Home/BlogThe Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2024 was +0.90 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the record-high April, 2024 anomaly of +1.05 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).
The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 17 months (record highs are in red):
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 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 |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.86 | +1.06 | +0.66 | +1.27 | -0.05 | +0.40 | +1.18 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.93 | +1.03 | +0.83 | +1.24 | +1.36 | +0.88 | +1.07 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.95 | +1.02 | +0.88 | +1.35 | +0.23 | +1.10 | +1.29 |
| 2024 | Apr | +1.05 | +1.25 | +0.85 | +1.26 | +1.02 | +0.98 | +0.48 |
| 2024 | May | +0.90 | +0.97 | +0.83 | +1.31 | +0.37 | +0.38 | +0.45 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for May, 2024, 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
Down on last month anomaly-wise, but still the warmest May in the UAH global record by a substantial margin. June 2024 just has to beat +0.44C for a clean sweep of 12 new consecutive monthly warmest records starting July 2023.
Dr. Spencer, may was another exceptionally warm month. What’s your explanation for this?
I can only speculate: Some combination of El Nino, Hunga Tonga (I’m skeptical of that), cleaner skies from less aerosol pollution, a decrease in cloudiness (measured by CERES) due to either positive cloud feedback on warming or some unknown mechanism, and increasing CO2 (which can’t explain a short-term peak, but can explain a tendency for each El Nino to be warmer than the last). And maybe some other influence we don’t know about?
Thanks. Any thoughts about the effects of Tropospheric black carbon from all the wild fires and (perhaps) the war in Ukraine the past few years? I included the war in Ukraine because of an indirect effect as Russia was said to be desperate for soldiers, which might have reduced any efforts to fight fires in their vast area, such as Siberia.
“[CO2]…can explain a tendency for each El Nino to be warmer than the last”
If you believe CO2 can warm the oceans, then it follows that you would believe warmer El Niños follow.
The problem arises with the realization of science. CO2’s 15μ photons can not raise ocean temperatures.
Lets include on the long list of temporal variations the current residence of the 4 gas giants all in a mean sector of the sky aligned on the semi-minor axis of the sky.
We know that the discovery of the two outer gas giants was arrived at via our knowledge of the orbital disruption of the known planets. We are still looking for the source of an orbital disruption that remains unexplained in Neptune’s orbit.
What is the physics behind positive cloud feedback on warming? I think warming causes negative cloud feedback.
thanks for your ideas on this. I am somewhat surprised that you do not mention the warmer ocean temperatures – I would like to think that such arge excursions as we are seeing now would require a very large heat source, such as the oceans yielding much more heat from deep below – perhaps built up over many years?
There isn’t heat from deep below… the deep ocean is exceedingly cold, and has only warmed by a few hundredths of a degree C. The recent warmth seems to be most anomalous over NH land areas. I don’t have any strong opinions on the cause.
” CO2’s 15μ photons can not raise ocean temperatures. ”
When will Clint R stop to post this stoopid, ignorant nonsense?
CO2’s tiny action lies in the reduction of the amount of IR directly reaching space, and is not due to back-radiation.
But maybe Clint R loves Robertson’s Shula blah blah about the Pirani gauge.
Sorry Bindi, but you’re wrong again.
CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise ocean temperatures.
And reducing the “amount of CO2’s 15μ photons directly reaching space” cannot raise ocean temperatures either.
You can try a third time to bite my ankles, or you can learn the science.
Your choice….
sam schicks, It is related to a few factors. The first is the coverage of clouds which is expected to decline because relative humidity increases do not keep up with specific humidity increases thus resulting in less reflection of sunlight. The second is the height and timing of clouds which is also expected to change in way that reinforces more warming. The third is the microphysics of cloud formation. There are two broad cloud phases: liquid and ice. It’s a spectrum with mixed phase being a combination of the two. As the planet warms we expect the ratio of liquid-to-ice to increase. Liquid drops have higher optical depths as compared to ice crystals so we expect this mitigate warming. When all factors are combined it is believed that the net effect will positive mainly as a result of the mixed-phase negative feedback exhausting itself as many of the clouds transition from mixed phase to entirely liquid phase. Newer observational studies have shown that there is less ice in clouds than originally believed meaning that the transition to all liquid will occur sooner.
Or how about something we’ve always known – that satellites do not measure surface temperatures. Surface data sets have been down around +0.6 (using the UAH baseline) for the past couple of months.
Thermosphere is hot, last time it was this hot was 2003, though it was much hotter during 20th century Solar grand maximum, when their solar max, but if 20 year is recent, it is been hotter recently.
So hotter and more water vapor [high up, there}.
“cleaner skies from less aerosol pollution”
I’m skeptical that there could have been that much of a change in just a couple of years. But if it is the case that there has been a significan warming effect caused by cleaner skies, doesn’t that suggest the warming caused by CO2 so far has been significantly masked by pollution.
See my comment below:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1671376
New Zealand in 2024 has just had the coldest May in 15 yearsref: NIWA
We had very high rainfall in 2022some say HT moisture?
Re: “So hotter and more water vapor [high up, there}.”
This could be more of satellite measurement thing and less of measuring warming air in white box 5 feet above ground, measurement, thing.
If CO2 could raise ocean temperatures then how are we here?
Where else should troglodytes be, if not dead?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Gee, DREMT has already posted 71 times, while adding nothing to any discussion.
Is he simply marking his territory?
…Willy, please stop trolling.
“Only” 0.9C above the May average. At this rate, Boston will feel like Atlanta in a few decades and Dallas will feel like Phoenix.
A short multiannual spike (nothing unusual) on top of the multidecadal/multicentennial plateau (nothing unusual). Natural global climate change/varibility.
What ‘multidecadal/multicentennial plateau ‘?
I mean likely the highest temperatures in centuries. The modern climate optimum.
No detailed figures as I’m away from my laptop. But this of course is another monthly record. Beating the long standing May 1998 by almost 0.4C.
This is the 11th monthly record in a row, with last June being only the second warmest.
This spike was all about Tonga plus El Nino. A perfect storm. The next several months should confirm that with dramatic drops in average temperatures throughout sphere as the effects of both wear off.
“This spike was all about Tonga plus El Nino.”
See Dr Spencer’s comments above the HT eruption. Minimal impact at most.
This is CO2 warming, temporarily boosted by El Nino.
Much more to come.
Much more to come? Much more of your false beliefs?
Why do you fear science?
“Why do you fear science?”
Why would I fear something that informs me?
Sorry, but you appear MIS-informed.
Do you have any science that says CO2’s 15μ photons can warm Earth’s surface?
Remember, beliefs ain’t science….
“Do you have any science that says CO2s 15μ photons can warm Earths surface?”
You might want to take that up with Dr Spencer, who seems to agree that CO2 has a warming influence on surface and lower atmosphere temperature.
You just seem to be coming out with nonsense. Sorry.
It’s interesting that you hide behind Dr. Spencer, who claims to be a Lukewarmer. He’s not an alarmist, but you are.
And, as usual with cultists, you have NO science to backup your beliefs.
“Its interesting that you hide behind Dr. Spencer, who claims to be a Lukewarmer. Hes not an alarmist, but you are.”
What’s interesting that you accuse me of ‘hiding behind’ the guy who runs the site we are both posting on.
He’s quite clear on CO2; it has a warming influence on surface temperatures.
Maybe you know better than Dr Spencer.
If so, I have to say, it isn’t obvious.
What is interesting is you are still here, with NOTHING to support your false beliefs.
So sez Clint, who never never ever ever supports his claims with evidence, data, links to real papers that agree with his fake physics.
But that’s ok, since he is just here seeking negative attention.
Wrong child Nate. I always support what I say. But, I can’t understand it for you.
Maybe when you grow up you will get it….
Nah, you never do.
Like here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1666803
You just run away as fast as you can.
1) How much energy has been added to LT since June 1 2023?
2) What is that in W/m2?
3) Where did this energy come from?
4) Has something stopped Earth from releasing heat? What, and how much?
5) Is Hunga Tonga still seen as a insignificant part of this warming?
Global dimming.. when the planes stopped during covid there was less pollution filtering the sun.. combined with an el Nino spike
The last 12 months have been the underwater volcano ,El Nino and the peak of solar cycle 25.
Strong coo!ing is coming as all three fade.
Charles Best
” … and the peak of solar cycle 25. ”
Wow. Where dou you have that from, Mr Best?
*
And when Roy Spencer tells in a reply
” Hunga Tonga (I’m skeptical of that)… ”
then I can only say that his words match the sum of all what I read about HTE since September 2022, and was confirmed by regularly looking at UAH’s monthly grid data for the Lower Stratosphere:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/
Something is broke.
Andrew
Yep, I’m seeing it too.
For the last few months I’ve been saying that something is seriously wrong with those numbers.
Tonga eruption increases chance of temporary surface temperature anomaly above 1.5 C
A cross plot of N I N O 3.4 pacific ocean temp and U A H L Trop with a detrend removing the long term warming in UAH and shift for the 4 to 5 month lag where UAH responds to ocean temperature change shows this warm event is not just E l N I N O. It came months too early, and duration is longer than the range of other major E L N I N O events. So curious how this isn’t Tonga? The two times there is not high correlation between data are for the P I A N ATUB O Cooling and Tonga (the UAH spike matches Tonga vapor distribution). I suspect this trend may endure for some extended time. Happy to hear alternatives, but cleaning the atmosphere is a gradual process, this is an abrupt spike like an E l N I No but too early. Something causes the high frequency climate change in paleorecords, and volcanic eruptions fit the bill.
I have seen at least one popular report that suggested that the recent few months of high anomalies can be explained using changes in shipping fuels alone. The reasoning appears to be that the reduction in sulphate emissions has led to a reduction in reflective cloud formation. Does the good Dr. or any of our more technically-literate contributors have an opinion on this?
I was wondering about that too, but when I looked it up and the change to cleaner shipping fuel was in 2000. Any insight…?
According to Reuters, shipping fuel regulations were introduced in 2020
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/cleaner-shipping-fuel-is-contributing-ocean-warming-scientists-say-2024-05-31/
And
https://e360.yale.edu/features/at-last-the-shipping-industry-begins-cleaning-up-its-dirty-fuels
My understanding is that this was a more limited phase of restrictions. More restrictive rules seem to have kicked in around 2020, reducing sulphur content from 3.5% to 0.5%.
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-sulfur-content-shipping-fuel-maritime.html
You can drive this article trough Google Translate:
https://www.tu.no/artikler/ett-tema-overskygger-alt-annet-pa-verdens-storste-shippingmesse/445324
Two possibly interesting links:
Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming
Yuan & al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3
*
Expert reaction to sulphur reductions in shipping fuel and increased maritime warming
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-sulphur-reductions-in-shipping-fuel-and-increased-maritime-warming/
This could be the ultimate irony for climate change. If we “must take action now”, then the short term solution is to go back to the old standard of 3.5% sulfur. It costs money to remove the sulfur, so it would also make shipping less expensive. It’s a win-win solution.
Trading a chronic emissions problem for an acute one. I don’t see any “win” there.
You are applying 20th Century thinking to a 21st Century problem. You need to make a paradigm shift and start thinking outside the box with transformative ideas.
Old school said that pollution was things that are actually harmful, such as toxic chemicals. New school says that a natural chemical that is essential to all life has become an existential threat to human life on earth because there is too much. The knob on the temperature control has been turned the wrong way.
School children with expert knowledge of science are protesting in the streets. Climate Change is real and already happening. We must act now!
!Nix Net Zero!
Zeke Hausfather has a pretty extensive blog post about the recent paper (Yuan etal) that claims the reduction in shipping fuel aerosols is sufficient to explain the recent temperature spike. (spoiler, Hausfather thinks Yuan’s climate model isn’t sufficient for the purpose it was used).
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/a-problematic-estimate-of-warming
Other climate scientists consider the Yuan etal result to be dubious.
I would like to get the opinions from Dr. Spencer and the scientifically literate here if we’ve hit the peak yet. How many months in a row below +1.05C do we need before we can comfortably say that?
+1.05 C is probably the peak for this ENSO cycle. Because the UAH TLT response lags ENSO by about 4-5 months and because ONI peaked 5 months ago we probably only need a few more months to confirm this. Longer term, however, UAH TLT will march higher due to the positive Earth energy imbalance. It might take several years or even a decade for 1.05 C to get eclipsed, but it will happen…eventually.
“It might take several years or even a decade for 1.05 C to get eclipsed, but it will happeneventually.”
Regrettably, I suspect it will just take until the next El Nino; even a small to moderate one.
TFN
Possibly true for the surface data sets, but I don’t see UAH getting this high again soon in a low-moderate El Nino. They overrepresent high temperatures and underrepresent low temperatures, and the crossover point seems to be in the moderate-strong El Nina regime.
And Fungalnail now ADMITS that the El Ninos are the source of the warming.
So funny !!
Dr Spencer gave a reasoned explanation for why April was probably the peak in last month’s blog post that seems sensible enough. The gist is that El Nino is waning and the surface temperatures, which lag El Nino less than tropospheric temperatures, seem to be declining.
Dr. Roy conveniently neglects to mention that this past May is, by far, the warmest May in his data set.
Meanwhile, climate change is on track to take a substantial bite out of personal incomes across the planet.
https://youtu.be/BPG_Gu6lxls
Really? Global warming is going to take a bite out of personal incomes?? Well, let’s get rid of the most affordable fuels that have enabled global prosperity for the last 150 years! That will help!
The only thing taking a bite out of incomes here in Canada is the industry crushing carbon tax and the subsequent inflation as costs are passed on to consumers
Yes, let’s all become climate refugees. That will keep us prosperous!
Dr. Roy – Why is it always how affordable fuels USED to be that is supposed to sway the argument?
You can’t legislate markets. Governments only hurt markets. Cheap available energy has fueled all the prosperity. Expensive unavailable energy will destroy prosperity. Then, many people will die.
Fossil Fuels:
-Population soared to 8 Billion
-Life Spans doubled
-Famine eradicated
-Billions lifted out of grinding poverty
-End to slavery
Take away fossil fuels and all that human flourishing is going to be reversed. Roger Bezdek says cutting fossil fuel emissions by 90% of 1990 levels by 2050 (Paris Agreement) means GDP gets cut by 95%.
95% cut to GDP means average income gets cut by 95% too. Can you live on $300 per month? Cutting fossil fuels is going to have a much much much bigger impact on your personal income than any alleged climate change ever will.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, followed by a non sequitur. The economic impacts of climate change are already well understood. Moreover, they’re unnecessary. Some of the wealthiest nations are already peaking at 100% renewable energy. The poorer ones will leapfrog them. Fossil fuels are going out, whether you want to accept it or not.
“Take away fossil fuels and all that human flourishing is going to be reversed. ”
Weird.
Humans flourished for centuries before fossil fuels.
They are finite, so will run out in any case, and obviously humans will have fully converted to alternative sourced of energy by then.
The fossil fuel era will be a short blip in human history.
‘obviously humans will have fully converted to alternative sourced of energy’
Its not obvious at all. There is no alternate source of energy that matches fossil fuels. Its irresponsible to plan on technological advance that hasn’t happened.
See ‘Fusion’ for details; its been one ‘breakthrough’ away from reality for my entire life.
Seems pretty obvious to me. Fossil fuels would have run out anyway, even if sink capacity for the emissions hadn’t been exhausted first. Existing renewable-energy technologies can provide far more energy than we need, and are increasingly the cheapest options. They even save lives due to reduced particulate pollution and provide quieter streets.
In a generation or so people will look back in astonishment at our archaic ways.
‘Existing renewable-energy technologies can provide far more energy than we need’
Evidence needed. Everything I can find is renewables are about 5% of global energy.
‘and are increasingly the cheapest options’
The issue is obfuscated so badly that its almost impossible to prove or disprove. What is clear is that investors think renewable isn’t worth the candle without massive government subsidies.
‘They even save lives due to reduced particulate pollution’
This is patently false when you consider the entire life from mining the materials to sending them to land waste at end of useful life.
‘and provide quieter streets’
Hurrah; lets wreck our economy in exchange for quieter streets.
I agree, solar power is plentiful.
Example: an area of desert of around the size of Phoenix metro area, is sufficient to power the peak US electric demand.
Of course storage is needed to take full advantage.
Even now, mid day , California’s power is about half solar. See chart here:
https://www.gridstatus.io/
Pillar of civilization
Concrete
Iron
Plastic
Ammonia
You can’t do any of these with solar.
Any place that uses solar pays really high prices for electricity.
See Australia, Germany, UK etc for details. Its costing billions in subsidies to industry that cannot compete due to high energy costs.
California is an exception because government has forced PG&E to keep rates down.
Something has to give and those huge fires that have killed hundreds in California are the direct result of sparking power lines that haven’t been maintained due to lack of funds. PG&E went bankrupt.
nate – Yes, and photovoltaic, just to take one of the solar options, is following an exponential growth curve. Countries in Europe are already peaking at 100% renewable power. We need more storage and more power-management to reach 100% at all times, but there are plenty of inexpensive solutions. Pumped storage is one we use in Switzerland, for instance. My own village just opened a hydroelectric plant a couple of years ago which produces 60% of the greater town’s electricity needs.
The desert regions, currently mostly poor, are going to be solar-energy superpowers in a decade or two.
“Any place that uses solar pays really high prices for electricity.”
Perhaps a bit. It cost less than some sources (Nuclear, clean coal) more than others (gas).
That hardly supports your claim:
“Its not obvious at all. There is no alternate source of energy that matches fossil fuels. Its irresponsible to plan on technological advance that hasnt happened.”
“Concrete
Iron”
Why must they be done with fossil fuels?
Electric arc smelters are already in operation in some places, notably Iceland, which is increasingly exporting its abundant hydro-power in the form of metal components.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Here’s how Graham D. Warner perceives Elliott.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
UAH LT as a proxy for surface temperatures: https://www.zupimages.net/up/24/23/r0zo.png
That looks like the graph Dr. Spencer provides just with a slightly different formatting style. What am I missing here?
TS = TLT / 1.5
Sure.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2024-06-03.gif
The TLT proxy with the y-axis legend that was missing in the first version: https://www.zupimages.net/up/24/23/1j1n.png
Method of calculating the amplification: https://www.zupimages.net/up/22/16/804k.png
The rationale, surface indices are constructed with methods that preserve short-term trends at the expense of long-term trends : https://zupimages.net/up/20/03/wu78.png
Putting things in the right context without any manipulation:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/fig4-ncar-r1-gmsta-1948-2024.gif
The satellite got a tilt , the spike is not real
I do find it very strange to correlate these temperatures with the cool spring here in the UK (and apparently in the states). It doesn’t seem real.
I get that as well. It’s mostly been dreadful here in Switzerland this year. The upper Rhine is almost bursting its banks in the areas where it is on open land. We had fresh snow above 2,000m a couple of days ago, although it’s gone again now, where I am. There’s a real sense of disconnect.
Cool spring in the UK? It was the warmest on record.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Tmean/ranked/UK.txt
I appreciate there are many reasons why it didnt feel so warm. But objectively it certainly wasnt cool.
I live in Germoney, and we experience
– since at least a decade, increasing westerly winds (to such an extent in between that the Krauts around me begin to speak about ‘Berlin an der Ostsee’ because since decades, the weather patterns have slowly switched from ‘continental’ to ‘rather maritime’;
– since a few years, cooler springs following warmer winters.
Latest data download from the German Weather Service was in February this year.
Here is a superposition of
– absolute
and
– anomaly data (wrt the mean of 1981-2010):
https://tinyurl.com/Germoney-absol-anoms (d c syndrome)
The polynomials explain perfectly the situation, but nearly everybody uses linear trends (in C /decade):
1941-now:
– absol: 0.19 +- 0.09
– anoms: 0.18 +- 0.02
1979-now:
– absol: 0.58 +- 0.21
– anoms: 0.54 +- 0.05
2000-now:
– absol: 0.73 +- 0.55
– anoms: 0.58 +- 0.22
The trends since 2010 I didn’t want to add cuz no one would believe them.
*
Since 2018 there is a slight cooling, but there were many of them since measurement begin.
Just eyeballing, this persistent deviation kind of renders the info prior to it insignificant, for want of a better phrase. It’s been so extreme for such an extended period… really?
Andrew
I’m not seeing UAH TLT behave in a way that deviates too far from the expectation right now.
bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner has returned from his man cave.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
You can drive this article trough Google Translate:
https://www.tu.no/artikler/ett-tema-overskygger-alt-annet-pa-verdens-storste-shippingmesse/445324
Cool spring in the UK? It was the warmest on record.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Tmean/ranked/UK.txt
I appreciate there are many reasons why it didn’t feel so warm. But objectively it certainly wasn’t cool.
“Cool spring in the UK? It was the warmest on record.”
Yes, I was surprised by this. N Ireland, where I live, had its warmest May on record. I was out of the country for the second half of May, but it didn’t feel that warm when I was there.
As I said, I think there are a number of reasons why this spring feels cooler than the thermometers show. It’s been unusually wet and cloudy. It’s been relatively warmer at night than during the day, and these are sir temperatures, nit what we feel in direct sunshine.
The Met Office??!!!
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-!!!!
Alarmist central. Completely fudged data,direct from NOAA.
Do you have an alternative source showing it being cool in the UK this spring?
There’s a big difference between calling a source “alarmist” because you do not want to accept its data, and actually showing a fault in that data, or producing better data.
Elliott Bignell
Don’t expect anything valuable from a pseudo-engineer a la Robertson
– who is unable to download and present any data let alone to process it
but
– who violently discredits and denigrates anything he doesn’t understand.
EB,
You wrote-
“Theres a big difference between calling a source “alarmist” because you do not want to accept its data, and actually showing a fault in that data, or producing better data.”
Who cares, anyway?
There’s a big difference between claiming a GHE exists, and actually being able to describe it.
Why are you refusing to describe the GHE? Worried you might look stupid? Probably a valid concern, but you can just shrug of any laughter and derision that might come your way, can’t you?
It’s probably easier to stay in your fantasy world, where you are no doubt wise and respected.
Carry on.
> Who cares
Nobody cares if you care about something or not, Mike Flynn.
Another beer?
> Who cares
Nobody cares if you care about something or not, Mike Flynn.
Another beer?
Theres a big difference between claiming a GHE exists, and actually being able to describe it.
We can describe it, and have done, over and over. Your refusal to understand the explanation is nothing but lying.
EB,
“We can describe it, and have done, over and over. Your refusal to understand the explanation is nothing but lying.”
The usual nonsense. Your present excuse is that you have already done it over and over, so you spend more time refusing to provide a description than it would take to be helpful, and provide one!
That makes you unhelpful, as well as ignorant.
You even babble about an “explanation”, but refuse to describe the object of this missing “explanation”.
Not very convincing, are you?
I don’t blame you for refusing to describe the GHE – you’d probably claim it was responsible for the Earth cooling. That would be bizarre, wouldn’t it? How about the surface cooling at night? Due to the GHE? Even sillier!
You might as well keep refusing to describe the mythical GHE – just claim someone else has – thousands of times!
Carry on.
> The usual nonsense.
Nobody cares about what you refuse to understand, Mike Flynn.
Long live and prosper.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
For some, satellites get a tilt if and only if they show warm things; otherwise, everything is perfect.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1664824
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1665042
Almost everyone here is functionally a ChatBot; spewing out regurgitated drivel for clicks, with little to no comprehension of what is coming our way and no sense of shame for any culpability in producing the problem the data describes.
Instead of a trivial critique, what about YOU showing us what you missed and expect?
I am in the cultured valley on The Dunning Krueger curve; smart enough to understand a thing well enough to be aware of how much more there is for me to learn before asserting something contrary to published consensus. Many folks here are at the peak of ignorance, certain they understand a thing fully when they understand the margins at most, and that unevenly. But oddly they have yet to publish anything in an appropriate venue.
So I dont fake the science I havent mastered. But I understand the process of science well enough to discern what is testable & predictive, and hey folks, temperatures rising!
Also:
I remember arguing with Creationists back in the day; Usenet, talk.origins stuff. This reads exactly the same. Reason finds no purchase here. Not worth the time & effort.
Decline.
A self-declared smart person … precisely a D-K trait.
You might be on the right side of the climate debate, but I suspect you lean more towards the McPherson/Beckwith nonsense.
The parallel with creationists occurs to me a lot, too. On some fora the creationists and the AW deniers are the same people.
George Monbiot actually suggested referring to our denialist brethren as “climate creationists”. One of the better coinings, I thought.
EB,
You wrote –
“George Monbiot actually suggested referring to our denialist brethren as “climate creationists”. One of the better coinings, I thought.”
You and your ilk are definitely denialists.
You deny that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
You deny that each night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s remnant heat.
You deny that when all of the Earth’s available water was in the atmosphere, before the first liquid water formed, that the Earth continued to cool.
You deny that your denialist brethren refuse to describe the GHE.
Fell free to correct me if I am wrong.
[what a strange reality denying nutter he is]
> Fell free to correct me
Nobody cares to correct you, Mike Flynn, for you’re a crank who’s always wrong.
Fell free to correct me
Nobody cares to correct you, Mike Flynn, for youre a crank whos always wrong.
You deny that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
There you go, lying again.
You deny that your denialist brethren refuse to describe the GHE.
And again.
Shame on you for trying to shame people who have no culpability for the non existent problem you are trying to get them to fear
[Insert This is fine! GIF here]
“Many folks here are at the peak of ignorance, certain they understand a thing fully when they understand the margins at most, and that unevenly.”
Very well put. I am in that category myself.
Can’t you find a blog that features conspiracy theories? If you really know what’s coming perhaps you should check into a clinic for assessment.
UAH 6.0 LT, May months: top ten of a downsort of the absolute data reconstructed out the 2.5 degree grid anomalies and the 1991-2020 climatology they were constructed out:
2024 5: 265.35 (K)
1998 5: 264.97
2020 5: 264.87
2016 5: 264.86
2023 5: 264.82
2017 5: 264.77
2010 5: 264.74
2019 5: 264.65
2022 5: 264.62
2015 5: 264.59
Source
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
Grrrand Coooling Aheaddd
2024, Jun 2
” Huge ice projectiles fell from the sky in the US state of Texas. A new hailstone record for the state was set northwest of the community of Vigo Park. The diameter of the hailstone was 18.4 centimeters.
The previous record was 16.3 centimeters and dates from Hondo in 2021. ”
Just kidding a bit :–)
Not so funny if you get caught in such a hailstorm. In Edmonton one summer there were hail stones the size of softballs (3.5″ dia.) falling and dented cars, broke windshields, and dented aluminum awnings on homes. I’d hate to think what one of those would do to your head.
I saw a news report that claimed there were 40cm just recently in China, I forget where exactly. Get hit on the head by one of those and it would drive you into the road up to your armpits.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Here is the Monckton Pause update for May. At its peak it lasted 107 months starting in 2014/06. Since 2014/06 the warming trend is now +0.34 C/decade. As Ive said before that is a lot of warming for a period that was supposed to be the be-all-end-all proof that warming had stopped.
The fall from +1.05C in April to +.90C in May might tempt The Monck back into speculating about another ‘pause’.
You know how it works.
Why do we even deign to discuss his nonsense?
So we should discuss your nonsense instead? A self-declared expert no less?
Please link to me referring to myself as an expert.
As Arnold stated as the Terminator, ‘Ah’ll be back”. What comes around, goes around. Anyone who thinks this spike is here to stay is somewhat naive.
We live a short life span compared to the overall extent of it all. At best, most humans live about a century. I’d like to talk with someone who experienced the heat waves and dust storms of the 1930s to see how they compare that to this decade.
It’s amazing how many wannabees try to compare current temperatures to the past and presume they are cause by a trace gas.
> What comes around, goes around.
Like Ren. Where’s Ren?
The world needs some colding.
ren’s in Poland, unless he’s on holiday.
Ren has not been commenting for a while.
I wonder why.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Does the warm Atlantic Ocean have something to do with this? Would the predicted strong hurricane season have some effect on cooling the ocean and the planet?
Hurricanes DEFINITELY cool the ocean. In season, you can track a hurricane by warm water in front of it and cool water behind it.
Think of a hurricane as a large vacuum sucking energy off the ocean surface.
Funny how a few years ago you and your buddies were using the plethora of hurricanes at the time as an excuse for the WARM surface temperatures.
Where did I ever do that, Ant?
The reason you have to use false accusations is because you’ve got NOTHING.
How convenient that Mr Spencer has made all old comments invisible in order to prevent us digging up your nonsense.
But, that’s very convenient for you. Now you can make any false accusation you want, and hide behind the fact that the comments have been erased.
Cooling suggest a loss of heat. Have you changed you mind and now regard heat as energy?
Except Mr Spencer would not do something designed to benefit me.
Hodges and Elsner think its sunspot activity that influences hurricanes. No sunspots mean upper atmosphere is cooler. The difference between upper atmosphere and ocean surface temperatures determines hurricane frequency and intensity.
https://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/temp/PDF/Research/HodgesJaggerElsner2014.pdf
“Would the predicted strong hurricane season have some effect on cooling the ocean and the planet?”
Very good question.
I would suspect that energy released by the oceans in the form of storm activity would lead to a reduction in the heat content of the oceans.
Nature’s way of ‘venting off steam’.
I stand to be corrected.
better be careful of our resident science expert, Clint, will be after you for suggesting there is heat in the ocean. In the text books he reads, heat is not energy but only a transport mechanism for ‘energy’. He refuses to answer when asked what energy is being transported, an energy which is obviously heat, According to Clint heat is not energy but a transport of heat.
Anyway, the amount of heat hurricanes remove from the ocean are a spit in the ocean so to speak. Any heat removed will be replaced next day by solar energy.
Where did I ever state any of that, gordon?
The reason you have to use false accusations is because you’ve got NOTHING.
Wow this “China hoax” thing just won’t go away. 🙄
SpaceX lands FAA license for next Starship megarocket launch on June 6
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-4-faa-launch-license
“SpaceX and the FAA have even outlined 3 ways Starship’s Flight 4 could fail and skip an anomaly investigation.”
Linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
How do you calculate the linear trend? I wouldn’t expect a single month, or even several months, to have much impact on a trend over 45 years (your reported decadal trend has only increased by 0.02C since February last year). But isn’t a more recent trend (say, over the last 30 years) more important?
” But isnt a more recent trend (say, over the last 30 years) more important? ”
Good question.
Here is a chart showing for UAH 6.0 LT the running monthly 30-year trend i.e. the sequence of 30-year trends in °C / decade, calculated month after month, starting with the period [Dec 1978 – Dec 2008: 0.127] and ending with the period [May 1994 – May 2024: 0.157]:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18PS1NJ91PsbqbKGbq4RI-deOVNzkwrxL/view
This running trend has itself a trend, denoting the acceleration within LT’s time series, which is currently
0.016 +- 0.001 °C / decade².
Thanks!
Elliot Bignell…”Its mostly been dreadful here in Switzerland this year. The upper Rhine is almost bursting its banks in the areas where it is on open land. We had fresh snow above 2,000m a couple of days ago, although its gone again now, where I am. Theres a real sense of disconnect”.
***
A couple of year ago here in the Vancouver, Canada area, we had an abnormal heat wave that consisted of a heat dome extending 500 miles north to south parking itself over us. That was followed by abnormal flooding a few months later. The doomsters began claiming the sky was falling and that we needed to cut fossil fuels immediately.
Last year we had unprecedented warming in May that gave way to a normal summer. This year…nada. Back to a normal early June of cloud interspersed with rain and sunshine. No comments from the alarmist peanut gallery re gloom and doom. Gas prices dropped recently.
The heat dome was explained by the alarmists at NOAA as a La Nina effect. Same with the flooding. The warming last May was likely due to Hunga Tonga.
Move along folks. Nothing unusual to see here.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Forecasts show temperatures could reach 108F (42.2C) across a width swath of California, from Sacramento to Bakersfield.
The National Weather Service (NWS) issued an excessive heat warning for the state’s Central Valley region on Tuesday.
Sacramento is expected to see its first triple digit high temperature of the year on Tuesday. Last year, California’s capital city didn’t get that hot until the end of June.
On Wednesday that warning will expand further east from Las Vegas to the Lake Havasu City, Arizona, region.
The NWS also issued heat warnings to southern Texas. Some areas of south Texas saw temperatures reach 117F (47.2C) Tuesday.
Thursday is expected to be the worst day this week for excessive heat.
Forecasters expect temperatures to be 10 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit above normal.
Phoenix, Las Vegas, Albuquerque and Fresno could see previous records for high temperatures squashed.
Residents facing the heat wave have been advised to drink extra fluids, stay inside in air-conditioned rooms out of the sun and wearing loose-fitting clothing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqlle2v2dpxo
Bakerfield is still far away from Vancouver, so the world is safe.
Nothing new in California. Ask gbaikie, who lives there.
It’s warm. It’s summer. I live in the hottest region on Earth.
It’s not currently getting down to 15 C. My dwarf lemon tree is currently safe and happy. My experimental mango tree doesn’t look like it’s going to survive. It was a silly idea to try to grow one- but I probably try it, again.
But it’s tropical island paradise type warm, it’s a desert. We are living in an Ice Age, cold ocean and dry world- unless you living in the tropical ocean.
But if you don’t want cold air or warm air, Mars has no air temperature as it is close to a complete vacuum which is not cold or warm. Living under water on Mars [which does have pressure and temperature] and one could live in tropical heat on Mars.
> Ask gbaikie
I’d rather not, for my own sanity.
Californians see previous records for high temperatures squashed every year.
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“> Ask gbaikie
Id rather not, for my own sanity.”
Ooooooooh! Sounds like you are a bit delicate, sanity wise. Are you still worried about “mind probes”?
I’d be more worried that people might laugh if I used your description of the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling”. People might assume that you were both ignorant and stupid.
Keep worrying.
> Sounds like
Nobody cares about what anything sounds to you, Mike Flynn.
Go easy on the beer.
> Sounds like
Nobody cares about what anything sounds to you, Mike Flynn.
Go easy on the beer.
Californians see previous records for high temperatures squashed every year.
If anything, Europeans even more so. I understand that we are warming at four times the global rate. It’s very noticeable here in the Alps, where the glaciers are rapidly retreating and bits of mountain keep falling off and hitting villages and roads. Wildfires are also turning up where they shouldn’t, historically, be seen. British waters now have anchovies and yellowfin tuna.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Out of curiosity I began reading Dessler’s book on climate change. The first problem I have noted is in his definition of science, particularly the scientific method.
Dessler claims…after describing the scientific method as creating a hypothesis, stating the method, making observations and forming conclusions…
“In reality, this is only the first step of the true scientific process. Before the conclusion of this experiment can be considered true, it must first be judged valid by the rest of the scientific community. This begins with the experimenter writing up a detailed description of exactly how the experiment was performed, the data that was collected, and the calculations or other methods of analysis that were done, all in enough detail that someone knowledgeable in the field could reproduce the work.
The resulting manuscript is then submitted for publication in a scientific journal. The first formal control that the scientific community exercises on the quality of scientific work comes at this point. Scientific journals will not publish the paper until it has been critically reviewed by other experts in the field. In this process, known as peer review, the reviewers job is to look for errors or weaknesses in the analysis that might cast doubt on the conclusions. The identity of the reviewers is typically not revealed to the author, so that the reviewers can give their unvarnished opinion of the work without fear of later retribution.
If the reviewers do not identify any problems in the paper, then it gets published in the peer-reviewed literature”.
***
According to Dessler, a scientist, or any person, cannot do an experiment and publish the results before getting approval from the scientific community. Does that mean each and every person in the scientific community is consulted?
Nope.
If the experimenter follows the rules he can then proceed to ‘other controls’ such as peer review. This means the paper will not be published in a journal where real peer review can take place, a review by the experimenter’s peers. After all, that’s what peer review means, doesn’t it?
Well, er…em…no. The journal editor submits the paper to one reviewer who has the power to accept or deny the paper. So, science comes down to the opinion of one person, not the peers per se,
I recall Roy complaining that he had a paper rejected by a reviewer. Roy claimed the guy did not seem to understand what he was saying. It’s more likely that the reviewer was an alarmist like Dessler and simply did not want the paper to be published.
True peer review would automatically publish a paper from a degreed professional like Roy. Why would anyone not want his paper published? I recall another paper co-authored by John Christy, which was accepted for publication by a journal editor, and how the editor was forced to resign over pressure from other scientists like Kevin Trenberth who did not think the paper should have been published.
The implications of that are enormous. No scientist is allowed to publish a paper unless it agrees with the views of other scientists, even after the paper has been reviewed.
Furthermore, according to Dessler, the sole reviewer can reject the paper simply because he doubts the veracity of the conclusions. Excuse my ignorance, I thought such a process required a separate experiment to prove the conclusions wrong.
When Australian researcher, Barry Marshall submitted a paper claiming that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria, h. pylori, that can survive in the human stomach. The editor rejected the paper before peer review simply because he thought the idea was wrong. In fact, he claimed Marshall’s paper was one of the worst he’d ever read.
Of course, Marshall’s theory was eventually accepted and he won a Nobel for it. That is a perfect example of what is wrong with Dessler’s idea about science, which is essentially biased and fixed.
Once journal, The Journal of Climate, had Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, acting as editors. Can you imagine the chances of any skeptic getting published? As far as I know, Dessler is friends with both.
The test of a scientific paper is coherence, consistence and consilience.
Coherence is internal logic. If a paper contradicts itself or has other logical errors it will be rejected.
Consistence is agreement with other results within the field. If a paper says that electrons have a positive charge while everyone else finds that electrons have a negative charge, the paper is not consistent and will be rejected.
Consilience is agreement with the underlying physics. This a paper presenting results which violate 2LOT will not be consilient and will be rejected.
Very occasionally a paradigm shifting paper such as Marshall’s H.pylori paper comes along, but they are genuinely rare.
In the field of climate there is now a considerable body of evidence. It is difficult for a sceptic to write anything coherent, consistent and consilient which contradicts that evidence; hence the difficulty getting sceptic papers published.
Good theory Ent but we know that’s not how it works. Peer review today is corrupt. It is used as a means of rejecting papers which disagree with a meme.
Do you think Roy’s paper was rejected due to things you mentioned? No. It was rejected because alarmists like Trenberth did not agree with it.
The problem is that any sap can convince himself that his own work exhibits coherence, consistence and consilience. The number of deluded cranks out here on the web exceeds the number of trained technical specialists by at least an order of magnitude. Even a trained technical specialist can become senile or corrupt. Worse, even honest technical experts producing large numbers of studies will occasionally produce spurious results by chance alone.
The only reliable defence against these forces is the social nature of science. Following Popper, there is no “Robinson Crusoe” science. The state of scientific knowledge is the state of the entire community of scientists in a field. A single scientist will occasionally propose a theory which is not immediately adopted by the entire community, but the ONLY legitimate way to distinguish him from a crank or a bad actor is that his results start to be replicated and accepted by the community. Bad actors get found out because their theories cannot produce replicable results.
What marks out anthropogenic warming as legitimate science is that it has persisted for 150 years and come to dominate the entire field as a consensus. Examine the “sceptic” positions and they are all over the place, yielding no replicable work at all.
EM,
To me, a “scientific paper” is worthless unless it contains reproducible experiment.
From Nature –
“More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 a new record”.
All initially passed peer review, editorial scrutiny, and so on. Most retractions are opposed by their authors, and those mentioned represent only those that are so egregiously wrong that even prestigious editors of scientific journals are reluctantly forced to admit they have accepted good money to publish rubbish!
Many papers are just speculation, without experimental support of any sort. As Richard Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Every “climate scientist” refuses to even describe the GHE. It’s obviously impossible to form a hypothesis relating to an effect that everybody refuses to describe!
Strange but true.
More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 a new record.
Quite right, too. That is the system working as it should. Peer review is the MINIMUM standard a piece of research must pass to enter the literature, the point at which it STARTS to come under critical attack. Withdrawal of a paper is a routine measure when certain further standards are found not to have been met. Research enters the canon and becomes a basis for consensus when it has stood up to a barrage of attacks and has given birth to a family of replications.
– To me, a scientific paper is worthless unless it contains reproducible experiment. –
So you would reject as worthless a paper by Bjrn Lomborg containing critical discussion of the statistical methods used in a paper on AW? You would reject as “worthless” a meta-study summarising the findings of a whole class of study?
I find this confusing. Please illustrate what you mean with reference to Einstein’s “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, Darwin and Wallace’s joint paper postulating evolution by natural selection, or the obervational determination of radiative forcing by CO2: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
Ent, Elliott, and gordon all make the same mistake regarding science. They confuse “science” with “debate”. REAL science is about REALITY. “Debate” is too often about finding ways to pervert reality.
Ent sounds very astute when he mentions “coherence, consistence and consilience”, but he has claimed passenger jets fly backward, in an effort to support his cult beliefs.
Elliott, where is your “coherence, consistence and consilience”, and VIABLE, description of the GHE?
Nice to see that you dodged answering regarding Lomborg’s experiment-free offerings.
How long a description would you like? How about Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
The greenhouse effect is the mechanism by which the Earth’s surface temperature is maintained at 32K higher than that of the moon. It is caused by “greenhouse gases”, which are gases in the atmosphere which absorb and emit infra-red radiation. Radiation from the Sun is admitted to the Earth’s surface in the form of, for instance, visible light and warms the surface and atmosphere. This warming causes the surface and gases to re-emit radiation. Some of this radiation takes the form of infra-red light at frequencies which greenhouse gases absorb. These gases again re-emit the heat as infra-red light with no preference for direction, so some of the radiation returns to the Earth and lower levels of the atmosphere. By this means, the re-emission of heat to space in the form of infra-red light is hindered and the Earth rendered warmer.
Experimental evidence for this effect can be and is adduced in schools using lamps and containers of gases. Further evidence is legion, and includes the direct experimental measurement of back-radiation and the cooling of the stratosphere as a consequence of increases in greenhouse gases.
Very simple once you stop TRYING to not understand it.
Consensus and replication are the means by which reality overrules debate.
– Elliott, where is your coherence, consistence and consilience –
Let us just consider two lines of evidence, as these suffice to illustrate the principles. The actual evidence for the GHG and AW consists of dozens of different lines of evidence, all of which tend consistently in the same direction. This, incidentally, is inseparable from the meaning of consensus in science, because different lines of evidence supporting the same theory require different teams and sets of replications. They literally require the entire community to study different lines of evidence which are forced by reality to reflect the same truth.
The two lines of evidence to which I refer are stratospheric cooling and the measurement of back-radiation. These are COHERENT, in that they both show the same reality: That greenhouse gases hinder radiation in moving upwards through the atmosphere. They are CONSISTENT, in that they reflect the same underlying theory and lead to no contradiction or inconsistency. They are CONSILIENT, in that they represent two different lines of evidence supporting the same picture of reality.
I recommend E.O. Wilson’s book of that name, by the way.
Sorry Elliott, but that’s pretty much what the GHE cult says, with the exception they use an imaginary sphere instead of Moon.
The essence of your statement is:
By this means, the re-emission of heat to space in the form of infrared light is hindered and the Earth rendered warmer.
Do you realize that is a belief? It is NOT science. Your cult confuses “heat” with “infrared”. And, “hindering” infrared is NOT “heat”.
Your cult needs to show how CO2’s 15μ photon can raise the temperature of Earth’s 288K surface.
Hint: That doesn’t happen.
Not just a river in Egypt…
Elliott, you folded a lot faster than most cultists.
It’s “science” that overrides debate. Consensus by itself means NOTHING.
Ice cubes can NOT boil water, and passenger jets do NOT fly backward.
Hey Puffman, here’s a description of the greenhouse effect:
https://tinyurl.com/mike-describes-his-sammich
Silly sock puppets!
Wayward Wee Willy wrote –
“Hey Puffman, heres a description of the greenhouse effect:”
and provided a link which doesn’t provide a description of the GHE at all!
That’s because Willard is a delusional GHE cultist – both ignorant and gullible.
He has described the GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”!
How dimwitted is that?
> provided a link which doesnt provide a description of the [greenhouse effect]
Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting.
Another coffee?
> provided a link which doesnt provide a description of the [greenhouse effect]
Mike Flynn, please stop gaslighting.
Another coffee?
Elliott, you folded a lot faster than most cultists.
Your posts are content-free, except where you are lying. I am only prepared to expend the effort to describe the GHE once, or perhaps once every few months. After that, it is only necessary to point out that you are lying. This site does not offer the facility to block imbeciles, otherwise you can rest assured that I would expend no energy on you at all.
You are just noise.
EB,
“I am only prepared to expend the effort to describe the GHE once, or perhaps once every few months.”
No, you’re not. You refuse to describe it at any time – you are, on the other hand, prepared to continually lie about being able to describe the GHE.
Go on, run whining to Dr Spencer!
Idiot.
“Elliott, you folded a lot faster than most cultists.”
No he didnt. Bot at all.
But Clint did. When, as usual, he makes claims, tells people they are wrong, throws ad-homs grenades, but offers NO science rebuttal, no evidence, no links to evidence, nothing at all.
“show how CO2s 15μ photon can raise the temperature of Earths 288K surface.”
Its pretty simple. Some photons get absorbed by the ground and it warms up. Some more photons get absorbed by the ground and it warms up more.
Whatever the wavelength or source, more photons absorbed than before = more energy absorbed than before = higher temperature than before.
Tim,
You wrote –
“Its pretty simple. Some photons get absorbed by the ground and it warms up. Some more photons get absorbed by the ground and it warms up more.”
Photons are not absorbed unless they possess sufficient energy.
That’s why you cannot warm a teaspoon of water with a gazillion joules of energy emitted by ice. You are obviously confused – or maybe just stupid.
Maybe if you could ask yourself why it is that you refuse to describe the GHE, you might be able to figure out why you believe in the impossible, ie., forcing a hotter object to become even hotter by absorbing the radiation from a colder object.
The contents of your obviously fertile imagination are not reality.
The Earth has cooled, not become hotter. You are free to refuse to accept reality, but don’t be surprised if some consider that a mark of insanity.
“Photons are not absorbed unless they possess sufficient energy.”
There are certain quantum mechanical limits on what energies of photons can be absorbed by various materials. But both water an ice can and do absorb over a wide range of infrared.
“Thats why you cannot warm a teaspoon of water with a gazillion joules of energy emitted by ice.”
No this is a completely different issue, dealing with the intensities of the photons emitted.
Photons from ice can and will be absorbed by water.
Photons from water can and will be absorbed by ice.
But the photons from ice are less intense, meaning the net transfer of energy is always from warmer surfaces (eg water) to cooler surface (eg ice).
Regarding your comments on paper rejections: I have attempted to post a simple figure on this site a few times to get feedback, but it has been rejected each time. Is this site subject to cen sor ship? https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18_AlgGr7tCmcIAz9OnV1jy4-JysUp8_UXZDkk3rK7U4/edit?usp=sharing
tt was the “d” followed by “c” that caused the problem.
Had*CRUT works
See Bindi’s explanation:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1671355
Coldest May I have ever known in the Uk and they claim the warmest.
Then it was almost certainly the warmest. Trust your subjective impressions over properly-calibrated instruments and you’ll get it wrong every time.
Here in Switzerland, for instance, the glaciers are almost all retreating. The fact that it “feels cold” does not add more ice.
Tim Wells
It seems that you don’t understand the sometimes huge difference between those temperatures measured in weather stations and those you either measure on your terrace or simply subjectively feel.
*
In Germoney we had on average the fifth warmest May since 1881, according to the German Weather Service.
But we didn’t feel nor could we measure anything of that nice warmth because we experience in Northeast year after year more and more wind compared with say 20 years ago.
And unlike the weather station thermometers which are protected against solar, precipitation and wind influence, ours told us in May temperatures sometimes 1-3 C below what we saw on weather service pages for our local corner.
This site still has an infuriating habit of swallowing posts and leaving no trace of them.
Seems to have blocked the word “****”, meaning “clown”. This is a test.
Yep, that was it, no ****ing.
Yes indeed.
Please avoid any posts containing (in concatenated form) ‘d c’ or ‘rp t’, as well as ‘Cot ton’ or ‘Do ug’.
Absorp tion written in one word lets your post disappear without notification.
The same is valid when posting comments with links containing such sequences like (blank inserted for posting now)
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncd c_lt_6.0.txt
I put such ‘forbidden’ links into tinyURL, obtaining e.g.
https://tinyurl.com/mr3f7evs
and post the result instead.
*
Such character sequences are reminders of a time where the blog tried to get rid of an impetuous, opinionated poster endlessly trying, if I well remember, to teach Roy Spencer about the true origin of the ‘greenhouse’ effect.
Oh, I remember Mister Excavated Fabric, alright. I’ve since run into him elsewhere. It tends to produce a reflexive spasm in the direction of the Block button.
It does like stu pid either.
I tend to use that word a lot.
Good word, here.
Recently, Roy has banned a number of pejorative terms.
elliott…I am so used to it now that I seldom get caught with it. If you do, post one paragraph, then progressively narrow it down sentence by sentence, then word by word, till the offending word is found.
Some hints…
absorp-tion
d-c
stoopid
i-d-i0t
trohl…which blocks controhling or controhler
fuhl replace uh with oo
Roy got fed up with our bickering and name calling and I don’t blame him.
Mind you, there are other issues which don’t make a lot of sense. WordPress may be the culprit. There are days when nothing I post will work. On those days I’ve had success using the free Tor browser.
That’s basically how I tracked it down. I need to establish the habit of copying my text to the clipboard before posting, then it becomes a fairly trivial problem.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
> I need to establish the habit of copying my text to the clipboard before posting
A good habit in general.
Sometimes one can get the comment back by clicking the “back” button from their browser.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Just checking Clint … you are saying that you never claimed that the high UAH anomalies of late 2017 were caused by hurricanes … is that correct?
Ant, have you found yet another way to falsely accuse me?
I’m not even sure I was commenting back then, but maybe you found something on another blog you believe you can take out of context?
Who know what devious tricks you have up your sleeve, since you have NO science.
Did you ever claim that high UAH anomalies were caused by hurricanes? Yes or no?
It is not a difficult question, and you are free to pick whichever of those two options you wish.
I don’t read other blogs. And you were definitely commenting back then, g**e**r**a**n.
Okay, I see your devious trick. I’d be happy to address your hero’s comment, just link to it.
It’s fun to debunk futile efforts to misrepresent me.
Hey Puffman, silly sock puppet, you definitely were huffing and puffing at Roy’s in 2017.
Under another sock puppet.
You don’t recall which one?
Again, you are avoiding the question. Forget the past – just answer as you see it NOW.
Do hurricanes effect the UAH anomaly? If so, in which direction?
Ant, hurricanes provide a heat-transfer mechanism from ocean to atmosphere. So UAH global could be affected in certain conditions, but the thermal energy eventually gets radiated to space.
The net result is cooling of the ocean area involved.
“Hey Puffman, silly sock puppet, you definitely were huffing and puffing at Roys in 2017.
Under another sock puppet.
You dont recall which one?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
What are those conditions?
What direction is “affect”?
And will the surface record and the satellite record be affected equally and in the same direction?
AQ,
You wrote –
“What are those conditions?
What direction is “affect”?
And will the surface record and the satellite record be affected equally and in the same direction?”
Well, that’s certainly obscure enough, isn’t it? Why are you asking, anyway? Trying to make someone look stupid?
That will divert attention away from your refusal to describe the mythical GHE, I suppose.
Here’s a question for you – describe the role of the GHE in surface cooling each night. How hard can it be for an intelligent chap like yourself?
[laughing at inept and ignorant troll]
Ant, Swenson has already shown the folly of your effort, but since you can’t understand any of the science, here are the answers:
* Depends on pressure and temperature, aka “thermodynamics”
* “Up” is warming, “Down” is cooling. (Get an adult to explain a thermometer to you.)
* Not likely. Too much time lag.
Your first two statements say nothing, as expected, especially given that you basically said “temperature depends on temperature”.
But your final statement is all I needed – an admission that satellite anomalies are a poor indicator of surface anomalies.
A,
You wrote –
“But your final statement is all I needed an admission that satellite anomalies are a poor indicator of surface anomalies.”
It’s good to know you now have all you need, although why you accept the authority of an anonymous blogger about a meaningless matter is a mystery to me.
Now you have all you need, what do you intend to do with it?
Are you going to stop commenting, and sit about admiring what you have obtained?
Temperature measurements of any sort are a bit useless, aren’t they? The change nothing, and don’t predict the future. What use are they? In my area, even the weather reporters don’t like thermometer temperatures, and gloss over them, choosing to use “feels like” figures!
Why bother with thermometers? Sometimes it feels hot, sometimes it feels cold, sometimes it feels just right. I don t need a thermometer to tell me how I feel. Do you?
> It’s good to know
Nobody values your opinion, Mike Flynn.
Creams and sugars?
> Its good to know
Nobody values your opinion, Mike Flynn.
Creams and sugars?
Antonin Qwerty on June 4, 2024 at 8:43 PM
” How convenient that Mr Spencer has made all old comments invisible in order to prevent us digging up your nonsense. ”
This was certainly not intentional.
I discovered this too as I was looking for the starting post of a long stalking series in 2021. Nada!
*
But luckily, an incredible amount of web pages were/are crawled by various robots and stored in the Web Archive (aka Wayback Machine); and so were probably many many Spencer blog’s pages.
Often, the crawling activity is transitive, so you can access a page and move within Wayback to saved subpages.
The drawback is of course that you can’t directly search there for items; you therefore need an approximating idea of which page(s) might contain what you are looking for, e.g. sometime in 2019.
Enter the 2019 URL
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019
into the Wayback corner
https://web.archive.org/
select a crawling day and time, and explore therein thread by thread until you find the place you were looking for, e.g.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200108205813/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/2019-the-third-least-chilly-in-the-satellite-temperature-record/#comments
C’est ennuyeux, mais… vraiment mieux que rien!
Now we can check old La Bindigolina posts
Aaaah, the all time stalking Zharkova dachshund is here again.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
> please
Nobody cares about what pleases you, Mike Flynn.
“> please
Nobody cares about what pleases you, Mike Flynn.”
Earth’s “recent” global warming is a millenials long slow orbitally forced process.
It happens so, Earth on its orbitally forced process, the global warming is in its culmination “moments”.
Please compare with the yearly seasonal periods of the colder and warmer phases. The highest solar insolation occurs at June 22, but the warmest phase is in mid-July.
Our planet Earth, in its orbitally forced warming is, by analog around the July 7.
Thus, it is going to become warmer during the millenial and half to come, and only then the orbital path will change into the global cooling trend.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Earths recent global warming is a millenials long slow orbitally forced process.”
That turns out not to be the case.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
The cooling trend due to slipping away from the Holocene “sweet spot” started 5000 years ago.
Without our artificial warming the natural trend would be continued cooling. Instead we are now warmer than at any time in this interglacial.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
” Instead we are now warmer than at any time in this interglacial.”
We are warmer, than at any time in this interglacial.
Yes, because we are in the middle of this interglacial.
When in the middle of glacial – it is the most cold.
When in the middle of interglacial – it is the most warm.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Entropic man
As we can see, Vournas always dissimulates what he doesn’t want to be seen:
” The cooling trend due to slipping away from the Holocene sweet spot started 5000 years ago.
Without our artificial warming the natural trend would be continued cooling. “
Christos
The graph shows the natural Holocene peak, the Holocene Optimum, between 10,000 and 5000 years ago. Even before the Industrial Revolution we were well into the natural end-of-interglacial cooling trend.
Thank you, Bindidon, for your response.
” The cooling trend due to slipping away from the Holocene “sweet spot” started 5000 years ago.”
What “sweet spot” 5000 years ago?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Ent.
“Even before the Industrial Revolution we were well into the natural end-of-interglacial cooling trend.”
–
LIA was an episode of the land glaciers growing, not the global temperature cooling.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
Look again at the graph. Starting 22,000 years ago temperatures began to rise.
They stabilised around 10,000 years ago and remained around 14.3C until 5000 years ago. That is the sweet spot, the Holocene Optimium.
Temperatures then began to cool. Over the next 5000 years to 1880 the temperature dropped naturally from 14.3C to 13.8C.
Since 1880 artificial warming has raised the temperature by 1.1C to 14.9C.
All these values have confidence limits of +/- 0.1C and are real values. Why they changed is a valid topic of debate, but denying them is not a reasonable option.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Starting 22,000 years ago temperatures began to rise.
They stabilised around 10,000 years ago and remained around 14.3C until 5000 years ago. That is the sweet spot, the Holocene Optimium.
Temperatures then began to cool. Over the next 5000 years to 1880 the temperature dropped naturally from 14.3C to 13.8C.
Since 1880 artificial warming has raised the temperature by 1.1C to 14.9C.”
–
–
“They stabilised around 10,000 years ago and remained around 14.3C until 5000 years ago. That is the sweet spot, the Holocene Optimium.”
It is not possible, it is not possible to remain at the same temperature (around 14.3C) for a so long period (5000 years).
“Temperatures then began to cool. Over the next 5000 years to 1880 the temperature dropped naturally from 14.3C to 13.8C.”
Why temperature began to cool?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Whether or not it’s impossible, that’s what the data shows;stable 14.3C, plus or minus the confidence limits.
Mind you, the proxies used are not sensitive enough to detect year on year variations. They are more like decadal averages.
Thank you, Ent.
What I can is to reconstract a trend for some period of time.
It is a warming trend for the last ~ 11000 years.
First it was aslower warming, then as it proceeded, the rate of warming accelerated.
What we witness now are the culmination times of the warming trend.
In about a millenial and half it will start gradually cooling.
–
Now, how it is possible to reconstract the global temperatures for tens thousands years back – I think it is impossible.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“What sweet spot 5000 years ago?”
That was point in time, Sahara desert was starting to become more of desert.
Quite a bit earlier it was a lot wetter:
” The African Humid Period occurred between 14,800 and 5,500 years ago, and was the last occurrence of a “green Sahara”. Conditions in the Sahara during the African Humid Period were dominated by a strong North African Monsoon, resulting in larger annual rainfall totals compared to today’s conditions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_climate_cycles
It wasn’t too long ago, around 100 years ago, some were blaming human activity with their goats, could have been the cause. But more recent [say last 50 years] it was determine is happens every time after peak warm period of the interglacials.
Our peak was not much of a peak – sea level were only 1 to 2 meters higher than present sea levels.
Past peak warming was +4 meters higher than present sea levels.
Perhaps it was because the recent Glacial Max was the coldest time that Earth has ever known to be. Certainly the coldest time within the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, and had lowest level of global CO2 levels- ever known.
EM is quite right. Orbital forcing would currently have us in a COOLING period.
Strange, but I thought the scatter of papers back in the 1970s predicting a new Ice Age were an article of faith among our denialist brethren.
Thank you, Elliot, for your response.
“Strange, but I thought the scatter of papers back in the 1970s predicting a new Ice Age were an article of faith among our denialist brethren.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Just in time, there’s a new report from 57 climate researchers regarding the recent warming.
HERE’s a news story from the AP.
And, HERE’s a link to the report.
The AP story comments, among other things:
There it is, folks, enjoy!!
Hot off the press and relevant here is Yaun et al. 2024: Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3
I always like the anti-science from the cult: “…heat-trapping water vapor…”
There’s probably no better example of the cult’s ignorance of radiative physics and thermodynamics.
That’s rather a rude way to talk about Dr. Roy, don’t you think? You are, I presume, aware that he understands and endorses the greenhouse effect.
I may put another heat-trapping quilt on my bed tonight, given the unseasonable chill. I suppose you think the people who make them are “anti-science”, too.
Elliott Bignell
Like Robertson, DREMT and a few other ignorant and arrogant posters, Clint R is a 360 degree denier who always discredits, denigrates and insults others who post info about things like the GHE, the lunar spin, Einstein’s results etc etc.
Elliot, I’m NOT disrespecting Spencer. He has admitted physics is not his area of expertise. I respect him for that. He has decided to debunk the GHE alarmism based on his knowledge of climate. He’s fighting nonsense with the weapons in his arsenal. That’s science.
I choose nuclear weapons. That’s also science….
Hey Puffman,
You and your sock puppets have been banned many times. Roy has stated many times that he does not want Sky Dragon cranks coming here to re-litigate. Unless they come with some kind of numerical model.
Yet you continued to come back under different sock puppets and try to poison the well.
Looks like disrespect to me.
Silly willy stalks me relentlessly. And, as usual, offers no science. I continually predict such childishness, and silly willy continues to prove me right.
Child Nate will be angry because silly willy gives me so much attention….
Once again Puffman proves me right.
Our silly sock puppet got NOTHING.
Wee Willy Wanker.
“Looks like disrespect to me.”
And precisely nobody values your opinion, because you have precisely no power or influence.
That’s the way it should be – in my opinion.
Your idiotic sly appeals to authority don’t seem to be getting you anywhere, but at least they give me the opportunity to have a laugh at your expense.
Just like your GHE description – “not cooling, slower cooling”! How laughable is that?
Keep it coming.
Elliott Bignell,
You wrote –
“Thats rather a rude way to talk about Dr. Roy, dont you think? You are, I presume, aware that he understands and endorses the greenhouse effect.”
You are aware, I presume, that neither Dr Spencer, nor anybody else, has described the GHE. That’s because it’s a myth. You plainly refuse to provide a description, no doubt because you wouldnt like the laughter your description would create!
You may claim that Dr Spencer understands and endorses the greenhouse effect, but endorsement is meaningless in physical terms, and it is not possible to understand what cannot be described.
You also wrote, in a fit of madness –
“I may put another heat-trapping quilt on my bed tonight, given the unseasonable chill. I suppose you think the people who make them are anti-science, too.”
Stupid, stupid, stupid. What have quilts to do with the GHE which everybody refuses to describe? Why would quilt manufacturers be thought of as being “anti-science”? “Anti-science” is a phrase used by.ignorant and gullible people who do not understand the scientific method. Rather like calling people “climate deniers”. I warrant that you cannot name a single sane person who denies that climate exists!
You and your ilk refuse to describe the mythical GHE, and complain bitterly that if you do, people will try to find fault.
Do you really deny that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years? Do you deny that the surface loses all the heat of the day during the night?
It’s easy to see why everyone refuses to describe the mythical GHE, isn’t it? Fact would have to be rejected in favour of fantasy!
Carry on.
Fifteen years ago!
A,
Still no description of the greenhouse effect, is there?
From your link –
“Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket”
A greenhouse blanket? Somewhat analogous to a real blanket?
No wonder everybody refuses to describe the GHE! Nobody can even decide what the mythical GHE is supposed to do! You refuse to say, don’t you?
You cant blame me for laughing at you!
Also from “my” link:
Fifteen years ago! Still no alternate models, only denial.
Ark, I’ve already explained Dr. Spencer’s position, as he’s explained it to us. He calls himself a “Lukewarmer”, while you are an out-of-balance, five-alarm, Alarmist.
How long are you going to hide behind him, just because you have NO science.
It makes you look very amateurish….
“I’ve already explained Dr. Spencer’s position”
“How long are you going to hide behind him”
Projection
A,
“I consider objections to the existence of the “greenhouse effect” to be little more than hand waving.”
This is the greenhouse effect which is a greenhouse blanket or some other greenhouse effect?
Your attempts to bending Dr Spencer to your will don’t seem to be working too well. Why do you refuse to describe the GHE yourself? Dr Spencer certainly hasn’t, nor has anybody else.
There is no greenhouse effect – it can’t even be described! You are just demonstrating your ignorance and gullibility if you are implying otherwise.
Carry on your comedy routine – nothing wrong with laughter.
A DENIAL
A,
Ooooooooh! A completely irrelevant and meaningless link!
How clever is that! Maybe nobody will notice that you are refusing to accept reality!
Oh well, keep refusing to describe the GHE – nobody can find fault with what you say, if you say nothing, can they?
Dimwit.
> irrelevant
Nobody values your opinion, Mike Flynn.
Good morning.
> irrelevant
Nobody values your opinion, Mike Flynn.
Good morning.
He has decided to debunk the GHE alarmism based on his knowledge of climate.
Dr. Roy is notorious among the reality-based community for being a lukewarmer, a position that I do not share but can at least respect. He is more qualified than I, after all, if not necessarily more qualified than some people I know personally. The only point of relevance here is that he accepts and endorses the fact of the greenhouse effect. You are outright denying its existence, and lying about the existence of descriptions of its operation. When you deny the GHE, you insult Dr. Roy, along with the rest of the RBC.
EB,
You wrote –
“The only point of relevance here is that he accepts and endorses the fact of the greenhouse effect. You are outright denying its existence, and lying about the existence of descriptions of its operation. When you deny the GHE, you insult Dr. Roy, along with the rest of the RBC.”
This would be the greenhouse effect that nobody has described? Are you refusing to provide these “descriptions” which you claim exist? That would be mean-spirited and unhelpful, wouldn’t it?
Or maybe you are lying, and hoping people will believe that you have something which you are not allowed to show anybody.
Not even to Dr Spencer, who would welcome a useful description of the GHE, Im sure.
No, nobody can deny that something that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist.
You are just trying to involve Dr Spencer in your fantasy. Good luck.
(chortling at presumptuous nitwit)
“Elliot, Im NOT disrespecting Spencer. He has admitted physics is not his area of expertise. ”
Roy has a PhD in Meteorology, and would certainly have a good understanding of heat transfer in the atmosphere, far better than our resident ‘almost a physics minor’, Clint!
Just to repeat for child Nate and the new kid, Elliot: I’ve already explained Dr. Spence’s position, as he’s explained it to us. He calls himself a “Lukewarmer”. He prefers to debunk the alarmism based on his areas of expertise, climate and weather. Physics is not his area of expertise.
How long are you going to hide behind him, just because you have NO science.
It makes you look even more childish than you are….
Swenson,
Ceci n’est pas une pipe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
A pile of blankets is not the Greenhouse Effect, but an analogy.
You are very sloppy with your Maypo.
Bumbling bobby,
“A pile of blankets is not the Greenhouse Effect, but an analogy.”
No, Entropic Man said “The GHE is a pile of blankets”.
You stilll refuse to describe the GHE, don’t you?
Good for you – keep it secret.
and the new kid, Elliot [sic]
Actually, I’ve been visiting for more than a decade and I have always used my real name. I’ve certainly encountered your user name in the past. I just don’t participate very often. Most of the postings here are worthless white noise, and I usually have better things to do with my time than sift through them.
I’ve been visiting so long that I have seen several rounds of deniers predicting the next cooling period then changing their user names when it doesn’t turn up.
“He prefers to debunk the alarmism based on his areas of expertise, climate and weather. Physics is not his area of expertise.”
Whereas Clint, has no apparent expertise, is just here to tr0ll, and thus his dismissal of the physics of the GHE can be safely ignored.
Swenson,
“You stilll refuse to describe the GHE, dont you?”
No I don’t.
I have described it many times specifically for you.
You seem to have blackouts, perhaps you should stop drinking, and if you continue to have blackouts, go to the emergency room, if that is what they call it in your penal colony.
I’ll describe it again, but I need some koalas, kookaburras, emus, or kangaroos.
Preferably the gold ones.
As the second law states, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
I read the abstract and I am shocked: In the period 2014 to 2023 was 1.19C of which 1.19C was human induced: Is it possible to distinguish human influence on an interval of 9 or 10 years? Is 2023 a suitable ending year?
The in certainty in a global annual average temperature is about +/-0.1C. For the trend or the difference between years the uncertainty is about 0.2C.
1.19C is a big enough change that lets us be very confident that it is real.
Is it human induced? All the natural factors we know of are either neutral or presently causing cooling. That leaves human influence or something unknown.
EM,
“That leaves human influence or something unknown.”
Probably human influence – eight billion people produce a lot of waste heat.
Thermometers respond to heat.
Seems possible to me. What do you think?
> probably
Nobody values your opinion, Mike Flynn.
Coffee?
“eight billion people produce a lot of waste heat.”
Give is an order of magnitude estimate of “a lot”.
How much solar energy is absorbed in a year by the earth?
How much heat comes up a geothermal heat?
How much heat is generated by humans burning fossil fuels?
How much heat is generated by humans using nuclear fuels?
Once you have those numbers, then you can comment usefully on the significance of human heat.
Wonky Wee Willy wrote –
“> probably
Nobody values your opinion, Mike Flynn.
Coffee?”
Tim Folkerts,
Human influence eight billion people produce a lot of waste heat.
Thermometers respond to heat.
Seems possible to me. What do you think?
You refuse to describe the GHE. Why do you refuse to accept that anthropogenic heat affects thermometers? Do you just deny reality on principle, or do you have reasons?
You wrote –
“Give is an order of magnitude estimate of “a lot”.” An order of magnitude estimate? That makes no sense at all. Why should I give “is” (whoever that is), anything at all?
If you want to deny that man-made heat affects thermometers, feel free. That’s about as stupid as believing in a GHE which everybody refuses to describe!
Your silly list of irrelevant gotchas has been carefully considered.
Carry on.
> Seems possible to me.
Nobody cares if it seems possible to you, Mike Flynn.
Beer?
The idiotic Willard wrote –
“> Seems possible to me.
Nobody cares if it seems possible to you, Mike Flynn.
Beer?”
Mike Flynn wrote –
Who cares about what he wrote?
Aw diddums!
Mike Flynn wrote
Who cares about what he wrote?
Aw diddums!
Once you have those numbers, then you can comment usefully on the significance of human heat.
Quite!
“Once you have those numbers, then you can comment usefully on the significance of human heat.
Quite!”
“Is it human induced? All the natural factors we know of are either neutral or presently causing cooling. That leaves human influence or something unknown.”
Or something that is being ignored.
Such as increased uvb insolatiom of the oceans..
“Human influence eight billion people produce a lot of waste heat.
Thermometers respond to heat.
Seems possible to me. What do you think?”
Sure, anything seems possible when you have no math or science ability. You just guess, and declare you have found the answer!
Sorry, Swenson, real science makes real estimates, ya know, with real numbers.
Obviously you are unable.
“Seems possible to me. What do you think?”
Sure it seems possible that fossil fuel burning has a significant global impact on climate. But “seems possible” and “actually happens” are two very different things. “Seems possible” is just a hypothesis.
You should be able to make at least order-of-magnitude estimates of various heats and energies to know, for example, hot much fossil fuels are burned, the heat released, and the impact on the world.
Nice of you to open up that opportunity. Here is an example of a paper that calculates precise quantities for the change in radiative forcing due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere.
the 17502011 RF is about 25% higher (increasing from 0.48 W m−2 to 0.61 W m−2)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930
“precise quantities”???
What a joke.
Elliot, you need to learn the basics:
Why the GHE is bogus.
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
The bogus EEI, Earth Energy Imbalance, does NOT use units of energy. It uses units of flux. Flux is NOT energy. Whenever the cult mentions the bogus EEI, that means they don’t understand the basic physics.
Flux has units of “power per area” or “energy per time per area”. Power is not a conserved quantity, so certainly “power per area” is also not a conserved quantity. Flux “in” and flux “out” do NOT need to balance, and often don’t balance. A cone in space, with 5 times the area of its base, receiving 900 W/m² at its base will be emitting 180 W/m² at its final temperature. A flux of 900 W/m² does NOT equal W/m². Flux “in” does NOT equal flux “out”.
