropping drastically during this period, similar to the levels observed in outer space?"
The presence of the atmosphere…not GHGs, but the atmosphere…and, the presence of the oceans. As Clint R points out, the Sun is always shining somewhere on Earth. The atmosphere and the oceans help move that "heat" around. As a result, the Arctic temperatures won’t drop drastically during that period.
I don’t think even the most ardent GHE-defender would suggest that it’s GHGs keeping the Arctic temperatures from dropping drastically during that period. Though I could be surprised…
Walter,
To understand Graham D. Warner’s
You need to notice the only words that matter in his current baiting:
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Maybe, but
in response to
[TIM] The paper accepts a few ideas that some of our resident skeptics deny. 1a) “i.e. nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), are transparent to the longwave radiation. In contrast, some minor constituents, particularly water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and ozone (O3)”
You can trust Graham D. Warner for making the shortest concedes grammatically possible, and deflect.
Hope this helps.
Something wrong with my explanation to Walter, Little Willy?
Walter,
Another thing. If you ever see a Sky Dragon cranks tell you:
[SKY DRAGON CRANK’S COPIUM] The presence of the atmosphere, not greenhouse gases, but the atmosphere is what prevents temperatures from dropping drastically during the dark hours.
…ask them what in the atmosphere prevents temperatures from reaching the temperature levels observed in outer space.
Walter asked about the Arctic, Little Willy, specifically:
"there is a period from late November through January when it receives no sunlight, and yet, life persists in that region. The question emerges: What prevents temperatures in the Arctic from dropping drastically during this period, similar to the levels observed in outer space?"
We’re talking about months of no sunlight. It’s not prevented from dropping in temperature drastically during all this extended period due to GHGs!
I explained that, as Clint R points out, the Sun is always shining somewhere on Earth. The atmosphere and the oceans help move that "heat" around. If you have a problem with that explanation, be specific. I know how you struggle with being specific…
…and if you don’t want to listen to me, listen to C.A Linder (found in a one minute Google search):
"What about the Arctic winter? The mean winter low temperature from Barrow, Alaska is -20°F, which is only about 15 degrees colder than Duluth, Minnesota. If the sun never shines all winter at the pole, why isn’t the temperature much colder? The answer is related to the global heat budget. The air around the Earth is continually in motion – warm air from the tropics travels toward the poles and cold air from the poles travels toward the equator until a balance is reached. It is the warm air masses from the south that keep the Arctic (relatively) warm, even in the cold, dark winter months.
Arctic climate is influenced by two different air masses: polar maritime (influenced by the ocean) and continental (influenced by large land areas). The ocean influences the climate in the Arctic just like it does in temperate latitudes. For example, when it is 80°F in Boston it is typically only 70°F on Cape Cod – the air near the Cape is moderated by the colder Atlantic Ocean water. Conversely, in winter the ocean is warmer than the land, and the ocean warms up the atmosphere. Since the Arctic region is dominated by the Arctic Ocean, the polar maritime climate subtype is the primary climatic influence. This air mass brings cold, stormy winters and mild, cloudy summers. The interior of the large countries surrounding the Arctic, such as Siberia and Canada, are affected by a continental polar air mass. Just like Boston, they have harsher winters and hotter summers than the coastal regions."
Walter R. Hogle
Sorry, my answer to your imgur was misplaced, you’ll find it above.
Walter R. Hogle
I would recommend reading this:
Elementary, Analytic Models of Climate
Part I The Mean Global Heat Balance
Joseph W. Chamberlain (1979)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790010343/downloads/19790010343.pdf
*
You might also read the first chapter of a somewhat difficult book to digest:
Radiative Heat Transfer
By Michael F. Modest
https://books.google.de/books?id=J2KZq0e4lCIC&pg=PA1&hl=en&source=gbs_toc_r&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
*
A further source, also not easy to digest:
Theory of Planetary Atmospheres: An Introduction to Their Physics and Chemistry
Joseph W. Chamberlain, Donald M. Hunten
Academic Press, 1978
Pleas search for a source free of charge.
At last Gaslighting Graham makes an effort. Like pulling teeth to a chicken. Other factors include:
http://polardiscovery.whoi.edu/poles/weather.html
If Graham D. Warner stopped acting like a freaking sperglord and carried his weight on the field a little more, we would not be here.
That is how Little Willy acknowledges he was wrong. Hilarious.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-does-the-arctic-warm-faster-than-the-rest-of-the-planet/
At some point waving his arms about N2 and O2 does not cut it.
Thank you Bindidon for sharing your sources. Im going to read those before commentating any further on this topic. Im having a difficult time understanding certain terminology.
OMG, Little Willy, Walter asked about the Arctic winter, when there is no sunlight. It is not kept relatively warm over all that period by GHGs, it is kept relatively warm by air and ocean currents. Just be told.
Walter asked for an explanation. It involves a whole system, not just the part Sky Dragon cranks prefer. And light of course plays a part: Arctic winters are not pitch black:
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/research/highlights/measuring-the-impact-of-the-aurora-borealis-on-climate-change
Science blogs are meant to be reading groups. Those who can’t provide links because they’re addicted to their phones should wait until they get a tool that allows them to help people.
You have absolutely no interest in helping anyone, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3
Sharing resources tops sharing intentions.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1597514
“Start with the planetary energy budget…”
…and finish here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1596331
Yes, I’m currently reading Christos’ paper. There’s a lot of foreign terminology and numerous papers I need to go through, but I’ll get there.
Roy Spencer explains it here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
…and, down-thread, you can read yet another annihilation of the CO2 enhanced GHE. Won’t stop believers believin’.
… yet another obviously erroneous annihilation of the CO2 enhanced GHE.
See? Won’t stop believers believin’.
… in the continually measured science both in the lab and in the field confirming basic theory.
…"basic theory" which, of course, can only truly be understood by the ordained priests of climate physics. It’s "basic", but also so "complicated" that you need a PhD to properly understand it…and there’s no contradiction or inconsistency there. Oh, no.
Also, the "basic theory" will change to a different version of the "basic theory" any time someone attacks the original version of the "basic theory".
DREMT 1:55 pm is obviously so confused that it is easy to understand why DREMT’s sophistry goes so wrong at times.
No PhD. required & the basic science of 1st course meteorology 101 doesn’t change as the basic theory 1LOT, 2LOT, S-B still stand on DREMT’s “one hundred years of observations”.
Sure, it’s all basic, and easily understood…up until the moment you want to claim that it’s not, and that only certain people can really understand it.
"DREMT’s “one hundred years of observations”."
Read the paper, Ball4. Then you might understand what observations are being referred to.
Gordo claims to have great knowledge of physics, then concludes with:
Remember when I replied to one of your repeated “dumb it down” statements?:
You have still refused to give a physics based description of your term “dissipation”, and how it would work in a vacuum. Of course, we recall how confused you were about “heat sinks” used to cool electronic devices. They cool by convection, not IR radiation.
E,
“Of course, we recall how confused you were about heat sinks used to cool electronic devices. They cool by convection, not IR radiation.”
If you are trying to make someone look stupid, it helps to get your facts right.
Here’s a sample from the internet –
“Heat sinks can be found on control circuitry used in aerospace applications. They are also used on spacecraft to transfer heat to the vacuum of space. However, these heat sinks transfer heat purely through radiation as there is no heat transfer fluid in space.”
If you want something from NASA, see their “Heat Sinks for Parts Operated in Vacuum”
Interestingly, your heat sink ignorance is widely shared, so don’t feel too bad
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8335
“SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE”
Willard, please stop trolling.
One problem, Manabe et al were wrong about radiation. They failed to understand that convection is the main driving force for warming.
Lindzen has clarified it. It is the difference in temperature between the Tropics, where temperature vary very little, and the Poles. In between, there are all sorts of temperature variation and that leads to weather. That difference also explains the global average. Nothing to do with trace gases other than in the Tropics where water vapour has an influence.
The main problem with Bordo butchering this conference paper is that, in his retrospective, Dick endorses the greenhouse effect. So he will try to hide that discrepancy by looking at an irrelevant detail and dedicate all his attention to it.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The main problem with you trying to PST me in my thread is that you’re in my thread, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re still trying to PST me in my thread, Mike Flynn.
“given the nonlinearity of the radiative effect of water vapor, the average radiative response to water vapor is not equal to the response to an average water vapor”
The average is not the mean or meaningful. Who knew?
Richard does not find compound interest meaningful.
Who knew?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Compound interest isn’t linear, Mike Flynn.
Does your company find it meaningful?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Non-linearity can be meaningful, Mike Flynn:
https://www.investi.com.au/api/announcements/tbn/ebbd1ff7-9d4.pdf
Willard, please stop trolling.
Very meaningful, Mike Flynn.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Why aren’t more people talking about Christos’ new paper:
https://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/getfile/2371/2/documents/RevisitingGreenhouseEffect_pp.pdf
You would have thought that the CO2 enhanced GHE being falsified through one hundred years of observations would be cause for celebration.
At least I would have expected a few armchair experts telling us what they think is wrong with it. Tim? Ball4? Earn your keep.
DREMT 6:53 am, that paper tells you cloudy days are completely dark as night like in an opaque to SW lunar total eclipse. Experience tells you otherwise. Any paper that claims clouds are opaque to shortwave radiation is not worth the time to read, but it is worth some humorous entertainment I suppose.
If these authors had more knowledge of meteorology, they would instead correctly inform those clouds scatter, transmit, and absorb solar short-wave radiation.
"If these authors had more knowledge of meteorology"…
Oh, Ball4:
"Demetris Koutsoyiannis is professor emeritus of Hydrology and Analysis of Hydrosystems in the National Technical University of Athens. He has served as Dean of the School of Civil Engineering, Head of the Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, and Head of the Laboratory of Hydrology and Water Resources Development. He was Editor of Hydrological Sciences Journal for 12 years (2006-18), and member of the editorial boards of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Journal of Hydrology, Water Resources Research, Hydrology and Sci. He has been awarded the International Hydrology Prize– Dooge medal (2014) by the International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS), UNESCO and World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the Henry Darcy Medal (2009) by the European Geosciences Union (EGU). His distinctions include the Lorenz Lecture of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) (San Francisco, USA, 2014) and the Union Plenary Lecture of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) (Melbourne, Australia, 2011). He has served as professor of Hydraulics at the Hellenic Army’s Postgraduate School of Technical Education of Officers Engineers (Athens, 2007-10). He has been visiting academic/professor at the Imperial College (London, 1999-2000), Hydrologic Research Center (San Diego, 2005), Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta, 2005-06), University of Bologna (2006 & 2019) and Sapienza University of Rome (2008 & 2019)."
"Any paper that claims clouds are opaque to shortwave radiation is not worth the time to read, but it is worth some humorous entertainment I suppose."
A quote might be nice.
Yes, he’s a hydrologist, no accomplished education in meteorology shown. If you need the quote, pass the physics pre-req.s on your own to actually & critically read the paper.
"Yes, he’s a hydrologist, no accomplished education in meteorology shown"
Sure, Ball4, what would an expert in hydrology know about clouds!?
"If you need the quote…"
Oh, I know where the quote is, Ball4. I was just pointing out that it would have been nice for you to include it. It’s from one of the appendices:
"To better assess a possible connection with water and, in particular, its form in clouds (which are opaque to shortwave radiation), we also examine the time series of shortwave radiation, whose temporal evolution is shown in Figure B2."
It’s funny, there’s no mention of cloudy days being completely dark "like in an opaque to SW lunar total eclipse". The authors just mention clouds being opaque to shortwave radiation. Since there are varying degrees of opacity, it’s not really that controversial a statement. Yet here you are, rejecting an entire paper because of one sentence from one of the appendices.
DREMT 10:01 am, yes it’s a funny paper. If you had passed the physics pre-req.s, then you would know that opaque means 100% opacity not a varying degree of opacity. The paper now reveals from where Christos’ gets his mistaken (proven by measurement) theoretical minimal GHE from: in Christos’ theory the sun doesn’t shine on Earth surface for cloudy days.
Sure, Ball4. That’s obviously what they meant. They obviously truly believe that clouds totally block out all light, "like in an opaque to SW lunar total eclipse". They look up at the sky and that’s what they see on every cloudy day. In no way is it just something that maybe got lost in translation or is just a minor oversight that most would overlook completely. The entire paper, its methods, data and the conclusions drawn from it all must be summarily rejected because of this one tiny detail, and that’s not ridiculous.
You are not ridiculous, Ball4. You are not here to try to dismiss any paper critical of your belief system by any means necessary. You have morals. You are someone to take seriously. You deserve respect, and not derision. You shouldn’t be hated for what you do. You are not evil. I repeat: you are not evil.
Clouds as opaque to SW is NOT a tiny detail DREMT.
Ball4: the methods, data and conclusions drawn from them.
Any objections? Or are you going to stick with your one criticism of the paper being this absurdly trivial nitpick?
Clouds as opaque to SW is NOT a nitpick DREMT. Especially in an attempt, as DREMT writes, to falsify 100 years of observations.
No, Ball4. I meant that the paper presents 100 years of observations that falsify the CO2 enhanced GHE. Is there something wrong with the data, the methods, or the conclusions? So far you’ve got nothing.
Is there something wrong? Big time wrong & just by observation. I’ve already pointed out the paper considers clouds as opaque to sunshine SW. DREMT is touting the paper so it’s up to DREMT to show they don’t do so, not me.
So you expect readers to take your nitpick seriously? You actually think people are going to believe that Koutsoyiannis, the hydrologist, genuinely thinks clouds allow absolutely no light through!? Like he’s never looked or been outside on a cloudy day!?
Oh, I forgot, it’s Ball4. He never cares about how ridiculous his argument is. Like arguing that Tesla was a "Spinner". He just carries on regardless.
Clouds opaque to solar SW is not my argument DREMT, it’s the paper’s argument. DREMT even quoted the paper. Take it up with the authors, not me.
Oh, and Tesla really was a spinner since he was observing lunar motion from the Earth’s surface, an accelerated frame. Tesla then proved through conservation of momentum analysis example that the moon is spinning inertially on its own axis. Read his note on the subject.
Ball4 loses another one.
Any serious commentary from any of the other armchair experts?
B4,
If you want an expert in clouds you might want to contact Ed Berry. He’s probably one of the preeminent experts on cloud droplet formation. I believe NWS still uses his models.
Ball4’s nitpicking doesn’t land on this planet. The words opaque and transparent are often used as relative terms. So you have scales of transparency and opacity.
When you see this kind of nitpick argument its always due to the lack of having an intelligent response. . .like in addressing the facts and so they find themselves lacking any specific criticisms that matter.
No nitpicking as I wrote earlier. Fact is the word “opacity” does not appear in the paper, Bill just assumes something.
“Transparent” does, though, for a known incorrect claim that atm. N2, O2 are transparent to LW IR surface radiation without a cite. The paper’s authors are unaware that has been known to be incorrect since at least 1978 & experimentally confirmed by 1982.
Yes, Bill, Ball4’s arguments are ridiculous. Now, he’s proving himself to be one of what Tim referred to as "our resident skeptics" in Tim’s point 1) below. He’s now nit-picking over the fact that N2 and O2 do absorb a bit of IR radiation from the surface. He wants the paper rejected over another largely irrelevant sentence, this time from the introduction!
Ball4 loves to nitpick.
Ball4,
” . . . for a known incorrect claim that atm. N2, O2 are transparent to LW IR surface radiation without a cite.”
Maybe you could amplify your point, because if N2, O2, etc are transparent to LW solar radiation – and more than 50 of sunlight is IR – then they must be transparent to those same wavelengths emitted by anything at all – the surface, for example
Are you talking about a particular bandwidth, and if so, what wavelengths and energy percentage are you talking about?
Vague statements like “LW IR surface radiation” are meaningless GHE cultist jargon without more in formation.
Maybe? Sure. Swenson gets technical!
The molecular atm. collision-induced fundamental vibration-rotation band at 6.4 micron is the major absorp_tion signature of O2 in the infrared… O2 IR absorp_tion can affect the atmospheric zenith transmission by up to 9% for dry atmospheric conditions.
Experimentally detected through balloon-borne observations by 1982.
Ball4,
I asked for wavelengths and energy percentages of your “LW IR”.
You respond –
“The molecular atm. collision-induced fundamental vibration-rotation band at 6.4 micron is the major absorp_tion signature of O2 in the infrared O2 IR absorp_tion can affect the atmospheric zenith transmission by up to 9% for dry atmospheric conditions.”
Do you realise how silly this makes you look? You cannot provide relevant facts, so you resort to nonsense.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Any science Swenson cannot understand is humorously labeled nonsense. Great entertainment.
Ball4,
I asked for wavelengths and energy percentages of your LW IR.
You respond
“The molecular atm. collision-induced fundamental vibration-rotation band at 6.4 micron is the major absorp_tion signature of O2 in the infrared O2 IR absorp_tion can affect the atmospheric zenith transmission by up to 9% for dry atmospheric conditions.”
Do you realise how silly this makes you look? You cannot provide relevant facts, so you resort to nonsense.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
As before, I never started.
Ball4,
I asked for wavelengths and energy percentages of your LW IR.
You respond
“The molecular atm. collision-induced fundamental vibration-rotation band at 6.4 micron is the major absorp_tion signature of O2 in the infrared O2 IR absorp_tion can affect the atmospheric zenith transmission by up to 9% for dry atmospheric conditions.”
Do you realise how silly this makes you look? You cannot provide relevant facts, so you resort to nonsense.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
You’ve never stopped, Ball4.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”He wants the paper rejected over another largely irrelevant sentence, this time from the introduction!”
Typical. He doesn’t want to discuss the findings of the paper he only wants to argue over the proper grammatical use of a word used in the paper.
No doubt it he couldn’t find what he alone believes to be a grammatical error he would probably start desperately trying to find out if the author ever made a dime from an oil company to avoid getting technical.
A few quick comments.
1)The paper accepts a few ideas that some of our resident skeptics deny.
1a) “i.e. nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), are transparent to the longwave radiation. In contrast, some minor constituents, particularly water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and ozone (O3)”
1b) “The net emission of the longwave radiation at the Earths surface, Ln, is the difference between that emitted by the surface directed upward, Ls, and that emitted by the atmosphere directed downward, La”
So if you deny either that N2 and O2 are transparent to LWIR, or deny the concept of net radiation, then you would have to automatically reject the whole premise of the paper.
2) The impact of CO2 on radiation is most discernable at the top of the atmosphere, and they specifically do NOT try to study this.
3) Perhaps most importantly, the statistics are weak. There are only 8 data set across a century, with varying quality and, more importantly, varying location.
“As seen in Fig. 2, deviations from the equality line are visible and reflect: (a) differences in the local conditions as the datasets are observations from different parts of the world with different climates; (b) differences in the temperature lapse rate and water vapour profile at different times, even for the same location; (c) differences in aerosols in the atmosphere; (d) different measurement errors as the measuring devices have changed over the century-long period; and (e) imperfections of Brutsaerts formula, which is based on several assumptions about the profiles of atmospheric variables assumptions that may not always hold.”
They try to sell this as a bonus, but what you would really want is a series of measurements over a century at the same location (or multiple series at multiple locations).
1) Maybe, but I guess they can think of it more as a "even if you accept these ideas, the CO2 enhanced GHE is still debunked" kind of thing.
2) Hence Appendix B.
3) Well, I’m guessing we don’t have a series of such measurements over a century at the same location. Do we?
Tim…do you agree that "non-negligible amplification of the greenhouse effect, due to increase of CO2 concentration from 300 to >400 ppm in a century, would be seen as a systematic gradual displacement to the right for the more recent series of observations" in Figure. 2? I assume you concede that no such displacement occurred.
I think that’s the only relevant question really. The authors believe such a displacement would exist if there were a CO2 enhanced GHE. There isn’t a displacement. So, either the authors are wrong in believing such a displacement would be necessary, or there’s no CO2 enhanced GHE.
Good to have someone taking their job a bit more seriously than Ball4 did, at least.
3) DREMT is guessing? Bad form.
There are at least a couple of widely separated sites where those measurements were made over a decade+. The enhanced by CO2 GHE was detected in modern times by precision instrumentation which these authors sparse and varying quality data reportedly isn’t capable to detect. The authors haven’t properly investigated the existing research.
Ball4, please don’t distract from the question I asked Tim. It’s all I want an answer to. Thank you. You are dismissed.
[and I can see from your response that my guess was correct, clearly there are no sites where we have a series of such measurements over a century or you would have rammed them down my throat]
DREMT 4:23 pm asked in 3) “Do we?” We do. No distraction.
Science doesn’t need a century with ancient instrumentation in modern times DREMT; in this case a decade+ of data was meaningful enough at high enough confidence since instrumentation has improved.
Well, Ball4, we do need a century of measurement to look at what has happened going from 300 to >400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Modern instrumentation wasn’t around when CO2 was at 300 ppm. This paper does include data collected with modern instrumentation (including that used in SURFRAD), as you might learn if you choose to read it at some point.
Not needed DREMT with modern instrumentation reducing uncertainties. A century is wanted, but not needed. Relevant data is being collected 24/7/365 continuously reducing uncertainty from current low enough levels & thus increasing certainty moving forward.
I’ve read the paper, and earlier got DREMT to read it or at least search it.
Ah, you’ve read the paper, so your insinuations that they had not included data from modern instrumentation were deliberately misleading and evidence that you’re a sophist. Got it.
DREMT’s imagination 5:46 pm makes up more stuff. Fun to read laughable comments.
Astute readers will know what you are. You are dismissed.
Awaiting an answer to my 4:23 PM question…
3) is already answered. Tim will likely do his part eventually.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“The enhanced by CO2 GHE was detected . . . ”
The “unenhanced by CO2 GHE” allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years, obviously.
Have you a description for the “unenhanced by CO2 GHE”, or is that also just a figment of your imagination that you can’t actually put into words?
The question about Fig. 2, Ball4. That is what I am now, and have always been, referring to.
I get that you are bored and lonely, and trolling me seems to give your otherwise worthless existence some meaning, but if you could please stop trolling, that would be great.
As commented before, I never started. Correct yourself and no need for me to do so. Tim will likely be along to carry on.
You haven’t “corrected me” on anything, troll.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4,
You wrote
“The enhanced by CO2 GHE was detected . . . ”
The “unenhanced by CO2 GHE” allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years, obviously.
Have you a description for the “unenhanced by CO2 GHE”, or is that also just a figment of your imagination that you cant actually put into words?
> The unenhanced by CO2 GHE allowed the Earth to cool for four and a half billion years, obviously.
So if there was no CO2 the Earth would have warmed?
“There isnt a displacement.”
I agree that such a displacement should be seen in the data. I.e. The emissivity of the atmosphere should increase.
However …
* The shift would be small. A few W/m^2 — on a scale that goes from 0 – 450 W/m^2. It would take excellent data from excellent instruments to detect the changes.
* Statistical scatter within each data set and changing conditions between data sets overwhelms the expected signal.
Tim,
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
How many W/m2 were Only joking, you dont even accept that the Earth has cooled, do you?
If you did, you wouldn’t believe in a mythical greenhouse effect, which according to you “The claim is that the GHE makes the earth hotter than it would be if there was no GHE.”
Unfortunately, thermometers only measure what is, not what “it would be . . .”. If only . . .
You are confused about what thermometers are responding to – heat, not CO2 or H2O. That would just be silly, wouldn’t it?
"I agree that such a displacement should be seen in the data. I.e. The emissivity of the atmosphere should increase."
Thanks Tim, that’s all I wanted to check.
> It would take excellent data from excellent instruments to detect the changes.
Exactly, Tim.
Excuses, excuses. With the best data available over the last one hundred years, there was no sign of any CO2 enhanced GHE.
"Oh, it’s lost within the noise", the proponents whine.
Well, it’s on you guys to prove the signal is there. It’s not on us to show that it isn’t.
Null hypothesis = no CO2 enhanced GHE.
> The shift would be small.
Exactly, Tim.
Oh, fill me in on how you know the shift would be small, Little Willy. Perhaps give a more accurate estimate of what you would have expected (less vague than "a few W/m^2"). Show your work.
> A few W/m^2 – on a scale that goes from 0 – 450 W/m^2.
Exactly, Tim.
Little Willy’s got nothing, as usual.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
January 18, 2024 at 10:37 AM
Excuses, excuses. With the best data available over the last one hundred years, there was no sign of any CO2 enhanced GHE.
“Oh, its lost within the noise”, the proponents whine.
Well, its on you guys to prove the signal is there. Its not on us to show that it isnt.
Null hypothesis = no CO2 enhanced GHE.energy?
———————
good exchange!
a little warming if it occurs to an extent to cause it to signal its presence within the natural variation would pose no known net risks.
in fact warming would reduce the higher death rate from people dying from exposure to cold at a greater rate than lives would be saved by draconian measures to avoid any warming. and that doesn’t include the risks of the measures themselves causing more deaths arising from other effects of the draconian measures that always seem to arise out of increases in authoritarianism.
Graham D. Warner will admonish Gill’s diversions in 3, 2, 1…
Little Willy’s still got nothing.
Graham D. Warner reaches The Contrarian Final Form.
I pointed out that when challenged, you produced nothing in response. You just kept agreeing with Tim without adding anything of any substance whatsoever. So saying that you have nothing is completely justified here.
Graham D. Warner gets caught with Tim’s first point.
He concedes it with his “Maybe, but.”
Then follows thousands of words of smokescreen.
The beauty of it being that his own papers on non-radiative gases may help him answer his silly question!
But no – Graham D. Warner is not here because he has any interest in the questions he raises.
Little Willy, I’ve tried to explain my position to you several times, and you still don’t understand it.
I agree with the paper that "nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), are transparent to the longwave radiation" and so I am not one of the people Tim was referring to in being a denier of that.
But I’m not actually here to bring up my position on the GHE yet again (which you will never understand, so why get into it again?). I was commenting because I thought that Christos’ new paper deserved some more discussion. Tim responded, I had a question for him, he answered, I’m happy with that.
So why are you here?
10:37 am: The paper shows in the past “there was no sign of any CO2 enhanced GHE.” in the outdated graphs.
So, with the best data available over the last full one hundred years, there was no sign of any CO2 enhanced GHE because earlier instrumentation was not accurate enough or precise enough to detect the much smaller ppm CO2 signal over time as shown in the paper & Tim points out.
So, it was on modern instrumentation’s ability to prove the signal is there. This has now been accomplished with modern day instrumentation accurate & precise enough over 10+ years to prove with high enough statistical confidence that signs of CO2 enhanced GHE are now observed in modern day data with higher ppm CO2 (thus more intense signal) & which the paper’s authors just didn’t do the library research to discover.
Ball4’s argument by repeated assertion that the CO2 enhanced GHE has now been observed will not be impressing any astute readers.
… who haven’t gone to the local college library for performing due diligence to discover the latest research on the subject.
You can accuse me of that if you want, and maybe the astute readers will believe you, maybe they won’t, but it’s going to be somewhat harder for you to convince them that Koutsoyiannis hasn’t kept abreast of the latest research.
They’d surely be more convinced by a citation to support what you’re saying, in any case, but whatever. You rarely provide them, so…
Perhaps Graham D. Warner could “fill” astute readers with his understanding of the argument made in the appendix to which he handwaved. If he has a keen eye, he could even spot the petitio principii.
Alternatively, he could try to reconcile his pet position with the claim that N2 and oxygen O2 are transparent to “the” longwave radiation, whereas H2O, CO2 and O3 are not.
Actually 3:00 pm, it’s easy to convince them that Koutsoyiannis, a hydrologist, hasn’t kept abreast of the latest meteorological research simply by noting the latest 10+ years of CO2 enhanced GHE research doesnt appear in their references.
Little Willy, I’ve explained my position to you several times already, and it reconciles just fine with that claim. You obviously still don’t understand, and I haven’t the patience to go through it with you again when I know you’re not really interested in learning, and it’s not why I started this thread anyway.
Ball4, predictably, won’t produce a citation, so astute readers will take him as seriously as they should. Not at all.
DREMT, too, just like the paper’s authors can find the latest research on the modern instrumental CO2 enhanced GHE performing due diligence at his own local college library. Visiting the stacks is free & they may even have the latest on electronic access even from home. Librarians will be found eager to help as in my experience. It’s what they do.
…so astute readers will take him as seriously as they should. Not at all.
> the latest research on the modern instrumental CO2 enhanced GHE
What paper would you suggest, B4?
Willard, my advice to you (and others) is the same as that for DREMT. If you haven’t already come across the relevant research being discussed around here or elsewhere & find the interest, doing the work to find the research paper means something is won for the effort. It’s a good feeling to invest time & achieve that sort of win.
If you don’t enjoy solving problems, doing the research, you might ask yourself why you are commenting on science at all. Scientists solve problems. And enjoy the time spent doing so (but go-ahead frown & gripe a lot so that no one will know).
…astute readers will take him as seriously as they should. Not at all.
That kind of handwaving is better left to QAnon folks, B4.
–A few quick comments.
1)The paper accepts a few ideas that some of our resident skeptics deny.
1a) i.e. nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), are transparent to the longwave radiation. In contrast, some minor constituents, particularly water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and ozone (O3)–
The atmosphere is transparent to sunlight, yet only 1120 watts per square meter of direct and indirect sunlight can reach the surface.
The ocean is very transparent to sunlight, about 99 percent passes the top layer of ocean of less than 1 cm, but much of it is absorbed in the 1 meter, and more is absorbed in top 2 meter of surface surface.
When the sunlight passes thru 2 or say 8 atm masses of air, sunlight also greatly reduced. Anything call transparent depends on how of it how much. When sunlight is at zenith {something no one sees unless they in the tropics] the most amount sunlight reaches the surface {1120 watts of direct sunlight, about 1050 direct and diffused indirect sunlight of 70 watt per square meter which totals 1120 watts per square meter.
We have a term called peak solar hours, this loosely applied to sunlight when it closer to zenith. Because when sun is low on horizon in a clear day, you don’t get much sunlight reaching the surface {the low angle means the sun is going thru more atmosphere. So any day you can get the sun going thru 10 or more masses of atmosphere and it’s not very transparent. And at such time, the sky might reddish, which can be cause “more” dust or other particles in the atmosphere.
If got a lot these particle, at noon you see it, but with a lessor amount when the sunlight is going thru more atmosphere and see a reddish sky {you looking thru more dust in atmosphere}.
Transparent means light can pass thru it. Paper unless very, very thin is not very transparent.
Anyways no one has measured any warming effect from more CO2 in the atmosphere. We live in an Ice Age. Government has not reduced global CO2 levels, it’s a scam.
From the paper –
“We conclude that the observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration has not altered, in a discernible manner, the greenhouse effect, which remains dominated by the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere, . . .”
The mythical greenhouse effect is not described, as usual. Water vapour affects surface temperatures, of course. The more there is, the less sunlight strikes the ground, and lower temperatures result. Is this the real greenhouse effect?
The less water vapour, the higher the temperature. On Earth, the hottest surface temperatures are recorded in the arid deserts. The airless Moon provides a graphic example of no water vapour at all – surface temperatures in excess of 125 C.
At night, all the heat of the day is lost, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat – currently about 44 TW.
Neither CO2 nor H2O have prevented the Earth cooling to its present temperature.
… but they have assisted the sun in warming the Earth to its present global avg. T as shown in top post.
Ball4,
Don’t be silly. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. You are possibly confusing anthropogenic heat with some mythical greenhouse effect.
No confusion Swenson, the Earth air near surface has recently stopped cooling & is warming, you can actually observe the data by watching this site each month. It’s eventually going molten again.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Its eventually going molten again.”
When do you predict this will happen?
It seems unlikely, as neither CO2 nor H2O in the atmosphere managed to prevent the Earth cooling to the point where you claim it started warming up due to CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere.
What magic turned the combined effects of sunlight, CO2 and H20 from four and a half billion years of cooling, to warming?
No magic but the sun enabling lower troposphere warming by added ppm CO2 and other trace atm. gases & to greater extent changes in: humidity, clouds, aerosols, surface albedo.
Do at least try to keep up Swenson so the readers laughter dies down a bit.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“No magic but the sun enabling lower troposphere warming by added ppm CO2 and other trace atm. gases & to greater extent changes in: humidity, clouds, aerosols, surface albedo.”, to explain why you believe the Earth “is going molten again”.
None of what you vaguely refer to seems to have prevented the Earth from cooling over the past four and a half billion years.
You really have no clue, do you?
What has changed recently to cause the Earth to reverse four and a half billion years of cooling?
Everything you mention has been around during the last four and a half billion years, so you might need to be a bit more specific. Only joking of course. You have no specifics, I’m sure.
Feel free to provide some if you can.
Might? No. Swenson has access to the internet and can find specifics.
Ball4,
You wrote
“No magic but the sun enabling lower troposphere warming by added ppm CO2 and other trace atm. gases & to greater extent changes in: humidity, clouds, aerosols, surface albedo.”, to explain why you believe the Earth “is going molten again”.
None of what you vaguely refer to seems to have prevented the Earth from cooling over the past four and a half billion years.
You really have no clue, do you?
What has changed recently to cause the Earth to reverse four and a half billion years of cooling?
Everything you mention has been around during the last four and a half billion years, so you might need to be a bit more specific. Only joking of course. You have no specifics, Im sure.
Feel free to provide some if you can.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Q. The baseline Christy used 1979-1983 is a 5 year period, it includes 79,80,81,82 and 83.
A. It doesnt matter how you plot the data with vertical offsets, or different starting points: these issues do not affect the trends, and trends are probably the single most important statistical metric to test the models against observations.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/11/models-vs-observations-plotting-a-conspiracy/
Those who hold that baselines impact trends might take note.
wee willy…”…trends are probably the single most important statistical metric to test the models against observations”.
***
Then look at the overall trend for UAH on the graph at top of page and explain how the models projected flat trends of 18 and 6 years. Nearly half of the UAH trend feature a flat trend.
You need more words to hide away the point being made, Bordo.
Offsets do not change trends.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Tired of the cold already? No worries, big warm-up on the way.
https://ibb.co/DG7qnmV
Arkady Abramovich, please stop trolling.
Robertson
When you write:
When UAH moved to the newer 30 year average, the anomalies all moved to show cooling.
you prove once more that you STILL did not understand that anomalies do not show cooling just because they become lower.
*
The level of anomalies does not tell anything about how warm or cool it is at the point they are computed: this level only depends on the reference period chosen.
Is the periods average colder, so are the anomalies higher and vice-versa.
Here is a graph superposing UAHs
-absolute LT temperatures (blue);
anomalies wrt their oldest reference period (1979-1998, red);
anomalies wrt an arbitrary chosen period (1999-2018, green):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pl0raX2xigkGianPkfKpTCBx2kena0VW/view
Both anomaly time series were equally displaced by 264K; otherwise we couldnt see them.
*
The lower green anomalies do not show cooling compared to the red ones: they are constructed out of a temperature average warmer than that used to construct the red anomalies:
Mon | 79-98 || 99-18 || Diff
Jan | 262.93 | 263.22 | 0.29
Feb | 263.00 | 263.30 | 0.30
Mar | 263.20 | 263.46 | 0.26
Apr | 263.64 | 263.88 | 0.24
May | 264.26 | 264.46 | 0.20
Jun | 264.93 | 265.09 | 0.16
Jul | 265.23 | 265.42 | 0.19
Aug | 265.05 | 265.24 | 0.19
Sep | 264.38 | 264.66 | 0.28
Oct | 263.69 | 263.98 | 0.29
Nov | 263.19 | 263.43 | 0.24
Dec | 263.00 | 263.22 | 0.22
Avg | 263.88 | 264.11 | 0.23
*
Would the green anomalies show cooling, then their trend would be lower than that of the red anomalies.
*
You are repeating the same mistake as when comparing NOAA anomalies wrt the mean of 1901-2000 to UAH anomalies wrt the mean of 1991-2020:
https://i.postimg.cc/ncDph2XL/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022.png
The NOAA anomalies do not show, as you wrongly claim, an unduly warmer world: they were computed out of a period much colder than that chosen for UAH.
Displaying the NOAA anomalies wrt the same period as UAHs then gives
versus
https://i.postimg.cc/xT6mR007/UAH-6-0-LT-vs-NOAA-surf-1979-2022-wrt-1991-2020.png
*
You can tell all what you want about what I do, Robertson.
That wont change anything.
binny…”anomalies do not show cooling just because they become lower.”
***
The cooling is relative to the baseline average temperature. I never claimed it was a global average cooling.
As far as the UAH graph is concerned, the new methodology definitely shows less relative cooling than the old one. That’s to be expected with a change in baseline and possibly due to a new methodology for calculating the LT.
Lindzen has cast some light on the global average. It is related to the temperature differential between the Tropics and the Poles. Although the planet has warmed since 1850, due to a rewarming from the LIA, the current monthly records have nothing to do with that, they are strictly about what Lindzen described.
[BORDO] When UAH moved to the newer 30 year average, the anomalies all moved to show cooling.
[ALSO BORDO] the new methodology definitely shows less relative cooling than the old one.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Entropic Man wrote –
“Between wavenumbers 900 and 1200 the atmosphere is transparent to longwave radiation because none of the gases it contains absorb at those wavenumbers. All the radiation leaving the surface escapes to space and there is no greenhouse effect.”
Hence the Earth cooling to its present temperature over the past four and a half billion years.
I agree – no greenhouse effect.
… between wavenumbers 900 and 1200.
No greenhouse effect at all – the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
As to your silly wave numbers, all – repeat all – radiation from the surface leaves the surface. All the radiation from the atmosphere is lost to space.
That is why the surface cools at night, even though you refuse to believe it.
Properly not all the radiation from the atmosphere is lost to space, some is actually measured incident on earth surface.
That is, in part, why L&O near surface air sometimes warms at night as shown by weather stations, even though Swenson refuses to believe it.
Ent shoots himself in his foot, again.
Wavenumber 1200 corresponds to a temperature of 170F, 77C! While their “trapped” CO2 photon corresponds to -112F, -80C.
> Wavenumber 1200 corresponds to a temperature
There’s a step missing, Puffman.
Revise and resubmit.
“Theres a step missing, Puffman.
Revise and resubmit.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wavenumbers don’t correspond to temperatures, Mike Flynn.
Revise and resubmit.
“Wavenumbers dont correspond to temperatures, Mike Flynn.
Revise and resubmit.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Too late now, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Since this is your thread, Mike Flynn, you’ll get this one.
Just one more comment from you and you’re good to go.
Clint makes another humorous comment. Trapped (or untrapped!) photons don’t have a temperature, that property would be reserved for matter.
Ball4,
Your ignorance is showing.
Matter emits photons, the wavelength of which corresponds to the temperature of the matter.
No photon emission, no temperature.
Swenson being ill-informed writing “no temperature” is humorously showing.
All matter has a temperature Swenson; all matter at all temperatures emits photons of all frequencies at its particular emissivity.
15 micron photons are emitted by all matter, all the time. No exceptions.
Let me fix that …
A blackbody spectrum with a peak wavenumber 1200 corresponds to a temperature of 170F, 77C!
Similarly, since 15 um is not the peak of a blackbody spectrum, 15 um photons from CO2 do not ‘correspond’ -80 C. Wein’s Law doesn’t apply when the spectrum is not from a blackbody.
Let me fix that for you Folkerts. A 15μ photon would be at the peak emission from a BB at about -112F, -80C.
Sheesh, I have to explain everything to the cult.
Clint, you keep trying to imply that “15 um photon” and “-80C” are synonymous. They are not.
A 15 um photon could come from (among others) …
* the peak of a BB spectrum @ -80 C
* the left shoulder of a BB spectrum @ -100 C
* the far right tail of of the sun’s spectrum
* a CO2 molecule at -150 C
* a CO2 molecule at 0 C
* a CO2 molecule at 500 C
A single 15 um photon could come from any of these. Nothing about “15 um” implies the photon is -80C.
Sorry Folkerts, but you are attempting to pervert my words, again.
All 15μ photons are the same. It doesn’t matter where they came from, or what temperature the emitting surface was. The 15μ photons are all the same. They all have the same wavelength, frequency, and energy. WDL allows us to correlate that wavelength, frequency, and energy to a temperature. And since the frequency can NOT change, we then know how that photon would affect the temperature of a surface absorbing it.
In simple terms, that’s how we know ice cubes can NOT boil water.
That’s also how we know CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface.
Clint R 11:46 am is incomplete, 15μ photons all have the same wavelength, frequency, and energy but not the same polarization which affects the absorp_tivity of an illuminated body. Same wavelength 15μ photons may or may not be absorbed in the body. So no one can know whether the illuminated body’s thermodynamic internal energy & momentum (linear and angular) will be increased by such a photon.
So Clint has made yet another humorous physics gaffe since that’s how we CAN’T know whether or not an individual CO2 15μ photon will increase the thermodynamic internal energy of a 288K surface.
Polarization is just one more hurdle for a photon to be absorbed. Stalker4 just shot another toe off.
He needs to also learn the difference between internal energy and kinetic energy.
But we know he won’t….
So…, fill me in Clint R. What IS the difference between thermodynamic internal energy and kinetic energy?
Take a 60-day break from commenting here, goofball4, and I’ll answer your question.
Not going to wait that long for more entertainment, Clint. Apparently, Clint R doesn’t know or would have already said so. Funny that.
Polarization is just one more hurdle for a photon to be absorbed. Stalker4 just shot another toe off.
He needs to also learn the difference between internal energy and kinetic energy. It’s not that difficult to understand.
But we know he won’t….
Still waiting for Clint R to inform me if Clint can… What IS the difference between thermodynamic internal energy and kinetic energy?
Tim,
Without involving the diversion you rely on, black bodies being of no consequence when it doesn’t suit you, but incredibly important when it does, Ill just point out that real matter radiates energy at wavelengths commensurate with its temperature, and these wavelengths decrease as temperature rises.
The obvious example is the common iron or steel bar, which radiates progressively shorter wavelengths as it is heated – short enough to become visible red, and then orange, white etc.
I’m slightly curious about your shift to wavenumbers, rather than frequency or wavelength.
Here’s the Wikipedia version of wavenumber –
“For electromagnetic radiation in vacuum, wavenumber is directly proportional to frequency and to photon energy. Because of this, wavenumbers are used as a convenient unit of energy in spectroscopy.” Are you just adding an extra level of confusion?
Still no GHE, just claiming that the greenhouse effect makes the Earth hotter than it would be without it, is just silly, because you don’t have a thermometer which measures “would be” degrees of hotness!
“Are you just adding an extra level of confusion?”
First of all, I was responding to Clint’s use of “wavenumber”, so blame him if you need someone to blame.
Second, while wavenumbers are not my personal favorite way to describe photons, they are completely standard lingo in science, particularly spectroscopy. If standard lingo causes you “an extra level of confusion”, I would encourage you to learn the lingo.
“black bodies being of no consequence when it doesnt suit you, but incredibly important when it does”
Actually, Clint is again the one making blackbodies important when it suits him. His claim about 15 um photons corresponding to -80 C only makes sense for blackbodies. But then he seamlessly switches to a non-blackbody like C02, but keep the conclusion he reached for a blackbody.
Gosh Fraudkerts, all that just to mis-represent me.
I’m definitely doing something right!
Which is a mis-representation?
1) That you used the term “wave number” before me?
2) That your claim about 15 um photons corresponding to -80 C only makes sense for blackbodies?
3) That you think 15 um CO2 photons correspond to -80C, even though they are not blackbodies?
Folkerts, anytime you attempt to twist, distort, spin, or pervert my words, that is misrepresenting me. Go play semantics with someone else.
Two of the cult children, silly willy and ball4, show up to whine for us. Neither can understand correlating a photon to a temperature. As usual, they’ve got NOTHING.
Tim made the correction you could not find, Puffman.
Too late now.
“Tim made the correction you could not find, Puffman.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
You actually made a similar comment elsewhere,
Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Puffman introduces wavenumbers, and now you accuse others to divert with wavenumbers?
Tsk tsk.
Entropic Man introduced wavenumbers. Just a factual correction, no need for a one hundred comment back and forth.
Mike Flynn,
Graham D. Warner is right. EM introduces wavenumbers above:
Wavenumbers are relevant to answer Walter’s question.
Puffman introduces his silly gotcha about wavenumbers here:
No wonder he still holds that the air shoots cold rays makes a mess out of fluxes!
Silly willy, you don’t know what you’re talking about, as usual.
And if you weren’t such an uneducated child, you would know that your “cold rays” false accusations don’t bother me at all.
I won’t be responding to your immature tr0lling, if I even read it. Be as worthless as you desire….
Puffman,
Tim against forces you once again to cry uncle, but like a silly adolescent you pretend not feeling anything.
Riddle me this – what’s the temperature of a photon?
> Tim against
Scratch that word.
Time to close down that damn autocorrect once more!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Genetic sequence of coronavirus was submitted to US database two weeks before Chinas official disclosure, documents show
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/health/coronavirus-sequence-database/index.html
walter…there may have been a genetic sequence submitted but it was not covid since there is no known genetic sequence for covid, or even HIV.
All viruses since the early ’80s have been inferred. There was a gold standard developed at the Louis Pasteur Institute in the 1970s that required a rigourous investigation requiring physical isolation and identification. The suspected virus had to be isolated using a density-graded sugar solution then centrifuged to isolate the material to a known density. Then the extracted material was prepared and viewed on an electron microscope. It had to meet stringent conditions to qualify as a virus.
Dr. Luc Montagnier, who is credited with discovering HIV, claims he did not physically isolate HIV, but inferred it, for the simple reason he could not see it on the EM. For a reason that is mysterious, rather than admitting there was no virus to be found, he created a method based on retroviral science in which RNA from a person with AIDS was deemed proof of a virus. The test developed for that deception is the RNA-PCR test and it is fraught with issues.
That RNA-PCR method has become the gold standard and all it does is infer a virus. There is no genetic sequence discovered, only an artificial sequence created on a computer model by piecing suspected pieces of RNA together in the model. All the covid varieties claimed since are created on a computer model.
Montagnier was a good guy in my estimation, he was totally open with his views. He never did claim that HIV causes AIDS, he claimed there had to be a co-factor. In fact, he chided other researchers for insisting on a common cause for disease. Later on, he announced that HIV cannot harm a healthy immune system and that AIDS is oxidative stress due to lifestyle. That was his co-factor…lifestyle.
Covid, in my estimation, was a serious mistake made by epidemiologists using computer models to project outcomes that never materialized. Obviously, an inordinate number of people were dying of pneumonia but very strange arrangements were made to equate those deaths to covid. For example, if a person died of natural causes, and he had been visited by a person who had tested positive with the fraudulent RNA-PCR test, that person was entered in the covid death toll.
Eventually, when it became apparent that covid ws not nearly as dangerous as had been claimed, officialdom changed it from a pandemic to an endemic illness. In other words, it is now regarded as a stronger case of the flu. The vaccines have proved useless and the tests are just as bad.
RNA-PCR is a reference to the use of the PCR method for DNA amplification discovered by Kary MUllis. Suspected RNA is converted to DNA and amplified with PCR via a seriously dubious method that can test positive one day and negative the next. A papaya tests positive on the test.
Mullis was vehement that PCR cannot be used diagnostically as it is used for covid. He claimed that PCR will amplify all DNA equally and if a virus cannot be seen without amplification it will not magically appear after amplification.
Even after amplification, no virus appears that can be seen on an EM. The presence of an alleged virus is based on a very indirect presumption.
binny…”I simply wrote that Roy Spencer HIMSELF explained in 2015 the impossibility to further use satellite readings for the LT, and that UAH would from then on replace the LT readings by a weighting of MT, TP and LS:”
***
I know English is not your first language but your comprehension of what Roy wrote is wrong. From the explanation…
“Also, while the traditional methodology for the calculation of the lower tropospheric temperature product (LT) has been sufficient for global and hemispheric average calculation, it is not well suited to gridpoint trend calculations in an era when regional rather than just global climate change is becoming of more interest. We have devised a new method for computing LT involving a multi-channel retrieval, rather than a multi-angle retrieval.
The MSU instrument scan geometry in Fig. 2 illustrates how the old LT calculation required data from different scan positions, each of which has a different weighting function (see Fig. 2 inset). Thus, only one LT retrieval was possible from a scan line of data. The new method uses multiple channels to allow computation of LT from a single geographic location”.
***
Roy said nothing about it being impossible to us the LT, he explained that they are using it in a different manner as described beloe…
—
“2.1 LT Calculation
We have fundamentally changed the calculation of the lower tropospheric temperature product, LT, from a multi-angle method to a multi-channel method. The main reason we changed methods for LT calculation is the old view angle method had unacceptably large errors at the gridpoint level. While the errors cancel for global averages on a monthly time scale, on a regional or gridpoint basis they can be large. The errors arise because the different view angles necessary to calculate a single LT retrieval sample different geographic locations, for instance radiometrically colder ocean and warmer land (see Fig. 2, above).
The LT computation is a linear combination of MSU2,3,4 or AMSU5,7,9 (aka MT,TP, LS):
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS”
***
In other words, the old method for calculation, which relied on a scanning, hence changing view angle, had errors when applied to grids. It was never designed to do gridding, it was designed to measure a global average. Since the requirement for localized (gridded) readings was required, they switched to a multi-channel method to enable gridding.
One of the problems with the look-ahead scan is when the scan target switches from ocean to land. The temperature differences between the two produced error when trying to calculate gridded temperatures.
With the multi-channel method, there is overlapping scanning between channels. I imagine that commonality can be used to confirm each other using a vertical scan.
Robertson
I understand enough English to grasp what Mr Spencer and Mr Christy wrote.
But unlike you, I don’t feel the need to distort and intentionally misrepresent what they wrote such that it fits my personal narrative.
I definitely confirm: UAH’s LT is, as indicated in Roy Spencer’s 2015 head post, the 100% result of a computation according to the formula he communicated:
LT = 1.538*MT -0.548*TP +0.01*LS
*
You lack the technical skills to process any data no matter what it is.
You are unable to download even the simplest UAH data – the four zonal and regional summaries for LT, MT, TP and LS – and enter such simplest time series into a spreadsheet calculator to plot them on charts.
Not to mention that you would never be able to download and process the UAH 2.5 degree grid data (or any other complex source such as GHCN Daily/V4, USCRN, RATPAC balloons or HadISST1 or the PSMSL tide gauge data): all tasks that cannot be completed without extensive software engineering activities.
Your trivial knowledge of programming languages comes straight from Wikipedia, and you’ve apparently never written in your life a program with a size deserving the name.
*
For this reason, you endlessly do your best to discredit those who are capable of carrying out such work and present their results in this blog.
As one of my former university professors said to me decades ago: who is not able to scientifically contradict will soon polemically discredit. He couldn’t have described you better.
*
When looking at examples I have shown in Nov 2022 already:
(a) Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
(b) the grid cells of the Nino3+4 area (5S-5N — 170W-120W)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c1tQQ-XuYa6ddJ705uOgg4K6-_f7qIg-/view
(c) the single grid cell encompassing the University of Alabama at Huntsville
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18bSH3pQeQeOkIb09XzSLgDHWPIAn_NVJ/view
LT data deviated even slightly from the automatically generated MT/TP/LS weighting, none of the charts above – especially the third one – would show such extreme similarity between the two.
{ (b) and (c) were incomplete at the end due to the absence of any LT grid data at that time. }
***
Unlike you, commenter Ken is characterized by healthy skep~ticism (you are his exact opposite).
He perfectly summarized in this thread what he thinks about your behavior:
1. ” Gordon cant be relied on to get anything right. Thats why his posts are so obtuse as to be illegible; it hides the lack of knowledge. ”
2. ” Your posts have too much verbiage with too little ‘meat’. I cant be bothered when there is a lot of much better quality reading to be had elsewhere. “
Oh some scrambling appeared here.
Should read
When looking at examples I have shown in Nov 2022 already:
(a) Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJDjs0VwqeusqbBtD3eO3eyxuepoPRR1/view
(b) the grid cells of the Nino3+4 area (5S-5N 170W-120W)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c1tQQ-XuYa6ddJ705uOgg4K6-_f7qIg-/view
(c) the single grid cell encompassing the University of Alabama at Huntsville
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18bSH3pQeQeOkIb09XzSLgDHWPIAn_NVJ/view
any blog reader with technical experience will immediately understand that if the LT data deviated even slightly from the automatically generated MT/TP/LS weighting, none of the charts above – especially the third one – would show such extreme similarity between the two.
ball4…” but they [trace gases] have assisted the sun in warming the Earth to its present global avg. T as shown in top post”.
***
Not possible. Heat cannot be transferred from cooler atmospheric gases to a warmer surface. Do learn the 2nd law B4.
Do learn the actual Clausius 2nd law Gordon during any real process: Universe entropy must increase.
EMR is not heat Gordon!
EMR consists of photons which 2LOT demands they be absorbed, transmitted, or scattered at the incident surface increasing universe entropy in each process.
Repeat this over and over until understood and never forgotten: Photons do not have a temperature; photons are not heat.
Photons do not have a temperature; photons are not heat.
Photons do not have a temperature; photons are not heat.
Photons do not have a temperature; photons are not heat.
.
.
.
.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“EMR consists of photons which 2LOT demands they be absorbed, transmitted, or scattered at the incident surface increasing universe entropy in each process.”
Unless they are reflected, of course.
But what has your statement to do with anything at all?
Nothing.
You claim the temperature of the Earth is 288 K and 255 K simultaneously! How silly is that?
Not silly, those temperatures are measured in different places. And reflection is a special case of scattering, Swenson should have known that before making such a gaffe & providing such laughable humor.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
swannie appears from hibernation and has another shot at me, asking me to explain the fault in his conclusion re his experiment, which I have already offered several times…
” [GR] Its like Swannies experiment in which he confused heat dissipation with a heat transfer and concluded heat could be transferred from cold to hot.
[Swannie]You have still refused to give a physics based description of your term dissipation, and how it would work in a vacuum. Of course, we recall how confused you were about heat sinks used to cool electronic devices. They cool by convection, not IR radiation.
***
For those unfamilirr with the experiment, you used great ingenuity devising an experiment in an evacuated bell-jar device to prove that heat could be transferred cold to hot, by its own means. I respected you ingenuity, not your conclusion.
As I recall, your experiment was intended to replicate Eli Rabbett’s green plate/blue plate experiment, which is an alleged model for how the surface and atmosphere interface with the Sun. Your blue plate was a plate located in the bell-jar so it could be naturally heated by the Sun. You also devised a method of raising another plate, the green plate so it was close to the blue plate. You monitored the temperature of the BP and noted that when the GP was raised close to it, the BP temperature rose.
You concluded that the temperature rose because the cooler GP was radiating energy to the BP, heating it. That was your proof that heat can be transferred from a cooler device to a hotter device. I objected, claiming that the GP was in fact interfering with the BPs ability to radiate energy away hence raising its temperature.
I presumed that your GP and BP were made of metal. In a vacuum, heat cannot be transferred via conduction or convection since there is no medium that can conduct or convect heat. Therefore all heat dissipation must be via radiation. If you cut off half the radiation a surface can emit, it has to get warmer, provided it is receiving energy from an external source.
Before the GP is raised to block the BP, the BP reaches an equilibrium temperature based on the energy received from the Sun and the heat dissipated via radiation. If you interfere with the BP’s ability to radiate energy, it’s temperature must rise and that is what you measured.
I cannot explain this at the atomic level and I don’t think anyone can. However, I have studied the effects of Eddy Currents, which are currents induced in a metal by electromagnetic radiation. I also know that metal will block EM from the BP, and if the metal is close enough to the BP, it will effectively block radiation from the BP. That is the principle used in electrical shielding (Faraday shield). It is also used as a braking device in electric motors.
The reason I think my explanation is correct is based on my faith in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Heat can never, by it’s own means, be transferred cold to hot. The only other reason why the BP would warm when the GP is near to it, is that the GP is blocking the BP’s ability to dissipate heat by blocking half its EM radiation.
Gordo repeats his usual confusion regarding my Green Plate Demo project, again concluding his comment with his flawed understanding of energy transfer between bodies. The concept that thermal IR energy can be transferred from colder to hot is fundamental in the practice of engineering heat transfer, appearing in many text books. And, again as usual, he can’t explain my results, stating that:
Gordo has never explained exactly how simply moving the GP up to intercept the IR from the BP would “block” it’s IR radiation. He claims to be an electrical engineer, which is the reason he falls back on electrical analogies to “explain” his point of view. For example, he ignores the fact that the BP is already radiating toward the cooler walls of the bell jar, thus, according to him, the BP’s emissions must already be “blocked” before the GP is raised into position.
Silly Wabbit. He should listen to Eli.
Swanson, you didn’t “prove” the plates nonsense. You proved radiative insulation. That ain’t the same!
The bogus plates nonsense violates 2LoT. Try your demonstration with black bodies in a perfect vacuum. Then you’ll understand…maybe.
Lets see here. Emissivity ~94% of black body, pressure at 50 microns. Close enough for Government Work, I’d say…
Yeah, Gordon and Clint R humorously have not yet achieved learning that EMR is not heat thus remain incorrectly applying 2LOT:
Photons do not have a temperature; photons are not heat.
Sorry Swanson, but this has all be discussed before. The “plates nonsense” is completely debunked.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2023-0-20-deg-c/#comment-1480769
The only ones still supporting that nonsense are the immature cult tr0lls….
Wherein Clint’s premise was already debunked up thread.
Clint R:
Photons do not have a temperature; photons are not heat.
grammie clone, you need to do some catching up on the literature. HERE are a few suggestions, any one of which you could purchase today.
“Silly Wabbit. He should listen to Eli.”
That would be some idi‌ot who refuses to accept that radiation decreases as the square of the distance (amongst other things)?
Look at his silly diagrams. About as silly as that other GHE cultist, Willis Eschenbach, who refuses to believe that spheres with different radii have different surface areas!
You lot are as silly as each other!
Accept reality – a hot body can never make a body not in contact with it the same temperature as the hotter body. The heated body must be cooler, and the laws of thermodynamics state that heat travels from hotter to colder – no exceptions.
“I objected, claiming that the GP was in fact interfering with the BPs ability to radiate energy away hence raising its temperature. … If you interfere with the BPs ability to radiate energy, its temperature must rise and that is what you measured.”
Congratulations! That is the greenhouse effect! You use non-standard lingo to discuss some of the ideas, but that it is. When something (like the green plate or CO2 in the atmosphere) ‘interferes’ with the ability of an object (like the blue plate or the earth’s surface) to radiate IR energy, then the object’s temperature will rise.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1597652
Grammie posts a link to another bizarre paper from S&O. A prime example of their ignorance is found in Section 6-2
and Appendix 1, where they assert:
That’s a completely absurd assumption, as the path length for their postulated CO2 “source” within the device is very small, less than 7mm. Their “red line” is just another assertion, without any effort to prove it, yet they run with it, stating:
There’s more than that, such as:
Now they want to describe measured temperature difference as a fraction? Very strange, indeed!
“re-emitted from CO2 gas, behaves in an earth/atmosphere simulated setup.”
Humorous. The setup lacks many of the required features of an atmosphere.
They also used an IR detector with a thermopile, and were able to detect the back-radiation from the CO2 (which they erroneously call backscatter).
The thermopile surface warms in response to IR, and its temperature rise is what is detected. Thus, if it detected back-radiation from CO2, it must have warmed in response to it.
This simply indicates that their experimental setup was not as sensitive as their thermopile at detecting this backradiation warming effect, but it was there nonetheless.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2023042615431593.pdf
“This study deal with interactions between thermal and radiative energy flow in experimental situations of varying complexity. Of special interest is how IR energy, re-emitted from CO2 gas, behaves in an earth/atmosphere simulated setup. Such an experiment was performed by Hermann Harde and Michael Schnell where they show that IR radiation emitted from CO2 can warm a small black-body metal plate. In a control experiment, we verified this result. However, in their experiment, the amount of IR radiation from the heating element was strongly attenuated. In a modified experiment, where IR emis- sion from the heating source is present, no heating but a slight cooling of a black object is found when air is replaced by CO2. The modified experimental situation is also more like the earth/atmosphere situation. The presence of IR radiation from a heated surface (like when the sun heats the earth’s surface) strongly attenuates the heating ability of increasing backscatter from in- creased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This result has consequences for the climate change models used by IPCC.“
So, grammie can cut and paste. So can I:
In their confusion, they don’t say to which graph they are referring to. Figure 5 shows that replacing air with CO2 increases the temperature of the black envelope. That result might be expected, as the CO2 emissions would warm the black envelope from both sides.
They continue:
Here they appear to be referencing their Figure 7. In this case, both envelopes are receiving energy via convection plus IR radiation. The result with air is that the black envelope is now warmed. Adding CO2 between the IR emitting heated plate and the black envelope results in a slight cooling, possibly because the CO2 absorbs some of the IR radiation before it reaches the envelope. Another point to consider is that the energy supplied by heating plate is now divided into convection and radiation, which could result in less energy reaching the aluminum envelope, making it cooler. Who knows, they make no effort to analyze things.
With their conclusion, they appear to think it strange that having CO2 between the radiant source (such as the Sun) and a heated, high emissivity surface (the Earth) should cool the Earth’s surface temperature. But, they don’t account for the absorp_tion of the CO2 between (which is well documented), nor do they mention the actual temperatures involved, only the temperature differences between the envelopes.
"5. Removing the Al-Foil from the Black Heating Plate With the Al-foil removed from the heating plate the experiment was repeated. Now the result changed markedly from the previous one. See Figure 7. In this setup, with added IR energy from the black heating plate, the black envelope becomes warmer, not colder than the surrounding air. After 150 minutes of heating of the air in the box the temperature increment stabilizes at 1.1˚C. After filling CO2 it stabilizes at 0.8˚C ± 0.025˚C, that is, at a slightly lower value than for air alone. So, in this case, adding CO2 cools the black envelope slightly! The experiment was repeated and the average cooling was found to be −0.22˚C ± 0.03˚C. (Note: During filling the box with cold CO2 the temperature of the Al-foil envelope drops about 4 degrees, while the temperature of the black envelope drops less than one degree)."
grammie thinks this proves something:
So, what were the temperatures of the envelopes at the respective points? And, what were the temperatures for the corresponding case, as shown in Figure 5? What was the “air temperature” inside the box, as measured by an instrument shielded from the IR emissions of the heated plate?
So much important information missing, it’s laughable.
Swanson clutches at straws, as usual, after I showed that he was either not following the paper, or was deliberately misrepresenting it.
Figure 5, which you mentioned, relates to the experiment where the heating plate is covered with foil, strongly attenuating the output. As they said, without the foil, replacing air with CO2 actually cooled the envelope! Again:
“However, in their [Harde/Schnell’s] experiment, the amount of IR radiation from the heating element was strongly attenuated. In a modified experiment, where IR emission from the heating source is present, no heating but a slight cooling of a black object is found when air is replaced by CO2. The modified experimental situation is also more like the earth/atmosphere situation.”
grammie suffers another episode of reading comprehension failure again. My first sentence replying to your post refers to Figure 7. When they wrote:
they were comparing the data used to construct the two graphs. But, they don’t provide enough other information to support their conclusion, since we can’t say what happened to the air temperature within the box. They assumed that the temperature in the shiny foil envelope is the same as the temperature of the gas in the box, but that is a false assumption when there’s also a significant fraction of IR blasting thru the box and out the window.
Thus, I think one can’t say that their simple calculation of the difference in temperatures is proof of anything new. It’s not surprising that the 100% CO2 case might reduce the thermal IR absorbed by the black envelope. Again, it’s a well documented fact that that’s what happens in the atmosphere to the ~15 micron portion of the Sun’s incoming energy. But, that has nothing to do with the Greenhouse Effect, which involves energy moving in the opposite direction from the Earth to Deep Space.
I caught you either not following the paper, or misrepresenting it, Swanson. Here:
"So, grammie can cut and paste. So can I:
‘Conclusions
That the presence of CO2 in the box, with the heating plate present, lead to cooling of a black body (the black envelope) was an unexpected surprise.’
In their confusion, they don’t say to which graph they are referring to. Figure 5 shows that replacing air with CO2 increases the temperature of the black envelope. That result might be expected, as the CO2 emissions would warm the black envelope from both sides."
If you had followed the paper, or weren’t trying to misrepresent it, you’d have been aware what they were referring to, which was the experiment run without the foil over the heating plate!
It’s pretty simple, Swanson. They repeated the Harde/Schnell experiment (similar setup) and got similar results. However, they then ran a different experiment without foil attenuating the IR output from the heating plate and found that actually the black envelope cooled when air was replaced with CO2.
So, any criticisms that you are levelling at this experiment apply equally to the Harde/Schnell experiment. It’s just that their variation on that experiment (without attenuation of the IR output from the heating plate), which is closer to the real Earth/atmosphere situation, showed cooling instead of warming!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1599935
…so, any criticisms that you are levelling at this experiment apply equally to the Harde/Schnell experiment. It’s just that their variation on that experiment (without attenuation of the IR output from the heating plate), which is closer to the real Earth/atmosphere situation, showed cooling instead of warming!
grammie still doesn’t get it. S&O conclusion was the result of their comparison of the data in Figure 5 with that of Figure 7. In the Figure 7 situation, there appeared to be a slight cooling of the black envelope compared with the plane aluminum one after the CO2 was added.
But, why did that happen? Did the black one cool more than the aluminum envelope, or, did the aluminum envelope warm more than the black one? We have no way to assess this question, since all they provided are the graphs of the temperature differences.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, were are the gas temperature history plots for the two cases. In Figure 5, they waited ~4 hours before switching to CO2, but only waited for ~35 minutes to end the graph. In Figure 7, they waited ~220 minutes to switch to CO2, even thought they stated that the temperatures stabilized at 150 minutes, then ending the data at ~245 minutes. For both figures, why the long initial settling time and the short time for settling after the cold CO2 was added?
Just contact the authors and ask them, Swanson. Then post their response here.
[He probably won’t, as his only interest is in dismissing the experiment for whatever reason he can].
grammie still doesn’t get it. He can’t support the S&O results, so he tells me that I should be the one to contact them. But, he’s right, I don’t care whether they provide more information, since it’s already clear to me that they don’t know what they are doing.
Swanson proves me right. Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, by any means necessary. That is all they ever do.
Grammie has no reply to my criticisms, so he just dismisses them as of no importance. Here’s some more. They change the energy supply to the back plate between Figure 5 and Figure 6. What level of energy supply do they use for Figure 7? They don’t say. Furthermore, what was the history of the heating plate’s temperatures for the relevant cases? That’s important because reducing the plate’s temperature, as might be expected when the aluminum cover is removed, alters the heat transfer via IR radiation.
They are hopelessly confused, as are you.
"Grammie has no reply to my criticisms, so he just dismisses them as of no importance."
They’re not really criticisms, Swanson, so much as questions that only the authors can answer. So, why are you asking me? Write down all your questions and concerns, and contact the authors with them. Astute readers will note that I’ve dismissed nothing, and that Swanson is the one trying to dismiss the experiment because he doesn’t like the results.
Don’t expect me to contact them and ask them your questions. That wouldn’t make any sense.
Swanson’s rhetoric so far:
"…another bizarre paper from S&O."
"A prime example of their ignorance…"
"…a completely absurd assumption…"
"Very strange, indeed!"
"In their confusion…"
"…they make no effort to analyze things."
"…so much important information missing, it’s laughable."
"grammie suffers another episode of reading comprehension failure again…"
"grammie still doesn’t get it…" x 2
"Grammie has no reply to my criticisms, so he just dismisses them as of no importance…"
"…it’s already clear to me that they don’t know what they are doing."
"They are hopelessly confused, as are you."
Graham D. Warner’s rhetoric so far –
“Swanson clutches at straws, as usual, after I showed that he was either not following the paper, or was deliberately misrepresenting it.”
“I caught you either not following the paper, or misrepresenting it”
“Just contact the authors and ask them […] he probably won’t”
“proves me right. Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, by any means necessary. That is all they ever do.”
“Theyre not really criticisms”
“Astute readers will note that Ive dismissed nothing”
Grammie, you posted the link to the S&O paper above. You should defend your decision and claims that their results are important. Instead, you again reply to my criticisms with another put down.
Another obsessed fan.
Yes, there is far less rhetoric from me, so far, than Swanson. Especially when you consider that some of your examples aren’t rhetoric.
I will explain the difference. This is an example of a criticism I can respond to:
"Again, it’s a well documented fact that that’s what happens in the atmosphere to the ~15 micron portion of the Sun’s incoming energy. But, that has nothing to do with the Greenhouse Effect, which involves energy moving in the opposite direction from the Earth to Deep Space."
The response is that you can apply this criticism to the Harde/Schnell experiment, since the setup is much the same as in S & O (besides the difference in attenuation of the output from the heating plate). If you are saying that this experimental setup does not correctly represent the GHE, then the Harde/Schnell experimental setup does not correctly represent the GHE, either.
Now, here is an example of a "criticism" that I cannot respond to:
"What level of energy supply do they use for Figure 7?"
Since it’s actually just a question, that only the authors can answer. So, if you want to know the answer, then ask the authors, as I keep saying. It really would make no sense for me to ask them your questions…and, that’s not a "put down".
The biggest difference is that Graham D. Warner tries to hide under a no commitment stance, whereas ES is committed enough to the topic that he himself produced an experiment.
I could be as committed to this paper as Swanson is to his own experiment, it doesn’t change the fact I am not privy to information that the authors haven’t included in the paper, whereas the authors obviously are. So, if Swanson has questions about such information (and he does), then he can only really ask the authors…
“I could be as committed”
Alas, Graham. D. Warner never really is.
OK, stalker.
Grammie, I was just pointing out that the S&O paper is so grossly flawed that their conclusions can not be supported. If you want them to improve their efforts, you should ask them to. Otherwise, PST…
If their only flaw is in not providing you with the information that you feel you need to see, I guess their experiment really isn’t flawed at all…and there’s a very simple solution to your problem. Contacting the authors.
E. Swanson says:
”So, what were the temperatures of the envelopes at the respective points? And, what were the temperatures for the corresponding case, as shown in Figure 5? What was the air temperature inside the box, as measured by an instrument shielded from the IR emissions of the heated plate?
So much important information missing, its laughable.”
Sounds like the same questions I asked of Swanson in his GP experiment. Turned out he didn’t measure them. Pretty laughable indeed.
> Sounds like
The Sound of THE SCIENCE ™.
Hunter wrote:
Perhaps Hunter will recall that I did provide measured temperatures for my demonstration, with no pretense that it was a highly accurate scientific experiment. Some variables I could not measure with my setup, such as the magnitude of the flux supplied from my work light to the BP. Also, I did not pretend that what I wrote was actually published in a journal. I just demonstrated well accepted engineering principles to counter some of the anti-science BS tossed around the ‘Net. The “back radiation” from the cooler GP warmed the BP.
Exactly, Bill.
“If their only flaw is in not providing you with the information that you feel you need to see”
Because Swanson is a real experimentalist, who understands the challenges.
But expertise such as his is devalued by some people here.
Whereas DREMT neither understands experiments, nor does he care if they are done correctly.
He just accepts results without skepticism if they appear to support his narrative.
And rejects facts and results without rationale, if they do not appear to support his narrative.
“This biased assessment of information, known as ‘motivated reasoning,’ involves people seeking out and using information which confirms their existing beliefs, and ignoring or dismissing information which contradicts themthat is, they reach conclusions they want to reach (Kunda, 1990).”
Looks like Nate decided to comment, predictably. God knows what he said, but I bet it was some personal remark. He used to do that a lot, back when I read his comments. Maybe Bill can confirm.
The usual prattle. The pot calling the kettle black. No sources that look at the atmosphere as a holistic system cherry picking facts and extrapolating from them. The usual.
Exactly, Nate.
“No sources that look at the atmosphere as a holistic system”
True, the Seim experiment is certainly not doing so.
Thanks, Bill. Nothing worthwhile, then, just the usual mix of hypocrisy and plain making stuff up. No surprises there.
The fact is there is plenty of valid criticism that has been pointed out for the Seim paper.
But you guys will have none of it, but not because you can refute them.
So we can only conclude what I stated above.
Thanks, Nate. Nothing worthwhile, then, just the usual mix of hypocrisy and plain making stuff up. No surprises there.
Nate says:
January 23, 2024 at 5:09 PM
No sources that look at the atmosphere as a holistic system
True, the Seim experiment is certainly not doing so.
——————————
The question is are they the best of the best? Who do you think does better? Link please.
Gill decides what Ze Question is.
Inspecteur Clouseau is in da house!
Willard weighs in with his usual ”I have no clue”.
“The question is are they the best of the best? Who do you think does better? ”
Well Swanson’s experiment did it very well.
What established law of physics do you think has not been already tested?
1. The SB law, that states a surface will emit according to its emissivity and temperature. This includes colder surfaces. Does it need to be again tested?
2. Kirchhoffs Law, that states a surface that emits well in IR will also abs.orb well in IR. This includes flux coming from colder surfaces (see #1).
Does it need to be again tested?
3. The First Law of Thermodynamics, that states that a body receiving a NET influx of energy will warm?
Does it need to be again tested?
Then we have the thermopile in the Seim experiment (and many others), demonstrating that back radiation received from added CO2, causes the detector surface to WARM.