To actually find Earth’s energy balance, energy-in MUST be compared to energy-out. “Energy” must be used, not flux.
But Earth’s energy seldom balances, as both incoming and outgoing energies constantly vary. That’s not a problem, as the laws of thermodynamics control temperatures. Weather is just one example of thermodynamics at work.
EB,
You wrote –
“Here is an example of a paper that calculates precise quantities for the change in radiative forcing due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere.”
Complete nonsense. There is no “radiative forcing” – that’s an imaginary concept.
As to the “paper”, as Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
The authors are delusional.
Tim Folkerts,
The effects of man-made heat on thermometers is obvious – it’s called anthropogenic global warming by some.
As Einstein supposedly said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
You may not employ the principle of parsimony or Occam’s Razor, and that is your choice. If you prefer to ascribe hotter thermometers to some effect that you refuse to describe, you have that right.
For my part, I have the right to consider you quite mad, and laugh at you.
Fair enough?
> is obvious
Nobody cares about what is obvious to you, Mike Flynn.
“The effects of man-made heat on thermometers is obvious”
The effect of lighting a match under a thermometer would be obvious. The effect of millions of fossil fuel fires around the world on distant thermometers is not obvious. I am asking you to estimate how much the burning of fossil fuels actually matters. Could it account for the warming that is indeed observed?
“its called anthropogenic global warming by some.”
No, “Anthropogenic global warming” is warming by ALL human activities. This would include changes in land use, changes in the atmosphere, and direct heat from burning fossil fuels.
But not JUST direct heating, as you claim. The fact that you don’t understand basic terminology suggest you don’t really have any idea.
Tim,
If you refuse to believe that man-made heat affects thermometers, that is your right. Obviously, man made heat includes lighting a match, burning anything, life processes, bouncing balls, clearing land, generating and using energy – even rubbing your hands together generates heat.
If you don’t believe anthropogenic global warming is due to anthropogenically generated heat, maybe you could describe some other mechanism which makes thermometers hotter without the involvement of heat.
You wrote “The fact that you dont understand basic terminology suggest you dont really have any idea.”
OK Tim, and you’re sure as hell going to refuse to help by explaining why you think I don’t understand basic terminology, aren’t you?
At least you managed to avoid mentioning the mythical GHE! Well done, you dont have to refuse to describe what you refuse to mention, do you?
Carry on being an evasive idiot. It suits you.
I am asking you to estimate how much the burning of fossil fuels actually matters. Could it account for the warming that is indeed observed?
See the link I posted above. This is the exact datum that is calculated in the paper – how many Watts per square metre anthropogenic CO2 “matters”. From that you can derive from the area of the Earth’s disc a power in Watts, and from that you can estimate the increase in average temperature over time.
How that temperature rise is distributed and what its detailed effects will be are decidedly non-trivia matters to predict, but the fact of heating follows ipso facto from the power value.
“To actually find Earths energy balance, energy-in MUST be compared to energy-out. Energy must be used, not flux.”
Sure, when people like Clint are incapable of multiplying by a constant, such as the Earth’s surface area, then they cannot imagine how to find energy flow rate from flux.
It just makes their head explode.
Why can’t we get better skeptics?
Why cant we get better skeptics?
Amen to that.
“If you refuse to believe that man-made heat affects thermometers, that is your right. ”
No! What I am refusing to ‘believe’ is that ALL the recent warming is due ONLY to heat from burning fossil fuels.
“even rubbing your hands together generates heat.”
Yes and no. The energy comes from chemicals you digest. If you didn’t digest them, some other animal or microbe would have. The same heat would have been released either way. So rubbing hands or just keeping your body warm is not a net warming effect on the planet.
“OK Tim, and youre sure as hell going to refuse to help by explaining why you think I dont understand basic terminology, arent you?”
This is me — once again — explaining. I can’t make you listen or learn. Just like I can’t make you listen or learn about the well-understood, well-supported, well-explained GHE.
Tim Folkerts – Just like I cant make you listen or learn about the well-understood, well-supported, well-explained GHE.
And there you have it. One rapidly learns here that les nuls simply refuse to learn, and that there’s no way to make them if they refuse. It makes using the site very frustrating, because they spam their aggressive and mendacious ignorance after every post. The casual visitor can barely follow a substantive discussion even when one crops up.
I vote for a “block” button.
“If you refuse to believe that man-made heat affects thermometers, that is your right. Obviously, man made heat includes lighting a match, burning anything, life processes, bouncing balls, clearing land, generating and using energy”
As ever, Swenson fails to ask what science asks, and answers, which is: HOW MUCH does that man-made heat warm thermometers?
He can declare all he wants that man-made heat affects thermometers significantly, but lacking a realistic numerical estimate, this is just hot air (so to speak).
Child Nate, you and your playmate Elliot need to learn radiative physics.
You can’t just simply multiply an estimated flux by the disk area of a sphere. You MUST match the exact area to the exact flux. Otherwise, your error margin makes your calculation worthless.
Or, maybe you like worthless crap….
” You MUST match the exact area to the exact flux. Otherwise, your error margin makes your calculation worthless.”
Did Clint say silly unsupported stuff again?
Then, as always, it can be safely ignored.
Earths average input flux, or output flux, in W/m^2, is measured by satellite. Then it is quite straightforward to find, if desired, the average rate of energy flow per second from/to the Earth, in Watts, by simply multiplying by the surface area of the Earth at the top of the atmosphere, 4*pi*R^2.
Anybody claiming energy flow cannot be obtained from flux, or vice versa is being plain stoopid.
tim wells…”Coldest May I have ever known in the Uk and they claim the warmest”.
***
That’s Had-crut for you. They get their data from the notorious data fudger NOAA, as does NASA GISS.
A former leader of Had-crut, Phil Jones, was front and centre in the Climategate email scandal. He bragged about using Michael Mann’s ‘trick’ for hiding declining temperatures.
His best though, was when he implicated ‘Kevin’. He bragged that he and Kevin would see to it that papers from skeptics would not make it to the next IPCC review. Just so happened that he and Kevin Trenberth were Coordinating Lead Authors at IPCC reviews and they had the clout to do that.
That’s all you have left? Name-calling and “climategate” lies? Why do you waste the energy when you know you’re just going to be laughed at?
EB,
Presumably, if you call someone a liar, you know what the truth is.
What is he lying about? Can’t say? Won’t say? You won’t mind if I a laugh quietly at your silly attempts to appear clever?
Oh dear, your attempts to deny reality are not going too well, are they? Maybe you could make a sly appeal to Dr Spencer, and get him to intercede on your behalf.
Would that help to get others to value your opinions?
> Presumably
Nobody cares about what you presume, Mike Flynn.
Cheers.
“Presumably
Nobody cares about what you presume, Mike Flynn.
Cheers.”
OK, Willard.
Solar wind
speed: 367.5 km/sec
density: 1.64 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 06 Jun 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 193
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 195 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.17×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.0% Low
12 numbered spots. 5 numbered spots are fading and/or leaving to the farside.
1 spot coming from farside
The neutron counts have been closer to 6% under average this week.
To put that in perspective, only 6% of days in the last 60 years have been more than 10% lower than the average. And the running 6-month average is currently about half way between SC24 and SC23.
Further, the running 11-year average (to filter out the cycles) has been falling since 2017.
AQ,
Neutron count, eh?
Well, that’s relevant to something, I suppose. Neutrons?
Not neurons, that’s for sure! Sorry about that, I couldn’t help myself.
Dear coolists:
Your buddy Swenson agrees with me that neutron counts have no relevance to climate.
.
.
Good to have you on my side Mikey.
Progress at last! It’s not the Sun, stoopid.
You wrote (trying to put words in my mouth) –
“Dear coolists:
Your buddy Swenson agrees with me that neutron counts have no relevance to climate.
.
.
Good to have you on my side Mikey”
I’ll take a page out of the GHE cultist playbook, and say “Show me where I said that!”
In any case, climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, so here’s your chance to refuse to say how a “neutron count” can affect a weather observation in any quantifiable way. You might as well refuse to describe the GHE while you’re at it.
See how easy it is to look like an idiot?
Carry on.
So now it’s relevant, Mikey?
Flip flop flip flop …
“So now its relevant, Mikey?
Flip flop flip flop ”
What are you babbling about? Obscurity is not your friend.
Antonin, please stop trolling.
Haha – the inevitable “I’m out of ideas” response.
So which is it Mikey … are neutron counts relevant, are they irrelevant, or are you a mindless tr0ll who has no idea and no ability to investigate?
(I predict we’ll get an option-3-type response.)
AQ,
You wrote (trying to put words in my mouth)
“Dear coolists:
Your buddy Swenson agrees with me that neutron counts have no relevance to climate.
.
.
Good to have you on my side Mikey”
Ill take a page out of the GHE cultist playbook, and say “Show me where I said that!”
In any case, climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, so heres your chance to refuse to say how a “neutron count” can affect a weather observation in any quantifiable way. You might as well refuse to describe the GHE while youre at it.
See how easy it is to look like an idiot? You don’t need my help!
Carry on.
Bullseye! Option 3 it is. I wonder how I predicted that …
I wonder how many times you’ve been warned about duplicate posts.
AQ,
You wrote (trying to put words in my mouth)
“Dear coolists:
Your buddy Swenson agrees with me that neutron counts have no relevance to climate.
.
.
Good to have you on my side Mikey”
I’ll take a page out of the GHE cultist playbook, and say “Show me where I said that!”
In any case, climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, so heres your chance to refuse to say how a “neutron count” can affect a weather observation in any quantifiable way. You might as well refuse to describe the GHE while you’re at it.
See how easy it is to look like an idiot? You dont need my help!
You even say really silly things like –
“I wonder how many times youve been warned about duplicate posts.” Maybe somebody cares what you wonder about. Can you name one person who will admit to it?
Carry on.
Neutron counts cannot affect a weather observation in any quantifiable way.
Good to see you’re back in agreement. But of course your deliberately ambiguous comment will permit you to flip flop again.
AQ,
“Neutron counts cannot affect a weather observation in any quantifiable way.”
Why did you write “The neutron counts have been closer to 6% under average this week.” and all the rest, then?
No effect on weather, no effect on climate.
Were you just wasting time, or trying to appear clever?
Antonin, please stop trolling.
> Why did you write
Nobody cares about your why-questions, Mike Flynn.
Long live and prosper.
Because your buddies believe it has an effect on weather, Mikey.
Why do you keep responding when you don’t care what I say, as you keep telling me?
Or when you ask “who cares?” should I be responding with “Mike Flynn”?
AQ,
You wrote –
“Because your buddies believe it has an effect on weather, Mikey.
Why do you keep responding when you dont care what I say, as you keep telling me?
Or when you ask “who cares?” should I be responding with “Mike Flynn?””
Which “buddies” are you referring to? Do you believe you have mindreading abilities? Everything has an effect on weather – the atmosphere is chaotic. As you said “Neutron counts cannot affect a weather observation in any quantifiable way”. Quantifiable being the operative word. CO2 has no quantifiable effect on weather, either, although you might refuse to agree.
As to comment, I comment as I wish, how I wish, and when I wish – and there’s nothing you can do about, is there?
You can respond how you like – you might notice I simply don’t value the opinion o& such as you, unless it is based on fact. If you feel better by calling me Mike Flynn, do it. It makes no difference to me.
Carry on. Still no GHE, is there?
Nobody cares about your copypastas, Mike Flynn.
“Nobody cares about your copypastas, Mike Flynn.”
Excellent!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Solar wind
speed: 370.3 km/sec
density: 4.15 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 07 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 149
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 191 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.46×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.0% Low
9 numbered spots. 1 coming from farside, 1 leaving.
Solar wind
speed: 276.2 km/sec
density: 1.00 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 08 Jun 24
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 184 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.62×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.8% Low
9 numbered spot, new one, 3709, have spots near it, following it, which may not be counted yet. And no spot going to farside, within a day.
Sunspot number: 150
Solar wind
speed: 453.7 km/sec
density: 2.09 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 09 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 143
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 190 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.90×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.8% Low
9 numbered spots. 2 numbered spot “could” be leaving to farside and/or fade. No spots coming from fatside, though spot not numbered yet appeared on nearside- could grow bigger or not. Still about 3 days before X-flaring spot leaves to farside.
Neutron counts lowering, and Thermosphere getting hotter.
Hard to predict, I will wait and see.
Solar wind
speed: 359.9 km/sec
density: 3.62 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 10 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 148
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 181 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 28.03×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.1% Low
10 numbered spots
“Sunspot AR3697 (a.k.a. AR3664) has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares.”
AR3697 is leaving to farside.
No spots coming, yet. The biggest sunspot [3709] recently came from farside and will be around for quite some time, but sunspot number will probably drop a bit
Starship 4th test launch is planned at 7:20 am CDT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg
partial cloudy, 5% chance of rain, wind SE 9 mph:
https://weather.com/weather/hourbyhour/l/952aaa710a7c8ea85dd5020b5ec7f0413f59cf07834636c72eb535b2754922ce
Less than 1/2 an hour.
Both stages, landed.
It’s seemed amazing how slow the second stage got, without using rocket power. But not sure exactly when the second stage engine were lit.
There’s an awful lot of white noise on this blog, isn’t there?
Yes.
It’s easy to detect the major part of it by counting the number of comments posted, and applying a descending sort.
Top 2 of the previous thread
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comments
Swenson: 1355
Willard: 1309
Number of posts containing ‘Xyz, please stop tr0lling.’ : 701
And it goes further with Robertson’s and Clint R’s endless egomaniacal, incompetent trash about everything.
Nice technique. The blog could probably do with some more advanced features, such as a “mute” button, but I suppose that’s a matter of taste. I’m a full-stack developer these days, so if anyone wants the job done…
Just to see how far HTML formatting goes:
One
Two
Three
A poster nicknamed ‘WizGeek’ wrote here years ago that he used an own Firefox add-on to get rid of all comments he didn’t want to see.
I have forgotten in between how he did that.
The HTML on the blog contains the semantic tag “cite”, containing the author name. I’ve never tried to build a Firefox plugin – I don’t even use Firefox at the moment – but it shouldn’t be too hard to navigate up from those tags to the parent tag and set it to invisible. Might be worth doing it pro bono just to have it in my portfolio.
The problem is that the blog is such that one can enter a different user name, e-mail and home-page URL every time one posts, so it would be trivial to get around being hidden.
Binny,
It’s pretty easy. Just don’t read the comments you don’t want to.
Of course, it’s not easy unless you have a semblance of self control.
Most GHE cultists can’t help themselves – they believe anything!
Another consideration, of course, is that just hiding the posts in the browser does not stop les nuls from spamming their replies after everything you post. It would be nice to suppress interaction with some of these clowns altogether, so that we could pursue a sensible conversation that silent visitors can follow. Anyone just dropping by would still find the site full of white noise.
EB,
You wrote –
“It would be nice to suppress interaction with some of these clowns altogether”
Its pretty easy. Just dont read the comments you dont want to.
Of course, its not easy unless you have a semblance of self control.
Most GHE cultists cant help themselves they believe anything!
Another formatting attempt: Angry text. Angry text.
Elliott Bignell
Here is a little 5 min shell script I wrote a few years ago:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PBYIf-bjGwJZvLaJxlx7KQlVK0m87de-/view
Of course it could be implemented much cleaner, much this, much that.
Seems to work, however.
Finally a language I understand! Thanks.
EB,
You wrote –
“Theres an awful lot of white noise on this blog, isn’t there?”
Of course, you refuse to say what you really mean, don’t you?
Typical waffling GHE cultist. They refuse to say what they really mean – so they can always deny having said anything definite. Too clever by half, as the saying goes.
Go on – refuse to describe the GHE, and blame your refusal on someone else!
Swenson, could you self-block, please?
Worth a try.
EB,
You wrote –
“Swenson, could you self-block, please?
Worth a try.”
Not worth a try at all. Are you stupid or just pretending?
Only joking, I know you’re not pretending, but correct me if Im wrong.
[laughing at self-appointed idiot]
With all due respect, go block yourself.
EB,
You wrote –
“With all due respect, go block yourself.”
Of course, you refuse to say what you really mean, dont you?
Typical waffling GHE cultist. They refuse to say what they really mean so they can always deny having said anything definite. Too clever by half, as the saying goes.
Go on refuse to describe the GHE, and blame your refusal on someone else!
“Go block yourself” !!!!
I love it.
Flynnson insists that we must:
But, he already described the perfect example of the GHE when he pointed to the example of the Inca’s using the conditions at high altitude with clear skys to make ice.
The air with low humidity allows thermal IR radiation to easily pass thru the atmospheric window, causing the surface temperature to drop below that of the air above. Those of us who live at temperate latitudes often experience the low humidity cooling as dew or frost forming on the surface, a process which actually moves energy from the warmer atmosphere to the surface. Under very dry conditions, the surface temperature can drop considerably. For days with higher humidity, the water vapor absorbs the emissions, limiting the night time cooling of the surface.
Flynnson insists on ignoring and other such well known facts, as it spoils his attempts to “prove” by assertion tht there’s no GHE and therefore, no AGW.
ES,
You wrote –
“But, he already described the perfect example of the GHE when he pointed to the example of the Incas using the conditions at high altitude with clear skys to make ice.”
This would be a perfect example of the GHE which you refuse to actually describe, would it?
By the way, I can’t remember using the Incas and high altitudes as an example of anything. Maybe you could quote me directly? I usually refer to lower altitudes in other countries like India, but you may be right.
If you refuse to quote me directly, that’s fine.
You also wrote –
“Flynnson insists on ignoring and other such well known facts, as it spoils his attempts to prove by assertion tht theres no GHE and therefore, no AGW.”
Not at all. Fanatical GHE cultists simply refuse to describe the GHE, then claim that phenomena such as surface cooling at night, or the cooling of the Earth over the past four and a half billion years are “evidence” of a GHE – which of course they refuse to describe.
As to AGW, you might be referring to the observed fact that man-made heat affects thermometers. Nothing mysterious there, is there?
You still refuse to describe the GHE. How hard can it be? Or are you just trying to be as unhelpful and recalcitrant as you possibly can?
The world wonders.
> I cant remember
Nobody cares about your amnesic episodes, Mike Flynn.
Flynnson, I Must apologize about that comment regarding Incas. You previously wrote:
I had some old memory, which popped up with what may have been an incorrect reference to the Incas. Anyway, HERE’s a commentary about the process.
“Nobody cares about your amnesic episodes, Mike Flynn.”
That’s nice.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ES,
Thanks. I usually quote peoples’ direct words to prevent misunderstandings.
Yes, desert dwellers have used the technique for a few thousand years, as your link indicates.
The professor’s explanation is misleading nonsense –
“This window allows some of the heat that goes up as infrared light to effectively escape, carrying away that pool’s heat”.
All heat radiated by the water escapes to space, no “windows” involved. Just radiative frost encouraged to continue.
As one keen greenhouse user says “TO anyone who lives in a cold climate with a greenhouse, as freeze is inevitable.” Heaters run out of fuel or blow up, panels break – things happen.
One solution is to use something like bubble wrap fitted close to the panels on the inside. All good fun – trying to keep your greenhouse warm needs heat, not a mythical greenhouse effect!
> Thanks
Nobody cares about your thankfulness, Mike Flynn.
Good night.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A recent publication about HT’s eruption
The Impact of the Hunga TongaHunga Ha’apai Volcanic
Eruption on the Stratospheric Environment
Qian Sun, Taojun Lu, Dan Li and Jingyuan Xu (2024)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/15/4/483/pdf?version=1713176174
They finally mentioned “atmospheric waves” in the conclusion, but somehow missed their effects!
But there was plenty of use of keywords like, “radiative forcing”, and “greenhouse gases”.
Just more cult agenda….
Try to step outside yourself for a moment and perceive how completely you have walled yourself off from a technical discipline in which these are valid terms.
Sorry Elliot, but those are “cult” terms. Your cult has NO “technical discipline”. They can’t even come up with a valid description of the bogus GHE, as you’ve seen.
Do you have any meaningful background in physics?
I didn’t think you could manage it.
I take that to mean have NO meaningful background in physics?
Hey Puffman, how did you end up with your IT job – your sock puppetering got noticed in St.Petersburg?
I take that to mean you have NO resort but transparent deflection?
Clint
Please elaborate on YOUR background in physics.
Years, institution, degrees.
Clint,
“They cant even come up with a valid description of the bogus GHE, as youve seen.”
You used to sing a different tune.
You used to claim the GHE violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so you must have had a valid description of same.
And you were wrong about that as well.
As well as your claim that 15 micron photons can’t heat the surface of the Earth.
Yes bob, your cult can’t come up with a valid description of the bogus GHE.
Thanks for quoting me correctly.
But your comment goes downhill from there, when you make false accusations.
The GHE nutters still refuse to describe the object of their worship.
Sounds like religion to me – based on faith, not fact.
Nobody cares about your abbreviations, Mike Flynn.
Whenever you’re ready, Clint.
“Nobody cares about your abbreviations, Mike Flynn.”
I’m glad.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint and Swenson,
For your clan, the greenhouse effect is indistinguishable from magic, because you are not technologically advanced enough to comprehend it.
For the rest of us, it is just applied science.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Thank you, gbaikie, for your response.
“Our peak was not much of a peak sea level were only 1 to 2 meters higher than present sea levels.
Past peak warming was +4 meters higher than present sea levels.
Perhaps it was because the recent Glacial Max was the coldest time that Earth has ever known to be. Certainly the coldest time within the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, and had lowest level of global CO2 levels- ever known.”
–
The past times sea levels are not a solid evidence of the former global climate.
The Earth’s system the H2O content should not be considered constant, because it has a strong ability to change in a long time scales.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Well plants which won’t grow in cold climates, which has grown past and leave record, indicates something.
First stage did soft landing in Gulf Mexico. Second stage is still in orbit and will land about 20 mins
Wrong thread, oh well.
It is fascinating to see the response to a complaint about white noise on this site.
The guilty typically react with impotent fury.
Just like a wasp trap.
Indeed!
“It is fascinating to see the response to a complaint about white noise on this site.
The guilty typically react with impotent fury.
Just like a wasp trap.”
Well, that’s certainly obscure. Another fool who cannot bring himself to say what he really means!
Guilty? Wasp trap?
Maybe you could just refuse to describe the GHE, like the rest of the idiots who talk in circles, trying to appear clever!
Carry on denying reality. No GHE. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, but you can deny it if you like. I don’t mind.
You are obviously feeling guilty Mr Wasp.
“It is fascinating to see the response to a complaint about white noise on this site.
The guilty typically react with impotent fury.
Just like a wasp trap.”
Well, thats certainly obscure. Another fool who cannot bring himself to say what he really means!
Guilty? Wasp trap?
Maybe you could just refuse to describe the GHE, like the rest of the idiots who talk in circles, trying to appear clever!
Carry on denying reality. No GHE. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, but you can deny it if you like. I dont mind
Bzzzz…
Elliot, please stop trolling. You are just not very good at it.
Nobody cares about your guilty feelings, Mike Flynn.
“Nobody cares about your guilty feelings, Mike Flynn.”
Excellent!
Willard, please stop trolling.
New development in heat pumps being trialled in Scotland. These yield 3-4x the heat produced by the same amount of electricity.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/06/at-heart-its-the-same-technology-the-heat-pump-that-uses-water-instead-of-air?ref=upstract.com
“It delivers 350% to 400% more heat than the electricity it needs to operate”
Gee, how good is that! Use 350% increase in heat to boil water to run a steam powered generator, and use the excess energy to to provide air conditioning, heating, lighting, electric car charging etc.
Perpetual motion – for every 100 in, 350 to 400 out! Just like the fictional GHE!
Free energy for all. Better than CO2.
Are you gullible enough to believe everything you read? You really have no clue about “heat pumps”, do you?
No, perpetual motion would be when it produced 3-4x the ELECTRICITY input. If you knew anything about heat pumps then you’d know that to work against a differential large enough to boil water would require far more energy than is required for this scheme: If you turned it up that high it would require more energy to boil the water than you got out.
The system makes sense, but like many of the media stories concerning climate, the story in your link is completely wrong. Glycol is not “compressed”. Thank you for giving me a good laugh.
Part 2 — found more banned words.
The efficiency of a heat pump works by running an air conditioner in reverse. Instead of throwing away the heat from the compressor, that heat is used inside the building and the refrigeration effect is thrown away. The water tank and glycol remain warm enough to evaporate the “refrigerator stuff” (acceptable word) when the outside air temperature is too cold.
Like all of these concepts to use electricity more efficiently, there are several problems. The compressor is expensive and it wears out over time. Modern refrigerator stuff has very low la-tent heat (better word) because the good refrigerator stuff hase been outlawed for environmental reasons. Ammonia and propane work really well in industrial facilities, but are too hazardous to use for the general public.
> In other words
Nobody cares about your other words, Mike Flynn.
Good morning.
“> In other words
Nobody cares about your other words, Mike Flynn.
Good morning.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nobody cares about your little HTML tricks to bypass moderation, Mike Flynn.
“Nobody cares about your little HTML tricks to bypass moderation, Mike Flynn.”
Good.
Willard, please stop trolling.
EB,
“It delivers 350% to 400% more heat than the electricity it needs to operate”
In other words, you don’t understand the implications of the pointless quote you provided, no doubt in support of the mythical GHE which you refuse to describe.
Go on, try and explain what your quote means, in terms of energy and power.
Or refuse, if you like. You’ll discover you lose either way.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1671655
Willard, please stop trolling.
elliott…the amount of heat a heat pump can deliver depends on how deeply it is buried. The deeper you dig in the Earth, even in the Arctic, the hotter it gets. As I understand it, the standard heat pump cannot deliver enough heat to heat a home.
That’s a pity, because an awful lot of people have installed them to do exactly that. By the way, do not confuse heat pumps with geothermal energy.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
This is a test: Angry text.
So is this.
So is this.
The bad word filters are working overtime today!
The site strips out almost all HTML from posts. That’s a standard precaution against injection attacks and other mischief. I’d like to format my posts a bit better, but the options are limited – just bold and italic, so far as I have been able to ascertain.
Just something to be lived with.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Earlier, Antonin Qwerty burbled about neutron counts, for no particular reason, refusing to say why.
Eventually, he became annoyed for some reason (possibly because I asked about his refusal to specify any connection between “neutron counts” and weather.
He wrote –
“Haha the inevitable “Im out of ideas” response.
So which is it Mikey are neutron counts relevant, are they irrelevant, or are you a mindless tr0ll who has no idea and no ability to investigate?
(I predict well get an option-3-type response.)”
The usual idiot try at evasive gotchas.
Relevant to what? Investigate what? These GHE cultists are a strange lot. They refuse to accept the reality that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years (continuous sunlight, CO2 and H2O notwithstanding), but won’t actually admit it. Too embarrassing.
They refuse to describe the GHE, claiming others have done it “thousands of times”.
Here are a few attempted “descriptions” –
Willard – “not cooling, slower cooling”
Entropic Man – “The GHE is a stack of blankets”
Bindidon – “In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.”
and so on. No two the same, and all worthless.
There is no GHE.
You are obviously not comprehending much.
Not even sarcasm.
“You are obviously not comprehending much.
Not even sarcasm.”
Ooooooh! That’s deep and meaningless, isn’t it?
P, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about what you refuse to understand.
Cheers.
Willard,
A lot goes over this poor fellow’s head.
He is not very bright.
“Willard,
A lot goes over this poor fellows head.
He is not very bright.”
Even more deep and meaningless.
P, Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your PSTering.
Coffee?
“Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your PSTering.
Coffee?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
New Alarm: The Earth has breached a GRIM climate threshold.
could have fohled me. I have seen no evidence of climates changing in my locale.
The sky is falling!
Just give us control and we’ll save you.
Oil the propaganda is thick.
Quick! Run for the hills! The climate is changing!
Oh, wait – climate always changes. It’s the historical statistics of a chaotic system!
Whew, I had myself worried for a second.
Nobody cares about your sarcasm, Mike Flynn.
“Nobody cares about your sarcasm, Mike Flynn.”
Moi? Sarcastic?
Willard, please stop trolling.
SOLAR NEWS UPDATE
There was a big moral panic about not smoking in bars and restaurants more than 20 years ago:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northeast/series4/smoking_smokingban_cigarettes_health.shtml
After all these years, have all the bars and restaurants closed?
Weary Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“After all these years, have all the bars and restaurants closed?”
You tell me. That sounds like a remarkably stupid gotcha.
No doubt the best you can do.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about telling you anything.
Creams and sugars on that coffee?
“Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about telling you anything.
Creams and sugars on that coffee?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, nobody cares if it’s not noon in Australia yet.
Beer?
“Mike Flynn, nobody cares if its not noon in Australia yet.
Beer?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
No PSTering in my threads, Mike.
Another beer for the road?
“No PSTering in my threads, Mike.
Another beer for the road?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
It was far more than moral. As a non-smoker I was subjected to the smoke belched from the lungs of smokers. When I got home, my hair was stiff from tobacco tars and my clothes stank of smoke. I had trouble breathing as I slept since my nasal passages and sinus cavities were clogged with filthy tars.
I was in a bar during the day once when it was closed. The carpets had burns on them where slobs had dropped their cigarettes and stopped them out on the carpet.
A question I always had was why it was necessary to pass laws to prevent this. Why did smokers lack the awareness to stop blowing their smoke in the faces of others? Why did smoker regard it a divine right to light up in a car with other passengers suffering their habit?
When laws came into effect here, smokers went ballistic, complaining about their rights. How about the rights of non-smokers?
I have friends who were considerate smokers. They were always concerned about the effect their smoking would have on others.
Mr. Asshat, please stop blowing smoke.
“Mr. Asshat, please stop blowing smoke.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
wee willy…thanks for confirming that you are a smoker. The cost of a pack of cigarettes locally is $15+. Does it make you feel good to burn up $15 per pack while damaging your lugs and your entire body? If you drink on top of smoking, it’s a double-whammy.
Obviously that is lungs, not lugs. If you had to light your ears on fire that would likely stop the habit toute suite, but doing something similar to your lungs, your heart, your liver, kidneys and bladder, being a slower process, is more manageable.
Mr. Asshat, please stop displaying the same illogic as always.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Go home, Mike.
You are already drunk.
“Go home, Mike.
You are already drunk.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m^2 (So is the Solar constant)
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)^1/4 /4σ ]^1/4
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m^2(150*1*1)^1/4 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m^2K^4 ]^1/4 =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )^1/4 =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How about the moon? I only ask because I have read many, many times that the moon’s surface is 30K cooler than that of the Earth. It’s also pretty rocky. Are you sure that satellite temperature is the surface temperature, and not e.g. the temperature of the upper atmosphere or the whole Earth system?
Thank you, Elliot, for your response.
“How about the moon? I only ask because I have read many, many times that the moons surface is 30K cooler than that of the Earth. Its also pretty rocky. Are you sure that satellite temperature is the surface temperature, and not e.g. the temperature of the upper atmosphere or the whole Earth system?”
Yes, the satellite temperature is the average surface temperature.
Moon’s average surface temperature is 68C lower, than Earth’s.
(Moon’s T =220K vs Earth’s T =288K)
I have theoretically calculated the average surface temperatures for all planets and moons in solar system.
Please visit my site,
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
EB,
You wrote –
“I only ask because I have read many, many times that the moons surface is 30K cooler than that of the Earth”
The Moon’s surface is both colder and hotter than that of the Earth. It receives more solar radiation due to lack of atmosphere, and loses the absorbed energy faster than the Earth for the same reason.
Presumably, you are trying to support the existence of a non-existent GHE in some bizarre fashion, or you are just trolling, trying to make someone look stupid.
Posing a gotcha starting with “Are you sure . . . ” indicates that you think you already know the answer – so why bother asking?
Come on, don’t refuse to describe the GHE – be a man. Stand proud, and be prepared t9 defend your description of the mythical GHE!
Idiot.
elliott…the ***AVERAGE*** is cooler than Earth average.
The average global temperature of the Earth is about 1C ***since 1870***. There are parts of the planet that are about -4C lower than the baseline while other parts are +5C. Th average is 1C.
It’s all statistical bs, means nothing.
> Presumably
Nobody cares about what you presume or not, Mike Flynn.
Enjoy your coffee while it’s hot!
> Presumably
Nobody cares about what you presume or not, Mike Flynn.
Enjoy your coffee while its hot!
Willard, please stop trolling.
> Come on
Nobody cares about your begging, Mike Flynn.
“> Come on
Nobody cares about your begging, Mike Flynn.”
OK, Willard.
Its all statistical bs, means nothing.
Deliberate ignorance, then.
“Deliberate ignorance, then.”
And of course, you refuse to say why, don’t you?
What are you scared of? Do you think someone might accuse you of being helpful?
Unlikely, because you aren’t!
Go on, refuse to describe the GHE – demonstrate how clever you are!
Donkey.
You have been told many times, Mike Flynn, and because you have been told many times.
Nobody cares about your sammich requests.
“Deliberate ignorance, then.”
And of course, you refuse to say why, dont you?
What are you scared of? Do you think someone might accuse you of being helpful?
Unlikely, because you arent!
Go on, refuse to describe the GHE demonstrate how clever you are!
Donkey.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares to know why you still play dumb after having played dumb for more than a decade on this blog.
Cheers.
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
“The “effective blackbody temperature” is measured at the “effective radiating level”. When there are greenhouse gases, then (at least some of) the radiation comes from higher than the surface, where the atmosphere is cooler. The surface will be warmer than the “effective radiating level”.”
–
Tim, what I do is planets and moons the satellite measured average surface (Tmean) temperatures comparison.
–
–
Here it is what I have found about the “effective radiating level”:
https://aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld012.htm#:~:text=At%20some%20height%20most%20radiation%20emitted%20upwards%20makes,heights%20that%20all%20vary%20in%20a%20similar%20manner.
“In the long run the solar energy absorbed at the earth’s surface must be compensated by emission to space of infra red radiation. Emission from the surface alone cannot do this, because the atmosphere as a whole is largely opaque in the infra red, implying that such radiation would be absorbed at higher levels. As one moves upward, the amount of matter absorbing infrared radiation between oneself and outer space decreases rapidly, both because the mass of air above is less and also because the concentration of water vapor in that air also decreases. At some height most radiation emitted upwards makes it to outer space without being reabsorbed on the way. This height (in practice around 8-10 km) is called the Effective Radiating Level. It is idealized as representative of a band of heights that all vary in a similar manner.”
–
Tim, the above doesn’t say about:
“The “effective blackbody temperature” is measured at the “effective radiating level””.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Tim, the above doesnt say about:
The “effective blackbody temperature” is measured at the “effective radiating level”.”
Yes. It does.
“This height (in practice around 8-10 km) is called the Effective Radiating Level.”
The effective blackbody temperature is derived from the outgoing thermal IR, which comes from the Effective Radiating Level.
Tim, what I do is planets and moons the satellite measured average surface (Tmean) temperatures comparison.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47”
We have been through this many times. Bond Albedo is intended to include ALL reflections. There is not some 47% correction needed for “smooth” planets.
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
–
“We have been through this many times. Bond Albedo is intended to include ALL reflections. There is not some 47% correction needed for smooth planets.”
–
–
Let’s consider the planet Mercury then.
Mercury is a smooth planet, because it its surface is formed from basalt (basalt redemblances glass).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
Albedo: 0,088 (Bond)
Temperature 437 K (164 C) (blackbody temperature)[13]
Surface temp. min mean max
0N, 0W [14] −173 C 67 C 427 C
Thus planet Mercury’s mean surface temperature is 67 C = 340 K
–
Let’s compare with planet Mercury blackbody temperature 437 K
The blackbody temperature is almost 100C higher.
But the corrected blackbody temperature Te.correct = 364 K, which is very much closer to the measured Tmean =340K.
Now, we see how it is important to correct the smooth surface planets and moons their respective blackbody temperatures (effective temperatures Te).
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you have one interesting hypothesis. But not the only hypothesis (and not the best).
“The blackbody temperature is almost 100C higher.”
The effective blackbody temperature is ALWAYS higher than the mean temperature. This is due to the T^4 dependence of radiation. 100 C difference between average surface temp and effective BB temperature is not at all surprising.
So, yes it is important to correct the effective BB temperature. But this can be done easily based on temperature variations across the planet. There is no need to imagine astronomers are 47% off on their albedo measurements!
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
“The effective blackbody temperature is ALWAYS higher than the mean temperature. This is due to the T^4 dependence of radiation. 100 C difference between average surface temp and effective BB temperature is not at all surprising.”
–
“The effective blackbody temperature is ALWAYS higher than the mean temperature. ”
(Emphasis added)
No, it is not. Quite the opposite happens
In the graph (I demonstrate in my site) we can observe those three major scientific truths:
1). (Tsat/Te) ratio, except for the very slow rotating Mercury and Moon,
the (Tsat/Te) ratio is (Tsat/Te) >1 .
So there is Tsat > Te almost for all cases. And it is a very important observation.
2). We can see the obvious relation – the higher the Warming factor (β*N*cp)^1/16, the higher is the (Tsat/Te) ratio.
3). The six smooth surface planets and moons – Mercury, Moon, Mars, Ganymede, Europa, Earth (the red dots) are streched in the lower line, under the heavy cratered (rough surface) planets and moons – (the green dots), which are streched in the upper line.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ME: The effective blackbody temperature is ALWAYS higher than the mean temperature.
CHRISTOS: Quite the opposite happens
Consider a very simple, very extreme example. A planet is 500 K on one hemisphere and 100 K on the other hemisphere.
The arithmetic mean temperature is (500+100)/2 = 300 K.
The effective BB temperature is [(500^4+100^4)/2]^0.25 = 420K
The effective BB temperature is higher (by 120 C in this case).
The more extreme the temperature differences (eg due to slow rotation), the more dramatic the difference between T(eff) and T(mean). Only for a completely uniform planet will then be the same.
Thank you, Tim.
“Consider a very simple, very extreme example. A planet is 500 K on one hemisphere and 100 K on the other hemisphere.
The arithmetic mean temperature is (500+100)/2 = 300 K.
The effective BB temperature is [(500^4+100^4)/2]^0.25 = 420K ”
–
“A planet is 500 K on one hemisphere and 100 K on the other hemisphere.”
Tim, we cannot make that consideration. A planet is solar irradiated with some intensity flux W/m^2.
A flux W/m^2 which induces the solar lit average hemisphere temperature of
500 K, doesn’t make the planet dark side to have average hemisphere temperature of 100 K.
–
–
“The more extreme the temperature differences (eg due to slow rotation), the more dramatic the difference between T(eff) and T(mean). Only for a completely uniform planet will then be the same.”
–
It is a MATHEMATICAL CONSTRAINT.
For identical spheres emitting the same exactly amount of IR EM energy, for those with higher differentiated surface temperatures, the average surface temperature (Tmean) will be lower.
Thus, the higher the spheres’ differentiated surface temperatures, the lower their average surface temperature.
So, consequently, the spheres with UNIFORM (not differentiated) surface temperatures will have the highest (the maximum) AVERAGE surface temperature.
For them,
Tmean(maximum) ≤ Tuniform
–
It is true for identical spheres emitting the same exactly amount of IR EM energy.
–
We should mention here, that those spheres emit the same exactly amount of IR EM energy, but the source (or sources) of that emitted energy are originated from the spheres’ inner layers. That energy comes from the inside of the spheres.
Thus that mathematical constraint cannot be applied to the planets and moons the surfaces’ temperatures estimation.
Because, for planets and moons, the source of emitted IR EM energy is very much different: for planets and moons, the source of emitted IR EM energy originates from the INTERACTION with SOLAR IRRADIATION.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Of course, (everything else equals), for planets and moons, the less their surface temperatures are differentiated, the higher their average surface temperatures are.
–
But the theoretical Teff does not pose any Mathematical CONSTRAINT to planets’ and moons’ the average surface temperatures (Tmean).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Thus that mathematical constraint cannot be applied to the planets and moons the surfaces temperatures estimation.”
Mathematical constrains based on fundament physics ALWAYS apply. The source of heat that causes the temperatures is immaterial. The arithmetic mean will ALWAY be lower than the effective blackbody temperature.
We could divide Mercury into 1000 sections and measure the temperature of each for a more accurate result than my 2 section example. The constraint still applies — the arithmetic mean of those 1000 sections will be lower than the effective BB temperature. Or integrate a function over the surface; the integrated mean will be lower than the effective BB temperature.
Thank you, Tim.
“Mathematical constrains based on fundament physics ALWAYS apply. The source of heat that causes the temperatures is immaterial. The arithmetic mean will ALWAYS be lower than the effective blackbody temperature.”
–
Also there are two basic physics planetary AXIOMS:
1. The planet’s equatorial mean surface temperature (Tmean.equatorial) is always higher than the entire planet’s the global mean surface temperature (Tmean.global).
and
2. The faster a planet rotates, the bigger is the difference
Δt = Tmean.equatorial – Tmean.global
and, likewise, the slower a planet rotates, the smaller is the difference
Δt = Tmean.equatorial – Tmean.global.
–
*******
These two simple axioms led us to the following very important conclusions:
1. No matter how fast a planet rotates, planet surface never approaches a uniform surface temperature (Tmean.uniform).
and
2. For a very slow rotating planet the
Δt = Tmean.equatorial – Tmean.global
the difference “Δt” is very small, and for the entire planet surface, the global mean surface temperature (Tmean.global) is very close to the equatorial mean surface temperature value (Tmean.equatorial).
–
–
Mercury, in reference to the sun, is a very slow rotating planet. Thus its Equatorial mean temperature is very close to its average surface temperature Tmean.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim,
“The arithmetic mean will ALWAYs be lower than the effective blackbody temperature.”
The satellite measured planets’ and moons’ mean surface temperatures Tsat or Tmean represent their respective surface arithmetic mean.
Those measured surface temperatures are ALWAYS higher than the effective blackbody temperature.
The only exceptions are the slow rotating planet Mercury and our Moon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim,
“Mathematical constrains based on fundamental physics ALWAYS apply. The source of heat that causes the temperatures is immaterial. The arithmetic mean will ALWAYS be lower than the effective blackbody temperature.”
–
There are different fundamental physics – the emitting behavior of a previously warmed body, vs the emitting behavior of EM energy irradiated body.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“In the graph (I demonstrate in my site) we can observe those three major scientific truths:”
Science needs to be testable and falsifiable. If falsified by observations, such as your theory is here, then it is wrong.
Your theory also says that the Earth’s abs0rbed solar is 112 W/m^2.
But this does not agree with observation that it is 240 W/m^2, and it is much less than the emitted IR radiation, which is 240 W/m^2.
So your theory is falsified, Christos. And you cannot simply ignore this criticism.
Thank you, Nate, for your response.
“Your theory also says that the Earths abs0rbed solar is 112 W/m^2.”
Not exactly. The theory is not averaging solar flux over the entire global surface.
What theory says is “the Earth’s not reflected portion of the incident solar flux is:
π*r^2*448 W
where “r” is the Earth’s radius in meters.
When discussing with opponents, for the comparison reasons I averaged the “Earth’s not reflected portion of the incident solar flux” and that is how the number 112 W/m^2 came up.
But I have shown, that the “Earth’s not reflected portion of the incident solar flux” cannot be averaged over the entire global surface.
The global average surface temperature is a result of the incident solar EM energy interaction with planet surface.
A planet responds to the incident solar energy with all its surface features, a planet responds as a whole – the planet’s respond to solar EM energy interaction process results to the average surface temperature Tsat or Tmean.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“2. For a very slow rotating planet the
Δt = Tmean.equatorial Tmean.global
the difference “Δt” is very small, and for the entire planet surface, the global mean surface temperature (Tmean.global) is very close to the equatorial mean surface temperature value (Tmean.equatorial).”
No. Even for a tidally locked planet, the equatorial mean temperature is significantly higher than the global mean temperature. They do not get “very close”.
“Those measured surface temperatures are ALWAYS higher than the effective blackbody temperature.”
This is a different issue. In fact, this is at the heart of the greenhouse effect.
The “effective blackbody temperature” is measured at the “effective radiating level”. When there are greenhouse gases, then (at least some of) the radiation comes from higher than the surface, where the atmosphere is cooler. The surface will be warmer than the “effective radiating level”.
Tim, the above doesn’t say about “The “effective blackbody temperature” is measured at the “effective radiating level”.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672043
“What theory says is the Earths not reflected portion of the incident solar flux is:
π*r^2*448 W”
Theory ACTUALLY says …
Total incident power = (area)*(solar flux) = (π*r^2)*(1370 W/m^2)
Total not reflected = (1-albedo)*(incident)
> = (π*r^2)*(0.7*1370 W/m^2)
> = (π*r^2)*(960 W/m^2)
There is no valid theory that says only 47% of this is absorbed.
“But I have shown, that the “Earths not reflected portion of the incident solar flux” cannot be averaged over the entire global surface.”
*Everyone* knows that day and night exist and that flux is not actually a uniform 960/4= 240 W/m^2; that 240 W/m^2 is not sufficient for temperature swings from day to night or summer to winter. But for very broad strokes, a global annual average is a useful number.
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
“There is no valid theory that says only 47% of this is absorbed.”
–
I never said “absorbed”. It is the “not reflected portion of the incident solar flux”.
It is not “absorbed”. It is the portion of the incident solar flux that takes part in the (solar EM energy)/ (surface matter) interaction process.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” It is the “not reflected portion of the incident solar flux”.”
There are three possibilities when light hits an object. It can be
* absorbed
* reflected
* transmitted
We know that no light is transmitted through the earth. If 30% is reflected (albedo = 0.3), then 70% must be absorbed (i.e. “not reflected portion”).
Christos, it basically come down to one of two options.
1) No astronomer ever considered the possibility of specular reflection, and their measurements of bond albedo are dramatic wrong.
2) Astronomers DO know about specular reflection, and you are wrong.
Tim,
“There are three possibilities when light hits an object. It can be
* absorbed
* reflected
* transmitted”
–
Also light (SW solar EM radiative energy) can be instantly transformed into LW (IR) outgoing emitted EM energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim, what I do is planets and moons the satellite measured average surface (Tmean) temperatures comparison.
YOU: “Christos, it basically come down to one of two options.
1) No astronomer ever considered the possibility of specular reflection, and their measurements of bond albedo are dramatic wrong.
2) Astronomers DO know about specular reflection, and you are wrong.”
–
Astronomers have re-defined the Bond Albedo. They consider the planet specular reflection insignificant.
But the smooth surface planets and moons have a strong specular reflection.
The Bond Albedo is defined now as the measure of planet surface diffuse reflection only.
And, as such, it is perfectly measured.
But those measurements have left out the smooth surface planets and moons the strong specular reflection.
Therefore, for the smooth surface planets and moons, the SW “Energy in”, and consequently the IR emitted “Energy out” is very much overestimated!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Also light (SW solar EM radiative energy) can be instantly transformed into LW (IR) outgoing emitted EM energy.”
No. That is light being absorbed.
By getting absorbed, those photons add energy to the object, and those photons cease to exist. The object independently emits new thermal IR photons based on its own temperature. Two separate processes.
Tim,
“”Also light (SW solar EM radiative energy) can be instantly transformed into LW (IR) outgoing emitted EM energy.”
No. That is light being absorbed.
By getting absorbed, those photons add energy to the object, and those photons cease to exist. The object independently emits new thermal IR photons based on its own temperature. Two separate processes.”
–
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
Two separate processes, there is no time for energy to get conducted into inner layers.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I insist on term “instantly transformed” and emitted as LW (IR) outgoing EM energy, because by that we exclude any “averaging” over the planet entire surface, because there is not much of the “not reflected portion” of the incident solar flux left to average.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Astronomers have re-defined the Bond Albedo.”
No, it is still the fraction of the total energy reflected at all wavelengths and all angles. I would challenge you to find any astronomer who would agree with your ‘new’ definition.
“But the smooth surface planets and moons have a strong specular reflection.”
No.
* Smooth metals have strong specular reflection … but no planets have smooth metal surfaces.
* Some minerals have reflective flat surfaces … but a) these are not common b) the random orientation of the surfaces will cause basically diffuse reflection as tiny bits of specular reflection go off in random directions.
* Smooth water has strong specular reflection at glancing angles … but a) oceans are not smooth, creating glitter like above, b) waves cause less reflection at glancing angles, reducing refection c) foam, plants, etc reduce reflection d) only 2/3 of earth is water e) at glancing angles, light has to pass through a lot of atmosphere, reducing the intensity of specular reflections.
So, no, there is not strong specular reflection from any planet. Earth is probably at the top of the list of specular reflection due to our oceans, and even here it is probably less than 5% of incoming light that is specularly reflected due to all the factors above.
“What theory says is the Earths not reflected portion of the incident solar flux is:
π*r^2*448 W”
The units make no sense here.
Wm^2
“I insist on term “instantly transformed” and emitted as LW…”
Then you also insist that the ground can’t warm up during the day! If all of the energy is “instantly transformed” and there is “no time for energy to get conducted”, then the rock and dirt at and near the surface will stay the same temperature all day long!
Thank you, Tin, for your response.
–
There is not Pure Specular Reflection – it is theoretical abstraction. It is close onto infinitesimal small services, but only close.
Only close, because, there is not sun beam as it is imagined being streched in perfect line a homogenous EM energy flux.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim,
“Then you also insist that the ground cant warm up during the day! If all of the energy is instantly transformed and there is no time for energy to get conducted, then the rock and dirt at and near the surface will stay the same temperature all day long!”
–
Of course ground warms up during the day. It is warm all the time it is solar irradiated.
But only a part of the not reflected solar energy penetrates in, so to be kept after sunset.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim,
“No, it is still the fraction of the total energy reflected at all wavelengths and all angles. I would challenge you to find any astronomer who would agree with your new definition.”
It is the original Bond Albedo definition.
When measuring the planets’ surfaces reflection astronomers measure only the diffuse reflection.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Tim, since the incoming solar energy is directional, it is impossible to get reflected in an isotropical manner.
The reflection inevitably should have a strong directional behavior.
There are planets and moons with heavy cratered surfaces. Those surfaces resemblanse dense urban areas, where solar light is many times reflected downwards the deep streets.
Those planets and moons have Φ =1.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you seem to be grasping at straws now; proposing any possible explanations. You seem to be starting with the idea that your theory *is* right, and then adjusting facts to fit your pre-ordained conclusion.
You could always try to publish your ideas. Or go visit real astronomers at a real university. But I am running out of time to correct each new idea.
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
“Christos, you seem to be grasping at straws now; proposing any possible explanations. You seem to be starting with the idea that your theory *is* right, and then adjusting facts to fit your pre-ordained conclusion.
You could always try to publish your ideas. Or go visit real astronomers at a real university. But I am running out of time to correct each new idea.”
–
–
Tim, it is a dynamical world we live in. Any possible explanations should be very much seriously taken in consideration, because there is nobody out there to explain us what exactly is going on, and why it is happening that way, and not the other way.
–
The only method we, the living creatures, have is the comparison. By comparing things and by comparing phenomena, the every newly born in this world, either it is a human child, or it is every
other specie’s “child”, has to successfully adapt in its environment…
And the only method is the comparison. Even when experimenting, or when measuring we do compare things.
–
“Christos, you have one interesting hypothesis. But not the only hypothesis (and not the best).”
(emphasis added)
Tim, I’ll keep this what you have said.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Any possible explanations should be very much seriously taken in consideration”
Yes. But any possible explanations should be very much seriously challenged to find weaknesses and flaws. You need to be your own toughest critic. Your theory simply does not hold up to tough scrutiny.
Thank you, Tim, for your response.
“But any possible explanations should be very much seriously challenged to find weaknesses and flaws. You need to be your own toughest critic. Your theory simply does not hold up to tough scrutiny.”
–
Please, Tim, tough-scrutinize my theory. Your tough scrutiny is very much constructive for further developing.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Complete nonsense. There is no “radiative forcing” – that’s an imaginary concept.
A forcing is a mathematical concept in which a forcing function is input into a differential equation to ‘force’ a response’. There is no such thing in the real world, only in models, where differential equations are the basis of the models. eg. Navier-Stokes
Those you cannot differentiate the real world from a computer model have serious issues. There can be not forcings in the atmosphere in the manner specified by the use of terms like radiative forcing. It is a term applicable only to computer models.
A,
Oooooooh! An irrelevant link!
Are you still refusing to describe the mythical GHE? How about “radiative forcing”?
Go on – try to describe the role of “radiative forcing” in the Earth’s cooling over the last four and a half billion years (four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight notwithstanding).
Anybody gullible and ignorant enough to believe nutters who use terms like “radiative forcing” deserves all the laughter directed their way.
About as stupid as people who believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter!
How delusional is that?
> Oooooooh!
Nobody cares about your exclamations, Mike Flynn.
Another coffee?
“> Oooooooh!
Nobody cares about your exclamations, Mike Flynn.
Another coffee?”
Ark appears to be in early meltdown, where he reverts to his youthful ways trying to deal with his false religion being trounced on.
Then gordon jumps in demonstrating once again his lack of knowledge about science.
It all allows for another “teaching moment”.
A “radiative forcing” refers to any time a hotter object can warm a colder object, radiatively. The clear example is Sun. Sun provides a “radiative forcing” to Earth.
Another example is an infrared heater, or a campfire. If you sit close to either, you can feel the “radiative forcing”.
Radiative forcing is a real thing. But the cult perverts it. The cult believes that ALL infrared is “heat”. That is, they believe that ALL infrared can warm any object it impacts. That’s why some of them will claim that ice can boil water. That’s why they claim the sky can warm the surface. They don’t understand radiative physics, or thermodynamics.
Now, let the children play….
clint…”A radiative forcing refers to any time a hotter object can warm a colder object, radiatively. The clear example is Sun. Sun provides a radiative forcing to Earth”.
***
The Sun supplies electromagnetic radiation, the Earth absorbs it, and converts the EM to heat. It’s conversion, not forcing. No one is forcing the Earth to warm, it’s just in the way, like all the other planets, and atoms/molecules on the planet react to radiation from a hotter source as expected.
Once again, the word forcing comes from the climate modelling community and it is related to the differential equations used in the models. Of course, anyone who had studied differential equation theory, and who had applied a forcing function, would know that. We regularly applied the unit impulse forcing function since a square wave offers an unlimited number of frequencies and pushes an amplifier like no other.
Of course, climate modellers like Gavin Schmidt cannot differentiate between the reality of the atmosphere and the virtual reality of a climate model, so they pass their virtual world onto the real world. And, the naive like Clint buy into it, just as he rushes to embrace other pseudo-science, like heat being a definition and not an energy, and entropy not being about heat but about disorder.
Other than that, Clint’s not a bad guy.
Puffman says mean things of Mr. Asshat, bad.
Puffman says Dragon crank stuff, good.
Willard, please stop trolling.
entropy not being about heat but about disorder
Might I draw your attention to the close relationship between entropy and information, with particular respect to Maxwell’s Demon. The modern proof that Maxwell’s Demon cannot, in fact, violate the 2nd Law is entirely formulated in terms of information theory and, crucially, disorder.
Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
EB,
May I draw your attention to the fact that you are refusing to describe the mythical GHE?
Has your comment about entropy to do with anything at all?
Well, gordon and silly willy didn’t disappoint. Neither showed any signs of learning. Two that have never grown up,
But Elliot surprised me! He seems to understand the connection of entropy to information, discovered and formalized by Claude Shannon. Or, at least he’s been exposed to it. A glimmer of hope….
Mike Flynn, nobody cares about your drawings.
“Mike Flynn, nobody cares about your drawings.”
Thank you, nobody.
Willard, please stop trolling.
bob d …”You used to claim the GHE violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so you must have had a valid description of same”.
***
It’s not the GHE that contradicts the 2nd law, it’s the AGW theory. One version of AGW has heat being transferred from colder GHGs to a hotter surface. The other version is just as inane. It has a trace gas in the atmosphere controhling the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.
And yet here we are, on a planet tens of degrees warmer than its own moon. So your understanding of the 2nd law is wrong.
When sun is near zenith, on Earth the ground surface can heat to about 70 C. In comparison the lunar surface heats to more than 120 C.
But 3″ below the lunar surface, it’s about 50 C cooler and 1 meter below the surface it’s about 150 C cooler than 120 C {-30 C or colder}. Or average temperature of top 1 meter of lunar surface is well below 0 C despite many, many hours of the sun being near zenith on the Moon.
Or the Moon doesn’t absorb much energy from the Sunlight. Solar panels would get twice as much electrical power and you get it for 1/2 of the lunar day. Whereas Earth one has what is called peak solar power, which is only 1/4 of a day. Solar power works on the Moon {or anywhere in space- as that is what were designed to do, they don’t work on the Earth’s surface, in terms of making grid electrical power}.
Because Earth has an ocean, it absorbs far more energy from the sunlight. Btw, it makes some economic sense to heat water with sunlight, as water stores heat. Or water is a “battery of thermal energy”, and if want hot water [rather than boiling temperature water] it’s pretty cheap and simple. Though the moon could easily give water above the boiling point at 1 atm pressure.
EB,
Highest moon surface temperature – more than 125 C. Highest Earth surface temperature – less than 100 C.
Maybe you are confused, or your degrees are different to mine.
Maybe I’m not deliberately trying to stupify myself by cherry-picking the maximum temperatures. As gbaikie points out, a very short distance into the regolith, where the temperature variations are smoothed, the temperatures are well below freezing. The Earth’s average temperature is 15C. The temperature of an object at 1AU is -17C.
EB,
The first refuge of the incompetent – the irrelevant average.
The temperature of an object 1 AU at 1 AU is whatever it is. In the case of the Earth’s surface, it varies between roughly 90 C, and -90 C, depending on surface location. The interior varies from roughly 6000 C to about 10 C.
You really don’t know what you are talking about, do you?
No wonder you refuse to describe (or even mention) the GHE. You realise that your gullibility and ignorance are making you look quite detached from reality – or just stupid.
You don’t need to stupify [sic] yourself – it’s your normal condition.
Carry on.
“is whatever it is.”
Yes, it’s called science.
Again, why do you visit a science blog, when you clearly hate science??
Nate,
You wrote “Yes, its called science.”.
No it isn’t, you idiot , it’s called temperature. Measured in degrees of hotness.Not calculated, measured. Are you completely stupid, or just pretending?
No wonder you refuse to describe the mythical GHE! You dimly realise that you don’t know how.
You are not really the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?
Nate – I often ask that question. These imbeciles are just railing at the fundamental purpose of the blog. So why come here at all?
its called temperature
Which happens to be a statistical average by its very nature. Duh.
“The Earths average temperature is 15C. The temperature of an object at 1AU is -17C.”
A self contradictory statement as the Earth is at 1AU
A contradiction easily resolved when you take the greenhouse effect into consideration. Which was rather the point.
“A contradiction easily resolved when you take the greenhouse effect into consideration. Which was rather the point.”
Ah, another demonstration of the fundamental flaw of this whole GHE nonsense.
The Earth is not a cold BB heated only by the sun, but a hot ball of molten rock and gasses that has been cooling for 4+ billion years despite solar input.
Your -17 figure is the limit that it would approach given enough time to cool, not some temperature that a mythical GHE has warmed the surface up from.
Physical and chemical changes that occur as the Earth cools may change the rate at which it cools but they cannot stop it as the 2lot demands
PhilJ – Your -17 figure is the limit that it would approach given enough time to cool, not some temperature that a mythical GHE has warmed the surface up from.
Your blind faith is touching, but every technical discussion of the GHE gives quantitative substance to the observation that it is the GHE which maintains the Earth’s surface temperature. The flux of internal heat can be taken into account and it fails to explain the difference. This reality is corroborated by a consilience of evidence, including satellite measurements of the radiation imbalance due to greenhouse gases and direct observation of back-radiation. Kids can demonstrate the GHE in schools using a lamp and a glass container full of CO2. It is really elementary science, with a huge freight of experimental and observational support.
Just going, “but I have faith that the internal warmth of the Earth causes the temperature difference” cuts no ice.
All wrong, Elliot.
I don’t have time to debunk all of it right now, but let’s start with Phil’s point — The fictitious temperature of 255K (-1F, -18C) is the calculated value from an imaginary sphere. It’s one of many reasons the GHE is bogus.
Try to claim Earth “should be” at 255K, ain’t science.
“The Earth is not a cold BB heated only by the sun, but a hot ball of molten rock and gasses that has been cooling ”
Whose heat escapes from Earth’s surface at the measured rate of 87 mW/m^2, which is very very tiny compared to the solar input.
Not sure why PhilJ keeps thinking it is relevant or significant.
Another example of the crap the cult swallows: “Whose heat escapes from Earth’s surface at the measured rate of 87 mW/m^2…:
Poor child Nate swallows everything his cult spews. That value, 87 mw/m², is based on an estimation of Earth’s core temperature. It ain’t science.
–Elliott Bignell says:
June 7, 2024 at 6:25 AM
A contradiction easily resolved when you take the greenhouse effect into consideration. Which was rather the point.–
Though one must realize, the Earth ocean is significant part of the greenhouse effect. And the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world. Or the tropical ocean heat engine warms the polar region as well as the rest of the world.
The lunar surface doesn’t heat the rest of the Moon. And permanent dark crater can be less the 50 K [-223.15 C].
If you shade an acre at lunar equator, it also can be 50 K.
Hello Nate,
“Whose heat escapes from Earths surface at the measured rate of 87 mW/m^2, which is very very tiny compared to the solar input.
Not sure why PhilJ keeps thinking it is relevant or significant”
The ocean depths are about 4-5 C
No solar radiation has ever generated to that depth. Therefore that is all geothermal internal energy.
How about starting with that and THEN add your solar input.
Certainly a better model than a BB at 0k heated only by the sun
Doing such would demonstrate clearly the cooling effect of water on the surface.
I estimate it to be a cooling effect of about 30-40 C on average
“The ocean depths are about 4-5 C”
Which is not an answer for the fact the average geothermal heat flux is 87 mW/m^2, which is about 1/3000 of the solar input, and thus NOT significant.
Oh well, PhilJ. This is a non-issue.
Gordon,
“One version of AGW has heat being transferred from colder GHGs to a hotter surface.”
Almost correct, just replace heat with energy.
“It has a trace gas in the atmosphere controhling the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.”
The trace gas CO2 is very good at transferring energy to N2 and O2 in the atmosphere.
“The trace gas CO2 is very good at transferring energy to N2 and O2 in the atmosphere.”
At night?
Don’t be stupid, bobby. The temperature falls at night.
“At night?
Dont be stupid, bobby. The temperature falls at night.”
The land surface and the atmosphere above it, falls at night.
The ocean surface and atmosphere above it, slightly goes down at night.
Swenson,
“Dont be stupid, bobby. The temperature falls at night.”
What does that have to do with CO2 transferring energy to N2 and O2, and N2 and O2 transferring energy to CO2?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
swannie….”he already described the perfect example of the GHE when he pointed to the example of the Incas using the conditions at high altitude with clear skys to make ice”.
***
Duh!!! Those conditions would be sub-zero temperatures.
Gordon,
I usually refer to India, but here’s a snippet off the internet –
“Believe it or not, its actually stated in the Bible that people could make ice in the desert at a time long before electricity and fridges. This practice seems baffling for modern society, but it was actually quite simple and practical and most often used in Persia.”
The phenomenon is also noted when radiative frost occurs – air temperature is above freezing but frost occurs on the ground, ants sometimes citrus fruit, etc.
No GHE, just basic physics.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody really cares to what you’re usually refer.
Cheers.
“Nobody really cares to what youre usually refer.”
How good is that?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nobody cares about your rhetorical questions, Mike.
“Nobody cares about your rhetorical questions, Mike.”
I’ll thank nobody, then.
Willard, please stop trolling.
elliott…”Theres an awful lot of white noise on this blog, isnt there?”
***
There is a lengthy period, at times, between Roy’s monthly updates and his editorial comments. It’s hard to be serious all the time and we tend to drop into various levels of humour. Much of it is good-natured humour which the casual blogger mistakes as your white noise, or worse.
If you have experienced many blogs you will notice the same in most of them, unless the blog owner goes off on an ego trip and tries to be king. Roy, much to his credit, has allowed us the freedom to drift, which makes his blog fa superior to most.
It’s actually a good exercise in democracy. Our current versions feature minorities trying to suppress the input of others who disagree with their propaganda. Here in Canada, we are faced with Draconian legislation aimed at hate crimes which could put a person in jail for life simply for expressing what one party deems to be hate speech.
We need to put an end to such fascism and hopefully, in the next election, both here and in the US, we will se this Nazi mentality driven from office.
Mr. Asshat, please stop conflating democracy with chan4-like free-for-all, with sociopaths such as Mike Flynn bragging about being free to say whatever they please, including using words that have been moderated by Roy.
your version of democracy extends to the right to stalk people and harass them by publishing their real names. Thanks, but no thanks, I prefer Swenson’s definition, someone you refer to as Mike Flynn for some reason. Mike, a good guy, has not posted here for years.
Weepy Wee Willard,
You wrote –
“Mr. Asshat, please stop conflating democracy with chan4-like free-for-all, with sociopaths such as Mike Flynn bragging about being free to say whatever they please, including using words that have been moderated by Roy.”.
I just point out the facts. You don’t like them, deny reality. I’m not sure whether Dr Spencer needs your help running his blog, but Im sure he will give your comments the consideration they deserve.
If you don’t like my comments, don’t read them. If you don’t want other people to like them, tell others not to read them.
Keep refusing to describe the GHE – I’ll keep laughing at you.
Carry on.
[what a dimwitted troll is Willard]
Mike Flynn, nobody cares about the comment you post after Mr. Asshat’s whining.
“Mike Flynn, nobody cares about the comment you post after Mr. Asshats whining.”
Excellent!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your appreciation.
Cheers.
“Nobody cares about your appreciation.”
I need to thank nobody, then.
Willard, please stop trolling.
There is an urban rumor that Quentin Tarantino is planning a sequel to the movie Django Unchained. The tentative title is “The Donald Unhinged”. Alec Baldwin is being consider for lead role. Firearms will not be allowed on set.
professor p…it has recently come to my attention that the ‘p’ stand for poo. Professor poo…how apt. Not a full bs, artist, just a toned-down version.
How mature.
But the question is: Why?
The answer is (of course) because GR knows he is guilty of white noise. Like an angry wasp, he knows he has fallen into the trap by trying to defend it.
Please buzz off.
P,
You wrote –
“How mature.
But the question is: Why?
The answer is (of course) because GR knows he is guilty of white noise. Like an angry wasp, he knows he has fallen into the trap by trying to defend it.
Please buzz off.”
How mature is that?
P, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, nobody cares about your answers, they don’t mean a thing.
Long live and prosper.
“Mike Flynn, nobody cares about your answers, they dont mean a thing.”
Good!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn, nobody cares about PSTering, more so that you portrayed them as commands on the other thread.
Swoon.
“Mike Flynn, nobody cares about PSTering, more so that you portrayed them as commands on the other thread.
Swoon.”
Ah, back to the homosexual love insinuation.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nobody cares about your casual homophobia, Mike.
“Nobody cares about your casual homophobia, Mike.”
Good to hear. Thank your friend nobody for me.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you keep trying to clarify your silly joke.
It only gets sillier.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
tim s…”Glycol is not compressed.
***
Tim, it would be helpful if you’d say why not. They are trying to extract heat from water.
The glycol is in a tube and it is warmed then compressed. That raises its temperature to a point where it can heat water for showers and baths. It’s not intended to be part of the heat pump per se but an adjunct to it that raises the water heat level to a point where the system can heat water to the point it can be used for a bath or a shower.
I was surprised to see the reason glycol stops water from freezing at 0C. It apparently interferes with hydrogen bonding, the weak binding mechanism that holds water molecules together to form water.
I found a thermodynamic diagram. There are 4 states in an AC system. Hot high pressure vapor, hot high pressure liquid, cold low pressure liquid, and cold low pressure vapor. The sequence start with cold vapor entering the compressor. High pressure vapor is condensed. Hot liquid enters the expansion valve or restriction. Cold liquid evaporates. Cold vapor enters the compressor to complete the cycle:
https://hvac-eng.com/refrigeration-cycle-diagram-explained/
If that is too technical there is this: (Alright!!!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XscHn6GPWO0
tim…we’re not talking about HVAC or air-conditioning. The latter uses a low pressure gas in a radiator, working in reverse, that extracts heat from a room. Then the warmed gas is compressed to a high pressure, high temperature liquid. The liquid runs through a radiator which allows the high temperature to be conducted and radiated away to a hotter environment and that leaves a cooler high pressure liquid which is run through an aerator. There it is converted to a low pressure mist and the process repeats.
The heat pump referenced in the Scottish unit operates differently. It extracts heat from water but the temperature of the water will be too low for a bath or a shower. So, they run it past a coil with glycol that is compressed, causing it to warm. That coil is use to raise the water temp from the heat pump.
At least, that my take. Airplane motors in WW II used glycol to cool motors. If it is good for cooling, then compressing it makes it good for warming the glycol.
My apologies for those who do not understand AC systems. The original, very poorly written article, in The Guardian tried to explain that the glycol is “removing heat from the water”. That is technically correct. The glycol is a closed system that allows any old nasty and dirty water to be utilized. The clean and warmed glycol then provides the warming fluid for the AC system condenser to boil the “refrigerator stuff” (allowable word). In effect we have a three step heat transfer from the water to the glycol and then to the”stuff”. Any and all heat pump systems must use “stuff”. Glycol and water are not volatile enough. Trust me!
TimS – The Grauniad‘s technical literacy mostly leaves something to be desired. They’re just a news source. It’s always better to pursue original sources when one has the time, and I welcome the links.
More white noise.
No information content at all.
Gordon has no intent to provide “information”. He is playing his usual game of being just enough wrong, but maybe close, and catching people who do not understand the subject. Sometimes he is amusing. Other times he is just plain wrong.
tim…you obviously have not the slightest idea how an AC system works or how glycol is used in the Scottish mechanism.
When corrected, you respond typically, with ad hom and insults.
Did I mention that Gordon gets upset when he is caught in his game. He is actually rather clever to be only slightly wrong, but not completely wrong.
How ironic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgge744qpeo
EM,
What is ironic? So many people attending a political rally in high temperatures that some suffered heat stress?
You sound like a typical GHE cultist – saying nothing of use, while attempting to project an aura of intelligence.
Why can’t any of you idiots say what you mean? For the same reason you refuse to describe the GHE?
Fear of derisive laughter, or just some severe mental deficit?
You tell me.
Nobody cares about telling you anything, Mike Flynn.
” … or just some severe mental deficit? ”
Flynnson finally admits his deep pathological disease.
Willard and Bindidon are off with the fairies again.
Willard’s description of the GHE – “not cooling, slower cooling”.
Bindidon has given up completely on CO2 – “Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.”
At least Willard states that the result of GHE is cooling. Bindidon refuses to say.
A right pair of peanuts!
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you keep gaslighting.
Long live and prosper.
“Nobody cares if you keep gaslighting.”