So what do you need to test in an experiment that hasnt already been demonstrated?
Nate says:
”Then we have the thermopile in the Seim experiment (and many others), demonstrating that back radiation received from added CO2, causes the detector surface to WARM.”
yes it did but only because the detector was outside the box and cooler than the co2 compartment.
we went over this and you continue to deny where the detector was.
swanson’s effort was commendable but he made a few mistakes in documentation and set up that i conveyed to him. i fully expect his experiment to work with uninsulated plates in a vacuum so that is why i tried to encourage him to repeat the experiment without a reflective light shield to narrow the beam, ash black instead (reflection does warm stuff as do magnifying glasses), documentation of the radiant field power, and closer more precise spacing of the plates to limit field of view problems and perhaps another suggestion or two which i may not recall.
however, uninsulated plates and vacuums are not what we are dealing with agw. we have convection that is a huge negative feedback in limiting upwelling ir. the hot spot isn’t showing up but the cooling stratosphere is. that means co2 cools the stratosphere while any heat attempting to return to the surface in a multi-layered model has to run the same obstacle course a second time with water in that frequency being about 50% absorbent per layer. then reradiated by water in wider bands mostly missing co2 on the way out to space. this is a complicated system and it seems highly likely that at least half the warming we are experiencing is natural and a combined effect of several factors.
lia recovery (inclusive of feedbacks of a record group of high solar activity sometimes referred to as a solar grand maximum), messing up of oxygen species by volcanoes and human cfc releases, and probably the timing of ocean oscillations corresponding to the long positive phase of the pdo beginning in 1980. there is a lot to unpack, plenty to do for weather/climate science (including astrometeorology and better detailing of milankovich’s orbital shorter variation patterns) that should be done and huge savings resulting in keeping our cool and not turning the whole enterprise into an Area 51 alien theory for the exclusive benefit of institutional power and college graduates looking for easy work. . .like being a blog activist spreading doomsday predictions.
“yes it did but only because the detector was outside the box and cooler than the co2 compartment.”
Nope. It doesnt matter where it is, or what ambient temperature is, thermopiles can measure EM flux. You are missing the point.
Just as IR T sensors with thermopiles work no matter what their T is.
Then you move the goal posts very far away from what the Seim experiment tried to do.
Hunter made some comments about my GPE demo. I have no clue what he is walking about when he writes:
The reflective baffle is outside the bell jar and limits the visible light to that which hits the BP inside. The idea was an attempt to limit the heating to just the BP, but, of course, the IR from the hot work light was a different problem as most of it would have been absorbed by the bell jar.
I could not measure his “radiant power field”, but that makes no difference as the same energy was being delivered by the light to the BP before and after the GP is raised into position. While it’s true that the spacing between the plates could have been reduced, again, it makes no difference, except that the GP might have received more IR from the BP and vice versa. In the end, the GP warmed and then so did the BP, which can only be explained by back radiation from the cooler GP to the BP.
Swanson I said:
1) ”i fully expect his experiment to work.”
However expectations are not science. If one is going to establish the GPE as science it has to be more than theory. . .it has to be tested theory. And if you are going to test it you can’t have reflection and you have to measure all the key ingredients. You could test the light with a meter. You remove the reflective baffle as that can cause warming unrelated to the experiment’s expect out put. Its really simple improvements to the experiment. I would have to go back and read your experiment again or find my recommendations from the last time I looked at it be more specific on some of the inside the jar issues.
2) I laid out that observations show that your experiment of an uninsulated blue plate experiment (the blue plate standing in as a CO2 layer in the atmosphere) doesn’t demonstrate a greenhouse effect. It suggests that if you pile a mound of dirt on the surface of the earth the surface will warm because you added more insulation behind the surface.
It simply is not a model of greenhouse theory. Yes if you insulate a building with more insulation it takes less heat to keep the building warm. We know that. We know solid glass enclosure over an area of the land surface will cause the air to get hotter in the greenhouse.
but the greenhouse effect is being proposed for convecting gases, not in a vacuum. and what is happening on earth is the green plate is in place, and if we add a transparent to sw/absorbing to lw blue plate the greenplate will get hotter.
Can’t you guys even comprehend that basic disconnect between the GPE and the GHE? Pretty sad!
OK. It’s now official –
Gill is Roy’s Morning Star.
Bordo is Roy’s Evening Star.
“but the greenhouse effect is being proposed for convecting gases, not in a vacuum.”
Off topic.
The GPE is an fundamental effect of back radiation, that DREMT and Clint disputed. You took issue with Swanson’s experimental test of it.
So stick to THAT.
Nate says:
Off topic.
The GPE is an fundamental effect of back radiation, that DREMT and Clint disputed. You took issue with Swansons experimental test of it.
——————–
Its not off topic simply because you want it off topic. I see your description as being unnecessary extrapolation for the purpose of biasing the theory.
The mean temperature of the surroundings works for me. Thats why the bricks in the room with the surrounding structure of the room being a mean 288k results in the pile of bricks in the room being 288k even though there maybe cold spots and hotspots where heat is incoming from some walls and going out through others. Just like planning the heat losses of a room and designing a heating system that can handle the local climate zone with room to spare. More goes out the windows than the walls and more heat goes out the ceiling than through the floor. In the case of the radiant toa the mean lookdown is either 278.5k or 255k and the look up is 3k. Radiation will use that ratio to determine where the energy goes. . .unless of course you shield the sky with a reflective barrier like Swanson did while removing the air in the bottle to remove convection as well.
Hunter wrote more stuff, including:
Please explain how the reflective baffle outside the bell jar could change the results of moving the GP from the lower position upward to face the BP.
Next, he wanders on, suggesting that:
My project was to demonstrate the fact that “back radiation” from a cooler body can be absorbed by a warmer one, thence the warm body will experience an increase in temperature. As Hunter notes the Green House Effect involves gases, not solids. There’s no case in which the solid BP should be “insulated” for my demonstration to be valid.
E. Swanson says:
”Please explain how the reflective baffle outside the bell jar could change the results of moving the GP from the lower position upward to face the BP.”
thats for the experiment to decide Swanson. I am not going to guess at the result. What you want is the same energy coming into the jar from outside the jar at all times as much as possible. Reflective white barriers (I think it was white if I recall correctly) can reflect 90% of the radiation falling on it.
E. Swanson says:
Next, he wanders on, suggesting that:
My project was to demonstrate the fact that back radiation from a cooler body can be absorbed by a warmer one, thence the warm body will experience an increase in temperature.
———————-
Yes it can. . .but only when you warm the environment around an object or subject it to reflective radiation to get a false positive. Claiming the heating is coming from backradiation is false because before the greenplate can send a photon toward the blue plate it must first get 2 photons from the blue plate. so you haven’t heated anything with the backradiation all you did was slow the cooling on that one side and on the other side you were slowing cooling with the reflective barrier even more so than on green plate side. That reflective barrier was outside the jar so convection would have cooled any radiation from the blue plate at a greater pace if it were ash black.
I have to go to this convoluted and detailed explanation for you simply because you unnecessarily complicated the experiment by talking about back radiation and putting up reflective barries to radiation leaving from the other surface all the while the same environment all around the blue plate all you would have to say is you allowed for the blue plate to heat the green plate and slow the blue plates cooling.
If you had documented this with a proper set up and you knew the input wattage you would know that the blue plate was around 50% of its equilibrium value because of having twice the cooling surface as its warmed surface.
If the greenplate was effectively perfectly insulated like the surface of the earth then you could measure how much the blue plate warmed the environment. But that tells you absolutely nothing about how a co2 molecule warmed by both SW in its SW absor-ption bands and by the earth’s surface and how that works out if you figure the same for the other gases like oxygen and such and allowed the molecule to cool by convecting upwards, collide with other molecules and exchange energy. Your GPE experiment gets you no closer at all to establishing a greenhouse effect at the hands of CO2.
E. Swanson says:
”As Hunter notes the Green House Effect involves gases, not solids. Theres no case in which the solid BP should be insulated for my demonstration to be valid.”
The greenhouse theory involves an insulated surface Swanson. Where is it in your experiment? It also involves a freely convecting and expanding surface as well. Where is that in your GPE experiment? The GHE for earth is established by the mean light of a given value. You don’t have that and you don’t know what the GHE is.
For the earth its exposed to 341w/m2 that is the SB equivalent of 278.5K no matter how much you change the Emissivity parameter and reflect light. Its just pure shenanigans when you claim it does while assigning blackbody emission values for the various surfaces discussed in the GHE theory all the while claiming near blackbody status for the sun’s output. Its just pure unadulterated BS. And the GPE doesn’t even resemble the problem than needs solving as I point out above.
“Its not off topic simply because you want it off topic.”
It is, because we are discussing the Seim experiment, which you guys keep promoting as falsifying back radiation warming.
And because you took issue with Swanson’s experiment, which was testing back radiation fundamentals, in The GPE which was in vacuum by design.
Hunter posts another long rant full of confused physics. He begins with a garbled comment about the external baffle, while acknowledging :
Of course, which, as I point out, is what happened. He next appears to admit that thermal IR from the GP would be absorbed by the BP, then comments:
This (and a similar comment later) is a repeat of Gordo’s usual comment about “slowing the cooling”, without any attempt to provide a physics based explanation. It’s just more BS. He then wanders away from my experiment, writing:
Of course, if such were true, the Earth’s surface could not cool, but, hey, it sounds great, even though it’s wrong. My demonstration was intentionally setup in a vacuum, in order to separate out the effects of convection and conduction. It was intended simply to show that the back radiation from the GP would result in a higher temperature for the BP. Hunter still can’t figure that out.
Nate says:
”It is, because we are discussing the Seim experiment, which you guys keep promoting as falsifying back radiation warming.
And because you took issue with Swansons experiment, which was testing back radiation fundamentals, in The GPE which was in vacuum by design.”
That is about as low brow of a take one could have.
1) Science only falsifies theories Nate. You were asked that if you don’t believe the Seim experiment to be the best science available regarding the ability of a freely expanding, diffusing, and convecting gas to create a greenhouse effect then you should post one that you feel to be superior then we can have a reasoned discussion on the topic. But you have refused to recognize that challenge strongly suggesting you don’t have a case to make.
2) Well we know that Swanson’s experiment is well recognized in science to create an insulative effect. It doesn’t involve any gas, it involves solid metal plates, and equilibrium between the only power source, which is the limit was never even documented.
In my energy efficient building designs dual glazed windows where the convection of gases is restricted by dead air spaces and vacuum spaces (absence of any gas) the greenhouse effect is still limited to the power input. In the atmosphere there is a small greenhouse effect as near as I can tell a 278.5k impingement on the system and a 286 to 288k surface temperature. . .and that is measured by blackbodies which we know the earth is not but I haven’t yet seen a good run down on what one might expect from all that. But I can list at least one theoretical limit with respect to CO2. Namely that CO2 might be capable of raising minimum temperatures to 278.5K and that would certainly raise the mean temperature of the planet. I don’t believe CO2 can raise the temperature of anything above that. But one element in the atmosphere could and thats oxygen. Since O2 doesn’t emit virtually any LW its equilibrium temperature in sunlight is off the charts. But it can be cooled by collisions with relatively cold CO2 or in fact much more so by collisions with water.
So there you go two means of creating a greenhouse effect when it is defined as a mean temperature between the upper limits of oxygen and CO2. If there were no water or co2 then oxygen could make the planet really hot.
But we don’t even know what the correct mean temperature should be under the current radiative environment we live in. Oceans are still cold at their bottoms indicating processes at work to sequester cold reserves. If all deep upwelling were to cease what would the ocean temperature rise to and what effect would that have on the mean temperature?
And even the 278.5k is in question. We get that from variable estimates of the solar constant between 1359w/m2 and 1380w/m2 which gives a range of temperatures that varies by about 1.1 degrees and since there are much larger error bars around temperatures in the 19th century today we can’t even determine for sure if the earth has warmed in the past 150 years.
All this drawing lines between various estimates is little more than a game of pin the tail on the donkey with blindfolded and trusted priests as contestants, except that if they were blindfolded trusted priests you actually might get a better answer as your typical priest actually tends to believe he will have to answer to a higher authority whose integrity is not in question.
“Well we know that Swansons experiment is well recognized in science to create an insulative effect. ”
But not by you guys, who endlessly deny the GPE is happening.
Barry and Swanson are correct, if you can’t understand this fundamental point, then there is no point in discussing anything more complicated.
Nate it is known not to work in a gas environment unless you create sealed dead air or vacated spaces. you can’t pass required inspections no matter how much you stomp your feet like a child brat not getting his way.
extrapolating that based on the above that swanson’s experiment should work without sealed spaces has no obvious caveats (like gases carrying heat around the barriers) except one.
normal unfettered heat transfer between a warm place and a cool place in a gas environment of common air is double that of a place where there is no convecting gas. that means the hottest it can get is one half as hot as it can get like on the surface of the moon.
that is consistent with the hottest temperature on earth was 56.4C the equivalent of a black body emitting 667w/m2.
twice that comes to 1334w/m2 which with a minimum with some cold co2 blocking some 24watts/2 and a bare minimum of water vapor the rest at 3watts/m2 gets you to your favorite unchanging solar constant of 1361w/m2.
so while theory is widely believed to be known about gpe results i know of no near blackbody experiments establishing that. and it is highly advisable to always test every theory surrounding electromagnetics because all we really know about that topic has arisen out of experiments.
i do know that multilayered pockets of empty spaces of mylar sheets coated with precious metal reflective finishes works as marvelous insulation. . .but have seen nothing regarding highly emissive finishes.
swanson that was just poorly worded.
I was talking about hype versus actual r-rated and tested insulation. We see Trenberth doing that in his budgets where the earth surface reflects 12.5% of light to space (which means the stuff with no clouds if clouds cover 50% is 25% reflectivity) then gives surface a emissivity of 1.0 and ignores how much of that might get reflected by cloud bottoms. Its a problem for models to figure out the actual physical characteristics of the atmosphere column and Trenberth’s take comes off like hype.
Generally speaking you never see tables on this relative to the atmosphere and it appears to be guessing how it all gets broken down. wide disparities exist between scientists and it seems much of it arises out of no organized effort to document any of this stuff which leads me to think that its too difficult. It appears to be a morass of disagreement.
“Nate it is known not to work in a gas environment”
No it is not. But again red herring.
If you are unwilling to stick to discussing the GPE, which is in vacuum, and yet still denied by the TEAM, and getting that understood first, then there is no point in moving on to more complicated stuff.
” Nate flies off into space after already acknowledging thats an inappropriate model for the earths surface.”
The issue was whether high emissivity surfaces can act as radiative insulation (in general).
You claim not to have seen it.
I showed an example using high emissivity surfaces with an explanation.
They can’t all insulation limits convection.
What you should see is two layers in thermal equilibrium. The cooling of molecules from decompression is only a temporary condition. Like how a spray can gets cold as you unload the pressure from it. As soon a the pressure stops unloading the can warms.
So the layer will seek to reach equilibrium by absorbing heat from below and passing it up to above and the layer will itself warm if it doesn’t continue to decompress.
As soon as they stop and stop they do they will cool to space in an accelerated manner in step with the heat from below it continues to intercept plus the difference it has with outerspace.
It will continue to cool faster than the layer below so they switch places. This happens rather rapidly. There may be some residual in the system but I guess you need to classify all that is lost as negative feedback as Roy discovered. And it mostly happens at altitude except when its being triggered by say a sudden warming of the ocean surface (ocean currents, ENSO, decadal ocean oscillations, centennial ocean oscillations, cycles in sea ice, etc) or a sudden warming of the sun to which the atmosphere is transparent to.
A couple of days ago, Hunter wrote:
Just because you have “seen nothing” about such does not mean that they don’t exist.
Lately, I’ve worked on an older car for which I had to replace the engine. I retained the exhaust and catalytic converter from the old setup, only to find a P0420 code when I started to drive it (look it up), likely due to cat damage from the previous engine. Since then, I’ve learned a lot of details about catalytic converters, such as that they need to operate in a temperature range between ~600 and ~1100 F. They also need to heat up quickly to the lower temperature to “light-off” and start destroying pollutants.
One feature of many OEM catalytic converters is a heat shield, which serves several purposes. They may be fabricated from un-polished stainless steel, though some verities may also be made from aluminum. The shield acts like the Green Plate, causing the cat to warm more quickly and to maintain the desired operating temperature. They also serve to minimize the possibility of a fire occurring when a car is driven over dry grass, etc, since the shield is cooler than the cat within.
Looking around, I found several papers from the SAE and ASME on the subject. Hunter needs to some more homework, have you read Pierrehumbert 2011 yet?
see above I posted a reply to this too high.
Hunter’s reply above is just another attempt to ignore the facts of radiation heat transfer. For example, “R-Value” is used to describe the insulating effectiveness of various building materials as a function of thickness, mostly regarding convective heat transfer. R-value for various window glass types is also used, but one would not expect that a high emissivity coating would be of much use for windows where the opposite is usually selected.
You are just trying to ignore the fact that the Green Plate Effect works in many other situations. Flipping to discussing Trenberth’s energy balance or discussions or model differences is just another red herring. So, have you read Pierrehumbert 2011 yet?
“.but have seen nothing regarding highly emissive finishes.”
Nice example, Swanson.
Pretty sure Bill has seen this before, since it has been posted here several times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
which discusses high emissivity plates used as radiative insulation, and why they work:
“The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
E. Swanson says:
”R-value for various window glass types is also used, but one would not expect that a high emissivity coating would be of much use for windows where the opposite is usually selected.”
Nate says:
Nice example, Swanson.
Pretty sure Bill has seen this before, since it has been posted here several times.
———————————–
Glass doesn’t need a high emissivity coating since its emissivity is something between .92 and .94 https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
And so as to not waste a post. Nate flies off into space after already acknowledging thats an inappropriate model for the earth’s surface.
Its quite amazing how already discarded ideas keep convecting back up like zombies. . .whenever convection can be dispensed with.
Hunter the tr0ll wrote:
Yes, glass has a “high emissivity”. But, that was the point when replying to your previous comment:
When using traditional double pane windows, one needs to understand the radiation heat transfer between the two layers with high emissivity. Triple pane windows are better, but, again, one needs to account for the thermal IR heat transfer as well as the double layer of still air between. Adding low emissivity coatings also reduce the energy transfer thru the window. I used such windows when I built my house some 20 years ago, selecting windows with a middle layer of plastic with a low-e coating.
You comment shows that you apparently didn’t recognize that simple triple layer glass windows employed “highly emissive finishes”. The middle layer functions rather like the Green Plate in the GPE.
Swanson says:
Triple pane windows are better, but, again, one needs to account for the thermal IR heat transfer as well as the double layer of still air between.
————————–
Actually that’s not true. I am not going to try to explain in detail why with equations, but there are some online courses in how this works with equations.
You will have to search for them to get the full math treatment. I haven’t done the math now for 26 years. . .reviewed it with two video college lectures maybe 15 years ago as I had never seen the radiant calculation.
hat needing to be accounted for when I was designing stuff and had never thought about it until I got into the GHE discussion. Most courses don’t even talk about radiation because its a non-issue in classes on solving equations for window systems.
But the results speak clearly. A single pane of glass doesn’t insulate in the atmosphere because there are two means of warming and two means of cooling. It will adopt a temperature halfway between the hot environment and the cold environment.
A dual glazed unit will providing more insulation will as a unit do the same and its rather easy to determine using the same equations what the temperature will be of the individual panes.
However, these panes don’t work without the interpanel still air spaces because otherwise the warmed air will convect out replaced by colder air and thus accelerate the cooling and kill off the insulation.
and that doesn’t mean though you shouldn’t consider strategic placement of reflectant low e coating or less conductive gasses into the equation. The analysis above is pretty much the starting point for calculating effects for employing those upgrades to window units.
Hunter wrote:
Yes, the math can become rather difficult, as I learned some 50 years ago in Solar Energy class. The air gap(s) suppress convection within the space, with a thickness up to ~3/4 inch for air, but the optimal spacing depends on the gas. But, glass is also a thermal insulator with a high thermal emissivity and it’s effect in a triple layer unit can not be ignored in a comprehensive model.
There are standards for glazing units which involve testing for “R-Value”, which means people don’t need to know the math to use them. Of course, there are more recent systems which promise even greater insulation effect.
What you do need to know is the economics of using them.
Generally speaking you don’t get your money worth replacing serviceable single glaze windows with double glaze. Yet people looking to save on energy get sold a bill of goods on this all the time.
First of all minimum glazing in a home is about 5% of wall space alone. But probably averages around 10 to 12% maybe a bit higher in some cases in places trying to take advantage of views in a big way.
Ceilings make up roughly as much in a house as the exterior walls, figuring an average size house of about 1200sqft. More square footage the more ceiling.
Insulating is the first thing to consider. Windows are only going to make a small difference. If you are going to replace the windows anyway for other reasons then double glazing is basically your only choice because of legal mandates has put single glazed units out of inventories.
Hunter, around here, there are several companies offering triple pane windows. Pella makes them, among others.
https://www.americanenergywindows.com/
But, you are again drifting away from the discussion regarding “back radiation” between cooler bodies to warmer ones.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1609024
Good! I am glad we are all in agreement that the discussion of the GPE has nothing to do with climate change. Hopefully that will bring this nonsense to rest.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1609128
Hunter has lost the argument, yet takes a victory lap anyway:
In your dreams. Have you read Pierrehumbert 2011?
walter…re GHE…
Please don’t take this as me presenting myself as an expert. I regard this as a mutual discussion so feel free to hack away at my theory.
The first question re the GHE is why it is called that. The inference is that the atmosphere acts like a real greenhouse and that notion is an anachronism dating back to the 19th century. Scientists like Tyndall, Clausius, and Planck all thought heat flowed through space as heat rays.
By the way, another wag, Joe somebody, claimed that we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do. Profound.
Clausius even inferred that since such rays move in both directions between bodies of different temperature, then heat is transferred in both directions. However, he distanced himself from that assumption when he declared that radiative heat transfer must obey the second law, meaning heat can only be transferred hot to cold. That conundrum must have vexed him since he was a brilliant scientist.
It was not till 1913 that Bohr found the answer. Radiation is produced by electrons in atoms as they move from a higher orbital energy level to a lower orbital energy level. Some poster here still think electron transitions are not involved in EM radiation of lower frequencies like IR, but Bohr had the answer for that too.
If an electron is in the ground state, which is the lowest orbital energy level, and it is excited by intense UV radiation, it can jump up to 7 energy levels higher. Here’s the key. it does not have to drop back over 7 energy level right away. It can fall from level 7 to levels 6, or 5 while radiating IR. That is most likely to happen with bonding electrons that hold atom together in a molecule like CO2. It explains why CO2 radiates and absorbs in the IR band, although it can also absorb and radiate at much higher frequencies. Super-heated CO2 radiates a white colour, meaning it is radiating in several frequencies concurrently.
That’s the basis of the GHE argument, that a real greenhouse warms when IR is trapped by glass. Alarmists are confusing that IR with heat and they think it is heat being trapped. Warming in a real greenhouse involves all air molecules, which are 99.9% nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. When solar energy heats the infrastructure, soil and plants in a greenhouse, they all radiate IR but they also warm air molecules directly via conduction (direct contact). That heated air rises as heat convection and the molecules are trapped by the glass.
Alarmists have tried to equate warming in the atmosphere to the anachronism that heat can be transferred as heat rays (IR). That is false. Bohr proved that the kinetic energy of electrons that is lost during a downward transition is converted to EM. That KE over the entire mass of electrons in the atoms of a mass is heat. Therefore heat is lost as EM is produced. It cannot be trapped because there is no heat to trap.
BTW…I don’t fully subscribe to Bohr’ theory. It’s far too cute to think that electrons magically arrange themselves in quantized orbits by number and by orbital energy level. The periodic table can be explained by that theory but who knows if the table is correct? W still don’t know what goes on at the atomic level and quantum theory has only served to obfuscate that reality.
Alarmists are adaptive when it comes to moving goalposts. If you corner them with the fact that no surface heat is transferred to the atmosphere as heat they claim that the IR is converted to heat in the atmosphere by GHGs. It is then hypothesized through a dubious process called thermalization, that the heat produced by GHGs adds to the heat of the atmosphere.
They produce no figures to support the amount of heat produced, they simply pull figures from a hat like 9% to 25%. The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation tells us the amount of heat produced is directly proportional to the mass percent of CO2, which is about 0.06%. In other words, CO2 can produce no more than an insignificant amount of heat in the atmosphere.
Others argue that CO2 acts as an insulator to keep the atmosphere warm, like a self-heating blanket. However, it is the entire atmosphere that acts as an insulator between surface and space.
In summary, there is not the slightest scientific connection between a real greenhouse and the atmosphere. If they stopped calling it a greenhouse effect rather than continuing to brainwash and scaring kids with that nonsense, I might be able to live with it.
I think the ultimate abuse of this sad theory was the nonsense produce by Carl Sagan of a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. It was Hansen of GISS who brought that inane theory to climate science. Space probes circa 1978 found the surface temperature of Venus to be 450C+. That’s far to hot to be the product of atmospheric heating. It has to come from Swenson’s idea of internal heating.
“It explains why CO2 radiates and absorbs in the IR band …”
No, it doesn’t. You earlier correctly note that “intense UV radiation” is needed to get the electrons to high levels (high voltages in gas discharge tubes will also work). But even in a dark box with no UV (and not even visible light!), CO2 STILL radiates 15 um IR.
Clearly, UV has nothing to do with IR radiation from CO2. Your hypothesis about falling from one high orbit to another slightly lower orbit — while clever for a novice — does not match actual results.
Electrons don’t cause IR, vibrational energy states do. However, Tim, I’ve seen nothing in the literature that states that convection or conduction heat transfer can’t cause a vibrational energy state.
> Tim, Ive seen nothing in the literature that
The Contrarian Contrarian Form:
I, Troglodyte, has not seen P
You, silly asshat, need to give me P
Otherwise something something
And when you will provide me with P
I will laugh at you, and tell you
I, Troglodyte, has not seen Q
Have not seen…..
Fix your grammar.
Good idea:
The Contrarian Final Form:
I, Troglodyte, has not seen P
You, silly asshat, need to give me P
Otherwise something something
And when you will provide me with P
I will laugh at you, and tell you
I, Troglodyte, haz not seen Q
Oh, so you’re a poet? Not a journalist or a scientist? You link very well though. Still don’t understand your climateball site. Is that one word or two?
Hey Willie,
Maybe you can answer this. Heat that is transferred to the upper atmosphere through conduction and convection, how is the heat transferred to space?
Troglodyte,
I got this lingering question for you.
How does it feel to rediscover with teh Donald what it must have felt to fall for frenzied fascist frenzy?
> frenzied fascist frenzy
That’s too forced.
You can cut the “frenzied,” Troglodyte!
Wiltard,
Maybe I can teach you something. Trump would not qualify as a fascist. He’s the opposite of a fascist. Someone who mandates vaccines or electric vehicles would qualify as a fascist, like Biden for instance. Or someone who would impose lockdowns. That would be someone from the left like Hitler or Mussolini. Mussolini started the Fasci Party in Italy. It means a bundle of sticks, to imply a collective like Marxists.
Troglodyte,
Maybe one day you will learn to read:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-agenda-campaign-second-term-2024-b2475824.html
Never forget that one needs to read before playing word games around ism-words.
Stephen P Anderson
You do not understand the terms you use.
This video can educate you but your brain is turned off. You are no longer an intelligent thinking person just a blind cult follower. No one can help you. You need to realize how mentally dead you have become. You might have laughed at the Moonies back in the day selling things at airports and now you have become a Trumpie.
Trump, at least his talk, is definitely fascist based upon what fascism is. I do not think you understand the concept.
Here is a video (you will reject) that can explain fascism very plainly and that your Cult leader (Donald J Trump) is acting exactly like one. I do not know if you are the violent ones but his followers death threat people and their families quite frequently when they tell the truth about your Cult Leader. That is organized bully behavior and you don’t see your beloved doing or saying anything against it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XTJNy_OrjE
Lockdowns with a deadly disease are not fascist! Your thinking is very poor in most areas. It is sad if you had the ability to comprehend Chemistry and math at one time. Now you are just a mindless cult follower. Really sad Stephen. I wish you well but you are deep in the false world of the constant lies of the Far Right.
I’ve made a mistake and entered into a conversation with two lunatic lefties. Wiltard, what you and your lunatic friends believe that Trump will do is surreal. Your world is imaginary. Lunatic Norman, I don’t need to read Wiki or watch your propaganda video to understand what is fascism .. I read history books by actual historians. Obama, Biden, Pelosi and the Democrat Party are socialists. Fascists were National Socialists like the Nazis and like today’s Democrats which have Marxist, Nazi, and Fascist roots.
#SyphilisDon is again trending, for the second day in a row.
It’s even trending on TS.
We might have to rename the Leaning Tower of Treason, to The Leaning Tower of Lesion!!!
Wiltard,
Also, to help teach you and some of your lunatic lefty friends, the First Amendment isn’t there to protect the government but the people. I know you’re not from this country, so I’ll give you a pass. But, just this once.
#SyphylisDon is trending again!
Norman, Wiltard and Narky support the most radical fascist movement since Hitler and Mussolini while simultaneously claiming that Trump is a fascist. Straight out of the radical playbook.
Trogodyte presents as marxist a government that would be classified as right-wing in just about every single liberal democracy on Earth.
As if he was stuck in a privatized propaganda machine or something.
“I read history books by actual historians. Obama, Biden, Pelosi and the Democrat Party are socialists. Fascists were National Socialists like the Nazis and like todays Democrats which have Marxist, Nazi, and Fascist roots.”
No you don’t.
Fascism is not equivalent to the numerous modern democracies that incorporate government social programs like social security, medicare, etc.
“Fascism (/ˈfʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived..”
“Fascism rejects assertions that violence is inherently negative or pointless, instead viewing imperialism, political violence, and war as means to national rejuvenation.[11][12] Fascists often advocate for the establishment of a totalitarian one-party state,[13][14] and for a dirigiste[15][16] economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through economic interventionist policies. Fascism’s extreme authoritarianism and nationalism often manifest as a belief in racial purity or a master race, usually blended with some variant of racism or discrimination against a demonized “Other”, such as Jews, homosexuals, ethnic minorities or immigrants. These ideas have motivated fascist regimes to commit massacres, forced sterilizations, deportations, and genocides.”
Another lunatic.
Are you saying that of Tim, Troglodyte, or did you misplace your comment?
Stephen says: “Electrons dont cause IR, vibrational energy states do. ”
Yep. I agree 100%.
“However, Tim, Ive seen nothing in the literature that states that convection or conduction heat transfer cant cause a vibrational energy state.”
Conduction CAN and DOES transfer energy to/from molecules like CO2. For a gas in thermal equilibrium, such transfer happen all the time as molecules collide and exchange IR photons with the molecules around them. There will be some fraction of molecules in an excited vibrational state at all times (the fraction depending on the temperature).
But when the CO2 receives photons from a warmer location, then the average energy (and temperature) of the CO2 increases. and it can share the excess with the other molecules.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
One hundred years on from hafnium’s discovery, the periodic table remains both robust and relevant, even at a time when reams of data on an element can be accessed at the click of a mouse. The table offers, at a glance, a reference to how an element might behave in a chemical reaction, and clues to its similarity to other elements in a group.
So far, there are 118 confirmed elements, with the addition of four superheavy synthetic elements in 2015. But a time will surely come when there will be no new elements to make and the periodic table will reach its limits. As yet there is no consensus on when this is likely to happen or how big the last element will be, but chemists say its atomic number could exceed 170.
When that time comes, the periodic table will still remain, a map guiding scientists through the vastness of chemical space – all the molecules that have ever formed, and all those yet to be discovered, whether on Earth or elsewhere in the Universe. It’s a tribute to the enduring values of international scientific cooperation and the steadfastness of researchers that an unremarkable transition metal, discovered 100 years ago in the aftermath of one of the world’s greatest conflicts, made the periodic table what it is today.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00083-4
Willard, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The term greenhouse effect comes from an analogy to greenhouses. Both greenhouses and the greenhouse effect work by retaining heat from sunlight, but the way they retain heat differs. Greenhouses retain heat mainly by blocking convection (the movement of air). In contrast, the greenhouse effect retains heat by restricting radiative transfer through the air and reducing the rate at which heat escapes to space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
yes reduction by convection has been demonstrated in air already with restrictions from transfer by radiation. when will we see a demonstration of a greenhouse effect you are in here promoting?
or even a complete description of the process?
I’m more interested in destroying Bordo’s
than making Gill another sammich.
Meanwhile, he still has to correct his “emissivity equals 1/albedo, thus for a flat surface perpendicular to the sun, without influences from other sources, changes in emissivity will have no effect equilibrium temperature”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1596887
Bill Hunter
I had already given you a complete process of GHE with measured values.
I will link you to the post I had given you earlier. Don’t be a science denier. Let the evidence guide your path in finding the truth. Already we have posters who make up their own ideas, reject established physics in favor of their opinions and beliefs (three come to mind…Swenson, Clint R, Gordon Robertson). They are big on opinions very poor on any supporting evidence. Sad state of science when they all think they are geniuses.
Don’t be like them! Three on a blog is far too many to get good intelligent ideas going. I am certain there may be good skeptical points against some conclusions of Climate Change. Denying basic science is not a good path to follow.
Bill Hunter
Here is the link to my post where I gave you actual measured values.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588751
You went off on a tangent about the Moon which was not really what I had posted for you to look at. I also went on to explain the Moon Temperature to you.
You should look at the link I posted in my demonstration of the Earth’s GHE.
It might benefit you to look at evidence. Think about it and draw rational conclusions from it.
Again we have at least 3 posters who make up their own version of science and peddle it and denigrate any who question them.
Clint R likes to call established science bogus (as if his claims mean anything to anyone). The issue is not his calling established science bogus, it is that he provides NO evidence to support his bogus claims. No measured values, no valid experiments. He has a God-Complex like his hero Trump. He thinks if he says something it is unquestioned Truth. Weird how the Narcissist mind works. They have a false sense of superiority, and attack any and all who dare to question them. They never humble their minds’ and entertain the idea they could be wrong.
Norman, the therapy seems to be helping. You appear to have your anal fixation under control. Now get your therapist to help you with your obsession with me. Mental health is good.
Someday you might be able to get to a level of maturity where I can teach you some science.
Clint R
Not obsessed with you at all. I usually ignore your terrible science but sometimes I comment on it.
I brought you up with Bill Hunter because we have you and a couple others that make up science and state opinions as if they were fact.
Since you are like Trump you will continue to make stuff up (stolen election) with zero evidence to support it. I know neither you nor Trump can become humble and change but I would hate to see another person, Bill Hunter, go down your path of narcissism and made up reality. You are enough for one blog.
I am hoping Bill Hunter is open and thoughtful enough to examine evidence. I already know you and Gordon Robertson do not.
Funny how you attack Gordon for his made up ideas but you do the same. You are blind one, can’t see your posts are unscientific opinions you have.
You still provide zero evidence of your statement that Nitrogen gas reflects IR. I want you to demonstrate that fluxes of energy can’t add. You never support any of your opinions but you make a lot of them. Maybe you see Gordon Robertson as a rival. In your mind you see him as a threat to your domain. Maybe you want to be the only poster who makes up their own ideas of reality with no evidence to support them.
Norman, you betray yourself by claiming you’re not obsessed with me, then providing a litany of false accusations about me proving you’re obsessed with me!
Clearly you’ve got problems. Seek help.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why do you say that Norman is obsessed with you right after you replied to him?
Willard
If you can figure out Clint R’s logic I would be happy that you explain it. He seems a Narcissist personality that just makes up stuff and as you call him “Puffman” as he inflates his ego to this max. He does remind me of Trump. Arrogant, makes up stuff, attacks any who disagree and provides zero evidence for his made up claims.
Trump endlessly “The election was stolen” over and over and he does get a few simple minded people in the Nation to believe him.
Problem with Clint R is that on this blog half the posters have actual science backgrounds so he is very ineffective with his made up claims. I should be entertained as Ball4 is. It just gets old and repetitive. Swenson, Clint R, and Gordon Robertson just start repeating their same old points over and over like the Donald Trump. You can point out the errors of their thinking but they ignore it all. It is all Narcissism. I think Clint R needs the therapy to correct his personality disorder but a narcissist can’t see their personality. Everyone around them is broke, they are fine.
https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/am-i-dating-a-narcissist
Sorry Norman, but that’s just wallowing in your own despair. That’s like what drug addicts do.
You need professional help, before it’s too late.
Norman,
Here is the best explanation of the Dark Triad that pollutes this website:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-05437-001
As I may already have told you, Puffman is Lulzy, Mike Flynn is Bully, and Graham D. Warner is Slimy.
There is very little one can do with people who can’t abide by social norms, either because they care about nothing except doing as they please, because they feel above them, or because the transgression is the point.
Perhaps Tim has the right of it – just correct their mistakes and move on. A bit like I explain here:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2024/01/16/how-to-cavil-like-cranks/
There is some art behind what our Dragon cranks are doing. That being said, there are diminishing returns. Contrarians always win, which is more a cognitive bug than a feature.
To each their own.
When it is Universally accepted that there is no GHE, will you apologise for all the abuse you have given?
Graham D. Warner feels emboldened by three papers, one of which supports the greenhouse effect.
“Graham D. Warner feels emboldened by three papers . .. ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here’s a quote from one, Mike:
“nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), are transparent to the longwave radiation. In contrast, some minor constituents, particularly water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and ozone (O3)”
Do you agree?
Wily Wee Willy,
You wrote-
“Do you agree?”
Why do you ask?
When it is Universally accepted per DREMT that there is no GHE, all the farmers would have to take down their now useless greenhouses. Except this won’t happen because it is universally proven over long enough time greenhouses work especially well in the winter and year around.
Mike Flynn,
I ask because unless and until you can refute the radiative properties of greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect and the theory that explains it are here to stay. Which means that Graham will have to wait for a long while before having his abuses vindicated.
As if his righteousness allowed him to do every single thing he fancies doing to otters right here.
Norman says:
Bill Hunter
Here is the link to my post where I gave you actual measured values.
———————–
Yep another claim with a giant hole in it. This one and others with the same link come up with ”page not found”.
Norman,
Looks like Gill just confirmed what I said more than 12 days ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1588900
All this time he got stuck with miscalculations of the Moons albedo.
and of course your acknowledgement of the emissivity parameter demonstrates the ghe as being somewhere around 4.5 to 12k, depending upon actual emissivity of earth and not the 33k being promoted by charlatans and their minions.
Gill finally accepts having been wrong about emissivity all along.
Progress!
you are a bit late on the congratulations as i had came to that conclusion in 2007. but its good we can find some facts to agree on.
“. . . than making Gill another sammich.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
I’m not the one who asked for a sammich.
And you’re in my thread.
“Im not the one who asked for a sammich.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
*Checks back*
This time you’re in my thread, Mike.
“This time youre in my thread, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
You really are, Mike.
That way, please.
“That way, please.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
No, not that way, Mike.
This other way.
But chrome radiators show that convection is more effective than radiation.
“Chrome and highly polished radiators in stainless steel have a lesser output than their painted counterparts. Generally, they generate 20-25% less heat.”
Had Mother Nature knew, she might have designed the Earth differently!
So Willard does not dispute that convection is more effective than radiation.
So Richard is not disputing that the ground is a good emitter of thermal infrared radiation.
A wall on fire, is a good emitter of IR radiation, and wall not on fire, isn’t.
A wall not on fire can reflect more visible light than a wall on fire emits but such reflective wall is not emitting/providing much energy {it can if wall is mirror, reflecting something like a wall on fire or sunlight, but I mean just painted wall].
RLH
YOU: “So Willard does not dispute that convection is more effective than radiation.”
Heat transfer is not so simple as to declare one process dominant over another. At night, on Earth, convection basically stops as the surface is no longer being heated by the Sun but the ground continues to cool via radiant energy. There are times when convection is inhibited by atmospheric caps and inversions. In these cases convection is NOT more effective than radiation.
The cooling of the Moon’s surface from equatorial average of 224 F down to -298 F is all due to radiant energy, zero for convection.
Simplistic statements do not really convey the reality. The case you claim is one condition. It is not a Universal Law of energy transfer. There are three and each can dominate based upon the conditions present.
Norman,
You wrote –
“At night, on Earth, convection basically stops as the surface is no longer being heated by the Sun but the ground continues to cool via radiant energy.”
Exactly. Losing all the heat of the day, plus a little internal heat, as Fourier pointed out a long time ago.
Certainly no GHE causing heating at night, is there?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Losing all the heat of the day”
Like on the Moon?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I notice comment on the use of wavenumber instead of wavelength in the OLR graph.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
Use of wavenumber gives the graph one useful extra property. Equal areas under the curve represent equal energy.
This has relevance to the greenhouse effect discussion if Walter and I ever get back in synch.
To get "back in synch" with Walter, don’t evacuate the scene every time you get caught out, only to reappear down-thread as if nothing ever happened.
Also, don’t forget to tell Walter that total OLR has actually followed global temperatures since 1985. In other words, it’s increased.
I go to bed in Ireland, come back 18 hours later and the threads have moved on. Perhaps if you threw less chaff on the winnowing floor it would be easier to keep track.
“Also, dont forget to tell Walter that total OLR has actually followed global temperatures since 1985. In other words, its increased. ”
Yes, of course. It’s what you would expect as the surface warms.
"Perhaps if you threw less chaff on the winnowing floor it would be easier to keep track."
That’s it, blame your shortcomings on others.
"Yes, of course. It’s what you would expect as the surface warms."
Glad you agree. Then when Walter reads that total OLR is supposed to reduce as a result of an enhanced GHE he will know that’s all nonsense.
Actually, then when Walter reads that total OLR is supposed to reduce, & later as the system responds with warming lower regions, OLR increases as a result of an enhanced GHE he will know that’s all common sense.
Yes, total OLR is supposed to both reduce and increase at the same time. Complete common sense.
Not “at the same time”! DREMT, pls note use of the word “later”.
Total OLR with measured surface warming (see top post) at first drops below equilibrium with more constant ASR, then OLR climbs back toward equilibrium with that more constant ASR as the system adjusts to the latest increased lower troposphere temperature profile.
DREMT should have known that, but constantly needs correction hence 3,000+ comments.
"Total OLR with measured surface warming (see top post) at first drops below equilibrium"
Except it’s risen since 1985.
“Have you ever seen a Bacon painting?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wrong place, Mike Flynn.
To help get up to speed with your art history:
https://d197for5662m48.cloudfront.net/documents/publicationstatus/109550/preprint_pdf/21c2aeb4cd3fc33f872e578367d43ad2.pdf
“To help get up to speed with your art history:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
… and then reduced thereafter, then risen again, then reduced…so forth up to present as I wrote & in line with measured lower troposphere temperature trends (i.e. planetary heat uptake in satellite era) in the top post.
Oh, Ball4. You will just say anything.
1:07 am … that is reasonably supported in the literature. And not double secret, it’s all readily available to DREMT and others for free. Just have to invest some time to read up after having achieved the enabling pre-req.s.
The flaws in what you are saying ought to be self-evident, but just in case it is not…since the total OLR is just tracking temperatures, how can it be reducing to produce the warming in the first place?
First, DREMT 2:06 am will have to explain where “total OLR is just tracking temperatures” came from.
OLR doesn’t “produce the warming” (where did THAT come from?), the sun does. DREMT obviously can’t keep up with the published literature (and especially the top post) but entertainingly comments anyway.
Ball4 plays dumb.
Wise words, EM.
Don’t ever listen to someone who would try to gaslight you into thinking that their sleepless patterns ought to be the new normal.
"I go to bed in Ireland, come back 18 hours later"
I don’t think 18 hours of sleep is "the new normal".
See, EM?
As soon as you wake up, you absolutely need to come here, otherwise Graham D. Warner will start to believe that you are trying to flee from an implacable logic that only he and a select few (i.e. the Sky Dragon Cranks) really know.
He might even start to believe that you just said having slept for 18 hours!
It just struck me as amusing, Little Willy. No need to take everything so seriously…
…and EM regularly vanishes out the back door when the going gets tough, only to reappear later down-thread as if nothing ever happened. That’s kind of what he’s known for. He’ll probably do it again, here, even in his own thread.
Were Graham D. Warner the main character of Despicable Me, his actual performance would be very funny!
That’s better. Keep it light-hearted and ridiculous. Nobody takes you seriously anyway, so it suits you better. Just be content with being the blog’s jester.
Graham D. Warner gaslights once again.
Be sure to check out the new EP. Particularly "Breakneck":
I think that you’re a piece of shit
And I’d break your f*cking neck if I could get away with it
If I knew that somebody of your quality remained unmurdered
I would immediately seek to rectify the situation
Chat for days and nothing remains but the lies you have placed, they’re still offending
Keep up with this I’ll find your IP address, then I’ll know where you are, I’m looking for you
I think that you’re a piece of shit
And I’d break your f*cking neck if I could get away with it
I’d sleep with one eye open if I were you
Every day I see my voice lost amongst the noise of faceless screaming
An endless war of words leaving nothing behind but empty meanings
Chat for days and nothing remains but the lies you have placed, you’re still deflecting
Kept up with this I found your IP address, now I know where you are, I’m coming for you
I think that you’re a piece of shit
And I’d break your f*cking neck if I could get away with it
I’d sleep with one eye open if I were you
Once more, with more funny feelings.
Yes, that’s the one! It’s on Spotify if you fancy a listen.
That’s the level of hatred that a lot of people on here seem to project. Quite funny.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey, Mike Flynn –
Do you think Spotify gives IPs to artists?
Lol. Little Willy, you’ve no need to be afraid. You’re the one that has stalked me, basically told me you know where I live, what my real name is, and seem completely and utterly obsessed with me to the point of posting screenshots with my email address on here and constantly linking to my videos, various FB pages etc. If anything, I’m the one that should be worried…
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thank you for being here for Graham D. Warner, Mike Flynn.
…and Swenson is the object of Little Willy’s other obsessions. I’ve seen him trying to work out where Swenson lives, too. Creepy…
And so Graham D. Warner tries to shield Mike Flynn.
All we need is Puffman, and the cycle of our Dark Triad will be complete.
Nobody can shield Swenson from The Stalker. I only wish I could…but sadly you’re probably watching him through the cross-hairs of your rifle scope as we speak…soon he’ll be just another statistic.
Graham D. Warner is VERY AFRAID
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1597538
No wonder he can’t sleep at night.
Too right. Some scary people on here.
Another metalhead who fantasizes about breaking necks is truly scared. Next he’s gonna show us his Bacon-inspired paintings…
Our metalhead who fantasizes about breaking necks is truly scared. Next he’s gonna show us his Bacon-inspired paintings…
You brought up the band Parades Underground, and linked to a video featuring a snippet of one of their songs from the new EP “Allow the Flames to Take Us All”. Now you’re going to misinterpret the lyrics as if they’re written from my perspective!? Don’t be silly.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Your PST allows me to respond.
Perhaps you should coordinate with Graham D. Warner.
“Perhaps you should coordinate with Graham D. Warner.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thanks again, Mike.
Have you ever seen a Bacon painting?
“Have you ever seen a Bacon painting? ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’ll take that as a yes, Mike.
Which perspective would Bacon take?
“Which perspective would Bacon take?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here, Mike:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDWs53BoGjQ
You’ll like it.
…don’t be silly.
Graham D. Warner is free to fantasizes as he pleases.
OK, I fantasise that you eventually stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner indeed fantasizes that his constant abuses lead commenters to violence. Ah the lulz he would haz were this to happen.
Just to make commenters tilt gives him such a thrill!
You have entirely the wrong idea, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
You don’t ever seem to get it, Little Willy. You don’t get to tell me what my words mean. It’s the same with the discussion up-thread, that’s now on one response a day.
In this case it’s even worse for you, as the song is not just written by me. So you are now trying to put words in somebody else’s mouth as well.
I could explain to you in more detail the meaning, but what would be the point? You don’t listen, and can’t learn. All you want to do is cast me in the worst light possible for any readers.
Your purpose here seems to be one long, extended character assassination attempt. Pretty much from the very beginning! As soon as you learned I was what you call a "Sky Dragon Crank", you went for the jugular…and you just haven’t stopped.
Graham D. Warner still does not get it. What he implied is loud and clear. That he hides behind such implausible deniability is only part of his Machiavellian charm.
As if there was one sincere bone in his body anyway.
See what I mean?
Let’s try some lyrics:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311257
Inspired by this creepy comment by Puffman.
Well, OK, it’s mostly Puffman’s creepy (and perhaps a little self-defeating) comment.
And NO, I’m not saying what I mean by that. All I can say is that whatever Graham D. Warner will tell you, it’s wrong.
Only I know what I mean.
Muahhahaha
The cyber-bullying continues…
Graham “Keep it light-hearted and ridiculous. Nobody takes you seriously anyway, so it suits you better.” Warner is the true victim here.
Yes, absolutely. Sometimes I give back a fraction of what I receive, but I’m always receiving…
People Make Graham D. Warner Do It…
No self-awareness. At all.
And still, the cyber-bullying continues…
Im actually a pretty good guy.
Astute readers should thank Graham D. Warner anyway.
…and on and on it goes…
Good idea to place this comment here, EM.
Puffman and Graham D. Warner (who never complain when Mike Flynn, Bordo, or Puffman do the same) had no business trying to make themselves relevant with their usual prevarication.
Besides, Walter is himself quite the moving target!
I had the business of being at the comment section of a blog and thus perfectly entitled to post a response to Walter if I so wished. What I have said to him thus far is correct.
EM,
I almost forgot –
You can ignore most of Graham D. Warner’s comments.
They’re pure bait.
Sky Dragon cranks above all ought to work on Christos’ paper, which disproves their claim to fame.
(Including Christos, but do not tell him – he’s cool.)
Little Willy baits again.
See, EM?
Yes, we all see that you’re baiting.
And now Graham D. Warner responds for you, EM!
Just pointing out that you’re baiting, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner illustrates once again why EM might wish to comment down the threads!
Once again, Little Willy is somehow not responsible for his own actions.
Graham D. Warner keeps going and going!
Yes, that’s the song. Check it out.
Graham D. Warner is such a funny guy!
He sure is.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good morning, Mike Flynn!
Slept well?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’ll take that as a no.
We’ll take you as a troll.
Graham D. Warner has opinions.
which are agreed upon by many, here.
Graham D. Warner seems to forget his own contributions, and the fact that they appeared long before I was here.
He also seems to forget that the t-word has been banned, most probably because the biggest one here abused it for more than five years.
Even if I were a hypocrite, you would still be a troll. Just accept what everyone else sees you as, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner, who just wrote a smut song where he fantasizes about provoking someone so much that it turns into death threats, keeps gaslighting.
The purest Machiavellian act I ever witnessed in my entire life. Back in my days, such asshat would rather hang around music shows or bars. The thrill they had when they could start fights and feel that they are the true victims!
At least Graham only indulges in that kind of weird habit vicariously.
All wrong, Little Willy.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Incorrect.
Ah, theres the yelping.
False.
Vintage 2017-12:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276782
Creepy stuff, a tad authoritarian…to boot!
The cyber-bullying continues…
Astute readers will note that Graham D. Warner has yet to acknowledge being behind that other abusive sock.
Astute readers will note that the cyber-bullying continues…
I am having fun.
You are bullying.
They want to break our necks.
…and still it continues…
And so Graham D. Warner gaslights again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1599899
…and on and on it goes…
Of course it’s not a blackbody in vacuum and H20 is absorbing in same wavelength as CO2 does.
The graph indicates H2O absorbs the most but it absorb a kit more the graph seems indicates [it could be misleading to some}.
“Kit” mistyped, should be “lot”
Ie, “…a lot more…”
As far as how much. not sure it is known or certain given
in terms precise number.
But if graph was accurate, anyone could determine it, exactly.
But graph seems to indicate H2O only does a bit over half which is wrong.
gb,
What some people forget is that if CO2 is heated to a temperature above environmental, say by compression, it immediately starts to cool back to ambient.
GHE cultists have convinced themselves that slowing the rate of cooling of a body must result in a temperature increase! The history of the Earth shows the unreality of this supposition.
Cooling, slow or fast, results in temperatures falling – not rising.
GHE cultists are merely confused, ascribing thermometers showing increased temperatures due to ephemeral man-made heat, to some supernatural, indescribable effect – known as the GHE (for some mystical reason).
— Swenson says:
January 18, 2024 at 7:52 PM
gb,
What some people forget is that if CO2 is heated to a temperature above environmental, say by compression, it immediately starts to cool back to ambient.–
Molecules of any gas in atmosphere have their vector and velocity changed by zillions of other molecules going faster than a bullet on average it but it’s all directions and wide range velocity {can average and different molecules {N2,O2,CO2 and etc} have different velocities [well, at least, in terms theory}. So a CO2 molecule or a “class of CO2 molexules” has no temperature. But a part of the atmosphere can be said to have temperature. Also, of course, CO2 is tiny portion of the atmosphere.
> Also, of course, CO2 is tiny portion of the atmosphere.
https://climateball.net/but-trace-gas/
Clmateballs?
Willard, please stop trolling.
JR already found that one, Mike.
You’re in my thread, go gaslight elsewhere.
> You’re in my thread.
No, your not! You’re in EM’s!
Go right ahead. PST me.
“Youre in my thread, go gaslight elsewhere.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mars atmosphere has more CO2 than Earth and Mars the CO2 does cool nor heat anything.
Other than when condenses into solid, it snows a lot in poles and keeps the poles in winter warmer.
But no reported any CO2 condensing in your our cold upper atmosphere, probably due, to how tiny CO2 is compared to rest of atmosphere.
Maybe it freezes in Venus atmosphere- I should look that up.
Oh, yeah, here:
“Ice “clouds” may form briefly in Venus’ hellish atmosphere, satellite images and computer models suggest. In a study published late last year in the journal Advancing Earth and Space Sciences, researchers found that both water and carbon dioxide could condense into ice particles high in the Venusian atmosphere.Jan 12, 2024″
https://www.space.com/wispy-ice-clouds-may-form-above-venus-hellish-surface
By Kenneth Richard on 18. January 2024
We have updated our Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity scientific paper list with new papers added from 2022 and 2023 and some newly discovered papers from the past.
As of 2016 this list had only 50 papers on it (as indicated by the web address). In less than 8 years the list has grown to 159 (as of today).
https://notrickszone.com/2024/01/18/nearly-160-scientific-papers-detail-the-minuscule-effect-co2-has-on-earths-temperature/
Thanks, Christos! How did I miss this paper?
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2023042615431593.pdf
Seim & Olsen take down the Harde/Schnell experiment! Wonderful.
I see your paper is also listed in there. Excellent stuff.
Thank you, DREMT.
we willy is now a stalker. He started out as a trohl and now he has graduated to stalking. Not only an alarmist scumbag but a dangerous stalker.
Here is evidence from a recent post of his…”Graham D. Warner illustrates once again why EM might wish to comment down the threads!”
When people start stalking other people on the Net and use real identities garnered through their stalking, to discredit them on the Net, they are true scumbags. Children have been so shamed by these stalkers that they have killed themselves to get away from it.
Willard the Rat has stalked me, trying to dig up dirt on me and I am sure he has done it with every other poster on this blog. In all the years I have been posting here on Roy’s blog I have not encountered a stalker who would go to this extent to discredit another poster. Most of us simply agree to disagree, but wee willy the alarmist stalker cannot leave it at that.
> trying to dig up dirt on me
I thought you were proud of your “studies,” Bordo.
You might also like:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1576817
Is this a scumbag?
” I thought you were proud of your “studies,” Bordo.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
You forget this part, Mike:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1576817
Scumbag – yea or nay?
Tim actually comments under his real name, Little Willy. That is his choice.
You have actively stalked me. That is your choice.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner continues to gaslight:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1577047
His choice.
Doesn’t even make sense, but OK.
Graham D. Warner still gaslights, but OK.
Obviously I’m not gaslighting, though.
Obviously Graham D. Warner is gaslighting.
Tim comments here using his real name. So obviously I am not stalking him by calling him Timothy Jane Folkerts. You make less and less sense every day.
Tim does not comment under the name Graham D. Warner was using.
Graham D. Warner’s ways to manipulate and seek lulz may be original, but they’re not that subtle.
Inserting a silly middle name is not stalking either, Little Willy.
What you did, is stalking.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
He shared his video.
His choice.
I shared the “Moon Does Not Rotate” song, thus I deserved your stalking!? Amazing. What an ability you have to refuse responsibility for your own actions.
Graham D. Warner may never tire of gaslighting me.
Should I be concerned?
Just take ownership of what you did, stalker.
Graham D. Walker keeps gaslighting.
He did the same to Nate.
For years.
Can’t do it, can you?
When Graham D. Warner responds to someone, it’s because he has the right to do so. It’s a PuBLiC foRuM. When someone responds to him, that someone is a stalker.
But no, when he PSTs, he’s not really stalking – it’s just for a “bit of fun”…
Responding to me is not at all what makes you a stalker.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
His choice.
See down-thread for a reminder of what makes you a stalker.
A rather good example of how Graham D. Warner gaslights.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1598413
This weird feeling of deeeja-voodoo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277556
Let’s hope Graham D. Warner is not that sorry character.
Little Willy tries to divert attention away from his despicable actions with more despicable actions.
"Willard the Rat has stalked me, trying to dig up dirt on me and I am sure he has done it with every other poster on this blog. In all the years I have been posting here on Roy’s blog I have not encountered a stalker who would go to this extent to discredit another poster. Most of us simply agree to disagree, but wee willy the alarmist stalker cannot leave it at that."
Graham D. Warner wants to deflect from the fact that he himself did everything he whines about, and more. Let’s roll the tape again:
This isn’t meant to be unsettling. Oh, no! It’s just that there are “scary” “people” here, full of “hatred.”
All this only amuses him.
A world-class manipulator.
"Graham D. Warner wants to deflect from the fact that he himself did everything he whines about, and more"
Erm…no. Now you’re just making stuff up.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
His choice.
You twist and corrupt everything I say and do.
Graham D. Warner posts the lyrics of a song he wrote.
The song is about a guy who tells another one that he would break his neck if he could get away with it. Then he tells me that there are very scary people here, and:
The guy who’s doing the projecting right now has written a song about his projection.
As long as he finds it funny, I guess.
See what I mean?
It can be funny that people get worked up on here about such trivial things…but it can also be kind of scary.
I don’t find the threat of real physical violence funny.
The song is serious.
Now let’s see you twist and corrupt every word I just said.
Putting dark words in imaginary people’s mouth is Very Funny to Graham D. Warner. He certainly did not want to make it appear that anyone real could have these dark thoughts. No no no, he’s not projecting at all.
And so we shouldn’t be too much concerned with our Machiavellian’s health.
Very funny.
There we go.
Astute readers might wonder if somebody wrote a song about how a crank who keeps fantasizing about COP30 delegates killing poor- I’d rather stop here.
But then what if that somebody wrote a song and sent it to COP delegates? As long as the note ends with “very funny,” there’s no harm there, now, is it?
I said the song was serious. The meaning obviously goes over your head. That’s to be expected.
I said I don’t find the threat of real physical violence funny.
And still the twisting and corruption continues.
Anything to divert attention away from Little Willy and his stalking/doxing.
Graham D. Warner still does not get it. Does he really think it makes what he just did less problematic because his song is serious? No, it doesn’t. On the contrary. That means he attributed serious murder thoughts to people here, especially me.
So the song is serious. What about the “hatred” remark? Perhaps he was just joking, you know? Ah ah. Perhaps not.
At this point, who fucking cares?
But wait – he’s supposed to be the victim here! Truly Machiavellian, that Graham. There’s no two ways about it.
“At this point, who fucking cares?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Entropic Man claimed –
“Use of wavenumber gives the graph one useful extra property. Equal areas under the curve represent equal energy.
This has relevance to the greenhouse effect discussion if Walter and I ever get back in synch.”
This is apparently so he can post a completely pointless graph (although brightly coloured)
Just saying that equal areas under the curve represent equal energy is irrelevant.
Any x-axis units giving the same result would be equally appropriate. That silly graph has been waved around by Gavin Schmidt and others implying the atmosphere somehow makes the planet hotter. It doesn’t. The surface cools every night, losing all the heat of the day, and the Earth itself has cooled to its present temperature over the past four and a half billion years.
Entropic Man seems to be showing a certain amount of desperation.
Earlier, Ball4, who can’t describe the GHE but believes it does something unspecified anyway, wrote –
“Swenson being ill-informed writing no temperature is humorously showing.
All matter has a temperature Swenson; all matter at all temperatures emits photons of all frequencies at its particular emissivity.
15 micron photons are emitted by all matter, all the time. No exceptions.”
An object at absolute zero emits no photons at all. It has no temperature whatever. A body slightly above absolute zero emits precisely no 15 micron photons. It cannot. In case any GHE cultist wants to whine about using theoretical concepts, they use use black bodies, fantasy scenarios, physical and mathematical impossibilities all the time.
Now, single photon emitters exist. One frequency, one energy value. Ball4 is merely trying to convince rational people that a GHE exists, without being able to describe it, or even say what this GHE might do.
Religion, not science.
There are no objects at absolute zero, Swenson, you should have known that before posting. It’s easy to describe the GHE, just ask any farmer growing produce in one during winter. That’s what the G stands for!
A body of matter slightly above absolute zero emits 15 micron photons along with photons of all other frequencies all the time. No exceptions, cue Planck’s Law.
“Its easy to describe the GHE”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Willard Clint Swenson.
Why don’t you clowns get your own website?
How many more would you like me to have, Kennui?
You’re forgetting two names, BTW.
Ken, please stop trolling.
Wiltard needs to get a life.
Troglodyte needs a True Leader.
And a wall.
He definitely needs a wall.
Willard, please stop trolling.
And Mike Flynn needs to watch more Pinter plays
“And Mike Flynn needs to watch more Pinter plays”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Kennui asked you a question, Mike.
“Kennui asked you a question, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Kennui really did, Mike!
Why did he not include Bordo and Graham?
“Kennui really did, Mike”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Come to think of it, Mike –
Has Kennui ever said anything of Graham?
“Has Kennui ever said anything of Graham?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good idea, Mike.
Let me check.
“Good idea, Mike.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
christos…glad you have a paper published…congratulations.
However, I think the claimed warming from CO2 is far too high. The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation makes it clear that a gas cannot transfer more heat into a mixed gas than its mass percent. For CO2, that mass percent is about 0.06% and that should translate to 0.06C per degree C rise of the total gas.
Thank you, Gordon.
Gordo,
I think 0.06% is too high.
stalker alert!!!
we willy is now a stalker. He started out as a trohl and now he has graduated to stalking. Not only an alarmist scumbag but a dangerous stalker.
Here is evidence from a recent post of his…”Graham D. Warner illustrates once again why EM might wish to comment down the threads!”
When people start stalking other people on the Net and use real identities garnered through their stalking, to discredit them on the Net, they are true scumbags. Children have been so shamed by these stalkers that they have killed themselves to get away from it.
Willard the Rat has stalked me, trying to dig up dirt on me and I am sure he has done it with every other poster on this blog. In all the years I have been posting here on Roy’s blog I have not encountered a stalker who would go to this extent to discredit another poster. Most of us simply agree to disagree, but wee willy the alarmist stalker cannot leave it at that.
> trying to dig up dirt on me
I thought you were proud of your “studies,” Bordo.
You might also like:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1576817
Is this a scumbag?
“Is this a scumbag?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
There’s a commenter who kept naming an astrophysicist on this thread by his real name instead of his nickname.
What a scumbag!
“What a scumbag”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Found another scumbag:`
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/#comment-111988
Go get him!
“Found another scumbag:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-341947
Another!
“Another!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey Mike Flynn –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364619
Not scumbag. Just funny.
“Not scumbag. Just funny.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Who here stole another commenters name in his nym, Mike?
I give you two chances.
Psst, Mike, a hint:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277994
“Psst, Mike, a hint:”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Another hint, Mike Flynn –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270826
I noticed the term ‘IP’ mentioned upthread.
It’s art, Walter:
It’s called *Breakneck*.
But don’t worry. It doesn’t mean anything.
Willard, please stop trolling.
When I commented at And Then There’s Physics, a blog at which Little Willy moderates and occasionally writes articles, it occurred to me that Little Willy might have been able to see my IP address. This was later confirmed when he wrote a comment here basically saying where I lived.
He has posted a screenshot on here featuring my email address, and regularly uses my real name. So he knows who I am, and where I live, and my email address.
Should I be concerned? Is there a point where silly online debating escalates into something more serious?
You could almost write a song about it…
That makes Willard a doxer in addition to his other obvious shortcomings.
That makes Gill not knowing what is doxing, or how IPs work.
But it makes Graham D. Warner a nice song to express his Machiavellian imagination.
willard please stop doxing.
willard please stop stalking.
Showing what doxing looks like might help Gill:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-shares-article-doxxing-letitia-james-address-may-violate-gag-order
Perhaps one day he’ll learn to distinguish what Graham D. Warner says from what he does not say.
Little Willy, please stop doxing and stalking.
Here’s a stalker:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276571
I wonder who that might be.
"When I commented at And Then There’s Physics, a blog at which Little Willy moderates and occasionally writes articles, it occurred to me that Little Willy might have been able to see my IP address. This was later confirmed when he wrote a comment here basically saying where I lived.
He has posted a screenshot on here featuring my email address, and regularly uses my real name. So he knows who I am, and where I live, and my email address."
That is what makes you a stalker, Little Willy. You know…the stalking that you did to find out my name, email address, and where I live.
The same stalker:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277855
Perhaps Graham D. Warner could tell us who that stalker is?
You’re the stalker, Little Willy, as explained.
No explanation, misleading claims… That’s our Graham D. Warner gaslighting again!
I explain things, he just tells me I haven’t explained them. He suggests I’ve made misleading claims, but won’t clarify in what way anything I’ve said is misleading. He’s a stalker. He took time out to find out what my real name is, what my email address is, and where I live. He’s shared all of this information on here, and regularly tries to use my personal life against me in discussions. Randomly linking to Facebook pages of bands I’m in, YouTube videos I’ve made, anything he perhaps thinks will unsettle me or make me feel awkward, or especially anything he thinks will reflect badly on me. Mentioning things like my sleeping patterns, saying what the time is "where I am"…all very unsettling and vaguely threatening. That would at least be cyber-bullying, as the most generous description.
Here is why Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
He “omitted” to say that the email is public. He “omitted” to say that it takes two clicks to get from his video. And he “omitted” to say that he never mentions in his account that this isn’t another pseudonym. It must have taken him more effort to find out where Nate was working, among other creepy things he did over the years.
There are other things he “omitted,” but these should be enough for that silly victim playing by a guy who comes here t-ing every day since five years while piggybacking on other people’s identity!
"He “omitted” to say that the email is public."
It’s on Facebook on one of my music pages, if you know where to look. Does this mean you have the right to take a screenshot of the page and post it on here for no real reason at all?
"He “omitted” to say that it takes two clicks to get from his video".
Again, you’re missing the point. Why did you post it on here?
"And he “omitted” to say that he never mentions in his account that this isn’t another pseudonym."
What’s this got to do with anything?
The creepiest thing is how you know where I live. You don’t even mention that. Presumably it must have been checking my IP address when I posted at ATTP!?
"It must have taken him more effort to find out where Nate was working, among other creepy things he did over the years."
Nate’s identity is not exactly a secret. He has "accidentally" posted with his full name before. He’s always appealing to his own authority as a physicist.
What’s also "creepy" is that you have spent so much time digging into my past discussions for dirt!
And yet, the best you can come up with, is…nothing, really.
Why is it, that when you are rightly called out on something (like your stalking in this instance), your first instinct is always to point the finger back at the person accusing you? It wouldn’t excuse what you’ve done, in any case!
Graham D. Warner still keeps gaslighting.
An IP. Does not give you. A physical address. There are lots of people under one IP. Often it does not even give you the city.
Had he researched that, he would have revised his silly lyrics. Or he could have simply “borrowed” from this classic:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/navy-seal-copypasta
And there’s no need for any research at all to know he posts from England. It’s written all over his smug face.
Perhaps one day he’ll realize that people still care about his well-being, and that what he does here affects him above all.
Wow…so it’s OK because you don’t know my exact address, but still have a pretty good idea where I live, exactly what I look like, what my name is, and what my email address is…and you felt the need to share all that on here.
Wonderful. The excuses just get more and more ridiculous…
Astute readers will note that the gaslighting continues…
…from you. Trying to gaslight me into thinking what you’ve done is somehow OK. Normal. Nothing to see here…
Graham D. Warner, the guy who started to comment here by piggybacking on the real name of a guy who keeps writing under a nom de plume, and after a while decided to comment here by piggybacking on the name of the owner of the website where he keeps abusing people every single day for the last five years, and who revealed the real name of many people here, including employers, has opinions about normalcy…
"and who revealed the real name of many people here"
Little Willy just makes up stuff, again.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again, while conceding a lot!
I’m not conceding anything, I just can’t be bothered to defend against every false accusation.
You obviously couldn’t care less about what you’ve done, so what’s the point? I guess it would require a sociopath to grow a conscience. Not going to happen.
Graham D. Warner can’t be bothered to defend anything. But he can be bothered to repudiate just about everything. As long as he’s never the one to put on the work. When the work is done, that’s more evidence for his other accusations! That’s how Machiavellians build self-sealing traps.
Since he can’t be bothered, a small correction. It is untrue that Graham D. Warner abused commenters here “every single day for the last five years.” He took a three-month break this summer.
Perhaps he’d need another one?
You obviously couldn’t care less about what you’ve done, so what’s the point? I guess it would require a sociopath to grow a conscience. Not going to happen.
Graham D. Warner, the very crank who keeps PSTing people, who keeps abusive nicknames he finds funny, who keeps trying to last word every thread, who keeps resisting the simplest implications possible, who tried to play the victim about information he himself made public, and who just quoted a song in which he projected murder thoughts while suggesting I might have them, has opinions about sociopathy.
Keeping things on topic…no, I didn’t try to "play the victim", the only thing public was the email address, and the point there was "why are you putting a screenshot of it up here on this blog?", which you still haven’t explained.
Associating my face with my name and where I live and putting all of that on this blog is not acceptable, Little Willy. Of course, it’s a criticism of something you’ve done, so you must divert attention away from yourself as much as possible. Divert away.
“Graham D. Warner, the very crank who . . .”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner, the very crank who keeps PSTing people even after the t-word has been banned, even after Roy hinted that his PSTing was a bit ironic, who keeps abusive nicknames he finds funny, who keeps trying to last word every thread, who keeps resisting the simplest implications possible, who tried to play the victim about information he himself made public, and who just quoted a Very Serious song in which he projected murder thoughts while suggesting I might have them, has opinions about sociopathy.
Divert away.
How Graham D. Warner sees himself:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270826
Graham D. Warner has showed time and time again that he wasn’t person 1.
Willard,
”Doxing is a form of cyberbullying that uses sensitive or secret information, statements, or records for the harassment, exposure, financial harm, or other exploitation of targeted individuals.”
Stalking is the same process of doxing except you don’t publish the results.
stalk
1. pursue or approach stealthily.
Similar:
creep up on
trail
follow
shadow
track down
go after
be after
dog
hound
course
hunt
pursue
chase
give chase to
run after
tail
2. harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention.
All that would include locating somebody’s personal information like their real name, or phone number, or email address, or their home address and publishing any of that at all without permission.
So what we got here is Willard is a creep obsessed with DREMT.
Willard you really should see a psychiatrist and open up about your obsessions. . .and if prescribed meds. . .take them.
Gill proves that his accusations are unsupported. Great success!
Graham D. Warner, the very crank who keeps PSTing people, who keeps abusive nicknames he finds funny, who keeps trying to last word every thread, who keeps resisting the simplest implications possible, who tried to play the victim about information he himself made public, and who just quoted a song in which he projected murder thoughts while suggesting I might have them.
If Graham D. Warner was a person 1, he would recognize that these are wrong things to do.
it just got really creepy around here. willards obsession with who dremt and swenson really are more than just suggests willard isn’t here to discuss science at all. one doesn’t act like that in a healthy way to simply engage in debate. there are the definite signs of a hater there.
Graham D. Warner is not doing much to convince anyone he’s person Number One.
He PSTed people for more than five years; he kept PSTing people even after the t-word has been banned; he is still PSTing after Roy directly hinted at him that he was taking his role “too seriously” (h/t Walter); he came here using an abusive nickname based on the real name of a scientist who goes by a nom de plume because he found it “funny”; now he has an ironic nickname that mentions the owner of this blog; he keeps trying to last word every thread in a blog where Sky Dragon cranks have been uninvited more than ten years ago; he keeps resisting the simplest implications possible; he just tried to play the victim about information he himself made public; and to top it all he quoted a Very Serious song in which he projected murder thoughts while suggesting I might have them.
Those misdeeds remain unchecked, and he hasn’t admitted to them. They are still there to pollute the blog, and he persists. If he was person no. 2, like Gill, that would be his aim. To leave them there.
When will Graham D. Warner show that he’s a person Number One?
Boy now Willard is trying to justify his actions because of his anger. It gets more creepy by the minute.
Gill shows once more that he’s here for THE SCIENCE ™.
Astute readers will see how he fares with his self-avowed principle!
No science involved here its clear as day fact and sometimes you have to just call it as you see it. You need to deal with your anger Willard. Are you really that fearful of a little bit of warming or is it a money thing for you?
It is clearer that when Gill alludes to daddies, he is discussing THE SCIENCE ™. And also when he rants about the gubmint, and other conspiracies. And the mind probing! Who could ever forget Gills mind probes?
Astute readers may be touched by his red shirt act. Not all Number Twos can pull it off the way he does.
Willard tries to change the topic with another attack!
an apology to DREMT and Swenson at a minimum is in order Willard and will go a long way toward improving your image around here.
Gill tries to move the goalposts he made up for himself, and he’s not doing much to convince me that Graham D. Warner is Person Number One.
Bill – to apologise, Little Willy would first have to take responsibility for his own actions. That’s not something he’s capable of doing, as he’s proved time and time again. He will never apologise, and never admit to being wrong, about anything, ever. That’s why it’s a complete waste of time interacting with him. Not admitting you are wrong, even to yourself, means you are incapable of learning. In fact, Little Willy has even said before that he’s not here to learn.
To apologize about having PSTed people for more than five years; having kept PSTing people even after the t-word has been banned; for having PSTed after Roy directly hinted at him that he was taking his role “too seriously” (h/t Walter); to have come here using an abusive nickname based on the real name of a scientist who goes by a nom de plume because he found it “funny”; to now have an ironic nickname that mentions the owner of this blog; to keep trying to last word every thread in a blog where Sky Dragon cranks have been uninvited more than ten years ago; to keep resisting the simplest implications possible; to still try to play the victim about information he himself made public; and to top it all to quote a Very Serious song in which he projected murderous thoughts while suggesting I might have them, Graham D. Warner would have to be a Person 1.
He would also have to make the appropriate corrections.
When will Graham D. Warner show that he’s a person Number One?
PSTs have been discussed so much it’s ridiculous, and if you can’t accept my explanations that’s your problem; your complaint about my name choice is a fuss about nothing; I have explained the last word thing previously, and also Dr Spencer castigated Slayers, a group which I am not a part of; I do not resist the simplest implications possible, I simply instruct you on what I meant by what I said; your stalking and doxing is not my fault; and I never said that you have murderous thoughts, if that’s the way you choose to interpret the lyrics then it does not reflect well on you!
Graham D. Warner is not doing much to convince anyone has person no. 1. Person no. 1 should have no problem admitting to their mistakes, since making mistakes and correcting them is called learning, and that is their aim.
That’s right – and when I’ve made mistakes, I’ve admitted them.
Why are we talking about me, though? Shouldn’t you be apologising for your stalking and doxing?
To apologize and correct his mistakes, Graham D. Warner would first have to take responsibility for his own actions. He never does that, which he proved time and time again.
Graham D. Warner will never apologize, and never admit to being wrong, about anything, ever. That’s why he’s no Number One. He is incapable of learning.
That makes him a Number Two. Graham D. Warner already said what he thinks of Numer Twos:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270826
Too bad Graham D. Warner never does anything to show he could be a Number One.
OK, stalker.
swenson…from Ent…re wavenumbers…”Equal areas under the curve represent equal energy”
***
That’s not true unless the waves being compared are the same amplitude and the same frequency. Wavenumber is simply the reciprocal of wavelength and it measures the number of cycles per unit length rather than unit time. In other words, its the number of cycles in a length like a centimetre.
Frequency is the inverse of time. One cycle is 1 cycle/second or sec ^-1. Wavelength is the actual length of one cycle, often centimeres or a fraction thereof. So, if you know the length of 1 cycle, you know the number of such lengths in a centimetre, the wavenumber. If you count the number of cycles per second, you have the frequency.
Wavenumber is the inverse of wavelength or 1/wavelength = 1/cm = cm^-1.
I don’t see the point of a wavenumber but some scientists seem to find value in it.
Gordon,
There are even two types, ordinary wavenumbers and angular wavenumbers – having different values for the same measurement.
Completely irrelevant anyway, just GHE cultists trying to sound sciency.
wee willy…”In contrast, the greenhouse effect retains heat by restricting radiative transfer through the air and reducing the rate at which heat escapes to space”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
***
I have been pointing out for years that any ijit can post on wiki and get away with sheer nonsense. WRT climate they are enabled by alarmists editors like William Connolley.
At best, CO2 captures no more than 7% of surface radiation. In the Tropics, where water vapour might make up about 4% of the atmosphere and is capable of capturing more IR. Clouds are another matter altogether since they can partially block SW solar and LW IR.
One thing that has stuck in my mind about clouds is that on a hot summer’s day that is overcast, you can still get a nasty sunburn. I experience that first hand in Fiji, where I relaxed by a hotel pool while waiting to connect with a flight. It was overcast and I got a decent burn within 20 minutes.
Keep in mind that we are talking about anthropogenic warming in this blog. That means the tiny percent of CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by humans. That amount of CO2 has an insignificant effect on warming and is equally insignificant at reducing the rate of IR radiation.
Once again, no heat escapes from the surface via radiation. By the time IR is radiated from the surface, the associated heat has been dissipated in the conversion to IR. The atmosphere as a whole can affect heat dissipation at the surface by maintaining a temperature differential between surface and atmosphere, as per Newtons law of cooling. Anthropogenic CO2 has no significant effect.
Bordo,
If CO2 is plant food and the source of life on Earth, your “but trace gas” argument cuts no ice. And if the greenhouse effect makes the planet temperate enough so that life can thrive in it, then it was “in effect” (pun intended) long before humans appeared on Earth.
This is not the blog to dispute the greenhouse effect. Unless you have an alternative numerical model that would replace the physics that underpin the greenhouse effect, i.e. greenhouse theory.
You’ve been here for more than 15 years. Where’s your model?
That’s what I thought.
Oh, and you don’t get to call me a scumbag and then turn around and speak to me like we’re on speaking terms.
“Oh, and you dont get to call me a scumbag ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wiltard,
Christos has given you an alternate model. Dan Pangburn has given you an alternate model. Ed Berry has given you an alternate carbon cycle model. What is your logical response to any of those models? Zilch.
Troglodyte,
Christos gave me a model that is contradicted by the paper he just co-wrote. And his model has been rejected a long while ago. It uses the wrong albedo.
Next you’re gonna tell me that you buy Ned’s crap too?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Entropic man, Clint, Gordon, ball4, DREMT, Willard, Swenson, and others.
see link:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1597771
In the meantime, continue your exchanges with one anothervery entertaining and informative.
Entropic man,
See Gordon’s comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1597770
🤦
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Walter has shifted from Just Asking Questions to “here is what Bordo said.” On a physics question. That seems more than imprudent, don’t you think?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard,
Why do you resort to attacking with your empty goblegook nonsense? At the very least provide a response that is scientifically grounded alongside.
Walter,
I already told you that “Bordo is not far from being a pathological liar, so caveat emptor.”
Everything he proclaims as truth needs to be double checked. Everything. Every single thing. And his opinion on what physics conventions he considers useful can easily be put in perspective:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/#comment-1496478
This is from someone who claims having a degree in engineering.
If you continue to argue by rhetorical questions, I’ll do the same. My money’s on the fact that you won’t appreciate it.
“My moneys on the fact that you wont appreciate it.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Tim Folkerts was implying that Wien’s Law only applied to black bodies.
Not according to Climate Science Investigations (supported by NASA) which writes –
“Both the sun and Earth’s surface behave as blackbodies. An object that absorbs and emits all possible radiation at 100 percent efficiency is called a blackbody. For this reason, the following two laws (Stefan-Boltzmann and Wein’s laws) can be used to explain the correlation between temperature and radiation for the sun and Earth.[. . . ] Consequently, Wein’s law explains why the hot sun emits radiation at relatively shorter wavelengths, with the maximum emission in the visible region of the spectrum, whereas the relatively cool Earth emits almost all of its energy at longer wavelengths in the infrared region of the spectrum. ”
Notwithstanding that Wien’s law is misspelled wherever it appears, the reality is that as matter gets hotter, emitted photons are of progressively shorter wavelength and higher energy content, and NASA admits this, even though classing the Earth’s surface as having an emissivity of 1 is stretching things a bit. Typical NASA?
All bodies in thermal equilibrium are emitting exactly the same range of frequencies. Otherwise equilibrium would not exist. That’s reality.
Mike Flynn,
I have good and bad news.
The good news is that you’re right – it’s Wien, not Wein.
The bad news is – Tim said that Wien’s Law “doesn’t apply when the spectrum is not from a blackbody,” not that it “only applied to black bodies.” That’s because Wien’s Law shows how the spectrum of blackbody radiation at any temperature is related to the spectrum at any other temperature. If you know the shape of the spectrum at one temperature, you could calculate the shape at any other temperature.
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote “Tim said . . .”.
I am supposed to care because . . .?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
I have good and bad news.
You’re supposed to care about what Tim said, because you talk about what Tim said.
You don’t care about anything, because you have all the traits of a sociopath.
I’ll let you decide which is the good news, which is the bad.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard, be overly detailed …
Wien’s Law *does* correctly predict the wavelength with the maximum intensity for a blackbody.
Wien’s Law *might* correctly predict the wavelength with the maximum intensity for a non-blackbody.
For example, for a perfect gray body (eg a surface that emits 50% as strongly as a black body at every wavelength), then the Wien’s Law calculation would still be correct. Or for CO2 at 190 K, the prediction would still be correct.
So Wien’s Laws doesnt GENERALLY apply when the spectrum is not from a blackbody — but it could due to specific conditions of emissivity and temperature.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Or for CO2 at 190 K, the prediction would still be correct.”
What about CO2 at 373 K? Or 1273 K?
What is special about 190 K?
“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 Sun does not absorb incident electromagnetic radiation rather it’s nuclear reactor generating heat and emits it’s heat roughly like ideal blackbody.
The Earth absorbs the energy of the radiation from the sun, is not all similar to ideal blackbody. Ideal blackbody would not reflect any incident electromagnetic radiation. And our moon not shine in visible light if it was an ideal blackbody. So neither our moon nor earth are invisible in the visible light spectrum. And Sun is because it’s very hot and emits a brighter light than a light bulb filament which is cold in comparison to the sun. But some other stars are quite a bit hotter than our star. And lot are dimmer than the sun, and if our sun was as dim, you wouldn’t see it from Earth. But these dim stars are also not absorbing incident electromagnetic radiation.
One can consider the sun as blackbody in sense that the energy emitted, must be close to amount energy in make from it’s nuclear power. And it doesn’t produce much, which good, otherwise it would used up it energy in less than 1 billion years. And dim ones which are small and use even less, can last a lot longer than our star.
“The Sun does not absorb incident electromagnetic radiation … ”
Actually, yes it does. If you shine a bright light at the sun, that light does not reflect from the sun, it gets absorbed by the sun. (The fact that the sun also emits radiation due to its own temperature is a separate (but related) issue.)
That’s your belief, Folkerts. But beliefs ain’t science.
Riddle me this, Puffman –
Do you realize you just expressed two beliefs?
That’s YOUR belief, silly. And it’s wrong.
Now continue to show how worthless you are. I won’t be responding.
Ain’t my belief, Puffman –
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
And Tim stated a fact.
Willard, please stop trolling.
So what is YOUR belief, Clint? When a visible light photon reaches the tenuous atmosphere of the sun, it will
A) continue in until it get absorbed.
B) transmit right on through the sun.
C) reflect from the sun.
D) other (specify).
Use physics to justify your answer.
Using known, tested physics: B) transmit right on through the sun when the light is radio waves received on Earth originated from a probe on the opposite side of the sun.
And, by the way, that signal received was reduced more than the distance would indicate. So, proving the sun absorbed (increasing its thermodynamic internal energy), AND scattered, some of the photons (radio waves) as the signal passed through the sun.
So what is YOUR belief, Clint? When a visible light photon reaches the tenuous atmosphere of the sun, it will
A) continue in until it get absorbed.
B) transmit right on through the sun.
C) reflect from the sun.
D) other (specify).
Swenson, You seem a bit confused.
First you think I am wrong for stating that Wien’s law is for applies to blackbodies … which you try to refute by quoting a source that is specifically talking about blackbodies!
“All bodies in thermal equilibrium are emitting exactly the same range of frequencies. ”
Not quite. All bodies in thermal equilibrium are LIMITED to emitting NO MORE THAN a blackbody would emit at a given frequency (or wavelength) at that same temperature. But they can emit less.
So specifically related to CO2 (which comes up so often), a blackbody at 190 K will emit with a peak intensity near 15 um. Double that temperature (380K) and the peak wavelength halves (7.5 um); halve the temperature (95K) and the peak wavelength doubles (30 um) Simple Wien’s Law calculations for blackbodies.
However, a container of CO2 at 190K or 380 K or 95 K will emit most strongly in the 15 um band. CO2 simply cannot emit well near 7.5 um or 30 um, so the strongest emissions are still in the 15 um band.
So it is misleading at best to say CO2 emits the same wavelengths as a blackbody at the same temperature. At some wavelengths, CO2 essentially emits no IR, even though a BB would be emitting copiously.
All that blah-blah just to say gases do not emit/absorb like solids.
But if you understood that ‘blah-blah-blah’ you would also know why your characterization of 15 um photons as “-80 C” is wrong.
You should know by now that your false accusations don’t bother me.
Tim Folkerts
I do thank you for continuing to enlighten the blog with actual physics. You will find that Cult mentality Clint R will not learn or understand anything you post. He lives in his world of belief and opinion. He will never concede that any of his opinions are wrong and he will NEVER provide evidence for any of them. He just makes declarations without zero evidence. He has done it for some time. But I am glad you contribute with valid good physics to help educate any who want to learn.
Clint R believes nitrogen gas reflects IR because of the size of the 15 micron photon. He offers zero evidence for his claim but he still makes it. Easy experiments could either show it correct or not yet he will provide none. He never has and I do not see him changing into a real science minded poster and offering evidence for his many assertions. He thinks by repeating them they are then true. He claims the Radiant heat transfer equation is bogus, but he offers no evidence to support this. He just states it and it seems he thinks that makes it true. He is not a science person. He pretends to be but his many false and incorrect opinions on things leads on to conclude he has no background in any science.
“He is not a science person.”
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman, it will take weeks, months, maybe even years, for you to get over your obsession with me. So, start the therapy soon….
Tim,
You wrote –
“However, a container of CO2 at 190K or 380 K or 95 K will emit most strongly in the 15 um band. CO2 simply cannot emit well near 7.5 um or 30 um, so the strongest emissions are still in the 15 um band.”
Complete nonsense. A cylinder of CO2 will be exactly the same temperature as a cylinder of any other gas if the two cylinders are in thermal,equilibrium. Exchanging precisely the same frequencies of radiation.
You obviously don’t understand simple physics, but you are, unfortunately, not alone in your ignorance.
From NASA –
“The temperature of a gas is a measure of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules.”
Any gas at say 0 C will emit the same frequencies of photons. Any mixture of gases at 0 C cannot be differentiated from any other mixture or single gas at the same temperature. Or a lump of iron, for that matter.
Otherwise, it would be a simple matter to distinguish gases by virtue of their naturally emitted photons (no, I’m not referring to spectroscopy, spectrometry or excited states), but it’s not.
No wonder that your latest useless description of the GHE reads “A slightly better description would be ‘reduces the cooling from the surface'”. Cooling is not heating, and CO2 emits radiation at intensities and wavelengths in proportion to its temperature. You can complain that I haven’t specified the proportionalities for each, but you can look them up if you are interested.
troubleshooting…
Swenson…Yeah. Linear wavenumbers would be measured in centimetres and angular wavenumber in radians. However, radians can be converted to cms as well. 2pi radians = the circumference of a circle and if you know the length of the circumference in cms, you have a direct measure, in cms, of a radian.
The radian is actually the length of the radius placed on the circumference. It fits around the circumference 2 pi times = 6.28 times. If you know the length of the circumference in cms, you divide that by 6.28 to get the length of a radian for that particular radius.
“If you know the length of the circumference in cms, you divide that by 6.28 to get the length of a radian for that particular radius.”
Of course, 1 radian is the same for ANY radius, not just for ‘that particular’ radius.
“Of course, 1 radian is the same for ANY radius, not just for ‘that particular’ radius.”
Tim Folkerts, please stop trolling.
Frankly, I don’t see the point of using wavenumbers with angular measure because it is the number of wavelengths per cm, which makes far more sense with wave aligned linearly.
You can project a radial vector’s tip onto an axis and convert it to a linear wavenumber. That’s the idea behind a rotating vector, that on complete revolution is one cycle. If you project the vector tip onto the x or y-axis, it forms a sine wave, if you add the amplitude to the axis position. With a rotating vector, each point on the circumference represents an amplitude deviation from the axis.
It not only sounds sciency, it obfuscates the issue, which appears to be the aim. I have never been able to understand minds that try to find an easier way of doing things when the actual thory akes as much sense. In electronics and the electrical field, they insist on using analogies to plumbing, where current becomes water, pipe diameter becomes resistance, etc. Never saw the advantage in such thinking.
Gordon, no law requires atm. transmittance to be plotted versus wavelength. This may be the custom in some fields, but not in others. A person trained in specializing in spectroscopy will plot spectra as a function of wavenumber and would consider doing otherwise an unnatural act.
“Gordon, no law requires atm. transmittance to be plotted versus wavelength.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Gordon, for someone in the electrical field, think about phasors for AC voltages. Electrical engineers usually discuss and calculate phasors using ‘omega’ (angular frequency in rad/s) rather than using f (frequency in cycles per second).
It is the EXACT same idea. Either frequency or angular frequency could be used for AC phasors or for EM waves. But radians are often the simples and most natural units to use.
You can’t expect Gordon to understand phasors. He can’t even understand current flow….
Walter
I tried to continue our discussion of the OLR graph, but the site rejected it. I’m afraid you’ll have to do your own research.
Curiously for a site run by a radiative physicist, the site rejects most attempts to discuss radiative physics.
I give up. The original thread has degenerated into a slanging match anyway.
Good luck trying to have a sensible discussion with Gordon, Swenson and DREMT.
E man tries to start a slanging match.
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
Don’t sweat it, EM.
Walter will soon serve us some copypastas alla bordonese.
I only wanted Entropic Man to address what Gordon saidwas it right or wrong? I can’t know. You take Climateball way too seriously.
Of course, Walter. You can’t look a Wiki entry on this to check things out by yourself. And how can making EM and Bordo fight be that wrong? Just joking!
It’s not like you called EM names or anything.
Walter, you strike me as just genuinely wanting to learn. Unfortunately, Little Willy will assume that’s only some sort of underhand ploy on your part, and that you don’t really want to learn. Then he will read into anything you say, that which confirms in his mind that his assumption about you is correct. This will repeat throughout your time interacting with him and escalate until he becomes utterly certain that you’re some kind of monster.
Just ask him to PST. I’m not sure why I’ve bothered trying to get through to him for so long, but it’s been an absolute waste of my time.
Graham D. Warner takes Climateball waayy too srly!
Gordon says a lot, mostly fantasy physics.
Could you be more specific?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1597790
EM,
Please, don’t overthink this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/09/in-memoriam-professor-ray-bates/#comment-3845173
Walter would not like it.
“Could you be more specific?”
You mentioned earlier that the relevance of using wavenumbers instead of wavelength in the context of the greenhouse effect lies in the ability to analyze and understand the distribution of energy more effectively. However, Gordon stated that waves with different characteristics cannot be directly comparable.
Here’s the context of my conversation with Willard earlier. His link to the WUWT thread has no relevance to the discussion in this thread.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1596817
Walter,
The quote is relevant to undermine the idea that you are “just genuinely wanting to learn.” The link provides the citation.
Monkey. Octopus. Make up your mind, for I can’t be the Monctopus. That’s already taken.
Willard, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
Willard is a monkey.
Tut, tut.
No need to be gratuitously offensive to monkeys. They may be sensitive and easily hurt.
Swenson,
I observe he hasn’t addressed my previous inquiry upthread.
While engaging with him, maintain a humble tone. It’s always more effective to let the results speak for themselves.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1597335
Mike Flynn,
Please remind Walter of this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1592032
Cheers.
He’s also a potentially dangerous stalker, so be careful, Walter.
Mike Flynn,
After you are done, tell Walter that if he could answer bdgx quesrion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1594749
he might already have had all the examples he was asking for.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, the singular fantasist Willard wrote –
” . . . unless and until you can refute the radiative properties of greenhouse gases, the greenhouse effect and the theory that explains it are here to stay.”
The gases found in a greenhouse all emit and absorb infrared, like all other matter in the universe.
There is no greenhouse effect, and therefore no need for theory to explain something which doesn’t exist.
Your silly description of the mythical greenhouse effect “not cooling, slower cooling” is as bizarre as its creator – you!
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature over the last four and a half billion years. What is this mythical greenhouse effect supposed to do? Cool the planet – but slowly? Rather ridiculous, wouldn’t you say?
Carry on dreaming.
Mike Flynn,
Your first claim is irrelevant, your second claim is false, your third claim is a lie, and your fourth claim accounts for less than one percent of one percent of the whole heat budget.
Carry on.
“your third claim is a lie, ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-the-ghe
Willard, please stop trolling.
Climate change science denial is a lost cause. Might as well discuss politics…
Arkady Ivanovich, please stop trolling.
where residents feel like presidents
https://youtu.be/BMWN0lEEpJs?si=jinTxVs5f_l2orrp
Nice video title. Too bad we can’t copy-paste it here.
I wonder who could like that kind of videos.
Willard, please stop trolling.
https://imgur.com/a/LkPuoT4
The November CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) data has been published.
The 36 month running averages as of November 2023 are:
Incoming solar radiation = 340.33 W/m².
Reflected shortwave = 98.05 W/m².
Outgoing longwave = 240.72 W/m².
EEI = 1.56 W/m².
Source: https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFTOA42Selection.jsp
Sorry Ark but you continue to make the same mistakes, over and over, hoping to get it right as you get it wrong.
Your cult continues to treat flux as energy, and you continue to swallow that junk.
But, reporting that value to two decimal places means you’re only here to be funny.
Carry on, as Swenson would say.
A,
The Earth is currently cooling. Losing energy at about 44 TW.
From NASA/ADS –
“Earth’s Global Heat Loss of 44 Terrawatts Reconfirmed”
From the paper –
“Recent, misguided efforts to reduce substantially the estimate of Earth’s heat loss are based on a misunderstanding . . . ”
Who to believe, you or NASA/ADS?
Only joking, losing energy is cooling, not heating. You are obviously dreaming.
As 173000 Terrawatts of energy strikes the Earth’s surface continuously, you probably don’t have any idea what the term ‘heat loss’ means.
For anyone confused, Swenson’s article is not claiming that the Earth is getting colder at a rate of 44 TW. I doubt Swenson can explain what the figure actually refers to, but I’ll leave an opening for him to give it his best shot.
What does the 44 TW refer to, Swenson?
“Earths Global Heat Loss of 44 Terrawatts Reconfirmed”
Which part do you not comprehend?
The Earth is losing more energy than it receives – currently 44 TW.
Obviously, a body losing more energy than it receives, cools.
As the Earth has done over the last four and a half billion years.
“What does the 44 TW refer to”
A,
Yes, each night the surface gives to space all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
Hence, the progressive cooling of the Earth- even after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight.
You didn’t know that the 44 TW was the geothermal heat loss, Swenson.
It is insignificant compared to the energy received by the sun and emitted from the surface.
“The Earth is currently cooling. Losing energy at about 44 TW.”
Ahhhahahahaha.
Boy are you confused.
If that were true, the surface would not have warmed in the last 100 years.
But you seriously thought your article was claiming the Earth system is losing continually losing 44 TW. Goodness me.
barry, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Willard,
“…And his model (Christos’) has been rejected a long while ago. It uses the wrong albedo.”
–
Willard, I always use the Albedo the NASA provides.
For Earth it is a = 0,306 .
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Here:
That factor corrects the albedo.
“the solar irradiation accepting factor (the spherical shape and roughness coefficient (Φ) )
That factor corrects the albedo.”
–
The factor (Φ) doesn’t correct the albedo. The factor (Φ) shows what portion of the incident on a planet solar flux will be not reflected in the absence of albedo.
example:
Φ(1 – a)S for albedo a =0 , Φ(1 – a)S = Φ*S
Thus, for a smooth surface planet Φ =0,47
A smooth surface planet, with a very low albedo is Mercury
(a =0,068)
Mercury’s not reflected solar flux’ portion is then:
Φ(1 – a)S = 0,47(1 – 0,068)S = 0,47*0,932*S = 0,43804*S W/m^2.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
> The factor (Φ) shows what portion of the incident on a planet solar flux will be not reflected in the absence of albedo.
And since you do Φ (1-a), you are in effect correcting albedo!
Willard,
“And since you do Φ (1-a), you are in effect correcting albedo!”
–
I do not correct albedo. Albedo is always there uncorrected.
Don’t you see the example with planet Mercury’s very low Albedo?
The Albedo could be almost zero, or zero – it doesn’t mean a smooth planet doesn’t reflect specularly…
–
Earth’ oceanic waters without clouds have albedo a =0,08. It doesn’t mean ocean doesn’t reflect specularly.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Albedo – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
Albedo is the fraction of sunlight that is diffusely reflected by a body.
diffusely reflected by a body.
Please do not confuse Albedo with the entire amount of light reflected back by an object that is incident on it.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Your fudge factor is multiplied by emissivity, which is the complement to albedo: Φ (1-a). Since Φ and “a” are fractions, that reduces the emissivity you’d get without your fudge factor. This increases the amount of energy the Earth receives, which then allows you to proclaim there’s no need for a greenhouse effect.
So a fudge factor is basically all you got. I supposed you discussed it with Dmitris. What did he say?
I could say that you fudge emissivity if you prefer.
Christos,
He wants you to change your hypothesis. He only wants you to correct for albedo. He does not want you to correct for specular reflection.
Christos,
Don’t listen to Troglodyte. At least you have a hypothesis. This is more than he will ever have.
Willard,
So, he uses 1-a to include albedo times Φ to include specular reflection. That’s how math works, at least here, not sure about the UK. Wait a minute. You guys invented radar so you should understand.
Multiplication is math, Troglodyte.
Fudge factor is pseudo-physics.
“Multiplication is math, Troglodyte.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Assuming that the planet is a smooth sphere is pseudo-physics.
Assuming you ever looked at a General Circulation Model would be irrealist indeed, Troglodyte.
“Troglodyte.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Christos Vournas says:
Albedo Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
Albedo is the fraction of sunlight that is diffusely reflected by a body.
diffusely reflected by a body.
Please do not confuse Albedo with the entire amount of light reflected back by an object that is incident on it.
—————-
Well Wiki’s definition doesn’t fit with NASA’s which is all reflected light diffuse and spectral.
In older days we measured only diffuse albedo as the lack of satellites gave us only a perspective of earthshine on the moon.
Today satellites are even challenged in measuring spectral reflection.
The .98 emissivity often give for reflection off the ocean is spectral reflection which amounts to a tiny brightspot on the ocean surface on a calm day while the satellite measurment beam is many times larger than the spot. If that spot was measured it would give like a fraction of a percent albedo. On rougher days the spots are multiplied due to the swells on the water like in a hall of mirrors.
but I am seeing science papers of at least an albedo of 9%. That might be a reasonable number. The table Willard offered up in a post in the last few days gives the reflection factor for water at 7 to 9%
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/light-material-reflecting-factor-d_1842.html
Also the Trenberth budget shows a surface albedo of 12.5% but it may favor high latitude surfaces due to clouds being thicker in the lower latitudes.
Its very challenging to estimate spectral albedo as you effectively simultaneously need 100% sky coverage 24/7 to get it on the button. I would suspect the scientists coming up with the larger numbers are using algorithms to simulate that coverage and the ones giving you the very low reflectivity around 2 to 4% probably don’t know what the issues are and just giving you the diffuse albedo.
Wiltard,
You can call me Trog for short if you like. The GCM another one of those models that can’t predict anything?
Are you having second thoughts about all the names you called me, Stephen?
You already know why I call you Troglodyte:
> Troglodyte seems to have emerged from the mists of time untouched by human evolution. Devoid of a single progressive idea and lacking the slightest awareness of social and cultural advances, Troglodyte has developed an incoherent political philosophy that he characterizes as “conservative” or “libertarian”, but which could be more accurately described as “bigoted narcissism”. His aggressive posturing often frightens off weaker, more timid Warriors. In pitched battle, however, Troglodyte easily loses control and his attack quickly degenerates into a rant.
https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm
No need to go all up to GCMs to prove my point:
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/212
You should have asked Ed. He knows that kind of things.
How does he do it? Hunter is totally confused again as he writes:
Emissivity is a term associated with the thermal IR emissions or absorp_tion, not the reflected or scattered short wavelength energy from the Sun. And, I think he is also confused about the term “spectral” which he uses. He likely means “specular”, as in, directional reflections. The reflection/scattering from the ocean surface averages about 0.07 when the zenith angle is small, but increases as the zenith angle approaches 90 degrees. The effect is most strongly exhibited in early morning or near sunset as “sun glint” such as seen in photographs taken from aircraft or the ISS. Sun glint is also important for albedo over the Arctic Ocean, since the zenith angle at the North Pole is always greater than 66 degrees.
https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/morning-sunglint-over-pacific/
How does he do it? Hunter is totally confused again as he writes:
Emissivity is a term associated with the thermal IR emissions or absorp_tion, not the reflected or scattered short wavelength energy from the Sun. And, I think he is also confused about the term spectral which he uses. He likely means specular, as in, directional reflections. The reflection/scattering from the ocean surface averages about 0.07 when the zenith angle is small, but increases as the zenith angle approaches 90 degrees. The effect is most strongly exhibited in early morning or near sunset as sun glint such as seen in photographs taken from aircraft or the ISS. Sun glint is also important for albedo over the Arctic Ocean, since the zenith angle at the North Pole is always greater than 66 degrees.
https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/morning-sunglint-over-pacific/
swanson if you want to discuss this you first need to read the basics. emissivity defaults to 1.0 minus albedo. that is a significant fact as the ocean cannot emit what it hasn’t absorbed.
if emissions were greater than what it absorbs it would cool to absolute zero.
[GILL YESTERDAY] if you want to discuss this you first need to read the basics. emissivity defaults to 1.0 minus albedo.
[GILL FOUR DAYS AGO] With rare exceptions: emissivity equals 1/albedo, thus for a flat surface perpendicular to the sun, without influences from other sources, changes in emissivity will have no effect equilibrium temperature.
Hunter drifts into his own universe.
The Wikipedia definition of albedo does not include emissivity. Similarly, the Wikipedia definition of emissivity does not include albedo.
You (and others) are confusing “emissivity” (a property of the surface material) with thermal “emissions” (a function of surface emissivity and temperature). In a space environment, for thermal steady state, the emissions as a fraction of the incident radiant energy (i.e., energy out) must equal [1 – albedo] (i.e., energy in).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature
Willard,
“Your fudge factor is multiplied by emissivity, which is the complement to albedo: Φ (1-a). Since Φ and a are fractions, that reduces the emissivity youd get without your fudge factor.”
–
What is complement to albedo, Willard?
Emissivity is not complement to albedo, it never was.
Emissivity is a property of a hot body emitting EM energy.
Albedo is a property of solar irradiated body, reflecting EM energy at the instant of incidence.
A hot body emitting EM energy has not albedo, if it is not solar irradiated.
Does our sun have albedo?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
1 – albedo equals emissivity, Christos.
Don’t think so, Willard.
You lose again.
Mike Flynn,
albedo + emissivity = 1
What are you braying about?
Willie,
He asked you a question. Does our Sun have albedo?
“albedo + emissivity = 1”
Don’t think so, Willard.
You lose again.
Your question doesn’t matter, Troglodyte. In fact, less energy from the Sun means you have more energy to buffer using Christos’ fudge factor. Aren’t you supposed to be a formal guy or something?
“Your question doesnt matter, Troglodyte.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You reiterate –
“Dont think so”
You are free to think whatever you please!
“Troglodyte.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey Mike Flynn –
You missed a few.
Please do your job properly.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I could help you if you want, Mike.
Start with –
“He wants you to change your hypothesis. He only wants you to correct for albedo. He does not want you to correct for specular reflection.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
There is also:
Tsk Tsk.
“Tsk Tsk.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
You missed this one, Mike –
“Does our sun have albedo?”
What our Earth has at night?
Emissivity or Albedo?
Earth has only Emissivity at night. There is not Albedo at night, only emissivity.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You only have a one-line model, Christos:
Te.correct = [Φ(1-a) S /4σ ]1/4 (K)
It has zero dimension!
What does emit your model, Willard?
“1 albedo equals emissivity, Christos.”
1 – a, Christos. It is in your own equation!
You could model a dynamic albedo too, e.g:
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/7741/2020/
but that would require a little more than a one-line script!
Are you denying the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, Willard?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I leave denying to cranks and contrarians, Christos! Perhaps one day you’ll be right. How can we tell?
For now, what matters is that we agree that emissivity plus albedo equals one. Emissivity and albedo are basically opposites in zero-dimensional models!
Willard,
“Perhaps one day youll be right. How can we tell?”
–
What do you mean by that, Willard? Either I am right, or I am not.
What I need is your help. It is too much for one.
Christos,
Empirical knowledge is fallible. What we think we know can always be wrong. If we knew the future, we would already know it. Thus we cannot say what the future will bring us.
All models are wrong. Some are useful. Your model could one day be useful. Nobody can say for sure if it will be. It could be a dead end. Like many models people produce. If you like what you are doing and it leads you to a good life, it does not matter much.
Suppose that we have to sets of knowledge: established views, and contrarian views. Empirical knowledge being faillible, established views get replaced by contrarian views. In that sense, contrarians always win.
To win faster, contrarians need to work together to make sure that they promote the best they have. They must also compete, for this is how they get better material. They need to share resources, and they need to offer models and theories that abide by THE SCIENCE ™ rules.
In the end, there is only one team – Team Science.
So yes, you could indeed be right. I do not know the future. All I know is that nobody gets here alive, and I suspect that we only have one shot at life.
Take care,
W
Willard,
> “In the end, there is only one team Team Science.”
–
Thank you Willard.
Christos
Do you mean gets out of here alive?
You know I do, Troglodyte!
Troglodytes ought to feel that predicament deep in their bones, for not only they do not make it alive, their way of life disappears before their life unfolds.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
climate pron
https://youtu.be/We_YL5OppeE
Enso is reversing
The SOI just zoomed up through zero line up to three
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
The NINO 34 is about to fall vertical
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
First Warning: Flip back to La Nia
https://youtu.be/ilyyaEPOHBM
Eben on November 21:
“el Nino [is] fully blown and already deminishing”
NINO3.4 monthly:
October 1.72
November 2.02
December 2.07
We only had the October value when Eben said that.
He keeps predicting the end of el Nino over and over. He’s going to be right sometime!
All Eben’s predictions on el Nino seem to be about things getting colder. Can’t remember if he ever predicting the imminent warming of a coming el Nino….
JMA use NINO3 for their ENSO metric.
October 2.2
November 2.3
December 2.3
MEI also had their highest value for November/December
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/
But Eben can look to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology for support, because at least their version of NINO3.4 has a small downturn from November to December.
Will he now claim the BoM’s methodology is superior?
barry, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Enso is reversing”
Nah, it is just following the normal El Nino course. Which means headed downward toward neutral by the Spring.
Christos,
He wants you to change your hypothesis. He only wants you to correct for albedo. He does not want you to correct for specular reflection.
Earlier, Tim Folkerts wrote –
“If you shine a bright light at the sun, that light does not reflect from the sun, it gets absorbed by the sun.”
Tim probably thinks that the radiation from a colder atmosphere is absorbed by the colder surface – making the surface hotter!
What an ignorant fellow is Tim!
The sun’s corona is a bright light which is extremely hot, or no need to shine something, it’s shining.
I think it is too low of a density to have any effect.
Impactor will give you a sunburn when it’s about to impact, and they a big compared to the small shooting stars. Shooting stars are bright and very hot but also pretty far from the ground.
A nuclear blast is quite big at point where it is thermalizing/compressing the atmosphere- and how far you from it determine if it incinerates you.
Maybe laser light could warm it, though “it” is interesting question-
very hot plasma and quite transparent.
One misconception at a time …
Kirchhoff’s Radiation Law says that an object’s ability to emit thermal radiation at a give wavelength is equal to its ability to absorb at that wavelength. Since the sun is quite close to a blackbody at the wavelengths in question, it must also be almost a perfect absorber at those wavelengths.
Photons heading toward the sun will travel deeper and deeper in to the sparse plasma until eventually they get absorbed or scattered. The photons certainly don’t reflect from the sun like a mirror.
Tim,
You wrote –
“The photons certainly dont reflect from the sun like a mirror.”
What happens to them, then?
Are they like the photons from a block of ice submerged in water? Or the photons from a colder atmosphere reaching a warmer surface?
You don’t have the faintest clue, do you?
Go on, waffle about something totally irrelevant, and try and convince somebody that your mythical description “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface” shows what a genius you are!
You havent even got the guts to say the greenhouse effect causes warming, have you? Go on, try and force yourself to say the word “warming” in relation to the greenhouse effect (without excessive rambling).
Fantasy is not reality, Tim.
“What happens to them, then?”
That is exactly the right question. When a photon gets to some object, it could:
1) transmit through the object.
2) reflect from the object.
3) get absorbed by the object.
Which of these three do YOU think a photon will will when reaches the sun?
It depends on the photon. A gamma ray photon might be absorbed, but a 15μ photon would be reflected (scattered, if you prefer).
… a 15μ photon would be reflected (scattered, if you prefer), absorbed, or transmitted. Identical photons even! Why? Nobody knows for sure, all surfaces are rough to a photon.
Tim Folkerts
On this point Clint R may be correct. With Statistical Thermodynamics a surface at room temperature has most of all its molecular vibrational states in ground state. There are formulas to calculate the percentage of molecules in ground state or at higher vibrational states. On the hot solar plasma it may have most its molecules in higher states so the probability of a external photon being absorbed is reduced as temperature goes up since there are fewer available lower energy vibrational states. That is why I am not certain about a photon and the Sun.
It is more certain that at Earth’s surface temperature that a 15 micron photon will be absorbed by the surface since nearly all the surface molecules are in ground state and if they can emit a 15 micron photon, than they can absorb one as well.
I am not sure about the Sun and what happens to vibrational states at that high of temperature.
Norman, “Kirchhoffs Radiation Law says that an objects ability to emit thermal radiation at a give wavelength is equal to its ability to absorb at that wavelength.”
The emission means lower energy state are being made constantly available.
“but a 15μ photon would be reflected”
Uh oh. He’s regressing, and undermining DREMTs defense of him.
Now he is back to telling us that photons from colder sources CANNOT be abs.orbed by warmer things.
The Sun emits a lot of longwave IR but we don’t get it {or much of it} at your distance from the Sun.
Or one would get a lot more of it, if much closer to the sun.
Though this is true of all wavelengths of energy emitted from the sun.
Climate Trial of the Century: Mann vs Steyn
https://youtu.be/CUqFgJkyLsE?t=1091
Sensationalist headline of the minute.
barry, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Tim Folkerts was implying that normal physical laws like Wien’s Law somehow don’t “really” apply to CO2.
He wrote –
“For example, for a perfect gray body (eg a surface that emits 50% as strongly as a black body at every wavelength), then the Wiens Law calculation would still be correct. Or for CO2 at 190 K, the prediction would still be correct.
So Wiens Laws doesnt GENERALLY apply when the spectrum is not from a blackbody but it could due to specific conditions of emissivity and temperature.”
Now it seems for a “magic” temperature of 190 K, Wien’s law applies to CO2, but for other temperatures it doesn’t! Or something.
Tim is now at the point where he is totally confused, but tries to save face by saying Wien’s law doesn’t GENERALLY apply – but it could! A law is a law because it applies. If it only GENERALLY applies, it’s not a law at all! Yes, Wien’s law calculations apply to black bodies. Real matter follows the same rules – ie, radiation wavelength is proportional to the temperature of the emitter.
Hence, red heat wavelengths shorter than black heat wavelengths.
Tim is wriggling furiously, a worm impaled on a hook he made for himself.
Since you seem confused, let me clarify just a little and outline the relevant physics.
Planck’s Law gives the spectrum for a black body radiator at a given temperature. This gives the theoretical maximum intensity for thermal radiation at each wavelength for any radiator.
From Planck’s Law, we can integrate over all wavelengths and get the Stefan Boltzmann Law. We can also find where the derivative is zero and get Wein’s Law. But of course, since Planck’s Law is for blackbodies, Wien and SB are ALSO only for blackbodies. For other non-blackbody radiators, the spectrum will be different, so the integral and derivative will be different, and Wien and SB will no longer apply. Total power will not be T^4. Peak wavelength will not be inversely proportional to T.
This is VERY common in science — laws often only apply in limited situations or under idealized conditions.
CO2 is not a blackbody radiator — not even close! So SB and Wien will also not even be close to correct for CO2.
(OTOH, the sun and water and many rocks ARE close to black body emitters, so Wien and SB ARE close to correct.)
If there is something specific you are still confused about, tell us specifically and maybe we can help you figure it out.
Tim,
You appeal to your own authority. Even Science of Doom quotes “In a gas, the redistribution of absorbed energy occurs by various types of collisions between the atoms, molecules, electrons and ions that comprise the gas. Under most engineering conditions, this redistribution occurs quite rapidly, and the energy states of the gas will be populated in equilibrium distributions at any given locality. When this is true, the Planck spectral distribution correctly describes the emission from a blackbody..”
You might also look at Prof John Tyndall’s experiments with thermal radiation from gases.
No wonder that your best description of the mythical GHE is –
“A slightly better description would be reduces the cooling from the surface”.
You don’t have to accept that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, if you don’t want to.
“You appeal to your own authority. ”
1) What specific statement do you object to in the statement above about Planck’s Law and radiation? I am sure I (or you) could find adequate reference.
2) Appealing to an authority yourself (and an ‘authority’ you don’t agree with at that!) is hardly a convincing counter-argument if you think I am simply appealing to authority.
tim f…”Plancks Law gives the spectrum for a black body radiator at a given temperature. This gives the theoretical maximum intensity for thermal radiation at each wavelength for any radiator”.
***
Planck was not trying to investigate blackbody theory, he was trying to find an answer for the ultraviolet catastrophe theory. According to the theory, energy intensity increased linearly with EM frequency therefore it would continue on toward infinity beyond UV frequencies.
His solution to the problem was the creation of a mathematical abstraction that introduced the concept of energy quanta and the probability that different frequencies could produce the energy theorized. His equation includes an exponential component that dampens EM output beyond the frequencies producing green/yellow light, therefore it is presumed that as EM frequency increases the likelihood of an abundance of higher frequencies having more intensity decreases exponentially.
In other words, Planck fudged the solution and he readily admits that. We don’t have proof to this day that such quanta exist, even though his ‘h’ factor appears to work.
Integrating over each discrete frequency cannot give you the S-B equation as claimed. The reason is simple, S-B was derived from a real experimental observation whereas Planck’s theory is completely fudged. Any relationship between the to comes from mathematicians using mathematical voodoo.
S-B was never intended for blackbody theory. The only similarity is that a metal filament heated till it glows will show a similar frequency distribution to a theorized blackbody.
Any glowing body will do that, including CO2 when super-heated.
“Integrating over each discrete frequency cannot give you the S-B equation as claimed.”
Try it! It works!
HINT: It is common in science to be able to reach the same conclusion multiple ways. In fact, that is usually the case!
“We dont have proof …”
Well science doesn’t deal in proofs! But we have vast confirmation from experiments, which is as close as you get to ‘proof’ in science. Just like we don’t have ‘proof’ that gravitational force is Gm1m2/r^2, but we still find it works for everything from falling balls to orbiting binary stars.
“Planck was not trying to … S-B was never intended for …”
It doesn’t really matter what some person originally intended. What matters in the results.
Furthermore, the “ultraviolet catastrophe” actually *IS* blackbody theory! The theories of the day failed to explain the observed blackbody radiation for short wavelengths. Planck was trying to solve that.
While his solution was admittedly bold and speculative, it did solve the UV catastrophe. Not only that, it also predicted exactly SB and Wien. That is considered a win in science!
Tim, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Blackbodies absorb and emit al all wavelengths. Gases absorb and emit at discrete frequencies.
A CO2 molecule in a body of air at 3 Celsius absorbs and emits photons at 15 um wavelength, and so does a CO2 molecule in air at 30 Celsius.
How about Wein’s Law, where the blackbody emission spectrum skews with changing temperature? How do you know CO2 transmits the same wavelength at 3C and 30C?
Also, blackbodies do not absorb and emit all wavelength. They are claimed to absorb all wavelengths but they can only emit a restricted bandwidth.
Gases absorb and emit at discrete frequencies because the electrons in the atoms of the molecules absorb/emit at discreet frequencies.
I just picked this link at random…
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/wjs1/Meteo3/Html/radiation.htm#Figure%203
From figure 3 caption…
“While all objects emit radiation at all wavelengths, the amount of radiation emitted usually peaks at a certain wavelength. The wavelength of peak emission depends on the temperature of the object emitting radiation. A higher temperature will cause the wavelength of peak emission to be at a shorter wavelength”.
It strikes me as being wrong that CO2 only emits at 15um. I am sure it will radiate discrete frequencies over a spectrum of discrete frequencies. In other words, any IR curve you see for CO2 is a collection of CO2 molecules radiating different intensities in and around a specific temperature. 10um appears to be the predominant wavelength but there are other wavelengths for CO2 in that range.
I dare say that CO2, comprising 2 oxygen atoms and one carbon atom, sharing 4 bonding electrons per atom, and having several other non-bonding electrons, can absorb and emit over a wide range of frequencies, depending on temperature. We are far too focused on the very limited part of the EM spectrum that is in our terrestrial infrared emission spectrum.
“It strikes me as being wrong that CO2 only emits at 15um. ”
Well, yes, it does emit at other wavelengths. 15 um is just the strongest.
If you want to see and understand the emission bands, go to https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Set the other gases to zero. Look up from 0 km. Set the graph to wavelength instead of wave number. You will see the bands where CO2 absorbs and emits. You can also see the radiation that would come from a blackbody. From ~ 13 – 17 um, CO2 emits as well as a black body. At other wavelengths, the emissions are MUCH weaker than a black body.
This is an EXCELLENT resource for anyone who wants to get a sense of how this all work.
“How do you know CO2 transmits the same wavelength at 3C and 30C?”
Because it’s been tested empirically through spectroscopy and the results have been documented and are well-known.
Gas molecules absorb/emit in discrete wavelengths. CO2 has a larger spectrum than just 15um, but that is the strongest band.
“How do you know CO2 transmits the same wavelength at 3C and 30C?”
Because it’s been tested empirically through spectroscopy and the results have been documented and are well-known. 15um is the strongest emission band for CO2.
Tim, barry, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
barry,
CO2 compressed to white heat emits visible wavelengths. Allowed to cool to just above absolute zero, it does not emit visible wavelengths. Your dreams are not real.
CO2 peak emissions are 15 um whether the body of air the molecule sits in is 3 C or 30 C. This is empirical, measured many times via spectroscopy, and quite real.
barry, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bill Hunter
I saw your post above about the graph I linked to with measured values demonstrating the GHE.
I will attempt to link to the graph. Not sure what caused the error.
This may or may not work for you.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_65ab4919c018b.png
Bill Hunter
I clicked on the link and it seems to be working now.
I will send you the webpage so you can make your own graphs and see if you can prove that a GHE does not exist with real data. If you can I would like you to show why you think this is the case.
Here, make your own graphs and evaluate what you generate.
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
Norman throws that slop against the wall, again!
He finds things he can’t understand and believes they “prove” his false beliefs.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
You claim I am obsessed with me, maybe the truth is you are the one obsessed. You choose to denigrate me for no reason. It is not fun debating anything with you since you can’t understand any science and you don’t even know what the word means. Why do you call it slop? Does that word choice make you feel smart? You don’t have a clue what the graphs show and I doubt you click on them. Please leave your unwanted opinions at the door and let a more intelligent poster, Bill Hunter, respond to the data. I think he will understand what you are not able to.
All wrong, Norman. Your comments reveal your obsession. You can’t make even one comment to me, or about me, that does not include insults and false accusations.
I have offered, numerous times, to teach you why you’re wrong about that Surfrad stuff. But you aren’t mature enough to handle it.
Norman,
Unless your graphs show that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, they are wrong.
Accept reality.
It does, Mike Flynn, between 4 PM and 8 AM.
Norman,
Unless your graphs show that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, they are wrong.
Accept reality.
Bill Hunter
I saw your post above about the graph I linked to with measured values demonstrating the GHE.
I will attempt to link to the graph. Not sure what caused the error.
This may or may not work for you.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_65ab4919c018b.png
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote “I saw your post above about the graph I linked to with measured values demonstrating the GHE.”
Is this the same GHE responsible for four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, or some mythical planet-warming GHE?
The world wonders.
Bill Hunter
I clicked on the link and it seems to be working now.
I will send you the webpage so you can make your own graphs and see if you can prove that a GHE does not exist with real data. If you can I would like you to show why you think this is the case.
Here, make your own graphs and evaluate what you generate.
https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
Interesting resource
https://i.imgur.com/ihjj1qI.png
Ground based instruments measure downwelling solar and downwelling infrared radiation from the atmosphere.
As the atmosphere is cooler than the ground, how on Earth do ground based instruments capture radiation from a colder location? According to some regulars here, this should be impossible. But apparently Precision Infared Radiometers possess arcane powers, despite not being cooled.
Little Willy, barry, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
The S-B emission law is not EM energy absorbtion law.
It has term emissivity (ε), but there is not Albedo, because it is not a law about EM energy absorbtion.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…check out this link…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/
from the link…
“The radiation energy that the Earth absorbs from the Sun arrives at the speed of light. The Earth loses heat at a speed driven by convection in a process we call weather. Weather is the chaotic process by which the Earths atmosphere continuously tries to reach thermal equilibrium but never succeeds. The convection takes place continuously, but the speed at which heat is transported by convection is MUCH slower than the speed of light. This means that heat energy leaves the Earth more slowly than it arrives, and that is why the Earth is warmer than predicted by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law”.
evidence that radiation can offer no more than a 1% heat dissipation at the Earth’s surface…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/
Thank you, Gordon, for the interesting article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/a-novel-perspective-on-the-greenhouse-effect/
–
from the link
The radiation energy that the Earth absorbs from the Sun arrives at the speed of light. The Earth loses heat at a speed driven by convection in a process we call weather. Weather is the chaotic process by which the Earths atmosphere continuously tries to reach thermal equilibrium but never succeeds. The convection takes place continuously, but the speed at which heat is transported by convection is MUCH slower than the speed of light. This means that heat energy leaves the Earth more slowly than it arrives, and that is why the Earth is warmer than predicted by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
–
–
Here it is what I think:
Solar energy arrives at the Earth’s orbit distance from the sun, falls on the spherical shape surface Earth has and interacts with the matter.
–
When interacting with matter
1). Some of solar energy is reflected at the same wavelengths it has arrived (as SW EM energy). It gets reflected both diffuselly and specularly.
2). Some gets transformed into (LW) EM energy and at that very instant gets emitted (without being absorbed).
3). And some gets transformed into HEAT and gets absorbed in the inner layers.
The not reflected portion of the incident solar flux (S) can be calculated as:
Φ*(1-a)*S W/m^2
now, the solar energy
absorbed = Φ*(1-a)*S – [ 2). the (LW)] W/m^2
Notice: the W/m^2 are reffered to an area which is perpendicular to the arriving solar flux’ intensity 1361 W/m^2.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you have just renamed the planetary GHE to your Φ (phi) which is the LW absorbed in surface from the atm. and then emitted as in your 2). A difference from nature’s physics in your work is that your Φ (phi) is constant while that of nature’s can vary in atm.s from planet to planet.
The portion of solar energy that instantly gets transformed into a (LW) and instantly emitted
the amount of
[ 2). the (LW)] W/m^2
varies because of the Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
When a planet rotates faster (N), and when a planet has a higher the surface specific heat (cp), (everything else equals), the
amount of (LW emitted)
or the
[ 2). the (LW)] W/m^2
is smaller, and the amount of the absorbed solar energy in form of HEAT is higher.
And that is how the Rotational Warming Phenomenon makes a planet (Earth) warmer.
Thus, there is not any additional solar energy participating in the Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
It is that the warmer planet emits (LW) EM energy, at the instant of solar flux’ incidence, the warmer planet emits less (LW) EM energy than a colder one.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
the absorbed solar energy in form of HEAT is higher.
No Christos, physically the amount of the absorbed solar energy cannot be in form of HEAT because EMR from the sun is NOT “in the form HEAT” since all EMR is NOT heat.
Yes, your constant Φ (phi) should vary because of the Rotational Warming Phenomenon as explained by Dr. Spencer due to nonlinearity of T^4 but you keep a constant Φ (phi) for all rotation rates.
Φ (phi) (Christos’ GHE model) should also vary with atm. optical thickness but Christos holds Φ (phi) constant (at 0.47) for all planets at Earth’s atm. specific optical thickness even for other planets with more or less IR opacity in their atm.s.
Christos’ Φ (phi) decreases Earth albedo (making it net of the atm. LW) just enough to add about 33K to Earth system brightness temperature measured at 255K.
Ball4,
> “No Christos, physically the amount of the absorbed solar energy cannot be in form of HEAT because EMR from the sun is NOT in the form HEAT since all EMR is NOT heat.”
–
Do you think, Ball, the absorbed portion of solar energy is not in form of heat?
Interesting, what form do you think it is then?
Because I think that:
3). And some gets transformed into HEAT and gets absorbed in the inner layers.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The absorbed solar portion is in the form of EMR Christos due to space being so near a vacuum. That EMR energy is then transformed into thermodynamic internal energy.
christos…Ball4 is thoroughly confused about heat. All EM that is absorbed is converted to heat.
Finally! Gordon comments consistent with EMR is NOT heat. Try to keep up with that physics enabler Gordon.
All EMR that is absorbed, whether from a cooler or warmer body, is converted to thermodynamic internal energy increasing universe entropy in the process because EMR is NOT heat.
christos…I have tried to define heat but any definition is inadequate because no energy can be defined. It seems that scientists have defined different kinds of energy based on the particular properties involved.
Heat (aka thermal energy) seems to be the word used to describe the energy involved with atomic motion. When we use the term ‘kinetic energy’, we do not specify the type of energy. However, kinetic energy describes any kind of energy in motion. With atoms, that motion is associated with heat. In other words, heat is the energy that causes atoms to move and vibrate. We just don’t know what energy is and heat is one of those unknowns.
We have to be careful because electrostatic energy is also a factor with atomic particles. However, it tends to be more static than dynamic in atomic particles. In an atom, the electrostatic energies tend to be in equilibrium.
Is is well known that when electrons in atom absorb EM, or IR, they jump to a higher kinetic energy level. Again, that KE, associated in any way with atomic motion, internally or externally, must be thermal energy, or heat.
You have already corroborated for me that therme is the Greek word for heat. And therme seems to also be the root of thermal.
Is is well known that when electrons in atom absorb EM..”
No Gordon that is wrong, the atom or molecule absorbs the EMR & at temperatures higher than found in the earthen troposphere can bump up an electron to a higher energy state WITHIN the atomic structure since it takes the whole atomic mass to absorb the EMR quantum momentum (linear and angular).
Gordon Robertson
You do not understand radiant heat transfer at all do you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity
Please read this.
A Pirani gauge intentionally uses a very low emissivity material so that radiant energy does not interfere with what it is trying to determine.
Again the Moon temperature goes from 120 C during day to dropping to -130 C during lunar night. How does the temperature drop if radiant energy only dissipates only 1% of the solar heating?
Obviously, on the moon, radiant energy loss is responsible for all of the cooling, but over 14 whole days without sunlight the lunar surface "only" cools to 140 K. Not 3 K. Even within permanently shadowed craters on the moon temperatures "only" cool to 25 K; again, not 3 K.
If radiative cooling was so effective, wouldn’t temperatures drop to 3 K, especially over the course of 14 whole days? It’s still clearly cooling, slowly, at 140 K, even after 14 days without sunlight. Radiation alone hasn’t managed to dissipate all the solar heating that built up over the preceding 14 days of sunlight.
I would have thought that if Gordon’s argument is that conduction and convection are significantly more effective at cooling a surface than radiation, what occurs on the moon does not help a counter-argument.
DREMT
One reason is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is a 4th power equation based upon temp.
At a temperature of 400 K the Moon will radiate around 1450 W/m^2 but as it cools at night to 140 K it will now only emit at around 22 W/m^2. The surface has some heat capacity so you would have to do some detailed calculations to determine the temperature drop rate but the rate of radiant heat loss drops considerably.
This is a temperture graph (from Diviner) of the Lunar equator. As the sun light angle decreases to night it looks as if the temperature drops rapidly (much higher rate of radiant heat loss vs incoming solar energy). Then at night when cold it does drop but much slower as the radiant loss is reduced significantly.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/54312a19-93fd-40b3-b972-4080595508a4/jgre3030-fig-0005.png
DREMT
Conduction is not effective heat transfer from surface to atmosphere. Air is a good insulator. Without GHE going on the radiant heat loss would be much larger.
Also my point to Gordon is how he uses the Pirani gauge (which has an intentionally very low emissivity heating element so that radiant effects are minimized).
Gordon would be correct if the Earth’s surface had an emissivity equivalent to the Pirani gauge heating element (usually platinum) which has an emissivity of 0.05. If the surface would emit less than 1% of a blackbody it would not be effective. The reality is the Earth emits at least 0.95% of a blackbody in the IR band. You can’t compare (logically) a Pirani Gauge to the Earth’s surface. They are not compatible at all. I want Gordon to understand this point but so far any attempt is unsuccessful. At least do you understand the difference?
"One reason is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is a 4th power equation based upon temp."
Sure, and as a result, and for the reasons I explained, I wouldn’t have thought that what occurs on the moon is a good counter-argument to Gordon’s point.
In fact, bringing up the moon didn’t really make a lot of sense, since there is no conduction and convection taking place.
"Conduction is not effective heat transfer from surface to atmosphere. Air is a good insulator."
I disagree strongly there. Conduction is indeed an effective form of heat transfer from surface to atmosphere. It just isn’t at all an effective form of heat transfer through the atmosphere, which is why it’s a good insulator.
"At least do you understand the difference?"
Yes.
DREMT
Bringing up the Moon is based upon Gordon’s false understanding of radiant energy. He believes (with zero supporting evidence) that radiant energy at Earth surface temperature is insignificant. He thinks, for whatever reason, that Stefan-Boltzmann Law only applies to high temperatures.
I bring up the Moon because it cools rapidly by radiant means when it is hot surface (400 K) and cools very slow when it is at 140 K.
The Moon cools rapidly as the solar input diminishes and the surface is hot showing radiant heat transfer alone is adequate at lower temperatures like the Earth or Moon.
Right, but presumably Gordon thinks radiative cooling of the Earth’s surface is insignificant in comparison to conduction/convection (and presumably evaporation too). Which is why I don’t get bringing the moon into it, which can only cool radiatively.
Anyway…never mind. I’m not sure about the whole Pirani gauge argument so I’m not going to comment on that.
DREMT
If you want to stick with just the Earth Gordon is still completely wrong.
Here is an article to explain it in further detail if you are interested.
https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/winds/nighttime_influences/Nighttime_Influences.htm
The cooling at night is nearly all by radiation conduction warms the surface slightly, at night, but it does not act as a surface cooling mechanism. Convection acts in reverse and slightly warms the surface but the primary cooling is by radiant heat transfer. In dry locations it can be quite large. In wet regions the cooling is limited by the dew point. Once air cools to the dew point the condensation warms the air and prevents further cooling.
I will give a link to global daily temperature ranges. Greatest in dry deserts. I would not call the loss of energy via radiation as insignificant as all the average night cooling is by radiant means. Advection can have localize effects (cold air moving in or warm air moving into a location). The overall cooling is primarily by radiant means. Convection stops at night.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Daily_Temperature_Range.png/1920px-Daily_Temperature_Range.png
Norman,
> “This is a temperature graph (from Diviner) of the Lunar equator. As the sun light angle decreases to night it looks as if the temperature drops rapidly (much higher rate of radiant heat loss vs incoming solar energy). Then at night when cold it does drop but much slower as the radiant loss is reduced significantly.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/54312a19-93fd-40b3-b972-4080595508a4/jgre3030-fig-0005.png ”
–
“As the sun light angle decreases to night it looks as if the temperature drops rapidly (much higher rate of radiant heat loss vs incoming solar energy).”
–
What I think is that while the solar EM energy hits the surface, the solar EM energy interacts with the matter.
When interacting with matter:
1). Some of solar energy is reflected at the same wavelengths it has arrived (as SW EM energy). It gets reflected both diffuselly and specularly.
2). Some gets transformed into (LW) EM energy and at that very instant gets emitted (without being absorbed).
3). And some gets transformed into HEAT and gets absorbed in the inner layers.
********************
Thus, while the solar EM energy interacts with matter, it induces the skin layer’s measured the very high ~400 K temperature.
At the very moment the solar EM energy stops interacting with matter, the temperature instantly drops, because there isn’t any significant amount of heat being absorbed during the solar lit hours…
“Then at night when cold it does drop but much slower as the radiant loss is reduced significantly.”
At night the temperature drops in a linear relation, because the energy provided from inner the during the day absobed heat, provided from inner layers comes up to the surface according to the lunar surface regolith’s conductivity.
At night the lunar surface radiative cooling rate is determined by the regolith’s upgoing conductivity – there is not any other source of energy to support the night hours EM energy radiative emission.
–
The observed confirms that the solar EM SW energy portion, which is not SW reflected doesn’t get absorbed in the lunar surface inner layers.
The major part of SW gets at the instant transformed into the LW outgoing EM energy, which leaves to outer space.
Only a small portion gets absorbed as heat and IR emitted during the night.
–
Also we see in the graph, that at almost the very instant of solar incidence at the next morning, the surface temperature rises at a tremendous high rate from ~100 K to ~ 400 K.
It is the indication of the incident solar EM energy on the very instant of incidence inducing the skin layers temperature, with very little of that EM energy being absorbed.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” Again the Moon temperature goes from 120 C during day to dropping to -130 C during lunar night. ”
versus
” If radiative cooling was so effective, wouldn’t temperatures drop to 3 K, especially over the course of 14 whole days? ”
Why do you contrast your personal opinion, which is based on 100% guesswork, with Norman’s statement of facts?
*
1. What would be Moon’s temperature during the lunar night if it lasted 56 days?
2. You GHE deniers are still trying to ignore how a Pirani gauge really works and are fine living with the fact that Shula is actually manipulating the situation, right?
You are working 100% on assumptions about me and what I think, so I’m going to ignore your comment and just continue to respond to Norman alone.
Bindidon,
“1. What would be Moons temperature during the lunar night if it lasted 56 days?”
–
We now have the theoretical equation to precisely calculate the Lunar mean surface temperature Tmean if you like to.
N.moon = 1 /112 rot/day
cp.moon = 0,19 cal /gr*oC
Tmean.moon = [ Φ (1 – a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Tmean.moon = { 0,47 (1 – 0,11) 1.361 W/m^2 [150* (1/112)*0,19]∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10^-8 W/m^2K⁴ }∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.moon = ( 1.782.828.832 )∕ ⁴ = 205,5 K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
None of the two replies was in any way an answer to my question.
No problem for me.
I think planets and moons absorb the solar EM energy at solar lit hours by transforming part of it into HEAT and get warmed, and release EM energy at dark hours at night and get cooled.
–
The rate of cooling slows the cooler surface gets. The S-B emission law is limited for higher than terrestrial temperatures, when an abundance of thermal energy makes it pouring out at its highest rate of ~ ε*σT^4.
–
The emittance from surfaces at lower temperatures doesn’t happen
at the highest ~ σT^4 rate.
–
I think that is the reason why planets and moons in solar system (Earth included) still hold enough of their primordial thermal energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The primordial thermodynamic internal energy hasn’t yet had the time to escape to deep space being so well insulated in the larger objects plus it is being replenished a bit from a source of fuel.
Ball4,
“internal energy hasnt yet had the time to escape to deep space being so well insulated in the larger objects…”
–
Of course, but also because at the lower surface temperatures
the S-B emission law doesn’t work.
There is not enough thermal energy in the matter at the lower T to make surface emit ~ ε*σ*T^4 W/m^2.
It is the matter does supply the surface with the primordial heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“A Pirani gauge intentionally uses a very low emissivity material”
So why does a chrome radiator have convection have its most important value rather than radiation?
“Regardless of their material or production and totally irrespective of their designs, the vast majority of radiators will produce around 80% of their heat through the act of convection, leaving the remaining 20% to be emitted through radiation”
…have convection as its most…
RLH
I think I already pointed it out to you in an earlier post you may have missed.
There are three types of heat transfer mechanisms. Conduction, convection and radiant heat. Each can contribute to energy loss and each can have different contributions.
A heated silver rod will transfer heat much better by conduction than convection or radiant energy. You give one example but it is only for that one example. Based upon design and external conditions the contribution of each heat transfer mechanism is based upon the system. Using a Pirani gauge to demonstrate low radiant heat loss is not a good choice when compared to Earth surface. The heating element is very low emissivity.
It depends on the temperature of the heated silver rod.
“It depends on the temperature of the heated silver rod.”
At lower temperature (near room temperature) convection becomes the main effect of conversion.
“It depends on the temperature of the heated silver rod.”
That is not what is claimed. At no point is radiation the major component of transfer.
“A heated silver rod will transfer heat much better by conduction than convection or radiant energy.”
Sorry. That was the quote that was meant.
RLH
Convection is a highly variable mechanism. It would really depend upon the system.
Here is an article on Convection.
Free convection in air can vary in heat transfer coefficient from 0.5-1000 (W/(m^2 K))
That is a very large range so convection heat transfer may or may not dominate a given system. It would depend upon conditions of the system.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-heat-transfer-d_430.html#gsc.tab=0
“Convection is a highly variable mechanism. It would really depend upon the system.”
I think it mainly depends on the temperature difference.
What happens at 0 difference?
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/430/convective_heat_transfer_chart.pdf
”May or may not” LMAO!! The alleged bringers of science in here are really getting specific about how certain they are.
Hunter boy
” The alleged bringers of science in here are really getting specific about how certain they are. ”
Do you think you would be even a tiny bit better when you brazenly discredit the work of the scientists who managed to compute the lunar spin period as ‘academic exercises’ – just because you entirely lack knowledge and experience to scientifically contradict them?
Pfui Deibel.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
bindidon is full of pointless points and appears to have completely given up attempting to explain the moons motion much less given the scientific basis for why he thinks what he thinks beyond believing his daddy told him so.
he thinks he knows answers he can never find specific scientific evidence for and he only thinks he understands what his daddy was specifically speaking to. was his daddy talking about a formula for a motion or the motion itself? he is so confused even by that distinction as he actually believes they are the one and the same thing.
In the name of THE SCIENCE ™, Gill will tell us how the motion of the Moon is related to Pirani gauges.
“In the name of THE SCIENCE ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You missed a few:
“full of pointless points”
“appears to have completely given up”
“moons motion”
“believing his daddy told him so”
“he thinks he knows answers he can never find specific scientific evidence”
“he only thinks he understands what his daddy was specifically speaking to”
“was his daddy talking about”
“he is so confused even by”
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
#3
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
More reasons why the GHE is bogus:
Reason #7 — The bogus “More energy always means higher temperature”
The cult believes that “more energy always means higher temperature”. It sounds logical, that’s why they believe it. It’s easy to trick people, if something sounds logical. It’s even easier when most people do not have an understanding of thermodynamics and radiative physics. Hopefully, this will help to increase the understanding.
The temperature of a solid object is a measure of the average kinetic energy of it’s molecules. In simple terms, this is done with a cheap thermometer that contains a fluid in a vertical tube. When the thermometer is placed in contact with the object, the kinetic energy of the object’s molecules can transfer to the molecules in the liquid, causing a change in its level in the tube. The tube is calibrated with markings so the temperature can then be read.
To increase the temperature of the object, more energy must be added. BUT, it must be the “right kind” of energy.
Consider a perfectly insulated box containing a brick. The brick is at a temperature of 100°F. If a second identical brick, but at a temperature of 80°F, is placed along side the first brick, will the first brick’s temperature increase? More energy was added to the system, so did the temperature increase? Of course not. In fact, in this scenario, the temperature actually would DECREASE. Energy was added, but the temperature decreased.
The “right kind” of energy needed to raise temperature is energy that has a higher average kinetic energy. In molecules, kinetic energy is related to the vibrational frequency of the molecules. A faster vibrating molecule imparts more kinetic energy upon collision with another molecule. With infrared absorbed by a surface, the higher frequency (shorter wavelength) photon is the “right kind” of energy needed to increase kinetic energy, therefore temperature.
That’s why ice cubes can NOT boil water, and why CO2’s 15μ photon can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
Clint R 9:42 am, you fail to mention what object was displaced at what temperature when you added the second brick. See my 10:16 am for the corrected analogy.
See my response. Then get an adult to explain it to you.
Don’t need one but thanks, that’s funny.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Clint 9:42 am neglects to mention when the second identical brick, but at a temperature of 80F, is placed along side the first brick, an identical brick at 3K was displaced and removed so the temperature of the first brick increased just like the surface of Earth warms when ~3K space is displaced by a warmer ~250K atm.
THAT’s why an ice cube can boil water and an absorbed 15μ photon will increase the thermodynamic internal energy of an object.
As usual, goofball4 is completely wrong.
The parcel of air replaced would be at 100°F, as specified. So the second brick adds much more energy, due to it’s thermal mass, but lowers the temperature of the system.
“as specified.”
Nowhere.
Adding an atm. to a planet doesn’t displace air at the same T, Clint, the added atm. displaces space at 3K.
Also, your added brick displacing higher temperature air, reduces the thermodynamic internal energy so the original brick should cool to equilibrium and the new brick increase in T. Added ice cubes cool hot coffee!
Read my 10:16 am to learn how ice cubes can boil water.
“Consider a perfectly insulated box containing a brick. The brick is at a temperature of 100°F.”
That’s why you needed an adult, goofball4.
Sure the 1st brick T was specified but nowhere was the air temperature specified. Funny miscue Clint, thx.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Yeah goofball4, that’s why you need a responsible adult helping you.
You can’t figure things out for yourself.
“Read my 10:16 am to learn how ice cubes can boil water.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Swenson, I never started. Please start learning better physics, so I can stop laughing so hard.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4, I would let Clint have the scenario he wants — perfect insulation and no air and no heaters. There are enough mistakes in the basic physics without even getting to myriad reasons why it is a poor analogy for the actual earth.
Tim,
The actual Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
You can’t explain the role of the GHE in that fact, can you?
That’s why you have to create silly fantasy scenarios, and ignoring reality.
The GHE role is to grow more produce in the winter in some locales, Swenson. Pity you can’t figure that out on your own.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
It’s not supposed to be an analogy for Earth, Folkerts.
Keep trying to misrepresent me. It only shows you’ve got NOTHING.
Of course it’s not supposed to be an analogy for Earth, Puffman.
It represents your mythology of Ouranos shooting cool rays.
“It represents your mythology of Ouranos shooting cool rays.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
In contrast to Germoney, there doesn’t seem to be any great difference between radiators and convectors in His Majesty’s Great Britain.
Our central heating device distinguishes between two types of room heating (convectors and radiators), which require very different flow temperatures at the heating circuit outlet: that’s why we are not allowed to mix them.
While radiators are completely outdated because they are closed bodies, convectors are open at the top: this is the obvious reason why radiative effects play a minor role in them.
However, neither technology can even come close to competing with underfloor heating.
Yes: I read
https://www.bestheating.com/info/how-does-a-radiator-heat-the-room/
“convectors are open at the top”
Obviously wrong as they are open at the bottom too.
A convector is any device that heats a space by moving heated air. The word radiator is likely a misnomer. It is likely a reference to the wrong-headed notion that a radiator radiate heat. Radiators heat a room by heating air molecules that move around the room by convection.
Then they should be called convectioners. Actually, they transfer their thermodynamic internal energy by radiation, convection, and conduction to the thermodynamic internal energy of the air & other surroundings.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“The cult believes that “more energy always means higher temperature” … “
You haven’t even gotten past the first sentence and you are presenting a major strawman. No one (who knows the science) believes that.
There is the trivial example of phase change. But even ignoring phase changes, the requirement — as known by practitioners of the ‘science cult’ — is that more AVERAGE energy means higher temperature.
“BUT, it must be the “right kind” of energy.”
The issue in your example is not the KIND of energy, but the AVERAGE energy. Adding a cool brick does increase the TOTAL energy, true, but it decreases the average energy per atom. This is because you are adding energy AND atoms to your system.