Good ol’ nobody. Just can’t help caring.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Talk about poetic justice…
EB,
“Talk about poetic justice”
Go on, then, talk about it. Only joking, you’re just trying to troll, aren’t you?
Dimwit.
Nobody cares about your leg pulling, Mike Flynn.
Thank nobody for me, Willard.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ent…you rally need to get around more. Arizona’s climate is arid to semi-arid. Average temperatures in the south range from 40C to 45C.
People got heat stroke, whoda thunk?
“Nobody cares if you keep gaslighting.”
Good ol’ nobody! Just can’t help caring!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about when you keep misplacing your comments.
Try again.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
A brief account of statistical mechanics for those who do not grasp the fundamentally statistical nature of thermodynamics and temperature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics
There is no temperature without averages.
Is that ‘average’ a mean or a median?
A mean requires that everything is equally distributed.
“A mean requires that everything is equally distributed.”
No it doesnt!
Hey Richard, you got a call on line 2 –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-upper-tropospheric-temperatures-corroborate-lt-temperature-trends/
“Another time when we usually prefer the median over the mean (or mode) is when our data is skewed (i.e., the frequency distribution for our data is skewed). If we consider the normal distribution – as this is the most frequently assessed in statistics – when the data is perfectly normal, the mean, median and mode are identical. Moreover, they all represent the most typical value in the data set. However, as the data becomes skewed the mean loses its ability to provide the best central location for the data because the skewed data is dragging it away from the typical value. However, the median best retains this position and is not as strongly influenced by the skewed values..”
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/uah-global.jpeg
Richard does not always use the mean, but when he does it’s when it’s equal to the median.
Everything else is skewed.
“Everything else is skewed.”
So sayeth the expert.
I make a fairly basic point of logic, and Richard, the self-avowed logic expert, cannot follow through.
We definitely need better contrarians.
Once again Willard posts information he does not understand. What is the difference between a “weighted” average a simple average?
You might be able to find something on Wikipedia.
TS once again butts in something without realizing that his riddle has very little to do with Richard’s pet peeve, which goes back ca 2022. At the time Richard had to be reminded of the concept of median. In fact he still has no idea that he’s rediscovering what is called robustness.
Perhaps he could tell us if he prefers the DMA, the EMA, the DEMA, the HMA, the SMA, the WMA or perhaps a fancier one, and how it relates to Richard’s pet peeve?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nate,
You wrote –
“A mean requires that everything is equally distributed.
No it doesnt!”
And you are going to refuse to explain what you mean, aren’t you? Why don’t you demonstrate your intelligence, and be helpful?
Is your refusal due to mean-spiritedness or ignorance?
[snigger]
A mean requires that everything is equally distributed.
No, if everything were equally distributed then none of the three averages would even be necessary. You could just take a single element and use its value for the entire distribution.
“And you are going to refuse to explain what you mean”
No, it’s perfectly clear for anyone who isn’t clueless.
“There is no temperature without averages.”
A measured temperature is what it is. A maximum or minimum temperature is not an average.
You are confused.
> A measured temperature is what it is.
Nobody cares about your irrelevant truisms, Mike Flynn.
“Nobody cares about your irrelevant truisms, Mike Flynn.”
Does he really? Thank him for me.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nobody cares about your silly questions, Mike Flynn.
“Nobody cares about your silly questions, Mike Flynn”
Good for him! Thank him for me.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your misgendering.
elliott…I understand thermodynamics and temperature well and I don’t appreciate either being redefined by a depressed scientist, Boltzmann, who took his own life over his failure to emulate the 2nd law and entropy using statistical methods.
Statistical mechanics had its day in the Sun, out of desperation. It was initially promoted by Clausius in the 1850s as the kinetic theory of gases. He left it to a mathematician, Maxwell to develop it further and Boltzmann got in on the act. Clausius had more important things in mind, like developing thermodynamics based on the interaction between heat and work.
In those days, nothing was know about atomic structure or the electron. The electron was not discovered till 1898 and atomic theory was developed by Rutherford between then and 1910. It was a student of Rutherford, Bohr, who put it all together in 1913, using Planck’s quanta theory. Bohr explained the real relationship between EM and electrons, making statistical theory obsolete, as well as blackbody theory.
Maxwell and Boltzmann tried to make sense of atomic structure in gases and out of desperation they applied statistical theory to the problem. Boltzmann in particular tried to explain the 2nd law and entropy using statistical mechanics, and he failed. However, wannabees adopted his theories and still try to apply the anachronisms today.
Clausius laid down the 2nd law and entropy based on heat transfer. It was sheer arrogance for Boltzmann to redefine both and sheer stoopidity for anyone who listened to him to carry on his nonsense. They don’t get it that he failed.
Nice argumentum ad hominem, but it does nothing to change the fact that temperature and pressure are phenomena arising out of the average behaviour of molecules, and that statistical mechanics accurately predicts such macro-scale physical phenomena.
It is worse that that, Elliott –
Mr. Asshat disses statistics but touts information theory, which is a based on statistics!
Yes, that also scores pretty high on the hilarity coefficient.
Little Willy, Elliott, please stop trolling.
“Alternatively you could use Greenland ice core record which is higher resolution than Antarctica, and has an overlap with Had-CRUT.”
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/gisp2-and-had-crut-4.png
the (had-crut should not have “-“.
–
When studying the Graph it is another strong confirmation of the “It is the warming trend for the last ~ 11000 years.”
You see, it is upside-down again, as it is with Milankovitch cycles effect.
The ice core record is preciselly measured the previous millenials the captured atmospheric gases the CO2 content.
But it is wrongly assumed, that “the warmer the atmospheric air was at the time, the higher in ice cores the captured atmospheric CO2 content should be”.
It is exactly the opposite what happens. The colder the air, the more CO2 is captured in the ice cores.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Most people would disagree with you.
Please explain what mechanism you think causes ice formed in a colder world climate to store extra CO2 in the trapped gas bubbles.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Most people would disagree with you.
Please explain what mechanism you think causes ice formed in a colder world climate to store extra CO2 in the trapped gas bubbles.”
–
When snows, air bubbles get trapped in the layers of snow. When snow is formed into ice, the air bubbles get trapped in the ice.
Those air bubbles CO2 content gets trapped in the ice too.
–
Now,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Density:
1562 kg/m3 (solid at 1 atm (100 kPa) and −78.5 C (−109.3 F))
1101 kg/m3 (liquid at saturation −37 C (−35 F))
1.977 kg/m3 (gas at 1 atm (100 kPa) and 0 C (32 F))
Solubility in water:
1.45 g/L at 25 C (77 F), 100 kPa (0.99 atm)
Now, One liter of ice cold water can hold about 3.3 grams of CO2. The cold polar water can absorb a lot of CO2.
–
–
Snow gets formed from the tiny water droplets in the air. The colder the air, the more CO2 is absorbed in those tiny water droplets. When snow gets formed from those droplets, the trapped air bubbles get enriched with CO2.
Eventually, the colder the air, the higher the ice core’s captured air bubbles CO2 content.
Also, when it is colder than −78.5 C, the CO2 becomes solid, and it “falls” on the glacier’s top and then it gets covered with snow etc.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s not going to work. When snow falls on an ice sheet it forms firn, a water/ice/air mix with open pores which allow the CO2 coming out of solution to escape to the atmosphere. Only when the firm finally freezes fully is air trapped in bubbles. Their composition then matches the atmosphere.
Not that it matters to the proxy temperature measurement. This is not determined by theamount of CO2, but by the oxygen isotope ratio in the water. Water containing 18oxygen is more reluctant to evaporate than water containing 16oxygene, especially at lower temperatures. Lower ocean temperatures produce water vapour with less 18oxygen which leads to ice with a smaller proportion of 18oxygen.
Thank you, Ent, for your response.
“Thats not going to work. When snow falls on an ice sheet it forms firn, a water/ice/air mix with open pores which allow the CO2 coming out of solution to escape to the atmosphere. Only when the firm finally freezes fully is air trapped in bubbles. Their composition then matches the atmosphere.”
–
“with open pores which allow the CO2 coming out of solution to escape to the atmosphere.”
No, the CO2 doesn’t escape in atmosphere. The other, the lighter gases escape, so the CO2 concentration becomes even densier.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”When snow falls on an ice sheet it forms firn, a water/ice/air mix…”.
***
In our geology classes, they told us firn is partially compressed snow. When it sits around it begins to settle and loses its flakiness. As it settles further,it becomes ice.
A question one might ask first is what relation the cold has to CO2. CO2 is absorbed in colder water and out-gassed in warmer water. So, the extremely cold water off Antarctica should absorb more CO2. The denser water then sinks and is recirculated to warmer areas where it rises and is out-gassed.
It would appear to me that process should reduce the concentration in the Antarctic air and increase it in Tropical air.
Cristos, Your graph presents the GISP2 data for Greenland with the HADLEY CRT4 data spliced onto the end. That’s a bogus presentation, since the Greenland data includes the high latitude Arctic Amplification, therefore has rather large excursions compared with the global data.
Where did you find that graph, https://rclutz.com/?
Swanson,
“Where did you find that graph, https://rclutz.com/?”
https://judithcurry.com/2024/05/26/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-on-my-prager-u-video/#comment-1006651
See My reply at Curry’s blog:
https://judithcurry.com/2024/05/26/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-on-my-prager-u-video/#comment-1006727
Pardon my typos.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“A forcing is a mathematical concept… There is no such thing in the real world”
In physics, the term “forcings” refers to external factors or influences that cause changes in a system. Forcings can be natural or anthropogenic and can affect various physical systems, from climate to mechanical systems.
Forcings are fundamental in physics.
The concept of forcings can be traced back to the development of classical mechanics, particularly Newton’s Second Law. In this context, the “forcing” is the external force acting on an object, causing it to accelerate.
In thermodynamics heat and work are considered as forcings that drive the system.
In Electromagnetism electric and magnetic fields act as forcings that influence the behavior of charged particles and electromagnetic waves.
In Climate Science forcings refer to factors that affect the Earth’s climate system.
Thanks for correcting gordon, Ark. He needs all the correcting he can get.
Adding to your statement:
“In Climate Science forcings refer to factors that affect the Earth’s climate system.”
A “positive” forcing raises temperatures, while a “negative” forcing lowers temperatures.
Sun and the HTE are example of positive forcings, and radiative gases are examples of negative forcings.
… on the stratosphere.
Clint R omitted the reality of measured soundings.
Keep stalking me Ball4, with your false accusations.
It not only proves me right, but it makes child Nate mad because I’m getting attention.
Win-win!
clint…”A positive forcing raises temperatures, while a negative forcing lowers temperatures”.
***
When I studied thermodynamics in a course, they taught us that heat raises temperatures and a removal of heat lowers temperatures.
Now Clint has a further redefinition of heat. He not only thinks it is not energy but a transfer of heat, and he thinks it is a forcing as well.
Heat is the Rodney Dangerfield of science, it gets no respect.
gordon, you never passed a REAL course in thermodynamics. It’s pretty obvious. You would know the thermodynamic definition of “heat”, if you had.
That’s part of the reason you feel you have to misrepresent me so much. The other reasons are immaturity and insecurity.
Go ahead and prove me right some more. I can take it.
“It not only proves me right, but it makes child Nate mad because Im getting attention.
Win-win!”
Proves me right, that you are seeking attention, again. Negative attention is easiest for you to get.
A,
“In Climate Science forcings refer to factors that affect the Earths climate system.”
There is no such thing as climate science. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations.
Any self-styled climate scientist claiming to use forcings is either a fool (ignorant) or a fraud (knows he is fooling others).
You are attempting to conflate forces (valid) with “forcings”. Semantic games, to give an air of science to the nonsense called “climate science”.
Just as bizarre as conflating W/m2 with temperature, or waffling about imaginary “energy balances”. You refuse to describe the GHE, and lately refuse to even mention the GHE, worried that someone might ask you to describe the effects of this mythical thing.
So keep the jargon coming, and keep dreaming. It’s always good to find a reason for humour I; pseudoscience.
> There is no such thing
Mike Flynn, nobody cares about your absurd proclamations.
Good morning.
“Mike Flynn, nobody cares about your absurd proclamations”
Nice to know.
Willard, please stop trolling.
> You are attempting to conflate
Nobody cares about your semantic games, Mike Flynn.
“Nobody cares about your semantic games, Mike Flynn.”
Thank him for me.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nobody cares about your dumb act, Mike Flynn.
“Nobody cares about your dumb act, Mike Flynn.”
Good for him!
Willard, please stop trolling.
ark…”In this context, the forcing is the external force acting on an object, causing it to accelerate”.
***
Newton called it a force, not a forcing. A force is a real phenomenon, a forcing is a mathematical function used to model a real force, or something that drives a process. Ergo, a force is real and a forcing is virtual.
f = ma refers to a force, f. The ‘f’ does not mean forcing. Only dweebs using models in climate science would call it that.
In all the time I spent studying differential equation theory, I never heard the word forcing used outside a reference to a forcing function. There are no forcing functions in the atmosphere, just real forces. Not once in several physics classes or in any physics textbook did I see the word forcing used, let alone in place of force.
Every science and engineering student has done the mass on a spring experiment in physics lab.
1/ Start with a weight suspended from a spring.
2/ Give the weight a pull downwards.
3/ The system will start oscillating up and down.
4/ Now give the weight a small push downward during each oscillation.
It will be found that,
5/ Provided that the weight is always pushed at the same stage of each oscillation. A violent motion will be built up.
5a/ This is known as forcing an oscillation in resonance.
5b/ Forcing because of the pushes, and in resonance because the pushes are timed to come at the exact same stage of each oscillation.
A,
And completely irrelevant to weather. What resonance do you believe in being reinforced, and by what?
No wonder you refuse to describe the GHE! Nothing will force you to do that, will it?
You idiot, “forcings” is a nonsense-word, pseudoscientific jargon used by GHE cultists. Accept reality – the reason you refuse to describe the GHE is because you know you will look like a complete fool if you do!
Carry on dreaming.
Nobody cares about what you find relevant or not, Mike Flynn.
ark…”5/ Provided that the weight is always pushed at the same stage of each oscillation. A violent motion will be built up.
5a/ This is known as forcing an oscillation in resonance”.
***
The push, or pull, must be of sufficient force to sustain resonance. That is of sufficient force to overcome losses due to gravity. I hardly think that applies in the mass and spring setup.
With resonance there is a thing called damping. If damping is strong enough (eg, spring too stiff), resonance dies and the oscillation tapers off.
Resonance brought down the Seattle-Tacoma bridge, however. The suspension bridge had supporting cables that vibrated in the wind, and the vibrations were transferred to the bridge structure, which began resonating at its natural frequency of vibration. Eventually the resonance increased till the entire span was weaving like a sine wave, before it broke up and collapsed.
You can get a similar resonance in a guitar when the strings vibrate at a similar frequency to the natural resonant frequency of the body. You can sustain the resonance by strumming the guitar strings but it cannot be amplified to destruction.
Just watched a show on TV in which resonance was induced in a building from a metal group’s (Motorhead) sound system. Plaster began dropping from the ceiling and the caretaker had to flip the breaker to shut them down, because the group refused to lower the volume.
That is a re-enforced sound situation but still not forced. You don’t need to force an oscillator to resonate, that is a basic function, of an oscillator, to resonate. It is built to resonate and if it does not, it won’t oscillate.
In all my years in electronics, many of them related to sound systems, I have never heard of a system being forced to oscillate in resonance. All oscillators resonate at a given frequency which is determined by the components used such as inductors, capacitors, crystals, etc. An inductor/capacitor oscillator is called an LC-tank.
If you don’t supply an oscillator with a regular pulse of current, the oscillation will die naturally. You can call that a forced oscillation if you like but the circuit has already been deigned to resonate at a specific frequency.
I have never once heard that described as a forcing.
“Nobody cares about what you find relevant or not, Mike Flynn.”
Good to know.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about what you find good to know.
Cheers.
“Nobody cares about what you find good to know.”
That’s good to know. Thank your mate nobody for me.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your adolescent misreadings.
Good night.
Gordon Robertson,
Note that your 348 word reply contradicts your original assertion that “A forcing is a mathematical concept… There is no such thing in the real world.” You described several real world forcings.
Your confusion may be due to the fact that in physics, a “forcing” typically refers to any external influence that drives a system. In electronics and sound systems, the term might be used less frequently, leading to the assertion that you “have never once heard that described as a forcing.”
I’ve said all I’m going to say about this subject.
Gordon,
“All oscillators resonate at a given frequency which is determined by the components used such as inductors, capacitors, crystals, etc. An inductor/capacitor oscillator is called an LC-tank.”
Is a speaker an oscillator?
Does a speaker emit only at a given frequency, or does it emit all the frequencies the amplifier sends to it?
Little Willy, Arkady, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
2000 Mules (again)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNI8-1U08J0
democrats desperately trying to revive their chances in the next election. They thought they could railroad Trump out of the next election using a kangaroo court run by a corrupt Democrat judge. Instead, they have turned US voters against them because they think that sort of behavior does not belong in a democracy.
O what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.
…Walter Scott.
christos…”The colder the air, the more CO2 is captured in the ice cores”.
***
Christos…I think the entire theory is wrong. Ice cores in Antarctica reveal variations of CO2 trapped in ice from 200 ppvm right up to 2000 ppvm. The IPCC cherry picked the lowest value they could find, 270 ppmv for the pre-Industrial era.
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20180811094623/http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Gordon,
“I think the entire theory is wrong.”
Thank you, Gordon.
–
EB wrote earlier –
“Kids can demonstrate the GHE in schools using a lamp and a glass container full of CO2. It is really elementary science, with a huge freight of experimental and observational support.”
Why does he refuse to describe the GHE, then? What is it supposed to do?
Why cannot “climate scientists” say where this mythical GHE be reliably observed, measured, and documented? Because it’s imaginary, that’s why!
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. The surface cools each night, losing all the heat of the day (plus a little of the Earth’s remnant heat).
Elliott Bignell and his ilk are quite mad. They even think climate controls weather, although they refuse to say such a stupid thing explicitly.
What they demonstrate is that CO2 can absorb IR. We all know that. The inference drawn is that the atmosphere contains CO2 and it warms, and that greenhouse warms, therefore the atmosphere acts like a greenhouse, and warms due to absorbing infrared energy.
Pseudo-science. A greenhouse warms due to the glass in it trapping molecules and atoms of heated air. There is nothing in the atmosphere that can trap molecules of air therefore it is nothing like a greenhouse.
Joe Postma summed it up well. We build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
Gordon,
The atmosphere is trapped by Earth’s gravity.
That should be obvious.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
swenson…”Gordon,
I usually refer to India, but heres a snippet off the internet
Believe it or not, its actually stated in the Bible that people could make ice in the desert at a time long before electricity and fridges. This practice seems baffling for modern society, but it was actually quite simple and practical and most often used in Persia.
***
We both know that water requires temps below 0C to freeze. It is well known that temps in deserts can drop below 0C at night. What they don’t tell you is the altitude involved.
One of the largest deserts on the planet is the Tibetan Plateau, with an average elevation of 15,000 feet. Tends to get might cold at those altitudes at night. The original quote was for a region in South America which has similar altitudes. In Persia, the altitudes range from 300 feet to 10,000 feet, all of it desert.
I think it is presumed that deserts are all hot and at sea level, but even Death Valley, which is below sea level, gets freezing temperatures in winter.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Sit in front of a piano sometime and sing a loud brief note at it with the dampers off its strings (Figure 15.7.1
). It will sing the same note back at youthe strings, having the same frequencies as your voice, are resonating in response to the forces from the sound waves that you sent to them. This is a good example of the fact that objectsin this case, piano stringscan be forced to oscillate, and oscillate most easily at their natural frequency. In this section, we briefly explore applying a periodic driving forced acting on a simple harmonic oscillator. The driving forced puts energy into the system at a certain frequency, not necessarily the same as the natural frequency of the system. Recall that the natural frequency is the frequency at which a system would oscillate if there were no driving and no damping forced.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_I_-_Mechanics_Sound_Oscillations_and_Waves_(OpenStax)/15%3A_Oscillations/15.07%3A_Forced_Oscillations
wee willy…”This is a good example of the fact that objectsin this case, piano stringscan be forced to oscillate, and oscillate most easily at their natural frequency. In this section, we briefly explore applying a periodic driving forced acting on a simple harmonic oscillator. The driving forced puts energy into the system at a certain frequency, not necessarily the same as the natural frequency of the system. Recall that the natural frequency is the frequency at which a system would oscillate if there were no driving and no damping forced”.
***
Don’t know why you insist on getting involved in matters you know nothing about.
We were talking about the word forcing as applied to the atmosphere. I tried to explain the derivation of the word, which is from a forcing function in differential equation theory. In the real world, we use the word force to represent mechanical energy in action. When such action is applied to a mass, the mass accelerates, provided the force is strong enough to do that.
I have never heard the word forcing used in such a situation. In all my engineering studies, the word forcing was never used. The word was in none of my textbooks. It was not till this nonsense about climate models was introduced that the word gained popularity.
In your quote above, you are using the word forced in a completely different manner. If you pluck a guitar string you force it to vibrate, In the past tense, you can claim the string was forced. At no time, would anyone in command of the English language call that a forcing.
If you apply a force laterally to guitar string, then release the string, it will vibrate naturally at a frequency. There is no force causing the vibration other than the tension in the string. It’s a natural process with a string under tension when it is deviated laterally and released.
Ergo, there is no separate forcing causing the vibration other than a tension in the string. You cannot call the initial deviate a forcing because it does not cause the vibration, it merely initiates it. The vibration is due to the tension in the string being increase by the external force then when the force is released, the string begins vibrating due to its mass and the internal tension.
As I explained, the applied force to sustain oscillation is a force applied to make up for energy losses in the vibrating medium. If you pluck a guitar string with a pick,the string will vibrate at its natural frequency. It will gradually reduce vibration till it stops. If you pluck the string repeatedly, the string will keep vibrating indefinitely.
I call that plucking the string repeatedly, not forcing it. I have never heard a musician playing guitar to claim he is forcing his guitar to play or a string to vibrate.
Again, the word forcing comes from the differential equation theory where another function is used to force the modeled system to respond. For that reason, it is called a forcing function, and the only place that applies is in a model using a differential equation.
Climate modelers, being the obstinate and stoopid clowns they are, have transferred the use of forcing from differential equations to the real world, where it mean noting.
CO2 cannot be a forcing. For one, it is not a forcing function. For another, it applies no force to the atmosphere. Heat transfer is not a force, nor are any of the phenomena attributed to forcing. It’s just a dumb word.
For one, it is not a forcing function.
Thus forcing me to point out that in all your engineering studies you never encountered the term, thus making any statement on what CO2 is or is not terminally vacuous.
Gordon,
“I have never heard a musician playing guitar to claim he is forcing his guitar to play or a string to vibrate.”
Well you push a plectrum or your fingers against the string with a certain amount of force, moving the string a certain distance and then releasing it.
That means you are doing work on the string, adding energy to the string, the result being that it vibrates.
So I would say that I am forcing the guitar string to vibrate, so let me be the first guitar player to claim that.
The guitar isn’t going to play itself.
Wonky Wee Willy,
No “forcings” to be seen.
Just forces. Unlike pseudoscientific fakers calling themselves “climate scientists”, who think “forcings” control weather.
What a pack of fools!
[MR ASSHAT] In all my years in electronics, many of them related to sound systems, I have never heard of a system being forced to oscillate in resonance.
[ALSO MR ASSHAT] We were talking about the word forcing as applied to the atmosphere.
I keep telling you, it’s Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Asshat to you.
Mr. Asshat has never opened a textbook on Mechanics, Sound, Oscillations, and Waves.
“Mr. Asshat has never opened a textbook on Mechanics, Sound, Oscillations, and Waves.”
And?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your lack of reading skills, which is almost as deep as your lack of social skills.
Long live and prosper.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Earlier, the bumbling GHE cultist Willard avoided mentioning “forcings”.
Here’s what NOAA says –
“The difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is known as a planet’s radiative forcing”
Completely pointless nonsense. Just pseudoscientific jargon, a way of saying that the Sun heats the .surface.
So what?
In a climate model, the Sun is not represented physically, it is represented mathematically as a radiation flux function. If it is the input to a differential equation representing the atmosphere and or surface, it becomes a forcing function.
I wonder if the Sun shines inside a climate model, or if it rains all the time? CO2 is also represented as a radiative flux function but it is given 400 times too much warming effect.
Modern climate models attempt to account for both clouds and precipitation. These are both extremely hard to model accurately, so there is still room for improvement. At the level of individual cells, changes are “parameterised” using real-world observations.
it is given 400 times too much warming effect.
Citation needed.
I must also point out that “it is given 400 times too much warming effect” and “the warming effect is mythical and violates the laws of thermodynamics” are contradictory assertions. Just for anyone who was in any doubt.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Radiative forcing is defined in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report as follows: “The change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux (expressed in W/m2) due to a change in an external driver of climate change, such as a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the concentration of volcanic aerosols or the output of the Sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
No wonder Sky Dragon crank ship is without pilot.
How can a summation of an upward and downward flux, in w/m^2, be defined as a forcing? Where’s the force, all I see is subtraction?
You might send that to Ark, he thinks a forcing is another word for force, which represents mechanical energy? You might send it to Clint as well, since he thinks a flux has nothing to do with energy.
[MR ASSHAT READS] The change in the net, downward minus upward, radiative flux (expressed in W/m2) due to a change in an external driver of climate change, such as a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the concentration of volcanic aerosols or the output of the Sun.
[MR ASSHAT ASKS] How can a summation of an upward and downward flux, in w/m^2, be defined as a forcing? Wheres the force, all I see is subtraction?
Sounds like garbage in and garbage out to me.just like the thought that atmospheric C02 remained constant for millions of years.even though temperatures fluctuated greatly, and volcanic activity was much more pronounced, it all boils down to one fact,when it comes to climate changes,we are stumbling around in the dark.
> Sounds like garbage in and garbage out to me.
And what are you going to do about that, Ian?
“And what are you going to do about that, Ian?”
Do you care, or are you just being silly?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your worries that you could be the only commenter nobody really cares about.
Cheers.
Ian,
Did CO2 levels remain constant for millions of years?
https://mashable.com/article/co2-earth-history-climate-change
Nope, not so dark.
“Nobody cares about your worries that you could be the only commenter nobody really cares about.
Cheers.”
Thanks for that.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Weepy Wee Willard,
The IPCC is obviously a collection of clueless clowns. Sunshine occurs when the sun shines.
Climate changes as the statistics of historical weather observations change – which is continuously.
The past four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, has proved insufficient to prevent the Earth cooling, and also insufficient to prevent the IPCC from appearing foolish in the extreme.
At least the IPCC Clown Show’s output of humorous nonsense continues undiminished, providing some relief from their constant and unremitting predictions of doom, accompanied by doleful cries of “It’s worse than we thought!”.
Their predictive abilities are obviously even worse than they thought, changing from week to week.
Forcings? Try farcings – about as useful a word.
[continuing laughter ]
Good definition, with the merit that it is impossible to argue that such an incremental change cannot exist if something in the atmosphere alters the radiative flux.
EB,
Indeed. The onset of night, clouds, no clouds, solar eclipse, volcanic eruptions, particulate pollution, dust storms, rain, fog – all change the amount of sunlight reaching the ground.
Probably the most effective medium preventing “radiative flux” (sunlight) reaching the surface is seawater, as it covers about 70% of the globe, and ice, about 10%.
Nobody can quantify the effect of “radiative flux” on the statistics of historical weather observations. That is why people who bang on about “radiative flux” (sunlight) refuse to try to describe its effects. You certainly refuse to explain what your comment means, don’t you?
Do you believe in some sort of mythical “greenhouse effect”? What sort of effect would it have on weather observations?
Can’t say? Won’t say? You cant blame me for laughing at your attempts to imply that you know what you are talking about, can you?
Carry on being evasive and obscure.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody can indeed quantify radiative forcing.
You just have to ask them nicely.
“Nobody can indeed quantify radiative forcing.”
In your fantasy, of course.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you can’t play along.
Cheers.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Even in the US, renewables continue their upward march:
American Solar Panel Manufacturing Capacity Increases 71% in Q1 2024 as Industry Reaches 200-Gigawatt Milestone
Florida and Texas charge ahead on solar installs while California stumbles due to policy changes
https://www.seia.org/news/american-solar-panel-manufacturing-capacity-increases-71-q1-2024-industry-reaches-200-gigawatt
EB,
All energy production and use is eventually observed as waste heat. AGW.
A joule is a joule – regardless of what creates it.
Are renewable joules distinguishable from non-renewable joules?
Things like gas, oil, and coal, being plant-based, are obviously renewable. Have you some reason for wanting people to starve while they freeze in the dark? I can’t see anything wrong with replacing the CO2 that Nature removed from the atmosphere – even if humans can’t replace it all.
At least we can do our best. Don’t you agree?
“Things like gas, oil, and coal, being plant-based,are obviously renewable”
Science deniers say the darndest things..
Yes, that’s pretty funny.
“Things like gas, oil, and coal, being plant-based,are obviously renewable”
Are you really stupid enough to say plants are not renewable?
Living organisms renew themselves. That’s how you determine they are alive. After they die, their descendants live on – renewal.
Even yours, possibly. Nothing’s perfect.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you come with a definition of renewables that includes fossil fuels.
Silly semantic games are for silly cranks.
“Things like gas, oil, and coal, being plant-based,are obviously renewable
Are you really stupid enough to say plants are not renewable?”
Notice the silly bait and switch tactic that tr0ll Swenson regularly employs.
When people reject his stoopidity about fossil fuels being renewable, he tries substituting ‘plants’ for ‘fossil fuels’.
His frauds are becoming too obvious.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Coming is a definition of the GHE generated by Googol’s AI. I am posting it as a top-level post because the thread is yet again clogged up with lies that no-one can define the GHE. In fact, even Googol’s AI does it without hesitation. I suggest we keep something like this visible in future threads, in case I am too sick of the white noise to come and do it for another half a year, so that the nature of the lie is obvious to casual visitors. This seems preferable to simply repeating the definition over and over and thus sinking to the level of les nuls.
I am forced to post it piecemeal as replies to this post as the site’s filters won’t allow it through.
Definition of the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.
Re-emission: Blocked by filter.
Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.
Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.
Importance of the Greenhouse Effect
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life. The natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining a stable climate, allowing life to flourish on our planet.
EB,
A definition of something which you refuse to describe? Complete nonsense, the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a molten state. Nothing can prevent heat from escaping to space. That’s how the Earth cools.
Even ChatGPT agreed with me that the mythical GHE could not stop the Earth from cooling –
“Yes, thats correct. The Earth does undergo cooling processes despite the presence of the greenhouse effect.”
You arent just refusing to describe the mythical GHE, are you? You cannot find a description at all! You are just pretending that one exists!
You can deny reality all you want. It’s a sign of insanity.
EB,
“Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.”
Complete nonsense. You might not accept it, but the surface cools at night.
EB,
“Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.”
No, sunlight warms the Earth’s surface. In the absence of sunlight, the surface cools.
Temperatures in sunlight vary between about -90 C and +90 C. Habitable with a bit of help, I suppose.
The Earth cooled. Man evolved to take advantage of the conditions, according to one widely accepted theory of evolution.
No GHE.
Elliot, you’re new here so you don’t realize why your “AI” effort to describe the GHE has failed. In simple terms, the Google AI is brain-dead. Everyone accepts that CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared. Some of that re-emission goes to space, unlike what your AI states — “…preventing it from escaping into space.”. But the portion that returns to the Earth’s surface (15μ photons), can NOT warm the 288K surface.
Your cult does not understand radiative physics or thermodynamics. They continually confuse things like “heat”, “flux”, and “energy”. They believe that all infrared is “heat”. They believe all parts of the GHE nonsense without understanding any of the relevant physics.
If you can’t show how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface, then you’ve got NOTHING. Also, don’t be confused by the “atmosphere effect”, which is Earth’s REAL “natural process” of insulating the surface from space temperatures.
(Please don’t be insulted by anything I say. I’ve seen you say some intelligent things here, so I’m offering constructive criticism, not insults. This has all been discussed many times. You have some catching up to do,)
More nonsense: Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life.
Those temperatures are for an imaginary sphere. It’s how the cult attempts to pervert reality. It ain’t science.
“Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), ”
Complete nonsense.
You might not accept it, but the surface cools at night.
Svensdottir – Until I can build a plugin to eradicate you, I am mostly going to treat you as invisible. I trust that most posters can see that you are worthless. However, in this case your dimness is instructional.
Yes, the surface cools at night. However, it does not immediately cool to -17C. Nor does the Earth’s temperature continue to heat towards infinity merely because there is a greenhouse effect. The GHE reduces the outward flux. It does not stop it. The greater the GHE, the higher the equilibrium temperature. When the incoming flux stops during the night, the system loses energy, but that loss is reduced be the GHE. When the inward flux resume during the day, the outward flux is similarly reduced by the GHE, and the average temperature increases.
Any halfway intelligent observer could work this out.
Any halfway intelligent visitor can see that you are lying when you pretend that I did not post that description.
“Im offering constructive criticism”
But Clint will not explain why or offer any real evidence to support his declarations that mainstream science is ‘a cult that does not understand radiative physics or thermodynamics.’
He is confused by what ‘constructive’ means.
Sorry child Nate, but science is not for children.
Maybe when you grow up?
Clint,
This has all been discussed before, you were wrong then and you are still wrong now.
“Everyone accepts that CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared. Some of that re-emission goes to space, unlike what your AI states preventing it from escaping into space.. But the portion that returns to the Earths surface (15μ photons), can NOT warm the 288K surface.”
The original infrared from the surface has been prevented from escaping to space, who cares that some of the re-emitted IR escapes to space, some still doesn’t, because it can be re-abxorbed by CO2 on the way down, or abxorbed by the surface, where it adds its energy to the surface. Which may or may not warm depending on all the other ways the surface can be heated.
” The GHE reduces the outward flux.”
Slower cooling is not warming.
If it was then one would have to believe that the north polar ice cap warms the ocean.
Ludicrous
Sorry bob, but you’re believing ALL infrared is heat. You’re one of the ones that believe ice can boil water.
But beliefs ain’t science.
He is confused by what constructive means.
Nicely put.
Slower cooling is not warming.
Yes, it is.
> Slower cooling is not warming.
I bet you can’t cook an egg, Phil.
Clint you are gaslighting again.
“Sorry bob, but youre believing ALL infrared is heat. Youre one of the ones that believe ice can boil water.”
Infrared transfers heat, it is not heat itself.
And yes, you can use ice cubes to cause water to boil, you have been shown that to be true.
Does the peak of a blackbody curve mean that all photons emitted by that blackbody are that wavelength?
Where did you learn your fake physics?
Heat is not trapped except for people who do not understand the science. Heat is “transferred” by the “heat transfer gases” in such a way that the heat escapes at different temperatures and at different levels in the atmosphere. Heat is not trapped.
Tim S,
Heat can be transferred by convection, conduction, radiation, and phase transfer, not by heat transferring gases.
CO2 and the other greenhouse gases do trap the energy from infrared from the surface and transfer it quite nicely to the other non greenhouse gases.
You may not like to say CO2 traps heat, but the result is an increase in atmospheric temperature with increase concentration of those heat trapping gases.
Bob, I have suspected for some time that you are not very bright, and now you have literally stepped in it. Is that a joke? Are you competing with Gordon for the fake science award?
Tim S,
What’s my IQ?
What did I post that you think is not so bright?
You are the one who claims heat is transferred by heat transferring gases.
I found this after a brief search. It may help:
https://www.thermal-engineering.org/radiative-heat-transfer-in-gases/
From the link above we have this at the very bottom which seems to be loaded with banned words because it would not post in total:
Challenges in Modeling Radiative Heat Transfer
Bumbling bobby,
You asked “Whats my IQ?”
Bigger than your shoe size? Are you boasting about being below average?
bob claims “… you can use ice cubes to cause water to boil…”
THAT is what cultism does to a mind.
At one time, bob was probably a semi-functioning individual.
Tim S,
“I found this after a brief search. It may help:”
Not so much, I knew everything that your source explained,
But it does not say heat is transferred by heat transferring gases.
It does say that heat is transferred by radiation.
Some of the other clown car riders could gain some insight from reading that source.
So Clint, if I post a link to a vid showing the addition of ice causing water to boil, you will promise not to post on this blog for 60 days.
“So Clint, if I post a link to a vid showing the addition of ice causing water to boil, you will promise not to post on this blog for 60 days.”
Provided that the water is boiling at standard temperature and pressure, why not?
The boiling point is defined as 100 C under standard conditions. You are just playing silly semantic games.
Just refuse to describe the GHE. That will be more up your alley.
Bobby, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
“Provided that the water is boiling at standard temperature and pressure, why not?”
Clint never specified that it had to be at standard temperature and pressure.
I bet you cant cook an egg, Phil.
That’s the evening’s glass of port down the nose.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
How it Works
Solar Radiation: The Sun emits solar radiation, which enters the Earths atmosphere.
EB,
How what works? The GHE which you refuse to describe?
You cant even commit yourself to saying what the GHE is supposed to do, can you?
Go on, try. No?
Why am I not surprised?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your silly questions.
Sleep well.
Swenson,
We have been over this too,
It makes thermometers read moar hotter moar better.
Even at night.
“It makes thermometers read moar hotter moar better.
Even at night.”
Yes, bobby.
[idiot]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your insults, even less so those sotto vocce.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I’m having consistent problems posting anything, probably because so many segments of that description were blocked. If this gets through, please note that the litany of lies instantly started up. For some reason, repetitive posting is allowed when it comes from, les nuls.
If you have never posted before, I have to approve your first post. Sometimes it takes days before I check in.
Testing.
Okay, the blog seems to have blocked me for the last hour. I suspect that the reason is that I posted too many fragments from the Googol text that were blocked for their content, and that after a certain number of blocks I got sent to the benches for an hour or so. I will continue to try to refine the text so that it does not violate the blocking conditions and try to keep it visible in future.
The message is simply that les nuls are lying, and the GHE is childishly simple both to describe and to explain.
When your text is getting blocked too often, you are being flagged as a spammer. Then it does not matter what you post.
Wait for 30 minutes.
Yes, thanks. Dr. Roy has had persistent trouble over years with spammers and eejits. He takes a pretty laissez faire approach to the blog, and we have to respect his choices, but I can imagine that it gets frustrating. Mister Excavated Natural Fabric was a particular plague. He’s still ranting away, to my last knowledge, on other sites.
“we have to respect his choices”
Yes, you do, don’t you?
Elliott Bignell
The blog never blocks you.
What happens is that you have sent many times in series comments containing the same ‘forbidden’ text items, e.g. ‘rp t’, ‘d c’, ‘idyot’, etc etc.
Yes, I had worked it out, more or less. It’s a bit frustrating to use the site. Instead of getting a message saying what one did wrong, the blog just reloads without one’s text. I don’t like to make demands as it is good to even have the blog, but it could be improved.
I hope that like me, you always write and save your comments in WinWord, Libre Office Write or equivalent before posting :–)
*
” … but it could be improved. ”
If that was so simple, it would very certainly have been done since years.
It’d be really simple to improve upon the current WP install.
“It’d be really simple to improve upon the current WP install.”
And a really simple person like you would be just the person for the job. Are you volunteering? What was Dr Spencer’s response?
[laughing]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares what you think.
EB,
The problem is that “descriptions” of the GHE almost invariably come down to saying that the GHE “warms the Earth”, where in fact the Earth has cooled, and no amount of jumping up and down and screaming can change that fact.
That is why everybody who claims that they can describe the GHE simply cannot do so in any way that acknowledges reality. You may think you can do what nobody else can do because you are a very clever fellow, but you can’t.
As Richard Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You have no experiment, because you are a fantasising GHE cultist.
Keep at it. The mental contortions of such as yourself inject a little light relief into the matter.
Accept reality. The Earth has cooled. You are an idiot.
> “descriptions”
Nobody cares about your silly semantic games, Mike Flynn.
“Nobody cares about your silly semantic games, Mike Flynn.”
OK, Wee Willy.
This is the currently available fragment:
Definition of the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.
How it Works
Solar Radiation: The Sun emits solar radiation, which enters the Earths atmosphere.
Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.
Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.
Importance of the Greenhouse Effect
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life. The natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining a stable climate, allowing life to flourish on our planet.
Elliot, well over half of that is pure nonsense.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672006
This is about science, not beliefs. Study up and try again.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why are you stalking Elliott?
Keep proving him right!
It’s okay to copy me, silly willy.
Imitation is a sincere form of flattery.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why can you always got NOTHING like that?
Silly willy, with sentence structure that bad you need to spend more than 2 minutes making a comment.
Or, get an adult to help you.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Will you reply to this comment and make me win again?
Willard, please stop trolling.
I’ll try to get another fragment through now:
Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.
“Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.”
Where it does nothing at all. An example of this can be noted at night, where the surface temperature falls. All the radiation emitted by the surface proceeds to space – more rapidly in the absence of any attenuating factors – the arid deserts demonstrate how fast temperature can fall (and rise during the day).
Some ignorant people believe that because they can say “quantum mechanics”, they must understand it.
You are one such – but feel free to demonstrate otherwise, if you feel I have maligned you unjustly.
[laughing at ignorant cultist]
> Where it does nothing at all.
Nobody cares about your silly denial, Mike Flynn.
“Nobody cares about your silly denial, Mike Flynn.”
Good to know. I thank nobody for that, do I?
Willard, please stop trolling – you need to get better at it.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your sweet nothings.
Absorbtion: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor [sic], absorb some of this radiation.
Okay, so that section is:
How it Works
Solar Radiation: The Sun emits solar radiation, which enters the Earths atmosphere.
Absorbtion: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor [sic], absorb some of this radiation.
Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.
Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.
Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.
Now for the remaining sections:
Human Impact
However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and contributing to global warming. This enhanced greenhouse effect is known as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.
Key Takeaway
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun. While it is essential for life, human activities have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming.
Key Takeaway — Elliot keeps avoiding the science. He has yet to explain how 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
Like the rest of the cult, he doesn’t understand radiative physics and thermodynamics.
Maybe the cult kids, like silly willy, bob, and Nate, can provide cover for him?
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why are you shying away from responding to Mighty Tim, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1671612
Is it because you are a silly sock puppet who knows NOTHING?
Clint,
Key takeaway:
You haven’t explained why a 15 micron photon can not raise the temperature of a surface.
As useful as tits on a boar.
Bumbling bobby,
“You havent explained why a 15 micron photon can not raise the temperature of a surface.”
You don’t have to believe anyone. Just do an experiment which supports your fantasy about some greenhouse effect which everybody refuses to describe, and show how cleve4 you are.
You can’t of course, because you are an idiotic GHE cultist.
Elliott,
You wrote –
“The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun. While it is essential for life, human activities have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming.”
Well, no, that’s in contradiction to fact. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight. No warming. At night, as Fourier wrote, all the heat of the day is lost to space, plus a little of the Earth’s remnant heat – hence the gradual but inexorable cooling of the initially molten Earth over the past four and a half billion years.
There are similar pathetic attempts to “describe” the GHE as a “process”, here is one from a government body “The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth’s surface. When the Sun’s energy reaches the Earth’s atmosphere, some of it is reflected back to space and some is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases.”
Similarly pointless.
As Richard Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Every reproducible experiment ever performed shows that reducing the amount of radiation from a heat source like the Sun reaching a thermometer, lowers the temperature. This principle has been known since the dawn of man, and before. If the direct sun is too hot, move into the shade. Reduce the sunlight hitting you.
Look at John Tyndall’s quite meticulous experiments, if you have the courage.
You will see that describing the GHE as a “process which warms the Earth’s surface” is about as silly as saying that “a dragon is an animal which breathes fire and heats the Earth”.
That’s ridiculous, isn’t it? There is no GHE. Just claiming it exists is not a description. The Earth has cooled – try to describe your mythical GHE in accordance with fact.
Or just refuse.
Poor bob tries to protect his cult — “You haven’t explained why a 15 micron photon can not raise the temperature of a surface.”
Poor bob has changed my wording. I never said “a surface”. I said “a 288K surface”.
See how the cult tries to pervert reality?
They hate reality.
Clint,
Idiots love playing silly semantic games.
Their love for reality is not quite so ardent.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares when you call yourself an idiot for playing silly semantic games.
Clint,
“Poor bob has changed my wording. I never said a surface. I said a 288K surface.”
What is so special about a 288K surface.
How does it not increase in energy when it abxorbs a 15 micron photon.
A 288K surface emits 15 micron photons and cools by doing that, so if it abxorbs a 15 micron photon, it abxorbs energy which can be expressed as heat.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“A 288K surface emits 15 micron photons and cools by doing that, so if it abxorbs a 15 micron photon, it abxorbs energy which can be expressed as heat.”
Except that a 288 K surface can’t get hotter absorbing photons from another 288 K surface. Two objects in thermal equilibrium stay at the same temperature.
You are probably trying to imply that a colder atmosphere can make a hotter surface even hotter, although you will refuse to say such a silly thing.
As you say, a 288 K surface will emit energy and cool. Having cooled, it will emit photons of lower energy ie longer wavelength. It has cooled. Now, any hotter surface is also cooling, by emitting photons of higher energy, which will be absorbed by the cooler surface. Eventually, both surfaces will be at the same temperature.
What you suggested previously is quite impossible – like the slightly confused Willis Eschenbach and his Steel Greenhouse, or Eli Rabbett’s Green and Blue plate illusion, even reflecting all the radiation emitted by a surface back to that surface will not make it hotter!
Bad luck, bobby. You should just stick to refusing to describe the GHE.You’ll look like less of an idiot that way.
Carry on.
Willard wrote –
“Nobody cares when you call yourself an idiot for playing silly semantic games.”
I really have nobody to thank, do I? He’s obviously as confused as Willard, who agrees with that other idiot Elliott Bignell that slow cooling is really warming!
A pair of peanuts! Oh, and Elliott Bignell makes three!
[snicker]
bob, when you get caught changing my words and meaning, I waste little time with you.
You should have learned that by now, but you can’t learn.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your snickers.
Or for your mars bars, for that matter.
Swenson,
“You are probably trying to imply that a colder atmosphere can make a hotter surface even hotter, although you will refuse to say such a silly thing.”
Well, that is what is observed in this experiment we are conduction on our atmosphere.
As someone once said, if your theory disagrees with observations, it needs correcting.
Clint,
You forgot to specify that the 288 K surface is an average.
Any way, 15 micron photons get abxorbed by any solid or liquid surface.
Still working on that minor in physics?
As I explained above, heat is not trapped except for people who do not understand the science. Heat is transferred by the “heat transfer gases” in such a way that the heat escapes at different temperatures and at different levels in the atmosphere. The lower atmosphere is warmer and the upper atmosphere is cooler. There is more instability in the atmosphere.
Heat is not trapped.
Tim,
“Heat is not trapped.”
Exactly. Anybody who thinks heat emitted by the surface can be prevented from moving to the cold sink of space is deluded.
For clarity in the context of the post above about the greenhouse effect, when I mention “heat transfer gases” I am referring to radiant heat transfer. So the correct way to identify the greenhouse gases with terms that are scientifically accurate, is as follows:
Radiant Heat Transfer Gas
Nothing in that title suggest a “trap”. The term “heat trapping gas” is a media term for the uneducated. It is not a correct, useful, or accurate science term to describe “greenhouse gases” as used in climate studies.
Tim S,
As Tyndall showed by meticulous experiment, increasing the amount of gas between a heat source and a thermometer, reduces the amount of heat reaching the thermometer, and the temperature falls.
The Earth’s atmosphere prevents about 35% of the suns heat from reaching the Earth, resulting in the maximum surface temperature being far less than that of the airless Moon.
GHE cultists just refuse to accept reality, claiming that less radiation results in higher temperatures, or that “greenhouse gases” heat the cooling planet, or similar idiocies!
It’s even difficult to get GHE cultists to say what they think the GHE does – particularly at night, when the surface cools. Nutters all.
tim s…”…the heat escapes at different temperatures and at different levels in the atmosphere”.
***
Tim…before you espouse such inanities, why not go into what heat is and how it is dissipated via EM, conduction, and convection.
Heat cannot escape as you put it, it is energy and energy related to atoms. In order for heat to leave the Earth, atoms would have to leave the planet.
In the 1800s, it was defined as the energy of atoms in motion, or the kinetic energy of those atoms. Some called it a mode of motion, same thing, the motion suggests KE. To increase KE, you have to add energy to atoms and the only energy that fits such a description is heat, aka thermal energy. If you add heat, the KE increases and if you remove it, the KE decreases.
Therefore heat never leaves the planet as heat, nor does heat leave the Sun as heat. First, the heat has to be converted to EM, and EM leaves either surface as radiation, which is not heat.
With regard to surface radiation, heat is dissipated the moment radiation leaves the surface. So, the notion of trapping heat is nonsense since their is none to trap when IR is trapped by trace gases. Those gases can create new heat but it has nothing to do with surface heat.
There is an important mechanism at play that is ignored by alarmists. Heat is removed from the surface by conduction and transported into the atmosphere via convection. As the heated air rises, it loses heat naturally as it expands into ever-thinner air above.
Shula has proved that mechanism is 260 times better at removing heat than radiation. Not only that, it dissipates the heat as it goes higher.
> Radiant Heat Transfer Gas
TS shows once again that he should stick to creative writing:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=%22Radiant+Heat+Transfer+Gas%22
Tim S
The infrared emitted by the surface that is abxorbed by CO2 becomes internal energy of the CO2 molecule, then almost all of the time that internal energy then becomes kinetic energy of an N2 or O2 molecule so it is no longer heat.
It might become heat again but for now it is trapped.
Brainless bobby,
You wrote –
“The infrared emitted by the surface that is abxorbed by CO2 becomes internal energy of the CO2 molecule, then almost all of the time that internal energy then becomes kinetic energy of an N2 or O2 molecule so it is no longer heat.”
You must have made that up, all by yourself. Nobody else would write that collection of word salad with a straight face.
Do you understand what you write, or do you just cobble together random stuff, hoping others will think you are intelligent?
[snicker]
Willard wrote –
“TS shows once again that he should stick to creative writing:”, linking to the usual irrelevant nonsense.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson,
You have not taken advanced courses in Thermodynamics, so it all looks like word salad to you, indistinguishable from magic.
You are not advanced enough to take part in this discussion.
“Heat is not trapped.”
Well..if we have a heated system, and then insulation is added to it, it will warm.
One could say some heat has been trapped.
An oven that is heated with the door open, when the door is closed, the oven warms.
One could say some heat has been trapped.
The Ignorati here always forget that the Earth’s surface is a heated system. Add insulating gases to the atmosphere, and it will warm.
One could say some heat has been trapped.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Swenson wrote:
“ A,
… to use forcings is either a f00l (ignorant) or a fraud (knows he is f00ling others)”
The Ballad of Swenson
There once was a man who’d
had no sleep
he’d been up 6 days on
m3themphetamine
the voice grew loud
through the blinds he’d
creep
paranoia is starting to grow
soon will the shadow men
come
probably while he’s digging
through the carpet for
crumbs
one day when the tw3akin is
done
off to bed he’ll go
the next day he will start
once more
knowing that another batsh1t
bender’s in store
you’ll find him in a window
looking for drones
they’re all after him you
know
soon will the shadow men
come
probably while he’s digging
through the carpet for
crumbs
one day when the tw3akin is
done
off to bed he’ll go
one day he’d finally had
enough
so he flushed what he had
left of the stuff
he no longer could stand to
live like that
and started walking down
recovery road
now no shadow men will
come
and he’ll never have to dig
through the carpet for
crumbs
finally the tw3akin is done
off to bed he goes
A,
That’s all well and good, but why are you still refusing to describe the GHE?
What was its role in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling?
Are you an evasive fool, or an evasive fraud?
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Don’t quit your day job to earn a living writing poetry.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about what you find all well and good.
Long live and prosper.
“Nobody cares about what you find all well and good.
Long live and prosper.”
Does he really? That’s nice.
Willard, please stop trolling.
the next day he will start
once more
knowing that another batsh1t
bender’s in store
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Just in case anybody missed the Elliott Bignell “GHE description” illusion, here’s what he wrote earlier –
“Definition of the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere,”
Ta-da! A “definition” magically becomes a “description” later on!
“So what’s the difference?”, I hear you ask? Well, a description of a scientific effect is specific enough to ensure that a testable hypothesis can be composed to explain the phenomenon, which has not been documented before.
Thermometers showing increased temperatures is not a new phenomenon.
What else do fanatical GHE cultists have? Nothing, that’s what! That’s why they refuse to describe the “greenhouse effect” – it doesn’t exist, and the fools or frauds who promote it, know that it doesn’t exist!
That’s why all they can do is shout “The GHE is heating the planet!”, and “Stop climate change!”, and all the rest of the nonsense they spout.
All good fun, I suppose. Gives the nutters something to do.
You have to smile sometimes.
Elliott Bignell commented –
“‘Slower cooling is not warming.’
Yes, it is.”
No it’s not, idiot. Cooling is cooling – decreased temperature.
Warming is warming – increased temperature.
Or…decreased temperature means less heat and increased temperature means more heat. Add heat, something warms, remove heat, something cools.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you smile sometimes.
Cheers.
Good to know.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Good to know.
Willard, please stop trolling.
No its not, idiot.
Yes, it is, you sedimentary coprolite. If the Earth cools overnight and the magnitude of that cooling becomes less over time, the result is an Earth that is warmer in the mornings.
This is really simple stuff.
“If the Earth cools overnight and the magnitude of that cooling becomes less over time, the result is an Earth that is warmer in the mornings.”
Warmer than what? No, cooling is a decrease in temperature – as in “The surface cools at night”, or “The surface cools during winter”. As in “The Earth is cooler now than it was four and a half billion years ago.”
Slow cooling is not warming, you idiot. It’s cooling – decreased temperature.
The Earth loses energy at about 44 TW or so. Very slow cooling -nor warming.
Maybe you are ignorant – or thick.
If the atmosphere cools overnight from 20C to 10C in year x, then in year y it cools from 20C to 11C then the net result is a warming of 1C. As I said, this is really simply stuff.
Elliott,
If the atmosphere cools, it cools.
The temperature drops. It doesnt warm – that requires an increase in temperature.
If one year the temperature drops by 10 C, and the next year it drops by 11 C, after 2 years it has dropped by 11 C. No warming to be seen.
Your level of cultist stupidity remains the same in either case.
Are you still refusing to describe the GHE in any way that reflects reality? Or maybe you just define the GHE as having nonsensical plane5 warming properties?
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
Elliot, please stop trolling.
If the atmosphere cools overnight from 20C to 10C in year x, then in year y it cools from 20C to 11C then the net result is a warming from 10C to 11C. As I said, this is really simply stuff.
Fraudster Swenson shamelessly tries to fake his opponents arguments”
“then in year y it cools from 20C TO 11C”
becomes
” the next year it drops BY 11 C”
He obviously realizes he cannot win against his opponents actual arguments.
Swenson,
The Sun heats the Earth by 170,000 terawatts.
Elliott, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
elliott…”The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun”.
***
Whereas the atmosphere and oceans do trap heat produced in the atmosphere and oceans when atoms/molecules convert EM from the Sun to heat, it has nothing to do with a greenhouse or a greenhouse effect. A real greenhouse warms because the glass traps heated physical air molecules but here is no such mechanism for trapping heat as molecules in the atmosphere.
Alarmists are scurrying to distance themselves from the real meaning of the GHE. The original version claimed that short wave solar enters through the glass and heats the infrastructure, soil and plants, and they emit infrared. However, the glass traps infrared since it won’t pass through it. Somehow, in a fit of pseudo-scientific logic, that trapped IR somehow heated the greenhouse air.
No one has ever explained how trapped IR can warm the air in a greenhouse. The theory is an anachronism dating back to Tyndall’s experiment in which he discovered the ability of certain atoms and molecules to absorb/emit IR. However, even Tyndall tought any atmospheric warming would be minimal.
When R. W. Wood in 1909, an expert on gases, saw the current explanation for greenhouse warming, he doubted it. He could not see how a trace gas could possibly warm a real greenhouse. He did an experiment that disproved the theory, concluding the heated air was a result of a lack of convection.
Wood’s conclusion came 4 years before Bohr discovered the real relationship between heat and IR. He discovered that electrons in atoms absorbed and emitted EM (including IR) in hydrogen according to an orbital relationship between electrons and the atomic nucleus. The relationship involved an increase and decrease in the orbital energy levels where the KE represented heat over an entire mass.
As electrons absorb and emit EM, the mass increase and decreases in temperature. Therefore, as atoms/molecules making up the infrastructure, soil, and plants emit IR, and it is blocked by the glass, it cannot be recycled to increase temperature. Reason…when the IR was emitted originally, the surfaces cooled, and re-circulating IR, at best, could only return part of the lost heat.
Remember, perpetual motion cannot work due to losses.
There are people in this blog who think IR is magically produced in a black box in a molecule, via vibration, but they don’t get it that the vibration occurs in electron bonding orbitals and that the vibration is due to an unbalanced condition caused by those electrons emitting and absorbing IR.
> the atmosphere and oceans do trap heat
There’s at least one crank who argues that this is impossible, for otherwise we wouldn’t be building greenhouses…
I said the atmosphere traps heat, not GHGs. It traps heat by holding it in air molecules till the air rises and naturally dissipates the heat.
> I said the atmosphere traps heat, not GHGs.
Mr. Asshat might as well argue that an apple contains vitamins, not its peel.
“Mr. Asshat might as well argue that an apple contains vitamins, not its peel.”
You might as well argue that you are not a complete idiot.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your white knighting.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
elliott…”human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and contributing to global warming. This enhanced greenhouse effect is known as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.
***
It is claimed the CO2 level pre-Industrial was 270 ppmv. Now it is claimed to be around 400 ppmv. The 400 figure becomes 0.000400 which translates to 0.04%. Therefore the 270 ppmv becomes 0.000270, hence 0.027%. Say 0.03% for arguments sake.
Could you kindly explain how a rise of 0.01% in 265 years translates to catastrophic global warming? Where’s the science that translates a 0.01% rise in the CO2 level to any significant warming? The Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation calculate a warming of about 0.06C out of the claimed 1C warming since then.
Could you kindly explain how a rise of 0.01% in 265 years
CO2 concentration (not CO2e) on 7. June was 426ppm. An increase from 270 to 426 is an increase of 58%.
I thought you were claiming to be an engineer.
EB,
What has CO2 concentration to do with anything except CO2 concentration?
Are you quite mad? Obsessed with carbon dioxide?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your silly leading questions.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Elliott,
“Slower cooling is not warming.
Yes, it is.”
I see. So you believe the polar ice cap warms the ocean do you?
phil…when you listen to alarmists it’s like watching a Star Trek episode.
So you believe the polar ice cap warms the ocean do you?
Brief introduction to logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Nice attempt to dodge.
Ice is a great insulator. The polar ice cap prevents almost all heat from leaving the ocean beneath it.
Following your logic? that Slower cooling isbwarming, the icecap therefore must be treat at warming the ocean lol
EB,
Maybe you could link to logic which says that slow cooling is warming?
Or logic that describes a mythical GHE?
Are you really as stupid as you appear?
[derisive snorting]
Nobody cares about your maybes, Mike Flynn.
Slow cooling is warming?
Cooling means dissipation of heat from a heated object. If that is slowed, then indeed warming can be the result.
Think: computer processor failing when the fan stops working.
The Earth is a heated object.
” So you believe the polar ice cap warms the ocean do you? ”
Typical contrarian message lacking any sense.
So you think that in the graph below
https://tinyurl.com/CONUS-Tmin-Tmax-79-23
since the blue line indicates less cooling at night, only the red line can indicate warming, right?
Oh Noes…
Binding,
“Typical contrarian message lacking any sense.”
Just the same amount of sense as the GHE nonsense, see below.
Nate,
“The Earth is a heated object”
Indeed, and the polar ice cap slows the cooling of the heated ocean.
Following ‘ghe’ logic , if the ice cap wasn’t there, the ocean would be colder ergo the ice cap ‘warms’ the ocean.
Ludicrous I know, but that’s the GHE for you
I see, PhilJ
You aren’t able to escape out of your superficial, polemical, egomaniacal blah blah, just like do here all ‘specialists’ who claim that there is no lunar spin.
“Indeed, and the polar ice cap slows the cooling of the heated ocean.”
Where are you going with this?
In any case not much solar heating going on beneath polar ice. And melting ice cools the water.
bob d…”The infrared emitted by the surface that is abxorbed by CO2 becomes internal energy of the CO2 molecule, then almost all of the time that internal energy then becomes kinetic energy of an N2 or O2 molecule so it is no longer heat.
It might become heat again but for now it is trapped”.
***
The internal energy to which you refer, according to Clausius, is part work and part heat. Therefore, 7% of the radiation absorbed by CO2 becomes heat. However, the process of passing that heat to the 99% of air that is N2 and O2 is called heat diffusion and the associated equation tells us that CO2 at 0.04% can only warm the N2/O2 by about 0.06C for every 1C the N2/O2 increases. And that is for a doubling of CO2.
It’s OK to call internal energy by its proper constituents, heat and work. When you add heat to a gas, part of it raises the temperature of the gas and part causes the molecules to vibrate harder.
Gordon,
Try 20th century physics.
“Its OK to call internal energy by its proper constituents, heat and work. When you add heat to a gas, part of it raises the temperature of the gas and part causes the molecules to vibrate harder.”
That’s what I was talking about, the work done on the CO2 molecule by radiation causes the molecule to vibrate like a spring.
Remember the CO2 molecule can abxorb again after it has transferred that internal energy to the other gases in the atmosphere.
Bob, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you made another mistake. How do you define a heat trap? You seem to be suggesting that the Kinetic Theory of Gases prevents special molecules from trapping heat to themselves, but then you claim it actually is a trap. Which is it?
The larger question on the heat trap concept is the action of back radiation. If back radiation is the mechanism of surface warming, then it cannot by definition be a trap because it is omnidirectional. Do you see the problem with the word trap?
Hey TSman, riddle me this –
Would whales need to trap all the fish in the sea to say that they really do trap-feeding?
Tim,
You have to look at what happens to a CO2 molecule after it absorbed a photon.
It either passes the energy off to other molecules as kinetic energy, which is no longer heat, so that’s what I mean by trap.
I know that’s a trigger for denialist’s who think heat can’t be trapped.
And you can look at what happens to a CO2 molecule in the ground state, it can be excited either by absorbing a photon, or by colliding with another molecule.
Tim S,
You are making mistakes.
“If back radiation is the mechanism of surface warming, then it cannot by definition be a trap because it is omnidirectional. Do you see the problem with the word trap?”
Most don’t like the idea of back radiation being the mechanism of surface warming. Back radiation is not the way of the trap, trapping occurs when CO2 transfers the energy to other gas molecules and the stray atoms in the atmosphere.
Because CO2 can do two things when it’s in an excited state.
1 is remit the radiation, and 2 is transfer the energy to other molecules by collision.
The vast majority of the time it does the second, transfers the energy by collision, better than 99% based on thermalization research by deniers.
Previously discussed on this site.
Okay Bob, so now your position is that the trap exists because back radiation is not real. I have news for you. Radiant heat transfer gases can also emit. That is the source of the back radiation. Most of those who are following the science would concede that the net effect of back radiation is to pass the energy toward outer space where it finally defeats any concept of a trap. A long sequence of transfers (from the radiant heat transfer gases) does lead to complexity and additional activity, but it is not a trap.
Do you care to try again?
Bob, I think you are confusing equilibrium as a mechanism. The Kinetic Theory of Gases says that average kinetic energy (not a weighted average) of all neighbors will be the same. It is not a transfer mechanism, but rather a dynamic state of equilibrium. The radiant heat transfer mechanism used by the climate modelers is between layers in the atmosphere because that is the easiest way to approximate the molecule to molecule transfer of radiant energy.
If it is good enough for the climate modelers, you might consider accepting it as real.
Tim S,
I did not say back radiation was not real, it’s just not the real greenhouse effect.
To be clear, two things can happen when CO2 absorbs an infrared photon, one is that it re-emits a photon, the other is that it transfers energy to other molecules and atoms in the atmosphere.
“I have news for you. Radiant heat transfer gases can also emit. That is the source of the back radiation.”
What is Kirchoff’s law, Alex? You think I didn’t know that. I also said that here.
[Bob] “1 is remit the radiation, and 2 is transfer the energy to other molecules by collision.”
Yes they can emit, but the question is where do they get to the excited states so they can emit?
Some of the energy to emit comes from collisions with the other gases in the atmosphere.
Here is another one of your mistakes.
“Most of those who are following the science would concede that the net effect of back radiation is to pass the energy toward outer space where it finally defeats any concept of a trap.”
No, they would say most of the back radiation reaches the surface instead of escaping to space. Most of the CO2 radiation that escapes to space is emitted high in the atmosphere.
I did make a mistake in failing to complete a sentence here.
[Bob]”It either passes the energy off to other molecules as kinetic energy, which is no longer heat, so thats what I mean by trap.”
I forgot to add the or it can emit the radiation.
Bob, I am beginning to like you. You have effectively stated that the climate models are wrong. Good work!
Tim S,
No shit, the models are all wrong, but the ones I have looked at in published sources that I would trust, are less than 1% inaccurate with respect to predicting average global temperature.
Besides all that, I didn’t put any numbers to my description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect, so you can’t compare it to the output of models.
Except to say more greenhouse gases will make the surface warmer.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Okay, here’s trying to post the whole thing. For the record, this is the description of the GHE that anyone can get in seconds from the Googol AI. Its presence here serves to show that those that claim that the GHE cannot be or is not described are liars. For this reason, I have no interest in their anti-scientific opinions about its content and will generally not respond to them.
Definition of the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.
How it Works
Absorbtion: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor [sic], absorb some of this radiation.
Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.
Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.
Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.
Importance of the Greenhouse Effect
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life. The natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining a stable climate, allowing life to flourish on our planet.
Human Impact
However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and contributing to global warming. This enhanced greenhouse effect is known as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.
Key Takeaway
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun. While it is essential for life, human activities have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming.
Elliot,
“Definition of the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet”
I can understand why you still refuse to describe the greenhouse effect, but I guess that avoiding a description by providing a definition is about par for a GHE cultist.
Unfortunately, defining the GHE as a natural process which warms a planet, begs the question “Which planet are you talking about?”
Obviously not the Earth which has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight.
Maybe a fantasy planet, which you have just defined into existence?
Can you find A GHE description which reflects reality – four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, and a surface that cools each night after sunset? A faint hope, I know, but reality has a habit of displacing fantasy – for rational people anyway.
If you can’t or won’t describe a real GHE, I understand – you are a fanatical GHE cultist who lives in a fantasy world.
Carry on.
Elliot continues to avoid reality:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672006
Just like the rest of his cult.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672099
Why have you fled?
Silly willy swallows everything his idol, Folkerts, spews. So now silly willy believes he’s really got me!
Folkerts attempts to respond to “…show how CO2’s 15μ photon can raise the temperature of Earth’s 288K surface”, here —
“It’s pretty simple. Some photons get absorbed by the ground and it warms up. Some more photons get absorbed by the ground and it warms up more.”
What silly willy’s idol fails to understand is not all photons get absorbed. And even if some photons are absorbed, that does not always result in a higher temperature. That’s why ice cubes can not boil water.
But, silly willy’s idol believes ice cubes can boil water. He’s even provided his bogus equation that supports his false belief! It’s a great example of cult anti-science.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Do you really think nobody would notice that you switched from “cannot” to “does not always”?
This is WAY over your head, silly willy.
C02’s 15μ photons “cannot” raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
Low energy photons “do not always” result in higher temperatures.
It’s specific case vs. general case.
Get a responsible adult to help you.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Have you noticed that you are treating your specific case as a general one, and vice versa?
You really should stick to armwaving empirically false claims. Your lack of logic is there for everyone to see.
Silly willy wasn’t able to get a responsible adult to help him.
I can tell….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
If you generally commented on this blog under a sock puppet, would you say that you CANNOT try to bypass moderation using sock puppets?
Probably the reason silly willy never grew up is because he’s not around any responsible adults.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
If you presume I’m wrong, why did you need to make your special pleading explicit here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672287
Silly sock puppet!
“Thats why ice cubes can not boil water.”
Nope! That’s not why.
“But, silly willys idol believes ice cubes can boil water.”
Nope. Ice cubes can’t boil water.
“Hes even provided his bogus equation that supports his false belief!”
Nope! No equation I have presented says ice can boil water.
“Reality” is that I have never claimed any of these things. It would be fascinating to hear you explain where you think I said or wrote equations saying hte flux from ice (alone) can boil water.
Silly willy provides us an example of what happens when kids have no responsible adults raising them. When dad is in prison and mom is a crack ho, the kid only has two futures — either become a criminal or a pervert.
Silly willy is too much of a coward to go criminal….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Don’t you have DDOS attacks to help prevent somewhere, instead of creating a conceptual one with your bunch of cranks?
“Definition of the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.”
What about the other greenhouse effect, or one call them “warming effects”
It’s said that our cold ocean absorbs more than 80% of all global warming.
Now, could agree, that if ocean is warmed, the heat is not lost?
Can agree that if so how our ocean which averages about 3.5 C, and was warmed over time by .5 C {1 or 2 C} would increase global average air temperature.
Or within our 33.9 million year Ice Age, our ocean average temperature was 5 C and warmer. And when ocean was warmer, Earth global air temperature was higher than it is now.
Or said differently, if our ocean had average temperature of 5 C, it wouldn’t any polar sea ice during the summer, and it might not have any polar sea ice in the winter.
And Canada, Europe, and Russia would be much warmer during the winter.
And we would have open sea routes thru thru the arctic.
But also sea level would rise quite bit due to oceanic heat expansion.
Oops, not 80 but more than 90%:
“About ninety percent of global warming is occurring in the ocean. Ninety percent of global warming is occurring in the ocean, causing the water’s internal heat to increase since modern record keeping began in 1955, as shown in the upper chart.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-warming/?intent=121
Does anyone see the obvious contradiction in this absurd statement. The heat is trapped in the atmosphere and it is also “re-emitted in all directions”. Which is it? Is it trapped or re-emitted?
And so our beloved TS is trying to replace Puffman as our Sphinx.
Who will win by producing the silliest riddle of the thread?
Tune in next week for another episode of Climateball!
The very small fraction is re-emitted, the vast majority is transferred to N2, O2, and the rest of the non IR active molecules in the atmosphere.
What is this small fraction? It might be easier to admit that the term “heat trapping gases” is used to confuse the public rather than convey scientific information.
No, “heat trapping gases” is actually used for the benefit of the lay public. You know they’d never understand αbsorpτion and extinction coefficients and the like, no?
Tim S. 1:33pm, there is no contradiction.
In the winter with 0F measured by thermometer outside & windy, a properly insulated, closed window house (painted green on the outside) can trap heat at a set temperature of 72F even though its radiation is also “emitted in all directions”.
You can call that trapped heat the green house effect of 72F if you wish as it will last until the forcing changes or the windows are opened.