With infrared light, you add energy but not atoms. With infrared absorbed by a surface, ANY photon is the “right kind” of energy needed to increase AVERAGE kinetic energy of the atoms in the system, and therefore increase the temperature.
“Thats why ice cubes can NOT boil water … “
No. The actual issue is that a warm surface (above 0 C) will emit photons faster than ice can supply them. A 15 um photon from ice gets absorbed, warming the surface. But two 15 um photons get emitted from the warm surface, cooling it more. Two 10 um photons get absorbed, but three 10 um photons get emitted. This inevitable “one step forward and two steps back” is why photons from ice cannot (by themselves) warm a surface above 0 C. The cooling outweighs the warming.
That’s just a combination of rambling and arguing with yourself.
That ain’t science.
That’s just empty criticism because you can’t find anything specific to fault. If you have an objection to my arguments against your incorrect post, present it.
Your nonsense: “…more AVERAGE energy means higher temperature.”
WRONG! Adding MORE 100°F bricks to the box won’t increase the temp.
Your nonsense: “ANY photon is the ‘right kind’ of energy”
WRONG! You can’t boil water with ice. (And your cult DOES believe you can. See goofball4….)
ME: more AVERAGE energy means higher temperature.
CLINT: WRONG! Adding MORE 100F bricks to the box wont increase the temp.
Surely you realize that adding more 100 F bricks won’t increase the average energy per atom. You even QUOTED me saying “AVERAGE”! Every 100 F brick has the same average energy per atom.
If you don’t understand such simple English and/or physics, I am not sure there is hope for further discussion.
Tim,
You wrote –
“ME: more AVERAGE energy means higher temperature.”
Complete nonsense. There is no benefit to “average” energy, any more than adding than adding more people of “average” intelligence raises the IQ of the smartest people.
You like to talk in riddles.
Your explanation of the GHE as “A slightly better description would be reduces the cooling from the surface”, is just meaningless, if you are trying to imply that the GHE actually causes warming, heating, or rising temperatures!
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
What has any “average” temperature got to do with that?
Try something that at least agrees with fact, not just more waffling fantasy.
You are/were wrong, Folkerts — more AVERAGE energy does NOT mean higher temperature.
To increase temperature, the added energy MUST correlate to a higher frequency.
That’s why ice cubes can never warm anything above the temperature of the ice, no matter how many ice cubes are involved.
Sorry, you can’t change reality.
I didn’t read Clint’s brick thing, but I can glean from the above the gist.
A constant amount of energy in a given volume of matter will produce a certain temperature.
The same amount of total energy distributed over a larger volume (of the same kind) of matter will result in a lower temperature of the volume. This should be obvious to anyone posting here.
Add a brick to a bunch of bricks at the same temperature and the temperature of the whole won’t change. But if the added brick is colder (less energy) or warmer (more energy) than the rest, the temperature of the total volume will change in line with the extra/less average energy distributed over the whole volume.
Yes, Tim’s point about averaging the volume/energy is not only corect, it is intuitively easy to understand.
And his point that with radiation you are not adding matter to the volume is also quite appropriate.
Clint’s thermodynamic system is open, the Earth system is closed.
“the Earth system is closed.”
If it was, how could it cool over the past four and a half billion years? It couldn’t.
You are obviously wrong – unless you really meant to say something else.
Don’t forget the Earth system also exchanges matter with its surroundings, if you feel like playing silly semantic games.
You’re still wrong.
barry, barry is quite contrary.
It’s just another cult rambler that wants to play semantics, endlessly. If you attack his false beliefs, he will call you a “lying dog”.
Can we say “fanatic”?
“more AVERAGE energy does NOT mean higher temperature.”
You apparently missed the context. I was trying to use your wording to highlight your error. “Higher average” would be a bit clearer than “more average”.
The point is that you need to increase the AVERAGE energy of the atoms in an object to increase the temperature.
More/higher/increased average KE per atom DOES mean higher temperature.
Less/lower/decreased average KE per atom DOES mean lower temperature.
******************************************
This comes back to your ‘bogus’ start to the whole discussion. “The cult” of science does not believe your bogus strawman. Raising temperature ALWAYS is about increasing the average KE per particle, not simply about increasing energy.
I challenge you to find even more reputable sources that backs your claim. Provide a quote and a link.
Well Folkerts, it appears you’re starting to understand it’s not about just more energy. It has to be about the “right kind” of energy.
But, if you want to continue with your “challenge”, show me the “claim” you’re talking about. Provide a quote and a link.
“Provide a quote and a link.”
The internet seems to claim temperature for dummies could help Clint R find his “right kind” but maybe not since it might be too technical: “Temperature is really a measure of molecular movement”:
https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/getting-into-hot-water-the-physics-of-temperature-200033/
Tim,
You wrote “Higher average would be a bit clearer than “more average”.”
No clearer at all. A colder atmosphere cannot make a warmer surface even hotter. Completely ridiculous.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and continues to do so, losing about 44 TW.
You don’t have to believe anything. I am perfectly free to believe you live in a fantasy where you refuse to let reality intrude.
Keep waffling and diverting – the more you do, the more inept you appear.
The exchange of matter in Earth’s system is so miniscule as to be utterly insignificant. Further to that, the whole premise of the argument is based on critiquing the ‘greenhouse’ theory, which occurs in closed system dynamics (no one here or anywhere else that is serious proposes that the relatively miniscule amounts of matter that enter/exit the Earth system has a noticeable effect on its temperature in terms of total matter added/subtracted).
Your fallacy is red herring.
barry,
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and continues to do so, losing about 44 TW.
You don’t have to believe it.
The Earth won’t care.
“it appears youre starting to understand its not about just more energy. “
I’ve been saying that from the start — temperature is about more energy PER PARTICLE. I am glad you are finally willing to listen a bit.
“But, if you want to continue with your “challenge”, show me the “claim” youre talking about. Provide a quote and a link.”
Do you not remember the claim you yourself made to start this whole thread and that we have been discussing ever since???
“Reason #7 The bogus “More energy always means higher temperature”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1599076
I am looking for you to provide a link showing any competent scientist making a claim like that.
Folkerts, that’s my point. No competent scientist would ever make a claim like that. That claim comes from YOUR cult — you know, people like YOU!
Clint, thats my point. No competent scientist ever HAS MADE a claim like that. That claim is your projection.
I am asking you to show that anyone in ‘the cult’ as you like to call it has ever made a claim even vaguely like what you suggest.
Well, Clint does call it a bogus claim: “The bogus “More energy always means higher temperature”” which is bogus when for a closed system the claim really is “More thermodynamic internal energy always means higher temperature” and an increase in universe entropy son consistent with 2LOT.
Apparently Clint R found the 10:21 pm temperature for dummies link really was too technical for Clint to learn anything.
Folkerts, I’m happy to see you try to slink away from your cult’s nonsense. That’s what you usually do when you get caught. You try to distort your own words!
But to be fair, I’ll give you a chance to see if you can face reality. Answer the simple question:
Does all infrared always result in warming an object?
a. Yes
b. No
Not falling for the silly riddles Puffman keeps regurgitating is wise.
Clint, I am disappointed to see you skink away. I was hoping to resolve at least one issue.
Apparently you can’t find even one instance of someone in ‘the cult’ who believes that more energy always means higher temperature.
So you’re taking silly willy’s advice?
You’re refusing to answer on the grounds that you might reveal your incompetence?
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why don’t you want to “teach” us, all of a sudden?
(Hilarious!)
Cult children aren’t teachable, silly willy.
You would know that, if you were teachable….
Willard says:
January 20, 2024 at 9:22 AM
Graham D. Warner, the very crank who keeps PSTing people, who keeps abusive nicknames he finds funny. . .
Willard says:
January 21, 2024 at 3:08 PM
Hey Puffman, riddle me this
Why dont you want to teach us, all of a sudden?
(Hilarious!)
——————
Sad!
They actually are, Puffman. Riddle me this –
Have you ever studied cults?
“They actually are, Puffman. Riddle me this ”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Folkerts is still “taking the Fifth”.
He fears reality.
Gill equivocates.
What else is new?
“Does all infrared always result in warming an object?”
No. For several reasons both scientific and semantic.
Your turn. Support “That claim comes from YOUR cult you know, people like YOU!” or admit that “The cult believes that “more energy always means higher temperature”” is your own unsupported red herring.
Folkerts, you have just admitted that CO2 can NOT warm the surface, whether you know it or not.
I will hold you to it.
You want an example that your cult believes energy alone means higher temperature? Check out one of your loyal followers, goofball4 —
“More thermodynamic internal energy always means higher temperature”
Dozens more examples exist in the months/years here. Have fun finding them all….
Riddle me this, Puffman –
All infrared always result in warming an object, or CO2 can NOT warm the surface?
I will hold you to *that* logic!
“I will hold you to “that” logic!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Folkerts, you have just admitted that CO2 can NOT warm the surface, whether you know it or not.”
Clint, you just admitted that you are confused by science and/or semantics.
As a starter, you need to know (and tell us) what you mean by “warming”. “Warming” could be reasonably interpreted as either:
a) warmer THAN IT WAS BEFORE
b) warmer THAN IT WOULD BE WITHOUT OUT THE IR.
Which of these two very different meanings are you intending?
Any absorbed IR necessarily results in warming(b).
Absorbed IR does not necessarily result in warming(a).
I am pretty sure you are thinking warming(a), but warming(b) is what the GHE is about.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Well put, Tim. And clearly, the TEAM has no substantive response. So they will just ignore you.
CLINT SAYS: “You want an example that your cult believes energy alone means higher temperature? Check out one of your loyal followers, goofball4
More thermodynamic internal energy always means higher temperature”
You need to work on your reading skills. That quote was immediately preceded by “for a closed system”. This means no added atoms. This means more internal energy PER ATOM, which does indeed mean higher temperature. This is different from your open system, where both energy and atoms were added.
Ball4 said more thermodynamic internal energy always means higher temperature IN A CLOSED SYSTEM.
Not more thermodynamic internal energy always means higher temperature IN ALL CASES.
You will need to try again. You need someone saying that more energy means higher temperature EVEN in an open system, for your “always” to be true.
Clint R moved on some time ago, Tim. You’re just shouting at the wind…
Exactly, Nate.
Try it again, further down-thread.
> If you dont understand such simple English and/or physics, I am not sure there is hope for further discussion.
Well said, Tim!
Badly said, Tim.
“Clint R moved on some time ago, Tim. ”
Yes, because as usual, when the TEAM has no answers, they just ignore you. And pretend that you have made no point at all.
…said, Tim.
Exactly, Nate.
Why, what did he say that you agree with, Little Willy?
Why should anyone care if Graham D. Warner pretends to ignore Nate?
What did he call him, again?
Not what I asked, Little Willy. The only person who should care that I do not read or respond to Nate is Nate.
In answer to your question, Nate has called me every name under the Sun.
” Nate has called me every name under the Sun.”
Not really, much less than what he has called others.
Its just that DREMT is a very delicate flower.
That was probably Nate calling me another name!
Exactly, Nate.
Imagine if I took issue with all the names I’ve been called…
Was I "taking issue", or simply responding to your question?
Did Graham D. Warner *respond*?
He certainly replied, but did he respond?
Poor Graham D. Warner.
Forever the victim.
The victim of a relentless and prolonged character assassination attempt? Sure.
The victim of stalking and doxing? Sure.
Someone who never stands up for themselves and doesn’t give as good as they get occasionally? No. Absolutely not. So yeah, I expect you could dig up some good examples of me doling out the abuse. A mere fraction of what I’ve received in total, overall.
[we’re onto personal issues again]
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Puffman moved on some time ago, Tim. Youre just shouting at the wind…
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] EM regularly vanishes out the back door when the going gets tough, only to reappear later down-thread as if nothing ever happened. Thats kind of what he’s known for. He’ll probably do it again, here, even in his own thread.
Had the going got tough for Clint R? I guess that’s a matter of opinion.
Graham D. Warner is worst at begging questions than for mercy!
Weird comment. I’d ask you what you mean, but you won’t explain, and will just tell me I’m playing dumb.
Graham’s pragmatic module is doing its thing again.
If Puffman can move to other things, so can Tim.
Graham presumes that Tim is in a tight spot. (He’s not.)
Simples.
Yeah…you’ve completely misunderstood what I meant. Completely…I never said or even implied that Tim was in a tight spot.
The misrepresentations and the false accusations continue…
When does Graham D. Warner ever stop?
Yes, your misrepresentations and false accusations continue. You never stop.
Graham D. Warner has chance to retract his claim:
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] I never said or even implied that Tim was in a tight spot.
He should retract it before it’s too late.
whats with this lowbrow relentless hounding, name calling, insulting, doxing, stalking behavior. i seriously doubt if one percent of your posts contain any shred of debate on science Willard. you need to see a thearapist about your narcissist and sociopathic behavior on this forum Willard. please cease!
I assumed you were implying that my berating E Man for leaving the discussion when the going gets tough, but not berating Clint R, was a double standard. So I made the point that whether or not the going had got tough for Clint R was a matter of opinion, i.e. I don’t think it had. In no way does that imply that Tim was in a tight spot! I don’t even know where you get that from. I’m sure you will now tell me I didn’t mean what I know I meant.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner just doesn’t get it.
Standards rest on principles. They don’t change because one is right. And they certainly do not change when he thinks he is right, which is basically all the times. No wonder he keeps trying to Last Word every single thread!
Either people are allowed to leave exchanges, or they’re not. Simples. As if Tim or EM haven’t responded to every single thing Graham or any Sky Dragon crank threw at them over the years anyway.
for the unitiated a sky dragon crank is anybody who believes with certainty how climate changes or will change.
Little Willy got caught misrepresenting again, and tries to spin his way out of it. As usual.
“whats with this lowbrow relentless hounding, name calling, insulting, doxing, stalking behavior. ”
Gee, do need to dredge up ALL the insults, stalking, name calling, that Bill has done to me?
Hypocrisy maybe?
P.S: Exactly, Bill.
Imagine if Graham D. Warner compiled Puffman’s personal attacks…in this subthread alone!
As for Gill’s mind probes, they’d be too easy to find.
I’m responsible for my comments. Not Clint R’s.
Graham D. Warner obviously whines about personal attacks very selectively. And he’s PSTing very selectively. And he’s gaslighting me right now.
Graham D. Warner has no morals, no standards, and no honor.
Another personal attack.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Nate says:
”Gee, do need to dredge up ALL the insults, stalking, name calling, that Bill has done to me?”
Boxing your ears on the science is what this forum is for.
When we last talked you were making the baseless claim that Seim and Olson wasn’t the best science available on the 3rd grader radiation model experiment. You were supposed to come up with a better example and argue why it was a better example. But instead you just walked away as usual.
Sounds like you are owning your hypocrisy, Bill. Nice.
“But instead you just walked away as usual.”
Nah, I pointed out the basics had already been demonstrated.
So you gish galloped off somewhere far away.
you don’t have to beg for more time nate.
the best science stands until somebody finds better science.
that can sometimes take centuries. . .but that is how science works. S&O put together an excellent 3rd grader atmospheric ghe model as described as the atmospheric application of the GPE with co2 as the green plate. and guess what back radiation didn’t warm anything.
so that can stand as the best science until somebody comes up with an experiment that actually works.
take your time nate. i am in no hurry.
At least Gill realizes that unless and until he offers something better than the greenhouse theory it is here to stay.
If only he could convince other Sky Dragon cranks!
considering the state of climate science, demonstrated by Roy in his jan 25 post above this one. . .everybody who is convinced they know how the climate works is in your own words a sky dragon crank.
so exactly who is it you are suggesting should lead the parade?
And so Gill decides to change his epistemological principles. That way he can continue to hide behind his daddy’s robe.
He sure knows how to spell “banana,” but does he know when to stop?
"S&O put together an excellent 3rd grader atmospheric ghe model as described as the atmospheric application of the GPE with co2 as the green plate. and guess what back radiation didn’t warm anything."
Not only that, Bill, but in S & O’s second experiment, CO2 actually led to cooling! Plus, that experiment destroyed Harde/Schnell. Oh well.
If only Gill read what he’s peddling… Perhaps he will take Graham D. Warner’s latest hint?
When the TEAM likes something, and others point out the flaws in it, the liking turns to utter devotion!
Nate I agree that S&O doesn’t disprove anything. It just shows us what isn’t the cause of warming. There has never been a successful test of the GPE/3rd grader model in the atmosphere.
Nates claimed flaws in S&O was they didn’t measure the convection carrying the heat away.
We know the greenplate (co2 filled chamber) warmed without warming the blueplate. So who cares if it was fairies?
If convection doesn’t carry it away (i.e. the box was operated in outer space there is no reason to think that the energy missing due to convection would not continue to warm the greenplate (co2) until it radiated everything to space. . .still not heating the blueplate.
You would have a much better case of that if the co2 hadn’t heated at all. . .but it did.
Willard,
Did I ever call DREMT a ‘condescending prick’, like he called someone else?
Did I ever stoop so low as to give DREMT the middle name ‘Jane’, like he did to someone else?
No, not hardly.
Whatever I have called him, he has obviously amplified in his mind to be ‘every name under the sun’, and thus he takes amplified offence.
Why is this “discussion” continuing? I see Nate has commented again.
Wait. What is Graham’s comment doing there?
Why is it that whenever Little Willy inserts himself into a discussion where I have commented (which he does far more frequently than the other way around), that discussion quickly becomes about personal issues?
Astute readers know who’s inserting himself in which discussion right now:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1603015
Graham D. Warner, not so much.
True, Nate did try to insert a last word by deliberately replying to the wrong comment. You are right to chastise him.
“Why is this discussion continuing? I see Nate has commented again.”
DREMT makes it personal. Then complains that someone else makes it personal.
You are right to chastise him.
Exactly, Nate.
Why, what did he say that you agree with this time?
Here is the sequence:
Nate (addressed to me)
Graham D. Warner
Me
Graham D. Warner
Nate
Graham D. Warner
Me
Graham D. Warner
and now Me.
Who’s trying to insert himself in the exchange now?
Astute readers will recall that Graham D. Warner claims not reading Nate’s comments!
What did he say that you agree with, this time?
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Incorrect.
When Nate speaks to me, Graham D. Warner is at a loss as to why I reply to Nate.
Poor him!
…that discussion quickly becomes about personal issues.
Graham D. Warner keeps whining and then wonders how things get personal…
His victim blaming is odious.
It gets personal because you make it personal.
Graham D, Warner once again tries to turn himself into a little tar-baby.
So sweet.
Another personal remark.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Another personal remark.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] barry continues to read into things that which confirms his pre-existing bias.
Preceding that remark to barry was:
[BARRY] Why are people so keen to deny it?
If I get told I’m denying things, I’ll point out if I think they are reading into things that which confirms their pre-existing bias.
Barry asks a good question. In return, Graham D. Warner gaslights.
Our Tar-Baby is at it again, in another subthread, where he can’t blame me!
He dressed up an accusation of denial as a question. I responded appropriately.
Barry is a professional editor. He knows how to read.
Graham D. Warner is gaslighting.
Incorrect.
Looks like Graham D. Warner misplaced his comment once again.
I just go with the flow.
Astute readers can see that Graham D. Warner adds a comment under Nate to get the last word.
Astute readers will note that Nate did that in the first place. Like I said, I just go with the flow.
Graham D. Warner gaslights again.
Here’s the replay: Puffman, Tim, Puffman, Tim, Mike Flynn, Puffman, barry, Mike Flynn, Puffman, Tim, Puffman, B4, Mike Flynn, barry, Mike Flynn, Tim, Puffman, B4, Puffman, Me, Tim, Puffman, Me, Puffman, Gill, Me, Mike Flynn, Puffman, Me, Tim, Puffman, Me, Mike Flynn, Tim, …and only then Graham D. Warner.
But as soon as Graham enters a subthread, he pretends he owns it!
Nate pulled the "replying to the wrong post" trick first. That’s just a fact. Then you replied to a different wrong post. I’ve just followed along.
I think we could possibly argue about even more trivial matters, though. Let’s really push the boat out.
Graham D. Warner does not read Nate’s comments, but he knows, Very Deep in his heart and soul, when Nate misplaces his comments.
Creepier and creepier…
Desperate or what? I read his name, Little Willy, I can see when he’s commented and where. I just don’t bother reading the content any more.
Why is it that whenever Graham D. Warner is being proven wrong he rips off his shirt like that? His “inserts himself into a discussion where I have commented” is false. That’s the end of it.
I don’t even know what you mean by "ripping off my shirt" (I’m literally as calm as ever so it can’t be anything to do with being upset or angry), and I have no idea why you’ve suddenly changed from talking about Nate to talking about an earlier comment.
I can assure you that you haven’t proven me wrong about anything we’ve been "discussing", though.
As to my earlier comment which you have suddenly switched back to talking about, I stand by it. You jump in on discussions that I’m already involved with far more than I do to you (generally speaking I just try to keep out of your way), and more often than not, when you jump into one of the discussions I’m involved in, the subject invariably becomes personal.
Graham D. Warner plays dumb once more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUF9XJamAK0
OK, Little Willy. Once again, I’m left in charge of babysitting you.
Graham D. Warner gaslights a little more.
Here’s the replay once more:
Puffman,
Tim,
Puffman,
Tim,
Mike Flynn,
Puffman,
barry,
Mike Flynn,
Puffman,
Tim,
Puffman,
B4,
Mike Flynn,
barry,
Mike Flynn,
Tim,
Puffman,
B4,
Puffman,
Me,
Tim,
Puffman,
Me,
Puffman,
Gill,
Me,
Mike Flynn,
Puffman,
Me,
Tim,
Puffman,
Me,
Mike Flynn,
Tim,
…and only then Graham D. Warner.
But here he is, trying to pretend it’s his thread.
You make the thread all about me, Little Willy. I’m aware that Tim started the thread…but you’re now burying it under response after response after response after response all centred around this weird fixation on me that you have. Seriously…what is your problem? Why do you care so much about what I say and do? What do you think you’re proving other than that you’re deeply obsessed?
DREMT resides in Willard’s head.
Gill wishes he’d reside in Graham’s pants.
. . .your jealousy is showing Willard
I am getting into the head of Gill.
Good.
In the end, reality always wins.
Yes, threads like this really show you people for what you are…so that in the end, reality always wins.
Threads like Graham D. Warner whining about something…
I Make Him Do Them.
You stalk, you dox, you attempt to assassinate my character…and if I complain at any point, it all becomes my fault!
All these comments because Graham D. Warner can’t accept that his actual complaint was void.
Sad!
Any and all complaints I have made about you are valid.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Incorrect.
Willard you are not in my head at all. I just would prefer you went away. All you do is clutter up the forum with useless posts.
Gill proves me right. Deny, dismiss, denigrate, by any means necessary. That is all they ever do.
Little Willy keeps on respondin’.
So that doesn’t really work, Gill…nice try, though!
Little Willy always tries to use my own words against me…and usually messes it up because they don’t apply to the situation he tries them in. As just happened, ironically enough.
Graham D. Warner always tries to downplay or dismiss his sense of entitlement.
I am entitled not to be stalked and doxed.
The cyber victim bullying continues.
It never started.
Our gaslighting duo is gaslighting again.
Graham D. Warner claimed that I inserted myself in a thread in which he commented…long before I did.
Instead of owning that fact, he rips off his shirt…and Gill piles on.
This is just bonkers.
> before
long after I did.
Sure, this time you commented before I did. The claim, however, is that you insert yourself into discussions, where I am commenting, far more often than the other way around, and it is still correct…
Graham D. Warner inserts himself in discussions in which I already am, and then complains that *I* am the one who inserts myself!
And that includes exchanges I have with Nate, someone he claims not reading.
He would make a great cuckoo!
I don’t read Nate’s content, but from your responses, and from my knowledge of what he’s like, I’d say it’s almost certain his comments have been about me. Tell me I’m wrong!
You more regularly insert yourself into discussions that I’m taking part in (and to attack something I’ve said, or to attack me personally) than the other way around. By a long shot. Now, I might not have chosen the best thread to make that complaint, sure, but it doesn’t stop it from being correct.
As to this thread in particular, you contributed a few cheap, worthless remarks about Clint R earlier on. Then you’d left the scene. The thread had pretty much come to a conclusion. Then I dropped a PST. That set Nate off, saying God knows what (but probably some personal criticism), and then Tim returned even though it was obvious Clint R had moved on. So I pointed that out. Then, you appear! Of course you did. You had to insert yourself back in the discussion now that I’d showed up…and if you were being honest, you’d admit that your "exactly, Nate" comments are just designed to irritate me. Nothing more.
Then, as always, the thread becomes about personal issues…because you have very little else to contribute. You can’t contribute to the science discussion. So you just make it about the people commenting.
That, and the fact you’re completely obsessed with me!
Graham D. Warner keeps talk about himself.
Then he whines about things getting personal…
🤷
I defend myself, that’s all. Someone has to be attacking me in the first place for me to get on the defensive…that’s where you come in. Constantly.
Imagine if Graham D. Warner got a kick out of feeling persecuted.
The songs he would write!
Imagine away. How about we start talking about you instead. Why do you stalk and dox people?
No need to imagine. More free publicity:
Why do you stalk and dox people?
Graham D. Warner, a bit earlier:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1601748
Again, why do you stalk and dox people?
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Let’s talk about you, Little Willy. Why do you stalk and dox people?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2022-0-03-deg-c/#comment-1160735
Let’s talk about why Graham D. Warner keeps denying that he denies the greenhouse effect:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1604271
My money’s on the fact that he’s gaslighting.
I defend myself from Little Willy’s attacks, he says:
"Graham D. Warner keeps talk about himself.
Then he whines about things getting personal…"
I then try to talk about him, instead, and he keeps changing the subject back to me!
Why, in the post that I linked to, do you give out the locations that you believe four commenters here live at?
Graham D. Warner gaslights once more.
He PSTed people for more than five years; he kept PSTing people even after the t-word has been banned; he is still PSTing after Roy directly hinted at him that he was taking his role “too seriously” (h/t Walter); he came here using an abusive nickname based on the real name of a scientist who goes by a nom de plume because he found it “funny”; now he has an ironic nickname that mentions the owner of this blog; he keeps trying to last word every thread in a blog where Sky Dragon cranks have been uninvited more than ten years ago; he keeps resisting the simplest implications possible; he currently denies that he denies the greenhouse effect; he just tried to play the victim about information he himself made public; and to top it all he quoted a Very Serious song in which he projected murderous thoughts while suggesting I might have them.
Nobody’s asking him to stay. He can move on whenever he pleases.
Already done it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1599907
So why did you post the locations, Little Willy?
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
He is not doing much to convince anyone he’s person Number One:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1599948
So, why did you post the locations? Why did you post a screenshot which included my email address? Were you trying to intimidate, or?
Why does Graham D. Warner keep gaslighting?
Because he is a Number Two.
That make him a piece of shit in his own mind.
No wonder he has no self-respect.
Not going to explain yourself, then. Just attack.
Earlier, someone tried to score a goal, but didn’t realise that that they were shooting at their own goalposts!
“As the atmosphere is cooler than the ground, how on Earth do ground based instruments capture radiation from a colder location? According to some regulars here, this should be impossible. But apparently Precision Infared Radiometers possess arcane powers, despite not being cooled.”
Here’s a fairly succinct description from a manufacturer of “precision infrared radiometers” –
“The SI-111 consists of a thermopile, which measures surface temperature, and a thermistor, which measures sensor body temperature. The two temperature sensors are housed in a rugged aluminum body that contains a germanium window.
Both the thermopile and the thermistor output a millivolt signal that most of our data loggers can measure. The data logger uses the Stefan-Boltzman equation to correct for the effect of sensor body temperature on the target temperature. The corrected readings yield an absolute accuracy of 0.2C from -10 to +65C.”
One interesting point is the fact that a germanium, rather than glass, window is used.
For all the dimwits who would claim that photons from a colder body must be absorbed by a warmer, here is a practical example of IR photons gaily zipping through a piece of perfectly solid and opaque germanium without let or hindrance!
Instruments of this nature react to the IR emitted from the atmosphere (down to -10 C, anyway). Of course, the “temperature” indicated is quite meaningless, for obvious reasons.
So yes, it is quite possible to remotely measure longer wave IR with a hotter instrument. Radios, TV sets, and mobile phones do it all the time. The frequencies they respond to are infrared of far longer wavelengths.
swenson…from an alarmist rocket-scientist…”As the atmosphere is cooler than the ground, how on Earth do ground based instruments capture radiation from a colder location?”
***
No on has disputed that the surface receives IR from the atmosphere as well as the Sun. The instruments measure IR, not heat. IR from a colder surface cannot be absorbed by a warmer surface.
The instruments are calibrated in a lab to convert IR frequencies to an equivalent body having a temperature that emits at such a frequency. When pointed at clear sky, those instrument read up to -50C. It is not possible to transfer heat from a body of such a temperature to a warmer surface. Even if the atmosphere is in equilibrium, or 1C cooler, it cannot transfer heat to the surface.
Although there is a reference to S-B, the S-B equation has nothing to do with this.
“IR from a colder surface cannot be absorbed by a warmer surface.”
No Gordon, again EMR is NOT heat, the 2LOT demands that IR photons from a real colder surface MUST be absorbed, transmitted, or scattered by a warmer surface in order to increase universe entropy in the process.
Even if the atmosphere is in equilibrium, or 1C cooler, the atm. CAN transfer EMR & when absorbed to increase the thermodynamic internal energy of the surface because EMR is NOT heat.
Ball4,
Except that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
You are just spouting diversionary nonsense, avoiding reality.
No GHE.
Except Earth TLT has recently stopped cooling and is now warming, see the top post. Obviously it’s a humorous pity Swenson can’t ever figure that out.
Ball4,
Except that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
You are just spouting diversionary nonsense, avoiding reality.
No GHE.
By the way, your response doesn’t even mention a GHE. Is that because you can’t figure out why it didn’t work for four and a half billion years?
Sounds pretty silly, doesn’t it?
Did not claim that EM is heat. I was referencing it as electromagnetic energy, and Bohr made it clear that EM from a cooler source lacks the frequency and energy to excite electrons in a hotter body.
Re entropy, you and Clint need to take courses on it, and heat. Entropy is a measure of the heat used by a system and not available to do work, as in the Gibb’s free energy equation. It has nothing to do with EM, just heat.
Clausius defined entropy as the sum (integral) of infinitesimal changes in heat in a process and temperature, T. That heat escaping from an irreversible reaction is the heat associated with entropy. Nothing to do with a measure of disorder, which is a byproduct, like heat, of an irreversible reaction.
Gordon 6:05 am writes: “Did not claim that EM is heat.”
Earlier Gordon 9:24 pm claimed EM is heat: “Even if the atmosphere is in equilibrium, or 1C cooler, it cannot transfer heat to the surface.”
… when correctly atm. can transfer EMR to the surface because EMR is NOT heat.
Thus, Gordon continues to confuse EMR with heat.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: ” IR from a colder surface cannot be absorbed by a warmer surface.”
From where do you get this assertive statement (it is false and can easily be proven false).
When you make such declarations you need some evidence to support them. NOT your completely wacko EMR theories based upon your poor understanding of Bohr model.
You do not understand that vibrating molecular dipoles will produce IR band EMR. It is based upon evidence. Your lip flapping is based upon poor understanding of physics and some crackpot ideas you got off the internet.
You could easily prove or disprove your statement. Buy a vacuum pump and bell jar assembly. Have some heated object inside that has a steady state temperature. Then vary the temperture of the outside bell jar (increase it and decrease it). If your idea is true then heating the bell jar would have no effect on the object temperature inside (you need to keep the heating constant for the internal object). If the bell jar temperature has any effect on the heated object your idea is bad and needs to be rejected (it is a bad idea and wrong but you keep trying to peddle it). When you have such bad science (made up in your own head), you should expect to defend it with supporting evidence and not your poor grasp of physics.
“When you have such bad science . . .”
Norman, please stop trolling.
“All IR thermometers work on the same basic principle. They use a lens system to focus infrared radiation emitted from a surface onto a detector called a thermopile. The infrared radiation is absorbed by the thermopile which turns it into an electrical signal that is displayed in units of temperature.”
Germanium lenses are used because they are transparent to infrared, and can focus infrared radiation like a glass lens does with visible light. Obviously, the termopile is not transparent to IR.
The thermopile is the same temp as the ambient temperature.
“The corrected readings yield an absolute accuracy of 0.2C from -10 to +65C.”
IR from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer objects – or IR thermometers could not measure any temps below the temp of the thermopile. Clearly, they do.
barry,
You wrote –
“IR thermometers could not measure any temps below the temp of the thermopile.”
Place a mercury thermometer which is at room temperature (say 25 C) into a bowl of iced water. Are you really sure that the thermometer is absorbing “cold rays” from the iced water?
The thermometer is measuring the temperature of something colder than itself.
Your thermopile follows the same physical laws, surprisingly enough.
Implemented in a completely different fashion of course.
The point is that warm objects absorb radiation from colder objects – or IR thermometers would not work below their operating temperature.
This is something that is denied by some of the regulars here. It looks like you are no longer defending this view.
barry, the fact that IR thermometers are engineered to capture IR does NOT mean all IR is absorbed by a warmer object. And it most certainly does NOT mean all IR can always warm an object.
It means that you don’t understand the relevant science. Or maybe you’re attempting to pervert reality?
You haven’t contradicted me, just said other things.
Surfaces CAN absorb radiation from cooler objects, or an infrared thermometer would not function below its operating temperature.
That is the point (in bold), with which you previously and consistently disagreed. Because you have not contradicted it in your reply, do you now agree with it?
There you go again, barry! Your cult can’t seem to make a comment with an insult, false accusation, or misrepresentation.
I hope no one calls you a “lying dog”….
No misrepresentation, and you look like you are avoiding the point.
I did not argue that “all IR is absorbed by a warmer object,” nor that “all IR can always warm an object,” as you posted in your reply. I have not stated my opinions on those statements here at all.
What I said was, and I put it in bold in my last post so there could be no mistaking what I said, “Surfaces CAN absorb radiation from cooler objects.”
As neither of your statements contradicted that one, I asked if you disagreed with it.
You may demonstrate that you are not a frivolous time-waster by simply answering the question. Up to you.
barry,
You wrote –
“What I said was, and I put it in bold in my last post so there could be no mistaking what I said, “Surfaces CAN absorb radiation from cooler objects.””
Well, no, they can’t.
All that is beside the point – the Earth has cooled to its current temperature over the last four and a half billion years, regardless of whether you think it is right or fair.
No GHE. Keep trolling if you wish. I’ll ask you politely to stop, from time to time.
You can choose to ignore my polite requests, of course.
“No they can’t”
Senson demonstrates by accident how to answer the question directly. See if you can do it, too, Clint.
Meanwhile, we look forward to more hilarious attempts to explain away how the thermopile in an infrared thermometer manages to absorb infrared radiation from objects colder than the thermopile, and the IR thermometer displays the temperature of the colder object.
Or the slightly less amusing avoiding of this point. Either way, humour is incoming.
barry, you need to show where I “previously and consistently disagreed”.
Your false accusation: “That is the point (in bold), with which you previously and consistently disagreed.”
I won’t hold my breath….
Oh you poor little snowflake.
No, it’s not my job to do anything when you can cut through it all just by answering the question instead of pouting like a princess with her feathers ruffled.
Clint R: “So a cold object emitting to a hot object would NOT involve heat. The hot object would have a higher internal energy, which means it would have a corresponding higher average molecular vibrational frequency. Energy may be moving to the hot object, but the incompatible photons would not be absorbed.”
If you now think that warmer objects can absorb the radiation from cooler objects, please confirm. Or deny. Just stop whining.
“If you now think that warmer objects can absorb the radiation from cooler objects, please confirm. Or deny. Just stop whining.”
Barry, please stop trolling.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2023042615431593.pdf
Read section 6.2, might be of interest to the discussion.
barry, you need to show where I “previously and consistently disagreed”.
Your false accusation: “That is the point (in bold), with which you previously and consistently disagreed.”
Just whining when you get caught just reveals how immature you are.
I hope no one calls you a “lying dog”….
Are you really denying having consistently denied that surfaces can absorb radiation from cooler objects, Puffman?
"A thermopile IR detector consists of a large number of serial connected thermocouples. The thermopile is mounted in the bottom of a small metal capsule of 8.5 mm diameter [13]. The photo of the capsule in Figure 10(a) shows that it is made of polished metal that reflects IR radiation. On top of the capsule is the IR transparent lens. When the detector points at an IR radiation source of higher temperature than that of the thermopile, then it absorbs incoming IR radiation and is heated. See Figure 11. The heating leads to an increased voltage across the thermopile (TP). When IR radiation from CO2 enters through the lens, it will also heat the TP. However, if the temperature of the external IR radiation source is lower than the temperature of the detector then IR energy is lost through the lens and cools the thermopile. See Figure 10(b) and Figure 11. When calibrated (with radiation from a black-body source of varying temperature) it measures IR radiation in W/m2 from IR radiation sources, including IR emission from excited CO2 molecules."
“MrZ, there’s a good reason you “dont fully get how cooler objects can warm warmer objects.” Its called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2020-0-43-deg-c/#comment-495365
"Are you really denying having consistently denied that surfaces can absorb radiation from cooler objects, Puffman?"
…and rightly so. Don’t think he’s ever said that surfaces absolutely cannot absorb any radiation from cooler objects whatsoever. I think he’s said that absorp.tion of photons into surfaces from cooler objects is minimal, or far less likely to occur, IIRC.
“What I said was, and I put it in bold in my last post so there could be no mistaking what I said, “Surfaces CAN absorb radiation from cooler objects.”
As neither of your statements contradicted that one, I asked if you disagreed with it.”
"Surfaces CAN absorb radiation from cooler objects, or an infrared thermometer would not function below its operating temperature.
That is the point (in bold), with which you previously and consistently disagreed."
…which is false. Clint R has not previously and consistently disagreed with "surfaces CAN absorb radiation from cooler objects".
Either the series of replies Puffman made, e.g.:
[P1] the fact that IR thermometers are engineered to capture IR does NOT mean all IR is absorbed by a warmer object”
[P2] it most certainly does NOT mean all IR can always warm an object.
are relevant insofar as they counter Barry’s claim that “surfaces CAN absorb radiation from cooler objects,” or they’re not.
I can live with both options.
More importantly, you can live with barry making false accusations, such as:
"That is the point (in bold), with which you previously and consistently disagreed."
We all already know you’re totally fine with false accusations, though, since you make them so frequently yourself.
“However, if the temperature of the external IR radiation source is lower than the temperature of the detector then IR energy is lost through the lens and cools the thermopile.”
Sure, that is how it works.
But, not a problem.
The thermopile surface warms when pointed at a source that is warmer than the background (eg space @ 3K). Its temperature rise is what is detected when moving it from pointing at the background, to pointing at the source, even if the source is cooler than the detector.
When Seim et al detected back-radiation from CO2 with it, it must have warmed RELATIVE to what it was for the background without CO2 and just nitrogen in the chamber, which was near room temperature.
It’s easy to live in a world in which Team Science trusts that cranks make relevant claims. Besides:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-307295
Does anyone dispute these quotes? Perhaps we should play a round of “but to receive does not imply to absorb”? Or perhaps someone could reply “but instead of “to receive” we should say “to exchange,” which of course does not imply to absorb”?
Please do. It’s the only thing left to discuss with our cranks.
Alternatively, we could discuss Pictet’s experiment!
Those are "quotes" that barry had put in various people’s mouths. It might be more convincing if you actually found evidence of those people saying it in the first place.
I gave a direct quote above:
Clint R: “So a cold object emitting to a hot object would NOT involve heat. The hot object would have a higher internal energy, which means it would have a corresponding higher average molecular vibrational frequency. Energy may be moving to the hot object, but the incompatible photons would not be absorbed.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1241779
As usual, Clint is doing anything but deal with what he said. The silly huffing is part of his routine when things get sticky for him. He hopes I’ll busy myself trawling past posts to find him saying this over and over, instead of just saying, “yes that is my position,” or “no, that is not my position,” and clarifying.
It’s utterly trol.lish behaviour, but it keeps him from having to deal honestly in any discussion. And if he IS being misrepresented, it’s because he can’t deal honestly enough to be clear. The turgidity is all his doing.
And he could undo it right now just by saying what he means instead of making conceited demands.
“Energy may be moving to the hot object, but the incompatible photons would not be absorbed…”
…which implies that the compatible photons would be absorbed.
Graham D. Warner almost takes up the gauntlet!
When will he?
To take the gauntlet, all he has to say is something like –
“I, Graham D. Warner, solemnly declare that I have never seen Puffman claim that surfaces CANNOT absorb radiation from cooler objects.”
This will confirm that Puffman was indeed baiting Barry.
barry falsely accused Clint R when he said:
“Surfaces CAN absorb radiation from cooler objects, or an infrared thermometer would not function below its operating temperature.
That is the point (in bold), with which you previously and consistently disagreed.”
That’s that. Why should people put up with the constant false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults?
Graham D. Warner has not stated Puffman’s position, so he cannot have established his current claim.
This might be hard, for Puffman is long on negations, and very short on assertions!
I’ve just quoted Clint saying IR from colder objects can’t be absorbed by warmer objects. Because the photons are ‘incompatible’.
Your attempt to deny he said this is just as bogus as his refusal to admit it.
Who said all the photons from the cold object were incompatible, barry? Not Clint R.
Plus:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1601159
Looks like barry is wrong again.
it’s a pity Clint won’t clarify, isn’t it? This is his modus, and then others get blamed for his lack of clarity.
He did exactly the same thing in the thread that quote comes from, where I asked to clarify previously. Just disappeared when asked to confirm. He’s dodgy like that.
But I well know he believes the that the photons from any object that does not supply a greater intensity of energy to the surface than it is already emitting, will be reflected.
“If the photons havent enough energy to get absorbed, they get reflected.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1254315
I save these comments at the time, precisely because Clint is so dodgy.
When people misrepresent me, I set them straight by clarifying what I mean. Clint doesn’t, because he is only here to stroke his ego, not to get to the truth of things.
You might also like (H/T B4) –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/
This clearly presupposes that photons from a cold sky cannot get absorbed, but then we know that there is at least one person here that will resist every single implication!
He has clarified all this before, e.g:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1338245
“Use “H” for the hotter object, and “C” for the colder object, rather than “A” and “B” — less confusion.
1) Both H and C will emit a spectrum, or range, of photons. The photons will range in energy from lower to higher. The higher energy photons from C may be absorbed by H, but they will not be able to raise the temperature of H. H would need a higher average energy than it has for its temperature to be raised. That would never happen from C.
2) Same answer as above.”
…and, to explain the comment Ball4 dug up:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1338272
“The fact that the C spectrum is below the H spectrum is your clue. If somehow ALL of the C spectrum were forced to be absorbed by H, it would lower the temperature of H.
No matter what you try, cold can NOT increase the temperature of hot. Ice cubes can NOT boil water.
What will you try next?”
Quite a clarification indeed:
[PUFFMAN] Both [hotter object] H and [colder object] C will emit a spectrum, or range, of photons. The photons will range in energy from lower to higher. The higher energy photons from C may be absorbed by H, but they will not be able to raise the temperature of H. H would need a higher average energy than it has for its temperature to be raised. That would never happen from C.
[BG] The energy of a photon depends solely on its frequency. As I have shown you before, the emission spectra of two bodies close but not equal to each other in temperature all but completely overlap:
https://imgur.com/gallery/kKHVJVl
Given the overlap, how can H know that C is cooler on the basis of the frequency of incident photons from C alone?
[PUFFMAN] The fact that the C spectrum is below the H spectrum is your clue. If somehow ALL of the C spectrum were forced to be absorbed by H, it would lower the temperature of H.
[BG] Just above you wrote, The higher energy photons from C may be absorbed by H. Indicate on the chart which photons from C are the higher energy ones.
[PUFFMAN] Maybe H cant absorb frequencies below the overlap, huh?
[BG] According to you, C emits some high energy photons which H can absorb. For the second time, where are those photons in the plot?
[PUFFMAN] If somehow ALL of the C spectrum were forced to be absorbed by H, it would lower the temperature of H.
[BG] Congrats, [Puffman], youve just invented negative energy photons.
[PUFFMAN] All of Cs photons can NOT be absorbed by H, but all of Hs photons can be absorbed by C. Thats what you could learn from the emission spectra, if you understood any of this.
[BG] I asked you twice to point out on the plot which of the higher energy photons from C can be absorbed by H, and twice you have failed to do so.
At this point the line got disconnected.
So, can we now put to bed that barry falsely accused Clint R?
He did not “previously and consistently disagree” that “surfaces CAN absorb radiation from cooler objects”.
I have quoted him saying that a hot object can absorb photons from a cold object. That should be the end of it. Right?
Instead of complaining like the softest snowflakes ever about accusations, Clint could simply have clarified what he meant.
That would be square dealing.
DREMT, it’s very good of you to fill in the gaps that princess Clint wouldn’t.
So, IR thermometers work to display temps colder than the device, because warmer objects can absorb IR from cooler objects.
Sheeesh! Why didn’t Clint simply agree in the first place instead of making useless comments about the special engineering of the device? That comment was a complete waste of time, like so much of the rest of the waffle.
So, it seems it is Swenson, who has been quite specific, and 99% likely Robertson who believe warm objects can’t absorb IR from cooler objects.
“That should be the end of it. Right?”
No, DREMT, barry correctly assessed Clint R’s humorous views. In your 6:40 pm, Clint violates both 2LOT (no hope) AND 1LOT. Can’t be much more wrong in thermodynamics than that.
Also, DREMT 6:49 pm, added ice cubes can boil water when they replace dry ice already in the system. As Dr. Spencer showed experimentally years ago using the real atm. overnight in Alabama.
Perhaps a friend of Puffman could ask him to confirm that he holds that surfaces CAN absorb radiation from cooler objects.
Just a thought.
I thought I’d already linked to a pretty good explanation of how a thermopile IR detector works without specifying any absorp.tion of IR from cooler objects, but maybe that got lost in all the hubbub with you refusing to accept that you falsely accused Clint R.
Wasnt a false accusation of Clint R, DREMT as Clint’s past writing shows & DREMT’s link did explain warmer thermopile absorp.tion of IR from cooler objects. Thermopile also reflects some of the IR & doesn’t transmit any.
I accepted Clint’s view as soon as it was clarified. Unfortunately, that took 24 hours instead of a few minutes, and it took someone else to do it.
It was a false accusation, as explained, and demonstrated through linked comments, Ball4. Do not start trolling me on this.
My linked thermopile explanation mentioned no absorp.tion of IR from cooler objects, only warmer objects.
Clint R as demonstrated by Clint’s own writing did previously disagree that “surfaces CAN absorb radiation from cooler objects” & Clint R still has not explicitly corrected his previous humorously wrong written words.
Also, DREMT’s linked thermopile explanation mentioned no absorp.tion of IR from cooler objects, NOR did it from warmer objects. The bolded word does not appear in DREMT’s clip at all. DREMT incorrectly added the bolded word.
“My linked thermopile explanation mentioned no absorp.tion of IR from cooler objects, only warmer objects.”
But you have just shown that Clint agrees IR from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer objects, so your quote should be irrelevant.
Are you saying that you don’t agree with Clint – that you think IR from cooler objects can’t be absorbed by warmer objects?
It would be great if you could reply directly, so we don’t have to wait for a whole day and someone else fishing up old quotes of yours, thanks.
Ball4, I warned you! Please stop trolling.
barry, you should really express some sort of minor remorse for your actions here, at least.
Although, I get that you may have missed that exchange that Clint R had with Brandy Guts and others, after all there’s thousands of comments under these articles.
Little Willy and Tim Folkerts were present in that discussion, so could have also helped fill you in, here. Strange that they didn’t.
Ho hum.
P.S: as I have told you before, I don’t know, and don’t pretend to know, about the fates of individual photons. So, maybe some IR from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body, maybe it isn’t.
Don’t mean to be rude, but you don’t seem to have a very good memory for these things.
“maybe some IR from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body, maybe it isn’t.”
Thanks for the prompt answer.
(Take note, Clint)
So, I’ve got you down for ‘I don’t know’.
We can move on.
IF warmer bodies absorb IR radiation from cooler bodies, and IR radiation is energy, then the warmer bodies are absorbing energy.
This means that a 400K object cooling in a 200K environment will cool more slowly than a 400K object cooling in a 20K environment.
Bill Hunter, Ball4, barry, Willard, Norman and Tim Folkerts agree with this proposition.
DREMT, Swenson, Clint: do you agree or disagree with this proposition?
Yes Barry the temperature of the environment is important but to warm the surface there needs to be a means of sky getting warmer. Since oxygen species get quite hot if they have no means of cooling in the atmosphere. The question is if you need GHGs to cool them in the first place how can you claim they warm anything warmer?
The minimum of 4 layers for CO2 saturation theory held by Nate and his references for the proof of the greenhouse theory is founded on the idea that the tropopause is near the 250mb pressure level of the atmosphere about 16km above the surface. The stratosphere is much thicker extending to 1mb and 48km above the surface.
That makes for very poor prospects for CO2 to not be saturated and fully dependent upon the decreased emissions as TOA rises, especially since some insiders claim that as many as 20 layers are being modeled in the troposphere. Its rather obvious that oxygen species far over ride the effect of CO2 in the stratosphere. In fact it probably would override CO2 all the way to the surface if it weren’t for invisible water in the atmosphere and clouds made up of crystallized ice.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Are you really denying having consistently denied that surfaces can absorb radiation from cooler objects, Puffman?”
and rightly so. Dont think hes ever said that surfaces absolutely cannot absorb any radiation from cooler objects whatsoever. I think hes said that absorp.tion of photons into surfaces from cooler objects is minimal, or far less likely to occur, IIRC.
———————————–
Exactly! What you see in the tests of blocked convection like the Vaughn Pratt experiment is no significant impact on the ground surface but instead a gathering of heat near the ceiling that blocks convection, strongly suggesting that a lot of energy is gathering there as can be expected when a cold object is exposed to a warmer object. The colder object is the one that warms, not the warmer one. My experience in these systems from my building and design days following the Arab oil embargo that had everybody very energy cost conscious was that heat energy goes out the easiest pathway. Leave cracks for air to flow or uninsulated spots you aren’t going to be energy efficient.
“That makes for very poor prospects for CO2 to not be saturated and fully dependent upon the decreased emissions as TOA rises”
Not TOA that rises. It is effective radiating level that rises.
“This height (in practice around 8-10 km”
https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld012.htm
Bill, taking it one step at a time, I know you agree that cooling object will cool more slowly in an environment that is warmer than another environment.
A 400K rock surrounded by 200K walls in deep space will cool slower than a 400K object surrounded by 20K walls.
This is a pure radiative situation, the rock isn’t touching the walls for conduction to occur, and no medium between for convection to occur.
The only way the rock can ‘know’ to cool more slowly is that it receives energy from the cooler walls via radiation.
As Clint, you and most others here agree, the warmer rock absorbs IR from the cooler walls. It’s rate of cooling depends on the temperature (rate of radiative emission) of the environment.
If that first principle is understood, THEN we can start talking about green plates and blue plates and the GHE.
Bit this is a principle that some don’t seem to agree with, and it is here that we get stuck with them.
“Surfaces CAN absorb radiation from cooler objects, or an infrared thermometer would not function below its operating temperature.
That is the point (in bold), with which you previously and consistently disagreed.
Thats that. Why should people put up with the constant false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults?”
Nobody believes the boy that constantly cries ‘false accusation’ anymore.
It is quite true that Clint, with his GPE diagram famously argued that the warm blue plate must reject the flux emitted from the colder green plate!
And he has often claimed that lower energy (frequency) photons cannot raise the temperature of a surface with atoms vibrating at higher energy (frequency) on average.
Of course such photons do contain energy, and if they are abs.orbed by a warmer surface, then 1LOT requires that the surface GAIN internal energy, which means, all else being equal, an increase in temperature.
So if he NOW claims that such photons can be abs’orbed, that is progress. So he needs to revise his GPE diagram, and he just needs to take the next logical step and realize they can warm the surface.
"THEN we can start talking about green plates and blue plates and the GHE"
Lol, how did I know that it would all come down to the Green Plate Effect!? Again…
So, can we now put to bed that Puffman baited Barry with claims that were irrelevant?
How so?
Graham D. Warner plays dumb.
No explanation? OK then, I will just assume you are trolling.
Graham D. Warner should read back the thread, starting with Barry’s “You haven’t contradicted me, just said other things.”
These “other things” are the irrelevancies.
Well, each to their own. Personally I found the entire subject (IR thermometers somehow prove something that eventually relates through to the Green Plate Effect), which was initiated by barry, to be baiting.
barry says:
This is a pure radiative situation, the rock isnt touching the walls for conduction to occur, and no medium between for convection to occur.
The only way the rock can know to cool more slowly is that it receives energy from the cooler walls via radiation.
———————
rocks don’t know anything and humans think they know a lot of stuff that just isn’t so.
barry says:
As Clint, you and most others here agree, the warmer rock absorbs IR from the cooler walls. Its rate of cooling depends on the temperature (rate of radiative emission) of the environment.
If that first principle is understood, THEN we can start talking about green plates and blue plates and the GHE.
Bit this is a principle that some dont seem to agree with, and it is here that we get stuck with them.
———————————
within the context of what you think you know . . .the green plate must warm the blue plate. a more nuanced view would be that the green plate allows for what was an uninsulated plate to be partly insulated on one side thus requiring it to move up toward the stefan boltzmann equilibrium temperature to cause it to emit all radiation out of one side.
what you fail to account for are the limits. engineering standards establish minimum standards of enclosure sizes for safely containing flames because they know owners will pile clothes and or insulation all around the heat source
(e.g.storage water heater) and that there is a good likelihood that the thermostat, if it has one, at some point in its lifetime will fail.
i can allow the possibility of the atmosphere to be insulating but it does entail changing the heat gradient or lapse rate through the atmosphere and the only demonstrated way of doing that is via barriers to convection.
one has to respect the mass of earth. it took months for the tiny Webb telescope to cool to the desired level because the cooling rate was very slow because of low temperatures. the oceans and the entire cooling gradient of the earth crust and is affected by changes to the surface temperature but you are talking eons to adjust to adding layers of insulation. recovery times from change in one direction will take as long to fully recover in the other direction. thus it makes complete physics sense that an lia recovery would take as long as the time from the mwp to the lia to play back. that took 700 years approximately. of course there have been variations with in that that are more less certain. and there are different mechanisms like changes in selective frequencies absorbed by different gases. i just believe like the evolution of many global and universal theories we still have much to learn before adopting communist and fascist like authoritarian regimes to change the shape of the world based upon limited vision.
By now Graham D. Warner should have reached:
We now have established that they are not.
Can we move on?
Nobody’s asking you to stay, Little Willy, so move on whenever you please.
Exactly, Nate.
Still here, Little Willy?
Graham D. Warner acts as if it was his thread.
Fancy that.
No DREMT, Bill moved the discussion to the GHE, and I said that we get stuck on disagreement on a principle that makes discussing the GHE and/or GPE difficult. That principle is what we are discussing in several threads.
The GPE is a useful model for explaining how the 2nd Law is not broken by AGW. As that is still in contention here, I will definitely return to that model from time to time.
Bill, I said:
“This is a pure radiative situation, the rock isnt touching the walls for conduction to occur, and no medium between for convection to occur.
The only way the rock can “know” to cool more slowly is that it receives energy from the cooler walls via radiation.”
And you replied that rocks don’t know anything and humans think they do.
Lost in the semi-cleverness of that retort is any meaning. Do you disagree with the principle above or not?
“what you fail to account for are the limits. engineering standards establish minimum standards of enclosure sizes for safely containing flames because they know owners will pile clothes and or insulation all around the heat source….”
I fail to see any relevance here. Engineering standards??
“i can allow the possibility of the atmosphere to be insulating but it does entail changing the heat gradient or lapse rate through the atmosphere and the only demonstrated way of doing that is via barriers to convection.”
Not at all, the lapse rate could remain the same and the altitude at which the radiative balance (incoming outgoing) occurs could be higher. Or the lapse rate could remain the same but every level warms equally. Convection doesn’t have to change at all for the enhanced radiative effect to work.
But it is theorised that there would be some change to the lapse rate, and that this would be a negative feedback to surface warming, just not enough to overcome the radiative effect of enhanced GHGs.
However, the general debate is still somewhat hamstrung by people who don’t understand that an object cools at different rates in different (cooler) radiative environments.
barry says:
”The only way the rock can know to cool more slowly is that it receives energy from the cooler walls via radiation.”
———————-
You don’t know that Barry.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
barry says:
”Not at all, the lapse rate could remain the same and the altitude at which the radiative balance (incoming outgoing) occurs could be higher. Or the lapse rate could remain the same but every level warms equally. Convection doesnt have to change at all for the enhanced radiative effect to work.”
You are on your own on that. You are no longer defending the mainstream theory. . .clearly demonstrating you don’t know.
as you admit here:
”But it is theorised that there would be some change to the lapse rate”
”However, the general debate is still somewhat hamstrung by people who dont understand that an object cools at different rates in different (cooler) radiative environments.”
Well you need to keep in mind that to heat something at the bottom of a space you must have an increased power source that gets to the bottom of the space. . .or you need to heat the top of the space sufficiently so that the heat works its way down to the bottom.
Since we know there is no secondary or increased solar force currently occurring and no evidence that the lapse rate is changing in accordance with hot spot theory of trapping heat at the radiant TOA; that leaves alternatives like loss of ozone from volcanoes and human releases of ozone destroying chemicals, along with the oceans catching up on their warming from long ago forcing changes which according to IPCC feedbacks can last a long time without any changes in forcing.
Yeah right, barry.
Yeah right, Gill.
Grow up.
Bill, you seem to have contradicted yourself.
Earlier:
Tim Folkerts: “A hot object cools down at a slower rate with warm surroundings than with cool surroundings”
Bill Hunter: “yes”
Tim Folkerts: “Glad we agree on the ability of radiation to slow down cooling”
Bill Hunter: “Thats long been the skeptic position”
But now:
barry: “The only way the rock can know to cool more slowly is that it receives energy from the cooler walls via radiation.”
Bill: “You don’t know that Barry”
What happened since yesterday?
Bill, you agree:
1) [that] “A hot object cools down at a slower rate with warm surroundings than with cool surroundings”
2) “on the ability of radiation to slow down cooling”
Are you balking at the notion that a rock will cool down more slowly with a warmer radiative environment than a cooler one?
Or are you baulking at the notion that this is achieved through radiative transfer?
barry: The only way the rock can know to cool more slowly is that it receives energy from the cooler walls via radiation.
Bill: You dont know that Barry
What happened since yesterday?
——————————–
Your statement goes beyond what we know Barry. What we know is a warm object contributes less heat to a cooler object the warmer the cool object gets. We don’t know that the warm object receives any energy from the cooler object. Its like I give you 10 you give me back 5. You are saying I profited from that deal. all this backradiation argument does is convolute the discussion and lead people to the wrong conclusions when my characterization of what we know is correct and yours isn’t supported by any known science. All you are doing is coverting computations into reality since to know the answer of what hot has given to cold we need a system that computes how that happens. the photon model and emissions was built to support that computation.
You guys have the same problem with your spinner positions. It doesn’t necessarily create error it just allows for a lot more error from extrapolation. Any time you describe anything mathematically you still need to understand that experiment needs to confirm that mathematical relationship and nothing else.
These issues are heavily discussed in philosophies of science and logic. Unfortunately, our educational system is like a factory with poor quality control spewing out a minimally acceptable product where the product believes school is over and they know it all.
> These issues are heavily discussed in philosophies of science and logic.
They are?
Citations needed.
Willard, its a major division of philosophy know as epistemology.
Neither philosophy of science nor logic is epistemology, Gill.
You said that something was heavily discussed. Receipts, please.
” Its like I give you 10 you give me back 5. You are saying I profited from that deal.”
Nope. Nobody was saying that.
Tim and Barry were saying that the cooling slowed.
So when the warm body gave 10 and got 5 back, it was still a NET LOSS, just less of one.
“Your statement goes beyond what we know Barry. What we know is a warm object contributes less heat to a cooler object the warmer the cool object gets. We dont know that the warm object receives any energy from the cooler object.”
More like ‘beyond what Bill knows’. Science does know it.
And you would too if you put together the facts you have agreed to.
1. Cold bodies emit according to their T and emissivity.
2. Warm bodies emit according to their T and emissivity.
3. If a body emits very well it also abs.orbs very well, for those same wavelengths.
4. The radiative heat transfer law is derived from 1 – 3. It states that net radiative heat loss for a warm body at TH of area Ah, surrounded by a cold environment at TC, is emitted – abs.orbed.
Thus it is sigma*AH*emissivity*(TH^4 -TC^4)
See equation 3.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Willard, The Philosophy of Science is mostly a subset of Epistemology – indeed there is supposed to be an element of logic in the Philosophy of Science but post normal science has discarded that notion and returned to the backward ideas of elitism and technocracy, featuring a dystopian perversion of science.
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-97d82630a62a5173b4979ccdb4ba0ccf
That depends on which tradition you’re talking about, Gill, and this would contradict what you just said.
Still no receipt? Sad!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“For all the dimwits who would claim that photons from a colder body must be absorbed by a warmer, here is a practical example of IR photons gaily zipping through a piece of perfectly solid and opaque germanium ”
The claim is that they CAN be absorbed. Of course, if a material is transparent to a specific wavelength, then that wavelength will not be absorbed. And in this case, germanium is transparent to the relevant IR (not opaque as you claim).
0 for 2 in one sentence.
Tim,
You wrote “The claim is that they CAN be absorbed.”
No they can’t. Unless you can show reproducible experimental evidence to back up your silliness, you are just waffling and diverting.
I’m sure you can play silly semantic tricks, and say that you only said “CAN”.
Off you go, tell everyone where the photons emitted by a totally submerged block of ice go. All of them.
If you don’t know, just say so.
“Unless you can show reproducible experimental evidence to back up your silliness, you are just waffling and diverting.”
A hot object cools down at a slower rate with warm surroundings than with cool surroundings. Even in vacuum. This is experimental evidence that the photons from the surroundings affect the cooling of the hot object; ie the photons from the surroundings get absorbed, impacting the net loss from the hot object.
Tim Folkerts says:
”A hot object cools down at a slower rate with warm surroundings than with cool surroundings.”
yes, but where does that get us unless you can establish that the surroundings will get hotter. . .perhaps the surroundings would be hotter without the cooling effect of ghgs. theoretically being able to electromagnetically connect an atmosphere to the surface is an enablement of being more able for that atmosphere to cool to space both directly and via the surface through any atmospheric window.
three possibilities exist. the effect will be positive, negative, or neutral.
it seems to me that via the convective lapse rate that the atmosphere cools faster on average than convection can keep up with. thus if you removed all of the electromagnetic cooling ability of the atmosphere the atmosphere would be entirely isothermal. what temperature would that be Tim?
Our atm. already is substantially isothermal in the stratosphere where convection is nil because the fluid becomes warmed from above.
If Bill magically removed all of the electromagnetic cooling ability of the atmosphere, it would freeze to the surface at whatever temperature the 44TW of geothermal warming would equilibrate throughout with deep space. Remember, Bill’s premise also eliminates electromagnetic cooling ability of all solar type gaseous layers.
Bill,
“yes, but where does that get us unless you can establish that the surroundings will get hotter”
You may agree with Tim’s rebuttal to Swenson, but Swenson does not. Perhaps you can help convince Swenson why he is wrong, and then Tim may proceed with whatever it is you are interested in.
Bill says “yes…”
Glad we agree on the ability of radiation to slow down cooling!
“thus if you removed all of the electromagnetic cooling ability of the atmosphere the atmosphere would be entirely isothermal.. ”
If you remove the cooling ability (thermal IR to space) then you remove the warming ability to the surface (aka you remove the GHE). So this is a drastic change!
I am not ready to speculate on the exact conditions with no GHGs in the atmosphere. It would not be completely iosthermal for several reasons.
1) There would still be surface temperature changes from day to night, that would cause at least part of the atmosphere to go up and down in temperature (and potentially cause some convection).
2) there would still be heating of the upper layers by solar wind and/or solar UV.
3) there would still be at least some conduction.
4) there are all sorts of other factors that would change, changing things like albedo.
The short answer is that without the warming effects of GHE (and if the albedo stayed the same), the surface would average somewhere below 255 K. Elaborate climate models would be needed to make a meaningful prediction of the atmosphere in such a situation.
Tim Folkerts says:
1) There would still be surface temperature changes from day to night, that would cause at least part of the atmosphere to go up and down in temperature (and potentially cause some convection).
———-
It may but there would be no need for convection because cooling would be limited to conduction as the bottom layer in contact with the ground would be the coldest and most dense. So in this case cooling would be quite limited.
2) there would still be heating of the upper layers by solar wind and/or solar UV.
——————
Yep! But it likewise would be the least dense and stay at top while slowly conducting heat downwards. As it is 5% of UV reaches the surface so you would need a UV modtran for the energy input and the only atmosphere to space cooling would be from molecules getting hot enough to radiate UV.
3) there would still be at least some conduction.
————–
Yes heat adding to the atmosphere eliminating the lapse rate both from the surface and throughout the atmosphere from oxygen interacting with UV. Oxygen does that now but overridden by water vapor until the water vapor goes nearly extinct at the tropopause.
4) there are all sorts of other factors that would change, changing things like albedo.
———————-
Well to make all this happen water would need to be removed from the surface of the planet. . .or you will have GHGs in the atmosphere and that’s a no no for finding out the real effect of GHGs.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Bill says yes
Glad we agree on the ability of radiation to slow down cooling!”
Thats long been the skeptic position. The issue is radiation causing warming. We know that GHGs slow warming also, especially water.
Well it does slow the rate of radiant cooling, but thats a long ways from causing the surface to warm unless the sky is hotter. But it is the case that some surfaces especially at night do cool below the near surface sky temperature, so perhaps in that range you will affect mean temperatures some. And we do know that CO2 does block some incoming sunlight in the higher bands but it doesn’t come close to oxygen species. Without GHGs to cool the oxygen the atmosphere might get quite hot. And of course those deserts are going convect high temperatures well up into the atmosphere by convection to override the lapse rate if the cooling GHGs are removed.
barry says:
You may agree with Tims rebuttal to Swenson, but Swenson does not. Perhaps you can help convince Swenson why he is wrong, and then Tim may proceed with whatever it is you are interested in.
——————–
I haven’t really paid much attention. At worst Swenson can’t be doing anything worse that you guys are doing. I see the argument that a warm blanket thrown around the earth both slows incoming down and GHGs are cooling of the atmosphere overriding the warming from oxygen absorbing energetic solar rays throughout the entire air column.
The fact that CO2 can’t handle oxygen species in the stratosphere indicates that there is a good probability it can’t handle oxygen in the stratosphere either, since 5% of UV actually reaches the surface and UV can actually warm something. Can CO2 cause a hot spot in the troposphere by getting in its own way of the job it does in cooling the upper atmosphere? Maybe but I ascribe to the Spencer and Lindzen models of large negative feedback. . .making the only potential nuisance you guys trying to ruin the economy.
Bottom line here is a little warming is going to save more lives than it costs. Deaths from cold are double that from heat. . .we have yet to locate the sweet spot and it seems you guys want to prevent us from finding out where it lies. Pretty much a gaggle of desk nerds who really get so wrapped up in the trees they can’t see the forest.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1601440
“Can CO2 cause a hot spot in the troposphere”
The tropical tropospheric hotspot is not a function of CO2. It’s a theorised response to surface warming regardless of cause, natural or man-made.
“I ascribe to the Spencer and Lindzen models of large negative feedback. . .making the only potential nuisance you guys trying to ruin the economy.”
It’s fine to align with outlying views. My view of the science isn’t influenced by economic alarmism.
Bill,
In this thread the argument is about fundamental physics
That EM flux (photons) from a colder object can be abs.orbed by a warmer object.
You agree with this fundamental fact. Swenson, as usual, does not.
But you are giving him a pass, because of a bunch of other digressions that are not fundamental or not even science.
no nate i don’t even believe in photons. some people confuse theory with reality. a photon is nothing more in theory than what can be actually demonstrated in experiment. people extrapolate all the time because they have no experience. if you go to a university you only learn theory and gain experience in the lab with experiments already known to work. if your lab experiment fails its because you failed to follow directions of your daddy. you are as prepared after college as a babe in the woods. you have some wits about you but now you dealing with a different animal.
barry says:
The tropical tropospheric hotspot is not a function of CO2. Its a theorised response to surface warming regardless of cause, natural or man-made.
——————
you mean that because the sun has been declining its overriding the anthropogenic input?
barry says:
I ascribe to the Spencer and Lindzen models of large negative feedback. . .making the only potential nuisance you guys trying to ruin the economy.
Its fine to align with outlying views. My view of the science isnt influenced by economic alarmism.
——————-
thats all well and good barry. not everybody shares your view. and its not alarmism its actually killing people. suicides are up 37% since 1999. and that doesn’t include deaths from homelessness exposure due to the huge increases in costs of providing the most basic shelter.
> photon is nothing more in theory than what can be actually demonstrated in experiment
Gill believes that reality is what cannot actually be demonstrated in experiment.
LOL!
ME: Glad we agree on the ability of radiation to slow down cooling!
BILL: Thats long been the skeptic position. The issue is radiation causing warming.
You are almost there! Just one more step.
Everyday the sun warms the surface. Radiation from the atmosphere slows the cooling (as you just stipulated). At the end of the day (and still the next morning), the ground is warmer than it would have been without that slowed cooling. The surface starts the next day warmer than it would have been without the radiation slowing the cooling.
That is the greenhouse effect!
Yes Tim The only thing of interest is the standard by which we measure the mean climate temperature without greenhouse gases with a 20% oxygen atmosphere.
We know that in the stratosphere where water isn’t available oxygen species kick butt on CO2. CO2 doesn’t even show up even though a significant portion of the atmosphere is there. Below in the troposphere water vapor kicks butt on oxygen species. Just looking at the atmosphere profile one can identify the most important gases with regards to thermodynamics and oxygen gets zero press around here. Why is that?
> The only thing of interest is
Ze Only Thing – Inspecteur Clouseau strikes again!
“you mean that because the sun has been declining its overriding the anthropogenic input?”
That does not follow from what I said. I’ll repeat it:
‘The tropical tropospheric hotspot is not a function of CO2. It’s a theorised response to surface warming regardless of cause, natural or man-made.’
That means the same effect is predicted whether the warming comes from the sun or GHGs. It is NOT a signature of warming from greenhouse gases.
“not everybody shares your view”
I’ll repeat my view:
“My view of the science isn’t influenced by economic alarmism.”
You are saying that some people allow the economic impacts of the science of AGW to colour their understanding of the science of AGW.
I’ve made this criticism in the past. Glad to have it confirmed.
barry says:
The tropical tropospheric hotspot is not a function of CO2. Its a theorised response to surface warming regardless of cause, natural or man-made.
———————
You have been misled the tropospheric hotspot was defined in combination with mid and upper stratospheric cooling as the fingerprint of AGW.
For solar forcing the finger print is you get a mid to upper stratospheric warming in combination with the hot spot.
We have the mid to upper stratospheric cooling but no hot spot. That form would simply be a result of more CO2 above the clouds working against the stratospheric warming effects of ozone with no signal of the hotspot necessary to warm the surface by your own arguments that a warmer upper atmosphere above the clouds would slow cooling. Simply a cooler stratosphere only allows for more surface cooling.
Barry says:
not everybody shares your view
Ill repeat my view:
My view of the science isnt influenced by economic alarmism.
————————-
Nor is mine. It seems though my view of your science is better than yours. We have no evidence of CO2 causing surface warming we only have evidence of CO2 causing stratospheric cooling, which would do nothing but allow water to emit more heat from the troposphere. . .suggesting that temperature changes at altitude doesn’t translate per Manabe and Wetherald which puts us back to a likely saturated single layer as all mathematical analysis of a single layer indicates ‘practical’ saturation in that the GHE is already so near to a maximum obstruction in the CO2 bands. It may be we are at a point where more CO2 just leads to more shortwave absor-ption in the higher than earth temperature bands that CO2 effects.
Barry says:
You are saying that some people allow the economic impacts of the science of AGW to colour their understanding of the science of AGW.
Ive made this criticism in the past. Glad to have it confirmed.
———————-
It has nothing to do with coloring the view of science Barry.
But it has everything to do with the cost/benefit of continuing to pour money into mitigation projects that has its own price of inflation and those less able being put under more economic pressure, more suicides from the feelings of personal failure, etc. Elitism is exactly not having feelings for the people being harmed. Let them eat cake. . .right Barry?
If the science was clearly there that these people were being harmed by the climate warming I would be on the other side of the issue. But nothing has come true as to the claimed impacts of all this that has been claimed now for over 50 years. Just another false alarm coming out of the doomsday big bucks industry. Profiteers all over the place.
“no nate i dont even believe in photons. ”
Do you also not believe in EM flux?
You already agreed that EM flux from a cool surface causes a warm object to cool more slowly, thus the warm surface must be abs.orbing this EM flux.
Hunter wrote several rants, concluding with this:
So, what’s your side’s stated cause for the strong warming at high latitudes of the NH and the decline of sea-ice cover? And, where’s the alternative explanation for the increase in altitude for the tropopause in the tropics or the warming found to be occurring in the world’s oceans?
“We” (that would be your cult) are really good at ignoring the data and the science. You repeat the claim that there’s “saturation” of the CO2 bands, while ignoring the fact that the atmosphere is not a single layer of constant pressure, but the transmission must be calculated using multiple layers, each at lower pressure (i.e., density) than the ones below. Add to it is the necessity of calculating both the upward and downward emissions of each layer, instead of looking only at emissions from the Stratosphere.
You guys lost decades ago, but you keep slogging on. Must have something to with your political world view.
E. Swanson says:
”So, whats your sides stated cause for the strong warming at high latitudes of the NH and the decline of sea-ice cover? And, wheres the alternative explanation for the increase in altitude for the tropopause in the tropics or the warming found to be occurring in the worlds oceans?”
————————-
I am not sure ”my side” is a uniform side. My take for the cause of warming is roughly aligned with Drs. Syun Akasofu and Don Easterbrook. Ice feedbacks are a trailing indicator, a feedback if you will. seaice acts like an insulator over an ocean underneath that has a mean temperature much higher than the ice. Sea ice extent was observed to expand during the 1950’s through 70’s, the retreat then undoubtedly warmed arctic temperatures as suggested by increasing global temperatures during the 1920′ through 1940’s. The repeat of that in the naughts was actually characterized as finally reaching a level that was overriding natural variation which was given for the cooling of the 50’s through 70’s. They could have said the same thing 20’s-40’s after the cooling of the 1880’s through naughts of the 20th century if anybody had been taking Arrhenius as seriously as the doomsday cults of today. Back then they tended to either give doomsday cultists lobotomies so they could stay at home or if not that lock them up in a nut house. Today we are more tolerant of the emotionally challenged.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E. Swanson says:
You repeat the claim that theres saturation of the CO2 bands, while ignoring the fact that the atmosphere is not a single layer of constant pressure, but the transmission must be calculated using multiple layers, each at lower pressure (i.e., density) than the ones below.
————————-
I disagree with that and so does Nate’s source. You can have a single layer GHE and have the multi-layer fail.
Read the conclusion of what Nate believes to be proof of the GHE.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/9/jcli-d-19-0193.1.xml
You need to note the two levels of conditional statements. The saturation argument and then the decreasing emissions with height argument. The first is conditioned upon non-saturation. The second on falsification of the isothermal atmosphere hypothesis. But he failed to consider that water might simply intercept the returning radiation from additional layers and send it scuttling off into space. Thats because the most recent observations show the mid to upper stratosphere cooling showing reduced emissions with elevation but the hotspot is absent meaning that reduced emission occurred but failed to warm lower levels creating the hotspot because they just convected, cooled, and sent radiation to space in bands not intercepted by CO2.
The failure of the second multi-layer theory doesn’t imply failure of the single layer theory as the first layer actually touches the surface so nothing there is available to intercept it before getting to the surface.
Thus the single layer has a recognized saturation point. Rather strangely he implies it must be 4 layers, which really doesn’t make any sense. either you have intercepted all you are going to intercept in the first layer or its not a true layer, though some frequencies might be saturated, and become 4 layers thick, while others are not. In any case its a strange characterization as thats exactly what modtran suggests for a saturated single layer. . .and diminishing abso-rp-tion through the frequencies that are multiple layered that may also fail to register in warming at the surface as is being observed of the atmosphere in general.
It seems just a matter of time before folks get the balls to call out the Emperor as wearing no clothing. Apologists always have less balls.
Add to it is the necessity of calculating both the upward and downward emissions of each layer, instead of looking only at emissions from the Stratosphere.
You guys lost decades ago, but you keep slogging on. Must have something to with your political world view.
The other thing you should note from Nate’s alleged proof of the GHE link in the post of mine above is that, the original idea of the unique anthropogenic hotspot is it is shown to be existing in a part of the stratosphere that is either isothermal or increasing in temperature with height (e.g. more emissions, not less with elevation).
So even Nate’s favorite author pretty much panned the idea with decreasing emissions with height through about half the projected hotspot right off the bat demonstrating how literally half-baked the theory was back when James Hansen dreamed it up for the NGO industry (the whole reason he got the position as Director of GISS NASA in the first place).
Hunter offers some comments regarding sea-ice concentration before the satellite era, but provides no documentation to support his claims. Then he wrote about CO2’s absorp_tion being saturated in the atmosphere, an old claim since debunked. The reference he referenced from Nate points out:
But, you claimed that:
The single layer saturation claim is based on one layer at constant density which represents ALL the air within the troposphere. But, as Eli pointed out, using a single layer approach, it’s the wings which are not saturated and increasing CO2 concentration reduces the transmittance of those off center wavelengths. And, the saturation for each layer with declining density vs pressure altitude will not equal that of a single layer with constant density. One would need to calculate the sum of the transmittance for each layer, which will be different from that of a single layer. Not to forget that one must use an annual approach, rather than simply a warm season atmospheric model in such calculations (section 4-c).
Nate’s reference is rather complicated and I haven’t attempted to digest all of it, so my comments are not final. Maybe I’ll attempt to read all of it later.
So, have you read Pierrehumbert 2011 yet?
Nate says:
Do you also not believe in EM flux?
You already agreed that EM flux from a cool surface causes a warm object to cool more slowly, thus the warm surface must be abs.orbing this EM flux.
————————-
all I know and in accordance with 2LOT flux (or net flux if you want) moves from warm to cold and not vice versa. whether you know it or not thats also all you know.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter offers some comments regarding sea-ice concentration before the satellite era, but provides no documentation to support his claims.”
documentation comes in the form of ship transits and ship logs.
“You have been misled the tropospheric hotspot was defined in combination with mid and upper stratospheric cooling as the fingerprint of AGW.”
No, you have been misled by skeptics who made that claim. It is not a fingerprint of CO2, but warming from the surface.
I can even remember how they came to this conclusion. Several panels in the IPCC showed theorised temperature change throughout the atmosphere based on different ‘forcings’, including solar, volcanic and CO2. The hotspot showed up in the CO2 panel, but skeptics figured because it didn’t show up in the other panels that it must therefore be a signature of greenhouse warming.
What they didn’t realize was that the other ‘forcings’ had little to no warming associated with them. Even so, the hotspot was there, just not as sharply defined in the panels with very little warming from forcings.
skepticalscience did a piece on that in 2009.
https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
“When the surface warms, there’s more evaporation and more moisture in the air. This decreases the lapse rate – there’s less cooling aloft. This means warming aloft is greater than warming at the surface. This amplified trend is the hot spot. It’s all to do with changes in the lapse rate, regardless of what’s causing the warming. If the warming was caused by a brightening sun or reduced sulphate pollution, you’d still see a hot spot.”
Here’s realclimate describing the the hotspot in 2007.
“The basis of the issue is that models produce an enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere when there is warming at the surface. This is true enough. Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Ninos, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
It is ‘skeptics’ only who claim that the theorised tropical tropospheric hotspot is a fingerprint of greenhouse gas warming.
Which is why you will find no substantiation for this notion outside skeptic circles.
Bill,
I’ll quote John Christy on the hotspot. He was responding to this question:
“Can the hot spot in the tropics be regarded as a fingerprint of greenhouse warming?”
John Christy:
“An observed hot spot, however, does not imply GHGs are its cause since any forcing can generate the signal.”
https://mwenb.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Climatedialogue.org-extended-summary-the-missing-tropical-hot-spot.pdf
Barry,
You need to read SkS ”advanced” description of the hotspot and how it is unique to the greenhouse effect theory.
https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
compare the hotspot graphic that is solar caused vs the one caused by doubling CO2. then read the paper to understand the cold top of the stratosphere has cooled but the hotspot hasn’t developed.
Bill, the advanced article says the opposite of what you’re saying.
To quote the first paragraph of the article:
“A great deal of the confusion surrounding the issue of temperature trends in the upper troposphere comes from the mistaken belief that the presence or lack of amplification of surface warming in the upper troposphere has some bearing on the attribution of global warming to man-made causes.
It does not.”
And I already explained how ‘skeptics’ misunderstood the panels from the IPCC. The solar panel STILL has a hotspot, but it is much weaker because the FORCING FROM SOLAR IS MUCH WEAKER. IOW, the warming at the surface due to solar is very little, so there is correspondingly little response in the tropical troposphere.
‘Skeptics’ at the time paid no heed to the difference in forcing and therefore surface warming, and incorrectly concluded that the tropospheric hotspot was a signature purely of GHG warming.
The article shows two graphs at the trop, of a 2% increase in solar, which matches the warming at the surface from a doubling of CO2. In the two graphs the tropical tropospheric hotspot is apparent and nearly identical. The point being made is that the cooling of the lower stratosphere is the actual theorised fingerprint of GHG warming.
Look at the first 2 graphics in the article to corroborate this.
SkS is contradicting your view here. They call it, “This unequivocally incorrect claim,”
You’ve been duped by the skeptic milieu.
Do you think John Christy doesn’t know what he is talking about?
“An observed hot spot, however, does not imply GHGs are its cause since any forcing can generate the signal.”
Barry, you didn’t read the whole article.
”the difference in the two simulations is not the presence of a “hot spot” in one and its absence in the other, it’s the stratospheric cooling apparent in the increased CO2 simulation.”
The signature of ”enhanced” warming by CO2 is a hot spot with cooling of the upper stratosphere. The presence of a hotspot does not tell us that there is CO2 warming as it could be solar warming or any kind of top down atmospheric forcing.
It is further true you can have a single layer greenhouse effect without a hot spot. . .but a single layer effect is saturated.
the issue is an enhanced effect after saturation.
A single layer effect is one where all but a trivial number of photons in the CO2 capture band has been captured one or more times.
beyond about 4 captures the effect is nearly nil from additional captures unless another mechanism of forcing is envisioned. Enter Manabe and Wetherald to provide an answer in 1967 for the interaction of water and Co2. You have to create a hotspot at the level of the atmosphere where clouds are condensing (this is explained in the article).
Now I am not claiming this works. Its just how the models were developed and the example given shows what science believes is how the enhanced greenhouse effect operates within modeling code.
And since blackbox models that don’t publicly show how this is coded due to proprietary reasons between competitive modeling groups are deemed to be doing this per the IPCC and some uncertainty surrounding how powerful the effect is (what is the range? 1.5c to 12c? I forget)
Throw in the fact that the IPCC is only convinced that CO2 is responsible for at least half, the range expands to .75C to 12C with the other half being say a non-hotspot creating LIA recovery (inclusive of solar forcing that what included a record solar maximum in 1957 along with a mean record setting period of solar activity for 6 consecutive solar cycles ending in 2008.
Bill, you’ve got it completely wrong.
How did you misread the article so badly?
In the first two panels graphics that your quote refers to, the hotspot is present in both and virtually identical in intensity and shape. Look again – it’s the darkest red blob near the top of each graphic, the first being the result of a 2% increase in solar intensity, the second from a doubling of CO2.
https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
So when they say:
“the difference in the two simulations is not the presence of a ‘hot spot’ in one and its absence in the other, it’s the stratospheric cooling apparent in the increased CO2 simulation.”
They are saying it is the cooler stratosphere, not the hotspot, that is the fingerprint of GHG warming. Because the hotspot appears at the same intensity whether you double the CO2 in the model, or increase the sun’s output by 2%. That is what each panel is displaying the results for. You seem to be misreading this that they are saying the hotspot appears in one graphic but not the other. They’re saying the opposite. Look at the top 2 graphics of the article and you’ll get it.
How did you get this so wrong?
And why are you ignoring what John Christy said?
“An observed hot spot, however, does not imply GHGs are its cause since any forcing can generate the signal.”
https://mwenb.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Climatedialogue.org-extended-summary-the-missing-tropical-hot-spot.pdf
If you look at the first two panels in the advanced argument, you should get what SkS are saying. The hotspot is in both, despite having different sources of warming. It’s not a GHG signature, just as Christy says.
barry says:
”If you look at the first two panels in the advanced argument, you should get what SkS are saying. The hotspot is in both, despite having different sources of warming. Its not a GHG signature, just as Christy says.”
You are starting to get it Barry. If heating is occurring from CO2 there is a hotspot. If heating is occurring from the solar constant being higher there is a hotspot.
Thus an increasing hotspot is symptomatic of warming arising from the accumulation of heat in the upper troposphere generating a surface forcing.
It does not arise from an increase in ocean heat content and thus a reduction in cold upwelling in the ocean.
So you can tell the difference between the two by its impact on oxygen species. Increases in upper atmospheric cooling by CO2 is offset by increased warming of oxygen by the sun, if the warming is coming from the sun being more intense.
If upper atmosphere cooling is occurring without that solar oxygen offset then the upper atmosphere will be colder.
Thus a hotspot with upper atmosphere cooling is symptomatic of increasing ghgs creating a forcing via warmer temperatures in the upper troposphere and cooling in the upper stratosphere.
and a hotspot without upper atmosphere cooling is symptomatic of an increasingly active sun.
You won’t necessarily see a hot spot arising if the warming is due to say a recovery of the LIA and it stopped sometime in the 1980’s or 90’s and only feedbacks are causing warming as surface temperatures continue to warm primarily from a lack of ocean upwelling and sea ice retreat exposing warmer ocean waters and less surface reflection.
So maybe CO2 can cool the upper atmosphere more without creating a forcing.
And so three days later, Gill comes back with another rant that proves once again why he and Bordo share the Morning/Evening star status on the site.
Bill,
“You are starting to get it Barry. If heating is occurring from CO2 there is a hotspot. If heating is occurring from the solar constant being higher there is a hotspot.”
Hahaha! That’s exactly the point I made to you when you were saying that the hotspot is a signature of CO2 warming. You’ve forgotten what you used to believe.
The hotspot is theorised as a response to surface warming from any cause. Just as John Christy said.
“the tropospheric hotspot was defined in combination with mid and upper stratospheric cooling as the fingerprint of AGW.”
No, the cooling of the stratosphere IS a signature of GHG warming, and the hotspot ISN’T. The hotspot is theorised to occur whether the surface warming is from solar increase, fewer aerosols or space lasers waring the ground.
I’ll quote John Christy again.
“An observed hot spot, however, does not imply GHGs are its cause since any forcing can generate the signal.”
You are trying to shoehorn the idea of the hotspot being a GHG signature by saying that it appears as well as the stratospheric cooling, but the hotspot appears regardless of the source of warming (including whatever caused the end of the LIA). The REAL signature of greenhouse warming is the cooling of the stratosphere.
I’m quoting John Christry one more time, because I think you keep missing his words.
“An observed hot spot, however, does not imply GHGs are its cause since any forcing can generate the signal.”
So,
Hotspot does not equal GHG fingerprint
Cooling stratosphere does equal GHG fingerprint
We good now?
“Thus an increasing hotspot is symptomatic of warming arising from the accumulation of heat in the upper troposphere generating a surface forcing”
No Bill, that’s the wrong way around.
The accumulation of heat at the surface generates an amplified response in the tropical mid-troposphere, is the hotspot theory.
If the hotspot doesn’t appear in real life, it means that theories about the response of the moist adibiat to surface warming are faulty. It says nothing particular about GHG warming.
barry says:
The accumulation of heat at the surface generates an amplified response in the tropical mid-troposphere, is the hotspot theory.
If the hotspot doesnt appear in real life, it means that theories about the response of the moist adibiat to surface warming are faulty. It says nothing particular about GHG warming.
———————
I agree completely Barry. Science can prove something doesn’t exist all it can do show theory is false.
In this case the hotspot plus mid to upper stratospheric cooling was only a basis of the climate models.
They may have changed the climate models but seeing as how black box they are . . .who knows?
But at a minimum when the IPCC was selling us on the models being settled science we now know that was very likely BS.
So how can we now know if they are still shoveling BS?
Seems nobody wants to explain how the effect works anymore. So if it warms we how do we know it isn’t just Texas Sharpshooting? To be a recognized as a successful model you need to make a detailed enough of a prediction to make it a unique warming.
Experiments though need repetition and control models to build their case. Are we going to convert away from fossil fuels and if we get a response resume using them to see if the response goes away on command? LMAO! Nope this can’t be in the name of a science experiment, yet we know it is.
Tim,
You wrote –
“And in this case, germanium is transparent to the relevant IR (not opaque as you claim).”
Well, no,Tim.
I merely said opaque, and I am correct. Germanium is a silvery-grey metalloid, totally opaque to visible light.
I pointed out that IR photons pass through germanium as if the germanium was transparent.
Obviously, you beclown yourself pointing out to me what I have already said.
Maybe you could demonstrate your knowledge by telling me why germanium is transparent to infrared in some fashion which doesn’t resolve to saying “because it is”.
that is incorrect as there is no empirical evidence of a photon from a cold object to a warm object. it is nothing more than a term in an equation to estimate how many net photons will be absorbed by the colder object from the warmer object. leave it to bottom of the class physicists to go on a blog and claim its existence as something more than that.
Individual photons can be detected, even if you are unaware of it.
But you want to use different words to describe the same math and physics? Go right ahead.
It won’t change the outcome, which is all that really matters.
You see, when scientists get down to solving actual problems, we use the equations, which have been tested many times.
well nate your list of claims that you never have a source for just keeps growing and growing.
if you were at all educated in science you would be aware of the limits on what we know and don’t know. a medium that only allows energy to travel from hot to cold is completely consistent with what we know about the actions of energy. we just don’t know anything about what the medium is.
you are the one running around claiming stuff you know nothing about and for which you never come up with any science in support of.
“if you were at all educated in science”
Gee, often you complain that I am over-educated in the sciences!
So this is quite silly.
Nope I said you were only partly educated while being excessively inculcated whether it was intentional or not.
https://dhgutte.com/difference-between-educate-and-inculcate/
Again, if you want to use different words to describe the same math and physics? Go right ahead.
Because it will make no difference.
The temperature of colder surroundings will still influence the heat loss from warmer surfaces.
Science will keep calm and carry on without you.
thats generally what I have been saying my parens:
”The temperature of colder surroundings will still influence the heat loss (rate) from warmer surfaces.” and that it has no effect on equilibrium values where no cooling or warming occurs when the environmental temperature is the same as the object.
so all that can be perfectly packaged up as a discussion of temperatures and the fact that an object with a temperature has a resistance to warming that is a function of the 4th power of that temperature.
You get into talking about the alleged 2 photon flows and that one makes up that resistance is all unnecessary complications that may cause miscommunication.
barry wrote –
“Because its been tested empirically through spectroscopy and the results have been documented and are well-known. 15um is the strongest emission band for CO2.”
Rubbish. CO2, like all matter, emits photons with wavelengths which depend on temperature.
Spectroscopy tells you precisely nothing about the relationship between absolute temperature, wavelength or intensity of emitted radiation.
For example, you cannot determine the gases present in a dark room with walls of unknown temperature, by measuring any emitted radiation. As a matter of fact, you could not even determine whether the room contained anything at all, purely by measuring emitted radiation remotely through an aperture!
GHE cultists probably believe CO2 at a temperature of 1 K strongly emits 15 um photons!
Feebly, not intensely or even strongly.
“Feebly, not intensely or even strongly.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Swenson, I never started; please become better informed on the relevant physics.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
The intensity of the emissions change with temperature, or they broaden with pressure change, but the discrete spectral lines remain evident.
How do you suppose that astronomers determine what gases are present and at what concentrations on distant planets and stars?
They use the emission spectra of gases, which remain constant with different temperatures. The spectral patterns of gases are unique to each. CO2 spectra is strongest at 15um no matter the temperature, which is why we know the most abundant gas on Mars is CO2, and the same on Venus, despite having different temperatures.
That’s how we know that most of Jupiter’s atmosphere is primarily composed of the same gases that comprise the sun, although Jupiter’s upper atmosphere is thousands of degrees K cooler than the sun.
You’re flailing. Again.
barry…”They [astronomers] use the emission spectra of gases, which remain constant with different temperatures”.
***
What they are seeing is a spectrum of light radiated at different temperatures. Much of the light comes from the layers surrounding the Sun’s core near the surface and beyond. Hydrogen, emits at several frequencies as does helium. If they are emitting from intermediate layers representing different temperatures then you get a spectrum.
But, what is defined as h surface of a star? It’ all gas.
Some of the discrete frequencies will be far more prominent than others and astronomers are only concerned with marker wavelengths, that indicate as certain element. So, they will find hydrogen markers at many different positions in the spectrum. All they need is one, that will indicate a wavelength shift, indicating motion.
Tell it to Swenson. He seems to believe that gases radiate like blackbodies. He doesn’t understand that gases radiate at discrete frequency bands, which is how astronomers are able to discern what gases are present in distant planets and stars, regardless of their temperature.
You don’t seem to know that gases radiate differently than solids, Swenson.
“All heated objects emit electromagnetic radiation with a continuous distribution of wavelengths. It is useful to think of objects as solid objects since gases behave differently. Liquids can be even more complicated. In particular, a gas consisting of atoms of a given type emit discrete wavelengths (or frequencies) of electromagnetic radiation. We can understand, at least roughly, why gases and solids should be different in this respect. Gases consist of individual atoms (or molecules) far apart from each other. So the radiation from a gas is just the radiation from individual atoms. However, a solid is made of closely packed atoms (or molecules) which influence each other’s properties. Hence, the radiation from a solid is NOT the radiation from single atoms but the radiation that results from a complex connected system of atoms.”
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/panvini/p110b/f02/read19.html
“You dont seem to know that gases radiate differently than solids, Swenson.”
A gas at 20 C radiates the same frequencies as a gold bar at 20 C.
From Vanderbilt U –
“The spectrum of thermal or blackbody radiation is very similar for all objects at the same temperature; i.e., it is the same for most materials. This is a profound conclusion, and it was Planck who found the precise formula for describing this spectrum.”
You can establish what is not covered by “most materials” at your leisure.
If you disagree, your disagreement needs to be supported with verifiable fact, not fantasies or irrelevant analogies.
Photons are emitted and absorbed by electrons, whether you accept it or not.
From the same text, second sentence:
“It is useful to think of objects as solid objects since gases behave differently.”
Don’t know if your selective reading is deliberate or you are a victim of your psyche, but at least others can see where you went wrong.
And they can get an immediate insight as to how blinkered you really are.
“The spectrum of thermal or blackbody radiation is very similar for all objects at the same temperature;”
Gases are no different.
As an example, the gas in a gas cylinder in thermal equilibrium is emitting the same range of frequencies as the cylinder which contains it, regardless of density or pressure, and the air which surrounds the cylinder if thermal equilibrium exists there, too.
Gases which are excited emit particular frequencies – neon tubes, mercury vapour in fluorescent tubes emit UV, sodium vapour narrow band emissions, and so on.
So hot CO2 emits different frequencies than colder CO2.
No GHE. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature over the last four and a half billion years, and none of your silly diversions can make this reality go away.
“Gases are no different.”
Vanderbilt University is not impressed with your take.
“It is useful to think of objects as solid objects since gases behave differently…
Gases consist of individual atoms (or molecules) far apart from each other. So the radiation from a gas is just the radiation from individual atoms. However, a solid is made of closely packed atoms (or molecules) which influence each other’s properties. Hence, the radiation from a solid is NOT the radiation from single atoms but the radiation that results from a complex connected system of atoms.”
The atomic structure of gas molecules determine the signature of their emission spectra, which shows up as discrete emission lines. This is not the case for solid surfaces.
But please, do tell us why you are right and the physics department from Vanderbilt U is wrong. It’s a good day for a laugh.
“Vanderbilt University is not impressed with your take.”
Barry, please stop trolling.
I accept your tacit concession. Let’s move on.
barry, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
norman…I don’t know why you introduce red-herring arguments against the Pirani tube, like emissivity. It has nothing to do with emissivity.
Suppose you have an emissivity as low as possible and you have an electrical current running through a filament in the tube and its producing heat. With an evacuated tube, the only means of dissipating the heat is through radiation. If the emissivity is very low, it should cause the process to take longer and for the filament to heat more. However, even under those condition, when a gas is introduced into the tube, the heat is dissipated 260 times faster than with straight radiation.
In all the years I have studied electronics, no one has ever mentioned emissivity wrt a heated filament in a vacuum. When you run a current through any metal, in air, till the metal glows, the metal oxidizes, and tends toward rough, which means higher emissivity. If you look at the filament in the Pirani gauge photo it hardly appears to be shining. In fact, it the dull gray colour I asociate with filaments.
That’s the point of focus. Conduction/convection is 260 times more efficient at cooling a surface than radiation. The famous energy-budget theory has that backwards.
Gordon Robertson
You never do further research. In the design they state they intentionally use a very low emissivity heating element to reduce the effects of radiant energy.
No conduction/convection are not 260 times more efficient at cooling a surface than radiation. You are just bonkers. Believe anything with no logical thinking involved. Sad!
If the surface is very low emissivity it could be but the surface of the earth has an emissivity of 0.95 or so in the IR band.
At night the cooling is primarily radiant energy. Convection stops and moving heat through air is very slow. Air is a very good insulator.
You really are a clueless crank. I really doubt you have studied any physics. You read a few crackpot ideas on the Internet and they are your solid truth, evidence be damned!
“You never do further research.”
Norman, please stop trolling.
Where is it written that they use a low-emissivity filament to reduce radiation?
Get serious, Norman. If the only means of heat dissipation in a vacuum is radiation then the filament would heat inordinately. Do you seriously, think there are atom that give a hoot about emissivity? It is a human definition base on blackbody theory, which is sheer nonsense.
From wiki…”A heated metal wire (sensor wire, or simply sensor) suspended in a gas will lose heat to the gas as its molecules collide with the wire and remove heat. If the gas pressure is reduced, the number of molecules present will fall proportionately and the wire will lose heat more slowly. Measuring the heat loss is an indirect indication of pressure”.
It is clear that radiation is a poor means of heat dissipation and that heat loss via conduction/convection in a gas is the main means of heat dissipation.
We know that from home insulation. Most heat, by far, is lost via conduction and convection through the walls, ceiling, and floors. Radiation loss is trivial. Homes until recently were insulated using only an R-rated insulation that helps slow heat loss via conduction through those surfaces.
Gordon Robertson
Since you are not able to research things for yourself I did it for you.
Read this patent.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US2315671
From Patent: “According to my invention, I secure low thermal emissivity by making the surface of the thermal element of a material having a low thermal emissivity and of small tendency to corrode and secure a large effective perimeter by securing fins in good thermal contact with the heater Wire.”
This is one. I could probably find more but you are not worth the time at all since your are mostly a crackpot science denier. You show over and over you have not studied any physics. You are a poser pretending knowledge but it is flawed to the max.
It seems the only information you will consider valid is if it goes against established science or it is very old in origin. You peddle a Conspiracy theory that all current science is bad and not based on any evidence. You refuse ot accpet evidence when provided.
–Does it snow in Kiev Ukraine?
Snow covers Kiev for about 80 days per year (which were about one hundred in the previous decades, when the climate was colder). The coldest periods are those in which the Siberian Anticyclone settles in the country: in these situations, the temperature can drop to -20 C (-4 F) or even below.–
Next 7 day forecast:
31
24
29
24
33
28
36
32
37
32
33
26
29
25
26
23
Didn’t get to -4 F
Related…
The November CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) data has been published.
Here is the 36-month running average EEI compared to the UAH LT Globe data from this month’s headline post.
https://imgur.com/a/P3iCtWg
Anyone who think understanding is an art is an ijit. Understand could be defined as an art in a wussy discipline like philosophy, but not in science.
You must be silenced
https://youtu.be/sAwLnEh-IVU
The new-Nazi movement. The woman commenting is seriously obnoxious, based on her ignorance of real science.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Analysis of content from YouTube suggests a new form of climate denial is now dominating, focused more on denying climate impacts, solutions and advocates and less on denying global warming or its human causes.
https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CCDH-The-New-Climate-Denial_FINAL.pdf
Everywhere except at Roy’s!
“Everywhere except at Roys!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Are you trying to silence me?
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Looks like you do, Mike!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Or perhaps you’re just trying to make believe that you made me stop commenting?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here’s a better example, Mike Flynn –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1600370
This article represents the other kind of denial, a denial of real science. It also represents a new threat to democracy, the stifling of information under the guise that it is wrong. No scientific proof is required that it is wrong, only that a certain number of people agree it is wrong.
“In this Enlightenment battle of truth and science versus lies and greed, those on the side of science appear to have succeeded in persuading the public that anthropogenic climate change is a reality, which is why those who seek to undermine climate science have shifted strategy”.
This is typical of the propaganda offered by the so-called champions of the Green movement. They represent ‘science’ even though they cannot prove the basis of anthropogenic warming theory, that a trace gas can lead to catastrophic effects. The have to ‘persuade’ the public that anthropogenic climate change is a reality because the cannot prove it using real science.
Science to alarmists is what they agree upon by consensus.
Anyone who opposes their arguments are regarded as ‘undermining’ climate science. Yet, there is nothing in real climate science that can prove there is a greenhouse effect let alone prove that a trace gas can cause catastrophic warming/climate change.
Of course, we willy, being the alarmist galoot he is, digs out any kind of dirt from authority figures. I picture him sitting in the front row at their meetings, in short pants, wearing a beanie with a propeller on top.
https://www.hubert.ca/product/PAW.60225/Beistle-General-Occasion-DecorPropeller-Beanie
Bordo goes on another silly rant.
Every day he shows the limits of arguing with cranks.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Perhaps you should sit this one out.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Thanks for all the free advertising.
Let’s thank Graham D. Warner for revealing once again that he’s a Machiavellian prick.
I’m actually a pretty good guy. Thanks anyway.
Willard says:
Analysis of content from YouTube suggests a new form of climate denial is now dominating, focused more on denying climate impacts, solutions and advocates and less on denying global warming or its human causes.
https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CCDH-The-New-Climate-Denial_FINAL.pdf
———————-
”they have become safe spaces for the spread of hate, conspiracy theories and disinformation.”
Egads this sounds like something lifted from an address to Mao’s Red Guards in 1966.
Is the Red Scare in the room with you right now, Gill?
it appears you brought it into this room. and its disgusting. you really are a hater willard. dremt does have something to worry about your stalking and propensity to dox.
Your imaginary friends were here long before I was.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/the-five-questions-global-warming-policy-must-answer/#comment-334594
Thanks for the support, Bill.
There is the months’ May – June – July paradox.
–
Midle of May and midle July we have the same day-night duration.
So both months have the same amount of solar energy falling on Earth’s surface.
Nevertheless, May is considerably cooler month than July.
Also, month June has the highest amount of solar energy coming in.
But again, July is considered warmer than June.
Even August is warmer than June.
Why the end of summer is always warmer, in spite of having much less solar energy incom?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos writes:
You can’t be serious. The Earth is not like the Moon with a rather thin surface layer which gains or loses thermal energy over a shorter orbital period than the Earth. There’s a large thermal lag in the climate, especially so at higher latitudes. The sea-ice area expands to maximum in the middle of March (mol) then declines to minimum in mid-September. The ocean water which doesn’t freeze at higher latitudes also exhibits a time lag. Then too, there are the currents, such as the Gulf Stream and it’s extension, the North Atlantic Drift, in the Atlantic and the Kuroshio Current in the North Pacific, which also exhibit delayed seasonal variation.
Thank you, Swanson, for your response.
“The Earth is not like the Moon with a rather thin surface layer which gains or loses thermal energy over a shorter orbital period than the Earth. Theres a large thermal lag in the climate, especially so at higher latitudes.”
–
Yes, there is a large thermal lag. June is warmer than May – the nights in June are shorter and the days are longer than in May.
Thus the solar energy absorbed in June is larger than in May.
But why August is a warmer month than June? The nights in August are much longer and the days are much shorter.
Do you say, Swanson, that in August the solar energy gain is higher than the planet Earth’s EM energy IR outgoing emission?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Swanson,
“The sea-ice area expands to maximum in the middle of March (mol) then declines to minimum in mid-September.”
–
Very important – from middle of March till mid-September the days are longer than nights.
Thus, from middle of March till mid-September the sea-ice area declines. So it declines as long as the days are longer than nights.
Doesn’t that mean that till mid-September ocean gains more solar energy than it losses?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
swannie…I doubt that the sea ice minimum is in mid-September. Temps in the Arctic are below 0C by then. In fact, you only have about 1 month in the Arctic here temps rise above 0C.
If that is the case, I think the ice is being lost into the North Atlantic. We are more concerned with the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift Stream in the Arctic than other ocean movements. The TPD, in particulr dumps ice into the North Atlantic.
Gordo, Yes, some sea-ice is lost thru the Fram Strait in the East Greenland Current. That does not explain the loss of multi-year ice which is now being replaced with first year ice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Decrease_of_old_Arctic_Sea_ice_1982-2007.gif
Christos, You are still missing the magnitude of the time delay between the solar input and the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere, which has a large fraction of land cover. For example, look at the ocean night time temperatures:
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/product/5km/
You can go to the archives and compare that for last June 22 with 15 August. Or, look at the most recent 90 days with this animation:
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/animation/gif/sst_animation_90day_large.gif
In the Southern Hemisphere, things are reversed. July is likely to be colder than June, since it’s the Winter half of the weather year.
Swanson, it looks like there is a baseload of energy in Earth’s system.
It is rising up from the mid-March till mid-September. Then it lessens again to its baseload.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The sea-ice area expands to maximum in the middle of March (mol) then declines to minimum in mid-September. ”
–
The magnitude of expansion of the sea-ice is a definity sign of climate change.
When sea-ice expands more it is the climate cooling trend, when it expands less it is the warming trend.
–
What is fixed though is the duration of expansion and declining periods. They are firmly attached to the
(day hours/night hours) = ratio.
When ratio >1 it is declining of sea-ice cover
when ratio <1 it is increase of sea-ice cover.
–
A conclusion begs here:
The warming trend is due to the increased the solar energy absorbtion by the Earth's system.
In my opinion it is only could be explained by the orbital forcing.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…we need to define climate. One definition is an average of weather over a 30 year period and changing sea ice extent between seasons hardly qualifies as a climate change.
I know your native language is Greek and I appreciate how you re using the word climate. However, the word is used incorrectly even in English. The phrase ‘climate change’ is one example. It suggests a global climate and we know there is no such thing. Also, there is no evidence of climate change over the past 30 years.
That’s true in Vancouver, Canada Christos. Early August is likely the warmest part of the summer. Traditionally, June can be cloudy/rainy and that tends to give way to summer weather by the end of June. However, the rainy, cooler weather can sometimes extend into the first week of July. Then it can get hot right through till the end of August.
Gordon… Orbital forcing makes every next moment solar incidence to be a litle bit different than the previous day, or the previous year at the same date and hour, the solar income changes all the time.
That is why, yes there are seasons, but weather is not exactly the same at the same day and hour. – because there is already different solar input on that new day.
A little bit different, but different.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Walter R. Hogle
On January 6, 2024 at 11:37 am you wrote a reply to my anomaly graph for the German DWD stations, which I forgot to reply to.
*
” And this isnt important, but I am a bit surprised that the DWD was continuing operations even in the 1940s. ”
Surprised? Why?
Do you really believe that those in charge of weather stations can stop working when their country begins a cruel, destructive war against all surrounding countries (the looting of Jewish property and the killing of Jews, communists, socialists etc, in GESTAPO dungeons began around 1933)?
*
” Finally, anomalies are not temperatures; that graph has absolutely no representation of what has happened to Germanys climate. ”
Here are again the temperatures for 1941-2023 in anomaly form:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iEdxm4i1JxbVPOa_ZA5GVR1Er8OE2GY2/view
And here you see the original data in absolute form, out of which the anomalies above were constructed:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n1XsuuPoLUhMvtZg9SJoLPE4CX7Gc9Ss/view
*
Already here you might adapt your view to the reality – namely that anomalies are unduly discredited because they often look alarmist, as their data range is smaller than that for real data but is shown on charts with the same height.
{ By the way, I remind that at WUWT, a Gorman guy answered years ago to one of my anomaly charts something like ‘Anomalies are only there to increase the effect of CO2.’ To find that reply back within the WUWT history unfortunately would imply scanning some gigabytes. }
*
To show how things really look like in puncto ‘DWD’, I displaced absolute data and anomalies wrt their respective mean and plotted the result of their exact superposition:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K2p-p4MGPMveeFx067l2aEJfMzxUCXbT/view
Now you see how the two representations of temperatures really look like when plotted at the same scale.
*
Note that if the running mean line for the (red) anomalies hadn’t been plotted as a dashed line, you wouldn’t have seen the blue trend line behind; and to show a trend difference between absolute temperatures and anomalies needs polynomial means of at least 4th order.
Binny,
How are your absolute temperatures calculated?
Binny,
How did you calculate your absolute values?
Provide your trend line for each series as well.
binny…”Do you really believe that those in charge of weather stations can stop working when their country begins a cruel, destructive war…”
***
Definitely. They would not be allowed to continue with their research unless it was sanctioned as being a benefit to the war effort. Weather forecasting was important for aircraft and it was crucial for the D-Day landings. I doubt if it was regarded as important in communist Russia, or in any of the countries invaded by Germany, and especially not those countries invaded by Japan.
In other words, globally, it was likely unreliable during either WWI or WWII.
Gorman at WUWT was right, anomalies exaggerate the warming effect ridiculously giving the impression that current warming is a serious issue. Alarmists have been raving here about a sudden warming of a few tenths C, something it would be impossible to detect in a home. There is no way CO2 could cause such an effect, especially when the trend has been flat for 18 years between 1998 and 2015.
Why would anyone want to draw a common trend line between anomalies and absolute temps? Absolute values are based on an absolute 0C whereas anomalies are based on an artificial average which is dependent on a choice of whoever uses it. There is no 4th order polynomial ‘natural’ relationship between them.
A 4th order polynomial series is nothing more than a series such a 1 + x + x^2 + X^3 + X^4 relationship.
We are talking here on this blog of linear trend lines and a 4th order polynomial cannot produce a straight-line. If you want to get into trends that are non-linear, perhaps you could enlighten us as to your methodology. Essentially, you should be looking at the UAH data data points and trying to find a polynomial that will fit them. If you look at Roy’s 13 month running average, you can see that it fits the data but there is no way a defined polynomial could fit it over the entire range.
You’d have to break the data into intervals and try to approximate each interval with a polynomial. There are several sections where a sine or cosine function might fit.
Or, explain how a 4th order polynomial fits either that data or the absolute temperature data.
I mean, someone who cannot understand that the Moon cannot spin while keeping the same face pointed at Earth is not going to understand the vagaries of statistics. When I studied a year of statistical theory, the prof kept hammering into our minds how essential it was to establish a context for the problem. Simply plugging numbers into an Excel app, without understanding what they mean, can be dangerous wrt to conclusions.
Hogle
1. ” How are your absolute temperatures calculated? ”
How should they be calculated else than by downloading the full DWD data (here: hourly) from the subdirectories ‘historical’ and ‘recent’ for all available stations
http://tinyurl.com/DWD-station-data (d c syndrome)
and then processing that data with area weighting into monthly averages?
*
2. ” Provide your trend line for each series as well. ”
Wow. One could actually respond to such military tones with a cool
” À vos ordres, adjudant Hogle! ”
*
And… before I start a trend calculation for the DWD stations, I would first like to know what connection you have to true science and expect a clear statement from you about ignoramus Robertson’s brazen sentence (I deliberately overlooked the incredibly incompetent blah blah around it):
” I mean, someone who cannot understand that the Moon cannot spin while keeping the same face pointed at Earth is not going to understand the vagaries of statistics. ”
If, for whatever reason, you agree with such utterly unscientific nonsense, then why should I put in even an ounce of work to fulfill your above demand?
I do not have an opinion over Gordon’s statement. It’s just commentary.
Hogle
You perfectly know what I was in reality asking: whether or not you agree with such nonsense.
Whether it is supported by Robertson alone, or with him together by other ‘ball-on-a-string’ pseudo-science specialists like Clint R, the pseudomoderator or the Hunter boy, doesn’t interest me at all.
The Moon does spin, but it’s synchronized with its orbit around Earth, creating the illusion that it doesn’t spin.
Walter, which one of the two moons below appears to be rotating on its own axis?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The “moon on the left” (MOTL) or the “moon on the right” (MOTR)?
Walter, you’ve got it reversed. Moon does NOT spin, but many still believe it does because the belief started in ancient astrology.
The nonsense has been ongoing for years. You’ve [luckily] missed it.
The answer involves what “orbital motion without spin” looks like. (Study the graphics DREMT provided.). Orbital motion, without spin, is easily understood by the ball-on-a-string swung around someone. The ball always keeps one side facing the inside of its orbit, just like Moon.
As you can see, Walter, Graham D. Warner and Puffman gnash their teeth as soon as Binny mentions the motion of the Moon.
Walter R. Hogle
Thanks for the reply.
I can understand skepticism about GHE, man-made global warming and similar things, but not about scientific results obtained since centuries by so many people who used completely different observation tools and observation data processing methods.
Two ‘specialist’s are missing in the reply list to yours, but they will enjoy us soon.
*
Now back to DWD…
1. I generated two trend series:
– lifetime trends
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ep2bUk4I3wz1IjtrsMb308ZAfWjUmqKd/view
– trends for 1979-2022 (2023 isn’t complete, Dec not downloaded yet)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aCfxsmBeDTABufwIKHlrAfksRpP0bAYJ/view
Of the lifetime trend list, all stations with a lifetime less than 30 years were eliminated (what does of course NOT mean that their data was not considered for the global averaging process).
*
Surprising enough:
– only one of 160+ stations has shown a negative lifetime trend
– trends for 1979-2022 are very similar for stations with very different altitudes.
Exactly as when comparing for tide gauges their lifetime trends versus satellite era trends, most DWD stations having had enough data to compute their trend for 1979-2022 show a 1979-2022 trend higher than its lifetime counterpart, as shows an example randomly picked up:
00656 1948 2022 75 Braunlage: 0.45 >> 0.25 (C / decade)
*
2. Trends for the global DWD average, C /decade
Absolute temperatures
– 1941-2023: 0.18 +- 0.09
– 1979-2023: 0.56 +- 0.21
– 2000-2023: 0.76 +- 0.55
– 2010-2023: 1.62 +- 1.24
Temperature anomalies wrt 1981-2010
– 1941-2023: 0.16 +- 0.02
– 1979-2023: 0.52 +- 0.05
– 2000-2023: 0.59 +- 0.13
– 2010-2023: 1.17 +- 0.30
DREMT,
MOTL
Thank you, Walter. Yes, the MOTL is the one that appears to be rotating on its own internal axis…but that is the illusion.
“The truth is, the so-called “axial rotation” of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and devoid of physical meaning. It has nothing in common with real mass revolution characterized by effects positive and unmistakable.“
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
DREMT, Walter, and Tesla are/were observing from an accelerated frame on Earth where there is no lunar spin observed. Tesla got that right. Tesla then moved on to a conservation of momentum analysis showing the moon inertially spins on its own axis.
Ball4 lies about Tesla again. Every time he does, he loses a bit more credibility. Oh well.
What the hell is this miserable Tesla pamphlet compared to all the historical and contemporary works?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
Nothing.
What it is, is a nice little introduction to the discussion. Then there are two more articles from Tesla.
Pseudomod
I didn’t mean the one Tesla pamphlet: I meant them all, as I did read them all.
You yourself know very well that if there was a 100 page paper on the absence of any axial rotation of the Moon and someone was bold enough to discredit that work in such a superficial way as Tesla did, you would 100% certainly not accept it.
It introduces the “Non-Spinner” viewpoint. Walter can see what he makes of it, without us all having to have another lengthy discussion about it.
The non-spinners viewpoint is always from Earth, an accelerated frame. That’s why Tesla made the effort to use a conservation of momentum approach in his writings to show Earth’s Moon inertially spins on its own axis.
Tesla was always a “Non-Spinner”, Ball4.
“The non-spinners viewpoint is always from Earth…”
…and, this is wrong.
Well, there were a few astronauts that actually went to the moon and observed its inertial spin on its own axis from space proving Tesla was correct with his conservation of momentum approach analysis. Thus Walter is also inertially correct above.
The rest of us have only observed the non-spinning on its own axis Moon from Earth in an accelerated frame, as did Tesla.
Mentally visualising the situation inertially is not possible, according to Ball4. He is now arguing you actually have to go into space! Ridiculous.
No need to mentally visualize our Moon is not spinning on its own axis, Tesla just looked at it from an accelerated frame. And I’m fairly certain DREMT does too.
The mental visualization is needed for Tesla’s analysis in inertial space showing our Moon does inertially spin on its own axis arrived at by conservation of momentum.
Anybody can ‘visualize’ the moon rotating on its own axis or another axis at well. The imagination is a powerful thing.
I will rest my argument on the idea of an orbit being a rotation. So far no spinner has been able to describe the orbital motion as a separate unique motion by any other definition.
Do you care to take a shot at it?
Ball4, I mentally visualize the problem from the same POV as the tidal locking GIF. I must have told you this literally dozens of times. I’m fairly sure Tesla did too, hence his diagrams are all drawn from that perspective.
I never came to the conclusion that the moon does not rotate on its own axis from looking up at the sky and thinking "it’s not rotating on its own axis".
The problem was presented to me, from the very beginning of this, in diagrams drawn from the same POV as the GIF. That is how I’ve always thought about the issue.
Have I made myself sufficiently clear that you will no longer constantly suggest that I am looking at this from an accelerated frame?
I will if DREMT announces DREMT’s viewing position in the GIF each time DREMT refers to it. Some viewing positions will be accelerated (view only one face of the moon as from Earth like non-spinner Tesla) and some will be inertial, say from the GIF frame.
Now the "viewing locations" are in the GIF!
You couldn’t make it up.
Can you genuinely not understand that what I’m saying is I am mentally visualising the problem from the same POV as the GIF?
So of course it is "wrt the GIF frame". That’s the whole point of saying that I’m mentally visualising the problem from the same POV as the GIF!
If I were visualising the problem as if I were on Earth, watching the moon from out my window, I would say so.
Just write your location each time, it’s important.
If I (or Tesla) were visualising the problem as if I (or he) were on Earth, watching the moon from out my window, I would say that moon is not rotating on its own axis since can only see one face.
This is the same as Tesla viewing the MOTL from the center ring, watching the GIF moon from out his window, he would say that GIF moon is not rotating on its own axis since can only see one GIF moon face, a non-spinner (visualize a stick figure drawing of Tesla on the center ring).
So, of course, for watching the GIF MOTL from out my window on the inertial frame, I would visualize that moon on the left is rotating on its own axis since can see all GIF moon faces from my location on the inertial frame.
Tesla used an inertial frame to prove that inertial rotation of our Moon visualization with conservation of momentum analysis: our Moon inertially rotates on its own axis as does the MOTL visualized from the inertial frame.
Just respond to Bill, Ball4. You’re only trying to irritate. I specified "wrt GIF frame", and I’ve made clear (not for the first time) that this is always what I’m referring to, so I do not need to keep specifying it every time.
Hassle somebody else with your BS.
DREMT does need to specify observation each time or get Wiki to draw DREMT in the GIF frame. DREMT often puts up that frame with no X marking the location of observation. Location matters.
How can I be more direct?
Please respond to Bill, and not me. I am not interested in your BS.
He can’t respond to Bill because he doesn’t know what kind of motion it is.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum extent (the area in which satellite sensors show individual pixels to be at least 15% covered in ice) each September. September Arctic sea ice is now shrinking at a rate of 12.2% per decade, compared to its average extent during the period from 1981 to 2010.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wrong, Mike Flynn.
Here is a better example:
“I doubt that the sea ice minimum is in mid-September.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Wrong, Mike Flynn.
Here is a better example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1601134
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re still in my thread, Mike.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Still here, Mike?
” September Arctic sea ice is now shrinking at a rate of 12.2% per decade… ”
Sorry Willard, but this ‘is now‘ is a bit too far away from the current reality: it gives the impression that the rate of shrinking currently decreases quicker than earlier, what it is not.
The major point for climate change skeptics is that, while this rate is correct for the entire observation era, it isn’t anymore since around 2007, what is clearly shown even in the graph you linked to.
When I look at the data I download from
http://tinyurl.com/4wctuekm (d c syndrome)
out of which I can construct a similar chart
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e99zXXqnYQtWNEKRFtRFM1DmHpdXZIEL/view
I see that
– while the linear estimate for the entire period is -0.8 Mkm^2 per decade,
– a 3rd order polynomial fit – whose path is closer to the point set than a simple straight line – tells us a more nuanced story.
And it can’t be denied that the linear estimate since 2007 is now at merely -0.1 Mkm^2 / decade.
*
We can’t say on the one hand that
– it is not correct to cherry-pick a small period at the end of the Arctic sea ice data
but on the other hand say that
– sea levels measured by tide gauges can’t be averaged over their entire, respective lifetime when comparing their average trend (around 1.5 mm/year)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dvz115qfZXH95nkoIXF091JJsaasaAEn/view
to that of the satellite-borne altimetry for the period 1993-now (above 3 mm/year).
> but this is now is a bit too far away from the current reality: it gives the impression
Reality. Impression.
Learn the difference.
” Reality. Impression.
Learn the difference. ”
Simple, superficial, arrogant blah blah instead of discussion.
Sounds to me like Flynnson.
What about learning how to scientifically, technically discuss?
If I say that I now make 10000$ more per decade, Binny, you should not be replying “but you didn’t make 10K last decade.” You should be asking “since when”?
Your perception isn’t reality, and it rests on a misreading that would fail a descriptive stats intro.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re in my thread, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
You’re still in my thread, Mike Flynn.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Still here, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
After you, my dear Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
barry…”Surfaces CAN absorb radiation from cooler objects, or an infrared thermometer would not function below its operating temperature”.
***
You misunderstand how IR thermometers work. They are not measuring temperatures, only IR frequencies. The detector in such a device is not interested in converting IR to heat, only in relating the received frequency to a known frequency stored in its permanent memory.
The permanent memory, usually an EEPROM (electrically programmable read only memory) these days, has data stored in it derived from actual temperature measurements in a lab. The data represents known IR frequencies given off by a real heat source at a given temperature. The received IR frequency is being compared to these stored frequencies and th equivalent tmperature it represents..
The detector in the device is not activated by source temperature but by the effect of IR on a certain kind of semiconductor that reacts to IR frequencies. The detector output voltage or current will be proportional to the frequency received. It’s not acting as a thermometer, more like an ordinary receiving antenna in communications systems.
The reference to thermocouple (or thermopile) is misleading. A real thermocouple reacts to the actual heat in a source. A temperature gauge in a room thermometer is based on a coiled bi-metallic strip that coils and uncoils based on the air temperature in its vicinity. The coil is attached to a small vial of mercury that acts as a switch, as the coil moves, the vial moves and when the mercury flows down to one end it covers electrical contacts that turns on a furnace.
In IR detectors, the thermocouple reference is to a semiconductor device that acts similar to a real thermocouple but is not intended to sense temperature, only IR radiation. Therefore, the meter is not measuring heat produced by the IR, but just the IR itself.
“You misunderstand how IR thermometers work. They are not measuring temperatures, only IR frequencies. The detector in such a device is not interested in converting IR to heat, only in relating the received frequency to a known frequency stored in its permanent memory.”
The point is that the IR from a cooler object is absorbed by the warmer thermopile.
If the thermopile could not absorb IR from coler objects than it, there would be no measurement, and the device could not derive temperatures from objects cooler than it.
This is nothing to do with heating, this is entirely about this specific claim which you and others here have promulgated for years – that warmer surfaces cannot absorb IR from cooler objects.
If that were true, the thermopile could not absorb IR from any object colder than it. But standard IR thermometers at ordinary room temperature can absorb radiation from objects at -10 C. That’s because there is no impediment to a surface absorbing IR from a cooler object.
And that is why neither you nor anyone else promoting this silly notion has furnished even one single reputable source saying so. It’s all in your own heads.
barry, an IR thermometer is engineered to do what can not happen in nature. An analogy is a hammer and nail. The nail does not go into the wall by itself.
Neither you nor Gordon understand the science here. That’s why this is so much fun.
The IR thermometer is engineered to work in nature, Puffman.
Your turn.
Heh, Clint can’t explain how IR thermometers absorb IR from colder objects, so he invokes some mystical “engineering” that makes the impossible possible.
Yeah barry. It’s called “science”.
That you can’t explain. It might as well be magic.
Still waiting for any of your ilk to provide one reputable source substantiating the view that warm objects can’t absorb IR from cooler objects.
4 years now. Time to call it out. You’ve got nothing.
barry,
“Heat Transfer: The movement of heat from a warmer object to a colder one ”
Boston University.
barry, you’ve got it wrong, still. I never said a warm object can’t absorb from a cold object. I’ve explained that that would NOT result in heat transfer.
You keep misrepresenting me, hoping that will allow you to pervert reality.
Sorry, reality always wins.
Clint falsely claims: “I never said a warm object can’t absorb from a cold object.”
Clint last October: “If photons from a cold sky could somehow get absorbed by the surface”
Clint’s a funny entertainer and not much of a physicist. Clint’s reality often differs from nature’s reality. Nature’s reality always wins in science discussions.
goofball, “could somehow get absorbed” means “could somehow get absorbed”.
Get a responsible adult to explain it to you.
[Watching the idi0ts try to twist my words is one of the reasons this is so much fun.]
Ball4, could you provide a link for that quote from Clint?
Clint,
If you agree that IR from cooler objects can be absorbed by warmer objects, just say so directly. This is about radiative transfer, we’re not talking about heat transfer.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1601251
There was no twisting of your words Clint R, you were quoted verbatim.
barry 6:37 pm, I don’t normally include links as this site too often rejects them & there is google when the quote is verbatim.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1601264
Thanks DREMT, but now you’re going to have to explain it to the children.
It’s over their heads, so good luck with that….
barry 6:39 pm, Clint humorously doesn’t say so directly again at 7:16 pm.
This is saying so directly:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/07/updated-atmospheric-co2-concentration-forecast-through-2050-and-beyond/#comment-1338245
“Use “H” for the hotter object, and “C” for the colder object, rather than “A” and “B” — less confusion.
1) Both H and C will emit a spectrum, or range, of photons. The photons will range in energy from lower to higher. The higher energy photons from C may be absorbed by H, but they will not be able to raise the temperature of H. H would need a higher average energy than it has for its temperature to be raised. That would never happen from C.
2) Same answer as above.”
“The higher energy photons from C may be absorbed by H, but they will not be able to raise the temperature of H.”
In thermodynamics, one can’t get much more incorrect than that as that process violates both 2LOT (no hope for it) as well as 1LOT and maybe even more laws.
H has thermodynamic internal energy U before the photon from C is absorbed.
The photon from C has positive energy hv & when absorbed (not reflected, not transmitted) then H now has U + hv total thermodynamic internal energy consistent with 2LOT & 1LOT. A higher total U means a higher avg. U so H temperature increases as it must in this isolated process to increase universe entropy in the process.
Ball4, the squabble wasn’t about whether absorbed photons must raise the temperature of an object, or not. The squabble was about whether Clint R had said a surface can absorb IR energy from a cooler source. It turns out, he had.
No DREMT see 5:57 pm, the squabble was over Clint falsely claiming: “I never said a warm object can’t absorb from a cold object.”
See the now bolded word. Shown to be false by Clint R’s past writing on this blog.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2023-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1543525
The clue is in B4’s “last october.”
It’s time for a review. Goofball4, find a responsible adult to explain it to you:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1599076
Wherein Clint R writes a bogus statement then proceeds to show it’s bogus? I’m fairly sure Clint R agrees with himself. No need for an adult, just some way way too ease my laughing. Great entertainment Clint.
Too, I seem to remember I showed Clint how improve & to write that statement so it is not bogus.
Ball4 continues to troll.
I never started.
Yes, you started some time ago. You never stop, is the problem.
“I never started.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Psst, Mike Flynn –
“Project STAMP GK-12”
https://www.bu.edu/gk12/kai/
bOStOn UNiverSItY
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint:
“barry, an IR thermometer is engineered to do what can not happen in nature.”
I said that the thermopile absorbs IR from colder objects, so it seem you are saying this doesn’t happen in nature. Could you explain what you meant here?
barry,,
“The point is that the IR from a cooler object is absorbed by the warmer thermopile.”
Complete nonsense.
About as silly as saying that the heat from iced water is absorbed by a warmer thermometer.
Next thing you’ll be saying that an IR thermometer responds to “cold IR”, or some similar nonsense.
Heat flows from hot to cold. The transferred energy is in the form of photons.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1600564
Gordo pontificates again, writing:
Infrared thermometers, such as the typical hand held device, measure the intensity of the IR radiation entering the detector. They DO NOT measure actual wavelengths of the IR radiation.
“An infrared thermometer is a thermometer which infers temperature from a portion of the thermal radiation sometimes called black-body radiation emitted by the object being measured. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_thermometer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrometer
ES,
You wrote –
“They DO NOT measure actual wavelengths of the IR radiation.”, which is true but misleading.
I lifted this from the internet –
“An infrared thermometer uses a lens system to focus radiation onto an infrared detector that converts the energy absorbed into an electrical signal. The temperature inferred from the electrical signal is corrected for the emissivity of the source. Using optical filters, infrared thermometers may employ a very narrow range of wavelengths, whereas other systems may use a very broad range of wavelengths. In either case, the energy absorbed is related to temperature using Planck’s law. Broadband infrared spectrometers are relatively inexpensive and easy to use, but their accuracy suffers from the fact that emissivity depends on wavelength, thereby making corrections difficult. Narrow-band infrared thermometers do not face this limitation because the emissivity value does not vary appreciably over the wavelengths used.”
There is a lot left unsaid, wavelengths are not specified, nor is emissivity, nor what types of filters are involved. Generally, an observer just reads an instrument and believes the reading – unless it appears to conflict with reality.
Richard Feynman pointed out dangers of this belief in his report to the Rogers commission.
It doesn’t matter – there is no GHE, regardless of the mode of operation of IR thermometers.
Yes, Flynnson, the inexpensive IR thermometers can provide a false temperature reading. If the surface emissivity is low, such as polished aluminum, the temperature result will be lower than reality because the intercepted radiation intensity would be less than that from a black body. The same is true for selective surfaces, such as those employed in solar thermal collectors which have low IR emissivity, even though they appear dark in the visible range of the spectrum.
But they can measure the IR radiation intensity emitted from surfaces with lower temperature than the instrument. That’s because they really do absorb the photons from the colder surface, which the physics tells us is similar to what happens with the “back radiation” in the GPE effect. Too bad that you refuse to accept that reality.
ES,
You wrote –
“But they can measure the IR radiation intensity emitted from surfaces with lower temperature than the instrument. Thats because they really do absorb the photons from the colder surface, which the physics tells us is similar to what happens with the back radiation in the GPE effect.”
I’m not sure what the GPE effect is, but I assume you mean the GHE (which you can’t actually describe).
No, the photons emitted by ice are not absorbed by the room temperature IR sensor. Rather, the sensor emits photons because it is hotter than the ice. The rate of emission gives the temperature of the object it is pointed at, within design limits.
Heat passes from hot to cold, never the other way without work being performed.
No GHE. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature. You are possibly confusing the GHE with thermometers responding to ephemeral man-made heat.
Flynnson wrote:
Perhaps the sensor cools in the presence of a cooler object simply due to the type of photons it is not receiving. Maybe, in the presence of a warmer object, it is receiving a constant stream of higher energy photons, which are sufficient to raise the temperature of the sensor. Replace the warmer object with a cooler object, and because the sensor is no longer receiving those higher energy photons (or at least, not as many of them), it cools. Not because it is absorbing photons from the cooler object, but because it is not receiving those higher energy photons to maintain a higher temperature.
All hypothetical. I do not claim to know if any of that is correct.
The thermopile has a reference temperature as part of its construction, and a part that receives the IR. The reference temperature is usually kept near room temperature for most devices we use in public.
The reference part puts out a steady voltage, and the sensor absorbs IR from the target, which is focussed to it by a lens, and converts that IR signal to a charge. The difference between the two electrical charges is is how the temperature of the object is derived.
That is not how I read it works, barry.
What you need to provide is a reference to this technology Barry.
My understanding is there are a number of ways to detect cold targets. One is via voltage that can be negative or positive (i.e. the sensor gaining or losing heat)
Other more complicated ones may employ rare materials or pixel sensors that can construct images. I don’t know how many technologies are out there but there are definitely more than one.
Virtually all we know of photons beyond their Planck value and photoelectric effect is contained in quantum mechanics, which is just pure mathematics. That math has led to sophisticated experiments that have both failed and succeeded. Extrapolating physical attributes to photons that include the form by which it travels is well beyond our capabilities. There is hope that a unified theory of electromagnetics will emerge that will clear all that up.
Ok Bill.
https://www.heimannsensor.com/HMS-Series
This comes from a company that makes thermopiles. I’ll quote the relevant bit:
“We can now have a look at how a thermopile sensor works. The conversion of incoming radiation (heat) to an output signal (voltage) is based on the thermoelectric effect, also called the Seebeck effect. The thermoelectric effect describes the separation of charge carriers inside an electric conductor due to temperature differences. If one side of the conductor has a higher temperature than the other, the charges will be in disequilibrium. The degree of charge separation depends on the material and is a constant called the thermoelectric coefficient. It can be either positive or negative.”
https://www.newport.com/n/thermopile-physics
A very relevant part of that text is the use of the word “heat” to describe any infrared radiation. This is not the classical definition of heat, because it can come from an object of higher or lower temperature than the sensor. It is simply a stand-in for the longer term, “infrared radiation.”
Also worth noting is that the thermoelectric coefficient can be positive or negative.
I’ve read dozens of descriptions now, and most are like this. The IR is converted by the thermopile to an electronic voltage, which is compared against a reference voltage and the difference determines the temperature.
The full process of the device is a little more complicated, but the point is about the warmer surface of the thermopile being able to absorb IR from a colder object. We’ve already posted the temperature range that the devices can measure. Minus 10 C is fairly common as the lowest range, which is well below the temperature of the sensor.
Correction, it is ” The degree of charge separation” that can be positive or negative.
There is a description more germane to our discussion here:
“A thermopile infrared sensor has a number of thermocouples connected in series that have their ‘hot’ junctions attached to a thin infrared absorber, usually on a micro-machined membrane on a silicon chip. The exchange of infrared radiation between the absorber and the object in front of it makes the temperature of the absorber rise or fall, depending on the temperature difference between it and the object.”
https://www.electronicsforu.com/resources/demystifying-thermopile-sensors
So yes, the sensor can absorb IR from an object colder than the sensor.
“The thermoelectric effect describes the separation of charge carriers inside an electric conductor due to temperature differences. If one side of the conductor has a higher temperature than the other, the charges will be in disequilibrium.“
Exactly, barry. It’s to do with the temperature of the sensor, and how that temperature is affected by IR radiation is left entirely to the imagination. So, it settles nothing about the “is radiation from a colder object absorbed by a warmer object” issue. I thought this would have been clear from the discussion on thermopiles from the paper I linked to previously.
DREMT,
I quoted above a company that makes and sells thermopiles for infrared thermometers. We don’t have to consign this issue to the imagination.
https://www.heimannsensor.com/temperature-sensing
The exchange of infrared radiation between the absorber and the object in front of it makes the temperature of the absorber rise or fall, depending on the temperature difference between it and the object
If the IR comes from a colder object than the sensor, the temperature of the sensor drops. This from the people who make thermopiles.
The only way the sensor knows if the IR has come from a colder object is if it absorbs the IR. If the IR doesn’t interact with the sensor, there will be no reading. This operation absorbing the IR is described in nearly every description I’ve read on infrared thermopile sensors. The sensor is even called an absorber, as above.
This all makes perfect thermal sense. Why are people so keen to deny it?
manu: ”The exchange of infrared radiation between the absorber and the object in front of it …”
barry: ”If the IR comes from a colder object than the sensor”
—————————-
your premise doesn’t arise from the statement of the manufacturer.
as it doesn’t talk about what exactly was exchanged.
one exchange could be the warm object gave 5 calories to the cold object.
or it could be the warm object gave 10 calories to the cold object and the cold object immediately refunded 5 calories back to the warm object.
kiss principle for better understanding says to only consider the first option until and only if some reason arises you need know if there was an immediate partial refund. you don’t do it to make up some phony baloney argument that the warm object warmed from the exchange.
Bill,
“your premise doesn’t arise from the statement of the manufacturer.
as it doesnt talk about what exactly was exchanged”
You quoted it in the very same post:
“The exchange of infrared radiation between the absorber and the object in front of it…”
It’s in black and white, unambiguous, and you are trying to make it ambiguous.
But it’s not just that quote. The device is an IR detector. The thermopile is an IR sensor. The receptor is an IR absorber. The thermopile functions by absorbing IR.
I’ve provided links to descriptions from electronic forums, manufacturers of the device and science and tech related pages that all say the same thing. Trying to argue there is ambiguity here is the epitome of denial.
You are nit-picking when there are no nits to pick.
Any neutral reader would long ago have accepted that the IR-sensitive thermopiles in IR non-contact thermometers absorb IR.
The denial about this has hit absurd levels.
barry’s rhetoric-o-meter goes through the roof…
…sure, IR is absorbed by the sensor, if from a warmer object. That we can all agree on. The question is, is IR absorbed by the sensor, if from a cooler object? It doesn’t actually say anywhere that it is. You just assume it must be.
DREMT,
Like Bill, you are pretending there is ambiguity when there isn’t.
“The exchange of infrared radiation between the absorber and the object in front of it makes the temperature of the absorber rise or fall, depending on the temperature difference between it and the object”
If the object is warmer, the absorber temp rises. If the object is cooler, the absorber temp falls.
This difference depends on the IR absorbed.
How is this unclear?
And to corral here a different point you raised – the sensor definitely picks up varying IR from objects colder than it, or it would not be able to measure a range of temps from objects cooler than the sensor. If the sensor was not able to detect IR from an object at -5 C and another one at -10 C, how is the device able to tell you the temperatures of each object?
No, very obviously, the IR sensor is receiving IR from both objects colder than it, AND sensitive to the difference between the two colder objects, or there would be no temperature difference displayed on the device.
All objects below the operating temperature of the sensor would display the same temperature on the device if the IR sensor was insensitive to radiation from colder objects.
I’m not saying there’s ambiguity, I’m saying it simply doesn’t say “IR from cooler objects is absorbed by the sensor”. That sentence, or words to that effect, does not appear. At least, if it did, I assume you would have quoted it by now.
barry says:
Any neutral reader would long ago have accepted that the IR-sensitive thermopiles in IR non-contact thermometers absorb IR.
——————————
you just believe they would believe your argument. thermocouples don’t read ir they are simply very sensitive to temperature change.
tey read an electrical signal of the flow of energy through a thin wire sensor. ir does not travel through a wire.
Gill believes that thermocouples read temperature.
LOL!
Bill,
“thermocouples dont read ir they are simply very sensitive to temperature change”
And how do they get the temperature of the target object? From its IR! As over a dozen references I’ve supplied have told you.
The spin from deniers of IR device mechanics continues its absurd trajectory.
“I’m not saying there’s ambiguity, I’m saying it simply doesn’t say ‘IR from cooler objects is absorbed by the sensor’.”
It doesn’t need to be said because the sensors absorb IR from warmer and colder objects. The authors didn’t imagine anyone would need to have cold objects specified.
Every description I’ve found of how IR thermopiles works says that it operates by absorbing IR. What is missing from every description is any caveat that this doesn’t apply to colder objects. THAT would make YOUR case.
And what is missing entirely from the discussion, and has been for more than 4 years, is a link to a reputable source saying warm objects cannot absorb radiation from cooler objects.
After 4 years of asking and no result, we can safely assume this nonsense doesn’t appear in any physics text, because the notion is fiction.
If you can’t concede that by now, then you are no true skeptic.
Maybe warm objects can absorb radiation from cooler objects, I don’t claim to know either way. I’m just pointing out that what you’ve found in your IR thermometer search doesn’t actually say that they can.
Kirchhoff’s law says they can, and do, abs’orb IR from any source.
There is a reason why no physics text explicitly states that warm objects receive radiation from cool objects.
It’s the same reason why no physics text says that warm objects cannot receive radiation from cool objects.
It’s because no one thought that some numbskulls somewhere would ever contest that warm objects receiving radiation from cooler objects somehow breaks the laws of physics.
Physics texts explain that absorp.tance is dependent upon the optical properties of the receiving surface.
That’s why it is always said that a black surface absorbs visible light better than a white surface, and why it is NEVER caveated that absorp.tion doesn’t happen if the temperature of the receiving surface is colder than the source.
This notion has been a big pile of erroneous distraction for 4 years.
indeed all we ever detect is a net flow or a select frequency. nates photon count is computed from the input flow against a reference temperature. he mistakes mathematical calculations as a manifeatation of physical reality. he is a spinner for the same reason as he can’t distinguish between form (SIR) and substance (OPR).
“indeed all we ever detect is a net flow or a select frequency”
We also detect intensity of radiation from a single vector, which is what the IR sensors on the thermocouples of hand-held IR thermometers do.
barry says:
”We also detect intensity of radiation from a single vector”
that would be net intensity Barry.
the only way that one could measure ’emitted’ IR intensity based on the photon model as opposed to other energy models where what is emitted may already be netted. . .is for the sensor to be at absolute zero before exposure.
thats because the signal being measured is based upon how fast the sensor is warming. And even with the photon model as the apriori assumption, the temperature of the sensor will slow the warming.
So even if you get the ‘assumed’ full emission signal by reducing the sensor temperature to absolute zero you are still getting a net figure where the resistance to warming is zero. . .thus you can’t prove the photon model by reducing the sensor temperature to zero k.
The only thing we know about photons is how much energy they have and we only know that because all we can measure is their action on other objects. The photon model is just a SIR to provide a basis for calculations of net energy received.
Thus its a lot easier and more understandable with less chance of miscommunicating to just talk about how fast things will warm when a light is shown on an object with a given temperature. Trying to explain a level below that and confusion sets in.
Suggesting photons from cold objects warming anything is laughable. Yes you can slow cooling by replacing an even colder object with a less cold object. But that only affects low temperatures. And since water is the big dog in this game folks need to deal with the unusual aspects of water. Like the mpemba effect where when cooled warmer water will freeze faster than cooler water. Nobody has figured out why that is yet.
“It’s because no one thought that some numbskulls somewhere would ever contest that warm objects receiving radiation from cooler objects somehow breaks the laws of physics.“
Calm down, barry. First, it’s absorbing, not receiving. Second, I’m not sure either way. So I’m not contesting anything, personally.
The thing is, I wouldn’t have had any problem at all with the idea of warm objects absorbing radiation from cool objects if it hadn’t been contested that this makes the warm object warmer still (when the warmer object is heated from another source, at the same time). That nonsense has made me question everything. So, I blame it on you guys. You’ve brought it on yourselves.
“the only way that one could measure ’emitted’ IR intensity based on the photon model as opposed to other energy models where what is emitted may already be netted… is for the sensor to be at absolute zero before exposure.”
And yet hand-held devices with sensor at room temperature measure objects colder than the device.
Not sure what you mean by ‘photon’ model. There are devices that measure the frequency of radiation to gauge temps – they’re called quantum thermometers, used for highly precise measurements of IR. They ARE cooled.
The hand-held IR thermometers aren’t sensitive to frequency, just to intensity. I posted a tech source saying so here a day or two ago.
With no explanation as to how.
Computer, how do thermocouples work:
https://youtu.be/v7NUi88Lxi8?si=G3dv6HmZLm71MA52
With no explanation as to how…the hand-held IR thermometers aren’t sensitive to frequency, just to intensity.
DREMT,
I’ve provided a great many links and all you do is say not good enough.
Have you spent any time at all looking up the information for yourself?
You seem to be interested in discovering WHY the sensor is sensitive to IR intensity and temperature changes. All I can tell you is that they choose material for the sensor that has these properties, and often coat the sensor black for best absorp.tion.
If you want to delve more deeply, go for it. But I’ve provided many links giving enough information to know that the devices operate by absorbing IR and changing temperature, that they do record a range of temperatures lower than the operating temperature of the device/sensor, and that there are no caveats on how it operates in such circumstances.
You’ve been provided with enough corroboration to settle the point and have made no effort to educate yourself on the topic. Perhaps you should start.
“Have you spent any time at all looking up the information for yourself?”
Yes.
“…the devices operate by absorbing IR and changing temperature…”
Well, you have a problem there. Since according to you guys, any absorp.tion of back-radiated IR, when there is a heat source present providing a steady supply of energy, should lead to warming of the sensor…but clearly the sensor cools when pointed towards a cooler object.
Yes thats the crazy thing about all this.
SB says a blackbody object exposed to another blackbody will heat until reaching equilibrium. They don’t talk about insulation and clearly didn’t do their experiment in space looking at the stars.