Btw, Tim S., cold can also be trapped in the summer same way with A/C at a set point lower that OAT. A negative green house effect even though the green house is radiating in all directions.
Some idiot calling himself Ball4 wrote –
“Btw, Tim S., cold can also be trapped in the summer same way with A/C at a set point lower that OAT. A negative green house effect even though the green house is radiating in all directions.”
Cold can be trapped? News to me – and everybody else who accepts that cold rays only exist in fantasy worlds.
Tim S,
“What is this small fraction? It might be easier to admit that the term heat trapping gases is used to confuse the public rather than convey scientific information.”
You will find that answer in here
https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/satco2paper.pdf
TimS,
You wrote –
“Does anyone see the obvious contradiction in this absurd statement. The heat is trapped in the atmosphere and it is also re-emitted in all directions. Which is it? Is it trapped or re-emitted?”
Both, of course. That’s the miracle of the GHE. The atmosphere re-emits radiation towards the hotter surface where it is absorbed, making the surface hotter by being trapped. The atmosphere which emits energy does not cool as a result, because it has an inexhaustible reservoir of trapped heat. Now the hotter surface re-emits radiation which is is absorbed and trapped by the atmosphere (being colder) but does not cool, because it also has an inexhaustible reservoir of trapped heat. So the atmosphere heats the surface, and the surface heats the atmosphere, with neither becoming colder, due to the conservation of energy, otherwise known as the energy balance.
The obvious outcome of this process is that both the surface and atmosphere will continue heating until the Earth finally disintegrates in a coruscating display of amazing proportions. No doubt accompanied by the swelling strains of a heavenly choir.
And if anyone believes that, they are completely crazy. I await a resident crazy like Willard to claim that I have described the GHE.
For people wasting so much time ‘debating’ on a site dedicated to scientific information, there sure are a lot of folks who have seemingly never heard of the concept of ‘equilibrium”
I’m getting bored with all the white noise again now. I think I’ve done my public service by making an easily-accessible description of the GHE available, thus showing that les nulls are lying. As I mostly use Chromium-based browsers, I will perhaps try to build a publically-available plugin for Chromium, Brave and cetera to screen out contributions by Svensdottir and their ilk. It would obviously be preferable if they could be blocked at source, but perhaps that will be added to the blog later.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Elliott,
Why do you allow yourself to become bored? Have you no control over your emotions?
Grow a backbone, laddie.
[laughing at pretentious dimwit]
Elliot, maybe it’s not boredom? Maybe it’s frustration?
Maybe you’re frustrated because your cult beliefs all collapse with the weight of reality?
Do you understand that not all infrared is absorbed?
Do you understand that even if some infrared were absorbed, it would not raise temperature?
For example, do you understand that ice cubes can NOT boil water?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody needs to grow anything.
You are a silly crank who is being silly.
Thanks for that.
Nice work Elliott. You have taken a political statement generated by AI and pushed it out as a scientific conclusion. Then you claim that any rational assessment of that statement must be “white noise” to which you are above responding because you are a better person.
Congratulations!
Tim S,
I love AI.
Question –
“So the Earth actually cools, and the greenhouse effect doesnt prevent it, is that it?
ChatGPT
“Yes, thats correct. The Earth does undergo cooling processes despite the presence of the greenhouse effect.”
The effect with no effect.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your love for AI, even less so that they care about our pompous twat’s ridicule.
You have taken a political statement generated by AI and pushed it out as a scientific conclusion.
I’ve taken a description that anyone can find in seconds and used it to prove that those who claim there is no such description are liars. You have predictably turned around and pretended that a simple description of objective reality is “political”. Denialism 101.
And I am a better person. It would be a shameful thing were I not.
Yes, thats correct. The Earth does undergo cooling processes despite the presence of the greenhouse effect.
An object can undergo cycles of warming and cooling processes while still warming overall. Anyone with even the most rudimentary reasoning capabilities could have worked this out without having to be told.
You’ve done your denialist thing and posed questions that are slanted to get the answer you want to hear. No amount of artificial intelligence can help you if you deliberately set out to mislead yourself in this manner. Nor is there any way artificially to compensate for your innate deficit.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
I think you can all see why anyone with a normal mind and a technical bent would grow bored.
If you choose to be bored, good for you.
If your idiot companions choose to be bored, good for them.
Why do you think anybody has a responsibility to keep the intellectually afflicted amused?
[chortle]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your silly if-by-whiskeys.
Good to know. Thanks.
Elliott Bignell:
There are many serious readers here who do appreciate nuanced well sourced discussions. Unfortunately the blog is also targeted by various categories of tro11s.
Wikipedia defines a “tro11” as: “…someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
Tro11s exploit the natural human instinct of self-defense.
When the targets of abuse by tro11s respond they do three things.
1/ They reiterate tro11 dribble.
2/ They legitimize a vacuous ideology as valid for discussion.
3/ They confirm to the tro11s that their targets are listening to them and are affected by what they read, which reinforces the tro11s’ behavior.
https://tinyurl.com/Dark-Tetrad
Tro11s exploit the natural human instinct of self-defense.
Yes, and that’s why I think it important not to feed the little grumbles*. Making them invisible to ourselves with a plugin would be a good start. Better yet would be if the site could hide our own contributions from them with a block so that they cannot respond. Then the blog might not be such a blizzard of methane snow.
*Cockney rhyming slang. “Grumble and grunt”.
Or you could start your own blog, and ban anyone who disagrees with you!
Or stop commenting here. Or dont respond to comments you don’t like.
Or demand that the blog operator dance to your discordant cacophony.
And so on. Or you could accept the reality that not everybody will agree with you. Of course, fanatical GHE cultists like yourselves believe that they are the fount of all knowledge about everything. “Experiments?”, they say, “We don’t need no stinkin’ experiments!”. They agree that slow cooling is really heating, that the Earth alternately gets hotter and colder for no particular reasons, and that climate controls weather!
Of course, a cunning cultist will refuse to say anything definite at all – even to describe the mythical GHE! Who can possibly find fault with what is not said?
As Richard Feynman wrote –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” He agrees with me, must be a smart fellow.
He also wrote that one cannot prove a vague theory wrong. This is because vague theories lead to vague or indefinite consequences. Unfortunately, GHE cultists refuse to describe the GHE in any way which could lead to a testable hypothesis, let alone a theory!
What a pack of dills!
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your Dick quotes.
Nice to know.
Typical alarmist. Suppress any opinion or thought that disagrees with you.
One reason I favour Roy’s blog is the wide range of expression. I tried Judith Curry’s site and I like Judith but the atmosphere is stifling. Judith tends to be dogmatic and tends to steer the conversations.
There is little more boring than listening to science students and theorists bickering over inane theories. When you cannot challenge a theory or you need to be a Ph.D. to comment, what’s the point?
> I tried Judith Currys site and I like Judith but the atmosphere is stifling.
Mr. Asshat tried:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672408
He tried really hard.
Suppress any opinion or thought that disagrees with you.
The people I have in mind aren’t posting anything so coherent as an opinion. I’m talking about white noise.
Little Willy, Elliott, please stop trolling.
Re tro11ing as a hobby for retirees.
“I classify this as a purely mental pursuit since you dont need to leave your chair nor genuinely interact with other humans. This is an ideal pastime for crusty retirees who love arguing, belittling their opponents, resorting to sarcasm, outright lying, anonymously libelling public figures, joking and, in the end, wishing all concerned a happy new year! I indulged in this pastime activity for a few years and consider myself an expert. But, be warned, it takes time to develop the right persona(s) and thick skin to participate in this blood sport. Dont take it too seriously and you can have a lot of (admittedly, trivial) fun.”
P, please stop trolling.
Stick to irrelevant psychobabble while you upgrade your trolling skills.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares where you can shove your stick.
Glad to hear it.
“Glad to hear it.“
I have a fan-based echo chamber.
Arkady echoed “Glad to hear it.”
Thank you. My fan base grows, but I remain as humble and unassuming as ever.
[chortling at wannabe troll]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your fan base.
OK, professor poo.
The First Conclusions
Conclusions:
1). We have written the theoretically exact the planet mean surface temperature equation as a very much reliable theoretical formula:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) (3)
The theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean) are almost identical with the measured by satellites (Tsat.mean).
2). We shall now compare the theoretically calculated Earth’s (without-atmosphere) the average surface temperature (Tmean) with the satellite measured one, the (Tsat), because we are very much interested to estimate the magnitude of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Planet……Te…..Te.correct….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….440 K…..364 K……325,83 K….340 K
Earth……255 K…..210 K……287,74 K….288 K
Moon……270,4 K….224 K……223,35 Κ….220 Κ
Mars…….210 K…..174 K……213,11 K….210 K
The planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere.
When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earth’s mean surface temperature as 287,74K, which is very much close to the satellite measured 288K.
3). Thus for the planet Earth the 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.”
Christos, just go ahead adjust your Φ slightly to find your calculation becomes exactly equal to measured.
With the new Φ’ find calculated 288K = measured 288K for Earth.
Then do the Φ adjustment for each case mentioned at 8:25 am, and all your calculations will become exact. There really is no need to ever differ your calculations from measurement even a small amount with your methodology.
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
“Then do the Φ adjustment for each case mentioned at 8:25 am, and all your calculations will become exact. There really is no need to ever differ your calculations from measurement even a small amount with your methodology.”
Ball4, what you asking is impossible.
Now, please comment on scientific paradox.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-upper-tropospheric-temperatures-corroborate-lt-temperature-trends/#comment-1672279
“Ball4, what you asking is impossible.”
Tmean = [ Φ’ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴ (K) = 288K calculated for Earth = 288K measured for Earth. Exact.
So possible (if the copy and paste works).
If Earth’s surface had uniform temperature Tunif =288K, then Earth’s surface blackbody emission temperature would have been
~398 W/m^2.”
There is no paradox, Earth’s L&O surface emission is radiometer measured ~398 W/m^2. Earth’s system emission from space is radiometer measured ~240 W/m^2 you can find in published reports from the 1970’s after NIMBUS’ radiometer measurements were analyzed.
So the difference (surface borne radiometer under the atm. at ~1bar and satellite borne radiometer above 99.99% of the atm.) in measured planetary brightness temperature is ~33K.
Christos continues: “There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.”
Christos’ calculations are simply off by about 33K because Christos does not appropriately consider the IR opacity of Earth’s atm. as explained in beginning meteorology college level texts. Christos is unfortunately not a meteorologist.
Ball4, what you asking is impossible.
Φ =0,47 for the smooth surface planets and moons, namely:
Mercury, Earth, Moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede.
Φ =1 for the heavy cratered (rough surface) planets and moons.
–
–
Ok, I see now what you mean. You are saying that every separate planet and moon should have its own unique value of ” Φ ” , right?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Right, and each unique planetary Φ’ with atm. can be fairly easy (after accomplishing study in beginning meteorology) to back calculate from measured satellite space borne radiometer data (where it exists) to be exact.
Your planetary atm. science problem, Christos, is your methodology can not explain what happens to planetary near surface median atm. temperature due to changing atm. IR opacity of planets because planetary median atm. IR opacity is completely ignored in your calculation for Tmean.
Yes, Φ and Φ’ are 1 (fall out of the Tmean eqn.) for celestial objects with no atm. thus having nil atm. IR opacity.
Thank you, Ball4.
Time to go, it is 2:20 AM in Athens, Greece.
BTW, what is your AM now?
Good night.
Ball4,
“Yes, Φ and Φ are 1 (fall out of the Tmean eqn.) for celestial objects with no atm. thus having nil atm. IR opacity.”
–
But there are many planets and moons with Φ =1. The Tmean eqn. is doing very well for them.
Example:
9. Titans (Saturns satellite) Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.titan
So = 1.362 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Titans albedo: atitan = 0,22
1/R = 1/9,5826 = 1/91,826 = 0,010890
Titans sidereal rotation period is 15,9 days
Titan does N = 1/15,9 rotations per day (synchronous rotation)
Titan is a rocky planet, it has atmosphere of 95% N2 and 5% CH4, but very opaque. Titans atmosphere is 8 times larger with respect to square meter planets surface compared to Earth, so we consider Titan a gaseous planet and Titans surface irradiation accepting factor Φtitan = 1.
Titan can be considered as a liquid methane ocean planet,
Cp.methane = 0,4980 cal/gr*oC
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal it is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, a Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Titan’s Without-Atmosphere mean surface temperature equation Tmean.titan is
Tmean.titan = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R) (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.titan = { 1*(1-0,22)*1.362 W/m *0.010890*[150 *(1/15,945)*0,4980]∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ }∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.titan = 93,10 K
Tsat.mean.titan = 93,7 K (- 179,5 oC)
Titan has an atmosphere of 95% N2 nitrogen plus 5% of greenhouse gas methane CH4. Titan has a minor greenhouse effect phenomenon. This phenomenon is so insignificant that it hasn’t appeared in calculations.
Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)
“The atmosphere of Titan is largely nitrogen; minor components lead to the formation of methane and ethane clouds and heavy organonitrogen haze. The climateincluding wind and raincreates surface features similar to those of Earth, such as dunes, rivers, lakes, seas (probably of liquid methane and ethane), and deltas, and is dominated by seasonal weather patterns as on Earth. With its liquids (both surface and subsurface) and robust nitrogen atmosphere, Titan’s methane cycle bears a striking similarity to Earth’s water cycle, albeit at the much lower temperature of about 94 K (−179 C; −290 F).”
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, your methodology of ignoring the atm. IR opacity with Φ=1 does work for celestial objects with nil atmospheres.
Ball4,
“Christos, your methodology of ignoring the atm. IR opacity with Φ=1 does work for celestial objects with nil atmospheres.”
–
Yes it works.
Please look at photos of Earth and of Titan. When comparing those photos you distiguish Titan reflects diffusely only, because its atmosphere is full of tiny particles which work like hase.
Earth’s photo shows Earth surface – the oceans and lands. Earth exibits a strong specular reflection.
Albedo on Titan and Albedo on Earth were measured the same way. They have measured the diffuse reflection in both cases.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ball4, Also I have read in Wikipedia (Europa moon) it is the smoothest object in solar system, thus Φ =0,47.
(Callisto moon) is the most cratered object in solar system,
thus Φ =1.
(Io moon) Io has more than 450 operating vulcanos, thus Φ =1.
The farest from sun the celestial bodies, because of very low temperatures are mostly covered with old snow and ice. Their surface is full of cracks and pores, so for them Φ =1.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos – How did you manage to add the Greek letters? I have noticed others trying to render “mu” by using the HTML codes, but the semicolon gets stripped out by the blog.
Christos – How did you manage to add the Greek letters?
Thank you for asking, Elliot.
Well, since I am in Greece, I have the privilege to use an English-Greek claviature.
–
Here it is what you can do.
At the bottom of display there is the language (Eng, Gr etc) You install the Greek language on your claviature, and most of Eanglish letters appear there in Greek.
Example, push the m or s or d buttons – there will appear the respective μ ορ σ ορ δ .
I also give you a sample of all Greek letters:
Α α , Β β , Γ γ , Δ δ , Ε ε, Ζ ζ ,
Η η , Θ θ , Ι ι , Κ κ, Λ λ , Μ μ , Ν ν ,
Ξ ξ , Ο ο , Π π , Ρ ρ, Σ σ , Τ τ , Υ υ ,
Φ φ , Χ χ , Ψ ψ , Ω ω ….
Efharisto. I managed to do it myself below, thanks. Useful for units!
You welcome.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Nine out of 10 of Death Valleys hottest summers have been in the past ten years. Death Valley, California, already the hottest place on the planet, is now in the middle of the heat dome, making it an interesting place to look at the implications of such high temperatures so early in the year.
https://www.vox.com/climate/354222/death-valley-extreme-heat-record-climate-change
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Elliot believes he described the GHE. What he actually did was regurgitate the cult’s nonsense — confusing flux, energy and heat, using an imaginary sphere, believing infrared is always heat, believing flux simply adds, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.
The REAL science is actually easy. It only requires an understanding of the basic physics, like heat, flux, photon absorp.tion, temperature, and so forth. It isn’t that hard to grasp. I like to say “If I can understand it, anyone can understand it”. But, I’ve been shown that is wrong, based on the brain-dead cultists here, who are unable to understand even the basics..
So, for the responsible adults, here’s an easy-to-understand explanation of “temperature”:
A bucket of water has a temperature. Humans invented a way to measure that temperature. A simple mercury thermometer is placed in the water. The molecules in the water have kinetic energy — they are moving. As the molecules strike the glass tube of the thermometer, their energy gets transferred to the glass and then to the mercury. If the water is hot, the water molecules cause the mercury molecules to become more active, causing the mercury to expand, causing its level in the tube to rise. We calibrate the tube for whatever temperature scale we prefer — Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin (Absolute), Rankine, or other.
Simple.
The temperature of the water becomes the temperature of the mercury. We say the temperature is due to the average kinetic energy of the molecules. If no new thermal energy is added to the water, or lost, the temperature remains constant, and the thermometer reads the same temperature.
If a heater raises the water temperature, the thermometer reads higher.
If ice is added to the water, its temperature drops. The average kinetic energy of the molecules is reduced, the level of the mercury falls, and the thermometer reads a cooler temperature.
It’s important to note here that adding ice adds both mass and energy to the water. Mass does not determine temperature, so we need to only consider the energy. The average kinetic energy of the ice molecules is less than the average kinetic energy of the water molecules, so the average kinetic energy decreases, and the thermometer reads a lower temperature.
Energy is added, but the temperature decreases!
So, adding energy does NOT always result in a higher temperature. It HAS TO BE the right kind of energy. As applied to climate science, the frequency of absorbed photons would have to raise the average kinetic energy of the water molecules. That’s why we know ice cannot boil water, and CO2’s 15&mu photons can not warm Earth’s 288K surface.
It’s simple. Just basic physics.
[PUFFMAN] Its important to note here that adding ice adds both mass and energy to the water.
[ALSO PUFFMAN] Mass does not determine temperature, so we need to only consider the energy.
So beautiful.
Better yet, Clint R states: “the average kinetic energy decreases… Energy is added.” !! in which Clint confuses forms of energy.
That confirms Clint’s writing is often confused so as to be a leading laughing stock commenter on this science blog.
Clint R should also humorously explain when radiation from ice is absorbed by water how THAT process decreases the average water molecular kinetic energy as Clint R repeatedly claims.
Clint should know basic high school physics experiments explain IR light is not heat, temperature is not heat, heat is only a measure & has no existence in nature (Joule’s experiments), and a heater is not needed to increase the equilibrium temperature of water.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Clint R should also humorously explain when radiation from ice is absorbed by water how THAT process decreases the average water molecular kinetic energy as Clint R repeatedly claims.”
Why should he? Don’t you know? Are you boasting about being ignorant and stupid?
If you are trying to imply (without having the guts to say so) that the radiation from ice can be used to heat water, then I would have to say that you are away with the fairies, quite divorced from reality.
What you wrote makes no sense at all. Can you quote Clint saying what you allege he said, or did you just make stuff up to suit yourself?
You refuse to to describe the GHE, so its odd that you are demanding help, while at the same time being as unhelpful as you possibly can.
Have you thought of just trying to be a troll? You might do better than some of the wannabe trolls here at the moment. Good luck.
Very convincing and very clearly.
Thank you, Clint!
Christos, 1) in your newly postulated real “instant” transformation of SW light incident on Earth surface into LW light, what happens to the difference in energy in that “instant” transformation from SW to LW & how is entropy produced in your process? Recall photon energy is directly proportional to its frequency (photonic E = hf).
2) How do the radiometers on CERES separate specular from diffuse light in their looking down measurements thus ignoring specular reflection as you claim? Remember CERES instruments do not wear polarizing sunglasses.
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
“Christos, 1) in your newly postulated real instant transformation of SW light incident on Earth surface into LW light, what happens to the difference in energy in that “instant” transformation from SW to LW & how is entropy produced in your process? Recall photon energy is directly proportional to its frequency (photonic E = hf).”
“what happens to the difference in energy in that instant transformation from SW to LW”
(emphasis added)
–
difference in energy in that “instant” transformation from SW to LW
is the HEAT absorbed in the inner layers!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ball4,
“2) How do the radiometers on CERES separate specular from diffuse light in their looking down measurements thus ignoring specular reflection as you claim? Remember CERES instruments do not wear polarizing sunglasses.”
–
They do not separate specular from diffuse light in their looking down measurements.
They do not “see” the directional constituent of diffuse light (the specular like reflection), because it doesn’t enter the radiometers.
–
Ball4, actually there is not apure specular reflection – it is an abstraction.
Also, the diffuse reflection is not isotropic.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
OK, so now Christos changes tune about the energy difference “It is not “absorbed”” previously (11:11 am) to now write the difference is “the HEAT absorbed in the inner layers” after Tim F. pointed that out. There is never a need to consult that dot com link given as Christos should have been busy updating.
However, physics experiments have long shown there is no “heat” in SW IR light to be absorbed during Christos postulated “instant” transformation into LW IR light, there is only difference in hf = E. Christos needs yet another physics correction to agree with experiment.
So, at 4:07 pm, we now have Christos writing “they do not separate” light but Christos in the same commentthen writes they do separate out light they “do not “see””.
Readers are confused by Christos writing? They should be. Readers should consult a CERES dot com informational link not Christos’ disinformation link.
Thank you, Ball4.
“Readers do not wear polarizing sunglasses.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sometimes readers do wear polarizing sunglasses in bright sunlight to dim down & ignore (Christos’ term) some specular reflection.
But we can add energy without adding mass by adding photons, which have no mass when they stop moving, which happens when they are absorbed.
Bumbling bobby,
Maybe you don’t want to believe Albert Einstein, who wrote e=mc2.
Energy is mass, and vice versa. As you say (in a roundabout way, but true nevertheless), photons have no rest mass, but certainly possess momentum.
You really have no clue. Unfortunately, nor do many highly qualified physicists who operate outside the field.
You mentioned something interesting, when you wrote “adding photons, which have no mass when they stop moving, which happens when they are absorbed.” Allowing for the somewhat tortured prose, what do you think happens to the photon’s momentum (it had mass whilst moving) when it is absorbed by an electron?
I don’t expect you to provide an answer, or even be interested (not being terribly bright), but lurkers might find a variety of answers on the internet. Which explanation is supported by experiment? That’s the only one worthy of consideration, in my humble opinion.
You do write a lot of tosh, bobby. Maybe some good might come of it.
Bumbling Swenson, Albert Einstein, who wrote e=mc2, was correct when there is mass present. Light (on which bob was commenting) can be present but has nil mass and light’s photonic e is not nil. Puzzle that out and let us know the result, if any. Maybe some good might come of it.
Bumbling bobby,
Maybe you dont want to believe Albert Einstein, who wrote e=mc2.
Energy is mass, and vice versa. As you say (in a roundabout way, but true nevertheless), photons have no rest mass, but certainly possess momentum.
You really have no clue. Unfortunately, nor do many highly qualified physicists who operate outside the field.
You mentioned something interesting, when you wrote adding photons, which have no mass when they stop moving, which happens when they are absorbed. Allowing for the somewhat tortured prose, what do you think happens to the photons momentum (it had mass whilst moving) when it is absorbed by an electron?
I dont expect you to provide an answer, or even be interested (not being terribly bright), but lurkers might find a variety of answers on the internet. Which explanation is supported by experiment? Thats the only one worthy of consideration, in my humble opinion.
You do write a lot of tosh, bobby. Maybe some good might come of it.
Brainless bobby,
You wrote –
“Bumbling Swenson, Albert Einstein, who wrote e=mc2, was correct when there is mass present. Light (on which bob was commenting) can be present but has nil mass and lights photonic e is not nil. Puzzle that out and let us know the result, if any. Maybe some good might come of it.”
No bobby, e=mc2 is correct, even when no rest mass is present. Einstein won a Nobel Prize for explaining the photo-electric effect, which depends on discrete quanta of energy with no rest mass being absorbed, and the consequences.
What are you burbling about with “light’s photonic e is not nil”? That’s a puzzle alright, and the answer is that you a a self-proclaimed idiot.
Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
Swenson,
“What are you burbling about with lights photonic e is not nil? Thats a puzzle alright, and the answer is that you a a self-proclaimed idiot.”
Please link to the post where I said that, that doesn’t sound like my prose style.
Sorry, bobby,
I quoted a different bumbling idiot – Ball4.
Am I right in assuming that you share my opinion that Ball4 is a bumbling idiot, or do you agree with his nonsensical outpouring?
Feel free to let me know. Fanatical GHE cultists who refuse to even describe the GHE all look the same to me. Sorry if that sounds racist, or stupidist, or something.
Swenson,
Sorry but I think Ball4 is more on the ball than you.
And I feel sorry for you, that you can’t recognize a description of the greenhouse effect that has been repeatedly posted for you.
“Sorry if that sounds racist, or stupidist, or something.“
Bumbling bobby,
“And I feel sorry for you, that you cant recognize a description of the greenhouse effect that has been repeatedly posted for you.”
Well, gee, maybe you could keep your sorrow for yourself – I don’t need any.
I would recognise a description of the greenhouse effect. It would say it was a description of the greenhouse effect. If it agreed with reality, it might even be a valid description.
Of course, you refuse to provide such a description, instead claiming “it’s here, it’s there, it’s everywhere!” You just be can’t be helpful, and provide it, can you? Keep it secret – why should I care? The GHE is a myth – it doesn’t exist.
Keep pretending.
A,
You quoted –
“Sorry if that sounds racist, or stupid, or something.”
Are you trying to say something? Are you worried about racism or stupidism?
Why don’t you do something about if you are so concerned? If you are choosing to feel offended, annoyed, upset, or something of that nature, why not just go back to feeling bored?
Or retreat back into your fantasy, where you are probably considered wise and powerful. If you arent, good for you!
Good luck.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your silly requests.
Swenson,
The greenhouse effect exists whether or not you understand it or not.
So far you haven’t grasped the physics necessary to even have a conversation with you.
Take a break, take a physics, and take a long walk.
The greenhouse effect exists whether or not you understand it or not.
Ah, but he’s actually trying to not understand it.
So far you havent grasped the physics necessary to even have a conversation with you.
You got that right.
As usual, silly willy, Ball4, and bob struggle to respond, but only display their ignorance of the subject.
They simply don’t understand that incoherence is incompetence.
Kids these days….
No science rebuttal from Clint R? Actually none was expected, just more laughs.
Not so fast Clint,
We have exposed your incompetence, over and over.
Just basic physics always draws a lot of ineffective flak from the cult kids. They see their false beliefs being crushed by reality, right before their eyes.
Yet, all they have are their false accusations, which don’t deceive responsible adults.
No science rebuttal from Clint R again? Actually none was expected, just more well earned laughs at Clint.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“No science rebuttal from Clint R again? Actually none was expected, just more well earned laughs at Clint.”, but of course you are refusing to say what you are talking about.
You are an idiot who can’t even explain where the photons from a volume of water (completely surrounded by ice) go!
Or do you claim that you know, but are going to refuse to be helpful and share your knowledge?
You might as well keep refusing to describe the GHE, and claim someone else has done it, but you lost your copy, so there’s no point asking you.
What a donkey you are!
[hee-haw]
“[hee-haw]”
A,
“[hee-haw]”
Thanks for the flattery. I accept it from anyone.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares what you’re braying about.
Excellent. Thanks for caring.
Thats why we know ice cannot boil water, and CO2s 15&mu photons can not warm Earths 288K surface.
I love the massive non sequitur at the end there.
The atmosphere is not warmed by ice, you coprophagous Clintard. It is warmed by the Sun, at 5,800K. Nor is anything adding mass to the atmosphere. Heat energy goes in and less heat energy goes out. End of.
Its simple. Just basic physics.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Why getting the right model of electricity matters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“Why getting the right model of electricity matters:”
Really? What’s wrong with real electricity – the kind that makes lights work?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you play dumb over and over again.
Good to know. Thanks.
He’s not playing.
Good to know that, too.
Nobody cares if you play or not, Mike, we all know you cannot do better anyway.
At one point you could, but nowadays you are too lonely.
If electrical theory was based on the theories offered by the video author, no light would be turned on. Back to candle light.
wee willy…again..stray into an area of physics about which he knows nothing. Being somewhat weak minded, he insists on falling for cartoons about physics.
A model is a inane attemp.t of the human mind to explain electrical current. This guy’s explanation is beyond inane.
He describes a conductor as being made up of atomic nucleii with a ‘sea of electrons’ flowing between them. That modern definition is one of the more inane theories.
Consider a copper wire. It is made up of copper atoms bonded together by electrons. Copper has 29 protons and 29 electrons but the outer valence shell has only 1 electron to engage in electric current.
Where is this sea of electrons going to reside? The video makes it appear as if there are only nucleii, among which electrons float randomly. A nonsense model. There is a definite structure to a copper conductor and in order for electrons to flow through it, the flow must be atom valence shell to atom valence shell.
As I said, the theory is nonsense. Electrons flow through copper one at a time with one added at the battery negative terminal and one leaving at the positive terminal.
But that’s not how current flows. Current is electric charges and the electrons have a means of passing their charge on down the line at the speed of light. Of course, no one knows how that worked, it just does.
Repeat…current is not the number of electrons passing point in a circuit it is the number of charges passing that point.
I had it explained once in a class. There used to be wooden rulers with a groove running the full length. You can set playing marbles along the groove, touching each other and if you carefully hold the first one in place and tap it, the force of the tap is transmitted through all the marbles, causing the marble at the other end to shoot off.
I don’t think the actual mechanism has been discovered but charges on electrons apparently have a way of moving independently. Charges can move through a circuit at the speed of light whereas electrons as particles move at only a few centimetres per second.
As for the author’s claim that an electric field has nothing to do with a battery, he completely ignores the fact that it is negative charges from electrons in a battery that drive electrons and their charges through a copper conductor. Therefore, the electric field is created by electrons themselves, stored in the battery. The notion that the electric field is produced by atoms in the copper is typical of the nonsense being taught to the modern generation.
To emphasize that, a copper conductor with no battery attached has no electric field.
> stray into an area of physics about which he knows nothing.
Mr. Asshat courageously takes on Richard Abbott, who works on LIGO.
Willard,
Are you trying to say something?
Not so, I have replied to a dim-twit who uses Richard Abbott as an authority figure. Abbott is likely the janitor at LIGO.
Had Mr. Asshat watched the video, he’d have seen Richard Abbott in action, building the very device that proves him wrong.
Fairly typical of this cohort to confuse a practical demonstration with an argument from authority. Richard Feynmann encountered the same syndrome during a discussion on the Challenger disaster. He took a length of O-ring material and dunked it in iced water in front of all the political types, then pinched it with pliers. The ring stayed pinched, thus demonstrating a loss of elasticity at low temperatures.
The political types dismissed it as some kind of “stunt”, but he’d basically diagnosed the cause of the explosion.
Gordon,
“I had it explained once in a class. There used to be wooden rulers with a groove running the full length. You can set playing marbles along the groove, touching each other and if you carefully hold the first one in place and tap it, the force of the tap is transmitted through all the marbles, causing the marble at the other end to shoot off.”
Never played croquet when you were a kid?
What, were you raised by wolves?
I was an unusual child, I loved to run, the faster the better. I excelled at soccer, a game that requires constant running and a high level of endurance. Croquet was far too boring for me.
As an adult, I’d go for 18 mile runs just to sight see. I called it an adventure.
If kids these days were asked to run like I did for enjoyment they’d get nosebleeds.
I was referring to the rule in Croquet where if you hit another players ball with yours, you get another turn, and if you can get your ball to nestle against the other person’s ball, you get to put your foot on your ball and hit your ball with your mallet and send the other players ball flying.
Like Newton’s cradle, have you seen one of those.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
clint…I would have let this slide but you insisted on attacking a fellow skeptics (me) for no apparent reason.
Based on your novella at June 9, 2024 at 2:05 PM, would you please stop clogging the blog? I know you fancy yourself as a teacher and perhaps you could pass for one at grade school level, but your efforts here are more comedy than anything.
Unlike you, I will refrain from stopping at ad homs and insults and explain my point.
[clint]”for the responsible adults, heres an easy-to-understand explanation of temperature:
A bucket of water has a temperature. Humans invented a way to measure that temperature…”
***
yes…but temperature is not a physical reality, it is an invention of the human mind to indicated the relative intensity of heat. What does it measure in the water?
A thermometer measures heat, as is depicted in the name…’thermo’-meter. Heat is real energy, temperature is a human invention to measure it. A thermometer is a meter that measures the relative intensity of heat.
—-
[clint]”The molecules in the water have kinetic energy they are moving”.
***
“yes…but that’s what kinetic means, moving, or, in motion. Kinetic energy tells you only that energy is in motion. We want to know what kind of energy is in motion. In the case of atoms in motion, there is only one energy involved…heat. Therefore the kinetic energy to which you refer is heat.
If it was the KE related to force that moves a mass, the KE would be mechanical energy. If the force was related to gravity, the KE would be gravitational energy. KE tells us nothing about the kind of energy in motion.
—-
[clint]”The temperature of the water becomes the temperature of the mercury. We say the temperature is due to the average kinetic energy of the molecules. If no new thermal energy is added to the water, or lost, the temperature remains constant, and the thermometer reads the same temperature”.
***
Finally, you acknowledge the kind of energy, thermal energy. Most of us acknowledge that thermal means heat but you have this obtuseness by which you insist heat is a transfer of energy, not energy itself. The word thermal has its root in Greek, the word therme. Therme means heat in Greek, I checked with Christos, who speaks Greek.
Your entire novella could have been summed up thusly: if you add heat to water it gets warmer, if you remove heat from water it gets colder. But you have painted yourself into a corner by refusing to acknowledge heat as energy.
Ergo, if you add ice to water, it uses (loses) heat to melt the ice, therefore the water must cool. Alternately, you could have invoke the 2nd law “heat cannot, by its own means, be transferred cold to hot.
gordon, you’re sicker than I thought.
To write all that rambling bμllshit is proof of serious mental issues. You’re way beyond mere jealousy. You’re deep into psychotic behavior.
Get professional help, soon!
clint resorts to form. When challenged on the science he has no comeback other than insults and ad homs.
Typical denier.
EB,
“Typical denier”.
Denying typicals, or something you are going to refuse to specify?
Typical.
Witless fool?
The world wonders!
Observe the absence of a hyphen.
“Observe the absence of a hyphen.”
Really? That’s the best you can do? Demand that people see something that isn’t there?
[gongbeater]
You really are as thick as sh*t, aren’t you?
“You really are as thick as sh*t, arent you?”
Coming from you, high praise indeed. Only joking, your opinion is noted, and treated with the disdain it merits.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you feel praised after having played dumb over and over for a week now on the same page.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bob d “But we can add energy without adding mass by adding photons, which have no mass when they stop moving, which happens when they are absorbed”.
***
We can add energy by heating amass as well. You don’t seriously think that absorbing a photon into a mass retains the photon as a unit? Photons, for want of a better word (I prefer quanta), when absorbed, disappear completely. They have no momentum because they lack mass, and cannot produce a force. No way they physically affect mass. They are converted from EM to heat.
If photons could affect mass, then heat should be able to do the same. So, if you heated a mass it should get heavier.
Photons do not add energy to electrons by an exchange of momentum, the effect is purely electrical and magnetic. Those are the only two energy fields available with EM.
Gordon,
“You dont seriously think that absorbing a photon into a mass retains the photon as a unit?”
Of course not, did you read all of my post.
I clearly stated the photon turns into kinetic energy.
“We can add energy by heating amass as well.”
I was explaining how something happens, not how something could happen.
“They have no momentum because they lack mass, and cannot produce a force. ”
Sorry that is incorrect. Photons or quanta if you insist, do have momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKAROS
That’s a spacecraft using a light sail, interesting reading. It shows photons, or quanta can put a force on something and cause it to accelerate.
Do these klowns realize their is a solar wind comprised of protons and electrons?
A photon has no mass. Momentum = mass x velocity and kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2.
Do the math…
momentum = p = mv = 0.v = 0
KE = 1/2 mv^2 = 1/2 0.v^2 = 0
I know what those who think photons have momentum are doing, but all it is sums to playing. Serious physicists understand that zero-mass has no momentum.
The momentum of a photon is given by hv/c, where v is the frequency, h is Planck’s constant and c is the speed of light. The rest mass of a photon is zero. But:
The experimental upper limit on the photon mass[20][21] is very small, on the order of 10^−50 kg. (Wiki)
Light has momentum and exerts pressure.
Serious physicists understand that a photon with rest mass of zero moves at the speed of light, and due to relativistic considerations an object with finite mass at c has zero rest mass.
Also quite easy to look up, by the way.
Are you sure you haven’t been spending too much time around Svensdottir and her ilk? I don’t know if you checked before posting, but it looks exactly like you looked up “mass of a photon” instead of “momentum of a photon”, thus guaranteeing an answer that fit your prejudices.
If you actually knew the physics, you could go straight to the equation showing the momentum of a photon. I had forgotten it, but at least I knew enough to know where I would find it.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Stick to refusing to describe one of your many GHEs.
Or just keep being bored.
Ah, again the repeated lie. Here’s the reality:
Definition of the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.
How it Works
Absorbtion: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor [sic], absorb some of this radiation.
Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.
Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.
Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.
Importance of the Greenhouse Effect
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life. The natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining a stable climate, allowing life to flourish on our planet.
Human Impact
However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and contributing to global warming. This enhanced greenhouse effect is known as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.
Key Takeaway
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun. While it is essential for life, human activities have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming.
Sorry Elliott, but you’re just repeating cult nonsense.
That ain’t science.
Here’s some science:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672287
EB,
You (or possibly some AI bot) wrote –
“Definition of the greenhouse effect . . . “, followed by a farrago of unsupported nonsense. The surface has demonstrably cooled since it was molten.
Why are you refusing to provide a description of the GHE? You can define yourself blue in the face, but you cannot turn cooling into heating – in reality, anyway.
Maybe you could say something idiotic?
Carry on.
Sorry Elliott, but youre just repeating cult nonsense.
Name-calling tends to reinforce the impression that you cannot argue with the content, Clintard. Just saying.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your (possibly alcool-induced) incoherent ramblings.
“Serious physicists understand that zero-mass has no momentum.”
Gordon, please find us a serious physicist who ‘understands’ that.
Gordon,
Fermions and Bosons have different equations for momentum.
You didn’t get that far in physics, which is not very far, first year engineering.
Elliott, Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
The surface has demonstrably cooled since it was molten.
Imbecile.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Not so, I have replied to a dim-twit who uses Richard Abbott as an authority figure. Abbott is likely the janitor at LIGO.
ball4…”The very small fraction is re-emitted, the vast majority is transferred to N2, O2, and the rest of the non IR active molecules in the atmosphere…”
***
The thermal diffusion equations tells us that the amount of heat transferred by CO2 to other molecules is limited by its mass percent. It’s percent is 0.04% but the molecule is slightly heavier than N2 or O2 therefore its mass percent is 0.06%.
That translates to CO2 being limited to 0.06C for every 1C warming of the entire atmosphere. In other words, the amount of heat CO2 can transfer to the atmosphere as a whole is 0.06C.
Gordon, there is no such limit found in radiation of IR active gas experiments. CO2 is smaller by mass number but much larger in radiative numbers than N2,O2.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Gordon Robertson | October 23, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
JudithI cant believe your name is on this piece of rubbish. You lot seem to have concluded there has been warming since the middle of the Little Ice Age. Over to Homer Simpson. DOH!!!
What have you accomplished Judith? Have you found the missing link that connects the warming to anthropogenic CO2? No, Have you refuted 30 years of satellite data, that scans 95% of the atmosphere while sampling billions and billions of oxygen molecules? No. Have you refuted what John Christy of UAH has claimed, that most of the warming is in the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere, and not global in scope? No. Has your statistical analysis identified whether the warming is local or global? No. Have you verified that all the data you used is accurate? No. Have you explained the lack of a warming trend the past decade, which is plain on satellite data sets? No.
What exactly have you done? You have re-iterated what everyone knows, that the world has been recovering from a period of cooling.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/20/berkeley-surface-temperatures-released/#comment-126713
Mr. Asshat really tried.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
As usual, the blog has degenerated into meaningless white noise. Take a look at the graph ATL and remind yourselves of the reality, people.
Test
Test: Φ
اختبر
Elliot, when you avoid reality and keep spouting the same irrelevant nonsense, they YOU are the “white noise”.
Here’s some REAL science you keep avoiding:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672287
Well, then you’ll be able to use the “block” facility and my plugin too, won’t you?
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why are you taking your arguments by assertion as reality?
Elliott, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Instead of Losing its Atmosphere, an Exoplanet Puffed Up and Held Onto it
https://www.universetoday.com/167276/instead-of-losing-its-atmosphere-an-exoplanet-puffed-up-and-held-onto-it/#more-167276
“To date, astronomers have confirmed the existence of 5638 extrasolar planets in 4,199 star systems. In the process, scientists have found many worlds that have defied expectations. This is certainly the case regarding hot Neptunes, planets that are similar to the ice giants of the outer Solar System but orbit much closer to their stars. But when a Johns Hopkins University-led team of astronomers discovered TIC365102760 b (aka. Pheonix), they observed something entirely unexpected: a Neptune-sized planet that retained its atmosphere by puffing up.”
Its the smallest planet weve ever found around one of these red giants, and probably the lowest mass planet orbiting a [red] giant star weve ever seen. Thats why it looks really weird. We dont know why it still has an atmosphere when other hot Neptunes that are much smaller and much denser seem to be losing their atmospheres in much less extreme environments.
LINKS TO:
Weird’ planet retains atmosphere despite nearby star’s relentless radiation
https://hub.jhu.edu/2024/06/05/new-exoplanet-survives-star-radiation/
For a long time, I thought Venus was once a small gas giant- and lost it’s mostly helium and hydrogen atmosphere. So I thought it interesting this planet didn’t, And also thought planet Earth would survive, Sol becoming, a red giant- also related to the article.
And it seems a lot NEOs, wouldn’t survive a star becoming a red giant. And it seems one way to lose an atmosphere, is to be impacted with large enough space rock which going at high enough velocity.
With Earth the average impact velocity is about 20 km/sec, Mars is about 15 km/se and Venus should about 30 km/sec. And Mercury is higher. Of course they hit slower, the slowest in Planet’s escape velocity. And Earth can hit by comet or object coming beyond Jupiter distance at +40 km/sec. Or Earth is mostly hit by NEOs.
Of course another element is star systems in terms of hundreds of million year, will come very close to Sol, giving more intergalactic space rock impactor type velocities which at Venus distance giving +100 km/sec impact velocities.
But generally space rocks closer to planet have much greater chance of impacting the planet.
Yes, thats correct. The Earth does undergo cooling processes despite the presence of the greenhouse effect.
This is silly enough to merit a top-level post, as it is a classic example of how to deliberately bamboozle oneself. I won’t embarrass the author by identifying them, but I will say that it is impossible for anyone to really be so thick as to believe what they infer. It is, however, possible for someone to be so thick that they think others will be bamboozled, or that it looks to others like they’ve made an argument.
The clown in question is arguing that Googol’s AI can be prompted to produce this output, so, non sequitur, it must be plausible that the Earth is cooling overall. They have entered a prompt to elicit this precise response, rather than a neutral prompt which might elicit actual understanding. If you enter “describe the greenhouse effect”, then you get a description – exactly what the author mendaciously claims no-one can produce.
If you ask it “can the Earth undergo cooling processes despite the greenhouse effect” then it also gives you a correct answer. But everyone knew that already. Of course the Earth undergoes cooling processes. That’s why we have Winters and cool nights. But the cycles of warming and cooling are overlaid on a warming trend. The coolings are, on average and over time, less. The net result is that each cooling, on average, leaves a warmer residual.
Just look at the graph ATL. You can see this exact effect – less cooling leaves a warmer residual . after each el Nino. As I keep saying, this is REALLY simple stuff.
EB,
Blame the AI, if you dont like the answer.
The Earth is still cooling – losing energy at a rate of 44 TW or so. That’s called cooling.
You wrote “coolings are, on average and over time, less. The net result is that each cooling, on average, leaves a warmer residual.”
Are you crazy? Decreasing temperatures are called cooling, not warming. Of course the rate of cooling has decreased – in line with Newton’s Law Of Cooling, and the asymptotic decline in radiogenic heat.
As to a valid description of the GHE, you claim it exists – you just refuse to produce it.
That is your choice.
Here’s ChatGPT explaining the role of the GHE in nighttime cooling –
“So, during the day, the greenhouse effect warms the surface, while at night, it slows down the cooling process. It’s not so much that the surface is warming at night, but rather the cooling rate is slowed down due to the greenhouse effect, preventing the surface from cooling as rapidly as it would without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
Slower cooling. No getting warmer, no heating – slower cooling. Just normal physical principle at work. At least ChatGPT now acknowledges that greenhouse gases provide no heat –
“Without sunlight, the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) wouldn’t directly warm anything. The primary source of energy for the Earth’s climate system is solar radiation from the sun.”
Exactly.
Still refusing to describe the GHE? I wouldn’t depend on artificial intelligence to help. It seems to think that cooling is really heating – how stupid is that?
About as stupid as you and Willard, by the look of it.
Off you go, and brush up your trolling skills.
Blame the AI, if you dont like the answer.
No, it was your fault. The AI was right. You just picked a small fragment of the truth that confirmed what you want to hear.
The only point of importance is that you are lying.
It even told you that you’re wrong, plain and simple:
Its not so much that the surface is warming at night, but rather the cooling rate is slowed down due to the greenhouse effect, preventing the surface from cooling as rapidly as it would without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Are you sure you should be left in charge of a browser?
“Its not so much that the surface is warming at night, but rather the cooling rate is slowed down due to the greenhouse effect, preventing the surface from cooling as rapidly as it would without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
Worth saying again. No warming, just cooling.
Falling temperature. As the temperature of the whole Earth surface has dropped since it was molten.
Deny away!
You really are in denial of reality, arent you?
Mike Flynn,
Nothing cares what you think is worth saying again, for you keep saying worthless stuff.
Good to know. Thanks.
Heres ChatGPT explaining the role of the GHE in nighttime cooling
There you go again: Asking questions that just confirm one small detail that you want to hear. Well, you lie to everyone else, so why would you not lie to yourself?
Of course there is night-time cooling. But the GHE limits it. And the increasing GHE means it cools to slightly warmer temperatures, on average, year by year.
As I keep saying, this is REALLY; REALLY SIMPLE.
As you wrote, of course there is night time cooling.
There is also planetary cooling, currently very slow – about two millionths of a Kelvin per annum.
Increasing GHE? is that the same GHE which allowed the Earth to cool to its present temperature, or some other GHE which you also refuse to describe?
Cooling is cooling, you idiot. Debating, arguing, playing silly semantic games claiming that slow cooling is really increasing temperature, trying bizarre diversions – none will help turning fantasy into fact.
Accept reality if you are able. Or not, if you prefer your fantasy world.
Carry on.
Cooling to an incrementally higher temperature night after night is warming, As I keep saying, this is REALLY, REALLY SIMPLE.
EB,
“Cooling to an incrementally higher temperature night after night is warming,”
No, it’s cooling, as you say. Just as the surface has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
You might be confused about thermometers indicating higher temperatures as a result of anthropogenically generated heat. This effect would obviously more noticeable in overnight minimum temperatures.
Just ephemeral heat. Get rid of humanity, temperatures will drop.
As you say, really, really, simple. Even for a really, really, simple fellow like you.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you are playing silly semantic games because that is all Sky Dragon cranks got.
Willard, thank you for interest.
One thing I learnt from years of debating creationists, prior to learning not to bother debating creationists, was this pattern of just repeating the lie over and over, however many times it is shot down. Very boring.
EB,
Still can’t control your emotions, or do you intentionally choose to be bored?
Sounds like waste of time to me, but you obviously feel differently. Oh well, go off and be as bored as you like.
Maybe someone will care.
Maybe I’m not so bored right now. You make me feel intelligent.
Glad to hear it. Do you often have “feelings”?
Do you ever waste time “feeling” annoyed, abused, insulted, offended, or any similar “feelings”?
Yes, Im laughing at your “feelings”, and there is precisely nothing you can do about it, is there?
[what a strange lad]
S,
First post: June 9th at 5:24 PM
Latest post: June 10th at 5:06 AM
Only 30 posts in roughly 12 hours? You slacker.
Yes, Im laughing at your feelings
No, you aren’t. You’re just laughing at a made-up list you pulled out of your own hat. It does not impinge on me in the least. It’s all just white noise from you.
But it makes everyone else look intelligent by comparison.
EB,
You wrote –
“Yes, I’m laughing at your feelings.”
No, you arent.”
Yes I am. Your mindreading course was a waste of money. Others may choose whom to believe.
As to intelligence, you may opine as you wish. All your opinions (plus $5) will no doubt suffice to buy a $5 cup of coffee.
Have you managed to describe the role of any of your GHEs in the cooling of the Earth’s surface to its present temperature, or are you still refusing?
[what a reality denying cultist he is]
EB,
“Only 30 posts in roughly 12 hours? You slacker.”
Thanks for keeping count. Do you find it boring, or incredibly interesting?
Carry on.
S,
Want to improve your output of inane posts?
Are you still using piddle packs or diapers?
Upgrade to this: https://www.omni-defense.com/skydrate
EB,
You wrote –
“Want to improve your output of inane posts?
Are you still using piddle packs or diapers?
Upgrade to this: https://www.omni-defense.com/skydrate”
Thank you for your interest, but I generally decline to accept unsolicited advice from idiots.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
S,
“Thank you for your interest, but”
Yes, I know, you prefer m3themphetamine.
Carry on!
S,
“Thank you for your interest, but”
Yes, I know, you prefer m3themphetamine.
Carry on!”
Thanks for the flattery.
Carry on.
S,
“Thanks for the flattery.”
Oh no. I thank you!
Thank you for your thanks, but what are you thanking me for?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your thankfulness, even if it is less fake than TS.
“what are you thanking me for?”
Well, if you have to ask…
EB: “You make me feel intelligent”
Don’t worry, it will soon pass.
You are more concerned about your country’s “climate targets” than in having a reliable, continuous and affordable energy system for a vast majority of the inhabitants. A demented philosophy. Perhaps Switzerland can repurpose cheese and chocolate into nuclear energy?
Walrus – Thankfully, morans are not allowed into the country.
Elliott,
“Walrus Thankfully, morans are not allowed into the country.”
Were you born there?
Recently acquired citizenship.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
We really need a “block” function.
So you can block reality?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672287
I can block the Sun’s visible light at 400nm750nm and it warms me up. I could block the microwaves in a microwave oven at 1mm to 1m and they would warm me up. What I’m going to enjoy is watching you flailing about trying to explain why 15 micrometre waves, bang in the middle, cannot warm me up.
One day, perhaps I’ll be able to block you, too.
EB,
“What Im going to enjoy is watching you flailing about trying to explain why 15 micrometre waves, bang in the middle, cannot warm me up.”
And you are going to be as unhelpful as possible, refusing to provide the answers which you believe you have, aren’t you?
Your convoluted gotcha is quite pointless. Only idiots boast about enjoying trying to make someone look stupid.
Luckily, I don’t need to make you look stupid. You do that all by yourself.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you cannot say anything intelligible.
Good to know.
Elliot, you don’t understand microwave ovens?
That means you really don’t understand thermodynamics and radiative physics, just like the rest of your cult.
And obviously, you can’t learn….
I understand them fine. YOU’RE the one claiming that 15μm waves cannot heat the Earth.
See, Elliot?
You don’t understand the difference between natural emission and emission from a manmade device.
You probably believe a pile of scrap metal can drive up a hill. The reality is it takes the proper engineering of the scrap metal into a workable vehicle, gas, and a driver, to get up the hill.
But, why worry about reality when you get to believe whatever you want, and remain content in your ignorance.
I see you’ve opted to dodge the obvious fact that 15μm waves are just another wavelength between visible light and microwaves, and warm the Earth exactly like any other radiant energy. No surprises there.
You dont understand the difference between natural emission and emission from a manmade device.
You really have to wonder what goes on in their tiny little heads sometimes.
I’ve been dealing with your type for years here, Elliot.
Your ilk believes ice cubes can boil water. One of you has even invented an equation to “prove” such nonsense.
You mean it’s taking you years to come up with a reason why there is a magical gap in the spectrum of wavelengths that can heat the Earth that just coincidentally happens to be at the absorbtion lines for CO2?
Elliot’s beliefs got squashed by the reality of a little basic physics.
So now he’s reduced to cult tactics, like all the rest.
Funny how it always turns out like that….
Puffman’s claims have all been debunked more swiftly as all his previous sock puppets got banned.
a little basic physics.
Don’t use terms you don’t understand. Your claim that 15μm waves cannot warm the Earth’s surface is manifest drivel, and your desperate avoidance of the fact that both longer and shorter wavelengths can do so just drives home the fact that you know it’s drivel and are lying about it.
You people make me physically sick.
Clint R,
“You dont understand the difference between natural emission and emission from a manmade device.”
Tell me how you tell the difference, if you don’t know the source.
Elliot, the peak of the spectrum from a 270K ice cube is a 10.7μ photon. The energy of that photon is 0.116 meV. A 15μ photon has 0.083 meV. Or, the ice photon is 40% “hotter” than the CO2 photon.
If your cult has you believing CO2 can warm the surface, then you must also believe ice can do it much better — 40% better!
Clearly you don’t have a clue about any of this. But please continue digging yourself a hole,
So, Clint 2:03 pm, when your 10.7μ photon of 0.116 meV from an ice cube is absorbed by water, you know the water’s thermodynamic internal energy increases by 0.116 meV. Thus you know the average kinetic energy of the water molecules increases making the thermometer in the water read a higher temperature as you noted above. If that increased water temperature reading at 1bar is higher than 212F, the water boils.
Thanks to Clint R for finally explaining in reality how ice can boil water.
Ball4, I’m disappointed in you. You seem to be backing away from your firm belief that ice cubes can boil water. What is with all your “ifs” and “whens”? It seems you’re trying to leave yourself some escape doors. That’s not being a good cultist.
Let’s see you drop all the provisions and just claim, unequivocally, that ice cubes can boil water. Your cult might promote you….
I’m ok with Clint R finally explaining 2:03 pm how in reality ice can boil water using Clint’s real numbers.
Well, Ball4 slithers away, eschewing the bright light of reality. He’s still being dishonest, but he’s now somewhat ashamed of his dishonestly.
Elliott Bignell tries to turn fiction into fact,
He wrote –
“Your claim that 15μm waves cannot warm the Earths surface is manifest drivel,”
Well no, it’s not, unless the Earth’s surface is colder than about -78.5 C.
The reason is that 15 um waves are the peak wavelength emitted by a blackbody by virtue of its absolute temperature, around the temperature of frozen carbon dioxide.
Various nitwits have managed to convince themselves that water can be warmed by the cunning use of radiation from ice. It can’t. In the same fashion, the radiation from frozen CO2 cannot be used to warm anything hotter than itself. Elliott cannot provide a single experiment to support his nonsense, but he spouts it anyway.
He mentioned radiation from a microwave oven, but once again, he was being an illusionist. I just placed my hand in a microwave oven. It was emitting the same wavelengths as the bench on which it was sitting, and the air inside it. Elliott is a confused fellow.
Naturally emitted infrared wavelength is dependent purely on temperature. CO2 can absorb and emit IR photons of any energy, like any other matter.
None of this matters, of course, because he refuses to describe any of his GHEs in any way that refers to anything to with specific gases, wavelengths, temperatures or anything else! Not terribly clever, is it?
Mike Flynn,
You say:
> Well no, its not,
Nobody cares about your denial.
Elliott Bignell says:
”I see youve opted to dodge the obvious fact that 15μm waves are just another wavelength between visible light and microwaves, and warm the Earth exactly like any other radiant energy. No surprises there.”
Well perhaps you can explain why it doesn’t work here:
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
and here:
http://clim8.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
Certainly you must have an experiment that shows what you claim. We wouldn’t want to think that you just bleat back out what your hear like a parrot. No we don’t.
Willard, you wrote “Nobody cares about your denial.”
Pleased to hear it.
Bill,
You jest, obviously.
The creed of the fanatical GHE cultist includes the words “Experiments? We don’t need no stinkin’ experiments”.
Reality is anathema to the likes of Elliott. He refuses to admit that the Earth has cooled, and has convinced himself that surface “warms” at night!
He is clearly deluded.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your rubber stamping.
The reason is that 15 um waves are the peak wavelength emitted by a blackbody by virtue of its absolute temperature, around the temperature of frozen carbon dioxide.
Not to mention also part of the spectrum emitted by the Sun at 5,800K and CO2 gases in the atmosphere at between -90C and 50C.
Elliot, the peak of the spectrum from a 270K ice cube is a 10.7μ photon.
What a lovely coincidence. That’s the same typical wavelength of a CO2 laser. So nice that they can’t warm anything.
He refuses to admit that the Earth has cooled, and has convinced himself that surface warms at night!
Your Straw Man arguments grow ever further from reality.
Certainly you must have an experiment that shows what you claim.
I’ve seen a CO2 laser cut steel. That seemed to require a little warming.
Swenson,
” I just placed my hand in a microwave oven.”
Your experimental techniques are flawed. You forgot a few things.
You didn’t cut your hand off before you put it in the microwave.
You forgot to close the microwave door.
You forgot to turn the microwave on.
If you had done the experiment properly, you would have noticed that microwaves would indeed heat your hand.
Elliott Bignell says:
”Certainly you must have an experiment that shows what you claim.
Ive seen a CO2 laser cut steel. That seemed to require a little warming.”
Any child in my day learned that if you use a magnifying glass or aimed mirrors you can kill ants and start fires. If so it should be a piece of cake for you to find an unpowered experiment demonstrating how it can be done with CO2 only. If you can’t then there is only one conclusion one can draw about your comments.
Well perhaps you can explain why it doesnt work here:
It worked. From that link: A thermopile, made to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measurements, showed that the temperature with CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5%
So even your own cherry-picked source shows a “violation” of the garbled 2nd Law.
If so it should be a piece of cake for you to find an unpowered experimen
I love the way you post a powered experiment and claim it shows what you want to hear, then suddenly introduce an arbitrary extra condition to falsifying evidence.
The fact that CO2 lasers work on steel at room temperature already utterly demolishes your garbled claims about photon absorbtion.
Elliott Bignell says:
”It worked. From that link: A thermopile, made to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measurements, showed that the temperature with CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5%”
—————-
Yes about 16 times less than expectations built on forcing equations embraced by the IPCC.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Elliott Bignell says:
”I love the way you post a powered experiment and claim it shows what you want to hear, then suddenly introduce an arbitrary extra condition to falsifying evidence.
The fact that CO2 lasers work on steel at room temperature already utterly demolishes your garbled claims about photon absorbtion.”
—————————–
Now you are getting childish. Obviously at a minimum you need a single power source but we are not talking about that.
Filling a chamber with CO2 requires some power to move the CO2 into the chamber but as we see from these experiments that doesn’t result in anything. Yes you can move the CO2 in the chamber but a laser to amplify the power density of the CO2 emissions is out of bounds.
On top of that where have I claimed that IR isn’t absorbed. What I have said is for every 50 watts of backradiation absorbed by the surface the surface must first emit 100 watts. That gives a net loss of energy not a gain of energy. thats contrary to the 3rd grader radiation model promoted to University climate students.
Here in Switzerland, we voted yesterday to adopt a new energy law. This law will mandate more domestic electricity generation and, particularly, more renewable energy. There is some question as to whether the law suffices to meet our climate targets, and of course there are technical issues around continuity of supply to address. Still, it’s a step in the right direction.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-politics/the-electricity-law-isnt-enough-for-switzerland-to-achieve-net-zero-carbon-emissions/79963780
EB,
An irrelevant news report? You must still be bored.
Are you trying to say something, but can’t figure out how? I”m not surprised.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about what you find relevant or not, you are just a silly sock puppet who keeps repeating the same cranky stuff on every thread since at least 2014.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Thank you for your interest.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your fake thanks that turns into gaslighting, we already have TS for that.
Wee Willy Wanker,
Thanks again for your interest.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your repetitions, we all know you insert an empty space somewhere in your text to bypass moderation.
Thanks for your interest. You, at least, care.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your mind probing.
Ball4 is away with the fairies again.
He believes that immersing an ice cube in water raises the temperature of the water?
Obviously, being a GHE cultist, he claims someone else told him. He blames Clint, in this case.
Ball4 wrote –
“So, Clint 2:03 pm, when your 10.7μ photon of 0.116 meV from an ice cube is absorbed by water, you know the waters thermodynamic internal energy increases by 0.116 meV. Thus you know the average kinetic energy of the water molecules increases making the thermometer in the water read a higher temperature as you noted above.”
Ball4 is a complete idiot. The radiation from an infinite amount of ice cannot be used to warm e single teaspoon of water. Not even by playing silly semantic games!
Willard wrote – “Nobody cares about your mind probing.”
Except Willard, of course, who seems to be obsessed with “mind probes”.
Willard, please stop trolling.
All Willard does around here is insult people who fail to agree with him. Best course of action is to just ignore him.
All Gill does is to lie over and over again.
Meanwhile, China continues to play the PR game as the world’s largest solar producer as they are also the world’s largest CO2 emitter. They are still building new coal fired power plants. Not to be outdone, India is currently a relatively minor emitter of CO2, but they are also the fastest growing country, and anxious to catch up.
The petroleum exporting countries are not going to stop producing and various consumers are not going to stop buying. This is especially the case in poor countries where the people need energy supplies to survive. Politicians in the industrial world can make a lot of noise, but meaningful reductions in CO2 are a very long way out. That is the reality.
It is not an emergency, why should people panic?
I was curious so I found some data. China is now 1/3 of all emissions. The USA has one of the very best records of reduction. You have to toggle the columns to find different stats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
For total emissions of all types you need this page. The percentages and rates are about the same as just CO2 for each country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions
“I was curious so I found some data. China is now 1/3 of all emissions. The USA has one of the very best records of reduction.”
Yet on a per-capita basis, we emit nearly twice as much as China, even though they require lots of energy to make all the stuff we want to buy.
Meanwhile, in the land of the Freedom Fighters:
https://www.katv.com/news/nation-world/texas-goes-green-solar-power-tops-coal-in-march-economy-ev-electric-vehicle-renewable-energy-california-green-energy-projects-biden
Nothing much contrarian sardonicists can do bout that, but they sure can raise concerns!
“Meanwhile, in the land of the Freedom Fighters:”
Willard, please stop trolling. You’re an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your spit.
Good to know. Thanks.
Willard
Texas has reduced their coal fired plants. I think going to renewables is a good idea to get more variety in producing electricity but one problem with renewables is dependability. Wind does not always blow and there is zero solar at night but demand still remains. Storage of electricity is still so far behind that it is uncertain when that might make renewables more viable for continuous electricity production.
Here is a link to ERCOT. Wind and Solar have been expanded considerably but fossil fuels still make for the bulk of electrical generation. In Texas it seems they moved away from coal in favor of natural gas but still a carbon based fuel which produces CO2 and Water Vapor in combustion.
https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards
Norman,
Here is a link showing that ERCOT is basically a criminal organization, not unlike the party that chose a real felon as its best bet to install fascism on the continent:
https://energycentral.com/news/20-years-ercot-has-been-misbehaving-secretive-arrogant-even-criminal-grid-operator
See also:
https://megaphone.southwestern.edu/2021/03/23/texas-privatized-power-grid-is-a-disaster-20-years-in-the-making/
And yet even these private scoundrels chose renewables.
All I know about Switzerland, and Sweden,is that during WWII they sat on the fence refusing to fight the Nazis. When people escaped to Switzerland they were thrown in jail.
Fun place. It figures they’d do something stoopid re alarmist ideology.
A bit like the USA, then.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
For the GHG deniers, here’s what Dr. Spencer had to say about them last August:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/is-your-comment-here-not-appearing/#comment-1518969
“(And I do wish the SDSs would go away; my discussion moderation terms have apparently caused them to largely give up using my blog as a soapbox).”
Elliott, you were asking at:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672537
“You mean its taking you years to come up with a reason why there is a magical gap in the spectrum of wavelengths that can heat the Earth that just coincidentally happens to be at the absorbtion lines for CO2?”
What do you mean by “gap in the spectrum of wavelengths that can heat the Earth that just coincidentally happens to be at the absorbtion lines for CO2?”
What gap? In what spectrum of wavelengths? Please explain.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
He’s a fanatical GHE cultist, who refuses to describe any of his mythical GHEs.
He is clueless, and refuses to accept that there are no “wavelengths” which are prevented from escaping to space.
Although he refuses to say it, he also doesn’t seem to realise that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
And so on. He appears to inhabit a fantasy world.
It’s the other way around. CO2 just happens to have an emission/absorp-tion range in that part of the EM spectrum.
Guess what, so does the nitrogen molecule. Not as much as CO2 but the sheer volume of N2 makes it significant as a GHG, a convenient truth the alarmists have suppressed.
The O2 molecule absorbs and emits in the microwave band, just below the IR spectrum. The UAH data depends on it. Therefore, 99% of the atmospheric gases are emitting and absorbing radiation at terrestrial temperatures.
Not only that, 99% of the atmosphere is absorbing radiation from solar energy on the way in.
Gordon,
“Not only that, 99% of the atmosphere is absorbing radiation from solar energy on the way in.”
Actually, I’m not aware of any gas at all which cannot be warmed by sunlight, so that would be 100%.
Not just gases, all objects can be warmed by sunlight if they are cooler than the Sun. GHE cultists live in a fantasy world.
Swenson,
“Actually, Im not aware of any gas at all which cannot be warmed by sunlight, so that would be 100%.”
Yeah, that’s why it’s always dark at high noon.
Yeah, you’re not aware of too many things.
Gordon,
“Not only that, 99% of the atmosphere is absorbing radiation from solar energy on the way in.”
Actually, Im not aware of any gas at all which cannot be warmed by sunlight, so that would be 100%.
Not just gases, all objects can be warmed by sunlight if they are cooler than the Sun. GHE cultists live in a fantasy world.
bobdroege just refuses to believe that more than 50% of sunlight is IR, that is, invisible.
That’s why he utters nonsense like “Yeah, thats why its always dark at high noon.”
Not terribly bright, is bobdroege. Refuses to accept reality – which is a prime indicator of insanity.
Swenson,
“bobdroege just refuses to believe that more than 50% of sunlight is IR, that is, invisible.”
Well, you could have asked me if I believed that instead of gaslighting me.
You said 100% of the atmosphere was warmed by the sunlight.
“Actually, Im not aware of any gas at all which cannot be warmed by sunlight, so that would be 100%.”
in response to Gordon’s
“Not only that, 99% of the atmosphere is absorbing radiation from solar energy on the way in.
You just took it and made it worse.
I think you have said better in the past, but now I think you are losing it.
Maybe find your nearest Church of Scientology.
Christos – Clintard believes, and repeats ad nauseam, that there is a gap in the electromagnetic spectrum where photons cannot deliver energy to a surface on which they impinge, or upon gas molecules which absorb them. He believes this gap is at 15μm, conveniently< a wavelength associated with CO2, and that 15μm photons specifically cannot warm the Earth, whose temperature he cites as 288K.
He cannot offer any argument as to why this gap exists. When confronted with the obvious fact that both shorter and longer wavelengths can warm materials in this temperature range, he dodges and starts blustering about the mystical “difference” between natural photons and man-made photons. He also, you’ll notice, suddenly believes in averages where the 288K figure is concerned.
EB,
You are seriously confused. Photons emitted by colder objects are simply not absorbed by hotter objects.
In other words, those of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, heat does not spontaneously pass by itself from a colder to a hotter body. You can play silly semantic games with words like heat, quanta, photons, EMR, or whatever, but you cannot raise the temperature of a hotter body by exposing it to the radiation of a colder.
If there are only two bodies concerned, the colder will warm, and the warmer will cool, until both are precisely the same temperature.
A simple example is to totally immerse a block of ice in water. Eventually, the ice will melt, and its constituent molecules will be indistinguishable from the water in which it was immersed – in any way.
Pretty simple, even for a pretty simple guy like you.
No GHE.
Elliott, would you like to provide a Graph where I could compare things?
Elliott, does that Graph show anything?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spectral_Greenhouse_Effect.png
Yes, it shows, in particular, a notch in the spectrum of outgoing radiation which is labelled as “CO2”. This is the GHE, right before your eyes. The frequencies corresponding to CO2 make it out of the atmosphere at a reduced rate. Their absorbtion is what warms the atmsosphere.
Photons emitted by colder objects are simply not absorbed by hotter objects.
Yes, right. They go around them, right?
Imbecile.
Elliott, do you think the above Graph explains things as they are being described in the following text?
“More specifically, the greenhouse effect may be defined quantitatively as the amount of longwave radiation emitted by the surface that does not reach space. On Earth as of 2015, about 398 W/m2 of longwave radiation was emitted by the surface, while OLR, the amount reaching space, was 239 W/m2. Thus, the greenhouse effect was 398−239 = 159 W/m2, or 159/398 = 40% of surface emissions, not reaching space.”
EB,
Photons emitted by colder objects are simply not absorbed by hotter objects.
That’s why you cannot use ice to warm water. Of course, your fantasy may have different physical laws.
Christos – Yes.
Photons emitted by colder objects are simply not absorbed by hotter objects.
Yes, they are, you cataclysmic window-licker.
Elliott, earlier today you said:
“He also, youll notice, suddenly believes in averages where the 288K figure is concerned.”
What do you mean by “believing in averages where the 288K figure is concerned” ?
What do you mean by believing in averages where the 288K figure is concerned ?
We spoke yesterday about the statistical nature of temperature. Gordon doesn’t believe in it, or in averages in general.
I believe Earth’s average surface temperature is Tmean = 288K.
I don’t believe 288K emits 398 W/m2.
What about you, Elliott?
A body at the temperature of 288K (14 C) doesn’t emit 398W/m2
Nor a body at the temperature 255K (- 18 C) emits 239W/m2
We do not see that happening in our everydays life. Because many of us have experienced what it is like at 14 C and what
it is like at – 18 C.
Also we know how hot it feels the 398W/m2, and how hot
it feels the 239W/m2.
Because many of us have experienced what it is like at 14 C and what it is like at 18 C.
Bear in mind that what you experience is the effect of your body’s net emission and absorbtion of heat, and is heavily modulated by conduction and convection. Your surroundings are emitting plenty of infra-red at 255K. You are just losing more to them than they are losing to you.
There is a garbled version of the 2nd law popular on this blog that has it that infra-red photons somehow “know” that they are passing from a warmer object towards a cooler one an swerve to go around it. In fact they are absorbed, reflected or transmitted according to the dictates of QED at the surface encountered, irrespective of where they come from. The 2nd law merely dictates that more flow from warm to cold than the converse.
Thank you, Elliot, for your response.
ME: “Also we know how hot it feels the 398W/m2, and how hot
it feels the 239W/m2.
.
YOU: “Your surroundings are emitting plenty of infra-red at 255K. You are just losing more to them than they are losing to you.”