What that means is
1) a blackbody urface under the sun with no greenhouse gases will warm to equilibrium with 1/4 the solar constant. This actually was premise #1 of the 3rd grader radiation model.
2) A thin highly conductive blackbody plate would still have a resistance to heat passing through it. That resistance might be incredibly small as such it could warm rapidly to the halfway point then only warm on the disposition of that very small resistance.
Cooling the web telescope was a process that took months to get it down to its minimum passive cooling level of 37k thats not much cooling in the time Swanson ran his experiment same problem with warming working up the T4 scale.
3) So it it doesn’t warm you have to calculate the convective losses related to gas molecules that still remain in the test to ensure they aren’t responsible for a lack of warming.
4) through this process one would expect the atmosphere to reach equilibrium being heated by convection perhaps higher due to the oscillating input source.
5) if the atmosphere isn’t at least equilibrium the addition of GHG will cause the top part to cool kicking convection back in.
6) there is just something weird about GHGs cooling the upper atmosphere at the same time as warming it. Sort of a moon walk that is illusion rather than reality.
7) the 3rd grader model made more sense but tests show that doesn’t work either.
“but clearly the sensor cools when pointed towards a cooler object.”
That is the whole point, that the T of the surface of the sensor rises or falls when the T of the source rises or falls.
And?
Nate says:
And?
——————–
It is measuring the electromagnetic cooling or warming of the sensor depending upon if, respectively, the sensor is warmer or colder than the target.
None of this spaghetti-language nonsense around here about backradiation warming something. . .sheesh!
“None of this spaghetti-language nonsense around here about backradiation warming something. . .sheesh!”
You guys need to be able to hold two or three facts in your brain at the same time, and put them together.
1. You guys seem to be agreeing that the T of the surface of the sensor rises or falls when the T of the surroundings rises or falls.
2. That is the whole point of the discussion, whether
a cool surroundings can make a HEATED surface warmer than it would be with a colder surroundings. Radiatively or otherwise.
3. That is exactly what is involved in the GHE. Since the atmosphere is surrounding the Earth’s surface which is heated by the sun. And the atmosphere, though cooler than the surface is MUCH warmer than outer space.
4. Thus the surface will get warmer than it would be without the warmer atmosphere surroundings. And yes, the surface heat IS what is warming the atmosphere, and that is ok.
So why can’t you guys put these facts together?
Nate says:
”You guys need to be able to hold two or three facts in your brain at the same time, and put them together.”
”1. You guys seem to be agreeing that the T of the surface of the sensor rises or falls when the T of the surroundings rises or falls.”
check
”2. That is the whole point of the discussion, whether
a cool surroundings can make a HEATED surface warmer than it would be with a colder surroundings. Radiatively or otherwise.”
check
”3. That is exactly what is involved in the GHE. Since the atmosphere is surrounding the Earths surface which is heated by the sun. And the atmosphere, though cooler than the surface is MUCH warmer than outer space.”
check
”4. Thus the surface will get warmer than it would be without the warmer atmosphere surroundings. And yes, the surface heat IS what is warming the atmosphere, and that is ok.”
check
None of that is disputed by me. but the question isn’t some bunny trail argument about backradiation its about temperature differences.
So you have a chicken and egg problem. We agree that the surface is what is warming the atmosphere. The atmosphere has to follow the same rules as the surface. So once again how did the surface get warmer so it could warm the atmosphere more? You left out that part in your checklist of facts.
“…the devices operate by absorbing IR and changing temperature…”
Well, you have a problem there. Since according to you guys, any absorp.tion of back-radiated IR, when there is a heat source present providing a steady supply of energy, should lead to warming of the sensor…but clearly the sensor cools when pointed towards a cooler object.
… because now the sensor is absorbing less radiation than it was a moment ago when pointing at a warmer background. No problem. In your normal kitchen:
IR thermometer with a boiling teakettle in its view reads 212F
IR thermometer then with a glass of ice water in its view reads 32F
Point missed.
“Since according to you guys, any absorp.tion of back-radiated IR when there is a heat source present providing a steady supply of energy, should lead to warming of the sensorbut clearly the sensor cools when pointed towards a cooler object.”
warming of the sensor relative to what initial situation.
Relative to MORE IR absorp.tion back-radiated from a warmer source? Obviously not.
Relative to LESS IR absorp.tion back-radiated from a colder source? Obviously so.
Point missed.
“So once again how did the surface get warmer so it could warm the atmosphere more? You left out that part in your checklist of facts.”
Warmer than what?
I’ll just quote myself and explain, again:
"Point missed."
The point being that an IR thermometer does not and cannot prove the GPE. This will be repeated as many times as is necessary.
The 1lOT and 2LOT prove the GPE. The IR thermometer uses same principles as GPE, and more.
The point being that an IR thermometer does not and cannot prove the GPE. This will be repeated as many times as is necessary.
“The point being that an IR thermometer does not and cannot prove the GPE. ”
Evidence is rejected now matter how good, without rationale.
Thats what religious belief enables one to do.
“…the devices operate by absorbing IR and changing temperature…”
Well, you have a problem there. Since according to you guys, any absorp.tion of back-radiated IR, when there is a heat source present providing a steady supply of energy, should lead to warming of the sensor…but clearly the sensor cools when pointed towards a cooler object.
The only possible counter to this argument is that you could say an IR thermometer cannot allow “a heat source present providing a steady supply of energy” through to the sensor at the same time as energy from the cooler object (due to FOV). The device would simply attempt to measure the temperature of the heat source even if it were possible. This counter is ultimately self-defeating, as it would suggest it is simply not possible for the device to prove the GPE.
The point being that an IR thermometer does not and cannot prove the GPE. This will be repeated as many times as is necessary.
Lots of good explanation has been made here, of how the thermopile’s temperature increases when the surroundings temperature increases, even when the surroundings are COLDER than the sensor.
And this is exactly the behavior that can explain the GPE, where the green plate is the cooler surroundings of the blue plate, and yet warmer than the previous surroundings (space), and thus the blue plate warms in response to the GP being present.
But somehow this very clear point is missed or dismissed.
“The only possible counter to this argument is that you could say an IR thermometer cannot allow “a heat source present providing a steady supply of energy” through to the sensor at the same time as energy from the cooler object (due to FOV)…”
…not to forget that the sensor is only receiving any energy from one side, unlike the BP. How could the GPE possibly function with both heat source and GP radiating to the same side of the BP!? I guess some people just can’t think straight.
The point being that an IR thermometer does not and cannot prove the GPE. This will be repeated as many times as is necessary.
“not to forget that the sensor is only receiving any energy from one side, unlike the BP. How could the GPE possibly function with both heat source and GP radiating to the same side of the BP!? ”
Ugggh.
People forget that the thermopile sensor has TWO sides. One side being radiated by a source. The other side exposed to ambient T.
The difference in T between the two sides causes a calculable HEAT flow to conduct through the material separating the two sides.
It is this difference in T which is measured, and the HEAT flow calculated, which must balance with the radiative flux.
OMG, somebody keeps responding, I’m not sure why:
The point being that an IR thermometer does not and cannot prove the GPE. This will be repeated as many times as is necessary.
A more scientific point being that a kitchen IR thermometer works with radiation from ice water & is based on same principles as GPE so the IR thermometer validates the GPE thought experiment and invalidates DREMT’s solution.
DREMT is welcome to remain mistaken (as Nate & IR thermometers show) long as is necessary to DREMT.
Everything validates the GPE according to you guys. Please stop responding.
DREMT,
From a company that makes and sells thermopiles for infrared thermometers, as I quoted and linked above.
https://www.heimannsensor.com/temperature-sensing
“The exchange of infrared radiation between the absorber and the object in front of it makes the temperature of the absorber rise or fall, depending on the temperature difference between it and the object”
If the IR comes from a colder object than the sensor, the temperature of the sensor drops.
The only way the sensor knows if the IR has come from a colder object is if it absorbs the IR. This operation – absorbing the IR – is described in nearly every description I’ve read on infrared thermopile sensors. The sensor is even called an absorber in this technical description.
This all makes perfect thermal sense. Why are people so keen to deny it?
It’s why I wrote my 9:37 AM comment, yesterday, barry. I’m not denying anything, I just haven’t made up my mind on the issue (and you know that). I can’t see how the thermopile thing is any different to anything else – it doesn’t resolve the issue either way. The sensor’s temperature rises and falls depending on whether the object it’s pointed at is warmer or cooler…but we know that’s generally how things work. Objects cool or warm depending on whether they’re in "thermal contact" with cooler or warmer "other objects". No surprises there. I think you’re reading into things that which confirms your pre-existing bias. Whereas I’m genuinely not sure either way, and I just look at the evidence and think…well, nothing’s conclusive.
I’m not reading INTO, I’m just reading. The thermopile sensor absorbs IR, and correspondingly changes temperature. If the target object is colder than the sensor, the IR is absorbed and the temperature drops.
I started a few days ago making the point that IT thermometers are a fine example of warmer objects absorbing IR from cooler objects. Since then I’ve quoted companies making them saying exactly that.
I’m not reaching any further than these companies have stated themselves.
IR from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer objects. It’s a fundamentally important point, one that is a significant source of disagreement in our conversation that will eventually lead back to the GHE.
barry, the closest you’ve got to a quote from a manufacturer saying that IR from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer object is:
“The exchange of infrared radiation between the absorber and the object in front of it makes the temperature of the absorber rise or fall, depending on the temperature difference between it and the object”
Now, to you, that somehow seems conclusive. To me, an “exchange of infrared radiation” says absolutely nothing about whether the warmer object absorbs from the cooler.
Even if you could somehow prove that it does mean what you think it means…Clint R’s way of looking at the issue explains how even if some of the photons from the cooler object were absorbed by the warmer, the warmer object does not get warmer still as a result, anyway.
“To me, an “exchange of infrared radiation” says absolutely nothing about whether the warmer object absorbs from the cooler.”
I think you’re bending backwards to deny what is plain English.
The sensor is called an IR absorber.
It absorbs IR.
If the object is colder than the sensor, the absorbed IR makes the temperature of the sensor cooler.
Every description talks about the sensor detecting the IR from the source. It does this by absorbing the IR. Here we are again:
https://www.te.com/content/dam/te-com/documents/sensors/global/analog-digital-thermopile-application-note.pdf
In which we see a diagram with the sensor labeled ‘absorber’.
And here is yet another description:
“The exchange of IR radiation between the absorber and the object in front of it makes the temperature of the absorber rise or fall, depending on the temperature difference between it and the object. This process is governed by Plank’s law of blackbody radiation (fig. 3), and Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiative heat transfer (fig.2).”
https://www.fierceelectronics.com/components/demystifying-thermopile-ir-temp-sensors-0
It’s not ambiguous. The sensor absorbs IR from objects both cooler and warmer than it (and also the same temperature). That’s why it is called an absorber.
It really can’t be any plainer, and multiple sources confirm.
“Even if you could somehow prove that it does mean what you think it means… Clint R’s way of looking at the issue explains how even if some of the photons from the cooler object were absorbed by the warmer, the warmer object does not get warmer still as a result, anyway.”
Clint is wrong in a couple of ways, but only one of them matters.
It doesn’t matter that he believes only a portion of the “right” kind of radiation from the cooler body is absorbed – the point is that he accepts that it is absorbed *.
If an object absorbs energy, that changes its energy balance.
That is a simple fact of physics. An object cannot absorb energy and be unaffected by it. That would contravene the 1st Law. Energy cannot just disappear.
A rock in space cools more slowly if the environment surrounding it is warmer than a cooler environment surrounding it.
That’s because it absorbs IR from the cooler environment.
Clint agrees with this, even though he is picky about which of the radiation from the environment is absorbed by the rock. His view leads to the conclusion that more radiation would be absorbed by a 300K rock if the environment is 200K rather than 100K. The rock cools more slowly because it is taking on more energy in the warmer environment. It is the balance of incoming/outgoing radiation that determines the rate of cooling of the rock.
This is a conclusion that even Clint’s incorrect view accommodates. Absorbed energy is not destroyed.
I’ve had a couple dozen of these descriptions in my tab at any one time. Here’s another.
“When the external infrared radiation irradiates the absorp.tion area of the detector, the absorp.tion zone absorbs the infrared radiation”
Could it be any plainer that the sensor absorbs IR?
https://www.yysensor.com/news/the-working-principle-of-thermopile-infrared-sensor-thermoelectric-effect/
Barry says:
”That is a simple fact of physics. An object cannot absorb energy and be unaffected by it. That would contravene the 1st Law. Energy cannot just disappear.”
Barry makes a point not even in contention and his continued pursuit of the argument suggests that he doesn’t understand that if I give him a sawbuck and he immediately gives back a fin results in the exact same outcome as if all that happened was I gave him a fin.
He seems to want to pursue the argument to the end of time that one violates some law of physics and the other doesn’t. . . Its beyond me to explain why he gets that it doesn’t make any difference.
Bill,
“he doesn’t understand that if I give him a sawbuck and he immediately gives back a fin results in the exact same outcome”
But I’m not contesting that. You are simply missing the point.
You agreed upthread that a warmer environment will slow cooling of an object.
As soon as I make the environment radiative you hem and haw and apply rhetoric, but it seems you are not able to explain how a 400K rock in space cools more slowly surrounded by 200K walls than 100K walls.
It’s obvious that when the only information the rock gets is the infrared radiation from the walls, that this is the cause of the slower cooling. The rock loses energy slower because it is absorbing more energy from the warmer environment.
Why do you start spouting rhetoric instead of either agreeing with this, or else explaining why this is incorrect?
barry says:
he doesnt understand that if I give him a sawbuck and he immediately gives back a fin results in the exact same outcome
But Im not contesting that. You are simply missing the point.
You agreed upthread that a warmer environment will slow cooling of an object.
————————-
your objective isn’t clear because if the cold object receives 10 watts, and immediately refunds 5 watts your theory also says it sends 5 watts to empty space.
its the same for the next level also. the cold object that gets 5 watts in either case then sends that 5watts off to space with no temperature change.
all depictions I have seen of theory is the cold atmosphere sending off all it receives in two directions leaving zero to warm the atmosphere. But we know from above there is a 5watt loss of the surface going up and thats what gets sent to the next level. So how does the atmosphere warm if not from the surface?
apparently not from surface radiation.
barry continues to read into things that which confirms his pre-existing bias.
People continue to make non-responsive replies. DREMT’s rhetoric, and for Bill…
Bill,
“your objective isnt clear because if the cold object receives 10 watts, and immediately refunds 5 watts your theory also says it sends 5 watts to empty space.”
I’m talking about an object in an enclosure. You are talking about something else. The rock doesn’t radiate to space, it radiates to the walls of the enclosure, and is irradiated by the IR coming from the walls.
You agreed upthread that an object could more slowly in a warmer environment. That is the basis for my point here.
A rock cooling in a purely radiative environment should could more slowly if the walls of the environment are warmer. Right?
I’m saying that if the only thermal activity is radiative, then the 400K rock cools more slowly in an environment with 200K walls than 100K walls because it is absorbing more IR radiation in the 200K environment than the 100K environment.
Because you agreed above that the rock should cool more slowly in the warmer environment, I’m asking you to either agree with the mechanism I’ve laid out here, or to explain why else the rock cools more slowly in the 200K radiative environment than the 100K.
Is this clear?
There was never a “responsive” reply to this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1601737
So, here we are.
That’s easy to answer.
The IR thermometer displays a range of temperatures below the operating temperature of the sensor, down to -10 C in many devices.
If it not absorbing the photons from temps lower than the device, how does it tell a variety of different temperatures below the device temperature?
Your hypothesising results in no information being imparted to the sensor when the target object is colder. This would result in a single output reading – a cut-off point at the operating temperature, below which no information (photons) is being picked up.
But the gradation of temperature values beneath the device operating temperature tells us that the IR-sensitive sensor on the thermopile is able to read those different (lower) temps via IR.
“If it not absorbing the photons from temps lower than the device, how does it tell a variety of different temperatures below the device temperature?”
…through the energy levels of the photons it is not receiving.
Could you be more specific?
IR thermometer points at -5 C object and a -10 C object, how does it know the difference in the IR being emitted by each?
(both objects are colder than the IR sensor)
“IR thermometer points at -5 C object and a -10 C object, how does it know the difference in the IR being emitted by each?”
The -5 C object will be emitting more photons of a higher energy level than the -10 C object. So, when pointed at the -10 C object, the sensor is not receiving the higher energy photons that the -5 C object emits (or, not as many of them), thus the temperature of the sensor falls.
While I disagree with this description (IR thermopile sensors measure IR intensity, not wavelength), it actually doesn’t matter for the point.
“So, when pointed at the -10 C object, the sensor is not receiving the higher energy photons that the -5 C object emits (or, not as many of them)”
It seems you have just agreed that the sensor absorbs radiation from both cooler objects, but it absorbs less radiation from the colder of the two objects.
is that a fair summation?
“(IR thermopile sensors measure IR intensity, not wavelength)”
Oh? Tell me more. I’m always interested to learn, and may need to revise what I’m saying accordingly. I’ll stop here until you explain more about how they measure IR intensity and not wavelength.
It doesn’t actually matter for the point, but here you go.
“Thermal detectors, on the other hand, are not wavelength dependent on sensitivity… The thermopiles of a thermal type detector are used for gas analysis, flame detection and radiation thermometers.”
https://www.hamamatsu.com/content/dam/hamamatsu-photonics/sites/documents/99_SALES_LIBRARY/ssd/thermopile_kird9005e.pdf
And here:
“Measurements can be recorded at three levels using either a Radiance (the intensity of the emitted thermal energy of the source) or Irradiance (the intensity of the incident thermal radiation on the sensor) range.”
https://d4iqe7beda780.cloudfront.net/resources/static/main/pdf/ser3278.pdf
And here:
“The responsivity of a radiation detector may be specified in terms of either the intensity of radiation, or the total radiant power incident upon the detector…
Thermal detectors are the most commonly used radiation thermometer detectors… and their outputs are less affected by changes in the radiated wavelengths…
Thermal detectors are blackened so that they will respond to radiation over a wide spectrum (broadband detectors).”
https://www.omega.de/literature/transactions/volume1/thermometers3.html
There are IR detectors that use wavelength as a key indicator, but that’s not the common type we are talking about here.
Does this information change your view in any material way?
One more:
“Thermal detectors use the infrared energy as heat and their photosensitivity is independent of wavelength.”
https://mmrc.caltech.edu/FTIR/Literature/General/Hamamatus%20IR%20dectors.pdf
Now that you know that IR thermopiles are not measuring wavelength, how do you explain the device being able to differentiate the temperatures of two objects colder than its sensor, if not by detecting the different intensities of the infrared radiation from the objects?
barry says:
”is that a fair summation?”
——————-
its a possible summation. but as i described above there are two ways to describe it that are equivalent as to all outcomes
One way is to say the warm object sends 10w/m2 to the cold object and in response the cold object immediately refunds 5w/m2 back to the warm object. in this transaction, net loss of heat by the warm object is 5w/m2, net gain by the cold object is 5w/m2.
the second way to describe it is the warm object gave 5w/m2 to the object.
100% identical result.
occams razor say to trim away the irrelevant complexities so the second way is the most correct, least confusing way to deal with the problem.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
barry says:
January 26, 2024 at 6:35 PM
DREMT,Like Bill, you are pretending there is ambiguity when there isnt.
—————————-
se above there is absolutely no anbiguity. its quite simple that the second way is the best way to describe it.
you are only confusing your self because Stefan Boltzmann requires you to know stuff about both the warm object and the cool object in order to calculate the exchange of energy from the warm object to the cold object.
Thanks for those sources, barry. I have had a look through them, but I’m not seeing that they explain the “how” part. How do they respond to intensity and not wavelength?
In the meantime:
“I think you’re bending backwards to deny what is plain English.
The sensor is called an IR absorber.
It absorbs IR.
If the object is colder than the sensor, the absorbed IR makes the temperature of the sensor cooler.”
So you are agreeing with Clint R that absorbing photons can cool an object in certain situations?
Nill,
Yes, the is an energy balance from incoming/outgoing radiation. This is well understood by everyone. But you’re avoiding the point.
In a purely radiative environment, what makes a 400K rock cool slower surrounded by 200K walls as opposed 100K walls?
You’ve agreed that an object cools slower if the environment is warmer than another environment.
So what is the mechanism that you think makes the rock cool slower?
I think it is obvious that the object is absorbing more radiation from the 200K environment than the 100K environment. If you think that this is not happening, please explain what causes the rock to cool at a different rate in the two environments.
This is my 3rd time asking the same question. Will you please respond to this scenario, and not talk about some other? I ask because we have an agreement on the premise.
“So you are agreeing with Clint R that absorbing photons can cool an object in certain situations?”
If the object had in its field of view a warm source of IR, and that source were then replaced by a cooler source, then the radiative balance changes. It could be said that the radiation from the cooler source ‘cooled’ the object, but that is colloquial usage. It would be more classically correct to say that the balance of energy between the object and sources has changed, that the object is receiving less energy, and therefore cools.
If Clint has something else in mind, I don’t know what it is.
“How do they respond to intensity and not wavelength?”
The sensor is highly sensitive to IR, and changes temperature depending on the intensity of the IR.
It does this, obviously, by absorbing IR.
When the device is activated the aperture opens, a lens focuses the target IR directly onto the sensor, filling its field of view. If the target is colder than the sensor, the temperature of the sensor will drop, as it is now receiving less intense IR than at rest. If the target is warmer, the sensor will receive more intense IR and its temperature will rise.
These details are interesting, but irrelevant to the point.
The only way a an infrared thermometer using an infrared-sensitive thermopile can distinguish the different temperatures of objects colder than the sensor is if they get information from the cold targets. That information is infrared radiation.
The sensor absorbs IR from colder objects. Clint agrees the radiation from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer ones. You agreed to this principle two posts ago. I’ve posted over a dozen technical articles from science fora and manufacturers of the devices saying that the devices operate by absorbing IR. There is no special provision made for colder objects in any of the references. What are we quibbling about?
Well, barry, you didn’t answer my question, you told me what I think, and you tried your best to avoid the obvious with this:
"If the object is colder than the sensor, the absorbed IR makes the temperature of the sensor cooler"
There’s no way I can read that sentence without it coming across like absorbing photons can make an object cooler in certain situations. So, you do apparently agree with Clint R. It’s on you to read through the discussion I linked to up-thread, where he went through all that. You know, the one where he agrees a cooler object can absorb IR from a warmer object, to a certain extent (and with no warming effect).
I guess my 9:37 AM comment needs some work, though, I’ll accept that. I don’t usually venture into "what happens with individual photons" because it invariably just leads into hopeless confusion. As has been the case here.
Thanks for the invitation to go and hunt up things Clint has said, but no thanks. If you have a point, make it.
“So, you do apparently agree with Clint R”
I explained what I think. Apparently you have nothing to say on the matter.
Adding a stream of photons to an irradiated surface won’t ever by itself make it colder. But the surface will cool if a stream of photons is replaced by a stream of photons from a colder object, all else being equal.
barry says:
”If you think that this is not happening, please explain what causes the rock to cool at a different rate in the two environments.”
——————-
I don’t have a preference Barry.
No worries, Bill. I’ve got you and DREMT down as “I don’t know.”
We’ll put you down as not knowing either barry, despite your claims.
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.
Gill does not even realize that Aussie liberuls are actually the right-wing nuts.
LMAO!
The logic is inescapable. If the ONLY thermal information being imparted is radiative, then the 400K rock MUST be absorbing the radiation from the 100K wall and the 200K wall. There is no other way it can cool down more slowly in the warmer enclosure.
The reluctance to accept what is obvious is not ignorance, it is unwillingness.
barry talks about the rock cooling more slowly as if it is a fact. Is there some experiment somewhere on cooling rates in vacuum that you have posted, and I’ve missed?
Let’s say you come back with some experimental evidence. OK, then it would seem likely that if the rock is cooling slower as the temperature of the walls increases, that the rock must be absorbing IR from the cooler walls. I’d only say “likely”, though, as something else could be happening, instead, that we just haven’t thought of, yet.
Other than that, I’d point out that cooling is cooling. If the rock is lowering in temperature at a slower rate, it is still lowering in temperature. Not warming. This is where you will probably suggest that if the rock has another source of heat, increasing the temperature of the walls will cause the rock to warm. I’d then ask for experimental evidence of that. So far, genuinely the only thing that’s ever been presented is Swanson’s experiment. Amazing, to think that your entire belief system rests on an experiment that you won’t have replicated yourself, that was just posted on a blog by some random guy on the internet.
The incredible thing is that it’s only now that any of this seems to be getting tested. Contrary to Swanson’s experiment, we have the experiments of Geraint Hughes, and Seim & Olsen. Harde/Schnell provided an experiment supposedly supporting a GHE, but Seim & Olsen have recently published another experiment which calls that result into question. It’s exciting times for science, for anyone actually open to the idea that there might not be a GHE.
“your entire belief system rests on an experiment ”
False. It rests on the laws of physics, which have been tested many times.
And things like thermopiles which demonstrate the same phenomena.
Nate is imitating Anthony Fauci and taking a physics law and extrapolating it as he sees fit for the moment.
Sorry dude! If you are going implicate the cause for climate change you need to present an experimentally validated claim that your extrapolations are correct. Otherwise we could just assume spooky action at any distance and claim that it arises out of the laws of physics. Guess we should pull the budget for all those efforts. . .pass it along to private enterprise and let them build stuff out of it. . .and get the government out of business of competing with the private sector in a nepotistic manner.
“Nate is imitating Anthony Fauci and taking a physics law and extrapolating it as he sees fit for the moment.”
Not at all. We’ve been explaining all this again and again throughout the thread. You guys pretend it wasnt all discussed.
You have no science answers here, so all you can do is try to belittle the people who actually understand the science.
Standard Bill.
Reminder what the laws of physics has to say about this.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1604234
…it’s exciting times for science, for anyone actually open to the idea that there might not be a GHE.
… at whom farmers growing produce in the winter in certain locales are always laughing.
thats correct but that doesn’t even begin to explain how the tea boiled or the water froze.
ball4…”…atm. can transfer EMR to the surface because EMR is NOT heat.
Thus, Gordon continues to confuse EMR with heat”.
***
No confusion here B4 but plenty in your camp.
EM is never transferred between bodies of different temperatures, it can only be converted to heat if the target is cooler than the source. If the target is warmer than the source, the EM is ignored.
Even in communications systems, EM cannot be transferred. It is produced at a transmitting antenna by electrons rapidly moving back and forth in the antenna. At the receiving antenna, it is converted back to electron motion (current), via induction. It can exist only in the medium between antennas.
Sorry, the 2nd law rules. No heat transfer from a colder source to a hotter target.
“If the target is warmer than the source, the EM is ignored.”
No universe entropy increased in your process Gordon, there is no hope for your view to be correct.
“No heat transfer from a colder source to a hotter target.”
Gordon continues to confuse heat with EMR. EMR is NOT heat Gordon.
There is EMR transfer of thermodynamic internal energy from a colder source to a hotter target in order to conform to 2LOT and increase universe entropy in the process.
“There is EMR transfer of thermodynamic internal energy from a colder source to a hotter target in order to . . . ”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started. Please improve your physics, Swenson.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Gordo pontificates again, writing:
EM is never transferred between bodies of different temperatures, it can only be converted to heat if the target is cooler than the source.
Gordo, what about space-based solar power systems? The technology has been demonstrated on the ground.
Gordon doesn’t understand any of the science. Worse yet, he can’t learn. Both sides of the argument now see this.
The funniest part is, he believes he’s an engineer!
Clint R
Even funnier is that you believe you know any real physics. It is hilarious to read your endless opinions based upon nothing.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Keep reading Norman. Who knows, maybe even you might learn something?
“EM is never transferred between bodies of different temperatures”
We’re four years into hearing this bunkum, and I’m going to ask for a reference for the 20th time right now. Because no one ever has.
Please provide a reputable source for this notion.
In the non-fiction section, EM is transferred between all bodies at all temperatures. Hot objects give more EM to cold objects then they receive from them, and cold objects give less EM to hot objects than they receive from them.
* because no one ever has provided a source for this notion.
barry, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
In Greece the 2023 year electricity demand (45.3 TWh) was the lowest in a decade, even lower than that of the first year of the pandemic in 2020.
–
Also people get warmed in winter by extensive use of fire place. Some families provide their households with wood during the year, so they are properly prepared with enough wood supply.
–
Interesting, does the wood burning considered as a renewable source of energy?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Do most people in Greece cut their own wood or do they purchase?
ENSO anomalies for week ending Jan 20.
1.2 … +0.8 (down 0.1)
..3 … +1.9 (down 0.1)
3.4 … +1.7 (down 0.2)
..4 … +1.4 (down 0.1)
An early estimate for January UAH: +0.6 – +0.65.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
We will see how ENSO develops in the nearest future.
Image link to the ENSO/SST Page at WUWT:
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_ssta_v3.1_global_current.png
La Nina is coming.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
We will eventually get a la Nina, but that source has been predicting an immediate downturn in NNO3.4 since late September, and has been wrong every time since late September.
Eg,
https://web.archive.org/web/20230925181238/https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Again in October:
https://web.archive.org/web/20231011211455/www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
There were about 10 forecasts in a row from this source late last year that had the immediate downturn in NINO3.4, when what actually happened was that NINO3.4 went up.
So, take their projections with the appropriate amount of salt.
And don’t forget that ENSO forecasts are weakest before Spring.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/spring-predictability-barrier-we%E2%80%99d-rather-be-spring-break
So maybe a bit less certainty is appropriate.
another Bidiclown’s “we will see” forecast
How about soi crossing into La nina territory
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
I get a big laugh when I see these ‘La Nina is coming’, written by two Coolistas who think they bring something new on the desk.
With my post about WUWT’s ENSO page header, I only wanted to hint on the fact that Tropical tidbits aren’t necessary the best prediction.
*
Months ago already I wrote on the blog about a possible similarity between the end of the last La Nina and that of its predecessor in 2010-12:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
At that time, there was a minuscule El Nino intermezzo (much weaker than now) which was followed by two weak La Nina years, until finally the 3rd biggest El Nino since decades started in 2015.
The same scenario is perfectly possible.
I leave predictions to insulting braggarts like the dachshund.
Well, you didn’t see last three La Ninas coming , nobody expects you to foresee the forth one
Tropical tidbits does not do predictions.
1/ Any arbitrary volume of air in the atmosphere, in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, is filled with electromagnetic radiation energy fields emanating from the surface, atmospheric gases, and clouds.
2/ The magnitude of these fields depends only on the radiative temperature of the volume of air and of its immediate surroundings, and not on the shape or constituents of the volume, provided only that the volume is large compared to a wavelength of the radiation involved.
3/ https://youtu.be/CiptwF8UTjE
“…provided only that the volume is large compared to a wavelength of the radiation involved.”
Ark, you better hope Norman doesn’t see that. Otherwise, you will get a blast of his childish rantings.
Of course, some of us enjoy his childish rantings….
Clint R
Sorry but I do not see that as evidence for you claim that nitrogen gas reflects 15 micron IR.
From the real world evidence it does not. IR of most bands go right through nitrogen gas with no loss of energy.
So rather than celebrate, time for you to “Man up” and provide evidence for your claim that nitrogen gas reflects IR.
You are worse than your good buddy Gordon Robertson. At least he tries to provide evidence (mostly based upon his poor understanding of physics). You provide none, zero, nada. You just make claims like “this is bogus” but you fail to provide any evidence at all to support your claims.
In the war between the most unscientific posters you and Swenson are by far the worst (not evidence, no problem). Gordon is probably third.
Norman, when you learn to make a comment to me without insults, false accusations, or misrepresentations, I’ll be glad to help you.
Otherwise, you’re just an annoying tr0ll like goofball4, silly willy, and yes, Gordon.
In the meantime, you can give us verification for your cult’s “REAL 255K surface” and “square orbits”.
I won’t hold my breath….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
How do you reconcile “when you learn to make a comment to me without insults, false accusations, or misrepresentations, Ill be glad to help you” with “you better hope Norman doesn’t see that. Otherwise, you will get a blast of his childish rantings”?
Both are reality, silly willy.
Cult children can’t understand.
Clint R
You are a lying dog. It is quite sad but you do not mind being a liar. Why is that?
You claim I said “square orbits”. This is a lie. You used that lingo as a way to insult and denigrate me for no real reason.
You never did understand why I had to go to a square path, which was for Gordon Robertson (not you). You jumped in, could not understand the point but used it to insult me.
I picked the square path with rotation at the corners because you are not able or intelligent enough to understand rotation in a circular path. It will lead to the same result but you can’t understand it. One needs intelligence to figure things out. Your cult brain mentality does not have the ability to think or reason. It only seems to know how to try and come up with insults in nearly every post to most posters.
Oh well you need to lie and deceive for your own benefit. You and Trump have similar personalities. Insult any who challenge you. Lie all the time. Make up false points and conclusions and act like they are facts. Maybe you need to drink bleach. Your Lord suggests you drink it.
“You are a lying dog.”
Norman, please stop trolling.
No one enjoys Norman’s meltdowns more than me.
He throws his slop up in the air, I shoot it down, and his childish tantrums ensue!
That’s why this is so much fun.
Children can understand, Puffman.
Even old bachelors like you ought to know that!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint R
You can post whatever you want about me, it will not change the reality that you are a lying dog. You intentionally lie about what I posted. When confronted you do not apologize and correct your bad behavior. You just continue on with it by implying my confrontation of your lying ways makes me a child throwing a tantrum.
You sound more like your Lord and Master (Donald J Trump) with every post. You lie, you insult, you are very arrogant.
You and Trump and all his deluded followers (unable to see truth or reality but choose to believe the lies of their Lord and Savior) seem to have one thing in common. A Narcissistic personality.
Here is what you present on this blog.
“SPECIAL ME
1) Sense of self-importance
2) Preoccupation with power, beauty, or success
3) Entitled
4) Can only be around people who are important or special
5) Interpersonally exploitative for their own gain
6) Arrogant
7) Lack empathy
8) Must be admired
9) Envious of others or believe that others are envious of them”
I wonder if any on this blog will disagree with this view of you.
Even you should see that you are acting just like the list you see.
More demonstration of your obsession with me, Norman. Good job.
But why mention Trump? Have you been sneaking sips of bleach again??
Clint R
I will respond to your poor quality science posts (which are cult minded not science).
I do like to expose phony people like you, Gordon Robertson, and Swenson.
You pretend to know science but you can’t support any of your claims. Swenson just repeats the same thing over many years with little imagination or variation from his boring routine, Gordon Robertson takes some ideas of physics and distorts them to fit his own world view which lacks any logic or reason and is based upon nothing but his own deluded beliefs.
As long as I am allowed I will show other posters on this blog what science is and is not. The rot the three of you post on a daily basis has nothing to do with science but mostly opinions, made up ideas (nitrogen reflects IR).
You three are Cult minded science deniers. You are free to post your ugly nonsense and I am free to show others how bad your science is.
Norman, had you had too much bleach the time you came up with “square orbits”?
Better lay off that stuff….
“I do like to expose phony people like you, Gordon Robertson, and Swenson.”
Norman, please stop trolling.
In fairness, Norman, our Dark Triad exposes itself all the time!
Willard, please stop trolling.
See?
Norman the main topic is the GHE. S&O experiment shows it doesn’t work as a layered model of the 3rd grader radiation model. That model isn’t even promoted any more. Only out of date advocates continue to pound the drem for it along with those in better know hoping for it to die a quiet death and do as much deception as possible in the mean time.
the alternative theory was introduced decades ago with the first climate models following the guidance of M&W of an atmospheric process that prevented cooling at the top of the atmosphere (the higher the emissions the less the emission theory) characterized in IPCC literature as a hotspot in combination with mid and upper level stratospheric cooling as its signature profile as per M&W.
Well we can see the cooler stratosphere showing its upward cooling effect but there is no sign of a hotspot emerging showing its downwelling effect.
Before running around and calling out alternative theories how about some evidence your theory is correct. And which is your theory? Backradiation or M&W downwelling hotspots with upwelling cooling?
I have always recognized the role of GHG to cool the atmosphere. What we have seen in the last 40 years is no doubt just a drop in the bucket. Without them the atmosphere might be as hot as the moon’s equator at noon with a one way convective heat input and no cooling outlet. Gee without GHGs in the thermosphere it gets even hotter than that. How does that happen oh know it all?
> the main topic
Three days later, our Inspecteur Clouseau found *Ze* main topic!
Perhaps he could help Puffman – does nitrogen gas reflect infrared radiation?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Ball4,
“No Christos, physically the amount of the absorbed solar energy cannot be in form of HEAT because EMR from the sun is NOT in the form HEAT since all EMR is NOT heat.”
–
Yes, Ball4, “physically the amount of the absorbed solar energy cannot be in form of HEAT”
Because the amount of absorbed solar energy first has to be transformed into HEAT, and only after that, the amount of solar energy, which is transformed to HEAT, only after gotten transformed into HEAT, that amount of solar energy is again transformed into EM IR outgoing to space EM energy.
There is a time lag though. The time lag depends on the every planet surface’s different properties, the majors are the planet’s rotation (N) speed and the average surface specific heat (cp).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Heat is transferred in three ways: Convection, Conduction, and Radiation. So, if heat is transferred radiantly, then radiant energy must be heat; they are one and the same.
Stephen 3:11 pm, heat is a measure of the motion of atoms & molecules in matter. EMR contains no matter, no atoms or molecules. EMR is NOT heat.
The measure of motion in atoms and molecules in an object is reduced when the object radiates away EMR, the molecules and atoms remain behind having lost that equivalent amount of motion to energy in the radiated EMR.
Christos’ comment conforms.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Stephen 3:11 pm, heat is a measure of the motion of atoms & molecules in matter.”
Sounds sciency enough. People also say that heat travels from hot to cold.
How does this motion get transferred from the Sun to an infrared thermometer on the surface of the Earth?
It’s a little more complicated than you make out. Here’s Wikipedia on heat “Heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system . . . ”
Energy in transfer? You said “a measure of the motion . . . “.
And so on. Do you really understand what you are talking about? Next you’ll be saying that heat travels from cold to hot – from a colder atmosphere to a hotter surface!
What’s your definition of heat that reflects reality?
Thy Wiki seems to have left out a word or several to the imagination Swenson: Clausius’ heat transforms to EMR energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system… at least in the case of radiative transfer.
Ball4,
Whats your definition of heat that reflects reality?
Just babbling about “heat is a measure of the motion of atoms & molecules in matter.” doesn’t help.
That’s Clausius’ defn. Swenson. Good enough for Swenson et. al. too.
Ball4,
Whats your definition of heat that reflects reality?
Just babbling about “heat is a measure of the motion of atoms & molecules in matter.” doesnt help.
“According to this view, the heat found in bodies and determining their temperature is treated as being a motion of their ponderable atoms, in which motion the ether existing within the bodies may also participate; and radiant heat is looked upon as an undulatory motion propagated in that ether.”
Is this the Clausius description you are talking about, or do you have another, more recent one?
Maybe you believe in “an undulatory motion propagated in that ether.”, but I don’t.
Clausius was ignorant of many things that have been discovered since his death.
Pay attention to “the ether existing within the bodies”.
Turned out there was no ether outside the bodies or within so no heat in the bodies only a measure of the motion of atoms & molecules (as Tim wrote elsewhere) since James Prescott Joule proved it experimentally & you can now forgive Clausius’.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Whats your definition of heat that reflects reality?”
Heat does not reflect reality.
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ball4, there are lots of ways to use words, which is why equations are usually better and more precise.
Q is commonly called “heat” and is thermal energy being transferred from one system to another. Q (heat) is not contained in materials; no atoms are needed.
U is commonly called “internal energy”. This is the quantity that measures motion of atoms.
So when you say “The measure of motion in atoms and molecules in an object is reduced when the object radiates away EMR”, that would translate as “U is reduced when Q radiates away”.
(There are two schools of thought on whether EMR should be treated as Q or U, but that is a whole different discussion.)
Tim, Q is the heating rate or simply heating, so Q cannot be heat.
Commonly dU/dt = Q + W
Q comes about as component of rate of change of internal energy of a defined system as a consequence of a temperature difference between the system and its surroundings.
Good to see you declare heat is not contained in an object. That concept was shown true as far back as James Prescott Joule’s work.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Q (heat) is not contained in materials; no atoms are needed.”
That’s not terribly helpful, if one accepts that heat flows from hot to cold, is it?
The Earth cooled to its present temperature. You say heat is not contained in materials, but the material of the Earth seems to have cooled. Are you saying that the Earth lost no heat while cooling, or have you another definition of heat up your sleeve?
Maybe you could provide one of your “equations” to show how the Earth cooled without losing heat.
Still no GHE, is there?
Actually that’s wrong Swenson, Earth has recently warmed to its present temperature. Funny though. See top post.
Oh, and yes there is still a GHE. As Swenson has been recently informed, farmer’s use the GHE to grow (see the G) produce for profit in the winter in certain locales. Swenson is just dreadfully and humorously wrong on the subject.
Ball4,
Willard, please stop trolling.
“farmers use the GHE to grow (see the G) produce for profit in the winter”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
tim…”Q is commonly called heat and is thermal energy being transferred from one system to another. Q (heat) is not contained in materials; no atoms are needed.
U is commonly called internal energy. This is the quantity that measures motion of atoms”.
***
Tim…show me an example of heat without atoms or molecules.
U in the first law is the creation of Clausius. He defined it as both heat and work, where heat is needed to excite atoms to do work in a solid by vibrating. The heat used up in the vibrations must be subtracted from the entire heat context, which sets the temperature of the body. That why a body shows a higher temperature when heat is added and a lower temperature when heat is removed.
In reference to kinetic energy or generic energy should be specified as what it is…heat, aka thermal energy.
The proper terminology should be kinetic thermal energy’, that is heat in motion. You cannot separate heat from mass as in atoms and molecules. Energy is defined loosely as the ability to do work. Heat is the energy that produces work in solids. and when the heat moves it becomes kinetic.
Ball4 writes: “Q is the heating rate”
Google “meaning of Q in thermodynamics”. The top 20 or so hits ALL define Q as heat in joules, not heating rate in J/s or watts.
“Commonly dU/dt = Q + W”
Again, google “first law of thermodynamics”. The ‘common’ equation is Delta(U) = Q + W (or Delta(U) = Q – W depending on the sign convention chosen by the author). But in any case, that is Delta(U) & Q & W in joules, not dU/dt, Q, and W in watts.
The very common Q = m c Delta(T) is also Q = heat = joules. Not Q = heating rate = watts
Now, I will admit that I have seen “Q” used for heating rate in watts occasionally, especially in some engineering contexts. But that is the uncommon usage overall. Its clearer to use dQ/dt or Q-dot for that.
ME: Q (heat) is not contained in materials …
SWENSON: Thats not terribly helpful …
It’s terribly helpful if you want to have a conversation with scientists or read a thermodynamics textbook.
“Are you saying that the Earth lost no heat while cooling, or have you another definition of heat up your sleeve?”
I have the the standard definitions ‘up my sleeve’. The earth had more U (internal energy) 4 billion years ago. Some thermal energy left — some Q passed out of the boundaries of the earth system to other parts of the universe. The result is that the earth has less U.
Delta(U) = Q
(where the transfer out is negative, and no work was done).
The problem is with language; not with physics. The word “heat” is especially problematic.
If you agree that Delta(U) = Q describes that the interior of earth cooled, then we are in agreement.
Gordon, you are mired in words and mired in the 1800’s.
Science evolves and grows and improves. We are not stuck using antiquated and half-correct ideas simply because that is how they were presented 150 years ago.
Tim 7:22 am writes a phrase to enter into thy Wiki. First hit:
(Q) represents the amount of energy transferred between a system and its surroundings due to a temperature difference.
—-
2nd hit:
Q represents the amount of heat released or absorbed in a thermodynamic process.
—–
3rd hit:
Usually Q is total heat transferred, q is heat per unit mass.
—–
4th hit:
Heat is an energy transfer.
—–
5th hit:
Q is the sum of all heat transfer into and out of the system.
——-
… so forth. As you can see, every one of those hits (and probably all the rest) are for a process involving energy transfer over time. Dynamics is even in the name of the game:
Thermodynamics is a field interested in processes, and all processes go forward in time. Everything that happens takes time. See “Rational Thermodynamics” wherein Clifford Truesdell asserts that the “range of intended applications of classical thermodynamics is to homogeneous systems, bodies that can be described sufficiently by functions of time only.”
Tim and all the wiki hits cannot pretend that time is absent from a total energy transfer per unit time consideration in this field.
In all thy wiki hits, Q is discussed per unit time during a process of energy transfer.
Q is a rate.
dU/dt = Q + W
In thermodynamics, “heat” is simply defined as “movement of thermal energy from hot to cold”.
“Heat” is associated with a change in temperature.
Again, in thermo, there is a distinction between “Qdot” and “Q”. “Q” is energy only, with units of Joules or BTU. “Qdot” is energy/time, and has units of power such as Watts, horsepower, etc.
KISS — Keep it simple, stoopid.
In Clints preferred notation then:
dU/dt = Udot = Qdot + Wdot
No difference in the process of dU/dt: Qdot is a rate.
“As you can see, every one of those hits (and probably all the rest) are for a process involving energy transfer over time…”
… and as most of us can see, the value for Q is found by summing/integrating the TOTAL amount of energy transferred over that time. Not by finding the rate of transfer at any given instant.
… and as most of us can see, those all talk about heat in terms of ENERGY, not power.
Tim Folkerts is trying furiously to divert attention away from his description of the GHE –
“A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface”.”
Completely meaningless, if you were expecting any reference to CO2 or any form of heating.
Oh dear, cooling is cooling. Fast or slow – still cooling. Temperature falling.
See Tim run. Run, Tim, run!
… and as most of us can see, the value for change in U U is found by summing/integrating the TOTAL amount of energy transferred by virtue of a temperature difference over the entire process time.
Tim 5:25 pm, those who all correctly talk about heat, a measure of the total motion of the atoms & molecules in matter, use units of kinetic ENERGY.
Ball4: “Q is a rate.”
Ball4: “heat, a measure of the total motion of the atoms & molecules in matter, use units of kinetic ENERGY.”
You are contradicting yourself! Which is it?
* heat is a RATE, in J/s.
* heat is an ENERGY, in J.
Ball4: dU/dt = Q + W
Ball4: dU/dt = Udot = Qdot + Wdot
Again you contradict yourself. dU/dt cannot equal both (Q+W) and d(Q+W)/dt.
Find a consistent set of definitions.
No contradiction in units by me. Q is not heat as YOU write. Q cannot be heat as Tim writes because Q is a rate as I wrote above.
The rate of energy transfer during a process by virtue of a temperature difference.
(No need to confuse things with Clint R’s preferred notation, disregard Clint R dot stuff.)
dU/dt = Q + W, consistent units all in Joules/unit time
The integrated dU/dt over the process time duration becomes thermodynamic energy U added in an object in joules during the process plus a constant – the original amount of U, the total measure (in joules) of which is originally defined by Clausius as heat.
“Find a consistent set of definitions.”
Tim, please stop trolling.
“The integrated dU/dt over the process time duration becomes thermodynamic energy U added ”
… and the integrated dQ/dt over the process time duration becomes thermodynamic energy Q transferred.
dQ/dt is a rate
Q is an amount
dU/dt = dQ/dt + dW/dt is rates
Delta(U) = Q + W is amounts
Folkerts is correct on this one. Goofball4 is messed up, as usual.
Very good Tim, now you have your units consistent. Q is a rate of heating as I pointed out to begin with.
dU/dt = Q + W in which all terms are rates.
Delta(U) = Q + W is in amounts per unit process time also rates as above.
“Delta(U) = Q + W is in amounts per unit process time “
No. These are total amounts INTEGRATED over the ‘process time’. This is how this equation is ALWAYS presented.
If Qdot = dQ/dt is 10 J/s and I run the process for t = 30 seconds, then Q = 300 J. And Delta(U) is 300 J (assuming W=0).
Q, W, and Delta(U) are energies, not rates!
Tim, it doesn’t seem to be getting through to you than delta(U) takes time. Every process takes time so delta(U) is the change in U over that time. A rate. So then Q + W must be rates.
dU/dt = Q + W is a standard textbook eqn.
If you wrote
U = Q + W
THEN those symbols could represent amounts. But although U amount consists of Q + W amounts there is no way to distinguish Q or W in U thus as far as I have read no author uses U = Q + W amounts as they are essentially meaningless. The hits I listed all discussed transfers in a process which take time dU/dt.
Again, you write delta(U): “And Delta(U) is 300 J” in the time it took to change U by 300J, Q and W are then rates. There was a beginning static amount of U and a static end amount of U, delta(U) took time.
See if you can find a reputable author discussing amount of Q and amount of W in U, I doubt you can do so. I haven’t read one but maybe there is one.
“it doesnt seem to be getting through to you than delta(U) takes time….”
Walking takes time, but that doesn’t make distance a rate!
“dU/dt = Q + W is a standard textbook eqn.”
Really?? Show us even a single textbook that writes the 1st Law that way! It’s always Delta(U) = Q + W
Seriously … find even one link to “dU/dt = Q + W”.
dX/dt is a rate it takes to walk X transferring location.
X is an amount of distance.
find even one link to dU/dt = Q + W.
They all do. I already listed 5 above from your wiki string.
If you want an online text enter into google: online thermodynamics text
First hit, page 151: delta(U) = Q + W all rates per unit time it takes for delta(U) to happen.
And notably NOT: U = Q + W amounts.
Ball4,
Delta(U) is not the same as dU/dx. Just like Delta(x) = displacement is not the same as dx/dt = velocity.
NONE of your links have dU/dt = Q + W. All have Delta(U) = Q + W
Of course Delta(U) in thermodynamics over TIME of the process is not the same as dU/dx over distance.
Yes, all have Delta(U) = Q + W over the time that the thermodynamic process changing U occurs so all are rates not amounts; why Tim cannot realize this escapes me.
dU/dt = Q + W is a standard textbook eqn., all terms in units of joules/unit time.
Delta(U) is for macro change, dU is for infinitesimal change, so delta(U) over macro time and dU/dt infinitesimal time, both have the units: energy/unit time, a rate.
U = Q + W in amounts is not found in any link or text I have seen, there must be one since Tim keeps writing about Q + W amounts. Let me know, I’ll track it down.
Maybe actual numbers will get through to you.
I have pot of water. I put a 100W electric heater into the water and turn in one for 1 minute.
W = 0 J. And trivially Wdot = 0 W
Qdot = 100 W. Q = 100W x 60 s = 6000 J
From the first law, Delta(U) = Q + W = 6000 J + 0J = 6000 J. All of these are ENERGY, nor POWER. The internal energy of the water increases by 6000 J.
We could also write a differential form of the 1st Law.
Udot = Qdot + Wdot.
Then Udot would be equal to Qdot = 600 W
But Udot = Q + W is simply wrong.
600 W ≠ 6000 J.
Oops …
Then Udot would be equal to Qdot = 100 W
Textbook dU/dt = Q + W
Tim, “for 1 minute” so the macro delta(U) process occurs over 1 minute thus Q is a heating rate over 1 minute as in every text book I have seen.
Over your one minute process, the change in U is: Delta(U)/1minute = energy transferred/1 minute + 0 = 6000 J/minute + 0J/minute = 6000 J/minute, units are consistent.
Say U = the internal thermodynamic energy was 100,000J at the start of process. An amount.
U = the internal thermodynamic energy is 106,000J at the end of process. An amount.
During the delta(U) process, the rate of heating Q was 6000J/minute. Everything takes time in thermodynamics, that process did not transfer 6000J in an instant.
100,000
100,001
100,002
100,003
.
.
.
Not 100,000 then boom immediately 106,000 amounts at end of 1 minute when the 6,000 lump of Q finished. The amount of thermodynamic internal energy was changing at the rate of Q during the process.
Delta(U) = Q + W joules per unit time over the time of any process as found in texts.
I note Tim has yet to put up a reputable link or text with:
U = Q + W
in amounts
“I note Tim has yet to put up a reputable link or text with:
U = Q + W
in amounts”
Because that is wrong! Its Delta(U), not U.
“Textbook dU/dt = Q + W”
Also wrong, because it is Delta(U), not dU/dt. That equation as written is not in any textbook anywhere.
“Q is a heating rate over 1 minute ”
No. Q is a total amount of heat (6000 J in my example) in 1 minute. The heating RATE is Qdot = 100 W = 6000 J/min
Whether I put 6000 J of energy into the water in 1 s or 10 s or 3000 s, Q is still 6000 J. Delta(U) is still 6000 J. Those are AMOUNTS, not RATES.
“Because that is wrong!”
Correct, because in dU/dt = Q + W all terms are rates not amounts. But Tim insists Q and W are amounts so U = Q + W has all terms in simple amounts which eqn. isn’t found anywhere to my knowledge as Tim correctly writes.
“That equation (dU/dt = Q + W) as written is not in any textbook anywhere.”
See dU/dt = Q + W with all terms as rates as eqn. 5.13, p. 91 in “Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics” Van Wylen & Sonntag, I have the 2nd edition. Also, see all dU/dt = Q + W terms are rates in eqn. 1.71, p. 17 in “Atmospheric Thermodynamics”, Bohren & Albrecht 1998.
“Q is a total amount of heat”
No, “a body never contains heat”: Van Wylen & Sonntag p. 73. Yes, some authors use Qdot and others simply Q for heating rate in dU/dt as in my two cites.
“There is no such thing as the amount of heat”: Bohren p.25, or amount of work, or amount of cold, in a system in modern day as Tim insists. Although many textbooks officially acknowledge the death of caloric, they then proceed to do everything possible to breathe life into it renamed as an amount of heat in there.
I don’t have either of the books you mentioned, but I found some snippets on line . From the intro to Ch4 of Atmospheric Thermodynamics, Bohren & Albrecht:
“Work done by the system may be written
W(A,B) = ∫pdV”
Work. In joules. Not in watts. [Seriously, has anyone ever seen, work, W, as a rate in watts?]
Just like your claim about the google hits was wrong.
First hit:
(Q) represents the amount of energy transferred between a system and its surroundings due to a temperature difference.
–
2nd hit:
Q represents the amount of heat released or absorbed in a thermodynamic process.
3rd hit:
Usually Q is total heat transferred, q is heat per unit mass.
4th hit:
Heat is an energy transfer.
5th hit:
Q is the sum of all heat transfer into and out of the system.
NONE of those use the word “rate”. I guarantee if you read further in any of those, Q will be in joules, not watts.
Feel free to copy the exact wording from your texts and/or google hits if you still think otherwise.
“so U = Q + W has all terms in simple amounts … ”
An equation having the right units is NOT sufficient to guarantee an equation is right!
Delta(U) = Q + W has the same units (joules of energy), but it correct. The 1st law is about CHANGES between two states. It gives the CHANGE in U between to states, but not the total U before or after.
“a body never contains heat” — well I am glad we agree on something. But then you get messed up. There can be a total amount of heat exchanged, without heat ever being ‘in a system’.
How about this … look in the glossary of your textbooks, or the first time heat or work are mentioned, and tell us whether they call it a rate or an amount; whether it is measured in W or J. That should clear up 99% of this.
“I don’t have either of the books you mentioned”
A library card is very useful, you can get them for free. In all those texts Tim mentions: Q, a rate will be integrated over the process time, dt, to become an amount of energy in joules, not watts.
“There can be a total amount of heat exchanged, without heat ever being ‘in a system’.”
Not physically. That is paranormal heat which is just conceived of as existing neither in A nor in B but only on the journey between them. Tim’s “heat” is springing into existence at the border then back out of existence after the border.
Bohren 1998 verbatim: “Fantastic, is it not? This paranormal view of heat transfer is an example of what is called saving appearances. So many people have talked and continue to talk about heat as if it were a substance that by hook or by crook a corporeal form for heat must be invented in order to save appearances.”
Tim (and as Bohren points out) is just clinging to the caloric theory – just now it is renamed to heat. Modern day text authors have appropriately moved on from the caloric theory; caloric theory had its day and, admittedly, was somewhat useful in the past. James Prescott Joule blew up the caloric theory by experiment.
Verbatim Bohren p. 17: “Q and called the rate of heating”
Verbatim Van Wylen, p. 73: “The thermodynamic definition of heat is somewhat different from the everyday understanding of the word … neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy of course) … neither system contains any heat at the conclusion of the process.”
As I noted for Van Wylen p.91 in the 1LOT change in U process eqn. over dt: Q term has units of a rate.
When integrated over time of the process, the change in internal energy U by virtue of a temperature difference becomes an amount of energy in joules as shown in Tim’s clips.
“Q, a rate will be integrated over the process time, dt,”
Qdot is a rate. in J/s or watts. Qdot will be integrated over the process time to get Q.
Q is an amount. in J. integrated from t(initial) to t(final).
This is Calc 101. This is Physics 101.
Also, Ball4, you describe my version of heat:
“Tims “heat” is springing into existence at the border then back out of existence after the border.”
Then you quote Bohren:
“neither system contains any heat (they do contain energy of course) neither system contains any heat at the conclusion of the process”
So yes, heat only exists “in transit” between two systems. This is the opposite of the ‘caloric theory’. Your source is AGREEING with me! I know full well the caloric theory and its shortcomings.
Yes, Qdot is a rate in some author’s consistent unit notations for 1LOT: Udot = Qdot + Wdot.
Bohren uses the more modern notation as I quoted: “Q and called the rate of heating”, he goes on and uses W for rate of working in consistent units for 1LOT p. 17, eqn. 1.71:
dU/dt = Q + W
Bohren also points out (as I quoted) heat doesn’t exist (have “corporeal” existence) in “transit”. The caloric theory held that heat exists “in transit” poured between two systems containing heat (caloric fluid) which as I quoted Bohren that’s “Fantastic, is it not?”. James Prescott Joule proved experimentally in the mid-1800s heat is just a fantasy. Clausius then defined heat only as a measure (of U) after Joule’s work with no “corporeal” (Bohren 19987 term) existence.
So, it’s helpful Tim agrees to the source pointing out shortcomings of caloric theory. Energy transits the border both for conductive and radiative energy transfer in modern day thermodynamics though, yes, as Bohren points out many current authors do still cling to old fashioned caloric theory “by hook or by crook a corporeal form for heat must be invented”.
Once dU/dt (or Udot) is integrated over time of the heating and/or working process, there is a measure of total U amount in an object.
Wow – I found parts of Bohren’s text online and he really DOES use “Q” and “W” for rates.
All I can say is that his convention is highly unusual. None of the other sources I have seen (many first year physics texts and several undergrad and grad texts) follow this convention.
In “Q = mcDelta(T)”, Q is not a rate.
In “W = F*d”, W is not a rate.
You are free to use Bohren’s notation, just realize it differs from nearly all introductions to thermodynamics.
“None of the other sources I have seen …”
Name them. I will track them down to find what they actually do contain. Have library card, will travel.
Every one of the thermodynamics text book sources I have already found for Tim uses deltaU = deltaQ +deltaW same as Bohren’s text over the time of the process. And everyone I have tracked down in the past also does. None that I have ever found use 1LOT as U = Q + W amounts.
But if every textbook on thermodynamics Tim has ever seen does so, it should be trivial to find at least one with U = Q + W in amounts.
“In “Q = mcDelta(T)”, Q is not a rate.”
No. Delta(T) is change in T over the time of the process, beginning to end. So your Q is a rate.
Page 6 of Lienhard’s online text: “Q is the heat transfer rate” may be expressed as J/sec.
Eqn. 1.3, p.7: Q = dU/dt = mcdT/dt all terms in J/sec or amount of joules added to U once integrated over time.
> Name them. I
So now B4 needs citations.
Fascinating.
B4,
What is a photon?
Stephen, electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is discussed using two languages: wave or particle (photon) language.
In the photon language a beam of radiation is looked upon as a stream of particles called photons with the property that photons carry energy, polarization, linear and angular momentum, but not more mass than about 10^-24 times the mass of the electron.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“In the photon language a beam of radiation is looked upon as a stream of particles called photons with the property that photons carry energy, polarization, linear and angular momentum, but not more mass than about 10^-24 times the mass of the electron.”
Are you suffering from some mental affliction? “Photon language”?
Is that different to gibberish?
Mike Flynn,
You skilled over the first sentence:
“electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is discussed using two languages: wave or particle (photon) language.”
What are you braying about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
B4 might be alluding to this:
https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/19840/1/ThePhotonAndItsParticleNature.pdf
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
b4….”In the photon language a beam of radiation is looked upon as a stream of particles called photons with the property that photons carry energy, polarization, linear and angular momentum, but not more mass than about 10^-24 times the mass of the electron”.
***
That’s pretty dumb, even for you. A photon is a poorly defined quantum of electromagnetic energy. It has no mass, by definition, but oddly it is given a momentum. The electron has a mass but a photon has no mass. How can EM have mass?
The idea behind the photon, which was not defined till the 1920s, is to give a particle nature to EM. However, this so-called particle has a frequency, which no known mass has. It is also made up of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field ad no know field has mass, unless its a farmer’s field or a soccer field.
Sound is regarded as a wave but it is made up of air particles. Air particles form a wave front when thy become compressed and I imagine whomever defined the photon was trying to simulate that condition for light.
You need to be aware that in the era when this theory was being developed, it was al pie-in-the-sky theory. Still is. Theoretical physicists were butting head, throwing doo doo at a wall trying to make it stick.
The electron was only discovered in 1898 and at the time Planck was apologizing for his theory of energy quanta because he had no idea if the theory would be verified. Actually, it never has been verified and it falls into Feynmann’s category of ‘it works, but no one knows why’.
When the same theorists began projecting the nonsense that an electron, a particle with a mass and a charge, could act as both a wave and a particle, things took a serious wrong turn.
This is a perfect example of scientists trying to fit reality into a theory.
Gordo wrote:
We know of a phenomena called Radiation Pressure, also called Solar Radiation Pressure. What you need to explain is the evidence for momentum without mass. Go for it, Old Guy, here’s your chance for fame. Woops, it looks like you are too late, given the Wiki article’s discussion of the theory.
Gordon 6:56 am states assertively: “(A photon) has no mass.” However, in science, one has to prove assertions experimentally, Gordon. Last I saw, as I wrote, experiments have shown a photon has “not more mass than about 10^-24 times the mass of the electron”. IIRC, that upper limit has been further reduced.
—
Gordon goes on to write: “oddly (a photon) is given a momentum”. Not oddly or given, that IS found experimentally in science.
If it bothers Gordon that a particle with so little mass can carry such momentum this is because Gordon is stuck on the notion that momentum is mass times velocity. Sometimes this is true (approximately), sometimes not. Momentum is momentum, a property complete in itself and not always the product of mass and velocity.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
stephen…”So, if heat is transferred radiantly, then radiant energy must be heat; they are one and the same”.
***
Stephen there is an energy transformation involved twice. Heat contained in the Sun is converted to radiation (EM) which moves trough space. If a mass receives that radiation, and it is cooler than the Sun, it can absorb it and the absorber will convert it back to heat.
Radiation cannot be heat, they have entirely different forms. EM is an electric field moving orthogonal to a magnetic field. It has no mass and a frequency, which it got from rapidly moving electrons in an atom. Heat cannot exist without mass to work on. That’s why a thermos works, heat cannot flow through a vacuum flask but will escape eventually by leaking out of the flask by conduction/convection.
“and it is cooler than the Sun”
Cooler? Gordon tries to claim EMR is heat and then EMR is NOT heat in the same comment!
Gordon: EMR is NOT heat.
Note the period at the end of that statement, there are NO exceptions. The body illuminated and absorbing solar EMR does NOT have to be cooler than the sun by 2LOT or universe entropy would not increase & universe entropy even in that sort of isolated system must increase.
A photon is energy is mass. They are one in the same.
Ball4,
You wrote the following gibberish –
“The body illuminated and absorbing solar EMR does NOT have to be cooler than the sun by 2LOT or universe entropy would not increase & universe entropy even in that sort of isolated system must increase.”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
swannie…”Infrared thermometers, such as the typical hand held device, measure the intensity of the IR radiation entering the detector. They DO NOT measure actual wavelengths of the IR radiation”.
***
IR intensity has nothing to do with heat,but the frequency does. A semiconductor can absorb IR without warming it, at least warming it to a temperature that represents the target temperature.
Semiconductors operate by amplifying electron currents, acting like a variable resistor (impedance). The amplification does no occur within the device, rather the device has a means of transferring impedances between a low current input circuit and a high current output circuit. The input current acts to lower the impedance of the output circuit, and vice-versa, to control a higher current produced from the power supply.
There are materials that allow semiconductors to be devised so they will react to frequencies in the infrared band. These are opto-electronic devices, meaning a certain frequency of infrared energy causes electrons to flow in the semiconductor. It’s akin to Einstein’s photoelectric theory but the current moves within the device rather than being expelled from a surface.
The point is that temperature is not affecting the current flow although the current flow could produce a slight temperature rise. There is no way heat from the target body is causing an effect in the meter.
Once the IR from the target reaches the lens of the measuring device, it has dissipated greatly and any warming effect would not be representative of the heat in the body. However, the radiation has a frequency which can be related to the body temperature. That temperature cannot be determined without having laboratory data stored in the instrument that corresponds to an IR to temperature profile established in a lab.
***
An infrared thermometer is a thermometer which infers temperature from a portion of the thermal radiation sometimes called black-body radiation emitted by the object being measured”.
***
Agreed. The temperature is inferred, not measured directly. Same with most thermometers, they infer a relative degree of heat in a room based on the effect the kinetic energy of the room air molecules have on the mercury expansion in a thermometer. Even at that, the heat content of the air is highly localizes.
Gordo, Again, the hand held IR thermometers do not measure wavelength, they measure the total intensity of the intercepted IR radiation. They do filter out wavelengths longer than ~14 microns, because of the strong absorp_tion by CO2. Of course, that intensity measurement must be compared with some reference, after correction for the temperature of the instrument. They don’t use some semi-conductor sensor, but a thermopile, not a “micro-bolometer” used for graphic displays in more expensive instruments.
ES,
You wrote –
“They do filter out wavelengths longer than ~14 microns, because of the strong absorp_tion by CO2.”
Rubbish. You just made that up, didn’t you?
Can you provide a description of the GHE so I can add it to my collection of strange fantasies?
Please excuse me if you have done so previously – I must have missed it, so repeat it, if you can spare the time.
The GHE allows farmers to grow (G) produce for profit in the winter in some locales. Pity Swenson is ignorant of farming methods.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
barry…”The point is that the IR from a cooler object is absorbed by the warmer thermopile”.
If the thermopile could not absorb IR from coler objects than it, there would be no measurement, and the device could not derive temperatures from objects cooler than it”.
***
Barry…you are confusing different principles. When IR or EM is absorbed by a surface, it is due to electron transitions in the atoms of the surface. What we are talking about in IR detectors does not involved electron transitions per se.
The electrons in a semiconductor are free electrons that come from the outer shell of atoms like selenium and germanium. They do not belong to any atom orbital scheme and are free to move atom to atom in the outer, or valence bands. In electrical/electronics theory those valence bands are also called conduction bands since the electrons move through them.
There are certain elements that react well with IR radiation and they electrons in their conduction bands can be influence simple by exposure to IR energy. Lead selenide is one although selenium itself apparent works in the IR band. These atoms/molecules have looser electrons available that can be loosened from their positions in the outer electron bands to produce a small current.
The relationship between the IR frequency/wavelength and the current is calculated in a lab and programmed into the detector EEPROM memory. It is then a matter of acquiring the data from the detector and comparing it to lookup tables in memory.
Just want to add that heat is normally produced from IR by electrons absorbing it and jumping to a higher level of kinetic energy. Over bazillions of electrons, this KE represents an increase in heat.
It’s not clear to me that the semiconductor detectors in IR detectors are actually absorbing the IR. If an ordinary conductor is exposed to a high frequency EM field, the electrons in the conductor don’t need to absorb it, they are simply deflected by it in a specific direction. That’s how electric motors and transformers work. The electrons in armature windings or the transformer windings don’t absorb the EM, the EM simply causes the electrons to move in a transverse direction.
The 2nd law could not be applied here, nor Bohr’s theory. This is FaradaY stuff.
Gordon Robertson
How many times do you need corrected. You truly are a crackpot living in their own created Universe with rules they made up. You are a true science denier and will not accept any evidence that tries to break in your Fantasy Reality you have created out of your own thoughts.
IR is mostly generated by molecular vibration of permanent dipoles (created by the different pulls on electrons by the atomic nuclei making up molecules).
The positive charged and negative charged poles of a molecule vibrate in and out at a certain frequency. This same frequency of dipole vibration will result in either emission of IR band EMR or will absorb the similar frequency IR and vibrate at a higher amplitude (but same frequency). You are not intelligent enough to understand molecular vibration and how the electric poles vibrating are able to produce IR band EMR. Too sad you can’t understand basic physics and need to create your own incorrect version.
Norman,
“IR is mostly generated by molecular vibration of permanent dipoles (created by the different pulls on electrons by the atomic nuclei making up molecules).”
Mostly generated?
I suppose this is your way of wriggling out the inconvenient fact that monoatomic gases have a temperature – that is, they emit IR.
As does all matter, whether composed of molecules or not.
Go on, tell me about the IR which is not “generated by molecular vibration of permanent dipoles”. You just make this stuff up as you go along, don’t you?
Next thing you’ll be saying that the Earth hasn’t cooled to its present temperature. What temperature do you think it has cooled to? Some “should be” temperature that you can’t measure?
Swenson
You make bold unsupported statements like “I suppose this is your way of wriggling out the inconvenient fact that monoatomic gases have a temperature that is, they emit IR.”
Now I will ask you to support your bold statement with science (that is some form of evidence). I can’t find any IR spectrum of Helium Monoatomic gas). It has emissions in visible light but none I have found for the IR band. HITRAN does not even have Helium in the data base.
You make bold statements but you have zero evidence to support them.
The Earth’s Surface (do you know what the word surface even means?)
has NOT cooled to its present temperature. Strong evidence supports it cools and warms periodically within a given range of temperatures over long periods of time. You have so far provided no evidence that the solar heated surface has been cooling or warming.
So if you don’t want to support anything you say that is okay. I am trying to show this blog’s posters that You, Clint R, and Gordon Robertson are very unscientific in all your posts. I do not want people who come here to be led astray by your unscientific rants.
I don’t mind skeptics, none of you are that. You are just science deniers that make up your own physics based upon nothing. Like your statement. You make it but you have NO support for it.
Even a request for support will not have any provided for me and that is okay. I am trying to point out how you are unscientific. Others can make up their own minds.
Norman,
You wrote –
“I cant find any IR spectrum of Helium Monoatomic gas).”
What are you babbling about? All matter emits IR, the wavelengths of the emitted photons being in proportion to temperature.
The IR spectrum goes from a limit of infinite wavelength to those wavelengths specified as “red”, the first visible wavelengths.
A helium cylinder is emitting precisely the same wavelengths as the helium within it, regardless of pressure (assuming thermal equilibrium obtains).
The IR emission wavelengths from helium depend on temperature..
Here are some relevant properties –
Specific Heat – c p – ( Btu/lb o F or cal/g o C, J/kgK ) 1.24, 5188
Specific Heat Ratio – c p /c v 1.66
Gas constant – R – ( ft lb/lb o R, J/kg o C ) 386, 2077
Thermal Conductivity ( Btu/hr ft o F, W/m o C ) 0.086, 0.149
If you know the temperature, you can calculate the emitted frequencies.
Swenson
You failed to provide an IR spectrum of Helium. You doubled down on your anti-science but provide no evidence to support your claim.
I hope you are smart enough to realize your declarations that it is so do no amount to evidence.
So are you going to dance around the topic or will your provide evidence of a Helium IR Spectrum?
YOU: “The IR emission wavelengths from helium depend on temperature..”
Other than just making your statement up, what is your evidence to support it? I think it is non-existent so you babble about things you do not know or understand. Weak post from you. I will never hope to get evidence from you will I.
Now on the surface warming. Right now, where I live the surface is relatively cold. In a few months it will increase in temperature by several degrees F. How is that if the surface is cooling? You make no sense at all.
Norman,
You don’t have to agree with physical laws. The law doesnt care.
For others –
“However, the form of the law remains the same: the peak wavelength is inversely proportional to temperature, and the peak frequency is directly proportional to temperature.” – Wikipedia.
No exceptions – solids, liquids, gases.
Norman,
“Stephen, translational states are not quantized.”
Energy in the form of photons is quantised. What do you mean by “translational state”?
If you mean this – “In quantum mechanics, it means a region of uniform potential, usually set to zero . . .” , you are just being silly.
Norman, please stop trolling.
Norman,
What you said isn’t true? IR comes from rotational, vibrational, and translational energy states.
Stephen, translational states are not quantized. Maybe you really meant IR comes from excited rotational, vibrational, and electronic energy states.
Yes that’s right. Only used to calculate degrees of freedom.
Stephen P Anderson
Here is what I stated: “IR is mostly generated by molecular vibration of permanent dipoles (created by the different pulls on electrons by the atomic nuclei making up molecules).”