When in a room, at – 18 C , a small room 4m x4m x3m …
The 4 walls area is 4 x4m x3m = 4 x12m2 = 48 m2
The floor and ceiling area 2 x4m x4m = 32 m2
The total emitting area 48 m2 +32 m2 = 80 m2.
What is the total emitted power according tothe S-B emission law then?
For – 18 C (255K) it sould be 239W/m2 x80 m2 = 19.120 W
or 19,12 kW.
It is too much emitted energy and a room is still at – 18 C.
Please, explain.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
elliott…”I can block the Suns visible light at 400nm750nm and it warms me up. I could block the microwaves in a microwave oven at 1mm to 1m and they would warm me up. What Im going to enjoy is watching you flailing about trying to explain why 15 micrometre waves, bang in the middle, cannot warm me up”.
***
It’s about temperature and quantum physics. All EM in question is absorbed and emitted by electrons in atoms. Atoms/molecules at lower temperatures emit energy based on E = hf.
E can also be expressed as E = Eh – El, where Eh is the higher energy orbital and El is the lower energy orbital. The difference is the energy levels over which an atom falls when returning to a lower energy orbital after being excited to a higher energy orbital between El and Eh.
The unexcited state is ground level. In a hydrogen atoms, there are up to 7 higher energy orbitals to which an electron can be excited. To go from ground state to level 7 requires a strong energy intensity EM like ultraviolet.
If the excited electron descends all the way back to ground state, it emit a UV photon. However, it can drop only from level 7 to levels 6, and 4 and emit an IR photon. Hydrogen does emit IR as does nitrogen gas.
Each atom has it’s own unique properties in that respect and when the mass containing the atoms is heated, all electrons shift from ground state upward to establish a new group state level. Naturally, since E is higher, then E = hf is higher, meaning heated atoms emit higher frequencies with lower wavelengths.
That basically is why IR from cooler gas in the atmosphere cannot be absorbed by a hotter surface. The frequency of IR emitted by a gas at a lower temperature is too low to excite electrons in the surface which are at a higher temperature.
That is corroborated by the 2nd law, which states that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot. In fact, it is corroborated by all forms of energy where energy can never be transferred, by its own means, from a lower potential energy state to a higher potential energy state.
‘By it’s on means’ is the key. You can force energy to move between a lower state and a higher state using external compensation. In an air conditioner, it is done by compressing a low pressure gas that has absorbed heat at a lower temperature, to a high pressure, high temperature liquid then running the liquid through a radiator where the heat is dissipated to a hotter environment.
That process cannot work naturally by itself, as in the atmosphere.
For a man that doesn’t know that photons have momentum you’re very fast to bandy about terms like “quantum physics”. Clintard is simply wrong. 15μm photons warm surfaces on absorbtion exactly the same as visible light and microwaves.
The GHE entails no violation of the 2nd Law for the blindingly obvious reason that nothing is flowing, net, from cold to warm. The flow of heat from <b<warm to cold, that is from the surface to space, is slowed by back radiation. That is all.
Gordon,
Go back and read your Bohr some more, there are more than 7 available energy levels.
Elliott, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
elliott…”One thing I learnt from years of debating creationists, prior to learning not to bother debating creationists, was this pattern of just repeating the lie over and over, however many times it is shot down”.
***
How would you debate Isaac Newton, who believed God created the universe? Do you presume to be smarter than Newton?
I am not religious in that I follow no conventional religions but I have reached my own conclusion that it is just as likely there is a creator, than not. There is simply no proof either way but the universe and life are simply too wonderful to have occurred by fluke, as in evolution theory.
The human mind is a strange duck. It likes to latch onto a theory even though there is little or no evidence it is true. Creationists tend to do that but so do students of science. That’s what you are doing with your presumption that creationists are wrong, even though you cannot prove it. Is it possible they may be right but have the story wrong due to a limited ability to understand it?
The Bible is of little help in that respect, especially the Book of Genesis, Then again, the Bible is a product of the human mind. Let me ask you this: what is more likely, the Genesis version, or the scientific view that the entire mass of the universe appeared suddenly out of nothing in an immense explosion? Given my druthers, I am going with Genesis.
The prudent approach would appear to be agnosticism.
How would you debate Isaac Newton, who believed God created the universe? Do you presume to be smarter than Newton?
I’d tell him to read On the Origin of Species.
The prudent approach would appear to be agnosticism.
Most of us atheists are agnostics.
Creationists are wrong. There is no question about this, although it’s very typical that deniers of one science turn out to be deniers of another.
EB,
“Creationists are wrong” That’s breathtakingly presumptuous!
Which creationists are you talking about, and why do you think they are wrong?
You are going to refuse to be helpful, aren’t you?
[what a fool you are]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about what you find presumptuous.
Silly sock puppet.
That’s nice, Thanks.
ball4…”Gordon, there is no such limit found in radiation of IR active gas experiments. CO2 is smaller by mass number but much larger in radiative numbers than N2,O2″.
***
Allow me to spell it out for you using the Ideal Gas Law….
PV = nRT
We need to presume a constant volume, where that means the entire volume of atmospheric gas, spherical layers, or a cubic metre at any altitude.
Given a constants V, we collect the constants as in…
P = (nR/V).T
n = number of molecules and is pretty well constant. R is the gas constant.
That makes it clear that P is proportional to T which can be proved independently.
Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures states that the total pressure of a gas with different gases is the sum of the partial pressures of each gas. Since pressure is proportional to temperature, the same has to apply to the partial temperatures contributed by each gas.
Partial pressure and the number of molecules of each gas are the same. In other words, pressure is related to the force exerted on a container wall by gas molecules and that force will vary by gas depending on the number of molecules of each gas.
We know that CO2 makes up 0.04% of the molecules in the entire gas but it is a slightly heavier molecule than N2 and O2. Therefore its mass percent works out to about 0.06%.
Since pressure and temperature are directly proportional, it means the degrees warming in C of each gas are directly proportional to the mass percent. At 0.06%, CO2 can add no more than 0.06C for each 1C rise in temperature for the entire gas.
It is no coincidence that the thermal diffusivity equation returns the same result.
Sorry gordon, but you’re wrong, as usual.
Your confusion: “At 0.06%, CO2 can add no more than 0.06C for each 1C rise in temperature for the entire gas.”
First, CO2 does NOT “add”. If the mixture is being heated from an external source, CO2 is not adding anything.
Second, you appear to believe that temperature is additive. That is, if you have two bricks at 40C, and you bring them in contact, you don’t have 80C bricks. All the gases in the mixture would be at the same temperature.
You won’t understand any of this. You’ll just go into another childish meltdown. So this is just for responsible adults that might make the mistake of trying to understand your nonsense.
Blow your stack, but I won’t be responding.
I’m glad you won’t be responding saves me the unfettered bother of revealing your pseudo-science.
All molecules in a gas contribute to the temperature of the gas. Of course, they have to be heated externally but when they receive external heat, they all deal with it according to their atomic structure and add heat to the mix via absorp-tion.
After all, the total heat is the sum of the kinetic energies of each molecule and if you ad heat, the KEs of each molecule changes in accordance to the atomic properties of each molecule. You have heard of heat capacity I presume.
Different atoms/molecules have different heat capacities. From physics stack exchange…”If you have a constant mass of air and increase the fraction of CO2 relative to nitrogen/oxygen, the heat capacity of CO2 is about 37 J/mol at 15C compared to nitrogen at 29 J/mol”.
So, different gases in a mix absorb different amounts of heat.
It was not me who invented this notion, it came originally from Dalton, one of the recognized authors of the Ideal Gas Law. He proposed the theory of partial pressures and it is a valid part of the IGL. If each gas in a mix contributes to the total pressure, and pressure is directly proportional to temperature, it follows that each molecule adds its own heat, hence a partial heat contribution to the whole.
It would be the same with bricks if you combined bricks of different temperatures to form a mass. The bricks would transfer heat to each other till they reached a constant uniform temperature.
If you have trouble visualizing this, try this. Pressure is the force per unit area that a gas exerts on a surface, like a container wall. Temperature is the average kinetic energy of each molecule. Since KE = 1/2 mv^2, when you add heat, the velocity of the molecules increase and that increases the force per unit area on container walls. But it also represents an increase in heat, hence temperature, which we associate with faster molecular motions.
Elementary.
“So, different gases in a mix absorb different amounts of heat.”
Time after time, I have to remind Gordon EMR is not heat. Different gases absorb different amounts of EMR as shown experimentally long ago which Gordon completely neglects at 6:30 pm.
“At 0.06%, CO2 can add no more than 0.06C for each 1C rise in temperature for the entire gas.”
Gordon 6:30 pm, in your constant-volume process (and only in such a process) the change in internal gas energy is equal to the time-integrated heating. You have completely neglected to consider time-integrated heating of your ideal gas.
Ball4,
“Time after time, I have to remind Gordon EMR is not heat. Different gases absorb different amounts of EMR as shown experimentally long ago which Gordon completely neglects at 6:30 pm.”
OK, what have gas properties to do with a mythical GHE which you refuse to describe?
Which gas do you blame for surface cooling at night, or during a solar eclipse?
Are you mad, or just pretending?
The world wonders.
Gordon, in Earth’s atm. molecular nitrogen is the most abundant gas, but it is not a major player in IR absorp_tion by the lower atmosphere except in an indirect way by virtue of interaction (collisional broadening) with its less abundant but radiatively active gases such as water vapor, CO2, and methane. Water vapor is infrared active; nitrogen and oxygen, for the most part, are infrared inactive.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Gordon, in Earths atm. molecular nitrogen is the most abundant gas, but it is not a major player in IR absorp_tion by the lower atmosphere except in an indirect way by virtue of interaction (collisional broadening) with its less abundant but radiatively active gases such as water vapor, CO2, and methane. Water vapor is infrared active; nitrogen and oxygen, for the most part, are infrared inactive.”
Is your nonsense supposed to have anything to do with the mythical GHE which you refuse to describe?
All gases are heated by sunlight. You arent claiming that more H2O in the atmosphere makes the surface hotter, are you? Of course not, you say nothing definite.
There is no GHE.
b4…”Time after time, I have to remind Gordon EMR is not heat. Different gases absorb different amounts of EMR as shown experimentally long ago which Gordon completely neglects at 6:30 pm”.
***
Actually, you stole that off me. I started the meme about EM not being heat. However, when a gas absorbs EM, it converts it to heat.
b4…” in Earths atm. molecular nitrogen is the most abundant gas, but it is not a major player in IR absorp_tion by the lower atmosphere”
***
That’s part of the alarmists propaganda. The AGW theory would not work if N2 played a significant role, and it does.
b4…”Gordon 6:30 pm, in your constant-volume process (and only in such a process) the change in internal gas energy is equal to the time-integrated heating. You have completely neglected to consider time-integrated heating of your ideal gas”.
***
Time-integrated heating??? I thought you didn’t believe in heat?
All that means is that instantaneous increases in heat are summed over time. So, consider a CO2 molecule, an N2 molecule, an O2 molecule, an Argon atom, etc., all contributing heat (KE) to the gas over an instant. Now, sum them. That’s what I was talking about partial-temperatures, and they have to sum to the total gas temperature.
Temperature may be defined as the average KE, but in reality, it is instantaneous heat quantities (KEs) being added.
Think about it. You have a mercury thermometer with a bulb full of mercury and a capillary tube up which it can expand to indicate temperature. It is actually averaging the KE of all air molecules that strike the bulb. It is, in fact, integrating them over time, and without a slide rule.
We humans developed the scale unit such as degrees Celsius. We noted where the scale was with ice water then with boiling water, and we conveniently divided the range into degrees of 100.
That all temperature is.
It is actually averaging the KE of all air molecules that strike the bulb.
Nice to see that you accept the averaging nature of temperature today.
“I thought you didn’t believe in heat?”
Gordon thought wrongly as is often the case.
Heat is a measure of the total KE of the object’s molecules and/or atoms. There are none of those in EMR, so Gordon incorrectly writes “gases in a mix absorb different amounts of heat” thus Gordon has to be time and again corrected. Gordon’s 6:30 pm comment is shown erroneous.
Also, Gordon, remember temperature is not heat; temperature is a measure of their average KE. There is more heat in the Atlantic ocean than in a boiling tea kettle in your kitchen.
“The AGW theory would not work if N2 played a significant role, and it does.”
Yes Gordon, you get that right, the AGW theory does work with 95% confidence nature’s actual OLR is meaningfully within the known, measured confidence interval & N2,O2 play an insignificant role (~0.28 W/m^2 reduction in OLR out of ~240 W/m^2 remaining) for Earth’s system.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
elliott…”Of course there is night-time cooling. But the GHE limits it. And the increasing GHE means it cools to slightly warmer temperatures, on average, year by year”.
***
That is one of the more stoopid alarmist comments I have seen.
How does the mythical GHE do that? What is the process by which it is able to limit night time cooling?
Gordon,
Elliott wrote –
“Of course there is night-time cooling. But the GHE limits it. And the increasing GHE means it cools to slightly warmer temperatures, on average, year by year”
Unfortunately, after four and a half billion years of “slightly warmer temperatures”, the surface has cooled, not become hotter.
He refuses to say whether the Earth’s surface has cooled, because he would look like an idiot for claiming there was a GHE.
He’s simply confused – or simple and confused. The atmosphere acts as a mild insulator – Raymond Pierrehumbert calculated the effect to be similar to one seventh of an inch of polystyrene (whatever that is supposed to mean).
The effect is that minimum temperatures are higher than the Moon’s (as John Tyndall pointed out, without an atmosphere we would all die of cold), and maximum temperatures on Earth do not exceed 90 C, compared with the airless Moon’s 125 C or so.
Reality deniers like Elliott refuse to accept fact, and refuse to say anything definite about their bizarre beliefs. He even produced a GHE “definition”, in an attempt to fool others into thinking it was a description. If you define the GHE as a process which heats the Earth, it’s about as silly as defining pi to be 22/7, or 355/113, as some lawmakers wanted to in the past.
Still no GHE. Thermometers respond to additional man-made heat. Pretty simple, which explains why temperature increases have been noticed since man-made heat first became noticeable – a few hundred years ago.
Pierrehumbert…isn’t he the genius who claimed the Earth’s temperature could rise to 800,000K?
Never mind, I looked it up…
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 1017 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earths temperature to nearly 800,000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it”.
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Pierrehumbert-2011.pdf
He clearly has no idea of what heat is our how it works. That’s why this ludicrous anthropogenic theory has gotten as far as it’s gotten, through sheer pseudo-science.
swenson…all evidence points to the fact that the Earth has cooled.
Gordon,
“Pierrehumbertisnt he the genius who claimed the Earths temperature could rise to 800,000K?”
You might try finishing the paragraph.
That’s where he explains the only way the Earth can cool, by the emission of radiation.
What is the process by which it is able to limit night time cooling?
The GHE IS the process which limits night-time cooling,
Hang on there just a sec, pardner!
The GHE is a process? It is called the greenhouse effect, but it seems you have abandoned both greenhouse and effect along the way.
I suppose you have defined it as a process which limits night time cooling. Is that right?
Limits it to about -89.2 C, by the look of it. Nonsense, unless supported by experiment, and it isn’t, is it!
That’s good to know, if completely useless.
Are you stupid, or just pretending, for some reason you are refusing to divulge?
You don’t have to answer.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your interruptions.
Good to know.
Earlier, Elliott Bignell got a little carried away with himself, and wrote –
“Well, then youll be able to use the “block” facility and my plugin too, wont you?”
Elliott has appointed himself Chief Blockhead. Good for him.
He can join Willard (ThreadMaster).
Obviously, Elliott has delusions of grandeur. Just another GHE cultist trying to ban reality, because he doesn’t like it.
What a Blockhead!
I can’t imagine how we managed to cope before Elliott showed up. We have managed to tolerate each other fine till now, but Elliott thinks we should block posts from different posters so we will see only what we want to see.
Strange place, Switzerland. Very politically-correct place.
I prefer leaving it up to Roy, he has maintained order in his own way.
If you ever visit, you’ll notice that there’s hardly any trash.
You’re not coping. The blog is clogged with shıτ, and it’s impossible to follow a sensible conversation by two people who are not imbecile denialists. The best public service I could do is to make you invisible.
EB,
You wrote –
“The best public service I could do is to make you invisible.”
It’s a good thing that people like you are completely impotent, and incapable of “disappearing” people with whom you disagree.
There is no GHE. The Earth has cooled. You can refuse to accept fact, but it makes no difference.
You refuse to describe the GHE – and now define it as a “process”. A process that causes high temperatures, low temperatures, faster cooling, slower cooling, floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados, heat waves, and so on!
What a load of rubbish! Some Swiss village is obviously looking for its missing idiot.
Ah, but people like me are technically literate and can write plugins to block people like you. Who aren’t, to put it mildly. I doubt I’d be the only one to use them.
Did I already mention that people like us just voted for a law mandating renewable energy, by the way?
EB,
You wrote –
“Ah, but people like me are technically literate and can write plugins to block people like you. Who arent, to put it mildly.” Aren’t what? As delusional as you?
Write your blocking plugin, Blockhead. Should I be afraid, or very afraid?
You wrote “Did I already mention that people like us just voted for a law mandating renewable energy, by the way?”
Am I supposed to care?
No-one cares whether you care. Important is that you be seen to contradict yourself.
Pleased to hear it. Thanks.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Why are nights warming faster than days?
In a nutshell, the answer is clouds.
Global warming is causing there to be more cloud cover over land areas because a warmer atmosphere can essentially hold more moisture. The types of clouds that have increasedspecifically thick, precipitating cloudsreflect sunlight back into space during the day and have a cooling effect. But they absorb and re-emit heat back down to Earths surface at night, acting like a blanket. By increasing cloud cover, climate change is acting like the blanket you dont need in a stuffy room on a hot, summer night.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/kristy-dahl/with-climate-change-nights-are-warming-faster-than-days-why/
“Why are nights warming faster than days?
In a nutshell, the answer is clouds.”
No, it’s man-made waste heat making itself apparent.
As to a warmer atmosphere holding more moisture, Death Valley is very hot – because of a lack of moisture! The less water vapour, the hotter it is!
No wonder GHE cultists refuse to say that water vapour is a “greenhouse gas”. That would be simply idiotic, seeing that the hottest places on Earth are also the driest.
No GHE. It’s a fantasy, and Willard is gullible and ignorant.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares when you rely on Step 2 – Saying Stuff.
Good to know.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you ignore that Death Valley isn’t that hot during its nights.
Pleased to hear it.
You should be. Cooler nights are exactly what the GHE would predict for an area with little moisture.
EB,
You just claimed the GHE was a process. Is the process basic physics?
That is all that is needed to explain cooling.
Go on, tell me that higher temperatures in deserts are predicted by the GHE, due to a lack of greenhouse gases! Make a complete idiot of yourself – I don’t mind.
Carry on.
Go on, tell me that higher temperatures in deserts are predicted by the GHE, due to a lack of greenhouse gases!
That’s exactly what the GHE predicts. Less water vapour; less GHE; faster cooling overnight. Very, very simple.
EB, you dimwit, I said –
Go on, tell me that higher temperatures in deserts are predicted by the GHE, due to a lack of greenhouse gases! Make a complete idiot of yourself I dont mind.
You proceed to babble about cooling!
You wrote –
“Thats exactly what the GHE predicts. Less water vapour; less GHE; faster cooling overnight. Very, very simple”
Indeed. You are very, very, simple. You think higher temperatures in deserts (say 54 C in Death Valley) are due to faster overnight cooling? I suppose you claim that the high temperatures on the Moon (over 125 C) are also due to the “process” you defined the GHE to be.
You definitely don’t need my help to boast how ignorant and gullible you are.
Ah, my mistake. Got stuck on cooling. Been reading too much drivel lately.
Death Valley is hot because it is sandy and rarely cloudy. Sand heats up quickly in the Sun. Simple.
EB,
So the less GHE in Death Valley, the hotter it gets, but in other places, the less GHE, the colder it gets?
A “process” which makes maximum temperatures hotter or cooler, depending on what you want!
Doesn’t sound very scientific, does it?
A process which cooled the plane5 for four and a half billion years, then started making it hotter!
Yeah. Right. If you say so.
Try to stay awake, Svensdottir. Deserts are close to the equator and made or sand or bare rock. They’re hotter during daylight and colder at night.
Acting as though your neurons have to wave to get each others’ attention is very wearing.
EB,
So the less GHE in Death Valley, the hotter it gets, but in other places, the less GHE, the colder it gets?
A process which makes maximum temperatures hotter or cooler, depending on what you want!
Doesnt sound very scientific, does it?
A process which cooled the plane5 for four and a half billion years, then started making it hotter!
Yeah. Right. If you say so.
Keep avoiding reality. Keep refusing to describe the role of the mythical GHE.
So the less GHE in Death Valley, the hotter it gets, but in other places, the less GHE, the colder it gets?/i>
You’re raving, Svensdottir. Again. Try to at least vaguely pay attention.
Elliott.
You are just denying reality.
Death Valley is nowhere near the equator, at 36 N. The hottest place on Earth, the Lut Deset, is around 30 N.
You wrote –
“Deserts are close to the equator and made or sand or bare rock. Theyre hotter during daylight and colder at night.”
There is a reason for the hottest places not being near the equator, but you are obviously too ignorant to know why. In any case, no need for any GHE. Just basic physics. The Moon is an extreme example of the physics involved. If you refuse to accept known physical laws, preferring to invent your own, and refusing to describe them, it is unlikely your opinions are going to be widely accepted.
Try and explain why a GHE is necessary to explain the highest temperatures being found in areas with the least amount of alleged “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere.
I can explain the phenomenon without reference to a GHE. Do you really think I can’t? OK, then, who would you accept as an authority?
Peanut.
Do you really think I cant?
You very manifestly can’t.
EB,
You wrote –
“You very manifestly cant.”
That’s why I asked which authority you would accept. As usual, you refuse to commit yourself.
Typical fanatical GHE cultist behaviour. The behaviour of a loser.
Carry on.
Only losers concern themselves with authorities.
“Only losers concern themselves with authorities.”
I agree. That’s why you are a loser.
Nobody cares about your No U’s, Mike.
Nice to hear.
I was just watching a program in which they claimed warming causes cooling and more snow. Of course, I switched channels.
If you listen to alarmists, they will put up an argument that current record cold temps in winter are caused by global warming.
I just ate pizza. Something something. Sky dragon cranks are a bit silly. Except Mr. Asshat – he’s more of an asshat.
Thanks for sharing.
If you listen to alarmists, they will put up an argument that current record cold temps in winter are caused by global warming.
If you listen to pretty-much any weatherman or climate scientist, they’ll tell you that your local cold temperatures are due to alterations in the jet stream, with Rossby Wave “loops” extending southward and bringing polar air South. There is no uncertainty about this, that I have seen. The mechanism is a weakening and poleward movement of the jet stream and this IS predicted by anthropogenic heating.
Needless to say, the overall pattern is still warming.
EB,
You wrote –
“Needless to say, the overall pattern is still warming.” Yes, and as you say, due to “anthropogenic heating.”
Heat. Thermometers respond to it. Man-made.
Why do you refuse to accept reality? You even say it – “anthropogenic heating.” You refuse to believe what you write?
That’s bizarre!
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your heated responses, they are just insignificant human waste.
Technically, they are meta-waste.
Willard, good to know.
Elliot, thanks for that.
[a pair of peanuts]
Good night, Mike.
[What a kiwi!]
More of a drongo, surely?
Little Willy, Elliott, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson – I see you have yet to comment on the momentum of a photon, the equation for which I found in less than 15 seconds. Any particular reason?
Can’t be bothered?
Very likely. Unfortunately for Gordon, it’s high-school level physics that he should have known.
“Unfortunately for Gordon, its high-school level physics that he should have known.”
Why is that, do you think? Have you appointed yourself as the Chief Arbiter of what people should have known as well as being Blockhead-in-Chief?
[laughing derisively]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your derision.
That’s good to know. Thanks.
P.S. And shouldn’t have made such an issue.
Well, that’s shallow and meaningless. What are you trying to say?
Mike Flynn,
Should anybody care about you feigning ignorance?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nobody cares if you lost your PSTering privileges, Mike.
Thanks for the information.
Solar wind
speed: 407.7 km/sec
density: 3.45 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 11 Jun 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 146
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 178 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 28.08×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.1% Low
“3 MILLON YEARS AGO, AN INTERSTELLAR CLOUD HIT EARTH: Today, Earth is in a safe space. Like all the other planets in the Solar System, it is cocooned within the sun’s magnetic field–a giant bubble called “the heliosphere.” The heliosphere protects us from dangerous things in the Galaxy like interstellar clouds and cosmic rays.
….
Researchers have long wondered if something happened to Earth 2 to 3 million years ago. Deep-sea sediments, Antarctic snow, and lunar samples from that time period all contain extraterrestrial radioactive isotopes (iron-60 and plutonium-244). The peak is quite striking.
A nearby supernova might have peppered Earth with these substances, but Opher and colleagues had a different idea.
….”
I am going to stick with supernova story,
And apparently their has been many supernovas more recent than 2 million years- and we, apparently, going to get another one, fairly soon.
In terms the fermi paradox, nearby stellar explosions, aren’t brought up much..
Then again, maybe millions of years ago, the Sol System was nearer to our galactic core, we caught a gravity wave, and surfed out here.
And while surfing we hit some cold clouds.
The moral of the story, is NASA should explore space, and find out, some stuff. The excuse they give, is they can’t build a rocket- it seems, Starship could be that rocket, that they wanted,
Solar wind
speed: 355.8 km/sec
density: 4.47 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 12 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 95
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 165 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 28.19×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.1% Low
6 numbered spots, one going to farside and 2 to 3 coming from farside
Solar wind
speed: 353.5 km/sec
density: 2.57 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 13 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 145
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 165 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 28.20×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.8% Low
10 numbered spots.
“There are no significant equatorial coronal holes on the Earthside of the sun. ”
Hmm, there is a significant a equatorial coronal hole.
In terms of spots, on 12th June the highest numbered spot was 3711.
Now, highest numbered spot is 3716.
It doesn’t appear that any spot is coming or going to farside,
Solar wind
speed: 335.1 km/sec
density: 2.10 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 14 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 124
“Sunspots AR3712 and 13 have ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic fields that harbor energy for M-class solar flares”
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 165 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 28.10×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.6% Low\
8 numbered sunspot. 3715 and 3714, faded. And 3716 is still the highest numbered spot. 3712 is biggest spot and the most southern spot. Probably, 3702 won’t leave within a day. No spots are coming from farside, yet.
“There are no large equatorial coronal holes on the Earthside of the sun. ”
Ok, but there is a significant hole at equator- directly, facing Earth.
It’s Alive! The Ballad of Swenson Redux
First post: 4:15 PM
Latest post: 5:39 AM
42 posts in 13.4 hours
~1 post every 20 minutes.
A,
Glad to see you’re keeping count. Thanks so much.
[what an idiot]
“Glad to see you’re keeping count.”
It’s surprisingly easy.
First post: 4:15 PM “Thanks again for your interest.”
Latest post: 5:39 AM “Pleased to hear it.”
Nothing to it.
A,
Thank you for your interest. Keep it up, if it makes you happy.
Elliott Bignell develops new quantum theory –
In response to “Photons emitted by colder objects are simply not absorbed by hotter objects.”
He responds –
“Yes, right. They go around them, right?”.
Unfortunately, as Richard Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Of course, Elliot Bignell is an idiot, but at least he is ignorant and gullible. No, photons don’t go around objects, unless he can demonstrate this otherwise amazing new physical behavior by reproducible experiment.
Others are free to place an appropriate value on Elliot’s unsupported assertions.
Do you, like, have a Walkman on with a track saying, “Breathe in, breathe out…”?
No, photons don’t go around objects. The are reflected or absorbed, regardless of where they originated, you irretrievable cretin. It was self-evidently sarcasm, prompted by your cretinous assertion that they don’t get absorbed when they come from a colder object.
EB,
You are demonstrating ignorance and gullibility when you write –
“No, photons dont go around objects. The are reflected or absorbed, regardless of where they originated, you irretrievable cretin. It was self-evidently sarcasm, prompted by your cretinous assertion that they dont get absorbed when they come from a colder object.”
Window glass is solid, yet transparent. Photons go straight through it. That’s how you perceive objects on the other side of the pane.
These same photons travel through the aqueous humour of your eye, ignoring it, until they choose to interact with your retina.
So saying that photons are “reflected or absorbed” seems a bit lacking, doesn’t it?
Photons emanating from a colder body are not absorbed by a warmer, unless you can demonstrate by means of a reproducible experiment that this is so. The contents of your obviously ignorant fantasies are not reality.
You can refuse to accept reality, but it won’t change a single physical fact.
You just look like a reality denying nutter.
Swenson,
“Window glass is solid, yet transparent. Photons go straight through it.”
Why no, they don’t, they bend at the air glass interface, and they bend back at the glass air interface. It’s called refraction.
“Photons emanating from a colder body are not absorbed by a warmer, unless you can demonstrate by means of a reproducible experiment that this is so.”
That would Eli’s green plate experiment, which can be done in your kitchen, just like I did it in mine.
Reflected or absorbed or transmitted, yes. The case of transmission being irrelevant at this point. So you’re still wrong, and they still don’t bend to go around objects that are cooler than their source.
bobdroege, Elliott, please stop trolling.
Photons emitted by colder objects are simply not absorbed by hotter objects.
Here we reach the point where denial collapses into full-on fantasy. Svensdottir thinks that photons swerve when they approach a surface hotter than where they came from, as if thy carried temperature data around with them. Or as if the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics dictates to individual photons where they can and cannot be absorbed.
The 2nd Law is a consequence of statistical realities, not a magic spell. Heat flows from a hotter to a cooler object because the hotter object emits more, and more energetic, photons than the cooler. In net, more photons from the hot object reach the cool object than reach the hot object from the cool object. It’s that simple. Photons DO make it from the cool to the warm object – just fewer of them. If you place a cooler object between a warm object and free space at absolute zero, those photons will slow the cooling of the warm object.
This whole confabulation about the GHE violating the 2nd law is based on the inability to understand this reality, and the GHE is simply the photons from the cooler upper atmosphere which get re-emitted downwards and re-absorbed. The 2nd law is no obstacle, as the net flow is still always from warm to cold. All that changes is the NET flow.
Notice how confused and uneducated Elliot is:
* “The[y] are reflected or absorbed, regardless of where they originated,”
Elliot admits photons can be reflected. But next, he forgets photons can be reflected:
** “Photons DO make it from the cool to the warm object — just fewer of them.”
Yes, but it the wavelength is too long to be absorbed, the photon gets reflected. In the rare cases where it would get absorbed (Kirchhoff’s Law), if its frequency were less than than the average of the object, it would NOT raise the temperature. See a brief explanation of temperature here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672287
Admit it: You’re just making stuff up as you go along.
Elliot must be in competition for “Most Fanatic Cult Tr0ll of the Day”?
He makes a false accusation within 3 minutes!
Silly willy will have to step it up a notch….
You’re just making stuff up. Not even vaguely disguised. None of your drivel about absorbtion or a law from electronics has any bearing whatsoever on the temperature of the photon’s source.
if its frequency were less than than the average of the object, it would NOT raise the temperature
It would raise the temperature of the object irrespective both of its frequency and the average of the object. Very obviously. If you have ten pint glasses of beer and you add a single ounce of water to one then you have both a greater volume of water and a greater average volume in the glasses. Simple.
Photons add energy. They do not subtract it, nor do they create atoms.
May I point out that the frequency of photons is not what determines if they are absorbed or not.
It’s the energy.
The cult understands NONE of the relevant science, as Elliot continues to demonstrate.
I mentioned “Kirchhoff’s Law”, in reference to how a low energy photon might be absorbed by a surface hotter than where the photon was emitted. Elliot had obviously never heard of any such thing, so he looked up “Kirchhoff’s Law” to get confused about KL as applied to electrical circuits. (Bold my emphasis.)
“None of your drivel about absorbtion [sic] or a law from electronics has any bearing whatsoever on the temperature of the photons source.”
If you try to educate them on where they’re wrong, they just throw more crap against the wall. Science is WAY over their heads:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why do you post another link you don’t understand?
Please reply to this comment. Make me win.
Clint R is hoisted by his own petard.
Clint R,
“Yes, but it the wavelength is too long to be absorbed, the photon gets reflected.”
Sorry but the 15u photon from CO2 in the atmosphere is definitely not too long to be absorbed.
Burbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Sorry but the 15u photon from CO2 in the atmosphere is definitely not too long to be absorbed”
That’s true, provided that the object in question is emitting photons with a longer wavelength.
Otherwise, when you put ice in water, the water would get hotter, and the ice would get colder (conservation of energy), until the ice reached absolute zero!
You may be stupid enough to believe that, but I don’t.
You have no clue. Ignorant and gullible. You refuse to describe the GHE, because you realise how stupid it would make you look.
Feel free to demonstrate how wrong I am.
[how dim he is]
Swenson,
Let me give you a primer.
Heat is transferred by conduction, convection, and radiation.
“Thats true, provided that the object in question is emitting photons with a longer wavelength.”
That’s not the correct criteria. Didn’t you say matter aboxrbs and emits all wavelengths of light. You might want to refer to a physics text, but a chemistry text might be better.
“Otherwise, when you put ice in water, the water would get hotter, and the ice would get colder (conservation of energy), until the ice reached absolute zero!”
When you put ice in water, the water warms the ice, mostly by conduction. And the ice takes the latent heat of solidification from the water, cooling the water.
We are talking about things that warm and cool due to radiation, not conduction or convection.
Clintard – If you try to educate them on where theyre wrong, they just throw more crap against the wall. Science is WAY over their heads
This from the retard that thinks that thermodynamics has not advanced since steam engines and that a photon does not raise the temperature of an object which absorbs it.
You probably shouldn’t have drawn my attention to Kirchoff’s Law, Clintard.
For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorbtivity.
It has literally nothing to do with your claim. You’re just blustering. As usual.
“those photons will slow the cooling of the warm object.”
Slower cooling is not warming. If it were one would have to maintain that the polar ice cap warms the ocean.
Ludicrous I know, but that’s the fantasy GHE for you
Yes, it is, when the system has a continual and constant heat input.
PhilJ,
It’s a simple experiment one can do with a stove, a pot, a lid that fits the pot, and some water.
Put the water in the pot, put it on the stove, turn the heat up just enough to keep the water just below boiling.
Then put the lid on and watch the water start boiling.
You could even use a flat sheet of ice as a lid, and watch the ice cause the water to boil.
bob believes he’s “proved” the GHE by using an ice lid to raise the temperature of a pot of water.
Deception, trickery, and dishonesty are the trademarks of a cult.
Clint R,
No, I have proposed an experiment that will show you can cause something to increase in temperature by limiting the rate of cooling.
You can apply that to the Earth’s atmosphere or not.
Slowing cooling of a heated object will indeed increase the temperature of that object.
That’s reality.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Slowing cooling of a heated object will indeed increase the temperature of that object.”
Of course, that doesnt apply to the Earth, which after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has actually cooled.
You might need to alter your fantasy to agree with reality.
I can see why you refuse to describe the GHE.
Carry on.
bob believes hes proved the GHE
Liar.
Swenson,
“Of course, that doesn’t apply to the Earth, which after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has actually cooled.”
Of course you can apply it to the Earth, which has cooled and warmed on various timescales, like it has warmed since the Cryogenic Ice Age, since the last glaciation, and since mankind started to burn fossil fuels.
It also warmed due to CO2 during the Ontong Java volcanic plateau was formed.
More magical stuff you don’t have the mental capacity to understand.
Elliott, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Yes, it is, when the system has a continual and constant heat input.
I see, so you believe the polar ice cap warms the ocean lol
Will you develop your argument one day, Phil?
For now, it looks like you don’t seem to realize that ice sheets are not greenhouse windows.
It’s almost funny watching people so manifestly out of their depth trying to be clever.
EB,
You wrote –
“Its almost funny watching people so manifestly out of their depth trying to be clever”
I must admit to my shame that I reluctantly get enjoyment watching your antics. I know I shouldn’t laugh at those less fortunate than myself, but I’m only human.
Keep refusing to accept reality. Do you refuse to accept that the Earth has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight?
I wouldn’t be surprised.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your admissions.
Thanks.
Hello Willard,
It’s not my argument. It’s Elliotts (and others)
“Yes, it is, when the system has a continual and constant heat input”
The ‘is’ here referring to Slower cooling being warming.
Ice is an excellent insulator. Almost no heat is lost from the ocean under the ice.
The oceans have a constant and continual heat input.
The polar ice cap slows the cooling of the ocean
Therefore if Slower cooling is warming the polar ice cap warms the ocean.
One could go further and say the Rocky crust ‘warms’ the interior of the Earth using this logic..
I believe the argument says ‘if such and such wasn’t there the Earth would be cooler.. etc’
If the thick Rocky crust wasn’t there the Earth would be colder so the crust is warming the interior…Yada Yada
See what madness follows on a fundamentaly flawed model?
The Earth is cooling and will continue to do so, as it must, it’s systems naturally evolving to shed all external heat input and somewhat of its own internal heat at the maximum rate possible given the physical and chemical changes that occur as it cools and has its atmosphere lost to space or deposited on the surface
> Almost no heat loss
You presume some “thing” that may not be there in the first place, Phil. Here are a few cases that help dodge your monkey wrench:
Ice and snow over ground keeps it warmer at night. At least where the Earth itself provides a heat source. Which is why snow packs melt from under.
Snow packs and ice can melt from above with enough light. But then the heat generated does not reach directly what’s underneath. And Christos’ pet phenomenon, albedo, redirects large parts of radiation back to the atmosphere.
White, thick ice over the water of your (non-functioning) swimming pool keeps it cool because it is blocked from the only heat source, i.e. sunlight. So the ice prevents the loss of little heat. This is the bit you seem to be missing.
When your swimming pool has no ice cover, sunlight reaches water and warms it. But that heat is released rather quickly back to the atmosphere, for reasons you know as well as I do.
All these cases are coherent, consilient, and consistent with basic physics. The last one especially looks a lot like greenhouse theory.
EB,
I suppose you refuse to believe that after four and a half billion years of “continual and constant heat input”, the Earth has cooled? It has, whether you refuse to accept it or not.
You really are in denial of reality, aren’t you?
swenson…the Sun has cooled as well.
Gordon – Quite. There’s also the little matter of “Snowball Earth”.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
I’ll definitely look into building that plugin over the weekend.
Yes Elliott, you wouldn’t want to exposed to any reality.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672760
Why haven’t you responded to this comment – is it because you gave your keyboard to your kid, whom is more reasonable than you?
“Why havent you responded to this comment ”
Why should he? What will you do if he doesn’t? Have a tantrum, perhaps?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you emphasize Puffman’s cringe.
Good to know. Thanks.
“Ill definitely look into building that plugin over the weekend.”
Promises, promises.
The plugin will make you more daft than you are now. Everyone else who tunes in here will b able to see your theories demolished and you will have no say in the matter since you have no ability to see what is written about you and your pseudo-science.
> Everyone else who tunes in here will b able to see your theories demolished
As Mike Flynn would say, “promises, promises.”
Which is actually something I was fond of saying for a while now.
Everyone else who tunes in here will b able to see your theories demolished
I’ll just have to rely on the intelligence of the general public to see through your lies and idiocies. It’s a price I am prepared to pay to see a blog stripped of morans and white noise.
Little Willy, Elliott, please stop trolling.
IFT-4 and the Future of Starship: All You Need to Know (with @scottmanley and @MarcusHouse )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecMlV4W_CLU
One question is how many Starship test launches are going to get?
We going to get Starship test launch 5 and probably test launch 6.
But after 6, will we get the first Starship launch or maybe it will be sort of test launch but it will go to orbit than test de-orbiting.
Or that maybe launch starlink satellite, probably payload should be tanker and stay in orbit, and so not really test launch.
Or are going to get, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and more starship test launches.
By Starship test launch 6, we should have attempt on tower catching the first stage, and maybe attempt at catching the second stage.
And if so, test launch 5 should focused on the next launch catching the starship.
So could have Starship starting being reused before end of 2024, then reusing it by launching it again in 2025.
IFT-4 and the Future of Starship: All You Need to Know (with @scottmanley and @MarcusHouse )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecMlV4W_CLU
Oh, first one posted, it seemed it didn’t and testing why.
Anyhow I think, they should do a quick fix for flap burn thru for test 5. I think stubby wing like thing ahead of flap which takes the heat load, and might be more quick fix, it could used when entering atmosphere even faster, such returning from lunar orbit or landing on Mars. but mostly quick fix rather changing the flaps.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
New study published in Cell Reports Sustainability finds emission reductions provided $249bn of climate and health benefits
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/29/renewable-energy-us-financial-benefits
Elliott Bignell wrote
“Only losers concern themselves with authorities.”
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your misunderstandings on the appeal to authority.
Good to know.
Good night, Mike.
the Guardian…bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha
The classic creationist response: When faced with evidence, first try to attack the source.
EB,
you wrote –
“The classic creationist response: When faced with evidence, first try to attack the source.”
Are you anti-creationist for some reason which you are refusing to divulge?
You obviously object to free speech, but what else are you opposed to for no good reason at all? Refusing to divulge your reasons, yet again?
Do you consider yourself to be intelligent and non-discriminatory?
[laughing]
You obviously object to free speech
Imbecile.
At first I wanted to put the URL of the journal article, Cell.
But then I thought Mr. Asshat would not fall into the trap.
So I put a newsie, and so he did.
Willard – Could you post it anyway, please? If I need it again I’d prefer the original source to a news item.
First link, under “study.” It leads to a drop box. In it you will find the article. Click on the DOI at the bottom of the page:
https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-sustainability/fulltext/S2949-7906(24)00165-4
Thanks. The link was 404 when I tried it.
Elliott, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Neither N2 nor O2 has a dipole moment. Therefore, neither has an infrared αbsorpτion spectrum.
Arkady, while it is true neither N2 nor O2 have a strong dipole moment, nor is there the possibility to induce vibrationally a strong enough dipole moment, as in the case of CO2, Crawford et al. 1949 reported a discovery in that molecular collision induced αbsorpτion leads to weak lines of N2 and O2 in the atm. thermal infrared bands see e.g., Hartmann et al., 2008. This accounts for their combined ~0.28 W/m^2 reduction in OLR out of the total remaining ~240 OLR.
All matter absorbs and emits at each frequency and temperature per the ideal Planck function, there are no exceptions, all means all.
Ball4, thanks for the clarification. N2 αbsorpτion bands are one centered at ~4.17 μm, and another at 100 μm. Oxygen’s is at ~6.45 μm.
Normalized Blackbody Emission Spectra
” This accounts for their combined ~0.28 W/m^2 reduction in OLR… ”
Yes. This has been also reported in 2012 by M. Hoepfner, M. Milz, S. Buehler, J. Orphal, G. Stiller in
The natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)
https://tinyurl.com/Hoepfner-et-alii-2012
They hint on the fact that this OLR reduction (0.11 + 0.17 = 0.28 W/m^2) corresponds to about 15% of CH4’s effect.
The paper refers also to both
(1) Infra-Red Absorp~tion of Oxygen and Nitrogen Induced by Intermolecular Forces
M. F. Crawford, H. L. Welsh, and J. L. Locke (1949)
and
(2) Collisional Effects on Molecular Spectra
Laboratory Experiments and Models, Consequences for Applications
Jean-Michel Hartmann, Christian Boulet, Daniel Robert (2008)
*
I didn’t search for free access sources of these papers behind paywall but found a major revision of Hartmann et alii’s 2008 paper:
Recent advances in collisional effects on spectra of molecular gases and their practical consequences
Jean-Michel Hartmann et al. (2018)
https://tinyurl.com/Hartmann-et-alii-2018
In this 70 pages long revision and extension of the original 2008 article, despite a section (3.6) about collision induced absorp~tion, there is not even one explicit reference on O2’s and N2’s OLR reduction through collision with IR absorbing gases.
Binny,
Elliott Bignell wrote –
“Only losers concern themselves with authorities.”
You aren’t a loser, are you?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you’re a loser.
Not even yourself.
Ball4,
“All matter absorbs and emits at each frequency and temperature per the ideal Planck function, there are no exceptions, all means all.”
Agreed.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if youre a loser.
Not even yourself.”
Thank you for your interest.
[snicker]
Nobody cares if you quote stuff on which you do not comment.
Thanks for the interest. Good to see somebody/nobody cares.
Ball4:
1/ “neither N2 nor O2 have a strong dipole moment”
Neither N2 nor O2 has a dipole moment.
Homonuclear molecules have a center of inversion symmetry. Molecular charge distributions in that symmetry are inconsistent with a permanent dipole moment. This results in the molecules being infrared inactive unless they are perturbed by some external influence.
2/ “Crawford et al. 1949 reported a discovery”
Crawford’s discovery involves compressed N2, as well as liquid and compressed O2. It is not relevant to Earth’s atmosphere.
More recent researches have calculated minor contributions by O2 and N2 to Earth’s GHE.
3/ “All matter absorbs and emits at each frequency and temperature”
Gases only absorb [and emit] in discrete frequency bands.
Arkady 6:42 am: “are inconsistent with a permanent dipole moment”.
N2,O2 dipoles are weak, non-permanent since they oscillate 0-to-max. dipole in their fundamentally weak rotational-vibrational thermal IR bands.
“It is not relevant to Earth’s atmosphere.”
In 1949 lab.s compression allowed the equipment & sensors to pick up the weak signals from N2,O2 thermal IR bands which amount to only 0.28 W/m^2 OLR reduction out of 240 thru Earth’s entire atm. starting at ~1bar not just the optical depth found in a 1bar lab.
“Gases only absorb [and emit] in discrete frequency bands.”
No, that’s only from what is shown in pictures because photon capture is limited by photography & exposure time settings. Gases sampled at atm. STP absorb and emit at all frequencies or ideal Planck’s law would be broken. Faster film (or CCD) and longer exposures will pick up continuous spectrum* emitted photons from the macro gas at each & all freq.s.
Today’s equipment may not be sensitive enough at low enough gas emissivity(f); with tomorrow’s equipment who knows.
*NB: read up on doppler broadening and inter-molecular force broadening (sometimes shortened to collisional or pressure broadening).
Ball4.
1/ My point is simply that N2 and O2 have net electronegativity equal to zero, as well as center of inversion type symmetry. Therefore they have zero dipole moment.
It’s your prerogative if you want to keep saying that they have, “weak” or “non-permanent” dipole moment, but it is wrong.
2/ Yesterday you referenced “Crawford et al. 1949.”
The following quote is from that reference:
That prompted my comment that this data is not relevant to Earth’s atmosphere. It is certainly useful for studying Venus’ atmosphere, for example, where the surface pressure is ~90 Atms.
Also, a quote from Hartmann 2021 makes the same point:
3/ Gases only absorb [and emit] in discrete frequency bands.
I don’t know what you mean by “ that’s only from what is shown in pictures.”
In a spectroscopy experiment light of all different frequencies is passed through a sample and the intensity of the transmitted light is measured at each frequency. At the αbsorpτion frequencies of the sample less light is transmitted than at frequencies which do not correspond to vibrational frequencies of the molecules.
The αbsorpτion frequencies are the resonant αbsorpτion bands of the gas molecules.
“That prompted my comment that this data is not relevant to Earth’s atmosphere.”
The 1949 paper is relevant to Earth’s atm. as their discovered emission is fundamental to N2,O2 molecules.
The 1949 work was first to identify the fundamental non-permanent rotovibrational dipoles of the N2,O2 molecules which led to further studies of Earth’s natural atmosphere where the thermal infrared signal of O2 was then detected through balloon soundings e.g. Rinsland et al., 1982. High pressure in the 1949 lab was initially used enabling discovery of their weak thermal IR bands using high inter-molecular force broadening due to that higher pressure.
“I don’t know what you mean by “that’s only from what is shown in pictures.””
At each αbsorpτion (or alternatively emission) frequency of the gas sample less light (or alternatively more light) is displayed in a picture. Spectroscopy is the science of details. Herzberg’s treatises fill 581 pages for diatomic molecules and 670 pages for the electronic spectra of polyatomic molecules. You ought to be able to quickly search with google and/or youtube for proper spectrum of air shown in pictures or borrow a Herzberg text who can further extend your interest more than can a blog.
Longer exposure times for the pictures will show more of the gas emission(f) until the spectrum picture becomes as continuous as possible with today’s instruments per ideal Planck law.
“Longer exposure times for the pictures will show more of the gas emission”
You’re pulling my leg, right?
Just go to the HITRAN database and look at the data. It’s pickets all the way down, i.e. discrete lines or bands where αbsorpτion occurs.
Far as I know, not going to find experimental pictures of air spectra in Hitran.
Sure, anyone skilled in its use is able to obtain LBL calculated percent transmission spectra from data there though thru various compositions of air at a certain temperature, path length, pressure including data on collision induced αbsorpτion of infrared radiation by transient (non-permanent) electric dipoles which “contributes appreciably to the total αbsorpτion of radiation in planetary atmospheres.” (See Karman et. al., Icarus 328, 2019 “Update of the HITRAN collision-induced αbsorpτion section”.)
The paper cited by Bindidon shows more detail of the spectroscopic data calculated from Hitran 2008 data in:
Figure 1. (a) Atmospheric zenith transmission between 10 and 2500 cm-1 (1 mm-4 micron) in case of mid-latitude conditions for all gases (top) and single gas atmospheres. (b) Spectral OLR difference between the OLR where a single gas has been omitted and the OLR where all gases are included. Mind the different range of the y-axis for O2 and N2.
Ball4,
Yes, you can really never claim something is zero.
But when I say N2 and O2 don’t absorb IR, I mean it is barely detectable, and contributes nothing to the greenhouse effect.
N2 absorbs about a billion times less than CO2.
A,
You wrote –
“Neither N2 nor O2 has a dipole moment. Therefore, neither has an infrared αbsorpτion spectrum.”
And yet all matter emits IR – and also absorbs IR.
That is why air has what is referred to as “air temperature”. Sunlight heats the atmosphere, and the highest air temperatures are recorded where the “greenhouse gases” are least. Death Valley, for example.
Adding or removing so-called “greenhouse gases” changes the temperature not one jot.
Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
“And yet all matter emits IR – and also absorbs IR.“
So far, so good.
Where’s the proof that dipoles have anything to do with absorbing or emitting IR? Unless you can prove it, there’s no point inferring it.
Neither N2 or O2 have a dipole because the 2 atoms involved have the same electronegativity. That means the orbiting electrons around both atoms spend the same amount of time around each atom. Yet N2 manages to emit and absorb IR.
Obviously, there is another mechanism involved. I think the difference is in the energy levels of the molecule bonding orbitals.
> Unless you can prove it, theres no point inferring it.
Just imagine if Mr. Asshat would abide by this principle.
Gordon Robertson,
“Where’s the proof that dipoles have anything to do with absorbing or emitting IR?”
The phenomenological proof together with a molecular explanation are well documented.
Where’s your source to the contrary? Opinions are not proof.
Little Willy, Arkady, please stop trolling.
The eminently ignorant and gullible Elliott Bignell creates another fantasy.
He wrote –
“Here we reach the point where denial collapses into full-on fantasy. Svensdottir thinks that photons swerve when they approach a surface hotter than where they came from, as if thy carried temperature data around with them. Or as if the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics dictates to individual photons where they can and cannot be absorbed”
Unfortunately, he can’t bring himself to quote me, so he just makes stuff up, making an idiot of himself. He is unable to say what happens to the IR emitted from ice totally immersed in water. Feeling a little foolish, he blames me, and puts words in my mouth.
What an idiot!
No, photons do not swerve as a rule. Radiation travels in straight lines in a vacuum, or homogeneous medium.
Elliott probably can’t find an answer on the internet which makes sense. Bad luck for Elliott. I’ll play his game, and refuse to tell him the answer. No GHE cultist will be able to help him, either.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you decide to rant when you wake up.
Good morning, BTW.
“Nobody cares if you decide to rant when you wake up.”
Pleased to hear it. Should I care?
[chortling]
Nobody cares if your chortling makes you choke, Mike.
Good to hear. Thank you for your concern about my health.
‘As if thy carried temperature data around with them. ‘
Perhaps they do in their amplitude
It would be interesting now that one has been measured, to see if their is a correlation between their amplitude and temptress from the source of the photon would be worth investigating imo
Perhaps they do in their amplitude
What kind of photons are these, Phil?
EB,
You wrote –
“What kind of photons are these, Phil?”
Oooooooh! A gotcha!
Don’t you know? Are you boasting about your level of stupidity?
How many kinds of photons do you think there are?
Are you a complete idiot, or only partway there?
The world wonders!
How many kinds of photons do you think there are?
Imbecile.
EB,
You wrote
“What kind of photons are these, Phil?”
Oooooooh! A gotcha!
Dont you know? Are you boasting about your level of stupidity?
How many kinds of photons do you think there are?
Are you a complete idiot, or only partway there?
You could always refuse to answer, and say some really stupid and irrelevant, like –
“How many kinds of photons do you think there are?
Imbecile.”
That’ll show everyone how clever you are, wons it?
Nobody cares if you keep misidentifying questions, more so when they are not addressed to you.
Elliott, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Today, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) presented its seasonal outlook for summer 2024. Experts predict higher-than-normal temperatures throughout most of Canada, with normal to below-normal temperatures in coastal British Columbia.
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2024/06/environment-and-climate-change-canada-presents-summer-seasonal-outlook-and-introduces-new-heat-wave-attribution-system.html
Climateball experts also predict that Mr. Asshat will talk about where he is quite a bit in the upcoming months.
wrong…I am going to talk about the climate alarmists in Environment Canada. They are NOAA clones, brain-dead people who fail to grasp the scientific notion of thinking for oneself.
When I wrote to an EC official, asking why they have no thermometers on 3500 foot Grouse Mountain, he had no answer. In fact, he was bemused that I would ask such a question since it would create a lower average temperature for Vancouver. Climate alarmists have no interest in lowering temps or in finding an alternate explanation for anthropogenic warming, a daft idea.
In a similar manner, NOAA uses only 4 thermometers to garner an average for California, all of them close to the oceans. Nary a thermometer in the Sierra Nevada.
Sierra Nevada highest point is Mt. Whitney, nearly 15000 feet. No thermometers up there, by jove. Nope, the average warming in California does not recognize the top of Whitney as being in California, or apparently, on the planet.
Mind you, the same NOAA thinks it perfectly scientific to claim 2014 as the warmest years with a 52% chance they may be lying.
> I am going to talk about the climate alarmists in Environment Canada
Challenged accepted!
Let’s hope Mr. Asshat will be able to remember it during the next three months.
And so it took two days:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1673338
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
bob d…”You could even use a flat sheet of ice as a lid, and watch the ice cause the water to boil”.
***
For how long? In a few minutes the super heated steam will melt the ice, cut a hole in it, and the pressure will drop, causing the water to stop boiling.
Gordon,
Who cares about how long, that’s determined by the size of the ice.
The point is, the water in the pot increases in temperature due to the reduction in convective heat losses, for some period of time.
Much longer if you use a regular lid.
Burbling bobby,
And that concerns the GHE which you refuse to describe because . . . ?
You don’t need to answer – just refuse if you wish.
Swenson,
Not refusing because I have already described it to you and your clan.
You and your clan lack the necessary technology to understand it, so you think it’s magic.
Due to an increase in pressure, nothing to do with ice making water hotter.
Bumbling bobby,
What is it you are now refusing to describe?
Just saying you described it in the past (of course you didn’t), and refusing to let anybody see this invisible description, is a sign of mean-spirited unhelpfulness.
I suppose you think that saying “The point is, the water in the pot increases in temperature due to the reduction in convective heat losses, for some period of time.” shows how clever the description of the GHE you refuse to show really is. Pots? Water? You must be mad!
I suppose some idiot might write –
“Putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, which is between the Sun and a bunch of thermometers six feet above the surface, makes those thermometers read moar hotter moar better, on average over time, especially at night.”, and think he had described the GHE, without actually mentioning the GHE!
Are you that idiot, or is that some other idiot?
You really live in a strange fantasy world, don’t you?
Swenson,
You obviously don’t understand what I have already described for you.
You are not technologically advanced enough to understand the greenhouse effect.
Gordon, no pressure increase, the lid just sits on top of the pot, no pressure seal.
For how long?
Dafuq does that have to do with it? You’re wrong. Stop dodging.
Come on, Elliott, you refuse to describe the GHE. You are even silly enough to appeal to the authority of “artificial intelligence” for a definition! It was you who said “Only losers concern themselves with authorities”, wasn’t it?
You refuse to say anything about the GHE creating the temperatures in the hottest places on Earth, instead claiming the GHE causes cooling! That’s a sign of your superior intelligence, is it?
You refuse to say whether you accept that the Earth’s surface temperature has dropped notwithstanding four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight!
Obviously, if you refuse to say anything, nobody can find fault with it, can they?
There is no GHE. You are simply confusing anthropogenic heat with magic. You are simple,nabd confused. Resorting to juvenile inanities like “dafuq” is not necessarily as sign of either maturity or intellectual superiority, is it?
Are you another gutless worm who lacks the backbone to speak openly, instead of using sly and slimy weasel words?
[laughing at dimwit]
you refuse to describe the GHE
Imbecile.
Come on, Elliott, you refuse to describe the GHE. You are even silly enough to appeal to the authority of “artificial intelligence” for a definition! It was you who said “Only losers concern themselves with authorities”, wasnt it?
You refuse to say anything about the GHE creating the temperatures in the hottest places on Earth, instead claiming the GHE causes cooling! That’s a sign of your superior intelligence, is it?
You refuse to say whether you accept that the Earths surface temperature has dropped notwithstanding four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight!
Obviously, if you refuse to say anything, nobody can find fault with it, can they?
There is no GHE. You are simply confusing anthropogenic heat with magic. You are simple and confused. Resorting to juvenile inanities like “dafuq” is not necessarily as sign of either maturity or intellectual superiority, is it?
Are you another gutless worm who lacks the backbone to speak openly, instead of using sly and slimy weasel words?
[laughing at dimwit]
Come on, Elliott, you refuse to describe the GHE.
Imbecile.
Come on, Elliott, you refuse to describe the GHE. You are even silly enough to appeal to the authority of “artificial intelligence” for a definition! It was you who said “Only losers concern themselves with authorities”, wasn’t it?
You refuse to say anything about the GHE creating the temperatures in the hottest places on Earth, instead claiming the GHE causes cooling! That’s a sign of your superior intelligence, is it?
You refuse to say whether you accept that the Earths surface temperature has dropped notwithstanding four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight!
Obviously, if you refuse to say anything, nobody can find fault with it, can they?
There is no GHE. You are simply confusing anthropogenic heat with magic. You are simple and confused. Resorting to juvenile inanities like “dafuq” is not necessarily as sign of either maturity or intellectual superiority, is it?
Are you another gutless worm who lacks the backbone to speak openly, instead of using sly and slimy weasel words?
[laughing at dimwitted anti-imbecile activist]
appeal to the authority of artificial intelligence
Imbecile.
Good to know. Thanks.
elliott…”Yes, it is, when the system has a continual and constant heat input”.
***
This is the only sentence in a new thread. Helps if you give a hint as to what you are talking about. Then again, it would help in general if climate alarmists gave a clue as to what they are talking about. It corresponds to no known science.
In a reply to a comment of mine, Eliott trips over his pseudo-science…
“[GR]Photons emitted by colder objects are simply not absorbed by hotter objects.
[Elliott]Here we reach the point where denial collapses into full-on fantasy. Svensdottir thinks that photons swerve when they approach a surface hotter than where they came from, as if thy carried temperature data around with them. Or as if the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics dictates to individual photons where they can and cannot be absorbed.
The 2nd Law is a consequence of statistical realities….”
***
Starting from the end, the 2nd law, created by Clausius, has nothing to do with statistics, it is based on heat engine theory. Clausius proved, using a heat engine, that heat can be transferred, by its own means, in one direction only, from hot to cold. He later invented entropy as a mathematical statement of the 2nd law.
Heat engine theory is actually a study of heat under different conditions of pressure, volume, and temperature. Clausius proved that heat under those conditions can only be transferred hot to cold.
It was Boltzmann who tried to prove the 2nd law statistically and failed, leaving him so distraught that he took his own life.
Photons do carry temperature data with them as their frequency. The hotter the emitting surface, the higher the frequency. The electrons that absorb them are orbiting at a precise angular frequency and if the photon frequency does not match, it is ignored. When a photon is emitted by a cooler body, its frequency is too lo to excite an electron in a hotter body.
Pretty simple to me since I have spent most of my life studying the properties of electrons. Obviously, too difficult for an alarmist to comprehend, especially since understanding it demolishes his/her pseudo-science.
Any 15μm photon has the same frequency, irrespective of its source. Whether t coes from the Sun, from the atmosphere at -90C or from a desert at 50C, the frequency is the same. 15μm photons emitted from and absorbed by CO2b correspond to the atom’s characteristic energy levels and are not impacted by the temperature of the gas.
Don’t you ever think before posting your drivel?
Elliott, please stop trolling.
elliott…”Gordon Robertson I see you have yet to comment on the momentum of a photon, the equation for which I found in less than 15 seconds. Any particular reason?”
***
I am aware of the equation and it is based on theory that is speculative. Let’s put speculation aside and look at the facts. When a mass is under the influence of a force that can accelerate it, the mass changes speed per unit time till the force is removed or an equal and opposite force is encountered. Then, the body moves at a constant velocity.
A mass moving with a constant velocity is defined as having a momentum = mass x velocity. By definition, a photon has no mass.
Care to explain that one?
This nonsense about a photon having momentum comes from the same theoretical source as the Big Bang. Under that brilliant theory, the entire mass of the universe suddenly appeared in a huge explosion from nothing.
If you want to believe that drivel, be my guest. If you want to believe that a photon, with no mass, has a momentum, fill your boots. Just don’t try foisting it on me.
A photon has mass, as has already been explained to you. It has no rest mass.
Explain the equation.
EM, aka photons, has only an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. Neither have mass so where is this mass coming from? The field has a frequency related to the angular frequency of the electron that emitted it. The electrons has mass but transfers none of it to the photon it emits.
Concede the point, coward.
“Concede the point, coward”
Ooooooh! How masterful! Ooooooh! How pointless!
This would make up for your stupid declaration that photons cannot pass through glass, would it?
I suppose you refuse to believe that IR photons can pass through germanium, like visible light passes through glass are you?
Does any of your comment relate to the description of the GHE that you refuse to divulge?
Go on, tell everyone what happens to photons emitted by ice totally immersed in water – and try not claim you were being sarcastic when I pointed out what an ignorant fool you were, when you gave your last answer.
Maybe you could try and look it up on the internet, do you think? How hard can it be, for a chap who thinks he is clever?
[laughing at pretentious dimwit]
your stupid declaration that photons cannot pass through glass, would it?
Imbecile.
EB,
“Concede the point, coward”
Ooooooh! How masterful! Ooooooh! How pointless!
This would make up for your stupid declaration that photons cannot pass through glass, would it?
I suppose you refuse to believe that IR photons can pass through germanium, like visible light passes through glass are you?
Does any of your comment relate to the description of the GHE that you refuse to divulge?
Go on, tell everyone what happens to photons emitted by ice totally immersed in water and try not claim you were being sarcastic when I pointed out what an ignorant fool you were, when you gave your last answer.
Maybe you could try and look it up on the internet, do you think? How hard can it be, for a chap who thinks he is clever?
[laughing at pretentious dimwit]
Gordon,
Photons are tricky little buggers. No rest mass, possibly because they are never at rest. They just appear, travelling at the speed of light (probably because they are light). They don’t accelerate, because they only have one speed – that of light.
They dont slow down or speed up, and they just keep going until they find an electron to interact with.
In the double slit experiment, if you count them, they act like they were counted, and if you don’t, they act like they weren’t. Don’t blame me, I didn’t design the universe – it just is.
The thing is, every prediction of quantum electrodynamic theory has been tested out the wazoo and beyond by very smart experimenters trying to show that photons and their weirdness is a complete load of rubbish. QED theory has passed every test thrown at it so far.
Good enough for me, and the GHE cannot exist if QED theory is correct.
I’ll stick with QED unless someone can perform an experiment which supports a description of the GHE which agrees with reality. Fat chance.
Good enough for me, and the GHE cannot exist if QED theory is correct.
Imbecile.
Thanks.
[snigger]
Man, I’d like to hear how the Greenhouse Effect is not supported by Quantum Electrodynamics.
Me, too.
“Good enough for me, and the GHE cannot exist if QED theory is correct.”
Ignorance is good enough for Swenson, got it.
bobdroege, Elliott, please stop trolling.
An additional comment…
1)Elliott…I’d like to see you explain the equation
2)I suppose part of the drivel of photons having momentum comes from the notion that generated EM continues to move a way from the source. However, that is not momentum, since it lacks mass. Also, a mass with momentum when encountering another mass, converts all or part of its momentum to the other mass as a force.
So, force and momentum are counterparts when related to mass. Force produced momentum in a mass and in turn, momentum produces force on a mas during a collision.
Photon cannot affect mass in that manner. Photons cannot be converted to force. Wee willy, or some other nutjob, will rush of and find an article about light sails, which are nonsense. Any force applied to such sails surely comes from the solar wind, which is made of mass, such as electrons and protons.
It is dismaying to me to see how many people graduate with a Ph.D and have no idea what they are doing in that regard.
A photon has mass, as has already been explained to you. It has no rest mass. As has also already been indicated, its mass has been established experimentally.
“As has also already been indicated, its mass has been established experimentally.”
Which mass is that, and what is it?
Go on, refuse to say. Create some bizarre excuse – blame a creationist – preferably one you can name.
You really are dim, aren’t you?
It is dismaying to me to see how many people graduate with a Ph.D and have no idea what they are doing in that regard.
Yes, as we have seen here. Thank you for the demonstration.
Gordon,
The solar wind isn’t strong enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
“Photon cannot affect mass in that manner. “
Compton Scattering was discovered over 100 years ago. It can only be explained assuming photons have momentum.
The theory of gamma decay also requires photon moment in order to conserve overall momentum.
I could go on …
This is not new or complicated. Electron momentum is firmly established by both experiment and theory.
Oops … I meant PHOTON momentum.
What is solar sail?
Of course planets sort of solar sail and solar wind also pushes them.
But they are, somewhat massive.
In terms of global climate, no one seems to mention it, other perhaps, Christos Vournas.
Compton Scattering was discovered over 100 years ago.
That’s why I bother with this blog now and again. There’s always something new to learn or be reminded of.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Radiation pressure
Radiation pressure (also known as light pressure) is mechanical pressure exerted upon a surface due to the exchange of momentum between the object and the electromagnetic field. This includes the momentum of light or electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that is absorbed, reflected, or otherwise emitted (e.g. black-body radiation) by matter on any scale (from macroscopic objects to dust particles to gas molecules).[1][2][3] The associated force is called the radiation pressure force, or sometimes just the force of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
Just dont try foisting it on me.
Deliberate ignorance then, just like any other creationist.
Which creationist would that be, then? Another of the inhabitants of your fantasy?
You really aren’t terribly bright, are you? Obscure and cryptic comments might not make you look as intelligent as you might hope.
Keep refusing to describe the GHE. Nobody can find fault with what you refuse to say, can they?
Exceptionally clever, or just plain stupid?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you try to misunderstand that this is about another of Mr. Asshat’s fibs.
Good to know.
Tobacco, alcohol, processed foods and fossil fuels kill 2.7m a year in Europe
The chart shows 578,908 deaths due to fossil fuels per year.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/12/tobacco-alcohol-ultra-processed-foods-fossil-fuels-deaths
The link to the original report seems to be broken. Any help gratefully received.
Thanks for the news report. Who can’t read the Guardian for themselves?
If you are concerned about tobacco, alcohol, processed foods and fossil fuels, maybe you should avoid them. Or you could go and live in a cave, and eat roots and berries.
I’ll laugh loudly at the mental picture of you starving while you freeze in the dark.
maybe you should avoid them.
Imbecile.
Thanks for the news report. Who cant read the Guardian for themselves?
If you are concerned about tobacco, alcohol, processed foods and fossil fuels, maybe you should avoid them. Or you could go and live in a cave, and eat roots and berries.
Ill laugh loudly at the mental picture of you starving while you freeze in the dark.
maybe you should avoid them
Imbecile.
Thanks for the news report. Who can’t read the Guardian for themselves?
If you are concerned about tobacco, alcohol, processed foods and fossil fuels, maybe you should avoid them. Or you could go and live in a cave, and eat roots and berries.
I’ll laugh loudly at the mental picture of you starving while you freeze in the dark.
maybe you should avoid them.
Can’t even read. Imbecile.
Thanks for the news report. Who can’t read the Guardian for themselves?
If you are concerned about tobacco, alcohol, processed foods and fossil fuels, maybe you should avoid them. Or you could go and live in a cave, and eat roots and berries.
I’ll laugh loudly at the mental picture of you starving while you freeze in the dark.
Maybe you could say something really obscure and cryptic like “maybe you should avoid them.
Cant even read. Imbecile.”, hoping some other idiot might think you were intelligent.
Do you spend a lot of time responding to imbeciles? Why is that?
[he might be a fool, but at least he’s stupid]
Imbecile.
Thanks for the news report. Who can’t read the Guardian for themselves?
If you are concerned about tobacco, alcohol, processed foods and fossil fuels, maybe you should avoid them. Or you could go and live in a cave, and eat roots and berries.
I’ll laugh loudly at the mental picture of you starving while you freeze in the dark.
Maybe you could say something really obscure and cryptic like “maybe you should avoid them.
Cant even read. Imbecile.”, hoping some other idiot might think you were intelligent.
Do you spend a lot of time responding to imbeciles? Why is that?
[he might be a fool, but at least hes stupid ]
Imbecile
Elliott,
The other I-word got banned after being abused. First Richard used it in every single of my comments with it for too long. Then Mike Flynn started to abuse it, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/climate-fearmongering-reaches-stratospheric-heights/
After it got banned, Mike continued to use it using an HTML trick.
Thanks for the news report. Who cant read the Guardian for themselves?
If you are concerned about tobacco, alcohol, processed foods and fossil fuels, maybe you should avoid them. Or you could go and live in a cave, and eat roots and berries.
Ill laugh loudly at the mental picture of you starving while you freeze in the dark.
Maybe you could say something really obscure and cryptic like “maybe you should avoid them.
Can’t even read. Imbecile.”, hoping some other idiot might think you were intelligent.
Do you spend a lot of time responding to imbeciles? Why is that?
Do you enjoy their company?
[he might be a fool, but at least he’s stupid ]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you copy-paste your silly comments, that’s all you can copy-paste.
Glad to hear it.
The other I-word got banned after being abused.
I’ll take that risk. I don’t regard this as abuse, as svensdottir does not merely repeat the same phrases over and over, he also lies, relies on Straw Man and ad hominem arguments and generally abuses the blog and its owner. I am merely expressing contempt and an unwillingness to invest thought on an interlocutor who is so completely worthless. I’ll stop as soon as I give up on this thread.
If Dr. Roy wants to interpret it as abuse he has that right. I intend to make the imbecile invisible soon, anyway.
Not Dr. Roy.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Martians, how are they going to live on Mars, and are ever going to worry about global warming, like too many humans do?
And will any want to live on Earth? Will they miss the rain and the cold?
It seems to me, they will have lots of snowing. Mars as plenty CO2 snowing, in the polar region, but they could make it H20 snow at the equator or anywhere. But it on depends if there is cheap mineable water. And to make any cheap enough, one needs to find and make a lot. And for Mars to habitable one needs to make million of tons of water per year.
The Sahara desert has water mining of about 2.4 billion tonnes of water per year- that is the sort of level of water mining on Mars.
But one start with just little as 1 million tones per year, and make more and more per year. And that probably will result in a lot snowfall covering the Mars town.
But rain would be like it raining on the sfi, Dune, world.
With Dune, they didn’t seem to do much swimming, probably due to religious reasons. There should be a lot swimming on Mars. It’s lower gravity makes swimming deeper in the water, easier. And living in the water, solves any radiation concern, and lack of pressure, concerns,
Maybe they will want to go back Earth, for it’s surfing. Surfing would probably only happen in the caves of Mars.
From what I hear there is plenty of water ice at the poles, in areas shaded from the Sun. That even goes for the moon, the last I heard. And I would be very surprised if there is not water ice under the Martian surface.
–Abstract
The present-day water cycle on Mars has implications for habitability and future human exploration. Water ice clouds and water vapour have been detected above the Tharsis volcanic province, suggesting the active exchange of water between regolith and atmosphere. Here we report observational evidence for extensive transient morning frost deposits on the calderas of the Tharsis volcanoes (Olympus, Arsia and Ascraeus Montes, and Ceraunius Tholus) using high-resolution colour images from the Colour and Stereo Surface Imaging System on board the European Space Agencys Trace Gas Orbiter. The transient bluish deposits appear on the caldera floor and rim in the morning during the colder Martian seasons but are not present by afternoon. The presence of water frost is supported by spectral observations, as well as independent imagery from the European Space Agencys Mars Express orbiter. Climate model simulations further suggest that early-morning surface temperatures at the high altitudes of the volcano calderas are sufficiently low to support the daily condensation of waterbut not CO2frost. Given the unlikely seasonal nature of volcanic outgassing, we suggest the observed frost is atmospheric in origin, implying the role of microclimate in local frost formation and a contribution to the broader Mars water cycle.–
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-024-01457-7
Linked from:
https://behindtheblack.com/
Elliott Bignell wrote the following largely nonsensical comment –
“Any 15μm photon has the same frequency, irrespective of its source. Whether t coes from the Sun, from the atmosphere at -90C or from a desert at 50C, the frequency is the same. 15μm photons emitted from and absorbed by CO2b correspond to the atoms characteristic energy levels and are not impacted by the temperature of the gas.
Dont you ever think before posting your drivel?”
Well, yes, pointing out that a photon with a wavelength of say 15um has a wavelength of 15um does not require great brilliance. However, photons emitted by CO2 below excitation are strictly dependent on temperature, as are the emissions from all matter, so Elliott’s comment is completely nonsensical.
He is possibly confused by spectroscopy and spectrometry.
He seems to have no clue about basic physical principles, and, for example, claimed that photons can only be reflected or absorbed, completely omitting the optical property of transparency.
He’s a fanatical GHE cultist, who refuses to accept reality. He obviously thinks others value his opinions, but refuses to name even one. Actually, there aren’t any. Even Ball4 knows Elliott is talking nonsense, and Ball4 is certainly no supporter of mine.
Others can decide for themselves of course. Michael Mann PhD decided he was awarded a Nobel Prize – and printed a certificate to prove it! Elliott Bignell reveres Michael Mann PhD as his role model.
All good fun.
However, photons emitted by CO2 below excitation are strictly dependent on temperature
Imbecile.
EB,
And of course, you are going to refuse to say why you disagree.
Typical of fanatical fact-free GHE cultists, who refuse to commit themselves to anything specific.
Carry on being a fool. It suits you.
And of course, you are going to refuse to say why you disagree.
Both the CO2 notch in the atmosphere’s emission spectrum and the measurements of back-radiation call you a liar.
EB,
I wrote –
“However, photons emitted by CO2 below excitation are strictly dependent on temperature”
You called me an imbecile, and gave the following reason for same –
“Both the CO2 notch in the atmospheres emission spectrum and the measurements of back-radiation call you a liar.”
What are you babbling about, fool? Spewing nonsensical and irrelevant word salad might not be the best way to impress people with your outstanding intellect.
You might just look like an idiot who refuses to accept facts. One such fact is that the Earth has cooled, notwithstanding four and half billion years of continuous sunlight, the CO2 notch, and measurements of back radiation.
No GHE. You couldn’t even describe the GHE – you provided a nonsensical AI “definition”. How pathetic is that?
Accept reality – or not.
Imbecile.
Well, that demonstrates your towering intellect, doesn’t it?
[snigger]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your self-aggrandizement issues.
Good to know. Thanks.
Swenson,
Please tell us what you mean by this
“However, photons emitted by CO2 below excitation”
Sounds like gibberish to me.
There is no such thing as lone gaseous CO2 molecules emitting radiation when they are in the ground state.
You can’t even get the lingo correct.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“There is no such thing as lone gaseous CO2 molecules emitting radiation when they are in the ground state.”
If by ground state, you mean above absolute zero but unexcited, then you are quite mad.
All matter above absolute zero emits infrared, the wavelength of which is dependent on temperature. A lone gaseous CO2 molecule is “matter”, so if you are thinking of “playing silly semantic games”, you lose!
Try again.
So where does it source the energy, imbecile? If it has energy above the ground state it can emit a photon and move to a lower state, but then it has expended energy and is in a lower state. Where does it load up for the next photon? Or is this another of your perpetual motion machines?
Swenson,
You continually give me the chance to correct you but you never admit you are wrong, here we go again.
“If by ground state, you mean above absolute zero but unexcited, then you are quite mad.”
A lone gaseous molecule moving while in the ground state is not at absolute zero, because it is moving. That’s the predominant input to temperature, although one molecule does not have a temperature, because temperature is related to the average kinetic energy of a group of molecules.
You are quite ignorant of physics.
You continually give me the chance to correct you but you never admit you are wrong
When he’s not doing the Gish Gallop.
bobdroege, Elliott, please stop trolling.
Regarding the mass of a photon: Experiment has placed an upper limit on the mass of a photon. A mass for the photon would actually be problematic for QM, so I should not have said that it definitively has a mass. My bad. When physicists speak of the mass of the photon as zero, however, they refer to rest mass. The question of whether it has a mass at c is indeterminate. What it does have is momentum, for which I gave the equation above, thus demolishing Gordon’s drivel. Light also exerts pressure, thus making a solar sail entirely plausible, contra Gordon’s drivel.
Svensdottir remains an imbecile.
” . . . so I should not have said that it definitively has a mass. My bad.”
“Svensdottir remains an imbecile.”
Obviously, Elliott believes that all his idiotic errors are my fault.
OK, I accept my power over Elliott’s fragile mental state – I have the awesome super power of scrambling Elliott’s mental processes from afar. Rather like Willard’s obsession with me administering “mind probes” to Willard’s alleged brain!
Oh dear, I can understand their terror – no wonder they want Dr Spencer to ban me. Not to worry, Elliot Blockmaster will “block” me. Ooooh, how scary is that? And then “look into” a “plugin” (maybe it’s a mirror), to disappear me! Even scarier!
Don’t panic, dummies, you don’t need my help to make continual silly mistakes, and look stupid. You are quite capable, yourselves.
[what a pair of useless fools]
No, my mistakes are my own. Yours on the other constitute your entire being. Imbecile.
“No, my mistakes are my own. Yours on the other constitute your entire being. Imbecile”
You refuse to say what my mistakes are? Refuse to provide any verifiable correction to help others?
Gee, why am I not surprised?
A wise, knowledgeable, and helpful person would correct any information they knew to be incorrect, and provide correct information, supported by experimental results where appropriate.
Only joking. You are an idiot who tries to avoid saying anything definite. When you do, and when I point out that you are demonstrably wrong, you blame me.
Why are you so concerned about the comments of someone you consider to be an imbecile? Are you of a fragile disposition, and easily upset? Aw, diddums!
[laughing at precious easily upset petal]
You refuse to say what my mistakes are?
Imbecile.
“No, my mistakes are my own. Yours on the other constitute your entire being. Imbecile”
You refuse to say what my mistakes are? Refuse to provide any verifiable correction to help others?
Gee, why am I not surprised?
A wise, knowledgeable, and helpful person would correct any information they knew to be incorrect, and provide correct information, supported by experimental results where appropriate.
Only joking. You are an idiot who tries to avoid saying anything definite. When you do, and when I point out that you are demonstrably wrong, you blame me.
Why are you so concerned about the comments of someone you consider to be an imbecile? Are you of a fragile disposition, and easily upset? Aw, diddums!
[still laughing at precious easily upset petal]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your struggle sessions.
Ta.
You refuse to say what my mistakes are
Imbecile.
“Nobody cares about your struggle sessions.”
If you say so.
Elliot,
A solar sail has passed from theoretically possible to actual applied science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKAROS
Gordon and Svensdottir can eat crow.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
all – Just a little reminder to counter the constant stream of lies that it cannot be defined, here is a definition/description of the GHE that can be found by anyone in seconds from the Googol AI:
Definition of the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.
How it Works
Absorbtion: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor [sic], absorb some of this radiation.
Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.
Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.
Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.
Importance of the Greenhouse Effect
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life. The natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining a stable climate, allowing life to flourish on our planet.
Human Impact
However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and contributing to global warming. This enhanced greenhouse effect is known as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.
Key Takeaway
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun. While it is essential for life, human activities have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming.
“The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun.”
Except over four and a half billion years, while the Earth cooled. No heat trapping there – nor each night when the surface cools.
“The natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining a stable climate, allowing life to flourish on our planet.”
There is no GHE, natural or otherwise. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, unless you can show otherwise.
You seem quite gullible and ignorant – refusing to accept reality.
Here’s a thought – just all anybody who disagrees with your mad ideas an imbecile! Do you think that might help to turn fantasy into fact!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody never cared about your silly talking point about the Earth cooling overall because it does not contradict its actual warming.
Sweet dreams.
Wonky Wee Willy,
“Mike Flynn,
Nobody never cared about your silly talking point about the Earth cooling overall because it does not contradict its actual warming.
Sweet dreams.”
Really? Cooling does not contradict warming?
If you say so, fool, if you say so.
Nobody cares when you confuse timescales, Mike.
Except over four and a half billion years, while the Earth cooled.
Inconveniently for what you learned at your denialist madrassah, the Earth also had a lot more greenhouse gases earlier in its history. And it is warming now.
We as a species evolved during one of the cooler periods. Googol “Ice Age” if you are unclear on when this is.
The Earth is cooler now than it was four and a half billion years ago, when the surface was molten.
Feel free to reject reality. Refuse to explain the role of the mythical GHE in planetary cooling if you like. That will no doubt convince people how clever you are!
[laughing]
Imbecile.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
For all the contrarian, arrogant and ignorant all-time-everything-better-knowers a la Robertson who write daily nonsense like here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1671281
Although he has no scientific knowledge or technical skills, he dares to write incredible statements such as:
” To be fair to Newton, he knew nothing about electromagnetic energy and its relationship to electrons in atoms. He did not even know about atoms, let lone electonics. ”
It seems that Robertson considers himself Newtons ‘alter ego’…
*
Maybe he tries to learn a bit but I’m not sure. I still remind his drivel against Peter Morcombe aka gallopingcamel.
*
What is the mass of a photon?
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
You wrote “What is the mass of a photon?”
From your reference-
“It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero”
So nobody knows for sure. Not surprising, as a photon is never at rest – by definition.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you are not a photon, as you are at rest now.
Sleep well.
Swenson,
You are confusing a definition with an observation.
Burbling bobby,
Well, it’s a good thing you are refusing to say what you mean, and provide some support for your opinion, isn’t it?
You’d look like a complete idiot if you did, but we will never know, will we?
You’ll just refuse to provide any factual support for your comment, won’t you?
You are not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?
Questions, questions.
Spare me your crocodile tears.
If you didn’t know what definition I was talking about, because you used the term definition, it should be obvious even to an elementary school reader.
A photon is never at rest-by definition is not correct, it is an observation.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“A photon is never at rest-by definition is not correct, it is an observation”.
I’m not sure what you mean by “it is an observation”, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you don’t either.
Photons are light. The speed of light is c. The speed of photons is c.
Maybe you can find a definition of a photon which has it travelling at other than the speed of light (which is what it is). You can always refuse to divulge it, of course.
Why are you so interested in something you obviously know so little about? If you wish to learn, there are many sources of information on the internet – not all of it reliable, unfortunately.
Swenson,
“Im not sure what you mean by it is an observation, and I wouldnt be surprised if you dont either.”
Observation definition:
“Observation in the natural sciences is an act or instance of noticing or perceiving and the acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the perception and recording of data via the use of scientific instruments.”
Now do you also need a definition definition?
Now do you also need a definition definition?
Arf. Don’t give him ideas!
Swenson,
“Photons are light. The speed of light is c. The speed of photons is c.”
Except photons never move at that speed.
Because nature abhors a vacuum.
Unlike Swenson, Aristotle actually gets things right once in a while.
What’s the speed of light in a diamond crystal?
As always, contrarian Flynnson only seeks for items or little sentences in texts he dislikes in order to discredit the texts as a whole.
Dumb, dumber, dumbest of all: that’s the Flynnson Ozboy.
Binny,
You still refuse to provide support for your opinions, but I would expect no more from someone who refuses to describe the GHE which they might believe in , but refuse to commit themselves to.
Have you anything newer than your previous comment –
“Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.
CO2 might become a problem who knows”
Your non-existent GHE description presumably doesn’t mention CO2, but nobody will ever know – you refuse to provide a GHE description of any sort!
Keep complaining – someone might value your opinions. Can you name one such?
test2
Blue Origin Is Trying To Launch New Glenn This Year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZ9P87tH6Y
So, Blue Origin is trying to launch spacecraft to Mars orbit with their New Glenn rocket.
If Starship didn’t exist, the New Glenn rocket would be a very big rocket which planned to be reuseable and will try to recover it’s first stage with it’s first launch of the rocket. Which could happen around Oct 2024 {or before the end of year}.
This is sort of normal way to do it, and SpaceX’s way is not normal.
Or for what was called garage shop rocket building it’s completely normal way- or one could think of SpaceX as a huge highly industrialized, garage.
Or it’s the normal Ie, Rocket Lab, way, private start up rocket companies do it.
Anyhow the next launch window for Mars is 26 Sept 2024, which is for the least delta-v needed to get to Mars, and longest time to get to Mars, NASA typically uses shorter travel times, which launch later,
so for example it could be mid Oct launch date. But the window will end, and you can’t go to Mars when it ends- or it ends before 2025 year begins, unless you want to go some other way, like flyby Venus or something. And the next launch window to Mars is 2.1 years after Sept 26 2024.
A link to Earth to Mars launch windows:
https://www.clowder.net/hop/railroad/EMa.htm
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Replacing fossil fuels in industrial processes is increasingly feasible with electricity-based technologies. A joint study between Energy Innovation, Agora Industry, and Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation shows that direct electrification could meet 90 percent of the energy demand not yet electrified by European industry by 2035. Rapid adoption of such technologies would be a crucial contribution towards Europes climate targets and help ensure the sectors global competitiveness.
https://energyinnovation.org/publication/direct-electrification-of-industrial-process-heat-an-assessment-of-technologies-potentials-and-future-prospects-for-the-eu/
Once you solar energy beamed from Space, you wouldn’t heed to burn “fossil fuel” for electrical power. Though you might still want to use “fossil fuels” for transportational uses.
With Mars, one can split water, and use the H2 to add to CO2 to make methane, though in terms CO2 in Earth atmosphere, there is far more CO2 on the Mars atmosphere. Though Earth’s oceans has far more CO2 than Mars.
Anyways, this probably take a couple decades, unless government focus a lot more on Space exploration- though it seems both India and China seem to be doing this. But if wishes were fishes. or talk is cheap, and we will have to see.
I am little a bit excited by the H-3 rocket that Japan has just started using:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H3_(rocket)
It little bit like, the little train that could. Pretty good idea, but it all depends on how do it.
What are you doing here, gb?
“What are you doing here, gb?”
Why do you ask?
Willy might have been asking a philosophical question.
“Once you solar energy beamed from Space, you wouldnt heed to burn fossil fuel for electrical power.”
Nobody knows how to do this efficiently or cheaply.
If one wants to get more photons, and more cheaply transport the energy, they can do so in the Sahara.
Yes, I believe the desert nations will soon become energy superpowers. (Even the ones without oil!)
Four pillars of civilization:
Iron
Plastic
Ammonia
Concrete
You can’t do any of them without fossil fuels; no amount of dreaming will substitute for the truth.
Ken,
I was thinking a little more basically about adequate potable water, and electricity, then I remembered the Roman domestic water supplies, aqueducts, dams and all rest.
But then I realised that even the Romans used fossil fuels. Coal was extensively used by the Romans – smelting iron, making lime for concrete etc. Who cares – even burning wood is burning fossil fuel that hasn’t been fossilised yet, so what’s the problem? I like trees and grass, so I’d rather burn fossilised trees and plants, producing CO2 and H2O to feed the living trees and plants.
Even electricity needs fossil fuels for production, as anybody who has looked at a giant wind turbine will be aware of the vast amounts of steel and concrete used – not to mention the glass fibres, copper, rare earths, exotic alloys, resin, lubricants, and all the rest. So much for renewable energy. Photovoltaic electricity is just as dependent.
Give me civilisation – people opposed to civilisation can bugger off, and starve while they freeze in the dark in their caves. Only joking – they can drive away gently, in their air-conditioned conveyances, of course.
The four pillars of reactionary politics are:
– idealization of an illusory past
– staunch defense for the status quo ante
– hysteric fear of new ideas and foreigners
– deep desire of being dominated by a strong man
Without them Kennui is even less of a nobody than he actually is.
There is probably no fossil fuels on Mars.
All civilization are related to water.
And there apparently no hydro power on Mars-
unless you get water from space rocks, and use a space elevator.
Hmm, Mars moons could have water.
You cant do any of them without fossil fuels; no amount of dreaming will substitute for the truth.
You’ll be very unhappy to hear that electric-arc smelters are already operating in some countries, then, and that plastic are not emitted into the atmosphere.
“Youll be very unhappy to hear that electric-arc smelters are already operating in some countries, then, and that plastic are not emitted into the atmosphere.”
You do talk rubbish, don’t you?
Why do you refuse to say what you mean? Cryptic comments make you look like an idiot, not a mental giant.
Imbecile.
You could always demonstrate your intellectual superiority by refusing to divulge your vast knowledge, and just respond with “imbecile” to every comment you dont like.
How clever would that make you appear?
Carry on.
“Even electricity needs fossil fuels for production, as anybody who has looked at a giant wind turbine will be aware of the vast amounts of steel and concrete used not to mention the glass fibres, copper, rare earths, exotic alloys, resin, lubricants, and all the rest. So much for renewable energy.”
How much? Obviously you have no idea.
‘Vast amounts’ has NO meaning, unless you compare the AMOUNTS used by the alternative, burning fossil fuels directly to make energy for the lifetime of power plant.’
Building a coal power plant requires ‘vast amounts of iron and concrete’ PLUS ongoing burning of coal for the lifetime of the plant.
“You can see that the results vary by country, size of turbine, and onshore versus offshore configuration, but all fall within a range of about 5 – 26 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour.
To put those numbers in context, consider the two major fossil-fuel sources of electricity in the United States: natural gas and coal. Power plants that burn natural gas are responsible for 437 to 758 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour far more than even the most carbon-intensive wind turbine listed above. Coal-fired power plants fare even more poorly in comparison to wind, with estimates ranging from 675 to 1,689 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, depending on the exact technology in question.”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/06/whats-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-wind-turbine/
Thus, wind turbines produce about 100 x less CO2 then burning fossil fuels directly to make electricity over their lifetime.
Oh well!
Many Europeans are sheer ijits. Greta Thunberg a perfect example.
No true Scotsmen like Mr. Asshat are Euros.
That’ll fix ‘im!
Genius, Willard.
Only joking.
Nobody cares if you sleep well or not, Mike Flynn.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Net zero means a huge decline in the use of fossil fuels. They fall from almost four-fifths of total energy supply today to slightly over one-fifth by 2050. Fossil fuels that remain in 2050 are used in goods where the carbon is embodied in the product such as plastics, in facilities fitted with CCUS, and in sectors where low-emissions technology options are scarce.
https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
Net zero does not imply going cold turkey on fossil fuels.
Net Zero means reversal of human flourishing since fossil fuel technologies were unlocked.
Population will drop from 8 billion to 1 billion
Life span will be halved
Localized famine will occur everywhere
Grinding poverty will be the norm once again
There will be a return to slavery.
Nix Net Zero.
Net Whale Zero means reversal of human flourishing since whale fuel technologies were unlocked.
Population will drop from 1 billion to 1 million
Life span will be halved
Localized famine will occur everywhere
Grinding poverty will be the norm once again
There will be a return to slavery.
Nix Net Whale Zero.
Well done Willard.
What are you trying to say?
“Over a thousand whales are killed each year for their meat and body parts to be sold for commercial gain. Their oil, blubber, and cartilage are used in pharmaceuticals and health supplements. Whale meat is even used in pet food, or served to tourists as a ‘traditional dish’.”
But that not net Whale zero, as there are lots of these kinds of whales.
The killing whale species which are counted as endangered is different kind of et Whale zero being done by building wind mills, but also as entire eco system destroying.
Net Zero means the hunt for train oil will resume.
Nix Net Zero.
Net zero means Kennui’s wet dream of a troglodyte theocracy doesn’t happen.
“Net zero means Kennuis wet dream of a troglodyte theocracy doesnt happen.”
Well, that’s informative! About what, I have no idea, and Willard the idiot refuses to explain.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Net Zero:
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
——
In short its a Neo Marxist dystopia; you will own nothing and be happy.
Net Zero means 95% cut to GDP by 2050. Can you live on $300 per month.
Nix Net Zero.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about what you feign to ignore.
“Net zero means Kennui’s wet dream of a troglodyte theocracy doesn’t happen.”
Well, thats informative! About what, I have no idea, and Willard the idiot refuses to explain.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nobody cares if you are losing sleep over your PSTering, Mike.
Net zero would mean shutting down hospitals and other establishments that require fossil fuels to operate.
Net zero is sheer lunacy.
Mr. Asshat is lying again.
Every City is embracing Net Zero.
https://www.campbellriver.ca/planning-building-development/green-city/climate-action/overview
Time for you to spread your wisdom in front of your City Council.
Nix Net Zero
Kennui hates innovation that saves money and improves lives:
https://www.victoria.ca/community-culture/climate-action/climate-friendly-homes/low-carbon-new-buildings
Lies. Several European nations are already peaking at 100% renewables. Guess what?: The hospitals all stay open. Your alarmist tactics don’t work.
Net Zero means 95% cut to GDP by 2050. Can you live on $300 per month.
There is not any innovation in place to replace fossil fuels that will save money and improve lives.
But hey, fusion is just one breakthrough away.
Nix Net Zero.
Evidence?
Net Zero means 95% cut to GDP by 2050.
More lies. Depending on oil until the day it runs out might do it, though.
“Depending on oil until the day it runs out might do it, though.”
There isn’t anything else.
Ken,
“There isnt anything else.”
A solar and wind revolution is taking place right now.
The situation is similar to the 1890s and the electrification of the US.
If you were around then, you’d have said:
“There is not any innovation in place to replace Gas-Lighting that will save money and improve lives.”
Many states in the middle of the US are, right now, getting large portions of their electricity from wind power.
For March:
Iowa 81.8%
South Dakota 65.6%
Kansas 64.6%
Oklahoma 55.9%
https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/wind-generation-by-state/
Some states are getting large portions of their electricity right now from solar power.
California 37.9%
Nevada 31.2%
Massachusetts 29.6%
Hawaii 25.6%
https://www.chooseenergy.com/solar-energy/solar-energy-production-by-state/
Little Willy, Elliott, please stop trolling.
For the GHG deniers, heres what Dr. Spencer had to say about them last August:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/is-your-comment-here-not-appearing/#comment-1518969
(And I do wish the SDSs would go away; my discussion moderation terms have apparently caused them to largely give up using my blog as a soapbox).
Here’s what he said in May 2013, also:
“But my blog is no longer going to provide them a platform for their unsupported pseudo-scientific claimsthey can post their cult science on their own blog. They have taken far too much of my time, which would be better spent thinking about the more obvious shortcomings of global warming theory.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comments
Props to Elliot Bignell for building a plugin to block these miserable cowards.
JW,
Who are these “miserable cowards”? Are you too miserable and cowardly to name them, and provide factual support for your vague claims of miserable cowardice?
If I describe you as gullible for believing in a mythical GHE which you refuse to describe, and ignorant enough to believe that the planet has heated, rather than cooled, over the past four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, would you agree that I am justified in my opinion?
No?
Why is that? A miserable coward might simply refuse to justify his opinions.
Are you one of those?
[laughing at GHE cultist]
Why do you continuously disrespect Dr. Spencer? He clearly wants you out of his blog.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you’re playing dumb over the fact that Roy indeed expressed the wish to see you gone.
“Nobody cares if youre playing dumb over the fact that Roy indeed expressed the wish to see you gone.”
Exactly. The fact that he expressed his disdain in response to a comment unrelated to the SkyDragon Slayers shows his strong negative feelings toward them.
John W,
I am happy to let Dr Spencer think for himself, and make his own decisions. He might succumb to your desire to tell him what to do, or he might not. He appears to be keeping an open mind to the reasons for thermometers here and there showing higher temperatures. Or maybe not.
You nitwits don’t like reality. Instead of your sly (and inept) attempts at coercing Dr Spencer into dancing to your jangling discordant cacophony, why not just man up and demand that he ban me?
Have you contacted him and presented your case for censorship? Or do you just scuttle about like a cowardly cockroach?
Only joking, you can’t accept the fact that the Earth cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight, nor that the surface cools every night, radiating away all the heat of the day!
Tough.
Whining Wee Willy,
You moan “Nobody cares if youre playing dumb over the fact that Roy indeed expressed the wish to see you gone.”
Oh goody! Nobody cares – including Dr Spencer? Obviously, he doesn’t mind me commenting, does he?
Does it annoy you that there is absolutely nothing you can do about it?
Willard, please stop trolling. You’re just making @ fool of yourself.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your antics, especially Roy, whom would like you gone.
Cheers.
“Nobody cares about your antics, especially Roy, whom would like you gone”
Ah yes, but if he doesn’t care about my comments, as you say, why would he like me gone?
Maybe it’s you that cares? If that’s the case, it’s a good thing for me that you are completely powerless to have any effect whatever on how, when, and where I comment, isn’t it?
You might as well poke yourself in the eye with a needle, for all I care!
[what an impotent idiot Willard is]
Props to Elliot Bignell for building a plugin to block these miserable cowards.
Well, I’ll have to do it now!
Elliott, you go boy!
I wish you success. It’s good to see someone using their valuable time and expertise in the pursuit of the completely pointless.
When may we expect the finished product, and can it be downloaded on the relevant App Store?
John W,
What is a GHG denier?
The planet has cooled for four and a half billion years, continuous sunlight notwithstanding.
Do you refuse to accept this fact?
Do you refuse to explain the role of these mythical “GHGs” in the cooling of the planet?
You sound like a reality denier to me, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Pardon me while I laugh at your efforts!
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you play dumb over the expression “greenhouse denier” while denying the greenhouse effect in the very same comment.
Thanks.
Maybe you could refuse to say what you mean by “greenhouse denier”.
Is it something to do with the “greenhouse effect” which you refuse to describe?
If you are trying to appear intelligent, you need to try harder.
You don’t need to thank me.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your leg pulling.
Excellent. Thank nobody for me.
test
Don’t even try, Mr. Asshat.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
There Is a Planet B
In a new book, the pioneer who figured out how to get to Mars imagines how to stay there.
Rand Simberg
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/there-is-a-planet-b
And linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/
So, Simberg does review of Robert Zubrin, new book.
And Rand mentions the lack of attention by Zubrin {and Musk} of issue
living and raising kids on Mars with lower gravity.
Of course NASA has been ignoring this for many decades, also.
But with Starship {or New Glenn rocket] it should be a lot cheaper to test this.
It not as if there is not plans for it {there has been plans for decade- and none of them good plans, btw].
I have constantly mentioned one do something by use Falcon Heavy and Falcon-9. So it could done, faster. Starship {or New Glenn} could a lot cheaper in terms of launch cost- though artificial spacestation could be quite expensive. And was thinking of testing it, first, and then build your expensive space station.
Anyways it seems like it’s going to take years more before it’s in space, and years more to study the effects- rather get it done, within a year.
Prospects for orbital data centers
by Lawrence Furnival Monday, June 10, 2024
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4806/1
“n the near future, orbital data centers could prove to be an important new revenue stream for launch providers and cloud services. As this article describes, if the price of a Falcon 9 was $20 million instead of $67 million, it would make sense to operate data centers in orbit with their current cost and weight. This goal could be moved significantly closer if space optimized data center systems were availableprimarily shielding and cooling systems. Moreover, near-future launch costs per kilogram to low Earth orbit for SpaceXs next rocket are thought to be about 10% of that of the current Falcon 9.”
Well Falcon Heavy is a lot cheaper than Falcon 9.
{because you get a lot more {reusebled first stages] payload to orbit. Of course whole idea with Starship is a huge amount [reuseable stages] payload to orbit.
Of course another aspect is first stage are in theory going reach a limit on number of reuses they can do- Musk saying now it’s going to be about 40. But whatever the number determined, expending a first stage near it’s lifetime, would be cheaper. Or Falcon Heavy which expend all it’s first stages which near there lifetime, would give more payload at lower costs per kg/lb. And that time might be reached within couple of years. Plus there are a lot new competition in rocket launches, and that could drive down the price of Falcon-9 and Falcon Heavy. Or Musk counted his cost of falcon 9 at 30 million, use end of lifetime stage and expend give more payload for say 35 million.
Or almost there without counting what Starship and New Glenn will do to the rocket market.
john w…”The fact that he expressed his disdain in response to a comment unrelated to the SkyDragon Slayers shows his strong negative feelings toward them”.
***
I was not privy to the interaction between Roy and the Sky Dragon Slayers but I do know those claiming to represent the group had nothing to do with the actual Slayers. In fact, one of them, Philip Latour debated Roy directly with no negative comments from Roy on that debate. Latour is a chemical engineer with considerable experience in thermodynamics.
The authors of the book are: Dr Tim Ball, Dr Claes Johnson, Dr Martin Hertzberg, Joseph A. Olsen, Alan Siddons, Dr Charles Anderson, Hans Schreuder, John OSullivan. Although Latour is not listed, he has closely defended their POV. I doubtif any of them were here on Roy’s site, it was more likely followers.
Another Slayer, Claes Johnson, is a Swedish mathematician and I pointed out in another post that he has been misrepresented re the claim that he does not think back-radiation exists. Johnson’s native tongue is Swedish and he seems to use the word back-radiation in lieu of the word heat. So, when he claims there is no back-radiation, he is actually claiming there is no heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a hotter surface.
He is obviously responding to the alarmist view that back-radiation is heat, an anachronism dating back to the mid 19th century when scientists believed heat flowed through space as ‘heat rays’. That notion was put to rest in 1913 when Bohr proposed the real relationship between heat as atomic kinetic energy and radiation.
Heat cannot be transferred from one place to another via radiation. Heat at the source is dissipated as EM is produced and no longer exits. Heat produced in the target is due to electromagnetic energy being converted back to heat. Ergo, heat, as heat cannot be transferred through a vacuum, or any space via radiation. Any bulk movement of heat through space must be done by atoms/molecules, as convection.
Mr. Asshat lies through his teeth again.
When Roy was alluding to Sky Dragon cranks in 2023 and said he wished them gone, he was certainly not referring to those who stopped commenting here a decade ago.
He’s referring at the very least to Mr. Asshat himself, Puffman, Mike Flynn, and Graham D. Warner. It could extend to anyone else who denies the greenhouse effect, but it’s quite clear that it is referring to our quartet of dark triad afficionados.
wee willy, the deluded trohl, thinks he and Roy are buddy-buddy. What a schnook. Your going to have Roy laughing so hard he’ll do injury to himself.
Mr. Asshat, a Sky Dragon crank who polluted Roy’s blog for more than a decade, tries to deflect from the evidence John W provided that he’s not welcome here.
Maybe Gordon does not give a fig what John W thinks, and I wouldnt blame him at all. Why should he value the ramblings of a frightened cockroach running to his mommy, crying in fear?
I wouldn’t.
Your whining about the mythical “greenhouse effect” (according to you “not cooling, slower cooling) is not terribly convincing.
Not everyone is as ignorant and gullible as you, you know.
Maybe you should try appealing to authority – if you can find one not completely laughable!
Your social engineering efforts are quite inept – you can’t even get yourself banned! How sad is that? Keep the humour coming.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your speculative psychology.
Good to know.
john w…it’s seriously stoopid to think Roy supports your alarmist nonsense. Both Roy and John Christy of UAH have made it abundantly clear that the alarmist agenda poses serious harm to the public.
Although some have cast Roy in the guise of a luke-warmer, he has never described himself as such. He claims to believe that AGW should warm the atmosphere but he has also claimed he does not know by how much.
Although Roy supports the GHE theory he does so on the basis of thought-experiments. No one anywhere has direct proof that trace gases are warming the atmosphere or that they are the sole means of cooling the surface by helping to radiate some to space. In fact, at best, they radiate about 10% to space while the surface radiates part of the rest directly to space.
When I say ‘the rest’ that excluded the heat dissipated internally via conduction/convection. The notion that all heat produced by solar energy must be dissipated to space is clearly in error. The balance is largely unknown and is in no way represent by the Trenberth-Kiehle energy budget scam.
Mr. Asshat still deflects from the fact that he denies greenhouse theory, whereas Roy endorses it.
Oooooooh! Sly appeal to authority.
Well done, for an idiot.
Willard, please stop trolling.
I like Roy and respect him. I have no problem with him disagreeing with me. It’s people like you who bother me when you come on Roy’s blog and disrespect him and what he stands for.
Same here.
“Same here.”
You don’t seem to be too keen on Dr Spencer allowing me to comment as I wish, but I might be mistaken.
You can always refuse to say that you support Dr Spencer’s obvious tolerance.
Or just prove you are an imbecile by responding “imbecile”.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares when you brag about your sociopathy.
Glad to hear it. Thanks.
Both Roy and John Christy of UAH have made it abundantly clear that the alarmist agenda poses serious harm to the public.
And the WHO has just made clear – as it it weren’t already – that the fossil fuel lobby are killing 500,000 people a year in Europe alone, before climate-change effects are taken into account.
“Both Roy and John Christy of UAH have made it abundantly clear that the alarmist agenda poses serious harm to the public.”
Are you refusing to accept that? The “fossil fuel lobby” is a figment of your imagination. Go on, refuse to show me a death certificate which lists “killed by fossil fuel lobby” as the cause of death!
Likewise, “climate change” has killed no-one at all! You are confused – climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, and is constantly changing. Are you one of the mentally challenged crowd who exhibit their ignorance by waving placards saying “Stop Climate Change!”, or something similarly idiotic?
Or are you just a fraud, and don’t really believe in the GHE which you refuse to describe?
The world wonders.
Imbecile.
“Imbecile”
Elliott, please stop trolling.
The WHO as major propagandists. They predicted that AIDS would become an epidemic in the heterosexual community, and any of us who understood the basis of AIDS knew that was impossible. We were right and the WHO was wrong.
They also mislead us big-time on covid.
The WHO is a useless organization who specialize in scaring the public.
And there’s the usual attempt to discredit the messenger. It’s no wonder you people can’t understand science.
They also mislead us big-time on covid.
You might want to take that complaint to the cretin that killed a million Americans while claiming that they could inject bleach to stop it.
“You might want to take that complaint to the cretin that killed a million Americans while claiming that they could inject bleach to stop it.”
Or he might not. Do you care, or are you being a nitwit for some reason you refuse to divulge?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you disregard what the WHO says about the fossil fuel industry.
OK.
binny asks, ‘what is the mass of a photon’, then points to a link filled with gobbeldy-gook. At the link, it uses Einstein’s special relativity to add even more gg in an attempt to give EM mass.
Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, summed up Einstein’s relativity as not even being a theory but a collection of thought experiments. The author of Binny’s article muddies the water by using ‘concepts’ from Einstein thought experiments to claim a photon has mass, even though it is massless. Light has no mass, no matter how you look at it.
Newton defined mass as an ‘amount of matter’ defined by its volume and density. Light is not matter, case closed. Light has no mass, therefore it has no momentum, no matter what Einstein may have claimed. Sometimes, you have to tell the emperor he is not wearing any clothes.
Here is some Einsteinian logic. In Newton’s world, the human invention of time is used to measure the rate a mass moves in a certain distance. Therefore, average velocity = distance/time or v = s/t. Einstein came along and arbitrarily change that definition so that time became associated with the speed of light as in (1 – v^2/c^2). That means as a velocity approaches the speed of light, time has to change, which means the planets has to change it’s rate of rotation for him to have been right.
He had no right to do that, but he needed to do it to make his theory work.
Einsteinian logic, if the definition doesn’t fit, change the definition to make it fit. Time had already been defined as the period of the Earth’s rotation. Till then, it had no units, just rough one’s like a day. For some reason, the Earth’s period was divided into 24 hours with each hour divided into 60 minutes, and each minute into 60 seconds.
The second is directly tied to the Earth’s rate of rotation and it cannot change. However, Einstein’s groupies are so mesmerized by his charade they have applied it to light to give it a mass when it has no mass.
Of course, Binny, being a slave to authority figures, cannot figure that out for himself.
What about solar sails?
Not forgetting of course that <b<Gordon is wrong: Light has momentum. Which was the original point. <b<Gordon has only committed himself to a faith position on the photon’s mass because it supports a false position on the photon’s momentum.
I think you meant to say “Not forgetting of course that Gordon is wrong: Light has momentum. Which was the original point. Gordon has only committed himself to a faith position on the photons mass because it supports a false position on the photons momentum.”, but I fail to see what “a faith position on the photon’s mass” means.
Feel free to refuse to say what you mean about the photons mass – and why you are so concerned about it.
Imbecile.
Well, that’s a mature response from an intellectual giant!
[snickering]
What I proposed came straight from Newton’s definition of mass and momentum. I am questioning the nonsense upon which photon mass is based, general relativity theory, especially the notion that time is a variable quantity, which makes length a variable as well. We know that the length of an object can vary with temperature but Einstein is claiming it can vary with velocity.
The theory that a massless photon has momentum is a thought experiment, nothing more.
The momentum of photons is experimentally demonstrated by the same means as the pressure of light.
Why do comets have two tails, Gordon?
“Why do comets have two tails, Gordon?”
Oooooh! A gotcha!
Why do you ask? Don’t you know? Are you stupid?
Why are you an imbecile?
Grow up.
“Grow up.”
You refuse to share your vast knowledge, do you?
What happened to your gotcha? Lost interest all of a sudden, did you?
[what a peanut]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about what you think people mean.
Cheers.
If you say so.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The results of a study conducted by researchers at Department of Energy national laboratories suggest that existing community solar projects are expanding solar access in the United States to a more demographically diverse population.
“Specifically, we find that community solar adopters in 11 states are about 6.1 times more likely to live in multifamily buildings, 4.4 times more likely to rent, and earn 23% less than rooftop solar adopters, on average, wrote the authors of the study, Evaluating Community Solar as a Measure to Promote Equitable Clean Energy Access.”
Authors of the study are Eric OShaughnessy and Galen Barbosea from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Sudha Kannanb and Jenny Sumner from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
“Community solar has, thus far, been particularly effective at expanding access in terms of housing type and tenure, while a substantial portion of observed income differences can be attributable to the uptake of community solar among multifamily building occupants and renters,” the study notes.
The study said that nearly four million residential electricity customers had adopted rooftop solar photovoltaics in the United States by the end of 2022.
https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/study-suggests-community-solar-projects-are-expanding-solar-access-us
Troglodytes hate public power.
Good to know, but God knows why.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your prayers.
God cares, but thanks for your concern.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you believe in God.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
For those claiming that 15μm photons magically know to swerve when they encounter something cooler than their source, might I draw your attention to Kirchoff’s Law, which Clint was good enough to draw to my attention:
For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorbtivity.
This completely demolishes any claim about swerving photons: A surface which will emit infra-red – e.g. the Earth – will absorb it in equal measure. This is the GHE in a nutshell: Infra-red which is emitted and coincides with the emission spectrum of CO2 will be re-emitted and according to Kirchoff’s Law will be absorbed by the Earth or by other, equivalent CO2 molecules in equal measure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
Cue svensdottir with an ad hominem or a change of subject about the irrelevant other things that can happen to photons.
The seriously ignorant Elliott Bignell wrote –
“For those claiming that 15μm photons magically know to swerve when they encounter something cooler than their source”. That would be you, writing “Svensdottir thinks that photons swerve when they approach a surface . . . “.
Your imaginary Svensdottir never wrote such nonsense, of course. You make up not only a person, but also what they said!
No, as I said before photons do not swerve. Some dimwit (that would be you) wrote about photons “The[y] are reflected or absorbed, regardless of where they originated, . . .”, which completely omits the easily observable fact that photons pass through transparent materials. No absorption or reflection to be seen (pardon the pun).
Elliott goes on to write –
“This is the GHE in a nutshell: Infra-red which is emitted and coincides with the emission spectrum of CO2 will be re-emitted and according to Kirchoffs Law will be absorbed by the Earth or by other, equivalent CO2 molecules in equal measure.,
– which no doubt explains four and a half billion years of planetary cooling in continuous sunshine. Presumably, nighttime cooling of the surface is also explained by Elliotts meaningless word salad.
Colder matter does not raise the temperature of the warmer by virtue of its radiation of energy. That’s just silly – like your fantasies.
You’re a gullible and ignorant idiot, but at least you completely reject realty. There is no GHE – the Earth has cooled to its present temperature.
Keep refusing to accept reality. Good for a laugh, anyway.
Imbecile.
You could always refuse to accept reality and just keep saying “imbecile”, if thats the best thing you can think of.
[chortle]
If you understood basic electronics theory it might make sense to you. In a TV or radio receiver there is an input stage where many different frequencies of signals converge. However, you only want a certain narrow band of them. So, you beat the entire spectrum with an oscillator of a certain frequency and it produces an intermediate subset of signals at an intermediate frequency (IF), which contains the radio signal channel you desire.
That IF is then run through transformers tuned to the IF. Using several stages of those transformers the signal is shaped into a bell curve signal that passes only the desired frequencies (bandpass filter) while rejecting any frequencies around that band. The audio and or video signals are then removed with a demodulator/detector and the audio and or audio and video signal is retrieved for the desired channel.
If you want to know what happened to the rejected frequencies, they are simply attenuated to the point they can no longer be detected.
With EM being detected by electrons in atoms, it’s not the same but the principle is similar. The electrons are like the IF filters, only a very sharp version of them. They will react to only one frequency per orbital. It’s a moot point as to what happens to the rest of the frequencies of photons.
However, a receiving antenna for radio or TV is designed to pick up multiple frequencies, for example TV channels 2 through 12. If I tune to channel 8 and detect it, what happens to all the other channels?
Who cares??? They are simply not detected and go about being EM signals. As Swenson described it, they are reflected. EM will only penetrate a solid up to a thin skin level and bounce of the rest. Anything the electrons like will excite them and be converted to heat.
If you understood basic electronics theory it might make sense to you.
Wrong Kirchhoff. Don’t be sad, I made the same mistake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
“As Swenson described it, they are reflected. EM will only penetrate a solid up to a thin skin level . . .”
I don’t think so.
Radio waves penetrate many materials as though they were transparent.
Take a cellphone call indoors. The EMR doesnt go around corners to achieve this seeming miracle. Just zips through the walls, your head . . .
EMR is just light. Different wavelengths interact differently. Just look at X-rays. Light which penetrates steel shipping containers, allowing you to see inside!
Just light – interacting with matter, or not, as the case may be.
Still no GHE. Just ignorant nonsense.
Imbecile
If you say so.
Kircheoff’s law applies only to bodies in thermal equilibrium. It is know that a slight exchange of radiation occur at such a level but not enough to produce a net heat. That’s what thermal equilibrium means…no heating.
BTW…Kircheoff’s Law is pretty well obsolete. It was made redundant when Bohr discovered the basis of quantum theory for hydrogen.
So it would apply to the GHE at equilibrium, then. Thank you.
Kircheoffs Law is pretty well obsolete.
Tell Clunt.
“Tell Clunt.”
Ooooooh! How sophisticated! Oooooooh! How clever! Oooooh! How stupid!
Elliot, please stop trolling.
Imbecile.
Good to know.
“Kircheoffs Law is pretty well obsolete.”
Science deniers keep saying the darndest things…just to seek attention I suppose.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Am I imagining it, or is someone here seriously trying to argue that there cannot be a GHE because the Earth started off molten? You really have to wonder how these people manage to get dressed in the morning.
Elliott Bignell.
You wrote –
“Am I imagining it, or is someone here seriously trying to argue that there cannot be a GHE because the Earth started off molten?”
No, you’re not imagining it.
The Earth’s surface is not now molten. It has cooled. You wrote –
“This is the GHE in a nutshell: Infra-red which is emitted and coincides with the emission spectrum of CO2 will be re-emitted and according to Kirchoffs Law will be absorbed by the Earth or by other, equivalent CO2 molecules in equal measure.”
Therefore, the GHE resulted in cooling – is that what you meant? That’s the fact – what does your fantasy tell you? That the laws of physics have changed after four and a half billion years?
Mind you, your latest GHE description doesn’t even agree with the surface cooling at night. You really live in a bizarre fantasy, totally disconnected from reality, unless you can explain the role of the mythical GHE (as per your description) in four and a half billion years of planetary cooling, and nighttime surface cooling.
Feel free to refuse to divulge any secret GHE properties.
Dimwit.
No. It’s your inability to understand basic science, a characteristic that sets alarmists apart from the rest.
Pay close attention to the reply preceding yours.
a characteristic that sets alarmists apart from the rest
A bit of a contradiction, don’t you think, seeing that this is just the word you use for the scientfically literate?
Not to mention your own use of alarmist tactics to try and create FUD about the transition to renewables.
This is what alarmism looks like:
Net zero would mean shutting down hospitals and other establishments that require fossil fuels to operate.
“This is what alarmism looks like:”
OK. And? Are you stupid, or just being an idiot?
Imbecile.
“Imbecile”
Well done, Elliott.
[snigger]
quote
This is what alarmism looks like:
Net zero would mean shutting down hospitals and other establishments that require fossil fuels to operate.
unquote
Truth is that Net Zero would mean shutting down hospitals and other establishments that require fossil fuels to operate.
There is nothing else to power them.
This is what reactionary contrarianism looks like:
Around 45 commercial facilities are already in operation applying carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) to industrial processes, fuel transformation and power generation. CCUS deployment has trailed behind expectations in the past, but momentum has grown substantially in recent years, with over 700 projects in various stages of development across the CCUS value chain. In 2023, announced capture capacity for 2030 increased by 35%, while announced storage capacity rose by 70%. This brings the total amount of CO2 that could be captured in 2030 to around 435 million tonnes (Mt) per year and announced storage capacity to around 615 Mt of CO2 per year. While this momentum from announcements is positive, it still just around 40% (and 60%, respectively) of the circa 1 Gt CO2 per year which is captured and stored in the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) Scenario.
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage
Kennui is here to make sure that every single thing that does not favor tar sands trails behind, forgetting the “net” in “net zero” along the way.
Elliott, Little Willy, please stop trolling.
ken…”magine theres no heaven
Its easy if you try…”
***
This is the kind of drivel put out by John Lennon after he stopped writing with McCartney. It has the distinct influence of Yoko Ono who insisted on singing in a key that falls between the cracks on a piano.
I wonder if anyone has seen the interview those two put together while lying in bed. Lennon became a dreamer pretty fast after the money started pouring in. What he called for re peace, was nothing more than imagination and drivel. He should have gone to the Middle East and tried to convert Muslim terrorists to get a first hand experience of how effective his nonsense would be.
Mind you, McCartney did little better.
As Clapton revealed, his best came when he was hurting. He claimed you can’t write blues when you’re feeling OK.
Word.
That’ll show ‘im!
A masterstroke!
Imbecile.
“Imbecile”.
Another masterstroke!
[laughing]
Trudeau’s entire agenda is based on Imagine.
Yeah, its drivel and its not fit for governing a nation.
Nix Net Zero
Kennui’s whole political philosophy is based on Dr. Strangelove.
Will somebody tell him it was meant to be sarcasm?
ICLEI is a bad joke; but its not sarcasm
https://iclei.org/
That’s not a joke. Here’s a joke:
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-jet-flights-senate-investigation-scotus
ICLEI is a bad joke; its a sick joke in that it will harm everyone under the pretense of ‘sustainability’.
https://iclei.org/
Elliott Bignell latest description of the mythical GHE –
“This is the GHE in a nutshell: Infra-red which is emitted and coincides with the emission spectrum of CO2 will be re-emitted and according to Kirchoffs Law will be absorbed by the Earth or by other, equivalent CO2 molecules in equal measure.”
A completely meaningless description. About as useful as Willard’s “not cooling, slower cooling”, or Entropic Man’s “The GHE is a pile of blankets”!
The man’s a complete fool. Spews out meaningless word salad, and claims anyone who questions him is an imbecile. Fair enough, people are free to say whatever they like.
The Earth has still cooled to its present temperature. The surface cools every night.
Imbecile.
OK.
[strange lad is Elliott]
Gordon, I remember when Roy used to regularly engage with his comments. Those days now seem like a distant memory.
You can try to justify or criticize me all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are not welcome here.
From what I observe, aside from the blog owner, almost every other commenter dislikes you. The only support you appear to have comes from a small group of other tro+lls who seem to have their own anti-science agenda.
Please leave the blog.
John W,
“Please leave the blog.”
At least you’re polite, as well as completely powerless.
If you want to waste your time, go your hardest.
Carry on.
Now this is too good:
“Gordon Robertson says:
June 13, 2024 at 4:36 AM
I like Roy and respect him. I have no problem with him disagreeing with me. Its people like you who bother me when you come on Roys blog and disrespect him and what he stands for.”
JW,
You wrote –
“Now this is too good:”
Well, that’s certainly cryptic enough!
Maybe you could explain the role of the mythical GHE in the surface cooling each night? Share your knowledge – why keep it secret?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares when you try to defend Mr. Asshat by playing the hard of hearing.
Good to know. Thanks.
If not the greenhouse effect, we’d all be dead!
John W,
“If not the greenhouse effect, wed all be dead!”
Seeing as how you refuse to even describe the mythical greenhouse effect, what mental defect leads you to think I value your opinion?
You are obviously insane, in denial of reality.
The Earth has cooled to its present temperature, nutter.
Well, technically we’d never have evolved at all.
Swenson,
If the Greenhouse Effect isn’t considered, what natural mechanism is preventing Earth’s temperature from plummeting to levels incompatible with sustaining life as we know it?
John W appears to be confusing the bogus GHE with the REAL natural atmospheric effect.
The bogus GHE violates the laws of physics. It’s a cult belief. It ain’t science.
The natural atmospheric effect helps to maintain Earth’s temperature range by acting as a ‘blanket’. The effect is supported by clouds, and substantial thermodynamic effects.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
When will you tell our guest about your theory of the skies-shooting-cold-rays effect?
Silly willy, you’re late.
And, as usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
But, keep stalking me. Your incompetence and immaturity make me even more credible.
Referring to well-established scientific concepts as “cult beliefs” only undermines your credibility.
The Greenhouse Effect abides by the laws of physics, and atmospheric phenomena such as clouds work alongside it to regulate Earth’s temperature.
John W, you may be new here, or I don’t remember you, but there is no viable description of the bogus GHE. All attempts fall into two categories: 1) Insulation, or 2) ice cubes can boil water (meaning it doesn’t work).
1) is valid, but NOT supported by CO2. Insulation is provided by N2 and O2. CO2 is a radiative gas, emitting energy to space.
So there is no viable description of the bogus GHE. If you have one, please contribute. (Your burden is to show how 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.)
“but there is no viable description of the bogus GHE.”
Let me fix that: There is no viable description of the GHE that people like Clint or Swenson understand.
“Your burden is to show how 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.”
Suppose a surface is at a steady 288 K. Ie (power in) = (power out). Perhaps (power in) is sunlight or an electric heater. Perhaps power out is some radiation or conduction or convection to colder surroundings. It doesn’t really matter. All we care is that the temperature is steady at 288K.
Now we shine a stream of 15 um photons onto the surface. (power in) > (power out), and the temperature will rise. Eventually the hotter surface will loose enough power so that once again (power in) = (power out). And again the source does not matter; it could be 270 K ice or 500 K CO2 or a laser. Any additional 15 um photons arriving will add additional (power in) and raise the temperature.
JW,
Puffman has been commenting here for something like a decade, under various sock puppets. He has been so annoying that Roy banned many of them. Very few succeeded, not even Mike Flynn.
Puffman (anyone who know his previous socks know why I call him that) even tried to push his strange views on the Moon at Joe Postma’s place and he has been asked to stop. Except that he did respect Joe’s wishes over there, whereas he keeps coming here to rant reality, science, and children, three things he knows NOTHING about.
He’s just a low-level IT guy. Bear with him.
Clint, nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb infrared radiation effectively, but carbon dioxide does because of its molecular structure. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and re-emits it in all directions, increasing the amount of downward infrared radiation.
This slows the rate at which energy escapes to space and adds extra energy to the Earth’s surface, beyond what it would receive from solar radiation alone.
Willard, Ive been following these discussions quietly for nearly a decade. Over the years, Ive seen many people get banned, but the SkyDragonSlayers have consistently disrupted these threads with numerous sock puppets to spread their anti-science rhetoric. Their persistent interference seems to be the reason Roy rarely engages beyond the initial few comments anymore. It wasn’t really like that when I first started reading here.
Thanks for clarifying, JW, and also for Roy’s quote earlier, which I somehow missed.
Whenever Folkerts says “Let me fix that”, it means “Let me try to pervert science”.
And this is a perfect example of him trying to pervert science: “And again the source does not matter; it could be 270 K ice or 500 K CO2 or a laser.”
Folkerts does not understand the difference between laser-emitted photons and naturally emitted photons. He has no understanding of radiative physics and thermodynamics. An easy explanation is a simple steel nail. The nail does not drive itself into the wall. It requires a hammer, an arm, and knowledge. Folkerts is essentially claiming nails drive themselves. (The cult won’t understand any of this.)
Folkerts, you still owe us a viable reference that two 315 W/m² fluxes arriving a surface will add so that the surface emits 630 W/m². I won’t hold my breath….
“Folkerts does not understand the difference between laser-emitted photons and naturally emitted photons. ”
Any 15 um photon is identical to any other 15 um photon. The surface receiving it has no way to know the source. Any 15 um photon is absorbed exactly as well any other 156 um photon.
You can bluster all you want, but you can’t deny this simple truth.
“Folkerts, you still owe us a viable reference that two 315 W/m fluxes arriving a surface will add so that the surface emits 630 W/m”
ONE MORE TIME … a 315 W/m^2 beam of sunlight arrives at a surface (in vacuum and insulated on the back side). Another 315 W/m^2 beam of sunlight also arrives at a surface. A total of 630 W/m^2 arrives at the surface. To balance this, the surface will warm until it emits as much as it absorbs; until it emits 630 W/m^2.
John W, the CO2 15μ photons returning to the 288K can NOT raise the temperature. That’s what your cult cannot understand.
An easy-to-understand discussion of temperature is here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672287
Also, if you stick around you will notice I try to ignore false accusations from the cult — especially those from silly willy, the leading cult child here.
Folkerta, stand in front of a CO2 laser. Have your next-of-kin give us a report….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
What’s the difference between a CO2 laser and a soda maker?
Wonky Wee Willy wrote –
“Whats the difference between a CO2 laser and a soda maker?”
– which shows how stupid Willy is! He claims not to know the difference between a CO2 laser and a soda maker!
Clint says both:
“Your burden is to show how 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.”
and
“stand in front of a CO2 laser.”
I guess I don’t have to bear that burden any longer. You just verified it for us! My body is even hotter than 288 K and you just confirmed that 15 um photons can indeed warm my body.
Tim,
Stand in front of a CO2 laser. Nothing will happen. Stand in a warehouse surrounded by a million CO2 lasers. Nothing.
You are an idiot.
Once again, you depend on some hidden energy supply to perform your illusion.
Accept reality – dry ice emits 15um photons, and exists naturally. Coherent CO2 light emitted by electrically stimulated CO2 does not occur in nature.
If you had a functioning brain, you would realise that you cannot even heat water with dry ice.
Sorry Folkerts, but you’ve just proved you have no knowledge of the relevant science. You don’t understand radiative physics or thermodynamics. Obviously you don’t understand how lasers work.
That’s why you can’t produce a viable reference for your fluxes adding nonsense.
Sorry, but Norman might even know more physics than you….
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you can’t distinguish a CO2 laser from a soda maker, for I’m the bartender here.
Coffee?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Clint, I am not letting you move the goalposts here. You stated:
“Your burden is to show how 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.”
I showed exactly that. A flux of LWIR photons can indeed raise the temperature of an object. And you agree!
I could slowly turn down the laser or use a lens to spread the beam. The lower the intensity of the beam, the less warming it will cause, but it will still cause warming.
Whether from an intense laser or a weak laser or from thermal IR emitted by the atmosphere, 15 um IR photons cause warming relative to a similar situation without those extra 15 um IR photons.
Swenson,
Would you prefer to stand in front of a hair removal laser or one which can cut steel?
“Swenson,
Would you prefer to stand in front of a hair removal laser or one which can cut steel.”
Oooooooh! A really silly gotcha!
Stand in front, to the side, it makes no difference. Nothing at all happens. They just sit there in their boxes.
Just how stupid are you, bobby?
Would you prefer to burn to death in a large fire or a small fire?
[what an idiot he is ]
Swenson,
Now I am going to turn the lasers on, are you still going to stand in front of them?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/12/acropolis-closed-earliest-heatwave-of-year-greece
Acropolis closed during hottest hours in Greeces earliest heatwave on record
“The Acropolis, Greeces most visited tourist site, was closed to the public during the hottest hours of Wednesday as the seasons earliest-ever heatwave swept the country, prompting school closures and health warnings.
The culture ministry had said the Unesco-listed archaeological site in Athens would close from midday to 5pm (09.00 to 14.00 GMT), with temperatures expected to reach 43C (109F) on Wednesday and Thursday.
The first heatwave of the year in Greece which is regularly hit by searing summer temperatures is due to peak over those two days, and the ministry said the measure could be extended.
Meteorologists have noted this is the earliest heatwave which for Greece is classed as temperatures exceeding 38C for at least three days in recorded history.”
JW,
Thanks for the news report.
Is this just a random whim to demonstrate your admiration for the Guardian, or have you some other reason that you are refusing to divulge?
You’re a funny chap.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your thankfulness, it too is fake.
Good news. Thanks.
I saw this. Greece has been getting it badly.
I know. Imagine being one of these people:
https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/12/passengers-trapped-sweltering-sauna-plane-greek-heatwave-21021543/?ico=top-stories_home_top
Thank you, Elliott.
It is 36C in Athens now, 17:40 PM .
“with temperatures expected to reach 43C (109F) on Wednesday and Thursday.”
Temperatures were expected.
It’s nice of you all to think of Greece’s exceptional heat wave now going down
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240618&daytime=day&iid=GR
but a look at Irak’s nearly all time daily temperatures
https://www.wetteronline.de/?pid=p_city_local&sid=Pictogram&diagram=true&fcdatstr=20240618&daytime=day&iid=IQ
wouldn’t be that bad.
Did you not read the reports of Christos, about how cold it was in Greece at the time and the problems they had with a lack of central heating systems?
Even Robertson’s smallest post show us all how utterly dumb he is: he didn’t even understand what the four lines above meant.
How it started:
May 15…
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation (HB 1645) on Wednesday that will erase several instances of the words “climate change” from state statutes and restructure the state’s fossil fuel-based energy policy that listed climate change as a priority when making energy policy decisions.
How it’s going:
June 13…
Gov. Ron DeSantis declared a state of emergency for Broward, Collier, Lee, Miami-Dade and Sarasota counties, as more than 25 inches of rain slam South Florida
In Broward County, Fort Lauderdale Mayor Dean Trantalis said high-water vehicles have been deployed throughout the city to respond as needed, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission will be sending boats and buggies, but urged people to stay off the roads if possible.
On Thursday, the flood warnings continue from Miami to Fort Lauderdale, with an additional 4 to 8 inches of rain in the forecast.
A flood watch will last through Thursday evening for Fort Myers, Naples and Sarasota. A flood watch is in effect until Friday evening from Miami to West Palm Beach.
Ark, are you one of those that believes every catastrophic weather event is due to abnormal climate change?
You should be aware that most of Florida has been under many feet of water in the past.
They better figure out a way to get Trump out of South Florida; God is gonna keep punishing that part of the state as long as he’s a resident.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
I lived in Regina, Canada for a bit, on the Canadian prairies. I recall it raining so hard due to a thunderstorm that the field west of the city became an instant lake of about a mile wide.
I was staying in the NE end of Regina and I usually drove to the south end to have breakfast at a particular restaurant. The western-most street running N-S was called Pasqua Avenue and I told the waitress I had just driven by Lake Pasqua. She was quick to point out there is no lake there and I told her, ‘there is now’.
Flooding like that has always been common across Canada but now the alarmists have fallen on it to further propaganda about climate change.
I am sure you could dig up plenty of evidence of similar flooding across the US.
“I lived in Regina, Canada for a bit”
I’m sorry, but you have confused me for someone who cares.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Where is there evidence of climate change in any of this? Are you claiming Florida has never had flooding before? Or that climates in Florida have changed?
Good for Desantis, for bringing some sense to Florida.
Atmospheric Moisture, called precipitable water (amount of moisture in air column above surface).
your point??? Please do try to stay on the topic of the thread?
Earlier John W tried a gotcha, and wrote –
“Swenson,
If the Greenhouse Effect isnt considered, what natural mechanism is preventing Earths temperature from plummeting to levels incompatible with sustaining life as we know it?”
Nothing at all, of course. And if the heat death of the universe occurs, everything in the universe will be very cold indeed.
Now John W will no doubt refuse to explain why the Earth cannot have cooled to its present temperature from a hotter state, because he is a fanatical GHE cultists – and an idiot who doesn’t believe a mostly glowing hor body (the Earth) can possibly cool.
from john w…”…what natural mechanism is preventing Earths temperature from plummeting to levels incompatible with sustaining life as we know it?
***
We call it the Sun. Without an atmosphere, the surface temperature would rise to unbearable levels. With an atmosphere and no convection, the surface temps would rise to 70C, according to Lindzen. The atmosphere serves to lower temperatures, not to increase them.
Ice ages occurred because solar energy was somehow blocked or the Earth’s orbit was seriously affected. Maybe we passed through some huge galactic cloud of dust.
The recent problem of warming, blamed on the GHE and its offshoot, AGW, is actually about a recovery from a mini ice age, the Little Ice Age, where solar energy was diminished enough to cause the global average to drop by 1C to 2C.
No one was concerned about a rewarming from the LIA till political interests in the 1980s, lead by the UN, revived a vague theory from the 19th century, that CO2 could absorb infrared and warm. I’m sure that anyone living in 1850, as the LIA ended, were might relieved to have the planet start warming again.
I call it political because the notion was revived by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, an uber-right wing politician. She needed a reason to shut down UK coal miners so she went after the entire coal industry. She had a degree in chemistry nd upon the advice of an advisor, she took her cockamamey theory to the UN who were desperately looking for a cause that would enable their dream of universal taxation to support their other causes.
As usual Tim Folkerts descends into the depths of his fantasies yet again. He wrote –
“”but there is no viable description of the bogus GHE.”
Let me fix that: There is no viable description of the GHE that people like Clint or Swenson understand.
“Your burden is to show how 15μ photons can raise the temperature of a 288K surface.”
Suppose a surface is at a steady 288 K. Ie (power in) = (power out). Perhaps (power in) is sunlight or an electric heater. Perhaps power out is some radiation or conduction or convection to colder surroundings. It doesnt really matter. All we care is that the temperature is steady at 288K.
Now we shine a stream of 15 um photons onto the surface. (power in) > (power out), and the temperature will rise. Eventually the hotter surface will loose enough power so that once again (power in) = (power out). And again the source does not matter; it could be 270 K ice or 500 K CO2 or a laser. Any additional 15 um photons arriving will add additional (power in) and raise the temperature.”
Tim claims there is a viable description of the GHE, but refuses to divulge it on the basis that he is too inept to communicate it in terms that people can understand.
Now Tim is away with the fairies again, claiming that exposing a surface in sunlight to the radiation from a block of dry ice will make the surface hotter!
Tim absolutely refuses to accept that dry ice at about -78 C, emitting enormous quantities of photons around the 15um mark, will warm precisely nothing at all above that temperature.
About as idiotic as claiming immersing a piece of dry ice (or even ordinary ice) in your soup will make it hotter! Tim Folkerts is a GHE nutter, adrift in a world of his own.
Simply refuses to accept that the Earth can cool from a molten state to,where it is now – still cooling.
So Swenson, suppose there is a small, unheated object floating in the vacuum of space, far from any star. It will have a temperature of about 3 K.
What do YOU think will happen if we surround this object with a shell of dry ice (not touching) at about -78 C and later shine some sunlight onto that object inside the dry ice shell?
Do you agree that the dry ice will cause the object to be -78 C, and that the addition of sunlight later will cause the object to become warmer than -78 C?
Tim,
You wrote –
“Do you agree that the dry ice will cause the object to be -78 C, and that the addition of sunlight later will cause the object to become warmer than -78 C?”
No, of course not. The dry ice will freeze to 3 K. Presumably your object was a lump of frozen CO2, and you now have two lumps of dry ice at the same temperature.
Do you still believe that they are both emitting 15um photons? Of course not, you aren’t that silly, are you?
Any other silly gotchas?
“The dry ice will freeze to 3 K. ”
The post states that the dry ice is -78 C.
Perhaps it is a large, fresh chunk that has not had time to cool below -78C; perhaps there is an electric heater that holds it at -78 C. It really doesn’t matter. You need to address the situation given, not create your own straw man and answer the strawman.
IF THE SHELL IS -78C AND THERE IS ADDITIONAL SUNLIGHT, WILL THE OBJECT BE WARMER THAN -78 C? WILL IT MATTER WHETHER THE SHELL WAS PUT IN PLACE FIRST OR SECOND?
Swenson correctly answered you, Tim, and did not attack a straw man. It doesn’t matter what temperature you introduce the dry ice at; since there is no heat source present in your example (until Sunlight is added) then the dry ice will cool to 3 K. If you have to introduce another heat source to keep your dry ice at the temperature you want (the “electric heater” you mentioned) then you’ve already lost. You’ve already missed the point.
DREMT claims: “Swenson correctly answered you, Tim …”
No. He didn’t. Swenson himself stipulated “dry ice at about -78 C”. So the dry ice is -78 C. End of story.
You are the one who has already missed the point. The point is about transfers of energy, not about specific details like whether the shell is actually dry ice or what holds the temperature at -78 C.
Matter doesn’t just maintain itself at a certain temperature, Tim.
Swenson 1, Tim 0.
When an object is held at -78 C, it does maintain it temperature, DREMT. That is the situation here, where the scenario specifies IR radiation coming from a -78 C surface.
"When an object is held at -78 C, it does maintain it temperature, DREMT."
To be held at -78 C, in the environment you specified, would require it to have its own heat source, Tim. Once you have more than one heat source (Sunlight, plus the electric heater), you’re no longer discussing the GHE.
You lost the point, Tim.
Tim, Plainly the goal here is to evade honest debate.
You lost the point, Tim.
Graham D. Warner misses Tim’s point once again.
Incorrect. The point Tim misses, however, refutes the GHE. Oh well, he’s just not intelligent or open-minded enough to understand. His loss.
For some here, the only point is to tr0ll.
His loss. Swenson is correct, Tim gets it wrong. Can be repeated indefinitely.
For the professional point missers, I will simply point out that Swenson tried to move the goal post, after declaring that dry ice, even if at -78 C, will not warm anything.
“Tim absolutely refuses to accept that dry ice at about -78 C, emitting enormous quantities of photons around the 15um mark, will warm precisely nothing at all above that temperature.”
Oh well!
…loss. Swenson is correct, Tim gets it wrong. Can be repeated indefinitely.
“Can be repeated indefinitely.”
Cleary for some the ONLY point is to tr0ll and to facilitate other tr0lls.
Why?
…Swenson is correct, Tim gets it wrong. Can be repeated indefinitely.
… and wrongly.
Swenson’s 6:13 PM comment, which I defended, was correct. Tim’s gotcha missed the mark. The dry ice would indeed cool to 3 K in absence of any heat source. Tired of being attacked for being right, once again.
DREMT absolutely refuses to accept that the dry ice was at about -78 C as originally stated 4:54 pm, not at 3K as DREMT dreams up. Tim is correct.
It can be introduced at whatever temperature you please. It won’t remain at that temperature without a heat source, however. It will instead drop to 3 K. Swenson was correct, Tim’s gotcha missed the mark.
You’re a boring, repellent, relentless little troll, however, so I’ll expect you to continue lying in a deliberate attempt to irritate. Emphasis on “attempt”, of course, you never succeed.
Dry ice temperature of -78C was introduced by Swenson 4:54 pm so the temperature is not “whatever temperature you please” as dreamed up by DREMT. Tim correctly responded twice.
DREMT’s jumped in response simply put up a strawman which was easily stabbed.
As predicted, he continues.
Tim said:
“So Swenson, suppose there is a small, unheated object floating in the vacuum of space, far from any star. It will have a temperature of about 3 K.
What do YOU think will happen if we surround this object with a shell of dry ice (not touching) at about -78 C and later shine some sunlight onto that object inside the dry ice shell?
Do you agree that the dry ice will cause the object to be -78 C, and that the addition of sunlight later will cause the object to become warmer than -78 C?”
Swenson responded that the dry ice would cool to 3 K, since it is in the vacuum of space far from any star. I agree. That is what would happen, until the sunlight is brought into the equation later on. In fact, before Swenson responded, I was tempted to respond saying the exact same thing. No straw man, Ball4, just a correct reading of the situation Tim described.