Near IR (close to visible red) can be caused by electron translation from higher to lower orbitals. That is why I stated mostly. The broad band of IR is mostly vibrational. Microwave is more rotation and visible is all electron translation.
Does that help?
I have been talking purely about radiative transfer, and you and other skeptics bring up heat. They are not the same thing (EM radiation is not heat, eg).
It often appears that you and other skeptics use radiative transfer and heat transfer interchangeably. This may be the source of much confusion.
The thermopile is made of nickel, or a nickel alloy, or similar material, chosen for their sensitivity to infrared radiation, often coated blac. There are two parts – a reference component, sometimes called a cold junction, that is kept at a constant temperature, usually room temperature, to use as a reference for the other component which detects the incoming IR. The cold junction keeps a steady electrical charge, and is used as reference against the electrical charge that the incoming IR is converted to. The difference in charge is how the device determines the temperature of the target in focus.
These are not particularly exotic materials, and neither is the black coating. The device is able to determine the temperature of objects colder than it by absorbing the IR from the colder object and comparing the converted charge to the room-temperature reference.
Of course, if you believe that warm objects cannot absorb radiation from cool objects, then you will have a different – and erroneous – idea of how infrared thermometers work.
"It often appears that you and other skeptics use radiative transfer and heat transfer interchangeably. This may be the source of much confusion."
Remember when, by your own definition of heat, barry, I pointed out that the green plate was heating the blue plate upon separation of the plates, according to the incorrect 262 K…220 K solution? I do. I remember that you then went on to somehow start accusing me of conflating EMR and heat! Fun times.
I remember the argument very well – “at the expense of the cooler object”).
You think that if the green radiates energy towards the blue upon splitting, and the green plate gets cooler and the blue plate warms, that this means heat has flowed from green to blue.
This is where you confuse radiative transfer with heat transfer.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry…you are cherry-picking Clausius. He made a mistake because in his day, it was firmly believed that heat could be transferred through air, actually, an aether, by heat rays. It was not discovered till 1913, by Bohr, that heat as kinetic energy in atoms is converted to electromagnetic energy.
If you follow Bohr’s theory, it is impossible for electrons in a hotter body to absorb the lower frequency energy of photons created in a cooler body. The frequencies must resonate to be absorbed and in a hotter body, the angular frequency of the electrons is too high to resonate with the frequencies in EM from a cooler body.
I am sure Clausius would have been tickled by this news. He was a great scientist and seemed to lack the ego of contemporaries like Thompson (Kelvin). Even though he talked about a two-way flow of heat via radiation he still maintained that heat could only be transferred according to the 2nd law, from hot to cold.
You are simply quoting his reasoning that less heat would flow cold to hot as hot to cold. The entire theory is wrong, no heat is transferred whatsoever, as heat. The so-called transfer involves a double conversion from heat as KE to EM then back to heat.
Heat induced by a radiation transfer is created anew in the target body, it is not transferred through space.
It was your definition of heat, barry. So no, I am not the one confusing radiative transfer with heat transfer. You are. You all are. The green plate is only radiating EMR towards the BP and thus it should not warm the BP and cool the GP with that transfer, because it is not a heat transfer. End of story.
DREMT, it was not my definition, but Clausius’. I have quoted him directly on it many times.
Fine…and what I said still applies. You should be agreeing with Clint and I.
DREMT’s 1:56 am statement “The green plate is only radiating EMR towards the BP and thus it should not warm the BP” violates 2LOT so there is no hope for it to be correct.
> I remember the argument very well – “at the expense of the cooler object”).
Don’t forget “of its own accord,” Barry.
Sky Dragon cranks have little else than word games. It’d be cruel if we forget them!
For some reason you have only quoted part of what I said, Ball4. Why is that?
No DREMT, I don’t agree.
“The green plate is only radiating EMR towards the BP”
No it is radiating also to space. When the plates split, the GP now has two sides to radiate from. 2 X 200 W/m2 = 400 W/m2. The GP cooles because it is now emitting the same amount of energy from twice the surface area, and the surface emission rate sets the temperature. That’s why the GP cools. Not because of a spontaneous reversal of heat flow.
“and thus it should not warm the BP and cool the GP with that transfer, because it is not a heat transfer.”
The heat flow is from BP to GP. The hotter object always radiates more heat to the colder one, and this is constant as soon as the plates are split.
But, you are going to say, GP cools while BP warms, and the only thing connecting them thermally is the radiative transfer.
Fortunately for us, we know that the radiative transfer is not a heat transfer. The BP is gaining energy when it wasn’t before (perfect conduction), it warms, and the GP is now losing energy from a greater area, so it cools. This is not a spontaneous violation of 2LoT, but a consequence of changing the configuration of the 2-plate system to create thermal resistance to BP’s heat loss.
Insulation does exactly the same job. If I put a batt on the floor of a warmed room it will do nothing to change the flow of heat. Now stick that batt in the roof, plugging the hole where it used to be, it will cool as the room warms.
Has the 2LoT been violated here?
Nope, the batt did not give its heat to the room, it slowed the rate of heat loss, and cooled because of its changed position in the system.
Your argument would have it that the batt gave its heat to the room, merely because it cooled while the room warmed.
barry, I’m not going through it all again. I noticed that you misrepresented me from the very beginning of your long post saying "no it is radiating also to space", as if I was somehow unaware of that. I won’t tolerate it, barry! You will not twist my words.
I will say it again, as clearly as I can make it.
You are the one conflating radiative transfer with heat transfer. According to the definition of heat that you gave (which you claim comes from Clausius – fine), the transfer from GP to BP is a heat transfer, because it results in the BP increasing in temperature at the expense of the GP, after the plates separate.
I don’t care about the semantic games you want to play to trick yourself. It doesn’t matter how you want to dress it up. That transfer is what is responsible, in your flawed 262 K…220 K solution, for the plates going from 244 K…244 K when pressed together to 262 K…220 K when separated.
You are treating EMR as heat.
“That transfer is what is responsible, in your flawed 262 K…220 K”
There is no flaw in GPE, since 262K…220K equilibrium complies with 1LOT (energy is conserved) and 2LOT (universe entropy increases).
As I said, I’m not going through it all again. Have fun jumping on this thread in your droves with endless responses all saying the exact same thing. After tomorrow I’ll just PST it. The only point I wanted to make is that barry casually drops in bait like "it often appears that you and other skeptics use radiative transfer and heat transfer interchangeably. This may be the source of much confusion", when he knows full well that’s what he does. So of course, I’m compelled to respond to set him straight. I take the bait! Then we’re drawn into yet another long back and forth that goes on for days and days on end.
No. Can’t be bothered. Enough.
Funny how Graham D. Warner can’t be bothered to reply over and over and over and over and over and over again, without really showing any evidence of what he says about old stories.
As if he did not have enough of having been proven wrong regarding Puffman…
DREMT 4:45 pm needs a little soothing.
It happens that barry’s writing does confuse EMR with heat even though barry claims otherwise.
barry 3:57 pm: “The heat flow is from BP to GP”
barry needs to think that through since the GPE states the thought experiment is visualized (DREMT term) in a vacuum. Heat stays put in the BP but reduces as only emitted EMR transits the vacuum from BP to GP where the EMR is transformed into GP thermodynamic internal energy (0 reflection, 0 transmission as the opaque plates have emissivity 1).
Same for GP to BP to make BP dQ/T positive in the isolated process and comply with 2LOT.
“it results in the BP increasing in temperature at the expense of the GP”
No. The GP does not spontaneously give its heat to BP. You are counting the radiative transfer as a heat transfer. They are synonymous for you.
The GP cools for a reason that has nothing to do with a heat flow between the two plates. It cools because the radiating surface area has doubled in size.
The semantics are yours. You are simply wrong that BP gets warmer “at the expense of” the GP. What has actually happened is that the system has been reconfigured to slow the heat loss of the BP, which warms.
Tell me why there is no heat flow from the cooling batt to the warmer room when it is moved from the floor back to its slot in the roof. According to your argument, the cooling batt must be giving its heat to the room, in violation of the second law.
“You are counting the radiative transfer as a heat transfer. They are synonymous for you.”
Incorrect. That is, in fact, what you are doing.
“No. The GP does not spontaneously give its heat to BP”
Which is why the GP does not decrease in temperature, nor the BP increase in temperature, on separation of the plates.
As to your insulation analogy, radiative insulation does not function the way you seem to think it does.
Now, please…no more.
> radiative insulation does not function the way you seem to think it does.
Graham D. Warmer always tries to seal himself (pun intended) with that one without really making any explicit point.
Perhaps he should team up with B4 to create a bipartite coalition of sperglords.
No, DREMT,
The GP cools and the BP warms but not because of a heat flow from GP to BP. There is no heat flow from GP to BP.
GP cools for the reasons I said, and BP warms because its rate of energy loss is slower thanks to the new (IR) energy directed at it.
Now please, do not answer this, because you’ve had enough, right?
Little Willy, barry, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Now, please… no more.”
You brought it up, now you can’t let go of the discussion all by yourself?
“Which is why the GP does not decrease in temperature”
I explained why the GP decreases in temperature. You ignored the point Oh well.
It remains a mystery how the GP is as warm as the BP in your conception, when it only gets half the energy that the BP does.
Well, let’s not forget your arrow model where you create energy. It is a wondrous property of your blue plate that it is both a perfect emitter and a perfect reflector at the same time. Unique in nature and physics, where ordinarily these properties are mutually exclusive.
“You brought it up, now you can’t let go of the discussion all by yourself?”
No, you baited, barry. With this:
“It often appears that you and other skeptics use radiative transfer and heat transfer interchangeably. This may be the source of much confusion.“
“Well, let’s not forget your arrow model where you create energy”
No energy is created in that model. You can’t debate honestly, so we won’t debate at all. My previous comments refute yours and settle the issue.
That’s not baiting, that’s what I actually think. This opinion has also been given by others, notably Tim Folkers and Brandon Gates, among others here.
There is no heat flow going from GP to BP. The heat flow is BP to GP, because BP is warmer than GP as soon as the plates are split. The definition of heat flow is that heat MUST flow from a warmer to a cooler object.
If you don’t want to talk about it, just stop.
“No energy is created in that model.”
Yes, you double the energy from BP to GP without providing a mechanism for it. If the BP is a blackbody it can’t reflect the radiation being sent by GP, it must absorb it all. If the BP is a perfect mirror, then it can’t emit its internal energy to GP. The radiative physics of the two constructs are mutually exclusive. But you have the BP as both a perfect emitter and a perfect mirror, which is non-physical, and this is how you get the two arrows of equal energy going from the BP to the GP.
No energy is created in the model, barry. You are simply incapable of debating honestly.
“There is no heat flow going from GP to BP. The heat flow is BP to GP, because BP is warmer than GP as soon as the plates are split. The definition of heat flow is that heat MUST flow from a warmer to a cooler object”.
The only way that the BP can get warmer than the GP after the plates split is if you treat the energy going from GP to BP as a flow of heat! Which you should not do.
That’s the point, barry. Once you understand that the GP cannot cause the BP to warm, you will find it a lot easier to accept that the energy from GP to BP must ultimately be returned to the GP.
You will resist understanding until your dying day. Oh well.
By the way, I already completely understand all your arguments.
“The only way that the BP can get warmer than the GP after the plates split is if you treat the energy going from GP to BP as a flow of heat! Which you should not do.”
Partially true, DREMT, except there is another way which is physical reality in accord with 2LOT: the BP can get warmer than the GP after the plates split if you treat the energy going from GP to BP as a flow of EMR thru the vacuum fully absorbed in BP & more than before from deep space! Which you must do to make BP dQ/T positive for an increase in universe entropy in the isolated process and pass 2LOT.
A transfer of EMR won’t make one object warmer at the expense of another, but a transfer of heat will.
No heat transfer across a vacuum DREMT, EMR is NOT heat. dQ/T must be positive to pass 2LOT so there is no hope for your solution. BP given more EMR from GP than space, means BP must warm when GP introduced.
“No heat transfer across a vacuum DREMT“
So the Sun can’t heat the Earth. Fascinating.
“EMR is NOT heat”
As I’ve been saying.
Physically the sun is heating the Earth, DREMT, through transfer of EMR across a (near) vacuum which is the same means by which the increased EMR over space at equilibrium from the added GP has warmed the BP towards system equilibrium.
DREMT’s GPE solution is ruled out by 2LOT as universe entropy is not increased in that solution.
“No energy is created in the model, barry.”
And you will no doubt explain why that is….
“You are simply incapable of debating honestly.”
No, I make an effort to explain myself.
“The only way that the BP can get warmer than the GP after the plates split is if you treat the energy going from GP to BP as a flow of heat!”
And there you go. YOU are equating a single radiative vector as a flow of heat. Not me.
When the system is reconfigured the distribution of radiation is changed. Is that a heat flow? No. Because EM radiation is not heat, nor does a single vector determine heat flow.
You continue to ignore that the GP does not spontaneously get cooler. It cools for a reason that has nothing to do with the BP. It cools because its radiating surface area doubles.
The flow of heat is no more GP to BP, than it is ceiling batt to room when the batt is moved from the floor to its place in the roof. In both instances the heat flow actually changes from equilibrium to GP/ceiling batt, because both are now colder than the source of heat.
And repositioning both of them made the source of what heats them even warmer.
“That’s the point, barry. Once you understand that the GP cannot cause the BP to warm, you will find it a lot easier to accept that the energy from GP to BP must ultimately be returned to the GP.”
Once you understand that the cold ceiling batt cannot make the warmer room any warmer, you will find it a lot easier to accept that the ceiling batt must be the same temperature as the room, even when half of it is exposed to the colder roof.
“That’s the point, barry. Once you understand that the GP cannot cause the BP to warm, you will find it a lot easier to accept that the energy from GP to BP must ultimately be returned to the GP.”
Here is the crux of it. All the denial of how IR thermometers work. All the hemming and hawing over whether warm objects absorb radiation from cool objects. All the twisting and turning and complete lack of interest in searching for, much less providing a source to back up this notion that they do not.
All the silly quibbles about the very ordinary use of blankets and sweaters. It’s just too hard to admit that they actually do what you say can’t happen and then accept that the physics applies equally to radiative environments.
It’s why Clint forever tells us arriving fluxes don’t sum, despite being showered with links to physics text showing that they are summed, including the math that is applied.
It’s why Swenson tries to insist that gases radiate like blackbodies.
All this silly fabrication and denial because admitting any of it injures the article of faith – that changing the radiative composition of a cooler sky can never impact the temperature of a warmer surface.
This is the premise – the unshakeable belief, and all argumentation has to bend physics to conform to that belief. The results are often absurd, such as denying how IR thermometers work when it is confirmed by a dozen sources.
barry, no energy is created in the model. Just look at the direction of the arrows, the colour of the arrows, and the numbers. It all balances. You can’t debate honestly, and you sure do ramble on.
Ball4 agrees that the Sun heats the Earth via transfer of EMR, thus disagreeing with his earlier comment.
barry said:
"There is no heat flow going from GP to BP. The heat flow is BP to GP, because BP is warmer than GP as soon as the plates are split. The definition of heat flow is that heat MUST flow from a warmer to a cooler object".
He apparently thinks the BP is just warmer than the GP as soon as the plates are split, by magic. He doesn’t seem to acknowledge that there would have to be a transfer of energy to facilitate that warming of the BP and cooling of the GP…and, that would have to be a transfer of heat. By his own definition (sorry, Clausius’, apparently).
He will probably respond, it will probably involve his insulation analogy again. Sigh.
“He apparently thinks the BP is just warmer than the GP as soon as the plates are split, by magic.”
I have described the process by which GP cools and BP warms. ,a href=https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1603027>Here, here, <a href=here. You have ignored all these points.
I’ll try one more time and see if you finally respond.
1) The GP cools because up separating from the BP, it now has twice the surface area from which to radiate. If you double the radiating surface area but keep the input the same, the temperature of the emitting surface must drop. The math: 400 w/m2 X 1A = 200 W/m2 X 2A. A = area.
Any problem with that?
2) The BP warms because its rate of heat loss is slowed by absorbing extra energy from GP. The solar input to BP is constant, the radiative balance has changed with the new vector from GP.
BP is now radiating more thermal radiation to GP than vice versa, therefore the flow of heat is now BP to GP, where prior to being split there was no heat flow.
Your mistake is to think that because GP cools while BP heats, and because the thermal connection between each is a radiative one, that this radiative vector is the same as a flow of heat in the classic (2nd Law) sense. It simply isn’t. The flow of heat is determined by all vectors of radiation in the system, not just one.
The batt when moved from the floor to the ceiling ’causes’ the room to be warmer, but the flow of heat is always from the warming room to the cooling batt. The batt has not suddenly and spontaneously sent its heat to the room.
And the GP has not suddenly and spontaneously started sending its heat to the BP.
In both cases the cooler object cools while the warmer object warms.
Please do two things with your answer.
1 – respond to points 1) and 2). You’ve been ignoring them.
Explain why moving the batt doesn’t break 2LoT. If you do that, I’ll take seriously an explanation of why moving the GP does break 2LoT.
“Ball4 agrees that the Sun heats the Earth via transfer of EMR, thus disagreeing with his earlier comment.”
No disagreement with my earlier comment DREMT, you are fantasizing again.
The GP warms the BP with added EMR above that of deep space across a vacuum just like the sun warms the Earth with added EMR above that of deep space across a vacuum, both to equilibrium in accord with 2LOT as both processes increase universe entropy.
DREMT’s GPE solution violates 2LOT (so there is no hope for it) as universe entropy is NOT increased in the process of adding the GP.
Predictable responses from barry and Ball4.
“1) The GP cools because up separating from the BP, it now has twice the surface area from which to radiate…”
…where does it cool to, barry? Don’t say space, because it was already radiating to space before the plates were separated. On separation, it is now also radiating towards the BP. You say the GP now cools, but if that were the case it would have to be cooling to the BP. It cannot cool to the BP without heating the BP. It cannot heat the BP due to 2LoT.
“It cannot heat the BP due to 2LoT.”
GP radiation cannot heat the BP in a vacuum because EMR is NOT heat.
The BP is warming as required by 2LOT to increase entropy due to fully absorbing (emissivity = 1, not reflecting, or transmitting) the added EMR of the GP being introduced in the vacuum way above the EMR from deep space.
Ball4 just quotes the final sentence, conveniently skipping the argument made altogether. Pretty sure I wasn’t responding to him, anyway.
“Of course, if you believe that warm objects cannot absorb radiation from cool objects, then you will have a different and erroneous idea of how infrared thermometers work.”
barry, please stop trolling.
barry…”he thermopile is made of nickel, or a nickel alloy, or similar material, chosen for their sensitivity to infrared radiation, often coated blac. There are two parts a reference component, sometimes called a cold junction, that is kept at a constant temperature, usually room temperature, to use as a reference for the other component which detects the incoming IR”.
***
There is a confusion in the literature about the usage of ‘thermopile’ as applied to semiconductors. That is what you are describing.
The real thermopile uses a series of two dissimilar metals (thermocouples) joined at a junction. The metals are activated by heat, not IR, and produce a tiny electrical current. It is conceivable that with a strong IR field close to the metals, it could heat the metal but that’s hardly likely when pointing an IR thermometer at a human at a significant distance or pointing it into the sky to determine the temperature a few kilometres high.
Nor will the current produced give the temperature of the IR source. Any heating will be local and dependent on the proximity of the IR field and its intensity. You need to understand that IR is subject to the inverse square law and its intensity is subject to distance. Therefore intensity cannot determine source temperature although frequency can. Semiconductors don’t respond to temperature just frequency.
With semiconductor devices, the likes of which you are describing, the world thermocouple or thermopile is used incorrectly. The semiconductor devices behave quite differently. They don’t react to heat but to the frequencies inherent in the IR band. I don’t know why people who write about this on the Net continue to misrepresent semiconductor devices as thermopiles. I can only guess that they don’t understand the difference.
In descriptions of thermopiles/thermocouples that I’ve been reading, the the materials used to construct the thermopiles are semiconductor materials, because of their sensitivity to IR frequencies. These thermopiles do not measure temperature directly, but are sensitive to IR frequencies, and therefore can derive the temperature of objects at some distance.
Roy posted here some years back that he pointed such a device at a cloud and got the temperature. Obviously that temperature was lower than the device temperature at ground level.
barry, in your failed effort to pervert science you may be confused between the different methods of measuring temperatures remotely. A “pyrgeometer” uses thermopiles, but an inexpensive IR thermometer uses a properly doped semiconductor (p-n junction). Satellites use an even more advanced combination of methods.
But the reason your mission fails is because all the devices are man-made. They are engineered to do what nature cannot do. It’s like the times your cult (bob) has tried to claim CO2 can warm Earth’s surface because a CO2 laser can cut steel.
You really don’t understand the science, even though you attempt to pervert it.
That’s why this is so much fun.
> They are engineered to do what nature cannot do.
You really believe in magic, Puffman!
Riddle me this – how can humans transcend laws of physics?
Cilld, find a responsible adult to explain it to you.
Riddle me this, Puffman –
Haven’t you just admitted being irresponsible?
Find a responsible adult to explain it to you, child.
I know you’re irresponsible, Puffman, but riddle me this –
What am I?
“They are engineered to do what nature cannot do.”
Sorry, what is they do that doesn’t happen in nature?
I’ve been explaining how the thermopile absorbs radiation from colder objects. Is this what you mean doesn’t happen in nature? Because DREMT has linked to you saying that some of the radiation from cold objects IS absorbed by the warmer surface.
So what is it that doesn’t happen in nature?
Clint, I’ve now read about 35 different descriptions of how infrared thermometers work, and in every single one of them the sensor is called a thermopile. Thermopiles convert incoming energy to an electronic voltage. That is how IR thermometers work.
“Clint, Ive now read about 35 different descriptions of how infrared thermometers work, and in every single one of them the sensor is called a thermopile.”
Maybe you didnt read enough.
“The thermometer used by Herschel to first detect near infrared radiation from the sun was a type of bolometer. The modern version is an individual Ge:Ga or doped Si detector suspended in a small enclosure.” – manufacturer,
There are a few ways of measuring temperature remotely by sensing the IR frequencies (not the intensity, as Einstein showed).
Thermopiles, using the Seebeck effect, are widely used, of course.
Mike Flynn,
Interesting. Does Herschel still produce bolometers?
barry…”In descriptions of thermopiles/thermocouples that Ive been reading, the the materials used to construct the thermopiles are semiconductor materials, because of their sensitivity to IR frequencies. These thermopiles do not measure temperature directly, but are sensitive to IR frequencies, and therefore can derive the temperature of objects at some distance”.
***
The point I am making is that the word thermopile, a reference to thermocouples in series, is not applicable to the semiconductors used in the IR detectors. The word thermopile suggests it is operated by heat at a distance whereas, as you point out, the devices respond to frequencies in the IR band. The action of the IR on the semiconductor is far different than heat acting on a thermocouple/thermopile.
A real thermocouple responds directly to heat, hence the ‘thermo’ in thermocouple. They are based on the Seeback effect in which two dissimilar metals joined at a node react to heat differently, setting up a small voltage difference between them. If IR is to be the cause of that heat, it needs to be very close and very intense. Roy’s IR device cannot detect heat directly from space but it can detect IR frequencies and the signal can be easily amplified.
Every IR thermometer description I’ve read says there is a thermopile, made up of multiple thermocouples in there that is sensitive to IR.
But whether you agree with the terminology doesn’t matter. The instrument is sensitive to IR, and can absorb the IR from objects colder than the sensor.
That is the entire point of this discussion.
It is also a fact that the absorbed IR changes the temperature of the sensor. If the object is cooler than the sensor, the temperature of the sensor goes down. I’ve quoted above two manufacturers of IR thermopiles saying exactly that.
“The exchange of infrared radiation between the absorber and the object in front of it makes the temperature of the absorber rise or fall, depending on the temperature difference between it and the object”
https://www.heimannsensor.com/temperature-sensing
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1601737
“The ICE has an extensive infrastructure. All of it from the wellhead to the pump provided and maintained by private industry.”
–
What is the cost and what is the inflation when ICE is abandoned? The rich have they assets secured, the poor have some small accounts in bank – the savings for the worse.
–
The poors are those who subsidize the renewables implementation in the first place, because it is their money which get devalueted!
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
How can a photon have momentum?
https://youtu.be/V_fKYrrsVT4?si=9e-P1pKm420Pf3H9
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Is there something you want to say?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Have you watched the video, Mike?
Willard, please stop trolling.
NO U, my dear Mike.
Did you know that mass did not exist?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Here, Mike –
Is relativistic mass real?
https://youtu.be/LTJauaefTZM?si=2hWr-dNWxOf5iKvY
Enjoy!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey Mike.
Wake up.
You got to get going.
Willard
I did think it was a very interesting video. Good post.
He did not explain how a massless photon can have momentum, all he did was resort to inane math to create a nonsensical equation.
He tried to equate momentum to kinetic energy in an equation. In essence, he is comparing a property of energy in motion to a property of a mass in motion. He seems to think it’s OK to ignore the reality and work blindly with math.
Linus Pauling was one accosted by some ijit who wondered why Pauling had not run a double-blind test to prove a point. Pauling replied that a double-blind was not required when an outcome was so obvious. The same applies here, if something has no mass, it is blatantly obvious it can have no momentum. No need for math or smoke and mirrors.
Momentum is not only defined mathematically as mass x velocity it is defined as the tendency of a ***MASS*** to remain in motion while resisting a change in that motion.
Kinetic energy is a descriptor for any kind of energy in motion whereas momentum is a descriptor for only a mass in motion. In either case, if m = 0, the outcome is 0. It does not matter how you try to balance the equation, if m = 0, both the KE and the momentum are 0.
Cool story, Bordo.
As Don explains in the first minute, he needs maths to present the problem: p = 0 x v does not work. Then he presents the intuition behind the solution.
It’s obvious you haven’t looked at the video because a bit before 4:00 Don does a perfect imitation of most of your posts.
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”As Don explains in the first minute, he needs maths to present the problem: p = 0 x v does not work.”
***
That’s my point, with the tricks in his math he cannot prove it. In the video the guy admits a photon has no mass then he goes ahead an applies an equation with mass in it. As soon as he brought in the math I saw bs. written all over it.
Craig Bohren actually came closer in his book on radiation. He claimed that momentum is a definition that nature does not have to obey, which is true. However, Newton defined inertia based on his definition of mass and momentum, which is directly related to inertia.
Newton defined inertia as a force internal to a mass that resists a change in motion. Momentum is an inertia representing a mass in motion. Something keeps it moving indefinitely unless another force acts to change its motion. If a force is applied to change its motion, even a body with momentum experiences an inertia.
My argument is that you cannot apply math arbitrarily without considering the forces and masses involved. Einstein made that error when he arbitrarily re-defined time to fit his theory. That is a non-no in science yet he has not only gotten away with it, he has been worshipped for it.
Cool story, Bordo.
You realize that your word salad only works if you really are in front of people and they can’t read back what you said and double check everything, right?
The general equation that works for every single thing including massless objects is shown after 5:00.
You need to work on your attention span.
“You need to work on your attention span.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy…I told you before, my replies to your blurbs are not intended for someone as st00pid as you. I am replying to minds with the intelligence to see how st00pid your posts rally are.
Anyone who watched the video through the end can tell you are saying stuff once again, Bordo.
The only person for whom you keep repeating points refuted a thousand times is yourself.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Some people think getting energy from space, could solve our climate woes.
And it appears to me that is largely related to how long we delay exploring the Moon.
I don’t think global climate is a problem, and doubt anyone actually thinks it is.
But perhaps a few people want governments to do things other than start wars and waste the public’s time.
It seems burning bio-fuels {or mostly wood} was a complete waste of tax dollars which might of done something more useful {though unlikely}.
And wind mills and solar panels aren’t a success story.
I live in area, littered with solar panels and wind mills. But they are old litter. There is still lots of empty areas to fill with this stuff with, but it’s not happening. It seems my area is all set up to do it, the desire is corruption related to setting new areas to litter with this stuff. And was the attempt to wind farms in eastern US. and managed to kill whales and upset the fishermen, in as general, notable achievement.
I am a fan of ocean settlement, and the marine wind disaster, didn’t seem to provide any useful lessons. It may inform you not to make ocean settlements on the northeastern seaboard, but we didn’t we to learn that.
Some think ocean settlements could be answer to over population, though I don’t think there is a problem with over population.
It seems there could be a beach problem.
If world was beach, it might be regarded over crowded with useless rich people.
The beach is very corrosive environment and oceanic wind mills are in this corrosive marine environment, it’s predictable when start fail badly, because of this, some genius will give that as reason of it’s utter failure. Or that there are storms and waves in the ocean.
It does seem to have advantage of being somewhere that would require overly adventurous people in order to vandalize them.
Some people think nothing works in the marine environment, others seem to think titanium alloys work the best, ie:
–Why use titanium?
Light, strong, corrosion-resistant titanium should be considered for marine and offshore applications, wherever weight or space are factors or corrosion/erosion is a problem.
In all fields of engineering, but nowhere more than in marine and offshore service, designers, fabricators and end users are readier than ever before to consider titanium for a continually widening range of applications. Today, with several thousand tons of titanium in service offshore, old and false notions about cost, availability and fabrication are less likely than ever to prejudice engineers, who can see clearly for themselves all the excellent benefits which titanium brings to marine and offshore operations. Titanium is not an “exotic” metal, it is relatively inexpensive and widely available. A large number of suppliers and fabricators regularly supply components and equipment at prices which emphasise that the metal is easier and less expensive to fabricate and weld than most alloy steels and nickel alloys. The fact is that for sea-water applications there is no other material which can approach, economically or technically, the performance offered by titanium.–
So, I guess I am going to google wind mills and titanium
“Worlds biggest offshore windfarm protected using titanium dioxide paints”
That seems silly. And:
“TiO2 is an essential ingredient of the coating as it brings multiple benefits to the product. As a pigment, its high refractive index means it can scatter visible light. This results in an opaque colour and creates a bright, reflective quality, protecting the turbine from UV degradation.
TiO2 is also an excellent photocatalyst, breaking down harmful atmospheric pollutants as they come into contact with the turbine masts, giving them an environmentally friendly, self-cleaning ability, which reduces the need for expensive ongoing maintenance.”
And something else:
Titanium Apply in Offshore Wind Turbines
Aug 31, 2023
Titaniums corrosion resistance properties have been put to the test in the construction of offshore wind turbines. This has resulted in more efficient wind energy production and a longer lifespan for the turbines.
Titanium can play in advancing and improving ocean engineering. With its unique properties and versatile applications, titanium is a valuable resource in the pursuit of sustainable, innovative and successful marine projects.–
And first one, makes me wonder if it means, paint
For those stumbling around (or maybe just having fun arguing) with the concept of heat, there is a more fundamental question. What is temperature? Why is it the same for all atoms and molecules? Is the zeroth law correct?
Temperature is nothing more than the measure of thermal energy (kinetic energy) of molecules. Temperature is involved with heat, as conduction between two bodies is directly proportional to the difference in temperatures, Th – Tc.
That’s only for conduction, of course. Don’t be confused by the subtraction of fluxes (Th´ – Tc´). That ain’t “heat”.
Traditionally, within a white box, 5 feet above a natural terrain, or in the shade and not on asphalt or near human made heat sources.
In terms of global surface land temperature measurements.
The ocean surface air temperature is much warmer than land, and it’s not adequately known, nor measured.
But some guess it’s average is about 17 C
Bummer, I see the superscripts didn’t work! Time for more testing:
T
T⁴
T&sup4;
One out of three.
Your explanation works for gases to some extent, but not precisely. Does a solid at rest have molecules with “kinetic energy”? Why do different atoms and molecules at the same temperature have different phases?
Kinetic energy includes both translational motion of molecules and vibrations of molecules.
Sorry Tim S, I missed your second question.
Remember that “phases” — liquid, gas, solid — are dependent on temperature AND pressure.
tim..as long as atoms in a solid vibrate they represent masses in motion. KE – 1/2mv^2, therefore the individuals atoms must posses KE since they are masses in motion.
The 1st law became ambiguous when Thompson (Kelvin) talked Clausius out of his theory of internal energy, substituting the word energy for the actual heat and work involved internally. If you read Clausius on the subject of internal energy he describes it as both heat and work. The atoms do work as they vibrate (therefore have KE) and the vibration is sustained by heat.
Clausius described internal energy as the sum of internal heat and work. That makes sense since the internal energy should be in the same form as any external energies. Since the external energies are heat and work in the 1st law and the internal energies are the sum of those two, the internal energies must be heat and work as well.
tim..as long as atoms in a solid vibrate they represent masses in motion. KE = 1/2mv^2, therefore the individuals atoms must posses KE since they are masses in motion.
The 1st law became ambiguous when Thompson (Kelvin) talked Clausius out of his theory of internal energy, substituting the word energy for the actual heat and work involved internally. If you read Clausius on the subject of internal energy he describes it as both heat and work. The atoms do work as they vibrate (therefore have KE) and the vibration is sustained by heat.
Clausius described internal energy as the sum of internal heat and work. That makes sense since the internal energy should be in the same form as any external energies. Since the external energies are heat and work in the 1st law and the internal energies are the sum of those two, the internal energies must be heat and work as well.
Tim S,
OK. Temperature is an object’s “degree of hotness”. Measured in degrees by normal people. Measured in W/m2 by strange GHE cultists.
It’s the same because a measuring device says it is, except when it isn’t.
As far as I know, the zeroth law has not been broken – in reality, as opposed to the minds of GHE cultists.
I assume you are trolling for fun, not maliciously.
Mike Flynn,
Suppose and object E that has a higher degree of hotness in situation A than in situation B.
Would you say that E is warmer in A than in B and that situation A warms it?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 465.2 km/sec
density: 12.50 protons/cm3
“GEOMAGNETIC STORM WATCH (UPDATED): NOAA forecasters have downgraded today’s geomagnetic storm watch from category G2 (Moderate) to category G1 (Minor). This is in response to the late arrival of the Jan. 20th halo CME. At the same time, the new G1 geomagnetic storm watch has been extended through the next 3 days.”
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Daily Sun: 23 Jan 24
Sunspot number: 139
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 196 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.60×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.9% Low
Solar wind
speed: 421.2 km/sec
density: 6.11 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 25 Jan 24
Sunspot number: 108
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 172 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.60×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.5% Low
Most of area of nearside of the sun is presently blank, this is particularly true when you consider most of area of sun is closer to the Equator. High in northern hemisphere is spot number 3559 which large group of big sunspots- and nearest sunspot at halfway point. It’s the last of all current spots to go to farside.
And don’t see any spot following it coming from the farside {yet}.
So all other current sunspot numbers [3555, 3556, 3560, 3561, and 3562] will leave before 3559 will, and in about day, 3562 leaves.
So in about week or less, 3559 will still be nearside, but all others have left.
Of course spots grow on nearside, or more spots could come from farside.
Now, why is there just large sunspot region so far up in the northern hemisphere, are going to see more large spots closer to polar regions. And it seems if have more active region near equator, you having more area of the sun which is more active. And also more active region nearer the sun’s equator have effect upon the planets in our solar system.
We would like to see the Sun’s polar region, but it would have less direct effect upon Earth, other than more understanding about the sun.
Solar wind
speed: 456.5 km/sec
density: 8.50 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 26 Jan 24
Sunspot number: 101
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 161 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 19.31×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.6% Low
Still no spots coming from farside.
But 3559 is still quite awhile before it goes to farside.
And after that, maybe spotless day.
Jan going to have higher sunspot number than I guessed it would.
tim s…troubleshooting…” What is temperature? Why is it the same for all atoms and molecules? Is the zeroth law correct?”
***
Temperature is a human invention that offers a relative measure of thermal energy, aka heat, based on the freezing and boiling points of water. Absolute temperature (degrees kelvin, or K) is worked out mathematically by projecting a curve created from those points till it meets the x-axis. Thus far, no one has been able to measure to 0K because there are no instruments that can measure it.
We have to be careful in science to differentiate between human concep.ts and inventions and the real physical world with its own laws that are completely independent of the human mind. In a fit of absolute st00pidity, humans have tried to define energy as an inane ‘capacity to do work’. That only loosely defines mechanical energy, leaving many other forms of energy, like heat, undefined. The 1st law of thermodynamics only defines the relationship between work and heat yet it is egotistically referred to as the law of conservation of energy.
Gordon writes as if it is strange or even disconcerting to find that energy and entropy cannot be neatly defined so consider some words we use in everyday life: ones with little scientific connotations. Like what is justice? Could Gordon define justice so comprehensively as to allow for every possible interpretation and to satisfy every critic? Good luck trying! Courts attempt that feat daily.
Gordon really shouldn’t ask for a complete understanding of energy from the outset but rather be content with gradual and progressive understanding by way of proper use & experiment. Be prepared for a journey, Gordon, but don’t expect a destination. The best way to understand energy and entropy is by using them in as many contexts as possible consistent with proper experiment.
Sometimes we are told to conserve energy because of an impending energy crisis. From a thermodynamic point of view, that is ludicrous since: there is no choice but to conserve energy, to do otherwise is impossible. The most meaningful characteristic of energy is that it is conserved.
If there is a crisis, it is an entropy crisis. Universe entropy must increase all the time, grows larger every day, and can’t be stopped.
You are trying to equate the vagaries of the human mind with he real, physical natural world. Justice is a concept developed by the human mind therefore it is subject to the whims of the human mind. Reality has no such whims.
Entropy was defined by Clausius as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat at temperature T. Gibbs expanded on that by including into his free energy equation as heat subtracted from the total energy of system to give the free energy, as heat, remaining.
These are not concepts of the human mind, they can actually be measured. Energy cannot be measured directly only the effect is has on something. Energy is real but our concepts about it often relegate it to the unmeasurable like justice.
Einsteins theory of relativity lies mainly in the same category. He developed the theory in his mind using concepts that are untenable and invariant, like time.
Universal entropy is equally untenable, It has no basic meaning since it cannot be measured. Even the bastardized definition of entropy, as a measure of disorder cannot be measured. Nothing more than a concept.
Here’s a table listing the entropy of varioiu values for entropy are measures of heat in joules/degree K-mol.
https://www2.chem.wisc.edu/deptfiles/genchem/netorial/modules/thermodynamics/table.htm
Gordon writes: “Energy cannot be measured directly…” then links a table showing results of energy in joules per mol being measured directly for various matter, lol.
And even entropy per mol S being measured for the same substances when Gordon writes: “(entropy) cannot be measured.”
Gordon’s writing on physics has become as mistaken & laughable as Clint R’s writing. Great entertainment.
The fact that goofball4 always has me in his head is proof I’m getting to him. That’s good.
Reality always wins.
“Like what is justice? Could Gordon define justice so comprehensively as to allow for every possible interpretation and to satisfy every critic?”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Temperature and time are human inventions. Neither are natural phenomena.
For whatever reason, Einstein mistook time for a 4th dimension. Henceforth, a rusty,old alarm clock was deemed to run at variable speeds based on a ratio of the speed of the medium in which it existed and the speed of light. The same inanity applied to digital clocks based on the oscillations in a quartz crystal. No one has ever explained why the ratio of local sped to the speed of light can affect springs in an alarm clock or the electron motion in a quartz crystal.
Say we could live on much higher gravity world which spun a lot faster.
So had 20 times Earth gravity amd spun so fast, that on surface it was just 1 gee or you weighed the same as you do now.
Well, surface at equator it was 1 gee- you weighed the same.
Not sure that is possible or how it’s possible, but one start with assumption, it had a lot iron and very little oxidized iron.
We know little about Mercury but roughly, 20 planets like Mercury become one planet.
Or another way might be to remove all gases from Gas giants {though we little about our gas giants].
Or had people who thought oxygen was valuable and iron and depleted Uranium and such thing were garbage. and made a planet of it.
But one has this yet to defined planet, which spins really fast, and the question, would time past differently on it?
Again, Clint has confused himself by reading nonsense from Boltzmann et al who tried to create a fictitious world in which atoms were portrayed as imaginary statistical points. This work began with Clausius in the 1850s but he needed to focus on heat and its relationship to work and the kinetic theory of gases was picked up by Maxwell, a pure mathematician, then Boltzmann, a klown who took his own life out of depression and shame because he could not make his theories work.
It should be noted that both Clausius and Boltzmann lived in an era that preceded the discovery of the electron and the subsequent application of electron theory to the atom as revealed by Bohr in 1913. That introduced the world of quantum theory as applied to atoms and rendered quaint older theories of blackbody theory and statistical mechanics obsolete.
That has not stopped even bigger klowns from adop.ting his work without question. Boltzmann arbitrarily redefine the entropy already defined by Clausius in a vile attemp.t to explain it statistically. Clint, for an inexplicable reason, has latched onto the work of the mentally unstable Boltzmann while ignoring the brilliant German scientist Clausius, who did such great work in thermodynamics that his laws are still valid today.
Clint, and his buddy, ball4, still thinks heat does not exist as energy, defying the good logic he applied to the non-rotation of the Moon. I gladly joined him in that debate, on his side, and on other science, but sadly we have drifted apart as Clint descends into pseudo-science related to heat and entropy.
I should say that Clint has drifted off into a world of the macabre. I have nothing against him even though he insists on taking every opportunity to deride my education and theories while refusing to engage in debates that would confirm my educational background while revealing him as the Klinton Klown he has become.
Gordon, you are as obsessed with me as are Norman and barry. You sickos keep trying to blame me for your ignorance. When I try to correct your invalid opinions and beliefs, you lash out like insane psychos. barry and Norman can’t wait to call me a “lying dog”. And you write long rants filled with false accusations about me.
If you really want to mature, you should study the comments of barry and Norman. If your brain works, you will be able to see the negatives all three of you have. If you are sane and mature, you should be able to then fix yourself.
I won’t hold my breath….
Clint R
Again you need to lie.
YOU: “When I try to correct your invalid opinions and beliefs, you lash out like insane psychos.”
You lie because it is what you do not what I do. I provide evidence for my posts. You offer NONE, ever. You make declarations that are your opinion and belief as if they were facts based upon some evidence. Like Swenson, you offer zero evidence. You can’t come up with evidence that the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus but you claim it is with no evidence. That is an opinion and belief.
You reflect your own flaw on other posters. Yet you are the one with the issues. The funny thing is you are the Cult minded anti-science poster with many flaws yet you can’t fix your own poor behavior. You are so deluded you can’t see that you are a “no evidence, no problem” poster.
Can you link to one post you have made over the years of posting that you provide evidence for any of your claims? I really don’t think you can.
All wrong Norman, as usual.
I’ve provided plenty of evidence to explain physics. I can explain, but I can’t understand it for you. If you really wanted to learn, you would stop with the insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations . But, you don’t want to learn. He hate reality.
Clint R
There you go doing it again. You make the claim you have provided evidence but you do not show any link to a post where you have done this. Please more evidence and less assertions. I really don’t care at all about your assertive statements like this one “Ive provided plenty of evidence to explain physics.” Like what evidence?
You have not provided evidence that the radiant heat transfer equation is bogus. You have not provided evidence nitrogen gas reflects IR.
By the way you also do not provide any evidence to support this claim “you would stop with the insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.”
Show evidence of me stating false accusations or misrepresentations.
As for insults you insult constantly. Do you want some evidence for that. One who insults should not complain about insults. Why do you think you can insult others and not expect return?
So I await evidence which will never come. You and twin Swenson. No evidence, no problem.
Here’s just one recent example of your “insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations”, Norman:
“The funny thing is you are the Cult minded anti-science poster with many flaws yet you can’t fix your own poor behavior.”
That’s an exact quote from you. But, you will not accept it. You will deny you are insulting, falsely accusing, and misrepresenting me. You won’t face reality. That’s why I don’t waste much time with you.
Just above there are two examples of me responsibly answering responsible science questions. I treat folks like they treat me. Stop the kiddie nonsense and I’ll try to teach you some science.
But, you won’t stop because you can’t stand the truth.
“You and twin Swenson. No evidence, no problem.”
Norman, please stop trolling.
Clint R
Sorry you are wrong. What I stated is NOT a false claim or misrepresentation. It could be an insult but it is totally correct.
ME: The funny thing is you are the Cult minded anti-science poster with many flaws yet you cant fix your own poor behavior.
Yes you are Cult minded. That is a fact. Since all you do on this blog is post your unsupported opinions. And you are certainly anti-science when you call well tested established science bogus (with zero evidence to support this claim) such as the well accepted radiant heat transfer equation.
You think nitrogen gas reflects IR. To date you have offered zero evidence to support this. You gave your Cult opinion on it that the 15 micron photon was to large to go through nitrogen gas. That is NOT evidence or science. It is your unsupported opinion.
So yes it is not a false claim at all you are anti-science.
Cult minded is blind belief (2020 election was stolen, no evidence at all to support it) and unsupported opinions stated as certain facts (Moon does not rotate on its own axis, Tidal locking is bogus…many of these totally unscientific claims you make numerous times).
IR from a cold object cannot be absorbed by a hotter one. Evidence says your wrong but you do not accept evidence so you are a science denier.
Let us see if you respond (you may not read this). If you do you will avoid addressing the clear points I have brought up about you and divert or say something like rambling post or other unimportant item but you will totally avoid providing evidence and you will continue in your Cult mentality. You also will not grasp you are unscientific and cult minded and all you offer are unfounded opinions.
Here is some light reading material:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration
“Praseodymium alloyed with nickel (PrNi5) has such a strong magnetocaloric effect that it has allowed scientists to approach to within one millikelvin, one thousandth of a degree of absolute zero.”
Frustratingly for them, that praseodymium alloyed with nickel keeps on ever more feebly emitting and absorbing, reflecting EMR at one millikelvin.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
norman…”How many times do you [GR] need corrected. You truly are a crackpot living in their own created Universe with rules they made up. You are a true science denier and will not accept any evidence that tries to break in your Fantasy Reality you have created out of your own thoughts.
IR is mostly generated by molecular vibration of permanent dipoles (created by the different pulls on electrons by the atomic nuclei making up molecules).
***
Norman, I regard you fondly as one of the flat-Earthers on this blog. How can anyone dislike someone who is so incredibly obtuse? I don’t even dislike Clint, although he avoids getting into details as do you.
Your theory about IR generation is truly without merit but I’ll credit you with trying. Even though I have tried to advise you otherwise, you stick to your quaint theory that IR is generated by molecular vibrations based on a permanent dipole. You insist that the dipoles are created by the electrostatic forces between the nucleus and its electrons.
If that’s the case, then why does each dipole have electrons on either end and not a positively-charged nucleus? Why are outer shell, or valence electrons, only involved in such bonds? The dipoles are formed between valence shell electrons not electrons and their nucleii. When two atoms are joined by electron covalent bonds to form a molecule, the dipole is created due to the level of electron charges between the atom’s electron charges and not the +ve/-ve charges of the nucleus and electrons.
It was Linus Pauling who produced the concept of electronegativity, the underlying principle of dipole bonds. CO2 is a linear molecule with a carbon atom surrounded by two oxygen atoms. The O atoms have more electrons than the C atoms and when in molecular form there is a tendency for the bonding electrons to favour the bond sides with the oxygen. That is, oxygen is more electronegative than carbon because it has a greater affinity for electrons in a bond.
Therefore, CO2 forms two linear bonds in which the O-side is more negative than the C-side. That forms two dipoles that have negative charges on either end but with the C-end less negative than the O-end. Less negative, in a relative sense, means positive wrt the more negative end. Therefore a dipole bond is a simple variation in negative electrostatic charge due to differences in electronegativity.
Of course, a hallmark of electrostatic voltage differences is vibration. If one of those bonding electrons forming a dipole bond absorbs or emits EM, that will alter the vibration. Therefore, it’s not the vibration causing the EM but the EM affecting the vibration. In other words, molecular vibrations are due to differences in electron charge between atoms and the properties of the electrons in their covalent bond orbits. Change the orbital properties by absorbing or emitting EM and you alter the vibration.
Gordon Robertson
Again you deny science in favor of your own incorrect view (this is why you are a crackpot). IR is produced by the molecular vibration. NO Electon transition needed. I have given you enough links on the science of IR spectroscopy but you ignore them and deny science.
Bohr was interested in explaining the different visible light bands seen in the hydrogen spectrum. He was not working on IR spectrum. You are using Bohr’s excellent work to promote your false idea that a hot object cannot absorb IR from a colder object. It is just something you made up. Bohr never made any claim you do. You torture his model to fit your crackpot reality.
“IR is produced by the molecular vibration. NO Electon transition needed. I have given you enough links on the science of IR spectroscopy but you ignore them and deny science.”
“You are using Bohrs excellent work to promote your false idea that a hot object cannot absorb IR from a colder object. ”
Ball4, please stop trolling.
norman…”IR is produced by the molecular vibration. NO Electon transition needed”.
***
I don’t need the links you have offered, I have actually studied this stuff in electronics and in chemistry classes. Your problem is that you read articles and cannot understand them so you generalize. However, some of the articles are so dumbed down they only talk about the molecular level.
Explain to me how IR is produced without electrons? IR is electromagnetic energy, meaning you have an electric field with a magnetic field, both having the same frequency. What is there in a molecule, or atom, that can produce such fields? Only one particle can do that, the electron. What particle can produce EM with a frequency in the light frequency range, or the IR and UV range? Only one the electron, which moves at such speeds in its orbit.
Electric fields don’t magically appear out of nothing, they require an electric charge. Magnetic field ditto…they require an electric charge. Where can we find an electrical charge that is the basis of a molecule? Only one place, the electric charge in an electron.
You try to introduce a red-herring argument, that the +ve nucleus has an effect. There is no way the slower moving nucleus can produce such effects.
Transition, vibration, and rotation are all properties of the electron charge.
Gordo writes:
So, please explain the different thermal IR emission lines from various molecules of CO2 which have different combinations of isotopes in their makeup. These variations have the same number of electrons, it’s only the masses of the nucleus which are different.
ES,
I assume that your are talking about some form of spectroscopy or spectrometry, which are irrelevant in this context.
All matter emits the same frequencies at the same temperature.
The structure of the atoms involved is irrelevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
A quote from there:
“If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure.”
The earth also shows its all sides to the Sun. So according to this logic the earth does not rotate.
yonni..heard that theory before and it makes little sense. If the Moon was rotating it would show all sides.
Those animations are gif files that can be taken apart by a free app like IrfanView. When disassembled the image on the left clearly always has the same side of the Moon pointed at Earth. I have no idea what the one of the right represent other than a ferris wheel.
They think the Moon on the left set is rotating but it is moving like a car on a circular track, with curvilinear motion. If you slow it down, that becomes apparent.
If you have a car lapping an oval track CCW and the driver is in a North American car with the steering wheel on the left, the driver would always have his left shoulder facing the track. Say that represents the near side of the Moon.
An observer from inside the oval would only ever see the left side of the driver and car although the view angle would vary slightly, a condition equivalent to longitudinal libration. However, if the observer were in the stands, he would see all sides of the driver and car.
If an observer was watching the Moon rotate wrt the stars, say from the Sun’s perspective, he would see all sides of the Moon. However, an observer inside he orbit would only see the one side.
I don’t know why spinners cannot work this out for themselves. I have emailed NASA about this and they still fail to grasp it.
“If an observer was watching the Moon rotate wrt the stars, say from the Suns perspective, he would see all sides of the Moon”… so Gordon now agrees Earth’s moon IS inertially rotating on its own axis.
Observed from the accelerated frame on Earth, the Moon is observed non-spinning on its own axis as Tesla pointed out long ago.
Yonnipun, it all comes back to the definition of what “orbiting without spin” is. The answer is clearly and simply, the model of a ball-on-a-string that is being swung around a person. The same side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit.
A more scientific verification involves vectors, but unfortunately none of the “spinners” understand simple vector addition.
PS — The bogus “tidal locking” doesn’t apply to Moon. Gravity can not create torque on Moon.
The same side of Clint’s ball always faces the inside of its orbit as observed from an accelerated frame by the spinner so it is observed non-spinning.
A stationary non-accelerated observer in the room watching the display, observes all sides of the ball so the ball is then inertially spinning on its own axis to that observer as Tesla pointed out long ago using a conservation of momentum approach.
Tesla never mentioned frames of reference, and was a "Non-Spinner". Ball4 attempts to irritate.
Had Tesla mentioned reference frames, he would have been more clear.
Tesla was a non-spinner observing from Earth, an accelerated frame. Same place non-spinners always observe from except a few astronauts. Then Tesla went on to prove analytically that our Moon rotates on its own axis inertially using a conservation of momentum approach.
Is Ball4 suggesting that all "Spinners" are located in space, thus can literally observe the moon wrt an inertial reference frame!?
He makes less and less sense each passing day.
No DREMT, it is you making less and less sense each passing day with such nonsensical questions. But DREMT’s comments are usually great entertainment.
The question follows from your nonsensical remarks.
ball4…”The same side of Clints ball always faces the inside of its orbit as observed from an accelerated frame by the spinner so it is observed non-spinning”.
***
Let’s look at this shall we?…
You have a string attached to a ball. The ball is in motion in a circular orbit. Regard the string as a radial line and draw a tangent line where the string meet the ball. The tangent line represents any point on a circular orbit that is perpendicular to the radial string where the string meets the ball.
Now go to the opposite side of the ball and draw a tangent line parallel to the other. It represent a circle drawn by the outside edge of the ball. Now we have concentric circles that define the motion of the inner edge of the ball and the outer edge.
we can also allow the ball centre to draw another concentric circle between the two outer circles. It can have a tangent line. At any point of either circle, all three tangent lines must be parallel at all time.
That completely rules out local rotation, since with that, all three tangent lines would need to rotate about the centre of the ball, changing the right-angle formed between the tangent lines and the radial string. As Clint pointed out a while back, that would cause the ball to be wrapped around the string.
For the apparatus to work, the three tangent lines must always be parallel to each other and perpendicular to the radial string. That condition describes curvilinear motion without rotation.
Stuff your reference frames, they are not required.
You are confusing the change in angle of the tangent lines wrt the x-axis with rotation about a centre.
“That” does completely rule out local rotation wrt the string and wrt the spinner at center. The string doesn’t wrap around the ball.
However, a bystander standing still in the room looking at accelerating Clint R doing his BOS thing, sees all sides of the ball while it is in motion. The bystander observes the ball is spinning on its own axis.
There are two observers, two. ref. frames, in one Clint R is accelerating while observing the ball as a non-spinner, in the other the bystander is standing still not accelerating observing the ball as a spinner.
Yonnipun suggests: “So according to this logic the earth does not rotate.”
“If A, then B” is not the same as “If B, then A”.
So “if (the moon is not rotating) then (it would show all sides to the earth)” is not the same as “if (the moon shows all sides to the earth) then (the moon is not rotating).
So no, that is NOT what logic dictates for the earth.
Fair point.
A more honest label would have been:
"wrt this Earth-Centred Inertial reference frame, the "moon on the right" looks as though it is the one that isn’t rotating on its own internal axis, so we will go with that as being our version of "orbit without spin" (and because it makes our calculations easier); but in reality the movement of the "moon on the left" is "orbit without spin".
A more honest label would be:
“A small number of internet bloggers think that wrt this Earth-Centred Inertial reference frame …”
That doesn’t really work, Tim…nice try, though!
What works is reality, the movement of the “moon on the left” is “orbit without spin” on its own axis as viewed from an observer on the center circle which DREMT again neglected to mention.
I specified an ECI reference frame, Ball4.
Observer on circle is not in an ECI DREMT.
I specified an ECI reference frame so that you would know the observer is not located on the circle, but outside the orbit.
Would NOT know that, then what works is reality, the movement of the moon on the left is orbit with spin on its own axis as viewed from an inertial frame observer outside that lunar orbit who observes all sides of the MOTL.
The “Non-Spinner” position is that wrt an ECI reference frame, and as observed from outside the orbit, “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL.
Clear?
Clear from that position all faces of the MOTL are observed. Unlike viewed from the circle only one face is observed.
…and observed from that position of outside the orbit, and wrt an ECI reference frame, the “Non-Spinner” position is that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL. Whereas the “Spinner” position is that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTR.
… and observed from that position of outside the orbit, and wrt an ECI reference frame, the “Non-Spinner” position is that “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL even though all the faces of the MOTL are observed from that position.
Now you’re getting it.
Right, now according to DREMT the non-spinners observe from an ECI (instead of the frame as DREMT previously claimed) which is somewhere the MOTL is observed as they see all faces of the MOTL spinning on its own axis from there.
No.
ball4..”[GR]IR from a colder surface cannot be absorbed by a warmer surface.
No Gordon, again EMR is NOT heat, the 2LOT demands that IR photons from a real colder surface MUST be absorbed, transmitted, or scattered by a warmer surface in order to increase universe entropy in the process.
***
B4 continues to repeat his mantra, hoping it will bear truth if he repeats it enough. I have always stated that EM is not heat but B4 misses the entire argument. He thinks that because EM is not heat that it can be absorbed by any surface at any time.
The 2nd law says nothing about IR and there is no stipulation in the law that suggests, never mind demands, that any surface must absorb any IR incident upon it. In fact, when the 2nd law was created in the 1850s, no one knew anything about how EM interacted with surfaces.
The 2nd law is based on the work of Carnot, who did extensive work with heat engines. Carnot had presumed there were no heat losses in such an engine and Clausius suspected that was wrong. His investigation into the problem produced the 2nd law and his theory of entropy. In fact, Clausius used heat engine theory to establish the 2nd law.
Clausius knew nothing about how EM was absorbed or transmitted and he mistakenly presumed, as all scientists did in his era, that heat was transmitted via heat rays, as heat. In his work, that is what he means by radiation, an undefined heat ray, which turned out to have no existence.
It is apparent that B4 does not understand how radiation is emitted and absorbed. He is now stating repeatedly that heat is not IR, which is obvious. However, he is mistaken in his assertion that since EM is not heat it can be absorbed by any surface of any temperature. We know that is not true in general since many surfaces reflect certain light frequencies without absorbing them.
We are concerned here only about the relationship between EM and heat between bodies of different temperatures. I have claimed that EM radiated by a cooler surface cannot be absorbed by a hotter surface, as per the 2nd law. B4 is claiming simply that EM is not heat therefore it can be absorbed by any surfaces of different temperatures. That makes little sense since heat cannot be transferred surface to surface by radiation. At least, it cannot in the form of heat.
Proof. According to Bohr in his 1913 theory, all EM is emitted by electrons when they move from a higher orbital energy level to a lower level. He specified that the frequency of emission is discrete. Although he applied that theory only to hydrogen it has been found since that all elements emit EM at several discrete frequencies only. No element radiates a spectrum of radiation.
The point to get here is that electrons at higher energy levels move faster in their orbits and have higher levels of kinetic energy. Those higher levels of energy also translate to higher temperatures when the electron transitions are considered en masse. When the electrons transition downward to lower energy levels they must give up some energy and it is released in the form of EM. The frequency of the EM is directly related to the angular frequency of the electron in it higher orbit.
EM is no mystery. An electron has an electric field due to the charge it carries and when it moves it produces a magnetic field. E = electric field + M = magnetic field = Electromagnetic energy. That defines an EM field, an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. There is nothing else in an atom can produce such a field. The charged protons in the nucleus are never moving fast compared to the blazing speed of the electrons in their orbits.
Bohr’s stipulation was that EM must match the angular frequency of an electron to be absorbed. That is simply not possible when EM energy from a lower level of energy in an atom in a colder body meets an electron in a hotter body, where the electron resides at a higher energy level. The frequencies are too different to create the required resonance.
It does not matter how much B4 comes up with his alternative theories, EM from a colder boy has no effect on a warmer body. It is not absorbed, as he claimed.
You got it right in part, Gordon, “because EM is not heat that it can be absorbed by any surface at any time”… along with being reflected and transmitted by that surface.
In the future, try to stick to the experimental science: EMR is NOT heat.
But Gordon gets this wrong: “all EM is emitted by electrons when they move from a higher orbital energy level to a lower level.”
No. In Earth’s troposphere, there is not high enough temperature to have the energy needed to excite any molecules up an electronic energy level. There is however enough temperature to excite molecules up both a rotational energy level and, to a lesser extent, a vibrational energy level absorbing & later emitting EMR.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“There is however enough temperature to excite molecules up both a rotational energy level and, to a lesser extent, a vibrational energy level absorbing & later emitting EMR.”
You possibly meant to use another word instead of “temperature”, I guess.
You didnt mention the most important energy involved – translational. This is what gives gas a “temperature”. To keep it simple, gases are only gases because they are exposed to, and absorb, enough energy to keep them gaseous, rather than liquid or solid.
As the gas is exposed to “hotter” radiation, the atoms and/or molecules move faster, resulting in a higher temperature and so on.
Translational energy has increased. It’s more complicated than just rotational and vibrational energy.
b4…It was me who originated the statement that EM is not heat. Now you are using it deviously and incorrectly as a red-herring argument.
Your argument that terrestrial temperatures are not hot enough to excite electrons to transition is just plain wrong. You are a sore loser B4, having to make up bs to lend yourself an aura of authority.
The truth is, you are a busker who makes things up as you go along. You have no idea what heat is, what the 2nd law states, or the meaning of entropy. Sad, but true.
“Your argument that terrestrial temperatures are not hot enough to excite electrons to transition is just plain wrong.”
No, Gordon just writes without evidence since Earth troposphere air temperatures are known not high enough to excite an electronic quantum level jump. Temperatures are plenty high enough to excite rotational and, in some events, vibrational quantum level jumps which creates the IR opacity in our lower atm.
At typical troposphere temperatures all molecules in air are in their ground electronic state. To populate excited electronic states would require a ten-fold or more increase in absolute troposphere temperatures. Even most air molecules at these temperatures are in their vibrational ground states but not all, and many molecules are in excited rotational quantum levels.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Even most air molecules at these temperatures are in their vibrational ground states but not all, and many molecules are in excited rotational quantum levels.”
Nonsense
Please stop trolling.
I never started. Please learn even some beginning atm. quantum physics.
Ball4,
You wrote
Even most air molecules at these temperatures are in their vibrational ground states but not all, and many molecules are in excited rotational quantum levels.
Nonsense
Please stop trolling.
swannie…”Gordo, Again, the hand held IR thermometers do not measure wavelength, they measure the total intensity of the intercepted IR radiation”.
***
Based on your theory, how can a meter calculate the temperature at a source based on received IR intensity? Suppose the target is 50 feet away. There is a loss due to the inverse square law and it is major in some instances. For example, if I turn on an electric stove ring that outputs 1500 watts when cherry red, I can barely feel it two feet away.
Are you suggesting the meters have built-in ranging devices to determine the distance to the target and a calculation to work out the inverse square law loss? None of that is necessary if the reading is based on wavelength/frequency. The frequency gives you a direct relationship to the target temperature, intensity does not.
I am sure there are meters used in high temperature applications like several hundred degrees and more that can measure heat directly. My DVM meter will measure temperature but it used a sensing probe made up of wire.
“how can a meter calculate the temperature at a source based on received IR intensity?”
By measuring the brightness temperature of the source through S-B at the sources emissivity. Glass of ice water in its view measures 32F, a boiling tea kettle in its view is measured at 212F.
Put that ice water at 5o feet, and more stuff, at different temperatures, will be in its view however the reading will be accurate for that view.
I asked how a meter can calculate that.
… and I answered: by measuring the brightness temperature.
Gordo wrote:
The handheld meters are not intended to measure temperatures at such large distances. They have a designed cone of acceptance which means they include the IR radiation from all sources within that angular cone. They do work for isothermal walls a few meters away, but not for a warm object surrounded by other cooler sources, as Ball4 pointed out.
As I pointed out with the reference on Wikipedia, the low cost units employ a thermpile to measure incident IR radiation intensity. I presume that you didn’t read that Wikipedia entry, or can’t understand it. I actually use one identical to that in the first figure, which is one step up in cost because it includes an adjustment for emissivity.
I try to avoid the bs on wiki.
Yes, you’ve been ignoring scientific facts for years when they don’t fit your narrative.
By knowing the amount of infrared energy emitted by the object and its emissivity, the object’s temperature can often be determined within a certain range of its actual temperature.
This post missed some of my post.
Later in the article they admit the detector does not use a thermocouple, a device that can measure temperature directly when heat warms two dissimilar metals.
In my quote above they claim, like Tim F, that it is the amount of radiation detected, which is nonsense. I am tired of arguing this with people who don’t want to understand the basic point that oly frequency of IR can indicate temperature at a distance.
Look Swannie, you preach that heat can be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot. What is the point of debating with anyone who is so badly misinformed?
gordo, you are the preacher, not me. I provide evidence, including that from my experiments. You still haven’t produced a physics based explanation for my GPE demo. The hand held IR thermometers don’t measure wavelength, only the intensity of the IR radiation, which then can be used to calculate the temperature using the S-B equation.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
well the absolute best you could claim about the evidence from your experiment regarding the alleged ghe of earth is that if there were a permanent vacuum separating the surface of the earth from the atmosphere that prevented molecules in the atmosphere from colliding with the surface of the earth your expriment MIGHT be able to warm the surface. but if not any heat conveyed to the surface across that gap may well get carried right back up to where it came from by those air molecules picking up heat and moving it back through where that gap would be into the atmosphere and that it would not be half of the heat. heated air rises it doesn’t go down.
this is maybe the first thing somebody learns after paying a bunch of money to some slick salesman for trailer trash tinfoil insulation on ones trailer ceiling to keep their trailer warmer instead of spending the money on a bigger heater.
or spending the money on real insulation for their trailer.
swannie…”I provide evidence, including that from my experiments”.
***
What you supplied was a conclusion that contradicted the 2nd law of thermodynamics, a law that no one has been able to contradict since Clausius introduced it in the 1850s. That truth is not just based on the fact that Clausius said so, all energy is limited to a transfer from only regions of higher potential energy to regions of lower potential energy.
Example. The potential energy at the top of a 100 metre water fall is mgh. Still water at the top of the waterfall begin with that PE and zero KE. As it falls over the edge, it begins to gain KE and Lose PE. At the base, it has maximum KE and zero PE, wrt the cliff.
Heat has a similar analogy. Whereas mechanical energy of water is determined by height, heat is determined by temperature difference. Since a higher potential energy wrt heat is measured by a higher reltive temperature, then heat can only be transferred, by its own means from a higher temperature source to a lower temperature target.
Electrical potential is derived from a charge difference. Clint fails to understand this, thinking electrons flow from a lower potential energy to a higher potential energy (positive to negative). Maybe that’s why he also fails to understand that heat is energy and not simply a measure of energy.
You and Clint have much in common and should spend more time discussing your pseudo-science.
“well the absolute best you could claim about the evidence from your experiment regarding the alleged ghe of earth is that if there were a permanent vacuum separating the surface of the earth from the atmosphere that prevented molecules in the atmosphere from colliding with the surface of the earth your expriment MIGHT be able to warm the surface.”
Again, Bill attempts to move the goal posts.
He fails to acknowledge that there has been a controversy over the GPE, which is designed to be in vacuum, to test radiative heat transfer fundamentals, and 2LOT, that sky dragon slayers do not grasp, and is NOT meant to be a model of the real GHE.
Well, both Hunter and Gordo still can’t explain my results. Hunter wanders into a riff about reflective insulation, which has nothing to do with the GPE. Gordo repeats his usual mantra about back radiation violating the 2nd Law, again ignoring the fact that the energy transfer via IR thermal radiation between two surfaces always results in a net transfer from hot to cold.
But their words don’t stop the bi-directional transfer and the resulting temperature increase in the BP.
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter wanders into a riff about reflective insulation, which has nothing to do with the GPE. ”
You are only partly right Swanson. The correct words are reflection should have no appreciable effect on the experiment.
I can make water boil on a cold winter morning with reflection. I fact reflection is a popular way of designing a solar energy projects by focusing mirrors on a heat sink. You can create steam energy doing that.
If you are too boneheaded to see what errors reflection could produce in your silly experiment. . .you should be using your time doing them. Its a waste.
Here is a tip on how to get more heat out of your next GPE experiment.
https://www.homesciencetools.com/article/how-to-build-a-solar-oven-project/
Here is one for your age group:
https://desertchica.com/diy-solar-oven-smores-kids-science-experiment/
Nate says:
the GPE, which is designed to be in vacuum, to test radiative heat transfer fundamentals, and 2LOT, that sky dragon slayers do not grasp, and is NOT meant to be a model of the real GHE.
————————
Correct totally inappropriate in a forum related to the GHE.
Is that what he said, Bill!?
Firstly, I don’t think any of the people commenting on this blog are "Sky Dragon Slayers". That’s just a tiny group of people associated with writing the book, and as far as I know none of the book’s authors comment here. Far more people than that, out there, who question the GHE (and, indeed, everybody should – that’s science).
Secondly, "do not grasp"!? I understand their arguments perfectly well, I just disagree.
An excellent example of why I stopped reading, or responding, to his comments.
Hunter, of course, solar energy can be reflected by appropriate materials, nothing new in that. But, you still have not gone to the trouble of describing how my reflective baffle might in any way cause the BP to warm after the GP is raised into position, especially as the baffle is outside the bell jar and reflects some of the energy produced by the work light away from the bell jar. All you are doing is dancing around the fact that the back radiation from the cooler GP is absorbed by the BP, the result being an increase in the BP’s temperature.
Eli’s Green Plate Effect also included discussion of multiple layers with low emissivity, not just one which I used in my demo. As a result, the GPE is also a simple model for the results of atmospheric greenhouse gasses.
no its not. the earths surface already has trillions of greenplates behind it. you are on your way to being the last guy in here to understand that the temperature of an object will rise to the mean temperature of its surroundings. . .period! the issue is and always has been an issue of not how heat has been absorbed but how heat is sequestered and retained in a dynamic system. this is why some scientists believe ghgs can lead to some mild surface cooling by counteracting the greybody emissivity effects of oxygen species that cause the thermosphere to rise to thousands of degrees and causing water to enter the atmosphere pretty much as a response greatly cooling the surface.
roy found a negative sensitivity in his work that just got waved away. i can plainly see that negative sensitivity in trenberth’s budget and i can rest assured he isn’t consciously biasing the numbers. but i can’t solve the problem because the uncertainty of the numbers he uses is too high.
Hunter wrote:
No, the “issue” involves the entire system’s energy flows from the Sun and back out to deep space. The surface temperature of the ground is just one variable in a very complex mixture of procboundary layeresses. Sure, the temperature of the air in the surface will be close to that of the ground, but only when there’s no wind. But, you need to consider both the transfer of thermal energy and mass from place to place and from one level to the next. The temperature at any location is a state variable in this entire process. The thermosphere is a long way from the surface and the processes acting there, I have no clue why you mention it.
But, as usual, you want to change the subject away from any discussion of the effects of “back radiation” from cooler areas to warmer areas/surfaces. You again refuse to substantiate your comments regarding any effects of the reflective baffle in my demo. You repeatedly insist that experimental results trump math models, then ignore my experimental results. Perhaps you have forgotten that in an experiment, one employs “separation of variables” to study one variable while holding other relevant variables constant and that’s what attempted to do.
Tr0ll on, big guy! Maybe you will make it to Dancing with the Stars or a position in Trump World!
E. Swanson says:
”Hunter wrote:
the issue is and always has been an issue of not how heat has been absorbed but how heat is sequestered and retained in a dynamic system.
No, the issue involves the entire systems energy flows from the Sun and back out to deep space. ”
—————-
LMAO, you are just being ornery here. i say something and you say no. then you resay exactly what i said using different words with zero explanation as to why what you said was different from what i said. please do give us a description of how you believe the ghe exists in a gas environment. thats all that any real skeptic wants from you guys.
but all you guys ever do is ever do is beat around the bush and tell lies.
!
The surface temperature of the ground is just one variable in a very complex mixture of procboundary layeresses. Sure, the temperature of the air in the surface will be close to that of the ground, but only when theres no wind. But, you need to consider both the transfer of thermal energy and mass from place to place and from one level to the next. The temperature at any location is a state variable in this entire process. The thermosphere is a long way from the surface and the processes acting there, I have no clue why you mention it.
Hunter replies to my post, again ignoring the issue of “back radiation” and the GPE. He appears to think i agree with him when he wrote:
What the heck does that mean? What does the thermosphere have to do with surface temperature?
He then accuses “you guys”, including ME, of going off topic, “beating around the bush” and lying, standard put downs from someone when they have no good answer.
He then writes:
Of course, this has been done numerous times on this blog and elsewhere. A real skeptic would study the literature for answers, instead of repeating empty accusations. As the old saying goes, “The devil is in the details”. For example, have you read Pierrehumbert 2011 yet?
Sorry about that first paragraph. There’s an obvious cut-and-paste error. Don’t have a clue why you re-posted it.
E. Swanson says:
”the earths surface already has trillions of greenplates behind it.
What the heck does that mean? What does the thermosphere have to do with surface temperature?
He then accuses you guys, including ME, of going off topic, beating around the bush and lying, standard put downs from someone when they have no good answer.”
If you actually pay attention to this subject you have to know what that means or you are lying.
the basic idea of the GHE is a light shines on a co2 molecule and the molecule dispenses with that light in all directions. If you do the same with the blue plate it does the same thing and emits the energy it receives from the light in all directions which comprises one side emitting in a 180deg hemisphere and the other side the opposite hemisphere.