“Tired of being attacked for being right, once again.”
Well ya know its all about you, even though you butted into the discussion that you weren’t following anyway to try to score imaginary points.
Gee, in the GPE problem DREMT insists the nearby object must stay at the same temperature as its neighbor.
While in this case he insists that the nearby object must cool to the temperature of space.
While, in reality, neither of these contradictory answers makes a bit of sense!
In reality, an object reaches equilibrium at the average T of its surroundings.
…no straw man, Ball4, just a correct reading of the situation Tim described.
“It wont remain at that temperature without a heat source, however. It will instead drop to 3 K. Swenson was correct, Tims gotcha missed the mark.”
This will almost certainly go right over Swenson’s and DREMT’s heads, but for any one else, the shell will NOT drop to 3 K. There IS a heat source to the dry ice shell, and it is the thermal radiation from the warm object at the center.
For a concrete example, suppose the dry ice shell has a surface area of 1 m^2. Further, assume the object in the center absorbs 82 W of sunlight.
Since all of the IR eventually gets emitted to space FROM THE SHELL, the shell would be emitting 82 W/m^2, which just happens to be -78 C.
Incorrect DREMT 2:52 pm, the block of dry ice at -78C was exposing its radiation to “a surface in sunlight” at 4:54 pm; confused DREMT jumped into the thread later missing the original point as usual. The internet cannot forget.
These people are so dishonest there’s just no point communicating with them.
Tim said:
“So Swenson, suppose there is a small, unheated object floating in the vacuum of space, far from any star. It will have a temperature of about 3 K.
What do YOU think will happen if we surround this object with a shell of dry ice (not touching) at about -78 C and later shine some sunlight onto that object inside the dry ice shell?“
The sunlight does not enter the equation until later on. Until then, the dry ice will cool to 3 K.
… originally “a surface in sunlight” to start thread at 4:54 pm. DREMT remains confused which is so typical.
If Tim’s 6:15 AM response was not appropriate for Swenson’s 4:54 PM comment then that is on Tim, not me.
elliott…”Why do comets have two tails, Gordon?”
***
Solar wind, made up of electrons and protons, both of which have mass. Apparently you and your ilk don’t know the difference between the solar wind and electromagnetic energy, which has no mass.
ICLEI is a bad joke; its a sick joke in that it will harm everyone under the pretense of sustainability.
https://iclei.org/
You must root our ICLEI from your town council agenda. Which town council? Every town council is adopting ICLEI.
The solution is to vote out these pawthetic klowns. We have already done it in Vancouver. If things go according to the polls, we’ll be getting rid of our national klimate klowns, aka the Liberal Party of Canada.
your point???
john w…”Meteorologists have noted this is the earliest heatwave which for Greece is classed as temperatures exceeding 38C for at least three days…”
***
Here in Canada, some 1500 miles north of Greece, and 150 miles north of Vancouver, we have a region where temps are in excess of 40C every summer. We don’t call them hat waves because those are natural temperatures in the region.
Will you pawthetic climate alarmist dweebs kindly refrain from reporting weather events as catastrophic climate change events related to a fantasy you have created about catastrophic global warming (CAGW)?
Mr. Asshat already lost:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672867
More worthless bs, from the peanut gallery.
If Mr. Asshat considers that word BS, who am I to dispute him?
> that word
Ahem. His own word.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Troglodytes are bad citizens, bad contrarians, bad reactionaries:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w32544
Kennui is a free rider that will soon be kicked out of the gravy train.
Ken has a vote, like me, and we will get rid of these Draconian monsters in due time. When they are all gone, democratically, we can then call you ‘weeping wee willy’.
Mr. Asshat, like Kennui, only has a few elections left. And then they’ll be gone. Troglodytes are in limited quantity, which may explain why they keep gerrymandering.
wee willy seems to be advocating his Nazi ideology, which he hopes will be implemented by climate alarmists to deprive the rest of us of our democratic rights. However, we kicked their Nazi butts once, and we’ll to the same to climate nazis soon.
Mr. Asshat seems to promote eternalism. To him, time does not exist. Temperature does not exist. Everything is in his mind, unconstrained by truthfulness, honor or just reality. Forever and ever.
No wonder he keeps repeating the same lies over and over again.
Willard, please stop trolling.
never said temperature does not exist, I merely said it is a human invention, like time. However, temperature as a measure of heat, has meaning as a relative level of heat. Time, on the other hand, can be related to no phenomenon other than the rate at which the Earth turns. It has no independent existence.
Mr. Asshat keeps lying:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672638
That was three days ago.
Perhaps he’s just senile.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
tim f…”Any 15 um photon is identical to any other 15 um photon. The surface receiving it has no way to know the source. Any 15 um photon is absorbed exactly as well any other 156 um photon”.
***
The surface can tell by the frequency of the photon the temperature of the source.
Wavelength is a reciprocal of frequency but it is the frequency that has an effect on the surface. That is, the atoms making up the surface have electrons that absorb the IR. The electrons have an angular frequency that is dependent on temperature and if the frequency of the incoming IR does not match that angular frequency, nothing will be absorbed.
Consider an electron in an orbit at temperature 20C. If heat is added and the temperature of the mass rises, the electron gains KE and is excited to a higher orbit. With a higher KE = 1/2mv^2, it means the angular frequency rises.
If the IR comes from a source that has a lower temperature than the surface, it’s frequency will be too low to affect the electrons in a warmer surface.
“The surface can tell by the frequency of the photon the temperature of the source.”
No! 15 um photons come from dry ice and they come from the sun. And they all have identical frequency and energy. The receiving surface as NO WAY at tell the temperature of the object that emitted the photon!
According to the Standard Model, photons can only carry three pieces of information, 2 for direction and 1 for energy/wavelength/frequency.
No room for the temperature of the source.
Tim,
You wrote –
“No! 15 um photons come from dry ice and they come from the sun. And they all have identical frequency and energy. The receiving surface as NO WAY at tell the temperature of the object that emitted the photon!”
You are correct. All you have to do is figure out why you can’t even warm water with dry ice, but you can melt steel with concentrated sunlight.
Then you will realise that what you said, while being true, is completely misleading and irrelevant.
Still no GHE – you refuse to even try describing it!
Carry on.
SWENSON: “You are correct.
Yep. I usually am. Now remind Gordon.
“All you have to do is figure out why you cant even warm water with dry ice, but you can melt steel with concentrated sunlight.”
I understand all of that already, thanks.
“Then you will realise that what you said, while being true, is completely misleading and irrelevant.”
What I said is true and relevant to Gordon’s claim. It is your post that is irrelevant and misleading to the points being addressed here.
Gordon.
“Consider an electron in an orbit at temperature 20C. If heat is added and the temperature of the mass rises, the electron gains KE and is excited to a higher orbit.”
Electrons do not orbit.
Add just enough energy to ionize the atom and the electron leaves the atom with no kinetic energy.
Stop making up shit.
Bobdroege,
“Add just enough energy to ionize the atom and the electron leaves the atom with no kinetic energy.
Stop making up shit.”
Indeed.
Swenson,
Try taking a Chemistry course at your local junior college.
Or try to understand this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy
I’ll take the not.
Well, bumbling bobby, Ill guarantee your link contains no reference at all to “Add just enough energy to ionize the atom and the electron leaves the atom with no kinetic energy.”, because you simply don’t understand what you read on the internet.
Go on, tell me you couldn’t find any factual inaccuracies in the Wiki reference!
Make a fool of yourself – you shouldn’t believe everything you read.
Swenson,
You don’t understand the concept of binding energy.
That’s a fact.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
re alleged climate-related heat wave in Greece. The average temp over 509 weather stations was 36.1 C. Here are some of the temperature records over the past century…
48C in July 1977
47.2C in July 1977
46.3C in July 1973
46C in July 1973
47.2 in Aug 1958
46C in Aug 1924.
What is of interest is that the two hottest temperatures occurred in 1977 with June 2007 being the hottest modern high at 47.5. However, surprisingly, Aug 1924 is right up there with modern temps. In fact, it is much higher than the current 36.1 claimed during this heat wave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Greece
https://greekcitytimes.com/2024/06/13/central-greece-highest-temperature/
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“BTWKircheoffs Law is pretty well obsolete. It was made redundant when Bohr discovered the basis of quantum theory for hydrogen.”
Explain that to an engineer, especially those who design thermal imaging systems that we rely on for diagnosing various disorders.
I am an engineer and I know of no engineer who would use something as obsolete as Kircheoff blackbody theory in a modern design. Kircheoff is better known as the father of blackbody theory and it is used in first year courses as a theoretical example. No one would touch BB theory when working with a real furnace.
In electrical engineering, we studied Kircheoff’s voltage and current laws, which are far more apt. They can still be useful in circuit analysis.
> I am an engineer
More lies by Mr. Asshat.
He’s an hi-fi repairman, at best.
Willard, please stop trolling.
What school did you attend?
“What school did you attend?”
John W, please stop trolling. You need more practice.
wee willy sure gets envious (catty) when he encounters someone with a superior education to his.
john…why??? Are you going to try stalking me the way wee willy does? He’s been trying to dig up dirt on me since forever.
John W
I am a retired engineer and I know of none of my former engineer colleagues
– who would endlessly write such trash as does Robertson about everything, mostly coming from contrarian blogs
– who would not even be able to download climate time series data and show them using a spreadsheet calculator, let alone to process such data by using self-developed software.
*
Robertson lacks any real technical skills and scientific education.
All he knows very certainly stems from old technical books written 70 years ago.
Bindidon,
Thank you for sharing more about yourself. I appreciate your perspective. It’s puzzled how you and others manage to tolerate him and the clique he’s part of.
Despite claiming to respect Roy and this blog’s commitment to scientific integrity, it seems they’re simply exploiting the very relaxed moderation standards here.
Imagine if Anthony Watts at WUWT or Judith Curry at Climate Etc., whom I may disagree with but respect, encountered the same behavior on their platforms. They know they wouldn’t tolerate such behavior and wouldn’t comment there.
I hate to sound repetitive, but this blog could really benefit from slightly stricter moderation standardsnot excessively so. Roy and professionals like yourself who contribute here deserve a better environment.
John W,
“I hate to sound repetitive, but this blog could really benefit from slightly stricter moderation standardsnot excessively so. Roy and professionals like yourself who contribute here deserve a better environment.”
Aww, not getting your way? Suffering from complete impotence? How sad, I feel your pain.
For my part, I applaud Dr Spencer’s moderation standards. Maybe he reflects Voltaire’s attitude “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”.
As to WUWT, some little time ago, Bindidon was pointing out that Mike Flynn was being allowed to make comments which people like Bindidon thought should have been censored. They weren’t. Things change.
There is no GHE. Certainly it would contain little or no reference to CO2. As Bindidon wrote –
“Im not interested in the CO2 discussion. In my opinion, GHE is due mainly to the presence of H2O in the lower troposphere in whichever form.
CO2 might become a problem who knows.”
You see? Disagreement. Fanatical GHE cultists cannot even agree on what the mythical GHE is supposed to do! Which opinions do you want to censor?
Maybe your attempts at social engineering (attempting to bend Dr Spencer to your will) may not be as successful as you hope. I certainly hope so.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/is-your-comment-here-not-appearing/#comment-1518969
(And I do wish the SDSs would go away; my discussion moderation terms have apparently caused them to largely give up using my blog as a soapbox).
John W,
Oooooh! How subtle is that!
I comment when I wish, where I wish, and how I wish, and there’s precisely nothing you can do about it. Be a man, not a sly cockroach. Write to Dr Spencer, demand that he follows your commands. That’s what all your not-so-devious manouvering is about, isn’t it?
Maybe you are one of those people Sir Winston Churchill referred to, when he said –
“Some people”s idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage!”
I don’t know why you refuse to provide your description of the GHE, and I don’t really care. If something can’t be described in scientific terms, it’s not even a speculation, it’s an insane fantasy. I can describe fantasy creatures like the unicorn, or pixies, but you can’t describe the exceptionally fantastic GHE, can you?
That’s a bit sad really. You might be better continuing with your censorship crusade.
[laughing at transparent would-be manipulator]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your sammich requests.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
elliott…”Greece has been getting it badly”.
***
Only from afar. I am sure citizens of Greece regard it as the same old, same old.
Around here, in Vancouver, Canada, I remember scorching summers where it did not rain for 2 months. These days, if it does not rain for a week, the alarmists cry about a drought caused by climate change.
In a recent post I related how the average temp in Greece during this heat wave is 36.1C. The hottest temps, dating back to 1924, were in excess of 45C, the highest being 48C. Heck, we get higher averages than 36C in the Vancouver location, some 150 miles North and inland.
> Only from afar.
More lies by Mr. Asshat:
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/greece-athens-heatwave-qatar-airways-passenger-b2561728.html
Maybe Greece is headed for another 300 year drought.
From weather.com –
“A 300-year drought may have caused the demise of several Mediterranean cultures, including ancient Greece, new research suggests.”
Too many ancient SUVs, do you think?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you don’t know about the Neoproterozoic.
Maybe Greece is headed for another 300 year drought.
From weather.com
“A 300-year drought may have caused the demise of several Mediterranean cultures, including ancient Greece, new research suggests.”
Too many ancient SUVs, do you think?
“Nobody cares if you dont know about the Neoproterozoic” – was that an Ancient Greek SUV?
Sounds like a definite fuel guzzler to me.
Nobody cares if you confuse droughts with heatwaves, Mike.
Good to see you reflecting the cares of nobody at all.
Nobody cares about your No U.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
An intense heatwave occurring once in 10 years at the 0.5 C warming level has an annual probability of about 50% in northern and 8090% in southern Europe under 2.0 C. Corresponding probabilities for 100-year heatwaves would be nearly 20% in the north and about 60% in the south. Finally, we discuss factors that explain the stronger increase in heatwave duration and extremity in the south than north.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-023-06798-4
“Finally, we discuss factors that explain the stronger increase in heatwave duration and extremity in the south than north.”
The authors might have attended Willard’s “How to write incomprehensible English” course.
Simulations – fanatical GHE cultists love them, because they reject reality.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your gaslighting.
“Finally, we discuss factors that explain the stronger increase in heatwave duration and extremity in the south than north.”
The authors might have attended Willards “How to write incomprehensible English” course.
Simulations fanatical GHE cultists love them, because they reject reality.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you keep copypasting your comments.
“Finally, we discuss factors that explain the stronger increase in heatwave duration and extremity in the south than north.”
The authors might have attended Willards “How to write incomprehensible English” course.
Simulations fanatical GHE cultists love them, because they reject reality.
Nobody cares about what you find good to know, Mike.
“Nobody cares about what you find good to know, Mike.”
That’s good to know. Thanks.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you sleep well or not.
Good to know you’re expressing the opinions of nobody.
Nobody cares about your silly word games, Mike.
Well, thats good, isn’t it?
Thanks for your concern.
elliot…”With all due respect, go block yourself”.
***
Rather than worrying about blocking posters, why not post exclusively on alarmist sites like realclimate, skepticalscience, or desmogblog? There you’d be among your own type and you could all agree on your pseudo-science. Of course, it would still be pseudo-science since real science is not bout agreement.
Likely because Elliot prefers engaging in thoughtful debates that encompass perspectives from intelligent individuals on both sides.
It’s evident you don’t meet that criteria.
elliot thought it was light blowing the tail on a comet. Since you seem to think he is intelligent, therefore this comment being intelligent, it pretty well sums up your intelligence level.
John W,
Thoughtful debates don’t decide facts.
Here’s Elliotts nonsensical description of the GHE –
“This is the GHE in a nutshell: Infra-red which is emitted and coincides with the emission spectrum of CO2 will be re-emitted and according to Kirchoffs Law will be absorbed by the Earth or by other, equivalent CO2 molecules in equal measure.”
Scientific nonsense (CO2, like all matter both absorbs and emits IR with wavelengths determined by temperature, and nothing else.)
You may “thoughtfully debate” all you like, but the IR emitted by frozen CO2 (dry ice) will not even warm water – anywhere on Earth!
You no doubt refuse to describe the GHE, realising that any attempt to do so will expose you to ridicule. You will notice that silly Elliott’s description doesnt even mention anything about warming! Pretty idiotic, if you are trying to convince people that CO2 heats a planet!
Are you the same sort of idiot as Elliott, or do you practice your own style of idiocy?
Maybe you and he can have a thoughtful debate about who is most deluded.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you present yourself as the Master of Facts.
Good to know. Thanks.
john…re Elliott…could have fuhled me. Anything I have seen from Elliott is alarmist pap that intelligent minds would shun. Elliot couldn’t even have an intelligent conversation with himself.
Swenson,
“Scientific nonsense (CO2, like all matter both absorbs and emits IR with wavelengths determined by temperature, and nothing else.)”
Do you want to join the 21st century?
You are applying Classical Physics, and ignoring advances made in the 20th century.
For CO2, the frequency is specific to CO2, and is not determined by temperature.
Only the peak frequency in the spectrum of a body is determined by temperature.
“For CO2, the frequency is specific to CO2, and is not determined by temperature.
Only the peak frequency in the spectrum of a body is determined by temperature.”
Pick one, bumbling bobby. Both cannot be true. One is true, one is not.
You have a 50% chance of looking intelligent, after looking stupid.
Go for it!
P.S. I should have said “frequencies” rather than “frequency”. My bad. I thought you understood physics.
Swenson,
Since you can’t be bothered to look things up that you don’t understand, here, I can do that for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum
Baffled bobby,
Providing pointless and irrelevant links just proves that you are both stupid and ignorant.
Go for it!
Swenson,
That’s all you got?
Just more spewed Maypo.
Admit it, you don’t understand the science involved with the greenhouse effect.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
An observation on wee willy. Since he has only half a brain, it severely limits his level of wit to that of a half-wit. That is obvious in his fumbling attempts to respond to real wit. Fortunately, most alarmists are similarly handicapped.
swenson quotes Elliott…”Infra-red which is emitted and coincides with the emission spectrum of CO2 will be re-emitted and according to Kirchoffs Law will be absorbed by the Earth or by other, equivalent CO2 molecules in equal measure.
***
Kircheoff’s Law applies only to bodies in thermal equilibrium, and in that state heat cannot be transferred. Actually the surface and the atmosphere are in thermal equilibrium, and as such, no heat should be transferred via conduction. However, air heated by the surface rises and is replaced by cooler air from aloft and that cooler air sets up a temperature difference between the warmer surfaces and the cooler air.
That cooler air will also extract heat from the surface via conduction and rise. The cycle repeats.
Kircheoff’s law does not address IR absorp.tion and when he wrote his law, it was presumed heat could flow through air as heat rays. That was proved wrong by Bohr in 2013 when he discovered the real relationship between heat and electromagnetic energy.
That’s why I claim Kircheoff is archaic.
I might add that Elliott and his fellow alarmists are somewhat archaic as well.
Not Kircheoff, dammit.
Kirstsscchhov.
Gordon can’t get anything right — “That was proved wrong by Bohr in 2013…”
Niels Bohr died in 1962.
And, Kirchhoff spelled his name with two hs.
Gordon can’t get things right because he can’t learn. That’s one of the reasons we know he never made it through engineering.
“Thats why I claim Kircheoff is archaic.”
Sorry to disappoint you Gordon, Kirchhoff is still a Law of Physics.
Actual law, not the one that Nate ascribes to:
”For a body of any arbitrary material emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of ab sorp tion is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature. That universal function describes the perfect black-body emissive power.”
Obviously that never occurs for the earth’s surface as it is infrequently and only momentarily in the dark and waning sunlight never in thermo-dynamic equilibrium with solar insolation. so when Nate starts arguing that this is essential to the GHE he is full of it.
As I have repeatedly said, when the surface loses heat due to convection that heat is NOT lost by the surface via thermal electromagnetic radiation.
Bill doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said. Unclear why he is posting.
Nate you claimed that the S&O experiment violated 1LOT and you think that is proof of it being flawed.
The only flaw is your thinking that common air with conduction and convection can violate 1LOT and radiation can’t.
Not speak of the fact that impossible to have an experiment violate a law of physics.
Nothing said here. Go tr0ll somewhere else.
You deny claiming S&O violated 1LOT?
The usual misrepresention of the multiple lengthy discussions we had, which I have no interest in repeating.
Now kindly find someone else to annoy.
Looks like he isn’t going to deny the charge.
How we know the sun changes the climate. III: Theories
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/13/how-we-know-the-sun-changes-the-climate-iii-theories/
{it’s nice to theories rather global warming cargo cult, stuff}
…..
“This is also supported by data from two studies of Arctic heat transport in recent decades.[viii] Both atmospheric and oceanic heat transport increased in the early 21st century. In the Arctic, winter temperatures have risen sharply. Obviously, that heat has to be transported there, because the Sun does not shine in the Arctic in winter, so no heat is generated. And the increase in temperature has greatly increased the emission of infrared radiation into space. Remember that the greenhouse effect is very weak in the Arctic at this time of year, and heat is not retained. Because of the warming of the Arctic caused by increased transport, the planet is losing more energy than it was losing before.”
Could have fuhled Arctic denizens. Is a sharp rise in temperature from -65C to -60C? Each winter, the Arctic ocean freezes over with 10 feet of ice, no small feat since the water is saline. You can actually walk across the ice from the Canadian north shore to the North Pole….albeit with great difficulty. There are small rifts in the ice up to 4 stories high where the ice sheets crash into each other.
As you can see from UAH contour maps, any warming moves around month to month and the max warming they show as anomalies are +5C.
christos…”It is 36C in Athens now, 17:40 PM .
with temperatures expected to reach 43C (109F) on Wednesday and Thursday.
***
43C is still below the record of 48C set in July 1977 and even below the max of 46C set in 1924.
Hope it works out for you my friend. Do you have a good sized fan to help cool you? I use a fan with 8″ blades and it helps me sleep at night when temps exceed 30C. There are 4 speeds but the 2nd speed is sufficient provided I put the fan about 3 feet away from my bed.
Thank you, Gordon.
This moment where i sit the temperature is 31C. We have the opposite windows and doors wide open, sothe see breeze comes and fresh us, today the outdoors temperature is 34C.
Thank you for remainding me of “the record of 48C set in July 1977”.
It was actually in 1987. And it lasted very hot for about a month and a half.
I was the only one having installed an air-conditioning unit in my room.
Two friends came to visit, as they returned from the beach. Outside it was 47-48C, the rest of the appartment it was 38C.
But in my room thermometer was showing 26C. One of the friends exclaimed: “26C is rather hot, but how plesant it feels!…”
They dropped by for a minute just to say hallow, and stayed for two hours. Those long ago memories…
It was a really difficult summer 1987. We had ~2500 casulties from excess heat then.
Now we are well prepared. Almost every houshold has installed an air-conditioning unit.
The electricity power demand gets sky-rocketing those days, but luckily, at summer the wind and solar renewable energy is plenty in Greece.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is spelled “hello”.
nobody is going to mars
https://youtu.be/MT-pV48XBI4
NASA has been supported by Congress to explore the Moon with crew and then do crewed explorations of Mars.
NASA has spent +40 billion on SLS- SLS can’t really go to the Moon nor Mars.
But NASA has also funded lunar lander from SpaceX and Blue Origin who are making Starship and New Glenn rocket. If or when SpaceX and/or Blue Origin test lands, they each will get few billion dollars.
Next year it’s possible SpaceX and Blue Origin could do their test flight of landing a vehicle which can land crew to the Moon, but it will be test without having crew.
SLS did same kind of thing, send crew vehicle without crew to go around the Moon and than land on Earth- and their next mission is to have crew in the crew vehicle, which is suppose to happen in 2026. And crew will transfer to SpaceX starship {which will have tested in 2025] which land this crew on the moon, and then return to them to lunar orbit, which SLS will bring them back the Earth surface.
So that one landing on lunar surface is dependent, on when SLS is ready, and SpaceX is ready by the year of 2026.
Though if there is failure of SLS, SpaceX, one has back up of Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket.
Or important issue, where will Starship development, be by 2025 and 2026. And Both SpaceX and Blue Origin need to refuel their spacecraft in low earth orbit- which has never been done before.
Both will be paid, for doing various steps needed to refuel in orbit.
SpaceX with test flight 3, completed one of those steps, and was paid about 50 million dollars for successfully doing the first step.
So SpaceX will be doing other steps which will lead to a successful re-fueling of a starship in orbit. And once finished, send the test crew lander with this refuel starship to land on the Moon.
NASA seems to say it, might take 20 starship launches to do this, Musk says it could take as few as 8.
For starship test 5, FAA says there will not investigation which will delay the launch, and mad Elon says it could launch in a month from now.
And then next Starship launch could take another month to launch, and perhaps another before the year ends.
And by year of end, Spacex might have another launch tower build, and by end of 2025 have launch towers in Florida.
One could say by 2025, one needs 2 starship to launch every month.
In meantime, Blue Orgin hopes to launch a robotic mission to Mars with the New Glenn rocket before than end o 2024. And try to reuse it’s first stage- it’s “possible” he wins race of reusing first stage and/or second stage of a large rocket.
One could say it’s about rocket engines. SLS has Space Shuttle engines which were reusable. SpaceX has built over 300 raptor engine and building at about 1 engine a day {wants to do 2 a day]- one a day is insane. Blue Origin might have enough engines for it’s first launch {it could be bottleneck}.
SLS is building a rocket once every two years- if NASA would give them 5 to 10 billion dollars they might try to do, 1 rocket launch per year.
SpaceX and Blue Origin are trying to build 20 rockets per year- and reuse them, and thereby get more than 20 launch per year.
And both have to do this before 2026. Well, Blue Origin per contract has more time, their deadline might be a much as 2028.
They don’t require NASA to pay them more money to do this, they just need to do this to get paid for there NASA lunar landing missions. Either could fail and not get the NASA money for a successful mission. If both fail, NASA crew lunar program is delayed.
But there are other rockets being developed by US and the rest of world, but at this point SpaceX and perhaps Blue Origin are leaders in the race, and they are presently some of the richest men in the world.
Looks like satellite is giving false data.
NASA has been giving much lower temperatures this year.
NH + SH land
NASA
Jan. +0.66
Feb. +0.93
Mar. +0.83
Apr. +0.73
May. +0.60
UAH
Jan. +0.89
Feb. +0.98
Mar. +1.15
Apr. +1.24
I’m sure there are good reasons for the delay, but it would be helpful if the map and gridded data could be published closer to the release of the headline figure.
It’s a little frustrating having to argue the merits of the global average on WUWT without being able to point to the specific details. By the time the details come out the comments have already closed.
go outside and take a long walk , it helps
“We need to accept the risk and, if necessary, adapt where we can.”
–
There is not any risk, because the global warming is a millenials long orbitally forced inevitable natural process.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What has been the orbital forcing responsible for the warming over the last 50 years?
Thank you, Nate, for your response.
“What has been the orbital forcing responsible for the warming over the last 50 years?”
It is not a warming only over the last 50 years. It is the Earth’s average surface temperature rising over the last 6-7 millenials.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate
Vournas becomes more and more dishonest.
He got many hints on his lie about ‘Earths average surface temperature rising over the last 6-7 millenials’.
*
Here is one of dozens and dozens of graphs showing global temperatures clearly decreasing in the Holocene since 8,000 years:
https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/holocene.jpg
*
But exactly like Robertson endlessly lies about ‘NOAA using only 1500 surface stations’ (and does about many other things as well), Vournas endlessly ignores all the hints and continues lying.
Bindidon,
https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/holocene.jpg
Interesting graph, thank you.
To read the graph correctly, please turn it upside down.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Vournas becomes more and more dishonest.”
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Flynnson
The tr0lls here are Vournas and… yourself.
And unfortunately for him, Vournas becomes not only dishonest but in addition as dumb as you are.
Bindidon says:
”Here is one of dozens and dozens of graphs showing global temperatures clearly decreasing in the Holocene since 8,000 years:”
So what? There are dozens and dozens of graphs showing that interglacials can have multiple peaks making the implied claims that that cooling will continue and a natural warming cycle is beyond possibility completely unsupported by science and without any merit whatsoever.
One cannot pretend they know what is going to naturally happen simply because they want something to be true for which they have no detailed explanation for why it will occur.
Christos,
You claimed Earths warming was only due to natural orbital forcing.
But then you offer NO science explanation for the warming of the last half century.
While AGW does offer an explanation in terms of an increasing GHE.
Sorry Nate, but the bogus GHE doesn’t explain warming. You see, it’s bogus. There isn’t even a viable description of it, it’s so bogus.
Nate,
You wrote –
“But then you offer NO science explanation for the warming of the last half century.”
It’s pretty obvious – anthropogenic waste heat. This will be more evident as increased nighttime minima, where the increases are not masked by sunlight. At least one paper has documented the phenomenon occurring since the industrial revolutions in two island nations, the UK and Japan, which had their industrial revolutions about a century apart.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
There is no GHE – it’s a myth,
The existence of the greenhouse effect is supported by over two centuries of scientific research, beginning with Joseph Fourier’s theoretical insights.
The likelihood of individuals like Swenson falsifying it is as improbable as successfully teaching physics to a monkey.
John W, you just keep repeating your beliefs. Beliefs ain’t science. If your believes violate the laws of physics, then your beliefs are bogus.
If you can’t describe the bogus GHE, then it’s bogus. You haven’t been here long, but Elliott tried his best, and failed. You are welcome to try. Skip all the blah-blah. We know about “back-radiation”. Just get to how CO2’s 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface. That’s where the cult nonsense hits a wall.
john w…neither Fourier, Tyndall, nor Arrhenius supplied proof of a greenhouse effect. All three speculated such a device existed but none proved it. In fact, no one has ever proved a GHE exists.
R.W. Wood, who was consulted by Neils Bohr based on the former’s expertise with sodium gas, disproved the current GHE theory in 1909. He concluded based on an experiment that greenhouses heat due to a lack of convection and nothing to do with trapped infrared.
Both Tyndall and Arrhenius thought warming due to CO2 would be beneficial. The IPCC does not offer proof of the GHE or AGW, all they do is reference the unproved theories of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius.
John W,
Fourier’s theoretical insights?
Here’s what Fourier wrote –
“Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself”
Hence the cooling of the Earth, notwithstanding four and a half billion years of sunlight.
Maybe you are referring to,Fourier’s heat equation, which Lord Kelvin and others subsequently used to to calculate the age of the Earth, by measuring the rate at which it was cooling, then extrapolating backwards to the molten state.
You seem to be confused, talking about a mythical “greenhouse effect”, which you refuse to describe in scientific terms. Would you so easily believe in an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient God who created mankind to ensure that cockroaches would thrive and prosper? The evidence is all around you. Cockroaches have never had it so good, have they?
Don’t hide your vast knowledge – divulge your secret GHE description. Or refuse, and keep it hidden. You’ll probably look stupid either way, won’t you?
Carry on.
Clint wrote:
“Just get to how CO2s 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AauIOanNaWk
John W,
What does that link contain? Why are you reluctant to say?
Obviously, your link is completely irrelevant, otherwise you would have at least given a brief description.
You have no idea of why dry ice emitting 15um photons cannot warm even water, have you, and I can guarantee your link doesn’t explain why either, otherwise you would have triumphantly announced it!
Accept reality. The Earth has cooled. Go on, explain the role of the GHE (which you refuse describe, but no matter) in the four and a half billion years of the Earth cooling.
If that’s too hard, explain the role of the mythical GHE in the surface cooling at night.
I’ll sit here, intermittently laughing while you waste your time.
Clint R
You are like Swenson. Just keep repeating things over and over to cover for your complete lack of any science knowledge. You think putting the word “science” in your posts makes you look smart. It does not. Most know what it bogus is your made up ideas and your claiming of “science” in your posts. You really don’t know any science.
Have you tried to move a can around a center can keeping the moving can’s same side pointed at the center can without rotating the moving can? I have requested you make a video and post it. That would be science. All you do is repeat “ball on a string” thousands of times and think it makes you look smart. You are funny person (hilarious!). A ball on a string is just rotating around a center, the ball and string are one connected object (you can differentiate that they are separate but they move as one unit). Just like a record on a record player. The whole record rotates around the center.
On the GHE. It has been explained many many times to you. You reject valid points and bring up your own pet ideas that are not part of the actual process.
YOU: “just get to how CO2s 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface. Thats where the cult nonsense hits a wall.”
It does not have to in how the GHE works. It just has to be absorbed. Any energy absorbed will slow the cooling (the surface constantly radiates away energy). This will allow the solar heated surface to reach a higher temperature.
Since you are very slow in thinking I will make it easy.
Science fact: If you slow the cooling rate of heated object it will warm to a higher temperature when compared to a heated object without slowed cooling rate.
You do not understand “heated object” even if explained to you hundreds of times. You and Postma are both dull in this ability.
If the object is not heated it will cool regardless but will cool slower which Roy Spencer pointed out in a post a few years back.
You can’t learn even when told. I think the primary reason is goals. Observing how you attack Gordon Robertson, it is obvious to most posters you are here just to annoy people. You really are not interested in anything but finding creative ways to annoy other posters. Science is not your strong point, you can’t understand it. Your ability is to just try and provoke and annoy other posters and you seem to crave attention.
Norman,
You wrote –
“If the object is not heated it will cool regardless but will cool slower which Roy Spencer pointed out in a post a few years back.”
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years notwithstanding continuous sunlight during that time.
You are not required to believe it, but it might explain why fanatical GHE cultists refuse to describe the mythical GHE, when most could readily describe a mythical beast like the unicorn!
Unfortunately, slow cooling is not increased temperature, no matter how many silly semantic contortions you perform.
Accept reality – the Earth has cooled, and continues to do so, albeit very, very, slowly.
Carry on.
Swenson hit the nail on the head — “irrelevant”.
John W, I asked you to avoid the blah-blah, but you found a blah-blah video! We all know CO2 can absorb and vibrate. That is NOT raising the temperature of Earth’s 288K surface.
You’re welcome to try again. If you like failing….
Norman, all that and you still have NOTHING!
But, thanks for the attention….
Earth’s cooling and warming is accepted to be due to the Milankovitch cycles {aka, orbital forcing}.
The term “global warming” referred to the rapid warming which follow the Glacial Max.
Since that global warming, the Holocene has been cooling and global sea levels have lowered by about 1 meter. But returning to another glacial Max, has in past cycles taken a lot of time [tens of thousands of years].
As for recent warming, it’s mostly a recovery from a period called the “little ice age”. Or in last 5000 years, there has been gradual cooking but within the 5000 years there has cycles of warming and cooling and the little ice age might have the coldest downturn in global temperatures.
“While AGW does offer an explanation in terms of an increasing GHE.”
Everyone knows Co2 is a weak greenhouse has.
The only hope of it causing much warming, is it’s suppose to cause the increase in global water vapor {which a much more stronger greenhouse gas].
And the increase in CO2 levels has not increased global water vapor.
So mantra of global warming is caused by CO2 require an valid explanation of how and when CO2 is going to increase global water vapor.
Or Earth is in an Ice Age, an Ice Age is dry and cool, or Earth has had recent periods of being wetter, but today it remains quite dry.
Or Earth has 1/3rd of it land area as desert, Earth has had far less deserts.
gb,
You wrote –
“The only hope of it causing much warming, is its suppose to cause the increase in global water vapor {which a much more stronger greenhouse gas].”
CO2 doesn’t seem to create much water vapour in Death Valley. Do you think that’s why Death Valley is so hot?
It looks like less “greenhouse gases” makes Death Valley hotter, not colder.
No wonder GHE cultists refuse to describe the GHE. They might start claiming that “greenhouse gases” create heating! We both know that’s wrong – in the hottest places on Earth, of course. Death Valley and the Lut Desert are just two examples. I can hear GHE cultists gnashing their teeth, trying to figure out how to deny reality.
That’s life, I suppose.
“CO2 doesnt seem to create much water vapour in Death Valley. Do you think thats why Death Valley is so hot?”
Near death valley, it will cool to: 72 F today. Let check furnace creek death valley, it cools to 81 F today. It does tend to be hotter there. I got boca chica bookmarked it’s going cool to 82 tonight, and humidity is current 77%. And it’s near the ocean. It day high was
91 F, so cooler day but much warmer night as compared my part of the
desert.
More water vapor more uniform temperature, more uniform temperature is global warming. Less extreme temperatures and less extreme weather is global warming.
if add say 2 C to global temperature, Death valley winter temperature
will have higher average temperature and it have less extremely hot days in the summer.
You can get more “greenhouse effect” by added more insulation to your house.
Roy says the increase in greenhouse effect is like adding more insulation.
I don’t disagree.
gb,
The hottest places on Earth have exactly the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as the coldest, (according to climate scientists), so CO2 doesnt affect extreme temperatures. Both the hottest and coldest places on Earth are extremely arid, containing little atmospheric H2O. H2O obviously does not cause either extreme.
You wrote –
“Roy says the increase in greenhouse effect is like adding more insulation.” He doesn’t describe the GHE, so his statement is moot. Adding more insulation will slow the passage of heat from hot to cold, resulting in either colder or hotter contents. For example, more insulation keeps liquid nitrogen cold longer, also keeps hot soup hot, longer.
Insulation provides no heat. The GHE is a myth. That’s why everyone refuses to describe it.w
“the bogus GHE doesnt explain warming. You see, its bogus.”
Fascinating science from Clint. Not.
Christos,
Awaiting your response:
You claimed Earths warming was only due to natural orbital forcing.
But then you offer NO science explanation for the warming of the last half century.
Why do you ignore contradictory facts?
“The hottest places on Earth have exactly the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as the coldest, (according to climate scientists), so CO2 doesnt affect extreme temperatures.”
As ever, Swenson demonstrates his subnormal logical ability.
Nate says:
”The hottest places on Earth have exactly the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as the coldest, (according to climate scientists), so CO2 doesnt affect extreme temperatures.”
As ever, Swenson demonstrates his subnormal logical ability.
———————-
As usual Nate demonstrates how ignorant he is and fails to answer Clint’s claim directly: ”If you cant describe the bogus GHE, then its bogus.”
Nate seems to wander this forum aimlessly criticizing anybody who criticizes his unquestioning belief in a theory he can’t describe in detail.
He then claims that if you don’t believe it without a complete description then you have ”subnormal logical ability”. LMAO!!
Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? It does seem to be pure Freudian projection. Nate just lashes out at folks he believes are as ignorant of climate as he is.
And Gill once again chimes in, piling on Puffman’s silly sammich request.
ROFL!
Gee it would be great if Bill could point out anywhere Clint supported his ‘bogus’ claim with evidence, data, papers, links, anything at all!
I won’t hold my breath.
Wrong Nate you first have to describe how your theory works and then its the job of somebody to show it doesn’t work. Above you simply sidestep the request for a description.
Numerous people like the links from S&O, RW Woods, and others including Roy have tried to show a significant response and all have failed. . .yet there is the weird bunch of people running around claiming that CO2 controls climate and they have no complete description of how it works.
“Wrong Nate”
Bill cannot find any post where Clint supported his claim of ‘bogus GHE’ with evidence.
Oh well!
Of course that is all wrong Nate.
He, I, and many others have been calling for evidence that the CO2 threat is real and nothing has been produced but lies and exaggerations. Its bogus if there is no scientific support for CO2 having a unique ability to warm the surface.
The S&O experiment shows pure CO2 does not warm the surface more than common air. That’s devastating to the 3rd grader radiation theories that completely ignore the ability of gases that don’t radiate at surface to warm the surface just as much as other non-phase changing gases.
And you have been repeated challenged to support your claims which over the years here you have proven to be impotent in doing that. So what is bogus is claiming that CO2 is responsible for a substantial amount of the modern warming. As we see in ice cores changes of temperature from 1 to 4degC is a common occurrence. Also polar scientist pretty universally agree that the Arctic has been ice free several times during the Holocene. That points to other causes than gases uniquely increased by humans.
“He, I, and many others have been calling for evidence”
After having seen evidence here numerous times before, and having no sound science rationale to reject it, you guys have decided tr0lling is easier.
Well that’s a lie Nate.
For years you have been using that as an excuse to not produce any evidence. If I am wrong here about you being a liar it should take you no time at all to produce the evidence and demonstrate I am the liar. But you won’t do that because it is you who is lying.
“For years you have been using that as an excuse to not produce any evidence.”
Are you you claiming I will be unable to find discussions where I presented data, papers or links to you, that constituted evidence for the GHE?
Lets bet on that.
models aren’t evidence Nate. Never have been never will.
Nate says:
”Are you you claiming I will be unable to find discussions where I presented data, papers or links to you, that constituted evidence for the GHE?
Lets bet on that.”
data, papers, and links aren’t evidence either. Evidence would consist of demonstrating the 3rd grader radiation model working in a gas environment. You still cling to that desperately.
Its pretty simple the 3rd grader radiation model which you continue to cling too has been completely abandoned by the pros. Two out of the three pros that set out to prove that had to completely change their focus. . .it doesn’t work as once described. . .today it has disappeared from the internet.
All CO2 does is perhaps speed up cooling and its doubtful any cooling from that actually reaches the surface. If you can physically refute that and demonstrate CO2 uniquely warming anything in a gas environment then and only then your so-called data, papers, and links would amount to something. Sure you handed over that model examination where somebody pontificated about how it might or might not work but anybody can do that.
What I am talking about isn’t imagining how it works but instead measuring how it works as variables are manipulated. We can for example demonstrate how water vapor changes the lapse rate but nobody has done that for CO2 and you either have to demonstrate that for CO2 or show us that the 3rd grader radiation model works in a gas environment. Nothing complicated here especially considering how much our governments are throwing at it.
When the rubber hits the road, Bill ‘recalls’ that I in fact did present evidence to him, but as required, he rejected it.
Assertions by Bill can be safely ignored.
It’s quite noticeable Nate that you aren’t arguing any science here.
All you are doing or have done is name dropping and appealing to authority which is a fallacy that perhaps only folks like you cannot comprehend.
“All you are doing or have done is name dropping and appealing to authority”
All you are doing is bitching and tossing ad homs
Thus no point in discussing science with you.
Nate chickens out.
Nate doesn’t know how the GHE works. Proof of that is:
1) he believes the S&O experiment is flawed but cannot say how it is flawed. Obviously if you believe the S&O experiment is flawed you could point how it is flawed if you knew how the GHE worked.
2) he tries to claim its flawed because it violates the 1LOT. But that is incorrect because Nate’s wrongly believes that 1LOT has been tested in S&O.
3) Nate has claimed that if the GHE exists with common air without backradiation then backradiation would have to warm the aluminum plate more than common air warmed it.
Here Nate’s incorrect interpretation of 1LOT is in believing that back radiation would have to warm the aluminum plate further even if the aluminum plate was already warmed to an stable temperature with its surroundings. That means he actually rejects Kirchhoff’s law of electro-magnetic radiation and the works of Stefan and Boltzmann in his desperation to cast doubt on the S&O results.
“Nate chickens out.”
As if you cant recall the many lengthy discussions of the science with me.
I have no interest in repeating them right now.
Stop stalking me, baiting me, and get over it.
Nate says:
”As if you cant recall the many lengthy discussions of the science with me.
I have no interest in repeating them right now.”
Losing has to be a bitch.
Thank, Nate, for your response.
“You claimed Earths warming was only due to natural orbital forcing.
But then you offer NO science explanation for the warming of the last half century.
Why do you ignore contradictory facts?
While AGW does offer an explanation in terms of an increasing GHE.”
–
The science explanation for the warming of the last half century:
The orbitally forced global warming process is a slow millenials long phenomenon.
The our last 50 years observed (because the last 50 years we are in the satellite measurements era) what we observe is the acceleration of the Polar Temperatures Amplification Phenomenon.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Explain that. And the warming of the last 50 y has not been just polar.
Nate, you rely on Stockwell/Milankovitch, which claims we are in orbitally forced cooling trend, and it is very much wrong.
It is wrong, because the obliquity variation cycle is currently very small, it is ~1 degree, which affects global temperatures very little.
The warming is orbitally forced, but it is not the ” 2,5 degrees the obliquity variation theory”, what causes the current millenials long warming is the “precession of eqinoxes cycle“.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you keep evading my question about the last 50 y of warming.. Explain that.
And the warming of the last 50 y has not been just polar.
As always with Christos, he has no science answers.
He only has belief.
It appears to me that Milankovitch theory as currently expressed by NASA is contradictory and pebbled together as food for what they see as the mushroom farm.
So as usual Nate is going to claim Christos has no science when in fact the proponents using Milankovitch to regulate away freedoms and seek more power for the establishment are the only ones responsible for having science and you get bet the farm that Nate is only going to give completely garbled answers in his support of the establishments garbled version of Milankovitch.
“proponents using Milankovitch to regulate away freedoms”
Bill is off his rocker…
binny…”I am a retired engineer….”
***
A retired locomotive engineer maybe, but your complete lack of understanding of basic physics suggests you have never been to a university other that as a visitor. I have tried to engage you in discussing the Moon’s orbit and not once have you attempted to rebut my argument that the Moon cannot possibly rotate on a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at Earth. Rather, all you have done is reference authority figures.
In fact, I have never seen you apply basic science to anything.
proof
“proof”
Well, that’s certainly a stupid and idiotic thing to say, isn’t it?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you fail to understand that Mr. Asshat keeps writing “proof” as if it was a verboten word.
Why should I care if nobody else does? Do you care? You can be as stupid as you like – see if I care.
[laughing at dimwit]
Proof was supplied in my response.
Nobody cares if you care or not, Mike.
Nobody cares about your silly rhetorical questions, Mike.
Apart from you, of course. Thanks for your ongoing concern.
but your complete lack of understanding of basic physics
That’s rich, coming from you.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“R.W. Wood, who was consulted by Neils Bohr based on the formers expertise with sodium gas, disproved the current GHE theory in 1909. He concluded based on an experiment that greenhouses heat due to a lack of convection and nothing to do with trapped infrared.”
Wood demonstrated that suppressed convection is the main heating mechanism in a physical greenhouse. However, that does not extend to planet Earth, an open system where air continuously cools and circulates.
John W,
You are quite mad. You refuse to describe the greenhouse effect, then talk about the planet Earth, which has cooled over the past four and a half billion years!
Are you trying to say something by not saying something?
Suppressed convection does not heat anything, in any case. Heat creates convection – no heat, no convection. Maybe you are not mad, just very, very, ignorant.
Feel free to demonstrate which it is.
That’s the point, the atmosphere has no way of trapping heat as is the method by which a real greenhouse traps heat. As Joe Postma put it, we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
The GHE theory is based on the notion that trapping surface IR, even 10% of it, leads to anthropogenic warming. It completely ignores the immense amount of heat that is directly scavenged, by conduction, from the surface by air molecules. That heated air is blocked by the glass in a real greenhouse but there is nothing in the atmosphere to block it.
Shula proved that the heat dissipated by conduction/convection is 260 times more efficient than radiation alone. Not only that, it is much faster at dissipating heat.
If you are looking for a similar theory, there it is. Solar energy enters the atmosphere much faster than radiation can remove it. On top of that, surface heat is dissipated directly by conduction/convection due to the unique gravitational system we have. Since the air pressure reduces with altitude, then so does temperature. As heated surface air rises into reduced pressure, it loses pressure, hence temperature.
That is, much of the heated surface air loses heat naturally due to rising and expanding. That leaves less to radiate back to space.
Gordon,
The Earth can only cool by radiation, conduction and convection only move the energy around the system.
Bobby,
“The Earth can only cool by radiation, conduction and convection only move the energy around the system.”
Well, of course. The Earth is surrounded by vacuum. No convection or conduction there , is there? Maybe you were trying to say something else, but couldnt figure out how? At least you agreed that the Earth has actually cooled, rather than got hotter. That’s a start, I suppose.
Carry on bumbling along.
bob…”The Earth can only cool by radiation, conduction and convection only move the energy around the system”.
***
I know it can only cool by emitting surface radiation to space, but the atmosphere dissipates heat naturally. From the moment a parcel of air leaves the surface, taking surface heat with it, the higher it moves the cooler it gets. The heat is not being converted to any other energy form it simply dissipates naturally as it expands into ever-thinner air.
I suppose some will argue that work is done as the air pushes upward against air above, but work cannot be radiated to space.
“The heat is not being converted to any other energy form it simply dissipates naturally as it expands into ever-thinner air.”
What does dissipate mean to you?
To most of us, it means it goes somewhere else with a large volume, but DOES NOT VANISH.
For Earth, somewhere else can only mean space.
Swenson,
“At least you agreed that the Earth has actually cooled, rather than got hotter.”
Well it is actually getting hotter as we speak.
The Earth is heated by the Sun and cools by radiating that energy away to space.
I see this discussion is too technical for you.
Nate says:
”For Earth, somewhere else can only mean space.”
Then why are you always talking about specific place within the earth system? Oh I get it, just keep flipping the goal posts and play duck and hide rather than coming up with a scientific paper about how climate actually works.
Gill comes up with a DEVASTATING retort to…Ren’s peddling.
LMAO!!!1!
Master baiter Bill remembers his grievances forever. But evidence of the GHE is repeatedly forgotten.
Nate,
You wrote –
“evidence of the GHE is repeatedly forgotten.”
Which GHE are you talking about? Willards “not cooling, slower cooling”? Or maybe one of the GHEs which GHE cultists refuse to describe?
Presumably the “evidence” is the fact that the Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, or have you some other “evidence”?
You really are a silly sausage, aren’t you?
There is no evidence. thats why they paid and promoted Ben Santer to produce a statistical study commonly known as the finger print of climate change.
Why pay for that if you actually have proof? Why not just tell everybody what evidence exists and what the uncertainty of that evidence is?
Gill returns to Step 1 – Pure Denial
LOOLOLOLOLOLLLLLLLLLLLL!LLLLLLLLL
Gee I thought for a second that Willard would follow up his ad hominems with some evidence. . . silly me!
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your psychological diagnoses, unless it’s about Mr. Asshat.
Willard – appealing to the authority of nobody – cant you do better?
Nobody is helping you out, by the look of it.
[laughing]
Nobody cares about your misunderstanding of the ad verecundiam, Mike.
That’s good to hear. At least someone cares. Are you sure you are authorised to speak on behalf of nobody? Thanks anyway.
[Willard’s an idiot]
Nobody really cares about your silly semantic games, Mike.
“Nobody cares if you are contradicting Gill.”
Thanks.
troubleshooting…
Nate…Kircheoff’s law says exactly what I said…”For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absor.p.tivity”.
***
I was not referring to that, it is obvious. I was referring to his blackbody theory upon which that statement is drawn. There is no such thing as a blackbody, but when Kircheoff formulated the theory nothing was known about atoms. Therefor the concep.t of a blackbody was all they had.
The electron was not discovered till 1898 and the theory of atoms was lead by Rutherford in the next 10 years or so. That was culminated by Bohr’s discovery in 1913 when he hypothesized the relationship between the electron and single proton nucleus of hydrogen. His quantum theory corresponded directly with the known EM frequencies absorbed and emitted by hydrogen.
That made blackbody theory obsolete. They no longer needed such a model since a more definite model had been derived and refinement of that theory is still used today.
Gordon,
The radiative properties of black bodies are not the same as the behavior of excited hydrogen atoms.
And those refinements include the idea that electrons do not orbit the nucleus.
“The radiative properties of black bodies are not the same as the behavior of excited hydrogen atoms.”
That’s certainly good to know. Is that why you refuse to divulge your description of the mythical GHE?
Keep ignoring reality if you wish. The Earth has cooled, whether you want to accept it or not.
What a dingaling you are!
Swenson,
That different gases behave differently to different frequencies in different ways should be obvious to any casual observer.
See, I am using words that you don’t understand, so it’s all magic to you.
I don’t object to the fact that the Earth’s surface was once molten and now is solid, but that has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
I am not refusing to describe the Greenhouse Effect for you, I have already done so and additional copies are fifty bucks. That’s not refusing, but you are refusing to listen.
And you are not technically advanced enough to understand it.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“That different gases behave differently to different frequencies in different ways should be obvious to any casual observer.”
And completely irrelevant, unless you can explain how this is supposed to relate to a GHE you refuse to describe.
All matter emits IR wavelengths according to its temperature. No exceptions, as Ball4 pointed out.
The in an outstanding display of stupidity, you wrote –
“I am not refusing to describe the Greenhouse Effect for you, I have already done so and additional copies are fifty bucks. Thats not refusing, but you are refusing to listen.”
No, you refuse to describe it for anybody. You are either completely ignorant, or outstandingly unhelpful, claiming you will divulge something which you do not have, for a payment.
Selling something which you do not possess is fraud – plain and simple. About as fraudulent as Michael Mann claiming to possess a Nobel Prize – which of course he did not.
Not clever, burbling bobby, not clever at all!
Finally, you have an attack of reality acceptance, and write –
“I dont object to the fact that the Earths surface was once molten and now is solid, but that has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.”
Exactly. There is no mythical greenhouse effect. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature – nothing to do with any mythical effect – particularly one you refuse to describe.
You’re an idiot, but at least you are ignorant and gullible.
bob d…”The radiative properties of black bodies are not the same as the behavior of excited hydrogen atoms.
And those refinements include the idea that electrons do not orbit the nucleus”.
***
I guess then that blackbodies must be made of something other than atoms or molecules. The entire theory is ridiculous anyway. They have a sphere that is somehow heated and that causes EM to bounce around inside the sphere. Then they poke a pinhole in the sphere to allow some EM to escape. Do you really accept such a cockamamey theory, straight from the sci-fi arena?
I have stated before that I think the orbital theory is a little too cute. However, I have never heard a more believable model for the interaction of electrons and a nucleus. It’s a little too fantastic that the frequency of EM emitted and absorbed by an atom’s electrons corresponds to the electric and magnetic energy produced by electrons and the frequency of the electrons angular frequency.
If you have a better theory, I’d like to hear it.
A Kirchhoff black body is theoretical.
As even Wikipedia says –
“Planck noted three requirements upon a black body: the body must (i) allow radiation to enter but not reflect; (ii) possess a minimum thickness adequate to absorb the incident radiation and prevent its re-emission”
No re-emission, note. A black body which absorbs all incident radiation absorbs – it doesn’t emit. Different body entirely.
Many people get confused, particularly those who wanted to pass exams, rather than learn about physics. That’s life.
Whenever Swenson tries to post about science, he shamelessly demonstrates his inferior understanding of it.
“A black body which absorbs all incident radiation absorbs it doesnt emit. Different body entirely.”
Kirchhoff’s law makes clear for everyone intelligent person that a good abs0rber is a good emitter.
At each wavelength, the abs0rbtivity = emissivity.
Swenson,
“All matter emits IR wavelengths according to its temperature. No exceptions, as Ball4 pointed out.”
Well, that’s classical thermodynamics, which is on a macro scale.
It has been superseded by Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Electrodynamics which is on the atomic scale.
And according to those theories all light emission from bodies has to be due to transitions from one energy level to another.
So tell me, how does the Greenhouse Effect violate the Quantum Electrodynamic theory?
Continuing,
The greenhouse effect is the abbysomething of specific wavelengths of infrared by gaseous CO2 and other polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere reducing the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface to space, which causes an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth. Those IR active molecules then pass that energy to the rest of the atmosphere by colliding with those other molecules, and those other molecules in the atmosphere also pass energy back to the IR active molecules. Allowing the IR active molecules to radiate some of that energy in all directions.
Nate says:
”At each wavelength, the abs0rbtivity = emissivity.”
Indeed that is the theoretical relationship. But it doesn’t always play out. An object can absorb electrons but it can’t emit that energy if it loses that energy via conduction. So all your fancy dancy logic within the atmosphere is complete and unadulterated krap.
“At each wavelength, the abs0rbtivity = emissivity.”
Correct.
An absorbing black body is defined as having perfect absorption. It emits no radiation as a consequence, by definition. It has no temperature – it is emitting no radiation whatsoever.
A black body emitting radiation by virtue of its temperature has an emissivity of one – by definition. It absorbs no radiation, emitting an infinite quantity. It is theoretical.
For real bodies, absorbtivity = emissivity, as you say.
Of course, none of this has anything at all to do with the mythical GHE which you point-blank refuse to describe, which paints you as nothing less than a confused idiot tryin to look clever.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you are contradicting Gill.
That’s good, then.
A black body which absorbs all incident radiation absorbs it doesnt emit.
Staggering ignorance, as we have come to expect. Kirchhoff’s Law (thanks, Clint) states that a black body absorbs and emits in equal measure.
Most of us would have known that from the definition of a black body, anyway.
“An object can absorb electrons”
Bill is increasingly confused.
Notice how Nate deflects and dodges.
But the facts are:
”On a microscopic scale, conduction occurs as rapidly moving or vibrating atoms and molecules interact with neighboring particles, transferring some of their kinetic energy. Heat is transferred by conduction when adjacent atoms vibrate against one another, or as electrons move from one atom to another.”
https://tinyurl.com/4yuajz4d
Nate understands this simple concept. If an object absorbs energy via photons, electrons, or vibration it can’t emit any energy via photons if it has already lost that energy by conduction.
He understands it but can’t deal with it. He just left the debate here on a discussion of an experiment that screams the fact above that conduction of any kind of gas produces virtually the same greenhouse effect whether its a GHG or not.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2024-1-05-deg-c/#comment-1671607
His juvenile attempts to argue this keeps ending up at TOA claiming that stuff can’t emit up there and has no theory about why that demands the heat move back down to the surface.
The answer is simple in that the GHE to the extent it exists, exists because conduction warms the air down there quite efficiently and the air cools slower than the surface because the air has so many molecules in it that don’t emit radiation at surface temperatures. Changes in co2 has no significant effect the vast majority of the GHE is baked in by conduction.
That’s the logical answer to why models built on 3rd grader radiation logic of the CO2 warming theory can’t reproduce historic climate change.
So when Al Gore and Michael Mann teamed up to con the masses they tried to make natural change disappear because they knew that would be a problem. And Nate believes that nonsense without giving it any critical thought.
Rather than giving it any critical thought Nate always resorts to trivial complaints and ad hominems while desperately trying to dodge the elephant in the room. Except that he just got trampled. . .has no theory. . .can’t explain natural climate change which the ice cores and other proxies indicate is routine. Apparently the Minoan warm period of about 3,000 years ago caused an ice free arctic melting the thick ice on the Greenland northshore resulting in detected beach changes.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Easterbrook%E2%80%99s-version-of-the-GISP2-based-temperature-reconstruction-graph.png
Notice how Gill peddles stuff.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!
The many lengthy discussions with Bill in which various papers and data have been discussed have all been forgotten, it appears.
And no matter the topic, Bill goes off it down rabbit holes, and expects others to follow.
Nate says:
”Lots of experiments disprove predictions and assumptions Nate. Thats why science does experiments and doesnt rely on just predictions and assumptions.”
In a good experiment an unexplained result can ONLY be explained by new science.
—————-
Yes indeed, you predicted that the co2 would uniquely warm the aluminum plate and it didn’t and you want to blame that on the experimenters.
You argued that all energy has to be accounted for and I agree. And I did account for it as the gases were heated by conduction.
You seem to believe that CO2 can radiate the same heat that it already conducted. That’s a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. ”energy cannot be created or destroyed”
You argue that the experimenter’s surreptitiously destroyed energy in a simple experiment like a magicians trick. Yet you can’t point to science that says CO2 has twice the warming capability of gases that are radiatively latent at the temperatures of the atmosphere.
But via chemistry we know that isn’t true.
Instead you live entirely in imaginary worlds of GPEs where there is no conduction. . .and think that is scientific proof that CO2 emissions will warm the surface when conduction is present doubling the capability of CO2 over other gases.
that should not be too hard for you to grasp.
thought I would be nice and respond on behalf of Nate not being able to produce a ”good” experiment so he doesn’t have to trouble himself in replying.
Nate as Alphonso Bedoya: Experiments? We ain’t got no experiments. We don’t need no experiments. I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ experiments!
or
New science? We ain’t got no new science. We don’t need no new science. I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ new science!
Gordon,
“They have a sphere that is somehow heated and that causes EM to bounce around inside the sphere. Then they poke a pinhole in the sphere to allow some EM to escape. Do you really accept such a cockamamey theory, straight from the sci-fi arena?”
Why not? It is an experiment that has been repeated many times. It works. And the Planck blackbody curve is what is observed.
Unfortunately, engineers are still taught that nonsense even though no practical example can be offered. They gloss over the theory without supplying pro.of.
In my field of electrical engineering they still teach that electricity flows positive to negative. Electrical current is comprised of electrons and their charges and the textbo.oks admit the flow of electrons and their charges is negative to positive. The positive to negative flow is based on a mysteries positive test charge that allegedly flows positive to negative.
There is no such thing as a positive test charge in a copper conductor or even in a semiconductor. The theory stems from 1925 when someone dreamt up that nonsense and electrical engineers have maintained the theory since, for reasons unknown.
Gordon,
Electrons have a negative charge, so of course electricity flows positive to negative even though the flow of the actual particles is in the other direction.
Does that apply to AC, where the current flow reverses?
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Does that apply to AC, where the current flow reverses?”
Are you really boasting about not knowing? Will other fanatical GHE cultists think you are a positive genius for being ignorant?
Sounds like you are a loser. Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.
[snickering at dimwit]
Come on, Bob, get real.
Electrons move though a copper conductor from valence orbital to valence orbital. There is no other pathway through a copper conductor even though some rocket scientists thinks electrons exist as a ‘sea of electrons’ between copper atoms. No one has ever explained where that sea of electrons exists between copper atoms. There are none, it’s a fiction.
Due to their circuitous route between valence shells, the electrons can only move a few centimetres per second, however, they have a means of passing their charges electron to electron at the speed of light. Electrons pass heat through copper in a similar manner.
What can possibly move in the opposite direction, positive to negative? There is nothing that can move in that direction. Positively-charged protons cannot move since they are bound to the nucleii.
As proof of what I say, consider a vacuum tube diode. A basic diode has only a tungsten filament as its cathode, the negative element. Surrounding that filament is a metal cylinder called the plate, the positive terminal. When a current is run through the cathode filament wire, it glows red and literally boils electrons off the tungsten surface. Those electrons form a true cloud of electrons about the filament.
When a considerable potential is applied between the cathode and the plate, positive polarity to the plate, electrons from the cloud will flow from the cathode (negative) through the vacuum between it and the plate, and to the plate (positive).
According to you, and Clint, the actual current flows from the plate to the cathode. Explain that. What particle is flowing plate to cathode, or positive to negative?
AC is an entirely different matter but the flow is always electron flow, and negative to positive. AC is generated by an alternator, which generates a voltage by turning a conductor inside a magnetic field. The generated voltage begins at 0V and builds to a maximum as a sine wave, as the conductor cuts a maximum number of magnetic lines. Then it diminishes back to 0V.
At that point the voltage polarity changes and the cycle repeats in the opposite direction. The net result is a full sine ave over 360 degrees rotation.
Whether it’s AC or D.C, electron current/charge always flows negative to positive. There is no current flowing positive to negative, not even in a semiconductor.
Gordon,
Did you understand I was talking about current, not voltage.
You know the “alternating” in alternating current, or AC.
Gordon,
“According to you, and Clint, the actual current flows from the plate to the cathode. Explain that. What particle is flowing plate to cathode, or positive to negative?”
None, a negative particle is flowing cathode to plate.
An electrical engineer should be familiar with this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity#Causes_of_conductivity
Babbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Gordon,
Did you understand I was talking about current, not voltage.
You know the “alternating” in alternating current, or AC.”
Why are you wasting time asking such an idiot question?
Are you really proud of being so stupid? Maybe you should explain more clearly, instead of trying so hard to be cryptic.
Where’s the description of the GHE you promised? Are you just another lying scumbag?
Swenson,
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1673572
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1673574
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
[JEAN-BAPTISTE] The heat of the sun, arriving in the state of light,
has the property of penetrating diaphanous solids or liquids, and loses this property nearly entirely when they are converted, by their interaction with terrestrial bodies, into infrared.
[SVANTE] Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hot-house, because it lets through the light rays of the Sun but retains the dark rays from the ground.
[TYNDALL] Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of the solar heat, but checks its exit; and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.
[MR. ASSHAT] ALARMISTS!
Weird Wee Willy,
Yes, yes,
A little bit later, in the twentieth century, Feynman agreed with me, and wrote –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”, which rather makes all your appeals to authority about a mythical GHE look ridiculous.
No GHE. None of your authorities described such a thing.
All of them wrote later that the facts contradicted their earlier statements.
Try again, fool fellow. Are you trying to be one of Elliott Bignell’s losers, appealing to authorities – particularly ones who are wrong?
I am sure they were all well-meaning scientists but they were all wrong about the atmosphere behaving like a greenhouse. It was their theories that prompted Wood to investigate. R. W. Wood was renowned for his experiments. None of them explained why trapped IR should warm the air in the greenhouse.
Wood, in 1909, suspected that a greenhouse did not warm due to trapped IR and set up an experiment to investigate. He found that two boxes, one covered with glass, which blocks IR, and one covered with halite (rock salt), which conducts IR, both warmed to the same temperature.
He concluded that it was a lack of convection that caused the greenhouse to warm. The glass blocks IR but also blocks heated air molecules from rising, and the heat accumulates. Greenhouses have vents that can be opened to cool them by allowed some air to escape. I know a guy with a greenhouse who also leaves the door partly ajar, even though there are two large vents at either end and adjustable doors at the ceiling that are partly ajar.
Mr. Asshat continues to fabricate an alternative history of science:
https://www.aps.org/archives/publications/apsnews/201003/physicshistory.cfm#
Whacky Wee Willy,
Your pointless appeals to authority fall flat.
Fourier never mentioned any “greenhouse effect”, in spite of any unfounded assertions the authors at your irrelevant link might make. They are obviously as delusional as you.
You really are both gullible and ignorant atren’t you?
The best you can do is describe the mythical GHE as “not cooling, slower cooling”. No mention of heating, greenhouse gases, or anything except cooling.
Do you imagine that makes you look remarkably intelligent, or just completely deranged?
Over to you.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares when you are saying stuff.
Good to know.
Nobody cares, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
swenson…”Maybe you are referring to,Fouriers heat equation, which Lord Kelvin and others subsequently used to to calculate the age of the Earth, by measuring the rate at which it was cooling, then extrapolating backwards to the molten state”.
***
Fourier’s heat equation is good for heat flow through a solid but Fourier knew nothing about heat transfer through the atmosphere or any other gas via radiation.
I mean, all three scientists, Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius made valid contributions to science although Fourier is far better known for his work in mathematics. None of them understood the mechanism of heat transfer through air or space. All three believed that heat was transferred through air by heat rays.
Arrhenius was the latest to die of the three and he died in 1927. During his lifetime, the theories leading to quantum mechanics were just being developed and he would not fully understand the mechanism underlying molecules like CO2 and radiation. In fact, it was Linus Pauling who developed molecular theory, especially the covalent bond, after Arrhenius had died.
There is no way the speculations of the three re CO2 in the atmosphere should be taken seriously.
Mr. Asshat wishes he could be the Graeme Hancock of Climateball:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/12/eli-rabett-and-rw-wood-r.html?showComment=1260845729061#c1964295150475247005
Wonky Wee Willy,
What are you babbling about?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares when you play dumb.
Thanks.
Solar wind
speed: 359.4 km/sec
density: 4.22 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 15 Jun 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 117
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 169 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 28.10×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.2% Low
7 numbered sunspots. 3702 is leaving to farside. And a spot appeared on nearside which is not numbered, yet. No spots coming from farside, yet.
Solar wind
speed: 376.0 km/sec
density: 1.95 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 16 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 134
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 171 sfu
“Sunspot AR3712 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares.”
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 28.06×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.0% Low
7 numbered spot. no spot going to farside within 4 days. No spot going from frside
Solar wind
speed: 471.8 km/sec
density: 1.85 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 17 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 152
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 167 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.94×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.3% Low
7 numbered spot. No spots coming from farside, yet.
–Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
17 June – 13 July 2024
Solar activity is likely to reach moderate levels over 17-24 Jun,
primarily due to the flare potential of Region 3712 (S26, L=169,
class/area=Ekc/1000 on 16 Jun). A chance for R1-R2 (Minor-Moderate)
activity is likely to remain throughout the outlook period due to
the anticipated return of multiple complex regions from the farside
of the Sun. —
Solar wind
speed: 566.4 km/sec
density: 2.00 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 18 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 171
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 180 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.81×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.3% Low
still the same 7 numbered spots. No spots coming from farside.
And none of 4 will go to farside within a day. And the 3 large spots
are roughly directly facing Earth:
“Sunspot AR3712 has a ‘beta-gamma-delta’ magnetic field that harbors energy for X-class solar flares. AR3713 and AR3716 have ‘beta-gamma’ magnetic fields that can produce M-class solar flares.”
Solar wind
speed: 530.6 km/sec
density: 1.63 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 18 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 150
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 180 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.79×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -5.3% Low
No new picture of the sunspots, yet.
6 numbered spot. 1 spot appeared and will probably be numbered- and might grow larger than it is now. 3 numbered spots will go to farside.
No spots coming from farside yet. Oh:
Solar wind
speed: 569.6 km/sec
density: 1.50 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 19 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 150
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 193 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.79×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.7% Low
And: “Solar wind flowing from this high-latitude coronal hole could graze Earth’s magnetic field on June 22-23.”
It’s at mid point and a pretty big coronal hole in higher northern hemisphere. And some smaller “connecting” coronal holes kind of sort of “bridging” all way to south pole,
Solar wind
speed: 489.7 km/sec
density: 1.70 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 19 Jun 24
Sunspot number: 181
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 193 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 27.49×10^10 W Hot
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.7% Low
Again no new picture. And I get to guess what happened to make it
the 181 number
Probably, the spot which appeared, was numbered and it grew a bit.
But also probably spots did come from farside and/or more spots appeared on nearside.
“Obliquity of the Earth
One of the parameters Milanković
https://astronoo.com/en/articles/obliquity-earth.html#:~:text=The%20axial%20tilt%20or%20obliquity%20is%20the%20angle,per%20year%20or%20%E2%89%881%20degree%20every%207800%20years.
The slow change in direction of the axis of rotation of the Earth is called the precession of the equinoxes.
The axial tilt or obliquity is the angle between the axis of rotation of the Earth and its orbital plane, it remains confined between 21.8 and 24.4. Currently, it is 2326’14” but the axis is recovering about 0.46″ per year or ≈1 degree every 7800 years.
Moreover, this axis oscillates around a cone, the full cycle (360) lasts 25,765 years.
This angle (≈2326′) made the changing seasons. Indeed, in summer, the sun is higher in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere.
At the equator the length of day and night does not vary (although the Sun’s position in the sky varies). At the poles, day and night lasts six months each.
The obliquity characterizes therefore the tilt of the Earth’s axis relative to the ecliptic varying between 21.8 and 24.4.
small variations in the obliquity have broad implications for the sunshine at latitude 65, which is considered the most reliable criterion of melting ice sheets.
The combination of these two effects produces an oscillation of the Earth’s obliquity, very limited, about 1.3 around a mean value close to 23.5.