Since radiation emission temperature is determined by the total radiation emitted in all directions if that plate is only receiving 300w/m2 from one direction on one surface it can only warm enough to emit 150w/m2 in two directions and be half has hot as a plate forced to radiate in one direction by having many layers of plates behind it (which for example is basically what insulation is)
So if you add multiple green plates behind the blue plate the blue plate will continue to warm until its temperature is the same as what is being received. So the Greenplate experiment as set up by Eli is expected to work.
but the blue plate in the case of worlds is like a blue plate with trillions of greenplate virtual one molecule thick plates.
This means you need to put a semitransparent greenplate between the light and the insulated plate to see if you can raise the temperature of the blue plate. Experiments show clearly you can’t raise the temperture of the blueplate in that manner in an atmosphere.
Can you in space? Can you with a reflective background surrounding the light? The answers are varied. A reflective background around the light on a ceiling doesn’t work to warm a floor of a room is that because there is convection at work or is it because the floor being insulated by the ground under it already has the floor at the maximum temperature that you can get from the light?
These are the questions you could test with your setup but you chose to set the experiment up in the only way it is known to work. . .which is that it has two surfaces and thus has not hit its Stefan Boltzmann limit as to how much warming you can get from a light.
So were you ignorant about the facts/quirks surrounding Eli’s GPE or did you know and chose to lie by omission?
He then writes:
please do give us a description of how you believe the ghe exists in a gas environment. thats all that any real skeptic wants from you guys.
Of course, this has been done numerous times on this blog and elsewhere. A real skeptic would study the literature for answers, instead of repeating empty accusations. As the old saying goes, The devil is in the details. For example, have you read Pierrehumbert 2011 yet?
Sorry about that first paragraph. Theres an obvious cut-and-paste error. Dont have a clue why you re-posted it.
Hunter the tr0ll builds a lovely straw man, writing:
The trouble with that is the atmosphere’s temperature and pressure vary with altitude and latitude. And there’s both short wave and long wave “light” involved. Unlike the solid GP and BP, the CO2 molecules absorb or emit only a portion of the wavelengths in the radiation which they might intercept. Then too, the energy the CO2 molecule absorbs can warm the other molecules surrounding it before it may emit thermal IR and also the CO2 molecules may also gain sufficient energy from the other molecules to emit.
Then, Hunter switches gears throwing out a completely different red herring:
I guess he’s sort of thinking about the R. W. Woods experiment. Where’s the “insulated plate”? Who knows what’s on his mind? It’s just another rant to ignore the addressing the fact that “back radiation” from a cooler source can warn another at higher temperature.
Done your homework today? Have you read Pierrehumbert 2011 yet?
E. Swanson says:
the basic idea of the GHE is a light shines on a co2 molecule and the molecule dispenses with that light in all directions. If you do the same with the blue plate it does the same thing and emits the energy it receives from the light in all directions
The trouble with that is the atmospheres temperature and pressure vary with altitude and latitude. And theres both short wave and long wave light involved. Unlike the solid GP and BP, the CO2 molecules absorb or emit only a portion of the wavelengths in the radiation which they might intercept. Then too, the energy the CO2 molecule absorbs can warm the other molecules surrounding it before it may emit thermal IR and also the CO2 molecules may also gain sufficient energy from the other molecules to emit.
———————–
That is a lot of energy expended there Swanson. How much does it change the blue plate model for the CO2 molecule/virtual surface model?
E. Swanson says:
Then, Hunter switches gears throwing out a completely different red herring:
This means you need to put a semitransparent greenplate between the light and the insulated plate to see if you can raise the temperature of the blue plate. Experiments show clearly you cant raise the temperture of the blueplate in that manner in an atmosphere.
I guess hes sort of thinking about the R. W. Woods experiment. Wheres the insulated plate? Who knows whats on his mind? Its just another rant to ignore the addressing the fact that back radiation from a cooler source can warn another at higher temperature.
———————–
Where is the insulated plate? The earth’s surface is an insulated plate. Its the earth’s surface warming the atmosphere plates (green plates or co2 molecule/virtual surface plates that are not insulated) through which the sun shines. Why is that a Red Herring?
Hunter tr0ll concluded his post, writing:
Why? Because you are continuing to ignore the issue of “back radiation” between a cooler body (a GP) and a warmer one (a BP) resulting in further warming of the latter. Besides, the Earth’s surface isn’t an insulated plate, there’s the thermal mass involved, which is especially important regarding the oceans. Not to forget that the atmosphere can also add energy to the surface as well as remove it on net. Then too, air is a very good insulator, which means that conduction between layers is practically non-existent, so convection and mixing also do much of the transfer between layers thru the lower atmosphere.
Besides, your claim that:
is false, which is easy to demonstrate. Take a Styrofoam cooler, remove the top and place a metal plate painted black in the bottom with a thermocouple positioned below it. Cover the opening with cheap food wrap. Put it in the Sun pointing toward the Sun on a clear day and record the maximum temperature. Replace the food wrap with a glass plate and repeat the measurement. Will the second case result be an increase in the plate’s temperature? Sound familiar? There are other ways to do the same, ask Vaughn Pratt.
Done your homework today? Have you read Pierrehumbert 2011 yet?
E. Swanson says:
”Why? Because you are continuing to ignore the issue of back radiation between a cooler body (a GP) and a warmer one (a BP) resulting in further warming of the latter.”
You continue to fail at logic Swanson. All we know is that objects cool slower in the presence of other objects. One does not need to recognize ”backradiation” to compute the effect of reducing an avenue for cooling by an object. All you need to consider is that there is an electromagnetic resistance to cooling. Your claim that backradiation warms anything is like claiming water flows uphill. Its like precipitation falling on high elevations it moves downhill in one direction, how much accumulates in any one place varies.
E. Swanson says:
”so convection and mixing also do much of the transfer between layers thru the lower atmosphere.”
Yes indeedy. The energy content (lake depth) of the atmosphere is always changing creating pools and eddys and changing the flow of energy through the atmosphere.
Evaporation and transpiration both increase.
Transpiration increases with CO2 by improving survivability of plants. Some of that undoubtedly is anthropogenic as we move the precipitation out of rivers into the fields. We are a great cultivator as a specie. . .bringing life to where it struggled previously adding energy to the atmosphere that is locked up in molecules. the world is in springtime. Warming up after a long winter with flowers blooming, butterflies flying, fawns romping in the forest.
And you have a conniption fit about that. How strange. . .
Hunter tr0ll insists on ignoring physics:
If so, perhaps you could describe your claim that “there is an electromagnetic resistance to cooling”. Computing such an effect would require a physics based description. Your empty words prove nothing.
Water tends to flow downhill because of what we call gravity, a well defined physical effect. That has nothing to do with your “electromagnetic resistance to cooling”.
Done your homework yet? Have you read Pierrehumbert 2011?
Swanson says:
”If so, perhaps you could describe your claim that there is an electromagnetic resistance to cooling. Computing such an effect would require a physics based description. Your empty words prove nothing.”
Well we have a SIR, symbolically idealistic representation, of empirical observations for a non-existent blackbody estimated by Stefan Boltzmann as a mathematical equation. Is that good enough?
Hunter the tr0ll wrote:
No SIR. It may be empirical, but it works. And, the math involves thermal IR moving energy in both directions and being absorbed by each body, which you still refuse to accept.
Have you read Pierrehumbert 2011?
Its perfectly a SIR.
Its symbolic in that its math. Its idealistic as in the perfect non-existent blackbody. And it’s a representation of such.
Pierre Humbert is a piss poor scientist simply parroting dogma and not offering any evidence in the key areas.
by definition saturation is the point where an infinite number of additional absorbing layers would not substantially create any more warming from the field of view of the surface. I say substantial because the fringes will require an infinite number of layers to shut of the last quectowatt on the fringes.
But getting down to a watt is pretty insignificant. For all practical purposes 2/10ths of a degree is next to meaningless.
so if you are 2/10s of a degree from saturation its still going to take an infinite number of layers in the atmosphere to entirely block that last 2/10ths of a degree.
So dishonest or possibly ignorant folks like Pierre Humbert either immorally lie by omission or simply demonstrate their ignorance by arguing that saturation is a long ways away.
Then he really displays ignorance or a willingness to play fast and loose with the facts by parroting the M&W theory of stacking completely saturated layers of the atmosphere via an entirely different and untested convective layer theory.
so what I am saying is a saturated single layer could create some kind of greenhouse effect despite convection because of the edge of space issue. But my take, unproven is that convection doesn’t just accelerate conduction by cycling cool air in place of warm air, it also accelerates the atmosphere cooling by radiation by the reverse of that mechanism cycling warm air in place of cool air. . .and since warm air cools faster than cold air radiation is enhanced.
And to move to the multi-layered ”less emissions by height” BS CO2 would need to show it can change the lapse rate and not be in a portion of the atmosphere where it was shown to be in the hotspot theory that didn’t show up.
So neither theory is panning out.
Expected evidence is not showing. Theory is going the way of all the theories surrounding the negative consequences of waiting another day before taking action.
I have no doubt there are lots of good stuff in Humberts paper. But its failure is exemplified via his sidebar zero evidence approach at handwaving saturation arguments aside. Even if thats established still there is a big quantification error problem emerging and getting bigger all the time.
Even Nates more recent paper left those concerns as unsettled and indeed there is no consensus on the issue. And science papers that just say the issue is settled with a handwave has about the usefulness of a nice wad of fire starter.
In fact we should give the M&W theory a name, though Manabe did say he didn’t discover it. I think somebody else posted a reference to an earlier version of it in this comment section or the previous one published some time before the M&W paper.
But anyway based on its meeting is expected markers we probably should call it the ”Heat lost in a cloud” theory in honor of the missing hot spot and the fact it has been spotted by those flying around up there looking for it like an Easter Egg.
> Pierre Humbert
qltm
Looks like Hunter found Pierrehumbert 2011. That paper is the short version of Pierrehumbert 2010, a full text book.
Hunter doesn’t like the 2011 paper, but, of course, he doesn’t claim to understand it. He just throws out objections without understanding the effects of pressure on the emission lines, which become narrower as pressure decreases with altitude. So, he riffs on saturation, lacking any analysis:
Hunter calls Pierrehumbert presentation “handwaving” as he tosses out his own handwaving comments. He has no comprehension of the spectroscopic data and what it implies regarding transmission vs pressure altitude in each layer of a stack thru the atmosphere. And, he offered no comment regarding the emissions of each layer, including “back radiation”, which Pierrehumbert showed in his 3 layer model of Figure 1.
“Are you suggesting the meters have built-in ranging devices to determine the distance to the target and a calculation to work out the inverse square law loss?”
The concept you are struggling with is “field of view”. When the source covers the entire field of view, the distance doesn’t matter.
no ranging is a silly idea. it would be akin to the concept of potential (voltage) used in electricity, dispersal of the electric field would across an expansive medium reducing the potential as field of view reduces its warming capabilities and the voltage delivered. we had einstein describe the curvature of these fields as if they could see behind the sun. something not only related to electricity but also to magnetism. . . the three forms of electromagnetics.
no, Tim, I understand view angle well. I asked how any meter can determine the distance it is from a heat source in order to calculate IR intensity loss between it and the target. I mean, if the IR intensity drops 10 fold, or 100 fold, how can the meter use the heat produced in the detector to determine the temperature of the target?
My statement was a challenge to the suggestion that it is IR intensity at a meter that determines the target temperature. It is actually IR frequency, and that changes the detector parameters from a thermocouple to one with semiconductor junction properties.
“I asked how any meter can determine the distance it is from a heat source … ”
A meter doesn’t doesn’t need to know the distance! It simply averages everything in its field of view. Hold a meter 1 cm or 1 m or 10 m above a 20 C floor. The meter reads always read 20 C because the intensity is the same. All the meter sees in radiation from a 20 C source.
The inverse square law applies to point sources. For extended sources like a large, flat, uniform-temperature wall, the intensity remains constant (until the meter is SO far back that the wall no longer covers the whole field of view).
FYI: There are also “dual wavelength IR meters.” But these also don’t measure wavelengths, they measure the intensities in two different wavelength bands. This can eliminate some of the common limitations of standard meters that measure intensities in just one band.
https://www.pyrosales.com.au/blog/thermometer-and-infrared/what-is-dual-wavelength-infrared-pyrometry/
with an emphasis on ‘some’ whereby before investing its a good idea to know exactly what. a lot of people are sucked into buying what they don’t need. . .mostly by slick advertising propaganda.
tim f…”Hold a meter 1 cm or 1 m or 10 m above a 20 C floor. The meter reads always read 20 C because the intensity is the same. All the meter sees in radiation from a 20 C source”.
***
That’s not how an IR meter sees IR radiation. As I have claimed, the intensity varies with the distance from the floor due to the inverse square law, therefore the meter needs to know the distance from the floor in order to know what the radiation intensity would have been at the distance to the target. However, knowing that intensity won’t tell it the actual temperature.
If I hold a mercury thermometer close to a heat source like a glowing electric stove ring it might read high enough to send the mercury off the end of the scale. However, much of that reading will be related to heated air molecules although a high intensity radiation field should also affect the mercury to a lesser degree. With an IR thermometer, you don’t want heated air molecules affecting the reading.
So what kind of detector will ignore heated air molecules and measure only temperature of a target? It must be one that reacts to only the frequency of radiation, while ignoring any kind of intensity. In fact, an IR detector ill tell you only the temperature and not the intensity of the IR emissions.
Gordo wrote:
The quantity of IR emissions from “heated air” would be trivial over the 1-2 meters distances for which the IR thermometer is intended to be used. Most of your “heated air” emissions would originate from GHG’s like CO2 or H2O, which have very low S_B emission temperatures.
You got it exactly backwards, Mr. Engineer. The instrument uses the measured intensity to calculate the temperature. You’re fired!
swannie…”The quantity of IR emissions from heated air would be trivial over the 1-2 meters distances for which the IR thermometer is intended to be used”.
***
Who’s talking about IR emissions from heated air? Ever heard of a convection oven? You can make french fries in one, cooked just by heated air molecules. I would say that most of the heat you feel when you hold your hand near a heated stove ring is due to convection and is very little IR.
That’s how a hot cup of coffee cools, not as much by radiation as by conduction/convection.
As usual, Gordo the self proclaimed electrical engineer displays massive ignorance of the subject at hand. The type of instruments in question use thermopiles to measure the intensity of the incident IR radiation. They also include another thermocouple to measure the temperature of the cold side junctions, that is, the temperature of the surroundings. With this setup, the electronics in the device are able to remove the effects of the surrounding temperature, as in, the air temperature.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I have been thinking of floating breakwaters and ocean settlements- and surfing.
So I would have 20 meter diameter balloon tank pipe which was 100 meter long and it would be submerged under waterline by 3 meters.
And placed at angle where one get the best surfing waves.
And at either end of it, have spar buoy type thing:
“A spar buoy is a tall, thin buoy that floats upright in the water and is characterized by a small water plane area and a large mass.” -wiki
It would be 10 meter in diameter and 50 meter tall. It’s not very thin but has a large amount of mass. And would be about 2 meter above the waterline, and would keep 100 meter long horizontal balloon tank
3 meter under water.
And what gives both a lot mass, is they are filled with freshwater, which is buoyant in sea water. And both. horizonal and vertical elements would be close to being neutral buoyant. Or horizontal pipe is not held down by the spar buoy by much force.
And spar buoy is anchored to sea floor and keeping it in a location upon the ocean, in water depths of about 100 meters.
This surfing area, and behind it would much smaller floating breakwater which would at the surface and would break smaller waves. And the smaller breakwater could be place surfers could stand on.
Behind the small floating breakwater that surfer could stand {it’s 5 meters in diameter}.
Is rough huge barge which float near waterline and it’s a lot sand on it. Or a sandy beach. Surfers and others could also stand on that.
And there could vendors selling snacks.
Behind that, you could houses and parks and etc.
So, this a floating breakwater which can stay in a location for decades.
What if you want a floating breakwater which can avoid bad weather conditions- a mobile breakwater.
The above one could be moved, but you could want something easier to move.
Why?
Launching rockets to space, but it could be used for some other reason.
In cargo shipping, they don’t move particularly fast but they move to avoid bad weather, and weather prediction can be pretty good for a few days.
And rocket are often delayed due to weather conditions. Which might not matter much if only launching rocket less than dozen times a year. Often it’s just a delay of few days or one day, and you might not move for that, but unfavorable weather can last longer. Or if you miss several days of bad weather, it could better to avoid it.
To have more mobile breakwaters, you just use to small 5 meter diameter breakwater which will stop “normal” ocean waves.
You lower mass to move them and than raise back the mass- and use seawater and freshwater. So using less freshwater and using some air, and remove and replace the sea water, so floats better [higher} when traveling.
The blog’s podium on 2024-01-24 22:46:43 (GMT+1)
Willard: 975
Swenson: 697
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 446
All in best form.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
You’re missing a few, Binny:
Gill – 248
Bordo – 213
Puffman – 148
But what’s 609 comments between data-minded folks?
Never mind. As John McEnroe would say, I live to serve.
In sports, a type of podium can be used to honor the top three competitors in events.
Need more?
Willard: 977
Swenson: 698
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team: 450
Bill Hunter: 247
Gordon Robertson: 213
Ball4: 170
Clint R: 149
Nate: 134
Bindidon: 108
Tim Folkerts: 100
I can post the full list as well.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Pay attention –
PSTs – 510
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thanks for the report, Bindi. (Mark B. is falling down on the job!)
Yeah, silly willy is out-of-control. Swenson and DREMT try to babysit him, but it’s a full-time job.
[PUFFMAN] Yeah, silly willy is out-of-control
[ALSO PUFFMAN] Theres a lot of pseudoscience to squash.
Like a kid with tiny hands.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Why Mars Died
https://www.universetoday.com/165377/why-mars-died/#more-165377
hmm;
“And this was Mars flaw. Born too small, within a billion years its core cooled and solidified, its magnetic field becoming feeble. Without that protection, Mars lost its atmosphere. Without that atmospheric pressure, the water on its surface boiled and evaporated into gas, where it too got caught up in the solar wind and blown out of the solar system. That water has now joined its brethren in the interstellar wastes, never to be seen again.
And with that, Mars died, along with any hope of life on that world.”
Others say Mars has molten core:
3,660 kilometers
“Its seismograph began operation in February 2019, and in 2021 Simon Sthler (ETH Zrich, Switzerland) and colleagues reported in Science that they had detected the liquid Martian core surrounded by a solid rocky mantle. They measured the core’s diameter to be 3,660 kilometers (2,274 miles).”
And:
Thanks to a layer of molten rock, Mars’ core appears bigger than it is
By Charles Q. Choi
published October 25, 2023
In 2021, scientists studying Mars’ core found it to be surprisingly large and light. Now, we might have an explanation for the strange measurements.
https://www.space.com/mars-core-molten-silicon-rock
A trio of studies in 2021 based on those scans found the Martian core was potentially much larger than expected. The 2021 estimate suggested the center of the Red Planet was about 2,235 miles (3,600 kilometers) in diameter, or “about half the size of the planet,” Amir Khan, a planetary scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, told Space.com. (In comparison, Earth’s core is about 4,350 miles [7,000 km] wide.)
Anyways they are uncertain how big it is, but not about whether it’s molten or not.
It would neat if was dead, but we know about the Moon than Mars, and don’t know much about the Moon.
clint…”Gordon, you are as obsessed with me as are Norman and barry”.
***
Nope. When you decided to attack me for no known reason, I warned you that if you kept it up I’d kick your sorry b.utttt. I had been one of your strongest supporters, supplying in-depth technical arguments to bolster your ideas on the Moon and other points. Then you sta.b.b.ed me in the back, attacking me as you have the alarmists.
I had held my tongue when you offered stoopid and illogical scientific arguments and all I am doing now is pointing them out. Heck, at one time you got stoopid enough to attack Roy, and he banned you. Obviously, you groveled your way back.
Any time you want to stop this nonsense in the name of skepticism, I am willing. Keep attacking and I’ll keep kicking your butt.
“When thieves fall out, honest men come by their own”
studentb, please stop trolling.
Gordon, as I said up above, you are as obsessed with me as are Norman and barry. You sickos keep trying to blame me for your ignorance. When I try to correct your invalid opinions and beliefs, you lash out like insane psychos. barry and Norman can’t wait to call me a “lying dog”, although they can’t find even one time I’ve lied. And you write long rants filled with false accusations about me. Want an example:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2023-0-91-deg-c/#comment-1584186
Not one of your false accusations is true, Gordon. Many sound like they came from an immature brat. What kind of person would take the time to write such nonsense? You keep believing your false accusations are “kicking butt”. No, you only show your immaturity.
If you really want to grow up, you should study the comments of barry and Norman. If your brain works, you will be able to see the negatives all three of you have. If you are sane and mature, you should be able to then fix yourself.
I won’t hold my breath….
Surely, you two will find a resolution to your disagreements. Internal conflicts within the group are counterproductive when there’s a shared message to convey.
People need to understand Gordon and I are NOT in the same “group”. He’s in his own cult. He just likes to argue, as he attempts to pervert science. He likes to clog up the blog with his repetitive blah-blah, which even Bindi sees through.
Even worse, he pretends he’s an electrical engineer but knows nothing about current flow or electrical charge.
Gordon would be just like you, Clint R, except that he means well while you’re just a garden variety internet tro.ll interested only in disrupting any conversation. He’s not in the same group as you, just one that is a lot better than the group you’re in with Willard the bore and Swenson the tro.ll.
Ken, please stop trolling.
clint is definitely in a group of his own. He may even be on a planet of his own. Most intelligent people, when challenged, can supply an intelligent argument to refute a point. All Clint has is ad homs and insults.
I still await his defense of silly claims he has made like…
1)Clint thinks electrical current (electron current) flows from positive to negative.
2)Clint thinks entropy is a measure of disorder. He is forced to think that because he does not accept that heat is energy. The formula for entropy offered by the inventor of entropy, Clausius, claims that entropy = S = integral dq/T, where q is heat and T is temperature. The reference to entropy in the Gibb’s free energy equation, T.ds, is a reference to heat, not disorder. There is no apparent measure of disorder that is apparent to me. How would you measure it?
Since Clint’s brain is highly disordered, and he believes entropy is a measure of such disorder, his brain should have a much higher entropy than the rest of us.
3)Clint preaches that heat is not energy but a measure of energy transfer. When I ask Clint to explain what type of energy is being transferred, which can only be heat, when referencing heat, he comes apart and starts insulting me.
Clint acknowledges thermal energy as being part of internal energy, but when that energy gets transferred out of a body, it suddenly become plain old energy and not heat.
4)Clint thinks time exists but like so many others he cannot offer evidence for it.
5)Clint thinks the S-B equation is good at terrestrial temperatures but he cannot explain how ice can emit 315 w/m^2, based on S-B for 0C.
All in all, Clint is awfully confused but that does not stop him posing as an expert on everything.
Tr0ll Clint R
” Gordon and I are NOT in the same ‘group’ … ”
Of course you two are in the same group!
The group of all those who pervert science, by denŷing
– GHE
– man-made global warming
– the lunar spin.
There is no "denying" the GHE, Bindidon. The null hypothesis is that there isn’t one. The truly skeptical position is to assume there isn’t one, unless and until we have sufficient evidence that there is one. You "believe" there’s enough evidence to say there is one? That’s your belief.
And no, the fact that CO2 absorbs and emits IR radiation is not sufficient evidence that there’s a GHE. So we don’t need any more of Entropic Man’s OLR graphics.
It’s not "perverting science" to say there’s no GHE. It’s celebrating science.
… – the lunar inertial spin.
“The truly skeptical position is to assume there isn’t (a GHE)”
DREMT and Swenson et. al. deny GHE so:
– They don’t recognize farmers use the GHE to grow produce to sell in the winter in some locales,
– When they roll up their car windows in the bright sun, engine off, the GHE doesn’t warm their interior,
-Their home furnaces run on bright sunny calm days just the same amount of time as at night in the same wintry weather.
Th null hypothesis works, there is “sufficient evidence that there’s a GHE” and on and on it goes, great blog entertainment & humor, no proper experimental science to counter the everyday GHE is ever given.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] There is no “denying” the GHE
[MIKE FLYNN] There is no GHE.
Ball4 brings up actual greenhouses, car interiors, and furnaces/home insulation. Most GHE defenders would recognise why these aren’t appropriate for their beloved theory. I’m sure some will be along in a minute, to criticise him.
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Im sure some will be along in a minute, to criticise him.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] Im responsible for my comments. Not Puffmans.
Look who’s jumped into yet another discussion, after I got involved, strictly to try and challenge me, specifically! How long until this thread gets personal? Oh wait, he’s already tried to make it personal in both of his comments…I ignored the first one, so he had another go at provocation.
Look who Kennui has forgotten to name.
Yup, we’re onto personal issues again. Thanks for proving me right.
Look who comes up with the personal issues and whines about personal issues…
You make it personal, as I said. I’m not whining, just thanking you for proving me right. Please continue to do so.
The victim bullying continues
It never started.
Hey Clint,
To be clear, I told you many times I don’t believe that the radiation from two or more ice cubes can boil water, and AFTER you’d read me saying that you kept saying I believe ice cubes can boil water.
That’s why you were called a liar.
I have the receipts.
May 4 2022 – I tell you I don’t think ice cubes can boil water.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1269469
I tell you a second time in the same thread
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2022-0-15-deg-c/#comment-1269518
You reply below, so you’ve read me saying it.
June 8 2022 – I tell you the same thing.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312231
I tell you other times besides. But you continue to say that I believe the opposite, even as recently as last October.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2022-0-17-deg-c/#comment-1312231
You also lied that other people – like Tim Folkerts – believed IR from ice cubes could boil water, even when HE repeatedly told you the opposite.
To be clear, you weren’t just saying that ice cubes boiling water was a consequence of our beliefs, you were saying these were our actual beliefs.
Clint R October 6 2023 – “When dealing with cultists, like barry, we have to remember they believe ice cubes can boil water”
For continuing to lie for many months about what I believe after I told you multiple times I don’t believe it, as well as explaining why, you handsomely earned the epithet “lying dog”.
Anyone can click on the links above and see what you did there, bucko.
Sorry barry, but if you want to clean up your record, you need to address the issue. You believe radiative fluxes simply add. If that were true, then ice cubes could boil water.
Now if you want to accept reality, that fluxes do NOT simply add, then you would be clearing up any confusion about ice cubes boiling water.
But, you can’t accept reality, can you?
Fluxes add quite nicely if you know the ‘simple rules’.
The simplest, main rule is that fluxes arriving at a surface (irradiances) do simply add. If you shine two flashlights at a surface, the surface is twice as bright as if you shine one flashlight. If one sheet of ice provides 50 W/m^2 of flux to a surface and a second sheet of ice provides 100 W/m^2 of flux to a surface, the flux is 150 W/m^2 at the receiving surface.
If you want to clean up your record, feel free to propose your own rule for irradiances, and apply it to the cases above to give your answers.
Tim,
You wrote –
“If one sheet of ice provides 50 W/m^2 of flux to a surface and a second sheet of ice provides 100 W/m^2 of flux to a surface, the flux is 150 W/m^2 at the receiving surface.”
Completely meaningless. It doesn’t matter how much “flux” from ice, at whatever temperature the ice is, you still cannot warm even a drop of water.
All the flux from all the ice in Antarctica cannot make a teaspoon of water warmer, nor can the total flux from the Earth’s atmosphere raise the total temperature the surface!
You see? It’s easy to make completely silly statements which have a sciencey sound.
About as silly as your best description of the GHE – “A slightly better description would be “reduces the cooling from the surface”. ” Apart from not mentioning any “effect”, neither CO2 nor “warming”, “heating” or “temperature increase” get a mention.
Some description. Got a better one yet?
tim…when a flux encounters a surface it is automatically converted to another form of energy, therefore fluxes do not add at a surface. It’s true that the different fluxes cause an interaction at the surface whereby some frequencies cancel others to produce a black and white effect. But that is seen by the eye as an absence and presence of light. I don’t know how it works at the atomic level.
We have to be careful, what we mean by a flux. A magnetic flux field is not the same as an electromagnetic flux field. The Earth’s magnetic flux field will divert a compass needle but an IR flux field won’t. The Earth’s magnetic flux field will divert protons and electrons (the solar wind) emitted by the Sun, but the Earth’s IR flux field won’t.
I don’t see why electric fields in EM don’t add and subtract but they obviously don’t. If they did, communications signals would experience interference when encountering each other and they don’t appear to do that. Then again, strong electrical interference like EMI will interfere but not through addition and subtraction as much as simply obliterating an existing and ordered EM wave like a TV signal.
I am trying to say it’s a lot more complicated than it appears.
A few points for you to consider, Folkerts:
* Flashlights don’t prove anything for you. You need to learn the difference between “reflection:” and “absorp.tion”. Two flashlights appear brighter because more flux is being reflected, not absorbed.
* Your “sheet of ice” example is pure nonsense. If that were true you could boil water with ice.
* You don’t appear to understand squat about radiative physics, photon absorp.tion, or 2LoT.
[I guess I need to include a discussion of radiative fluxes in the next “Reasons why the GHE is bogus”.]
“Two flashlights appear brighter because more flux is being reflected, not absorbed.”
Twice as much is arriving. Twice as much is reflecting. AND! twice as much is absorbed.
If one flashlight causes “x” amount to be reflected and “y” amount to be absorbed, then a second flashlight means 2x reflected and 2y absorbed.
If you don’t grasp this simple fact, then there is no point moving on to more complicated ideas.
So, do you agree that twice as much is also absorbed?
Swenson says: “All the flux from all the ice in Antarctica …”
That is radiant exitance; I was discussing irradiance. That makes your ‘rebuttal’ “completely meaningless.” If you don’t understand the difference, you might want to review a bit.
Folkerts, a few days ago you admitted that not all infrared warms an object. Now you are claiming that all infrared will be absorbed. So to be consistent, you must believe all infrared is always absorbed, but that does not always result in warming.
I can live with that….
One simple concept at at time Clint. You claimed: “Two flashlights appear brighter because more flux is being reflected, not absorbed.”
Suppose one light shines a flux of 100 W/m^2 onto a surface and 20 W/m^2 gets reflected; then 80 gets absorbed. You seem to agree that if two lights shine 2×100 = 200 W/m^2 onto the surface, then 2×20 = 40 W/m^2 gets reflected. Are you seriously suggesting that 2×80 = 160 W/m^2 being absorbed is not the correct answer?
The incoming fluxes add.
The reflected fluxes add.
The absorbed fluxes add.
I agree Folkerts, let’s keep it simple. So don’t throw ‘reflected’ onto the issue.
Again, you can believe all infrared is always absorbed. That’s wrong, but I have no problem. with you believing that. But, believing that all infrared can always warm an object means you don’t understand the basics.
If you want to keep going with this, you can provide credible reference that “incoming fluxes add”. IOW, you get to prove that ice can boil water — no tricks, like being in a vacuum, with a heating element in the water. You know, the kind of tricks your cult always uses.
“So dont throw reflected onto the issue.”
YOU threw reflected into the issue!
“Again, you can believe all infrared is always absorbed. ”
Again you can repeat that claim, but of course that is just one of your many strawmen. The amount of IR absorbed is proportional to emissivity.
“But, believing that all infrared can always warm an object means you dont understand the basics.”
Again, this is a strawman.
I DO believe all absorbed IR makes an object warmer than it would have been without that IR.
I DO NOT believe all absorbed IR makes an object warmer than it was a second earlier.
Learn the difference.
” IOW, you get to prove that ice can boil water …”
No, the two are not synonymous.
“provide credible reference ”
If you truly want to know more about radiation from one surface to another, you can google ‘radiative heat transfer’ and maybe add ‘view factor’ for more specific results. I’ll warn you that these will all be rather math-intensive, so you can’t just learn this in an hour.
Here are a few you could start with:
http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
http://imartinez.etsiae.upm.es/~isidoro/tc3/Radiation%20View%20factors.pdf
https://courses.ansys.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Lesson-2-View-factors.pdf
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
Sorry Folkerts, but when you mentioned flashlights, you brought ‘reflection’ into it. The fact that you deny that just indicates how little you understand about the issue.
And, to make it worse, your links have NOTHING to do with photon absorp.tion. Two of them deal with “view factor”, which has NOTHING to do with whether or not a photon will be absorbed. Again, like Norman and barry, you only indicate your ignorance of the topic.
What will you try next?
“your links have NOTHING to do with photon absorp.tion. ”
Well, since they all include emissivity, they all have to do with photon absorp.tion.
“Two of them deal with view factor, which has NOTHING to do with whether or not a photon will be absorbed. ”
View factor has to do with whether a photon is going the right direction to be absorbed. It determines how my total radiation from each surface (eg sheets of ice) reaches an object (eg a pot of water). This has EVERYTHING to do with whether ‘ice can boil water’. It has everything to do with how fluxes add.
But it is clear this is all way over your head.
Sorry Folkerts, but you’ve already tried the “view factor” nonsense. It won’t work because here, the photons have already ARRIVED at the surface. But, you’re welcome to keep pounding your head against that rock.
If you ever get tired of that, you can provide some credible reference for your “incoming fluxes add” nonsense.
I won’t hold my breath….
Actually, although Tim’s sources are about view factors, his first source says this about absorp.tion.
“Note that the absorp.tivity α is almost independent of surface temperature and it strongly depends on the temperature of the source at which the incident radiation is originating. For example α of the concrete roof is about 0.6 for solar radiation (source temperature 5762 K) and 0.9 for radiation originating from the surroundings (source temperature 300 K).”
The MIT source says of calculating radiative exchange between two surfaces at different temperature:
The energy leaving body 1 and arriving (and being absorbed) at body 2 is (calculation). The energy leaving body 2 and being absorbed at body 1 is (calculation).
Yet more reputable physics texts (from university courses) corroborating that warm objects absorb radiation from colder ones.
And how many physics texts have been offered in the last 4 years to corroborate the opposite opinion?
Zero.
And we all know why that is.
Yes barry, Folkerts seems to have “left the building”. If you want to take his place, start where he dropped the baton:
If you [Folkerts] ever get tired of that [beating your head against a rock], you can provide some credible reference for your “incoming fluxes add” nonsense.
Sorry Clint, that you still don’t understand the view factor concept. It is important here, because it tells us how many photons ARRIVE at the surface from other surfaces around it. But, youre welcome to keep denying the simply geometry of view factors.
If you ever get tired of that, you can try learning something new, rather than spouting your tired old nonsense.
For anyone actually interested in this topic, perhaps the most basic concept here is the difference between EMITTED flux and RECEIVED flux. So try this simple question.
If one surface emits a flux (of say 315 W/m^2 from a sheet of ice at the left side of my room), will an equal flux (315 W/m^2) be received by a second surface (say a pot of water in the center of my room).
If you answer “yes” you are wrong.
If you answer “no” then the follow-up question is “how much less is received?”. This answer depends on the geometry of the situation — the sizes and shapes and angles and distances for the two surfaces.
Sorry Folkerts, but you and barry have already exhausted the “view factor” red herring. That doesn’t apply here because the photons have already ARRIVED at the surface. But, you two are welcome to keep pounding your heads against that rock.
If you ever get tired of that, you can provide some credible reference for your “incoming fluxes add” nonsense.
I won’t hold my breath….
It is a simple question, Clint. It gets at the same point Barry is making. And you keep avoiding it.
If one surface emits a flux (of say 315 W/m^2 from a sheet of ice at the left side of my room), will an equal flux (315 W/m^2) be received by a second surface (say a pot of water in the center of my room)?
Yes or No?
Clint,
Sources have already been supplied for you showing that fluxes add. Let’s do this for the Nth time, then.
“Finally, the incident flux (irradiance) on surface k can be found. It is the sum of the radiation leaving each other surface j in the enclosure that is incident on surface k.”
https://www.thermopedia.com/content/70
And another source saying the same thing that mentions view factor as well:
“…irradiance H1 will depend explicitly on the incoming radiation field at the surface, which, in turn, will depend on the outgoing radiation fields from all the other surface which can ‘view’ surface 1.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20220315220220/https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~dmckwski/mech7210/radexchange.pdf
Clint,
Imagine a dome of ice above a surface, one curved sheet.
It emits 315 W/m2 to the surface, and because the field of view is filled, the surface receives the whole 315 W/m2.
Now cut out an ice cube sized hole in the dome. Behind that hole is the depths of space at 2.5K. radiating at 0.000002215 W/m2.
The surface is now receiving slightly less than 315 W/m2, because the energy it was receiving is diminished once the hole is cut in the dome.
We cut the dome into a thousand squares, each representing an ice cube, all pressed up against each other, filling the field of view. Nothing has changed. The same amount of surface area is emitting the same amount of energy to the receiving surface.
But start taking away pieces of square and the total energy emitted by what remains of the dome must be less than the total emitted by the unbroken dome.
For every ice cube you take away, you subtract a little from the 315 W/m2 the whole dome yielded in entirety to the surface.
That’s why 2 or more ice cubes can never boil water. What they emit from their surface is not what is received by a receiving surface, and a receiving surface can never receive more than the 315 W/m2 supplied to it by ice that completely covers the receiving surface’s field of view.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Sorry Clint, that you still dont understand the view factor concept. It is important here, because it tells us how many photons ARRIVE at the surface from other surfaces around it. But, youre welcome to keep denying the simply geometry of view factors.”
tim all the talk about number of photons is just an obfuscation. bottom line is the surface won’t get hotter-period-unless the sky gets hotter.
photons are all about if more energy is coming coming in than is going out the surface will warm. and you can’t determine that by simply counting photons because different frequency photons have different energy.
so the only thing worth discussing is whether the sky will get hotter from adding co2.
“the only thing worth discussing is whether the sky will get hotter from adding co2.”
That can’t happen if we don’t agree on basic principles, which is the point of the surrounding discussions.
For example, you won’t accept that the 400K rock cools more slowly when surrounded by 200K walls than 100K walls due to the rock absorbing different amounts radiation from the cooler walls.
There’s absolutely no point discussing the enhanced GHE if you can’t accept a basic principle of radiative transfer that the theory relies on.
Bill says: “you can’t determine that by simply counting photons ”
No one is simply counting photons.
Everyone in this discussion knows that frequency matters.
We are talking about summing all the energy from all the photons incident on a surface.
“the surface wont get hotter-period-unless the sky gets hotter.”
That might seem obvious, but a number of posters are sure that cooler surroundings can’t affect warmer objects. They would argue that as long as the sky is cooler than the ground, the sky getting hotter won’t matter.
They are wrong, as you intuitively realize, but that it yet another issue that stymies discussions.
well instead of beating around the bush with basic principles. my physics professors gave us specific equations and specific problems to solve after demonstrating how to use the equations to solve a specific problem.
either explain just how the atmosphere warms with equations and a blueprint of where those equations are occurring in the atmosphere. or use the seim and olsen setup to show what was missing in that experiment and how you could make it work.
i am here an eager student waiting for somebody to go through the demonstration as opposed to simply imagining hordes of photons flying around and claiming that this unquantified sum of hot and cold ends up with more hot.
A typical reference for these equations – which also include convection – is the 1978 paper by Ramanathan and Coakley.
https://ramanathan.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/460/2017/10/pr15.pdf
That math is way out of my league, perhaps you could perceive it, Bill.
This paper has much easier math. Probably one that we could all discuss.
http://saspcsus.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/64696386/planettemperatureswithsurfacecoolingparameterized.pdf
Well you have some equations. Next step is to create a model and get the model to reproduce say industrial age climate change. Once you have that then you can test its predictive powers and see if you nailed it after running it for a few decades. . .seeing as how its a climate model and there is too much unpredictable decadal noise then adjust where you need while staying consistent with the past and work on it until you get it right.
But gee that doesn’t make for immediate gratification.
So you could do it politically like the Nazis and turn every creature in the world into your personal guinea pig and start trying to change the climate by your actions and hope you don’t get a false positive. . .which of course thats exactly what we were already doing but with everybody volunteering.
You chose facetiousness instead of an honest reply. I googled the first link and hunted up a useable paper up on your request.
Thanks for the contempt. That’s that for this thread.
> Well you have some equations. Next step is to create a model
🤦🤦🤦
the next step is to create a monitoring system.
In the case of climate models we know that the system is very large, capable of accumulating huge energy reserves over time via heat content. Initial climate models rejected any ocean influence. Now that is known to be false and there is a recognition of an imbalance in the climate system. Kiehl Trenberth 1997 had no imbalance. Trenberth Kiehl 2009 did. In 1997 they believed it would work itself out based upon minimum 2 decade long climate smoothing. Then the ”travesty” of that wrong assumption hit home. Settled science suddenly not so settled. A real emotional time.
Next step is to figure out the oceans like we have done with the atmosphere from top to bottom like it warming at the bottom and cooling at the top.
So far ARGO in the last 20 years has only been gathering intelligence of the top half of the ocean.
Deep Argo is in design and testing like a future rocketship to Mars but the challenges are more daunting than sending a spaceship to mars. The pressures are super intense and the instruments cannot leak at all or readings will be inaccurate.
ARGO suffered from that and its not clear to what degree that problem has been handled due to a lack of transparency and a strong ambition of the government to hide anything that will cause them to lose support in the trillion dollar premature mitigation effort underway.
What we need to avoid is the response to suspected leaking modules that prompted all sorts of adjustments from arbitrarily throwing out reports of too cold readings. These problems need to be resolved in the testing phase before going public with bold pronouncements.
What we don’t want is a bastardized system of adjustments to the data based upon climate model estimates. I am sure the government realizes that masks actually sort of work. But one does not rely upon climate models to explain problems with the monitoring system. the monitoring system is being built so that guesses can be replaced with facts in building the climate models. The political nature of this effort is revealed by its many stumbles and travesties.
Its fair to say the government has a genuine interest in this just like any entrepreneur wants to be successful in what they build. This job needs to be given to some competent individual who isn’t afraid to speak truth to government. Elon Musk comes to mind.
> Elon Musk comes to mind.
🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
” . . . you handsomely earned the epithet “lying dog”.”
barry, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You misplaced your PST.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner keeps gaslighting.
#2
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Clint R,
“You believe radiative fluxes simply add”
That’s close enough to what I think. I wouldn’t say ‘simply’.
“If that were true, then ice cubes could boil water.”
That isn’t the case. You’ve been told why over a dozen times.
So don’t be telling any lies about what I think, Clint.
It probably has been over a dozen times, barry.
You keep claiming that arriving fluxes simply add. I keep telling you that would mean ice cubes could boil water. Childishly, you keep calling me a “lying dog”.
Some things never change, huh?
Barry maybe you could explain what temperature the surface would be at if there was no CO2 and why you have come to that conclusion.
If ice cubes don’t simply add, then what do you mean about that?
The Seim and Olsen experiment didn’t show any warming via the GPE when the greenplate was a gas. Perhaps you could explain why that result was obtained? If not then whatever it is that you believe certainly isn’t science.
Maybe Gill could try not to make everything about the new shiny toy daddy just gave him.
Maybe he could read the instructions first.
Clint,
“You keep claiming that arriving fluxes simply add.”
As I said, I disagree with the word ‘simply’. I just told you that, So stop lying about what I think. Don’t do it even a little bit.
“I keep telling you that would mean ice cubes could boil water.”
And I keep explaining why that isn’t the case.
What you also do is tell people that I believe ice cubes could boil water. That is why you get such a bad reputation.
Now, stop lying about what I think. There’s a good boy!
If you want to redeem yourself, you could repeat back to me why I think any number of ice cubes can’t boil water. Then, for once, you might be actually saying what I think, and that would earn you a lot of credit back for all the times you lied.
As a bonus, we could then discuss any difference of opinion you have with my correctly-stated view. That would be much more preferable than having to correct your lies about me.
Bill – and Clint,
“If ice cubes don’t simply add, then what do you mean about that?”
The arriving flux at any surface is either absorbed, reflected or transmitted. The degree to which each happens is dependent on the emissivity of the receiving surface. As our interest is in the absorp.tion of these fluxes, I prefer not to say that the incident fluxes “simply” add in terms of absorp.tion. The portion that is absorbed is summed, and the resulting energy flow to or from the surface depends on the radiative balance incoming/outgoing.
If you are not familiar with the rebuttal to Clint’s misconception about boiling water, in order for a surface to be receiving the full 315 W/m2 from ice, its field of view would need to be filled.
2 or 10 ice cubes within the field of view would each impart somewhat less than 315 W/m2 to a surface.
A simple way to do it is this. Fill the field of view with a dome of ice, one sheet. It is giving off 315 W/m2, and the surface it irradiates receives the lot.
Now cut out an ice-cube shaped hole in the dome – behind it is the cold of space, at 2.5K. The surface is now getting slightly less than 315 W/m2. It can’t be getting the same 315 W/m2, because the energy being emitted to it has diminished.
Clint’s error has always been to imagine that the 315 W/m2 leaving an ice cube translates to 315 W/m2 arriving at the surface. It doesn’t, it is significantly less.
Clint does say that he means ARRIVING flux, but he seems not to realize that the arriving flux from a single ice cube will not be close to 315 W/m2.
Now you’re up to date with the argument. Clint has never properly taken this point up in a couple of years, just ignores it and repeats his mantra. This is as far as the discussion has gone.
barry, arriving fluxes do NOT add. That’s why ice cubes can NOT boil water.
That’s why atmospheric CO2 can NOT warm a 288 K surface.
But, you keep throwing your childish crap against the wall, as you keep calling me a “lying dog”.
That’s why this is so much fun.
See Bill?
Clint had an opportunity right now to respond to the argument why radiation from any number of ice cubes won’t boil water.
But he just demonstrated what has been happening ever since he read the rebuttal a couple of years ago.
He ignores it and repeats his mantra.
Thanks for demonstrating what I said you do so perfectly, Clint!
Barry, the mean temp of the earth is 15c. We consider high temps bad and low temps bad. That must mean mean temps are good if you choose to live there.
Since ice cubes aren’t going to raise many high temperatures we probably don’t need to worry about them.
barry, barry, you’re being quite contrary.
You must know by now that you are wrong. That’s why you keep using distractions like “view factor”. Once we agree on what the ARRIVING flux is, it’s over. Your distractions don’t help you. If you agree on some value of ARRIVING flux, say 315 W/m², then you can stuff your “view factor” nonsense.
The point you keep avoiding is another ARRIVING flus of 315 W/m² does NOT simply add to the first. That is, 315 W/m² + 315 W/m² does NOT equal 630 W/m².
Radiative fluxes do NOT simply add.
Now, are you going to face reality, or continue to act like an immature brat?
Clint says: “Once we agree on what the ARRIVING flux is, its over.”
Yes … let’s reach an agreement — starting with this. If one surface emits a flux (of say 315 W/m^2 from a sheet of ice at the left side of my room), will an equal flux (315 W/m^2) be ARRIVING AT a second surface (say a pot of water in the center of my room) due this this wall of ice?
Yes or No?
Hey Clint,
“If you agree on some value of ARRIVING flux, say 315 W/m²”
You’ll note that I already covered your retort in my previous comment.
“Clint does say that he means ARRIVING flux, but he seems not to realize that the arriving flux from a single ice cube will not be close to 315 W/m2.”
You seem to be making the same mistake yet again.
So, are you saying the source for this ARRIVING flux of 315 W/m2 is an ice cube?
Folkerts and barry, I only used 315 W/m² because Folkerts started his nonsense with that value. If you children want another value, how about 250 W/m²?
It makes no difference. Two arriving 250 W/m² fluxes do NOT add to 500 W/m².
N0 matter what value you choose, you’re going to be WRONG.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint, you are right — the value does not matter!
A flux with value F is emitted from a surface. Is the flux still F when it reaches another surface?
If you want to reach agreement, start there. Do fluxes decrease with distance? Is the flux at the surface of the sun larger than the flux, 1370 W/m^2, when it arrives at the earth? Does an IR heater 100 m away provide less warming flux to you than an identical IR lamp 1 m away?
Clint,
You seem to have realized that the flux from an ice cube ARRIVING at a surface is going to be less than the flux leaving the surface of the ice cube.
What you haven’t yet realized is that the sum of all fluxes from all ice cubes that could fit into the field of view of the surface could never exceed 315 W/m2.
A single dome of ice fully covering the surface would yield the full 315 W/m2 to the surface. But as soon as you take away a piece of that ice (exposing the much colder depths of space behind), you get less energy going to the surface – less than 315 W/m2.
If you left two ice cubes in a dome that had had a thousand, you would barely get 1 W/m2 delivered to a 1 metre square surface surface (the remaining ice cubes would deliver a total of 0.63 W/m2 to the surface if positioned directly above the surface, less if the angle of incidence is greater).
That’s why the radiation from any number of ice cubes could never boil water.
Do you understand the reasoning here? It seems you don’t. Let me know which part of the argument confuses you, or if you understand it, which part of the argument you disagree with.
The kids can’t agree on a value for ARRIVING flux! Obviously they have no adult supervision.
What will they try next?
There’s no disagreement between Folkerts and I. Tim hasn’t even given a value for what I described, so you’re just making things up.
You’re still avoiding responding to the reason why the radiation from any number of ice cubes, even if you sum their fluxes, can never boil water.
Here’s the post just above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2023-0-83-deg-c/#comment-1607180
Can you say what part of the argument is incorrect? Or will you keep demonstrating that you have no answer to it?
“We” (the scientific community) agree perfectly well. We have no idea if you agree, because you steadfastly refuse to commit.
If a flux, F, leaves a surface, does a an equal flux arrive at another surface? Is the “arriving flux” equal to the “emitted flux”?
Okay, I guess someone has to be the adult in the room. I’ll propose a value of 250 W/m² for our ARRIVING flux. Can everyone agree on that?
Sure — 250 W/m^2 arriving. We are making progress.
Of course that flux could be coming FROM ….
* a full dome at 258 K emitting 250 W/m^2
* 1/2 a dome at 306 K emitting 500 W/m^2
* 1/4 a dome at 364 K emitting 1000 W/m^2
* a filtered down beam of sunlight @ 5770 K emitting 64,000,000 W/m^2
* 79% of an ice dome at 273 K emitting 315 W/m^2
* … or an infinite number of other possibilities.
Do you have a preference? Maybe we can discuss each one?
Since you are concerned about the heating ability of ice, we could start with 79% of a dome of 0 C ice emitting 315 W/m^2. This results in the surface in question getting 250 W/m^2 ARRIVING, as you specified.
If we added ice over the other 21%, it would add 65 W/m^2 ARRIVING AT the surface. Those fluxes simply add! 250 from part of the dome + 65 from the rest of the dome = 315 W/m^2 total.
250 W/m2?
Sure, as long as you’re not saying that comes from an ice cube, got no problem.
But if you’re going to say it does come from ice, then I refer you to Tim’s post just above.
Okay, we finally have agreement of an ARRIVING flux of 250 W/m². Progress is slow.
Anyway, the “250” comes from measuring the tray full of ice in my freezer. My IR thermometer has laser pointers so I know what the thermometer is “seeing”. From about 18″ (50 cm) away, with the ice filling the view of the thermometer, I measured 5°F. That corresponds to about 250 W/m² being emitted by the ice.
But, I only have to rotate the IR thermometer about 20 degrees and it no longer “sees” the tray of ice. If a second tray of ice were at the new location, the thermometer would still read 5°F. Moving clockwise around the first tray of ice, a third tray would read the same. You could arrange 5 different trays of ice, all providing about 250 W/m² to a surface. Your cult believes the surface would be receiving 5 * 250 = 1250 W/m². That much flux would correspond to a temperature above boiling point. If not, just add more ice….
Your cult believes ice can boil water.
What will you try next?
“250 W/m being emitted by the ice. …
You could arrange 5 different trays of ice, all providing about 250 W/m to a surface.
And immediately Clint slips back to to his confusion about “emitted by” vs “arriving”. I don’t think he even recognizes these are two different things.
Yes, the ice in the tray is EMITTING 250 W/m^2 from its surface.
No, a surface 18″ away is not RECEIVING 250 W/m^2 from that tray of ice.
No, 5 trays will not cause 1250 W/m^2 to be ARRIVING AT a surface.
Just stick with ARRIVING, Folkerts. I know you’re have trouble understanding the physics here. Just stick with ARRIVING. I promise not to use the word “emitting” again, as it confuses you.
It’s entirely possible to have 250 W/m² arrive at a surface. It’s also entirely possible to have 250 W/m² arrive from a second source. If fact, you could have 5 different 250 W/m² sources arriving at the same time. But that would NOT mean the surface is receiving 1250 W/m².
Radiative fluxes do NOT simply add. If they did, then ice cubes could boil water.
We’re finished here since you two are incapable of providing any credible, responsible science.
“Just stick with ARRIVING”
Since we are discussing radiative heat TRANSFER, it intrinsically involves both an emitting surface (or several emitting surfaces) and a receiving surface. Fluxes leaving and fluxes arriving. Sources and destinations. You can’t discuss transfer without understanding both halves of the issue.
“If fact, you could have 5 different 250 W/m sources arriving at the same time. ”
And again … the same confusion as before! Is that 250 W/m^2 LEAVING the cold ice SOURCES, or is that 250 W/m^2 ARRIVING at the DESTINATION?
If you mean 250 W/m^2 LEAVING the SOURCES then no, you can’t have 5 such sources causing 5 fluxes of 250 W/m^2 ARRIVING at some DESTINATION same time. 5 such sources could, for example, each provide 50 W/m^2 at the distant DESTINATION, for a total of 250 W/m^2. But never more than the 250 W/m^2 LEAVING the SOURCES.
If you mean 250 W/m^2 ARRIVING at the DESTINATION, then yes, you could have 5 of those add to 1250 W/m^2 — but not from ice. They could for example come FROM 5 panels heated to 385 K that each EMIT 1250 W/m^2 and each PROVIDE 250 W/m^2 at the DESTINATION.
Not only is Folkerts ignorant of physics, he can’t read!
Folkerts: “Is that 250 W/m^2 LEAVING the cold ice SOURCES, or is that 250 W/m^2 ARRIVING at the DESTINATION?”
Clint: “It’s entirely possible to have 250 W/m² arrive at a surface.”
Tim,
The device is constructed such that the field of view of the sensor is filled with the ice tray. The emission is equivalent (or very nearly) to the irradiance.
“From about 18″ (50 cm) away, with the ice filling the view of the thermometer, I measured 5°F. That corresponds to about 250 W/m² being emitted by the ice.”
Your device is designed to do what we talk about with the dome covering the target. The field of view for the surface (the sensor) is entirely covered by the source of the radiation (a lens concentrates the target radiation onto the sensor).
You are unable to look at two trays of ice at the same time. The field of view is completely filled with the first one. It is impossible to add the fluxes.
If you refocus the device to take in two ice trays then each would not be delivering 250 W/m2 to the sensor. The inverse square rule and view factors comes into play when your target (a singloe ice tray) doesn’t completely fill the field of view.
Could you try an experiment?
See if your device can measure the temperature of the milk in your fridge.
You should note that it tells a different temperature to the ice tray. And you should see that the device is sensitive to radiation from colder objects, such that it is able to tell the difference in temperature between objects colder than it. This should demonstrate to you that the warmer object (the device sensor) is reading the different temperatures of the colder objects by absorbing their different IR.
Clint proclaims IN BOLD : “It’s entirely possible to have 250 W/m arrive at a surface.”
Yes. And it is entirely possible that the 250 W/m^2 arriving at the surface is from the sun. And that 5 such fluxes can be added to give 1250 W/m^2 . And that 5 such fluxes could boil water.
What is entirely impossible for 5 such fluxes to be arriving from ice.
Ice cannot boil water AND fluxes arriving at a surface do add. This is not a contradiction. This is well-understood physics. Sometimes it feels you are SO CLOSE to understanding.
Barry, I didn’t want to get into details about the construction of IR thermometers since that is not really germane here. I generally agree with what you said:
1) IR lenses are often used to improve performance in the way you suggest
2) the strength of the incoming IR from the colder surfaces lets the IR thermometer measure the temperature of the colder objects.
Some references on fluxes summing. The first is about measuring the radiative balance of soil.
“Here Jn is the net radiation, that is, the sum of all incoming-minus-outgoing radiant energy fluxes; Js the incoming flux of short-wave radiation directly from the sun and Ja the short-wave diffuse radiation from the atmosphere (sky); Jli the incoming long-wave radiation flux from the sky and Jlo the outgoing long-wave radiation emitted by the soil”
Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment, THERMAL PROPERTIES AND PROCESSES – scroll down to see the entry
There are three different incoming fluxes mentioned here that are all summed at the surface. Equation showing that is at the link.
“Net radiation is simply the sum of all incoming and outgoing radiation fluxes at the land surface.”
https://open.library.okstate.edu/rainorshine/chapter/11-3-net-radiation/
And for a treat, the next reference is discussing the melting of ice.
“The energy balance is defined as the sum of all energy fluxes at the surface…
Net radiation [Qn] is the balance between short wave and long wave radiation fluxes.
Qn = G + R + L↓ + L↑
G = incoming short wave radiation from the sun… 2 components: the component that reaches the earth’s surface directly (direct radiation), the part of the sum radiation that is partly scattered in the atmosphere and reaches the surface as diffuse radiation..
R = Reflected global radiation..
L↓ = Incoming longwave radiation… emitted by the atmosphere
L↑ = Outgoing longwave radiation… emitted by the earth’s sirface.”
https://glaciers.gi.alaska.edu/sites/default/files/Meteo_notes_Hock_2022.pdf
ALL fluxes are summed, including the incoming radiative fluxes from various sources.
One I’ve posted before:
“Finally, the incident flux (irradiance) on surface k can be found. It is the sum of the radiation leaving each other surface j in the enclosure that is incident on surface k”
Thermopedia – Net radiation method in radiative transfer
I can keep going, Clint. This stuff is easy to find.
How about you give us one link to a physics source stating that fluxes cannot be summed at a surface? Because every source I’ve come across that mentions it says the opposite.
It’s been a few years with no corroborating reference from you, Clint. When do you finally admit that there isn’t one, and that your view is contradicted by reputable sources?
(No, fluxes summing does not mean ice cubes can boil water, as explained above)
Tim Folkerts says:
”2) the strength of the incoming IR from the colder surfaces lets the IR thermometer measure the temperature of the colder objects.”
Thats incorrect Tim. A mercury thermometer measures the temperature of an object.
IR detectors are not a thermometer. They measure a flow of energy and its direction.
That flow of energy is not the temperature of the target object. It is a flow induced by the difference in temperature between the detector and the object.
Then having a reference point for the detector they can compute the temperature of the target providing you are close enough to the target and you have some confidence that you have selected the right detector for the job.
All you have is a net flow. You are getting too smartypants if you start splitting that up into two flows. Backradiation is purely an imagined product.
It is supposed to be what the cold target would lose by emissions if surrounded by absolute zero environment which of course in that case it wouldn’t even be backradiation. . .it would be plain ol ordinary electromagnetic radiation.
Another good source on the summing of light can be found in videos on the internet regarding advice to photographers. The relevant topic is called the fall off of light.
this video starts with a good primer.
https://youtu.be/x1kmUvxmTVw?si=avCP9A-VWCAV1w9Z
From time to time it’s fun to list all the crap the “flux-adders” have thrown at the wall, all in a failed effort to pervert reality:
* Fluxes simply add, example was two 315 W/m² fluxes adding to 630 W/m².
* “View factor”
* “Lying dog”
* “Field of view”
* Couldn’t agree on what ARRIVING flux is
* Fluxes simply add, but they can’t be added
* Providing quotes from cult sources to support cult nonsense.
That’s why this is so much fun.
How could I forget?
* Two flashlights are brighter than one. (They couldn’t understand reflection was NOT absorp.tion.)
And since barry can’t understand what a “credible source” is, it’s one that is based on First Principles.
(He still won’t understand!)
> IR detectors are not a thermometer. They measure a flow of energy and its direction.
By Gill’s logic, mercury thermometers are mere detectors, for they only measure the expansion and the contraction of mercury.
Bill, how about I say “the strength of the incoming IR from the colder surfaces lets the IR thermometer DETERMINE the temperature of the colder objects.” Yes, it is a little less direct than a mercury thermometer, but all temperature measures are indirect to one degree or another.
“All you have is a net flow. You are getting too smartypants if you start splitting that up into two flows. ”
I don’t think so. Some photons arrive. Some photons leave. Two distinct flows.
Despite Clint’s protestations and diversions and misunderstandings, it is all very simple.
Fluxes arriving at a surface add.
“Thats incorrect Tim. A mercury thermometer measures the temperature of an object.”
Um… a mercury thermometer measures the volume of mercury in a tube.
Then infers temperature from that.
“IR detectors measure a flow of energy and its direction.”
Then infers the temperature of the source from that.
Same principle.
Nate, there is one important point in Bill’s comments.
A device like a mercury thermometer or thermocouple or constant volume gas thermometer is generally placed INTO the object being measured and comes to thermal equilibrium with the object, so the two are at the same temperature.
The IR detector is remote from the object being measured. The temperature is only inferred. Like “the body of the IR thermometer is 22 C and the IR sensor is 19 C, which has been calibrated to give a temperature of 10 C for the distant wall”.
For practical purposes this doesn’t mater, but it is at least a distinction that can be made.
Congratulations Nate. You won a point.
Below is a little sorbet for the brain in between the denialists’ bad science, misrepresentations, and outright lies.
https://youtu.be/vgOsHFctbRw
In this video:
1/ objects can absorb and emit energy in the form of radiation, and this can affect their temperature.
2/ The type of radiation emitted is a function of the object’s temperature.
3/ Wavelength v intensity graphs: Intensity is the power of the radiation per unit area, or how much energy the radiation transfers through a given area.
4/ These principles apply to the entire planet to determine the Earth’s temperature.
Nothing seriously wrong with your video, Ark. Keep learning.
But don’t get confused like the science deniers — all that does NOT mean ice cubes can boil water, or a 15μ photon can warm Earth’s 288K surface.
A,
Exactly. I heven’t watched the video, but hopefully it mentions the fact that the Earth’s surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and does so every night.
I hope you aren’t silly enough to imply that the points you mention support the bizarre notion that some indescribable GHE has made the planet hotter!
Mike Flynn,
Don’t tall me you heven’t watched the video!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Hey Swenson.
The earth may have cooled over the last four and a half billion years but only an id,iot would suggest the cooling has been on a linear downward trend that continues to this day.
Get lost id,iot. Your input has zero value.
ken…you are an embarrassment to Canada.
Canada has become such a delus.ional dystopian marxist green state that being an embarrassment to Canada is actually a good thing.
My g/f keeps offering to send me to such a state to see the difference. I assure her I am happy where I am.
Ken,
You wrote –
“The earth may have cooled over the last four and a half billion years . . . “.
No “may” at all. It has.
Are you disagreeing, or just trolling?
I’m disagreeing; its not cooling at all. Right now the earth warming by a small and insignificant amount, mainly due to solar activity.
Earth has been, more or less, in a state of energy equilibrium for billions of years.
Ken,
The Earth is losing energy at about 44 TW.
Cooling.
The Earth is a mainly glowing hot ball, a long way from the Sun.
The Sun can’t stop the Earth from cooling, let alone make it hotter!
Unfortunately for ill-advised Swenson, the sun IS making the Earth system hotter now as measured shown in the top post. Swenson humorously can’t correctly read a graph & doesn’t even understand GHE term.
One of the more simplistic, amateurish, childish presentations I have encountered and it is significant that Ark finds this stimulating.
The presenter completely ignores the effect of conduction/convection, as if it is irrelevant. He suggests the temperature of a cup of coffee is related to radiation in versus radiation out, an obvious and amateurish reference to his later observation on the Earth’s alleged energy budget. Anyone conversant with science knows the temperature of the cup is far more dependent on conduction/convection than radiation.
He later alleges that the Earth warms each day due to incoming radiation and cools due to outgoing, while completely ignoring the reality related to conduction/convection and the properties of the water sources, land surface, and the atmosphere.
Ark’s 4 points based on his conclusions are wildly inaccurate. In 1) he suggests ‘objects ‘can’ can absorb and emit energy in the form of radiation…’. Why Ark hedges on this is not clear since objects ‘do’ absorb and emit energy in the form of radiation. In fact, all ‘objects’ do absorb and emit energy, including the nitrogen and oxygen that makes up 99% of the atmosphere.
In 2) he claims the type of radiation emitted depends on temperature. I was not aware that different types of electromagnetic radiation exist, only differences in their frequencies.
In 3), he claims intensity is the power of radiation per unit area. Had he substituted ‘strength’ for power, I may have been able to agree, but power has a time factor which intensity lacks. Intensity, in terms of flux, could be stated as the number of lines of flux per unit area but it is not related to power.
4)the idea that radiation alone determines the Earth’s average temperatures is haywire. Not once did the video or Ark reference the oceans or the atmosphere and the conduction/convection that drives it.
As I said, a very amateurish video aimed at furthering global warming propaganda.
Bordo,
You are an embarrassment to cranks.
Since you are a crank, I guess I must be enbarassing you through revealing scientific principles you cannot possibly understand.
No, Bordo.
*You* are a crank. And other cranks here repudiate you.
Over last few centuries human population has grown to about 8 billion
people. And all these people have had very small effect upon global temperature.
It seems predictable they human population will continue to grow for a short period of time and then, decline rapidly.
But no one has ever been particularly good at predicting decades into the future.
And this has off by a lot in terms global climate.
Much of scary predictions had to do with rising sea levels.
It’s been silly and wrong.
We in an Ice Age. And 15 C is a cold air temperature.
But Ice Ages are mostly about land areas. Or ocean makes the land regions nearer to polar regions, colder.
And average surface air temperature of land areas is 10 C, which is significantly colder than 15 C.
Or the large region of Canada has average temperature well below freezing. This low average is due to having very cold winters.
“The war began on 25 December 1979, when the Soviets brought their 40th Army to fight in Afghanistan, and lasted until 15 February 1989, when they announced that all of their troops had left the country. About 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed, and about 35,000 were wounded.”
And the Russia has lost more in Ukrainian war per year in last couple years. And Ukrainian losses have been similar to the Russian soldier losses per year.
And it does seem people think it’s going end in 2024.
And about 40,000 on each side per year, and we got another year- or perhaps 5 more years of this.
Though if Trump is elected or Biden is no longer president for some reason, there is some concern that this war will end.
Biden wants to deplete the Russian military. US had similar policy with the Iraq and Iran war. And he was a second term US senator back, then.
The Iran-Iraq War
“On September 22, 1980, the Iraqi army invaded the Iranian Khuzestan and the IranIraq War began. This conflict is often compared to World War I for its similar fighting tactics and brutality.” And:
“An estimated 200,000-240,000 Iranians and 105,000200,000 Iraqis were killed during the war.”
And that war didn’t work out, very well- for anyone.
gb…”And the Russia has lost more in Ukrainian war per year in last couple years”.
***
The only evidence we have of Russian casualties is what is reported by the lying Western media. They have blatantly lied to us about the Ukraine in general, presenting only a pro-western bias. There was a similar kind of propaganda presented by UK media outlets during WW II, but there is no reason for such propaganda in this case.
The corporate media is lying, has always be lying, and will continue to lie. And on paper, always “losing money”, because everyone has always known they are liars. And their people are ugly, also.
That we have news or an intel Agency which not utterly dysfunctional and crazy, has always been a fairy tale.
But we do have satellites, and you buy the images if want, a total up mayhem, yourself.
But it seems Russians want to have a war, and got one.
There was never any chance of winning this war. The only winning is stopping it.
Of course the corporate media in Russian is likewise, crap.
tim f…”There are also dual wavelength IR meters. But these also dont measure wavelengths…”
***
Duh!!!
” I was not aware that different types of electromagnetic radiation exist”
In the realm of heat transfer investigations, our focus lies on thermal radiation, which is the form of radiation emitted by bodies because of their temperature. It differs from other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays, gamma rays, microwaves, radio waves, and television waves that are not related to temperature.
The only difference is the frequency and the energy levels. Higher frequencies need higher energy levels to propagate.
ken..higher frequencies are a result of electrons transitioning over a greater number of orbital levels back to ground state. It requires a great deal more energy to get the electrons to higher orbital levels so they can descend. That’s why UV is usually generated by extremely hot sources like stars.
Like I said,the difference in EM is about frequency. So-called thermal radiation is an incorrect reference to the infrared range of frequencies in a certain frequency range. It’s incorrect because heat sources also radiate in the visible range of frequencies, therefore, they should be referred to as thermal radiation as well.
The point of my reply is that all EM radiation is made up of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and there is absolutely no heat associated with it. Ergo, calling it thermal radiation is a stoopid anachronism dating back to the 1850s when it was believed heat flowed through space as heat rays.
The thermal modifier is obviously aimed at the source, which is claimed to be heat, However, the real source is electrons orbiting atomic nucleii, therefore it should be called infrared electron radiation.
I cannot emphasize how seriously dumb it is to call IR thermal radiation. If a body is heated till it glows yellow, the radiation is well into the visible spectrum, yet the source is a heat source but the radiators are electrons.
[BORDO] In 2) he claims the type of radiation emitted depends on temperature. I was not aware that different types of electromagnetic radiation exist, only differences in their frequencies
[TYSON] In the realm of heat transfer investigations, our focus lies on thermal radiation, which is the form of radiation emitted by bodies because of their temperature. It differs from other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays, gamma rays, microwaves, radio waves, and television waves that are not related to temperature.
[BORDO] The point of my reply is that all EM radiation is made up of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and there is absolutely no heat associated with it. Ergo, calling it thermal radiation is a stoopid anachronism dating back to the 1850s when it was believed heat flowed through space as heat rays.
Was that Maguff posting under yet another nym? Every time he gets his butt kicked, he switches nyms.
He is wrong about thermal radiation, a meaningless misnomer that tries to intimate that radiation comes from heat sources only. Heat is only one method of producing radiation, anything that excites electrons will produce it.
Pressure can cause radiation. EM can cause it, when it is absorbed, forcing electrons to higher energy levels. Then the electrons radiate when returning to a lower level.
Accelerating electrons in a device like a magnetron forces radiation in the microwave range. Electrons under high voltages when circulating in a coiled inductor produce x-ray radiation. Elecrons that excite gases in a fluorescent tube produces radiation at low temperature.
The point is, all radiation is a product of charged particles in motion. However, we are discussing a special kind of radiation here, and although it is incorrectly called thermal radiation, it all comes from electron transitions.
C’mon, Bordo.
Puffman has been kicked out. TYSON is simply too impatient.
The point is, you’re just riffing on just about anything to return to your silly talking points.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The advocacy arm of the Heritage Foundation, the powerful conservative thinktank based in Washington, spent more than $5m on lobbying in 2021 as it worked to block federal voting rights legislation and advance an ambitious plan to spread its far-right agenda calling for aggressive voter suppression measures in battleground states.
[…]
Heritage Action, whose board includes the Republican mega-donor Rebekah Mercer, is set up as a 501(c)4 under the US tax code which exempts it from paying federal taxes. It operates as a dark money group, avoiding disclosing the sources of its total annual revenue of over $18m.
In the past two years the organization through its public messaging has echoed [teh Donald’s] lie that US elections are marked by rampant fraud. A private plan prepared by Heritage Action last year set out a two-year, $24m election integrity strategy.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/13/heritage-foundation-voter-suppression-lobbying-election-action-plan
Perhaps Willard you can provide some details. Truthfully absolutely nobody is interested in your opinion.
Maybe Gill could read the comment again, slowly this time.
Maybe he could try to flash once more the hottest shining toys his daddy just brought him?
the Guardian rag, now equivalent to the US National Enquirer. Typical that such a rag would perpetuate the Democratic lie that the last election involved no cheating. They would also charge Trump with starting a riot even though there is not a hint of evidence.
We know wee willy is longing for the day when wimps get to pass laws that cancel Democracy.
[BORDO] Facts dont care about experts or consensus. The Royal Societys motto Nullius in verba pretty much sums up the scientific method.
[ALSO BORDO] the Guardian rag, now equivalent to the US National Enquirer.
January so far compared to last month.
Climate Reanalyser: Down 0.20 up to Jan 22 (9 days to go)
Moyhu: Down 0.16 up to Jan 26 (5 days to go)
.
.
.
ENSO regions for week ending Jan 27.
1.2 … +0.7 (down 0.1)
..3 … +1.8 (down 0.1)
3.4 … +1.7 (unchanged)
..4 … +1.6 (up 0.2)
It’s touch and go as to whether the ONI will hit +2.0 for Nov-Dec-Jan. I am leaning slightly towards another +1.9.
With HTE long gone, the only remaining abnormal forcing is El Niño. And EN is starting to weaken. So for UAH, a guess of about +0.7 should be close.
Which would make it equivalent to the warmest month of 2016 despite the El Nino being significantly weaker than then.
My UAH guesstimate: 0.67 +/- 0.06
Test
Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2024/02/uah-global.jpeg
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2024/02/uah-tropics.jpeg
Any suggestions as to why the median is asymmetric?
You’re in the old thread, Richard.