The combined period of these oscillations is about 41 000 years. The obliquity has a great importance on high latitudes because it is the cause of the seasons, if the obliquity were zero, there would be no seasons, and thus little variation in temperature. It is a parameter or Milanković Milanković cycles corresponding to three astronomical phenomena affecting the Earth’s eccentricity, obliquity and precession.
They are used in the context of the astronomical theory of paleoclimatology. They are partly responsible for natural climate changes that have major consequence, the glacial and interglacial periods.”
(Emphasis added)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Boiling it down –
Atmosphere: large temperature difference (70 degrees C or more) between ground and tropopause
Wood-style experiment: essentially no temperature difference between ground and glass.
Therefore the Wood experiment is not a good analog of the atmosphere for this purpose, and you can conclude nothing about the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere from doing Wood-style experiments – unless you fix that issue of the substantial quantitative difference between the systems, and I’ve mentioned two ways that could easily be done.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/12/eli-rabett-and-rw-wood-r.html?showComment=1261063287712#c5927117997940953389
I strongly suspect Gordon has no credentials in engineering or thermodynamics.
A few random undergraduate courses at best. I suspect he left his dream of becoming a credentialed geoscientist or got work opportunities that got in the way of his education. Graduate studies might not have prevented him from turning into a crank. Only less loneliness would. And even then, success rates to correct schizotypical symptoms are dim – just look at gb.
Pathological liars can get therapy, but that takes resources. Breaking through their defense mechanisms, getting at the root of their histrionics is seldom easy. Worse, their meager lives are built around their phantasms. What do they have left when they crumble?
John W,
I strongly suspect that you are a complete (well, maybe not complete) idiot.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
[what a wanker]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your suspicious, for you can’t go on forever with a suspicious mind.
That’s good to know.
[laughing at dimwitted troll]
Nobody cares if you keep projecting your own role, Mike.
You are concerned on behalf of nobody, I presume?
[sniggering]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares what you presume.
If I keep them engaged writing long diatribes against me, then it’s less likely they are out in the real world where they might damage themselves or others.
Little Willy, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Above, Norman displayed his ignorance, immaturity, and incompetence, again. After wading through his false accusations, there were only two attempts at science. One referred to the Moon issue, which Norman doesn’t realize he’s already lost. The second was his failed attempt to describe the bogus GHE — “Any energy absorbed will slow the cooling (the surface constantly radiates away energy). This will allow the solar heated surface to reach a higher temperature.”
Norman inadvertently provides us with another learning opportunity:
Five photon “frequencies” are absorbed by a surface, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The average frequency is 8. Now, let a sixth photon, with frequency 7, be absorbed. The average frequency is then 7.83. Another photon was added, yet the average frequency DROPPED. Refer to this brief explanation of temperature, if needed —
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1672287
Short and sweet, that’s why a 15μ photon can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface. The “added energy” MUST have frequency higher than the average of the surface.
(Watch as the cult kids slobber all over themselves trying to pervert reality. It’s fun to watch.)
Clint,
Average frequency of photons has nothing to do with temperature.
Once all your photons are abzorbed by the surface they all add their energy, it’s the total energy, not the average energy that causes the temperature to increase.
(Watch as the cult kids slobber all over themselves trying to pervert reality. It’s fun to watch.)
Burbling bobby,
You still havent explained how you get water to absorb the photons from CO2 in the form of dry ice.
Maybe you could explain how to get window glass to absorb the photons from the things you are looking at through the glass.
You really are an idiot, aren’t you? Babbling about things you dont understand!
Go on, you got my “fifty bucks”. Where’s the GHE description you promised?
You’re just a slimy little cockroach, pretending to be human.
What a gutless worm you are!
Swenson,
“You still havent explained how you get water to absorb the photons from CO2 in the form of dry ice.”
That’s too easy, all matter in solid or liquid state emits and abzorbs all IR light, as you have repeatedly stated.
“Maybe you could explain how to get window glass to absorb the photons from the things you are looking at through the glass.”
Window glass is not 100% transparent, maybe you have tried looking through multiple panes of glass, and noted that it transmits green better than other colors, or maybe not.
“Go on, you got my fifty bucks. Wheres the GHE description you promised?”
I have already given you a description of the GHE, but you have not paid up.
Clint R
I have asked you to provide a video of you moving a can around a center one. The can you are moving around you keep the same face pointed to the center can. Show the video of you doing this action without rotating the can you are moving. You say I have lost on this issue but you do not provide any scientific evidence (except for the false “ball-on-string” which is not an orbit just a rotation alone, you do not have enough science knowledge to understand this).
When you make the video and show how you can move the can around keeping the same side to the center can without rotating the can you can then claim I have lost. Until then you are bogus making up stuff that you don’t understand.
Even though it would be very easy for you to produce this video and post it, you will not do it because it defies your ambition on this blog. It is not to find truth. It is to annoy people. You think it annoys me when you falsely claim I have lost so you state that (again not providing any evidence). When a posters goal is just to annoy people it really does not matter that you are bogus and know very little science.
I guess since flies and mosquitoes exist, we have to have posters like you that find some gratification in annoying people.
Norman, thanks for proving me right, again.
When you can’t make a comment without insults and false accusations, then you’re just slobbering all over yourself.
Clint R
Not sure what your mumbo-jumbo about photon frequencies has to do with GHE. In your mind maybe something. Not planning on “slobbering” over this irrelevant point.
I keep explaining the GHE effect to you and you keep coming up with your side-line nonsense of photon frequency. You are very much like Gordon Robertson with his inability to comprehend molecular dipoles and how the charged vibration will produce IR. You seem to grasp this one but you can’t seem to comprehend slowed cooling of a heated object will cause its temperature to rise.
The cooler atmosphere does not “heat” the surface and cause it to reach a higher temperature as is seen with night temperature drops.
The slowed cooling causes the overall warmer temperature from the same solar input. I have tried to reason with you by giving you the valid example of the air inside a car heating to much higher temperature (under identical solar heating input) than the air outside. The explanation you can’t understand is the air in the car has restricted cooling mechanisms so it receives the identical energy as the air outside but it is cooling slower so it reaches a higher temperature.
I really can’t help you more on the understanding of the GHE. You don’t really want to learn it. You and Gordon Robertson should not fight each other. You have identical minds that cannot understand things and you ignore all evidence that does not agree with what you falsely believe. I am sorry for the both of you. You continue to haunt the blog. Over and over with the same mindless comments. Many have attempted to educate you in, not just science, but basic logic and reasoning. No one has been able to help you or Gordon yet (Swenson is even worse, totally repetitive over and over thousands of posts).
It’s no surprise you can’t understand the simple example involving photon frequencies, Norman.
That’s your problem, not mine….
Clint R
I really don’t care about your photon frequency side argument. You design it because you like to pretend to be smart (like your hero Gordon Robertson does as well). It has little to nothing to do with what is going on in the GHE. No matter how many times it is explained to you, you are not able to understand it. That makes your mind equivalent to Gordon Robertson with his inability to understand vibrating molecular dipoles and how a vibrating electric field will produce EMR. You make fun of him but you are certainly no wiser.
Explain to me how you do not understand slowing the cooling rate of a heated object (Earth Surface from Solar input) will produce a higher overall temperature than with more rapid cooling rate.
You also deny the science measurements of average energy emitted by the Earth surfaced and that emitted by the TOA. You just can’t learn can you. You deny and divert but when it comes to understanding anything you and Gordon exist on the same mental plane.
Norman, when you can’t make a comment without insults and false accusations, then you’re just slobbering all over yourself.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
Norman, why do you refuse to describe the GHE?
Is it because you are ignorant, or just being as unhelpful as you possibly can be?
Hardly the mark of someone interested in “educating” someone.
Carry on being unhelpful if you wish.
No one cares about your silly sammich requests, Mike Flynn, especially not TS, who never replies to you for some reason.
Thanks for demonstrating that you are an idiot, talking in riddles.
Have you improved upon your GHE description – “not cooling, slower cooling”?
How ridiculous is that? You don’t need to answer.
Nobody cares when you play dumb, Mike.
Thank you for your kind words.
Gill continues to pontificate with a definition of system from the Mailman School of Public Health.
LOLOLOLO!
Perhaps he could try a thermo textbook? Here’s a very simple definition:
https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/notes.pdf
Sky Dragon cranks sure like to overcomplicate things.
Clint inadvertently provides us with another learning opportunity.
Let’s refine his imagined situation to highlight the actual physics involved.
An object has 100 atoms. These have a total energy of 1000 units; an average of 10 units per atom.
Five photon “energies” are absorbed by a surface, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 units. The average energy is 8 units. This makes the total energy 1000 + 6+7+8+9+10 = 1040 units. The average energy of the 100 atoms is now 10.4 units per atom; they are slightly warmer than before.
Now, let a sixth photon, with energy 7, be absorbed. The total is now 1047 units. Another photon was added, and again the average energy ROSE, to 10.47 units/atom. Even though the energies of the photons were LOWER than the average energy of the atoms, the atoms still warmed up. .
Short and sweet, thats why a 15μ photon WILL raise the temperature of a 288K surface.
Tim describes one way of looking at it, Clint R describes another. Obviously, if Tim’s way of looking at it were correct then every object would be warming up every other nearby object, which would in turn be warming up the original objects even more, and so on…so we know that’s wrong.
“Tim describes one way of looking at it, Clint R describes another.”
These are not just two ways of looking at the effect of photons hitting a surface. These two ways lead to opposite conclusions. My way is correct, while his is wrong. Adding energy to a surface does not cool a surface!
“Obviously, if Tims way of looking at it were correct then every object would be warming up every other nearby object … ”
This is so obviously wrong and so obviously NOT what my comment implies.
Neither Clint nor I discussed the effect of photons LEAVING the surface. You need to think about these photons before concluding what is and is not “obvious”.
That’s right, you didn’t mention photons leaving the object, but you did say:
“a 15μ photon WILL raise the temperature of a 288K surface”
which is a bold statement given that you haven’t mentioned anything about photons leaving the object. If you’re now trying to imply that since an object might be emitting more than it receives, a 15μ photon will not necessarily raise the temperature of a 288 K surface, then you’re contradicting what you said originally. Why are you people so slippery?
When one photon is absorbed, energy is added to a surface and the temperature rises a TINY bit. When one photon is emitted, energy is removed from the surface and the temperature falls a TINY bit. There is no contradiction; just a very rapid series of rises and and falls.
At worst, I am ‘wrong’ for looking at individual photons, rather than trends due to macroscopic sets of photons during some macroscopic time frame.
There IS a contradiction, however, saying the arriving photons COOL the surface.
There IS a contradiction, however, saying if a surface is in thermal equilibrium and then 15 um photons are introduced, that the surface will not warm.
Clint is wrong at every level.
I’m not commenting on whether Clint R’s right or wrong. I’m commenting that your way of looking at it is obviously wrong.
Have two objects, A and B, in view of each other, out in the Sunlight. A is receiving a steady stream of photons from the Sun, and emitting photons steadily, at a certain temperature. According to your view, however, it will be made warmer still because it is also receiving a steady stream of photons from B as well as from the Sun. Similarly, B will be made warmer still because it is also receiving a steady stream of photons from A as well as from the Sun.
And, both A and B, at a warmer temperature, will thus be emitting more photons than if either A or B wasn’t there.
“I’m commenting that your way of looking at it is obviously wrong.”
The irony is that your example of “obviously wrong” is actually correct.
Let’s use a simple concrete situation with simple concrete numbers to make this easier for you. Initially “A” and “B” are far apart in the depths of space. Each is receiving 1000 W of power from the sun, and emitting 1000 W of power to space.
Now bring A and B close together so that 10% of the photons leaving A hit B, and 10% of the photons leaving B hit A. A is receiving 1000 W from the sun and 10% of 1000 W = 100 W from B, but only losing 1000 W. The same is true for B. Both will warm up because they are receiving more than they emit.
Eventually A will become warm enough to emit 1111 W. B receives 10% = 111 W, with the remaining 90% = 1000 W emitted to space. Both A and B are balanced for energy flows. Both A and B are warmer and emitting more photons than originally.
Tim believes bringing two passive objects, illuminated by the Sun, closer together in space would cause them to spontaneously warm each other up!
Hilarious.
Of course two heated objects placed near each other will warm each other up. Your intuition is failing you DREMT.
I have never known that to happen, Tim, in my entire life, so I of course reject the idea unless and until extraordinary evidence is provided. Physics is meant to help make sense of the world around us; if what is suggested runs contrary to experience then I’d expect some sort of experimental evidence to support your wild conjectures.
Then apparently DREMT has not entered a normally heated room temperature house to get out of a chilly winter time windy blizzard and warm up in DREMT’s entire life. I suppose that could happen when living in certain climates but others populating arctic research stations have done so.
Here come the straw men…
…no, Ball4. Try this:
Put two socks on your washing line, out in the Sun. Put one at either end of the line. Now put them close together in the centre of the line. According to Tim, the socks will dry faster when close together in the centre!
Tim: “two heated objects”
DREMT 8:19am: two unheated socks in view of a third object, lol.
But, anyway, yes, the two unheated socks moved close enough together in the calm local noontime sun will have more view area of each other thus absorb more photons from each other than other cooler things in the scene thus be measurably higher in temperature thus dry faster since evaporation is based on their state not the state of the atm.
This is a sock drying test that DREMT ought to be able to run with proper instrumentation & conditions like Dr. Spencer did then report results (maybe even skewed like S&O). Have at it.
DREMT, prior to Tim’s “two heated objects”:
“Tim believes bringing two passive objects, illuminated by the Sun, closer together in space would cause them to spontaneously warm each other up!”
I’m not the one moving the goalposts. That was Tim.
If your argument relies on the socks drying faster when closer together, best of luck to you, Ball4. All common sense and experience dictates that there will be no difference in drying time, together or separated.
The source of heating is not the issue, so imagine to electrically powered heating pads far apart. They will each reach some temperature.
If the power is kept constant, but they are placed back to back close to each other. Each has less ability to lose heat, so both will get warmer than before.
It’s really not complicated or controversial.
But hey, if you still think I am wrong, point out even one single line in my calculations that you disagree with.
The goalpost moving continues…
…sorry Tim, multiple heat sources are not allowed. You have two electrically-powered heat pads, that’s two. Then you have the Sun, that’s three. You want an example with only one, preferably the Sun!
Try the sock test I mentioned to Ball4.
Have fun!
(Your religion is falsified, again).
As I commented, it is DREMT that needs to perform HIS sock test to learn by experimental thermodynamics instead of imagining irresponsible results & wrongly claiming “falsification”.
Not at all, Ball4. Tim made a ridiculous conjecture, and so it’s entirely on him to provide the evidence for it. All common sense and experience dictates that there will be no difference in drying time. If you think there will be…demonstrate it!
Why would I waste my time doing your work for you?
I was going to write more, but it comes down to this. The temperature of a heated object depends on the temperature of the surroundings. The warmer the surroundings, the warmer the object will be (everything else being equal).
So when warm B is brought close to heated A, A’s surroundings get warmer, so A gets warmer.
Tim tries to shift the goalposts again. Socks do not dry each other, Tim. Why do I even need to point that out!?
Why would I waste my time proving DREMT’s thought experiment work on socks for him? I already know the correct answer based on 1LOT and 2LOT.
Proper use of 1LOT and 2LOT will give the right answer for DREMT’s sock drying as Tim comments & as Eli showed long ago. It is up to DREMT to try and prove 1LOT and 2LOT are wrong thus proving Tim and Eli wrong.
“Socks” is moving the goalpost! This is like the 3rd time you have moved the goalposts!
The actual goalpost is Clint’s post about “Five photon “frequencies” are absorbed by a surface, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. …
The “added energy” MUST have frequency higher than the average of the surface.”
The correct physics (once again) is:
The average added energy of atoms/molecules must be higher than the average energy of the surface to increase the average energy of the surface. I.e., you need to add warmer material to raise the temperature of a cool object.
ANY added energy of photons raises the average energy of the surface. I.e. you do NOT need to add “warmer photons” with “higher frequency” in order to raise the temperature of a cool object.
Clint confuses the two ideas and draws wrong conclusions. Your attempts at “clarification” do not change the fact that Clint is wrong. There are not ‘two views’ on the issue.
More distractions and diversions from Ball4 and Tim.
You have moved the goalposts, Tim, not me.
I told you, I am not discussing whether Clint R is right or wrong in the way he looks at it. I’m pointing out that your way of looking at it is wrong, because it leads directly to the idea that socks can dry each other! Just check your team mate Ball4’s responses, Tim.
You claim you have the correct physics, and we’re just supposed to believe you because you’re Tim Folkerts. You have offered zero support for your view. Nothing.
You have NOTHING, Tim.
… except 1LOT, 2LOT basic theory already proven by proper experiment. Leave it up to DREMT to prove otherwise based on proper experiment.
What "1LOT, 2LOT basic theory already proven by proper experiment" are you referring to, Ball4, which proves the following:
"the two unheated socks moved close enough together in the calm local noontime sun will have more view area of each other thus absorb more photons from each other than other cooler things in the scene thus be measurably higher in temperature thus dry faster since evaporation is based on their state not the state of the atm"?
“You have offered zero support for your view. Nothing.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1674528
Simple. Straightforward. Supported by centuries of physics.
You are the one with zero support
DREMT would know if he had already passed a college course in thermo.
DREMT can find what I am referring to in a beginning first course college text book on thermodynamics, even of his own choosing. Use the index to find 1st law and 2nd law references. Read up & work some of the chapter problems; Tim can help if DREMT gets stuck or wants to verify his answer.
That is not support, Tim. That is just you putting numbers to your silly idea which leads to socks being magically able to dry each other. Do you ever link to anything, Tim?
“Do you ever link to anything, Tim?”
I could link to every thermodynamics text and every radiative heat transfer txt ever if it would make you feel better.
But I can’t learn physics for you. Pick up a book and read. Take a university physics course and ask your professor.
Ball4 and Tim still have no support for their position. Funny.
Yet, everybody knows that socks do not warm each other up, except these guys.
… and all those that understand 1LOT, 2LOT by having passed a first accredited college course in thermodynamics.
Ball4, on the idea that two socks placed next to each other in the centre of a washing line will dry faster than placing one at either end of it:
"But, anyway, yes, the two unheated socks moved close enough together in the calm local noontime sun will have more view area of each other thus absorb more photons from each other than other cooler things in the scene thus be measurably higher in temperature thus dry faster since evaporation is based on their state not the state of the atm."
And, he’s proud of it.
The most ridiculous discussion I’ve ever been a part of. These people have absolutely zero common sense, or perhaps zero real life experience, or both.
Passing grades in Thermodynamics are not easily guessed DREMT, as Tim notes. Your intuition fails you & allows you to disavow both hard won 1LOT and 2LOT relying on your hunches instead of experiment.
Pure and true gaslighting from one of the most deeply unpleasant tr0lls on this blog.
“I have never known that to happen, Tim, in my entire life, so I of course reject the idea unless and until extraordinary evidence is provided.”
Pretty common experience of students taking freshman physics. There are many examples that don’t match their intuition.
And never does their intuition that contradicts long established physics turn out to be correct.
“Physics is meant to help make sense of the world around us”
Yet it is not required validate your prior beliefs.
Socks do not dry each other. End of story.
… unless DREMT puts one sock at either end of the line, then puts them close together in the centre of the line.
So unbelievably dumb. Who do you think you are kidding with this crap?
DREMT still has no meaningful objection. Funny.
Yet, everybody knows that the temperature of a heated object will depend on the temperature of the surroundings.
Everybody knows we are not talking about that, Tim. You keep moving the goalposts, and people will notice that. This is the original scenario:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1674402
and it is easily summed up by the example of the two socks on the washing line.
That was brought up to counter your conjectures about photon absorp.tion, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1674101
Which you have not supported even with one single reference, despite suggesting that you could link to any textbook and it would support you! People will notice that, too. When you people claim that every source supports you, yet you cannot provide one single link, it is quite obvious that you are full of it.
Yes, that is exactly what we are talking about.
The temperature of a heated object will depend on the temperature of the surroundings.
When your heated “Object A” has cool surroundings, it will be one temperature. When the surroundings — even just PART of the surroundings — get warmer, Object A will warm to a higher temperature.
So putting a warm “Object B” nearby will make Object A get warmer.
So putting a warm sock (warmer than the other surroundings) next to a sock heated by the sun will cause the sock to get at least a tiny bit warmer.
DREMT 11:52 pm gets it wrong yet again since when DREMT puts one sock at either end of the line, then puts them close together in the centre of the line every single college thermo. reference will support the well tested 1LOT and 2LOT used by Tim. This means DREMT can choose any college level thermo. text of his choosing so there is no need for Tim (or anyone) to choose one for DREMT.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Of course two heated objects placed near each other will warm each other up. Your intuition is failing you DREMT.”
Its good to have Tim, Nate and Ball4 all ganged up on claims they make out of pure imagination and a little bit of knowledge about electromagnetics.
Of course their next job is to rig up the experiment that shows this to be a fact.
You know like Seim and Olson did and demonstrated results that Tim, Nate, and Ball4 all seem to believe is flawed because they believe the results violate these same laws of electromagnetics as they are using here.
Of course they won’t do that probably because they also imagine without saying so or even giving it a single critical thought that this sock clothesline is one stretched between a couple of small rocks in outer space while believing the socks are still dripping wet and slowly evaporating dry.
maybe they can get Swanson to lend them his vacuum chamber to demonstrate the effect.
Sheesh!
Funny goal post moving, Bill. S&O’s experiment followed the 1LOT and 2LOT same as DREMT’s sock example. You can read up on the laws in a good college first course textbook. Have DREMT pick one out for you.
“Yes, that is exactly what we are talking about“
No, it isn’t, Tim. God, you people disgust me.
Ball4 says:
” and all those that understand 1LOT, 2LOT by having passed a first accredited college course in thermodynamics.”
Passing an accredited college course doesn’t mean you learned anything.
Its rather hilarious after thousands of post from your trying to conflate green and blue steel plates in a vacuum with a greenhouse effect being caused by specific gases. . . how when you have socks handing near each other on a clothes line you mock your own examples.
LMAO!
But nice of you to put DREMT into the same class of professionals that S&O are in. Maybe some day somebody will invite you if you work hard enough Ball4.
Passing an accredited college course does mean learning something. Of course, Bill does comment like an exception to that rule.
No it doesn’t Ball4. It just might get you a probationary job in electromagnetics but you will actually need to know the subject to keep the job. Have you passed the test on that?
If not you have proven anything.
Do you want to take a shot at S&O and say what you think is wrong with the experiment. If you can’t diagnose it you have two options one is quit or don’t even try. . .the other is to admit you don’t understand the problem.
Tim Folkerts says:
”Yes, that is exactly what we are talking about.
The temperature of a heated object will depend on the temperature of the surroundings.
When your heated Object A has cool surroundings, it will be one temperature. When the surroundings even just PART of the surroundings get warmer, Object A will warm to a higher temperature.
So putting a warm Object B nearby will make Object A get warmer.
So putting a warm sock (warmer than the other surroundings) next to a sock heated by the sun will cause the sock to get at least a tiny bit warmer.”
So you are claiming that a pile of bricks suspended in the middle of a room with walls, floor, and ceiling all at 30C will get colder if the bricks are separated and moved closer to the perimeters of the rooms?
Or if its a nice sunlit day that warms the surface to 30C the socks on the closeline will warm to 30C if near each other but will not warm that warm if they are separated?
Bill, at least attempt to stay on point, your lack of relevant education is showing again.
At equilibrium a pile of bricks (Object A) suspended in the middle of a room with walls, floor, and ceiling all at 30C does not have cool surroundings. When the surroundings, even just PART of the surroundings, get warmer, Object A will warm to a higher temperature.
So putting a warm pile of bricks (Object B) nearby will make Object A get warmer.
So putting a warm pile of bricks (warmer than the other surroundings) next to a pile of bricks heated by the sun will cause the pile of bricks to get at least a tiny bit warmer.
Socks drying?
Gee let’s add ‘drying’ of wet things to clear up the confusion about Heat Transfer Basics!
Pure obfuscation.
It’s all being taken further and further away from the original point. And, that’s deliberate.
Tim believes bringing two passive objects, illuminated by the Sun, closer together, would cause them to spontaneously warm each other up! That is what Tim’s statements about photon absorp.tion lead to. That is what he and Ball4 defended. That is what the example with the socks is all about.
Don’t let the discussion be side-tracked, Bill.
Ball4 says:
”Bill, at least attempt to stay on point, your lack of relevant education is showing again.
At equilibrium a pile of bricks (Object A) suspended in the middle of a room with walls, floor, and ceiling all at 30C does not have cool surroundings.”
Who said the socks had cool surroundings? You said the socks were heated. But you didn’t describe how or the surroundings. Further I gave 2 examples so why are you just focusing on one of them:
I also said: ”Or if its a nice sunlit day that warms the surface to 30C the socks on the closeline will warm to 30C if near each other but will not warm that warm if they are separated?”
If you don’t know that you have to completely describe a problem before you can solve it has ever occurred to you which happens to make it occur to me you don’t know what you are talking about.
Tim: “So putting a warm Object B nearby will make Object A get warmer.”
DREMT: “Tim believes bringing two passive objects, illuminated by the Sun, closer together, would cause them to spontaneously warm each other up!”
DREMT takes the discussion further and further away from the original point. And, that’s deliberate.
Don’t let the discussion be side-tracked, Bill and DREMT.
Readers can see for themselves what the discussion is about, Ball4. Your lies will not work.
Verbatim quotes I used cannot be lies, DREMT. Don’t let the discussion be side-tracked; use them as well.
You have quoted Tim’s goalpost shift. That was not what we originally discussed.
[DREMT] Have two objects, A and B, in view of each other, out in the Sunlight. A is receiving a steady stream of photons from the Sun, and emitting photons steadily, at a certain temperature. According to your view, however, it will be made warmer still because it is also receiving a steady stream of photons from B as well as from the Sun. Similarly, B will be made warmer still because it is also receiving a steady stream of photons from A as well as from the Sun. And, both A and B, at a warmer temperature, will thus be emitting more photons than if either A or B wasn’t there.
[TIM] The irony is that your example of “obviously wrong” is actually correct.
11:58 am: I quoted Tim in responding to Bill’s discussion 3:21 am. DREMT jumps in and gets immediately confused about which discussion. DREMT takes the discussion further and further away from Bill’s comment.
Don’t let any discussion be side-tracked, Bill and DREMT.
Ball4 continues his disruption, distortion and dishonesty.
Bill curiously queries:
“So you are claiming that a pile of bricks suspended in the middle of a room with walls, floor, and ceiling all at 30C will get colder if the bricks are separated and moved closer to the perimeters of the rooms?
Or if its a nice sunlit day that warms the surface to 30C the socks on the closeline will warm to 30C if near each other but will not warm that warm if they are separated?”
No. Nothing I wrote remotely suggests that either of those would happen.
For the bricks:
1) there is no heated object, so it doesn’t even fit the scenario.
2) The ‘surroundings’ are still 30 C, whether nearby or far away.
For the socks:
The initial problem is ill-posed. DREMT’s “socks” would have to be clearly and significantly hotter than the surroundings. This is not at all clear in ‘real life’ because a) the surroundings are getting warmed by the same sun and b) damp socks have evaporation and might well be COOLER than the surroundings.
You seem to be reversing the scenario, having the SURROUNDINGS heated by the sun, and the socks heated by the surroundings (and not the sun).
A clearer example would be two sock-shaped pieces of metal hanging from the line. Either of these would get quite warm exposed to 1000 W/m^2 of noontime sun. And, yes, they would get even hotter closer together than far apart (assuming they are not shading each other).
You can have the objects be made of whatever material you want, Tim, bringing two passive objects closer together in sunlight will not make them magically warm each other up. Not in my (nor anyone else’s, as far as I’m aware) experience.
The discussion is about heated objects. Place one heated object (like a flat panel heater with a fixed wattage electric heater) in the center of a room at uniform temperature. It will reach some temperature.
Place the same heated object in a room at a higher temperature. The heated object will reach a higher temperature.
Simple as that. If you disagree, then there is no point in discussing physics with you.
If you agree, then what would happen if half the room was the higher temperature and half the lower temperature? Pretty clearly the object will reach a temperature somewhere between the two temperatures above.
I don’t see how anyone can argue with that.
Back on topic, however, you can have the objects be made of whatever material you want, Tim; bringing two passive objects closer together in sunlight will not make them magically warm each other up. Not in my (nor anyone else’s, as far as I’m aware) experience.
Sure DREMT, the object won’t magically warm up, just arrive at the warmer temperature determined by physics 1LOT and 2LOT since its thermodynamic internal energy will increase when absorbing additional photons similar to Eli’s work long ago when the GP was introduced which DREMT has never understood.
Yes, you are prepared to commit to the silliness, Ball4. Just wondering if Tim will.
“Tim believes bringing two passive objects, illuminated by the Sun, closer together, would cause them to spontaneously warm each other up”
Yep, and no one has offered anything beyond their incredulity, to rebut this.
At the same time, people here have no problem with the heated passive Blue plate warming the nearby Green plate up to the BP temperature!
“Not in my (nor anyone elses, as far as Im aware) experience.”
Sad that some have never experienced camping on a cold night, and learning that sharing a sleeping bag with someone is warmer!
Put two black cubes in space, far apart, with one side of each toward the sun and all sides exposed to the cold of space.
They reach a steady temperature when solar input and radiative emission balance.
Now bring them close together so that one side of each cube is no longer exposed to the cold of space.
It should be obvious that the emission
will be less with one less side emitting to the cold of space, and both cubes will WARM.
I’m sure whatever it is Nate’s saying, he will be acknowledging the reality that passive objects (objects without their own internal heat source) don’t just warm up when you bring them closer together, as we all know from experience. I’m sure he won’t be joining the gaslighting people, all pretending something happens that we all know doesn’t, in reality.
Im sure DREMT will be able to understand that objects heated with a heat source will warm, whether the heat is internal or externally applied to them.
Probably another subject change.
I’m also sure DREMT can understand that thermal radiation emitted from an object is proportional to the emitting area.
Perhaps not..
Probably another red herring.
Now bring them close together so that one side of each cube is no longer exposed to the cold of space.
It should be obvious that the emitting area of the cubes to the cold of space will be reduced by 5/6.
At least to anybody who can think logically.
Probably still another red herring.
DREMT has no science rebuttal. So another feeling of his has no logical foundation.
Oh well!
Tim Folkerts says:
”For the bricks:
1) there is no heated object, so it doesnt even fit the scenario.
2) The surroundings are still 30 C, whether nearby or far away.”
—————
the bricks are heated by the walls Tim. If nothing was heating them they would have no temperature.
Tim Folkerts says:
”For the socks:
The initial problem is ill-posed. DREMTs socks would have to be clearly and significantly hotter than the surroundings. This is not at all clear in real life because a) the surroundings are getting warmed by the same sun and b) damp socks have evaporation and might well be COOLER than the surroundings.”
———————–
So you are imagining and arguing for the impossible here? Gosh you guys really know how to do science. . .sheesh!
Tim Folkerts says:
”You seem to be reversing the scenario, having the SURROUNDINGS heated by the sun, and the socks heated by the surroundings (and not the sun).”
We are talking about a clothesline Tim. Where do you think you will find a clothesline?
Tim Folkerts says:
”A clearer example would be two sock-shaped pieces of metal hanging from the line. Either of these would get quite warm exposed to 1000 W/m^2 of noontime sun. And, yes, they would get even hotter closer together than far apart (assuming they are not shading each other).”
All you are doing is mucking it up. metal socks hanging from a clothesline? Why not wool socks? You are confounding the fact that air isn’t highly conductive but steel is. In terms of radiation there isn’t much difference. You just erroneously think steel gets hotter because if you touch it it feels hotter. Very unscientific perspective you have there.
I sense you guys are back in the academic setting where reality never comes knocking. I can’t help to believe you guys are again arguing about what happens when the surroundings are virtual nothingness.
Am I right? If so I am out of this conversation.
”For example, you can’t know a particle’s position and momentum at the same time with perfect accuracy. Because of this, some say that these properties can’t be real simultaneously. Albert Einstein found this idea unacceptable and argued in 1935 that reality must be more than what quantum mechanics can describe.”
I am with Einstein on this one. Thinking otherwise is projecting ones own ignorance outward. Some love to do that more than others.
Nate probably believes I’m actually reading or responding to him.
Let’s give him another thread where I actually respond to his comments. Just this one thread, mind. He’s obviously desperate to talk to me, so…
OK, let’s have a little look at what he’s been saying…
"Now bring them close together so that one side of each cube is no longer exposed to the cold of space.
It should be obvious that the emitting area of the cubes to the cold of space will be reduced by 5/6.
At least to anybody who can think logically."
The only way to reduce the emitting area of the cubes in any way is to have them actually touching. Otherwise, all sides of the cube emit. Since nobody said anything about the objects touching (just being brought closer together), Nate’s argument is a red herring.
“The only way to reduce the emitting area of the cubes in any way is to have them actually touching. Otherwise, all sides of the cube emit.”
Do I really need to remind people that there can be no radiative heat loss between cubes at the same T?
C’mon people..
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”The only way to reduce the emitting area of the cubes in any way is to have them actually touching. Otherwise, all sides of the cube emit. Since nobody said anything about the objects touching (just being brought closer together), Nates argument is a red herring.”
Yes to elucidate a bit further. . .the two socks so far apart they have no influence on each other and exposed to the same conditions will be the same temperature. thus moving them closer together will have zero impact on their temperature.
The fallacy of the surroundings changing hinges entirely on an ignorance of what the surrounding do and do not consist of.
DREMT is absolutely right here and our local warmists have bitten off way more than they can chew here.
a) If Tim’s statements on photon absorp.tion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1674101
were correct, then moving two passive objects, in sunlight, closer together would make them warm up.
b) We all know from experience that moving two passive objects, in sunlight, closer together does not make them warm up.
CONCLUSION: Tim’s statements on photon absorp.tion are not correct.
Does anyone dispute either a) or b), or the logic that leads from a) or b) to the conclusion? If not, then I guess that’s that.
b) is simply shown wrong by 1LOT and 2LOT, so that result could not have happened in DREMT’s real experience & could only happen in DREMT’s imagination.
”
b) We all know from experience that moving two passive objects, in sunlight, closer together does not make them warm up.”
DREMT still has no science answers and offers no logical foundation for his feelings.
What feelings? “Feelings” have nothing to do with it. I’ve never experienced two passive objects warming up because I brought them closer together, I’ve never heard anyone else describe that phenomenon occurring, and I’ve never read about it happening, so why would I believe it happens? Are you saying it’s happened to you, then? Getting a bit tired of all the gaslighting from you guys.
Nate says:
”DREMT still has no science answers and offers no logical foundation for his feelings.”
Meanwhile Nate refuses to recognize that this is like the pile of bricks in the middle of a 30C room. The outside is under a steady light, the walls, the air, and the bricks are all 30C.
Thats the same experiment run by S&O. they created a box with two compartments, heated the box with an aluminum plate so that the plate was 100c, recorded the temperatures of the air in the two compartments. then they substituted CO2 and didn’t get any kind of verifiable warming. . .yet the warmist wonks continue to claim these results break unbreakable laws of physics. What are they really trying to say? Believe me, don’t believe your lying eyes?
It’s like they want me to provide a theory for why something doesn’t happen! Generally, theories are for explaining why things happen. As usual, it’s all about reversing the burden of proof, and expecting us to disprove their unproven hypotheses. How about they demonstrate that bringing two passive objects closer together makes them spontaneously warm up? Conduct an experiment, and post the results on YouTube so we can all see it.
“unproven hypotheses.”
Funny DREMT, the 1LOT and 2LOT are well proven by countless proper experiments. No need for yet another youtube demonstration. You can find them explained & how to use them in your thought experiments in a first course college thermodynamics text of your choosing.
It’s only your assertion that this alleged phenomenon is a direct result of “1LoT and 2LoT” doing their thing, Ball4. It would be a lot more convincing for you to demonstrate that the phenomenon itself occurs, don’t you think?
Do you actually think, at all?
Again, the 1LOT and 2LOT are not alleged, DREMT. You can use Eli’s work to guide you and of course your chosen first course college thermodynamics text to check Elis work & find how your thought experiment physically works.
Obviously I did not say 1LoT and 2LoT were alleged.
“Its like they want me to provide a theory for why something doesnt happen!”
Tim and I gave the physical mechanism, the basic straight forward reason it does happen.
You had no science rebuttal, yet claim it does not happen, based on your feelings, and your lack of experience of it happening, in space!
C’mon.
You were unable to dispute the undeniable fact that the side of a cube close to the side of an identical cube at the same T is not able to lose heat to cold surroundings.
Thus you were unable to dispute the undeniable fact that these cubes, when far apart would be losing more heat to space
Thus
Thus, your argument that these objects heated by the sun in space, when brought close together will NOT warm has no logical foundation, no science to support it.
Oh well!
“Tim and I gave the physical mechanism, the basic straight forward reason it does happen.“
Yet, it doesn’t happen. Right? Or are you saying you have experienced passive objects spontaneously warming up as you bring them closer together?
For the record, the correct sequence of events is as follows:
1) Clint R gave an account of his version of photon absorp.tion, without supporting citations.
2) Tim gave an account of his version of photon absorp.tion, without supporting citations.
3) I pointed out that if Tim’s version were correct, passive objects in sunlight would spontaneously warm up when moved closer together, which we all know doesn’t happen.
4) There has been a string of commentary from people in denial that it doesn’t happen, yet (apart from in Ball4’s case) curiously reluctant to state that they have seen it occur for themselves.
Will any of you actually commit to saying you have seen it happen!?
…and, obviously, the “science reason” that it doesn’t happen would be that actually, Clint R’s version of photon absorp.tion (or something similar) is correct, while Tim’s version is wrong. Since neither of them supported their versions with any citations, there is no reason to just assume either one is correct. Right? We’re not just going to take Tim’s word for it, same as we’re not just going to take Clint R’s word for it…
…but, if one version of events agrees with experience, whilst the other doesn’t, then…
“Ive never experienced two passive objects warming up because I brought them closer together, Ive never heard anyone else describe that phenomenon occurring, and Ive never read about it happening, so why would I believe it happens? Are you saying its happened to you, then?”
Gee, you have never been in space? Nor have I.
Nor had the NASA rocket scientists who designed the spacecraft that carried astronauts to the Moon.
How could they, and Tim, and I know how heat transfers in space?
Because we are familiar with the laws of heat transfer, and are confident that the laws of physics work in space. And so
without having personal space experience, they could know how heat transfer works
there.
? Getting a bit tired of all the gaslighting from you guys.
“Gee, you have never been in space? Nor have I.“
It doesn’t have to be in space, Nate. Step outside, into the world, and experience the sunlight once in a while. Now move two passive objects closer together, in the sunlight. Do they warm up?
No.
… when the 1LOT and 2LOT are “alleged phenomenon” (DREMT’s words).
I never said 1LoT and 2LoT were an alleged phenomenon, Ball4. The phenomenon I was referring to was “passive objects warming up when moved closer together, in Sunlight”.
… as they must when tested in nature when correctly analyzed with 1LOT and 2LOT. I note DREMT now actually drops the “alleged” in front of phenomenon. Good move.
You add absolutely nothing of value to any discussion you involve yourself in, Ball4.
You have actually done this experiment and measured temperatures of them?
Doubtful.
You are using ‘caveman science’. That is, caveman have only their experience to tell them what happens..they know what thrown rocks or spears can do to an animal.
But cavemen do not know what happens beyond what they have personally experienced.
Modern scientists and engineers can do much more using theory and laws of physics. They can design novel spaceraft and make them work in space, where they have never been!
No, I am not doing “caveman science”. I’ve done absolutely nothing wrong, whatsoever.
Are you saying you have experienced passive objects spontaneously warming up as you bring them closer together, in sunlight?
Just answer the question.
“1) Clint R gave an account of his version of photon absorp.tion, without supporting citations.”
Clint never supports his version of science with papers, links, data, evidence. He has never demonstrated that he is an expert in this subject. Thus he has no credibility.
But feel free to find Clint posts where he showed supporting evidence.
“2) Tim gave an account of his version of photon absorp.tion, without supporting citations.”
Tim has demonstrated expertise in this subject. He regularly supports his claims with papers, links, data, evidence.
Nate says:
Tim and I gave the physical mechanism, the basic straight forward reason it does happen.
You had no science rebuttal, yet claim it does not happen, based on your feelings, and your lack of experience of it happening, in space!
Gee, you have never been in space? Nor have I.
Nor had the NASA rocket scientists who designed the spacecraft that carried astronauts to the Moon.
How could they, and Tim, and I know how heat transfers in space?
——————-
You are off topic Nate there are no clotheslines with 2 adjustable socks on it floating around in space rotating around a sun. Who cares?
You are screwing up this thread just like you screwed up the thread on S&O. I fully support 1lot and 2lot. You though want to only apply 1lot and 2lot to electromagnetic radiation and not to electromagnetic conduction. So your argument is the incorrect one for socks on a clothesline and the S&O experiment and for your version of the atmospheric ghe.
All that a ghg does, because by definition it doesn’t change phases, is provide for a means of cooling at certain temperatures by radiation alone. This quality does not extend to the other electromagnetic means of cooling.
The only issue to yet be measured by science is if that cooling extends to the surface but that would be a discussion of an atmospheric window. And there is no evidence to state that should be an issue we should be concerned with.
The sock and clothesline argument is one based upon ignorance of warming to equilibrium. And yet you argue this and the GPE incessantly when the only applicable analog to global warming is whether another planet or moon is moving closer to earth with nothing conductive inbetween.
In the case of the socks the socks moving closer together in your backyard makes no difference as their environment and the socks are all the same temperature. . .like the pile of bricks in the middle of a room, that you incessantly also ignorantly argue against.
DREMT: “Put two socks on your washing line, out in the Sun.”
Bill: “the socks are all the same temperature.”
Bill makes facts up from nowhere. Typical for Bill.
Still evading the question, Nate?
As I made clear, I don’t think we should take either Clint R or Tim at their word. Neither supported their position with any link.
And no, Tim does not regularly support his comments with links to anything, in fact he rarely does.
Here you go DREMT, enter into google: thermodynamic textbook
Pick one, search the index for 1LOT and 2LOT.
Will be useful for Bill too.
“Are you saying you have experienced passive objects spontaneously warming up as you bring them closer together, in sunlight?
Just answer the question.”
I asked you first. Have you done the experiment and measured the temperatures? Because you seem certain that they would not warm.
As I noted modern scientists and engineers can design and analyze novel situations.
You say ‘passive objects’ but in fact they are heated objects, in colder surroundings.
I have lots of experience with heated objects in cold surroundings, that when placed close together, are warmer. Such as two resistive heaters placed close together. Or two people brought together in a cold room.
The point is, if bringing the heated objects together reduces their exposure to cold surroundings, then they cannot cool as efficiently, and get warmer.
It matters not a bit how they are heated, as long as the heat input doesn’t reduce when the objects are brought together.
No, I haven’t done the experiment myself, and never will. It’s not my claim to provide evidence for. It’s yours. Having never experienced passive objects warming each other up in sunlight, I don’t feel the need to test for it.
I specified “passive objects” throughout, and I explained what I meant by it – objects with no internal heat source. So your “two resistive heaters placed close together…or two people brought together in a cold room” are, once again, moving the goalposts.
I’ll take it your simple, direct and honest answer to my question is, “no”.
Ball4, I’m not looking for Tim to support 1LoT or 2LoT. I’m asking for him to support his claims about photon absorp.tion. Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1674101
Here you go DREMT, enter google string: electromagnetic radiation textbook
Better yet enter:
free electromagnetic radiation textbook
Ball4 has nothing, as usual.
”
I specified passive objects throughout, and I explained what I meant by it objects with no internal heat source.”
Playing word games again.
Why does internal heating change the results?
A heated object, whether internal or external, needs to lose heat to a colder environment.
Yes?
The issue here is the cooling rate. If cooling rate is reduced, the object warms.
Pretty simple.
What don’t you understand?
“No, I havent done the experiment myself, and never will.”
Then clearly this statement:
“b) We all know from experience that moving two passive objects, in sunlight, closer together does not make them warm up.
Is FALSE
Anyone else you know did the experiment?
No, I’m not playing word games. If the objects have internal heat sources then there is more than one heat source, and you’re no longer talking about anything related to the GHE. It has to be only one heat source. I know, you don’t understand. Oh well.
No, Nate, statement b) is not false. It was about my experience, and I am telling the truth. I have never experienced passive objects warming up in sunlight because they have been moved closer together, I have never heard of anyone else experiencing that, and I have never read anything saying that this occurs. I
[GRAHAM D. WARNER] Im not playing word games.
[ALSO GRAHAM D. WARNER] I specified passive objects throughout, and I explained what I meant by it
Please explain how being completely consistent throughout with the use of a phrase and making sure it is understood what is meant by that phrase is “playing word games”, FFS.
No, Im not playing word games. “If the objects have internal heat sources then there is more than one heat source, and youre no longer talking about anything related to the GHE.”
Oh? we were taking about the GHE?
I thought we were talking about your two objects in the sun..
If the sun is heating object A with 1000 W, and object B with 1000 W, then how is that fundamentally any different from the objects each being heated internally with 1000 W?
Warming is the result in both cases.
“I have never experienced passive objects warming up in sunlight because they have been moved closer together”
Yes, because you never did the experiment.
So that line of reasoning is Moot.
What else got?
“Oh? we were taking about the GHE?”
Yes. Scroll to the very top of the thread, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1673566
Of course that’s what this comes down to.
“Yes, because you never did the experiment”
I don’t need to, since I’m not the one claiming it happens, I’ve never experienced it happening, have never heard of it happening to anyone else, and have never read anywhere that it occurs. Do you feel the need to do an experiment to test that monkeys don’t fly out of your butt?
Graham D. Warner argues that consistently playing word games isn’t playing word games.
Meanwhile, he’s arguing with Nate that no, his own experience has nothing to do with experience.
If you say so, Little Willy. Nobody really takes you seriously any more.
“I dont need to, since Im not the one claiming it happens”
You posed the problem of two objects in the sun in space brought together, and made a specific claim that they would NOT warm.
The best you could offer was the weak statement that you never experienced this warming.
But turns out you never even did this experiment!
So this experience is worthless to determine what would happen in such an experiment.
Meanwhile Tim and I explained the simple physical mechanism for warming. And you could not dispute it.
So that’s the end of the argument my friend.
Ball4 says:June 25, 2024 at 12:07 PM
”DREMT: Put two socks on your washing line, out in the Sun.
Bill: the socks are all the same temperature.
Bill makes facts up from nowhere. Typical for Bill.”
Sure they will as surely as a pile of bricks in a 30c room. Unless of course you believe you can violate 1lot and 2lot.
If you just switched on the light you might have to wait a while though for it to heat everything through and through.
“And you could not dispute it.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1675480
“So this experience is worthless to determine what would happen in such an experiment.“
So the experience that monkeys have never flown out of your butt is worthless to determine what would happen in an experiment to test if monkeys fly out of your butt. OK, then.
“Unless of course you believe you can violate 1lot and 2lot.”
Lol, no. You need to ask DREMT about believing that. Bill made up the initial temperature of DREMT’s socks from nowhere.
There is no hope for DREMT’s solution as it violates 1LOT and even 2LOT as no entropy is produced in DREMT’s isolated thought experiment over the process time as DREMT wrongly concludes there is no glove temperature change due to the sock move “in (DREMT’s) experience”.
… sock temperature change …
Consider Nate’s cubes, separated from each other, each at a temperature established by the energy from the Sun. Now you bring them closer together. Where does the additional energy come from for this warming he proposes happens? From the internal energy they exchange via radiation, which came from the Sun in the first place!? It makes no sense.
Not sure what Nate’s cubes are. For your socks, each sunlit sock is reflecting, absorbing, maybe transmitting a little light from all incident sources at the beginning of process no matter their initial temperature.
As you “Now put them close together in the centre of the line.” all else equal at end of process the socks shine more sun warmed light on each other and shade some of the cooler (non-sun warmed) surrounding light that used to be incident on them. So the socks reflect, absorb, maybe transmit more light. Maybe they block some convection too.
Thus, 1LOT says higher thermodynamic internal energy for the socks from the added light (maybe less convection) and T2 being higher than T1 guarantees that entropy is produced as is required by 2lOT for any real isolated process thus “the socks will dry faster when close together in the centre!” since evaporation depends on the state of the liquid not the state of the atm.
“Not sure what Nate’s cubes are”
Of course not, you never pay attention to the discussion.
As for the socks, they won’t dry faster just by being moved closer together.
Nor should the socks dry more slowly when together, according to Sky Dragon crank logic.
Graham D. Warner is a genius.
Ball4 says:
Unless of course you believe you can violate 1lot and 2lot.
Lol, no. You need to ask DREMT about believing that. Bill made up the initial temperature of DREMTs socks from nowhere.
There is no hope for DREMTs solution as it violates 1LOT and even 2LOT as no entropy is produced in DREMTs isolated thought experiment over the process time as DREMT wrongly concludes there is no glove temperature change due to the sock move ”in (DREMTs) experience”.
—————————
The S&O experiment proves that common air works as well as CO2 at least wrt to warmist expectations. Experiments show massive negative feedback but most likely just room temperature fluctuation. Common air heat transfer to other objects is ruled by 1lot and 2lot also. Yet you guys cling desperately to an unquantified possibility of a thin thread.
No DREMT said the socks were heated by the sun. How warm they get depends upon air temperature, wind, humidity, how wet the socks are and how much the sunlight is obstructed. Sure if moving them closer together blocks the wind like an America’s Cup racer tries to do to another racer it might have an effect.
But in general why would you think that the socks on a clothesline would materially change temperature by moving them closer and where is your evidence. You guys keep asking us to prove they don’t. Its like asking us to prove monkeys don’t fly out of our butts when in fact all that does fly out of our butts are farts and turds. The onus is on you.
Little Willy, if the socks dry more slowly, when brought closer together, that is still bad news for your religion. Try to follow the discussion. You guys need faster drying.
“The S&O experiment proves that common air works as well as CO2 at least wrt to warmist expectations.”
For an optical path on the order of 1foot lacking some important details for replication. Not applicable to Earth atm. optical path 10k km.
See Tyndall’s 1861 paper for better published paper on how common air works vs. CO2 when illuminated by IR light in a much longer (4x) path length polished brass tube, with all details reported for replication.
“How warm (socks) get depends on…”
Ask DREMT for details if it matters to you. The absolute T doesn’t matter; what matters is with more light absorbed after moving, sock T1 goes to sock T2 with more light absorbed consistent with 1LOT, 2LOT.
Evidence? Move your hand closer to your electric stove coil on high thus simulating the light from the sun; hand absorbs more light & gets warmer as it gets closer. Third graders ought to have learned that experimentally but apparently not Bill.
“Where does the additional energy come from for this warming he proposes happens?”
No brainer for anyone with a brain. The energy came from the heat source. Thee sun.
If this is a genuine concern then you should be concerned how an oven could be hotter when the door is closed.
Or a house in winter could be warmer with the windows closed.
Or any situation with a heated object, when its heat loss is reduced.
Unfortunately for Ball4, we are not talking about moving the socks closer to the Sun, we’re talking about moving them closer to each other whilst maintaining the same distance from the Sun, so his “evidence” fails to be evidence of anything but his own duplicity.
That makes no sense, Nate. You’re talking insulation, again. You need an insulating object, and an object to be insulated. However, what you have are two identical cubes equidistant from the Sun. What, are they somehow insulating each other, and both warming as a result!? How does that work!?
> The S&O experiment proves
Gill still believes that single non-replicated experiments prove something that the authors themselves say it does not prove.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
Unfortunately for Graham D. Warner, socks held together keep their warmth for the same reason they keep their humidity.
Ball4 says:
” ”The S&O experiment proves that common air works as well as CO2 at least wrt to warmist expectations.”
For an optical path on the order of 1foot lacking some important details for replication. Not applicable to Earth atm. optical path 10k km.”
See Tyndalls 1861 paper for better published paper on how common air works vs. CO2 when illuminated by IR light
——————-
The optical path doesn’t matter and thus Tyndall’s experiment doesn’t matter. Conduction when aided by moving diffusing and convecting air is many times faster than rates of IR radiation. The socks will adjust because the IR is not in addition to conduction per 1lot and 2 lot. there is a thin enough atmosphere where that is not the case but its not on the surface of the earth. And moving the socks horizontally toward each other does not change the temperature of the room/greenhouse or whatever else you might want to call it. One cannot deny that fact from experiments that have been conducted. So the fact you want to turn maybe what is a fart into a monkey thats on you to prove. All this stuff about 1lot and 2lot applying to this case is just so much sophistry.
Bill 12:25 pm now agrees the S&O experiment “doesn’t matter” since its optical path “doesn’t matter.” Good job, Bill.
DREMT was focused on the sock temperature so Bill, you are again making up stuff that DREMT didn’t.
That the sock temperature increases when absorbing more sunlight reflected from the other & now closer sock is beyond Bill’s (and DREMT’s 10:58 am) comprehension. Typical.
Nobody was talking about reflection, Ball4. They were talking about absorp.tion/emission.
Little Willy, the null hypothesis is that the socks won’t dry faster when you move them closer together. Feel free to find some experimental evidence to reject that, if you can.
Like I said at the beginning somebody needs to very carefully outline the problem before running off at the mouth making 1lot and 2lot claims. Now we have white socks and I suppose white sand under the socks and God only knows what else.
Albedo is another problem that must be very carefully specified as on a wavelength by wavelength basis as to whether the Stefan Boltzmann blackbody emissivity factor is affected that states albedo makes no difference in how much something will warm and no difference in how conduction works. . .thus albedo to the extent it could have an effect simply makes radiation weaker in relationship to conduction.
From the comfort of his armchair, Graham D. Warner allows himself to suppose that the null hypothesis ought to be what Sky Dragon cranks believe. That allows him to reach for Step 1 (denial) and Step 2 (sammich request) any time he pleases. And when cornered, he’ll simply go for Step 3 – saying stuff. Or he’ll let Gill fill that role.
The null hypothesis is that, ceteris paribus, less surface leads to a lower exchange rate. That applies to just about anything.
Have you ever experienced passive objects spontaneously warming up when you move them closer together in sunlight, Little Willy?
Many have, just feel free to find some experimental evidence to reject sun reflection warming socks, e.g. use google string: suntan reflector
DREMT, nobody was talking about sun reflection except the correct sock warming commenters which is one reason others get sock non-warming wrong.
I’ll add “reflection” to the long list of goalpost shifts that Team GHE have attempted.
Has anyone experienced passive subjects like Sky Dragon cranks?
Less surface that cools down. Slower cool down.
“That makes no sense, Nate. ”
You turned off your brain again.
“Youre talking insulation, again.”
Nope, any heated object whose heat loss has been reduced, by ANY means, must warm.
You seem determined to not ever get this.
“However, what you have are two identical cubes equidistant from the Sun. What, are they somehow insulating each other, and both warming as a result!? How does that work!?”
This was clearly explained by me and by Tim. Where were you?
Do you not recall the discussion about the emitting area of cubes brought together being 5/6 of the emitting area when far apart?
This is 6th grade stuff.
Then I reminded you that a cube cannot lose heat by radiation to another surface at the same temperature.
Remember?
Yes, Nate. I remember. Do you remember me pointing out that the emitting area doesn’t change, unless the objects are actually touching? All sides of the cubes will emit, given that they’re not.
You don’t seem to grasp what I’m saying.
With the debunked GPE, you at least had some sort of twisted logic in that there was a plate that was supposed to be the insulator (the Green Plate) and one plate that was supposed to be insulated (the Blue Plate). The Blue Plate supposedly gets warmer (building up more internal energy), whilst the Green Plate supposedly gets colder (losing internal energy), when the plates are separated.
Here, we have both cubes warming up (building up internal energy). How can both cubes be the insulator and the insulated, rolled into one, in each case!? They are each emitting to the other, but so what? As Cube A emits to Cube B, it loses internal energy. As Cube B emits to Cube A, it loses internal energy. Where are the cubes gaining the internal energy from to both rise in temperature!? They can only be getting it from each other, right? The Sun’s input is constant throughout, when they were separated, and when they were moved closer together. So, the only difference is the energy they are receiving from each other.
[Nate won’t see the problem]
"Has anyone experienced passive subjects like Sky Dragon cranks?"
Everyone has. A passive object is just an object with no internal heat source. So, there are passive objects all around you, Little Willy.
"Less surface that cools down. Slower cool down."
Anyone got a "Little Willy" interpreter? The socks have the same surface area both before and after being moved closer together. Obviously.
> Everyone has.
Graham D. Warner is having a slow day.
No, before coming here, I have never encountered passive subjects such as Sky Dragon cranks.
Ah, you’re just being an insulting jerk with absolutely nothing of any substance to contribute, ever. A worthless, hated failure that’s devoted his entire life to attempting to irritate his intellectual and moral superiors. Oh well.
Graham D. Warner’s faux-smarm is as insulting as Mike Flynn’s thug act, Puffman’s thin foil hattery or Mr. Asshat’s outright lies.
Warmer surfaces touching each other means less colder surfaces to let heat out. Same has humid socks.
1) Your comment is basically unintelligible.
2) The socks aren’t actually touching at any point. They’re just moved closer together.
(1) Graham D. Warner has yet to really respond to Mighty Tim.
(2) Graham D. Warner can’t really respond to Mighty Tim.
(3) Graham D. Warner can only play silly semantic games.
(4) Graham D. Warner can also try the ad nauseam.
(5) Graham D. Warner can’t really win that way anyway.
(6) Less surface for some physical property P to escape, more time it takes for P to happen.
Tim left some time ago, with all comments fully responded to, and the surface area of the socks does not change, throughout.
Nate says:
”Nope, any heated object whose heat loss has been reduced, by ANY means, must warm.”
Yes thats true. But moving the socks closer together doesn’t necessarily change the temperature of any surrounds thus heat loss is not reduced. . .even if you replace the air with CO2.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Ill add reflection to the long list of goalpost shifts that Team GHE have attempted.”
No doubt when he actually does the experiment, if he does, he will want one black sock and one white sock to put on the line because two white socks both will be reflecting sunlight in wavelengths the same colored socks don’t absorb. I see you are really dealing with some people here really up on radiation science. LMAO!
“Do you remember me pointing out that the emitting area doesnt change, unless the objects are actually touching?”
Yes I remember this typical unsupported assertion of yours that has no science rationale whatsover. Radiative emission doesn’t involve touching!
And if you remember, I demolished it here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1675283
And you offered no rebuttal. So in ordinary science debate, that should be the end of it.
But NO! In DREMT style dishonest debate, valid rebuttals are simply ignored, the unsupported claim is repeated, and the
argument goes on.
Do think that radiative heat loss CAN occur between bodies at the same temperature? Then you are making new physics, that violates 2LOT!
Unless the cubes are actually touching, in which case the two touching sides would not be able to emit, then all sides of the cubes are free to emit. Not sure why that is difficult to understand.
I went on to write more, in any case, which you have ignored.
Oddly Nate seems to think that if you move the socks closer together they will warm each other up, but if they are touching they won’t.
Seems as if Nate has a ”conditional” view of 1lot and 2lot.
So you evade answering this question:
“Do think that radiative heat loss CAN occur between bodies at the same temperature? Then you are making new physics, that violates 2LOT”
As you should realize by now, the issue for the cubes is whether they emit the same amount of HEAT to space.
The area over which they can emit heat to space is reduced when they are together.
Bill is getting there.
“Nate says:
Nope, any heated object whose heat loss has been reduced, by ANY means, must warm.
Yes thats true.”
Then he talks about socks.
“moving the socks closer together doesnt necessarily change the temperature of any surrounds thus heat loss is not reduced.”
But for our heated cube in space, bringing an identical heated cube next to it, DOES increase the temperature of a portion of its surrounds.
Then he cannot deny that our cubes heat loss is reduced. And he should agree that it will warm.
“Do think that radiative heat loss CAN occur between bodies at the same temperature?“
No.
Now, which cube is the insulator, and which cube is the insulated object?
Oddly Gill seems to think that nothing happens when two objects touch one another.
Seems as if Sky Dragon cranks entertained some kind of convection-at-a-distance concept.
Nate says:
”As you should realize by now, the issue for the cubes is whether they emit the same amount of HEAT to space.”
First it hasn’t been established that they emit anything to space. The surface is ill defined because nobody knows if the emissions are from the actual surface or warm water.
Second, we are still awaiting a demonstration of the above. If you are talking about less than a watt difference the situation isn’t measurable and its immaterial. So rather than running around playing sophist perhaps you can try being a real scientist and demonstrate what you are going on about.
since the above no doubt flew about 50,000 feet over your head I will be more explicit.
Your cubes at distance on the clothes line will be air temperature on its unlit surfaces and possibly a little warmer on its lit surfaces since that’s about 1200watts/m2 on a typical sunny day.
If you move the cube a little closer together and that cube had a surface emitting directly to space through some atmospheric window there would be no change in temperature because conduction is about a thousand times more efficient than radiation. The surface would be at air temperature and if it radiates away any heat it gets it right back from contact with the air. If the other cube changes the radiation that is emitting to space by the subject cube that will be offset by the cube gaining that heat right back from the air thus the cube would not change temperature to any material degree.
If you were to shade one of the cubes with the other you would get no change in mean temperature of the two cubes combined. . .certainly not both cubes warming.
Perhaps if you could measure the energy of individual surface atoms you would see some variation their if your measurements are fast enough.
But to say that amounts to anything but sophistry is what real scientists prove and disprove. Here in California we have engineers that do this stuff for a living under California’s Title 24 energy code. You wouldn’t be able to pass the examination for the license.
Gill is thinking of a system that loses energy but not to its environment.
OMEGALUL!
Do think that radiative heat loss CAN occur between bodies at the same temperature?
No.”
Great. Then it follows logically that the heat loss must be reduced from a cube in the sun, when up close to an identical cube in the sun.
“Now, which cube is the insulator”
The physics is clear. The logic is clear.
Word games can’t change that.
Yes, the physics and logic were clearly expressed here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1675859
You didn’t respond to any of it, past the very first sentence!
But, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say that, just for the sake of argument, you were correct on this in what you described. Even if that were the case, the cubes would warm only if Tim’s account of photon absorp.tion was the correct one. Whereas, if Clint R’s account were correct (or something similar) then obviously the cubes would not warm.
So, we would still be back where we started. With Tim and Clint R’s completely unsupported accounts of photon absorp.tion.
And, I’ve still never experienced two passive objects getting warmer as I bring them closer together in sunlight, I’ve never heard from anyone else who has, and I’ve never read anything suggesting it occurs. So I still have no reason to think Tim’s account is right compared to Clint R’s, which does at least align with experience.
.. other than recently reading textbook 1LOT and 2LOT supplied above which rule out Clint’s account and support Tim’s account.
Ball4 says:
”.. other than recently reading textbook 1LOT and 2LOT supplied above which rule out Clints account and support Tims account.”
——————-
That would not be compliant with accepted engineering standards Ball4. The problem is not with 1lot and 2lot with regards to radiation the problem is you have completely ignored 1lot and 2lot with regards to conduction of heat between objects and its gas environment.
Conduction aided by convection is much more efficient than radiation so any radiant loss of heat or change in loss of heat occurring by radiation is replaced by the environmental temperature lickety split before any response large enough accrued to be read by a common thermometer.
Traditional GHE theory challenges that but S&O shows substituting CO2 in for common air doesn’t do anything material. Of course some might argue the atmosphere is too big for a small experiment. . .but that just means you have no science to support your theory and what science you do have says NO!
Everything Ball4 says and does just makes me more convinced I’m right. He hand waves to “1LoT and 2LoT” when that isn’t even appropriate to what I’m asking for. I’m asking for someone to support either this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1674101
or this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1673566
Specific claims made about photon absorp.tion. I have seen countless similar claims from either side over the years, but I’ve never seen anyone actually support it with any reference. Is it all just made up, or does anyone actually “know” what happens to individual photons?
“But, lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say that, just for the sake of argument, you were correct on this in what you described.”
It seems you are capable of following the facts and logic to where they unequivocally lead.
“Even if that were the case, the cubes would warm only if Tims account of photon absorp.tion was the correct one.”
There is nothing about photons in our discussion of the cubes.
You explicitly agreed that a cube cannot lose heat by radiation to another at the same temperature. This is a fact independent of speculations about ‘photon absorp.tion models’
So I see no relevance.
Bill 12:00am makes up stuff again that DREMT didn’t: “… you have completely ignored 1lot and 2lot with regards to conduction of heat between objects and its gas environment.”
Because there is nil change in atm. convection and conduction effects when the socks are at “either end of the line” then moved “close together in the centre of the line.” The only change is the increased sock thermodynamic internal energy when moved “close together in the centre of the line.” thus socks are warmer consistent with 1LOT and 2LOT.
Bill 12:25 pm already agreed the S&O experiment “doesn’t matter” since its optical path “doesn’t matter.” Good job, Bill. You don’t need to keep discussing S&O anymore like at 12:00 am since in your own written words S&O “doesnt matter” when discussin the atm.
—–
DREMT 2:49 am asks: “does anyone actually “know” what happens to individual photons?”
Good question. A: No, in photon language all sock surfaces are rough. No one knows why if all photons are identical, are then some reflected, some absorbed, and some transmitted by DREMT’s drying socks. This is indeed puzzling; it is in part because for photons imagined as particles of vanishingly small dimensions, all sock surfaces are rough.
Switching to wave language of light sheds much more light on DREMT’s moved sock warming processes. The incident sunlight waves on the socks excite molecules in the socks to radiate secondary waves that combine to form (approximately) a net reflected wave given by the law of reflection, a net transmitted wave given by the law of refraction, and some sock molecules also absorb the incident sunlight waves & reflected sunlight waves given by Kirchhoff law et. al.
Well, according to Clint R’s model, the temperature of the cubes would only rise if:
“The “added energy” MUST have frequency higher than the average of the surface.“
In which case, the energy from the other cube would not have the required frequencies to increase the cube temperature. Only the energy from the Sun would set the temperature of the cubes. Whereas if Tim’s model was correct, the energy from the other cube would be sufficient to “add” to the energy from the Sun.
And yes, l understand your argument, which is not the same thing as agreeing with it.
“Well, according to Clint Rs model, the temperature of the cubes would only rise if:
The added energy MUST have frequency higher than the average of the surface.
In which case, the energy from the other cube would not have the required frequencies to increase the cube temperature.”
First off, you are clearly not understanding what’s going on here.
The other cube is not adding any energy to the cube.
As you and I agreed, no heat can pass between the cubes at the same T.
The only effect of the other cube being near is to reduce heat flow to space.
With that reduction in heat outflow, and a steady inflow of heat from the sun, it obviously gains energy.
Second, deferring to Clint’s authority is unconvincing, no more than if I defer to Ball4s assertions.
Ball4 says:
”Bill 12:00am makes up stuff again that DREMT didnt: ” you have completely ignored 1lot and 2lot with regards to conduction of heat between objects and its gas environment.”
Because there is nil change in atm. convection and conduction effects when the socks are at either end of the line then moved ”close together in the centre of the line.” ”The only change is the increased sock thermodynamic internal energy when moved close together in the centre of the line.” thus socks are warmer consistent with 1LOT and 2LOT.”
—————–
You don’t know what you are talking about Ball 4. for example: 1lot: ”The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of conservation of energy, states that energy can’t be created or destroyed, but it can be transformed from one form to another. In an isolated system, the total amount of energy is constant.”
Radiation within the atmosphere is not an ”isolated system”. You have to realize that what S&O proves is that the heat can be moved by other thermodynamic means. Cubes, socks or whatever on a clothesline do not follow the rules you are arguing for. Likewise the GPE does not work within the atmosphere. You are denying basic science and your arguments vis a vis 1Lot and 2Lot are completely inapplicable to the system being discussed.
In other words all your efforts to do as Nate claims in lieu of experiment to describe the laws of physics as a justification for the greenhouse effect is all 100% hogwash.
Ultimately, unless the energy from the other cube combines with energy from the Sun, in some way, the temperature of the cube will not rise. It actually doesn’t matter how you “dress it up”…whether you say there is less heat loss from the cube because of the presence of the other cube or whether you say the cube gains energy from the other cube more directly, is really immaterial.
And, I’m not deferring to Clint R’s authority. I have been at pains to point out that neither Clint R’s view nor Tim’s view has been supported by any reference. It’s just that Clint R’s view aligns with experience.
> Radiation within the atmosphere is not an isolated system.
Gill got it right – radiation isn’t a system at all.
LOL!
Bill writes 10:26 am: “Radiation within the atmosphere is not an “isolated system”.”
No system within our universe is isolated, Bill. Yet the 1LOT can still be made to apply within our universe & especially applies to the real atm.! Can Bill figure why? I doubt it but maybe Bill can surprise me.
Draw a control volume around the widely separated socks. Incoming across that C.V. to the socks is sunlight in DREMT’s writing. Then move the socks “close together in the centre of the line.” within that C.V. The new reflected sunlight added to each sock within the C.V. increases their thermodynamic internal energy & nothing else is changed. The socks warm by 1LOT consistent with 2LOT.
…
DREMT 10:30 am: “Clint R’s view aligns with experience.”
Where in DREMT’s experience has DREMT encountered an object that Clint imagines at 0K? DREMT hasn’t? I thought so. Tim’s work is correct in DREMT’s experience when using a real object above 0K (1000 units).
Clint R simply displayed his ignorance, immaturity, and incompetence, again, since there exist no real objects at 0K. Clint R’s view can not align with anyone’s experience.
"Clint R’s view can not align with anyone’s experience."
Pretty sure it aligns with everyone’s experience. There’s been millennia of different civilisations, hundreds of years of scientific experiments, and nowhere has anyone ever mentioned this idea that passive objects get warmer when you move them closer together, in sunlight. You’d think it would come up in everyday conversation, otherwise, e.g. "you know how things get warmer when you bring them closer together? Well…"
It’s just "not a thing". Nobody mentions it. It doesn’t appear to happen.
Let me put it this way. I’d say that the average person on the street believes there’s a GHE because it’s what they’ve been taught in school, and it’s because what lots of scientists have said is correct, and it’s not something they have any particular reason to doubt, or necessarily think much about.
If the same people realised that to believe in the GHE, it’s necessary to believe that objects warm up when you bring them closer together, I don’t think you’d have anything like the same number of people believing in the GHE.
"The new reflected sunlight added to each sock within the C.V. increases their thermodynamic internal energy…"
The way Ball4 subtly manipulates the discussion is something pretty special. If you’re talking reflection being responsible for warming, then you’re not talking about anything that relates back to the GHE. For the GHE, you need absorp.tion/emission leading to warming, not reflection.
Right, so your sock example has little to do with a greenhouse, the socks on the line are not even enclosed.
“Pretty sure it aligns with everyone’s experience.”
So DREMT is “pretty sure” everyone has experienced Clint’s imagined object at 0K. Where would Clint’s 0K object exist exactly DREMT?
“it’s necessary to believe that objects warm up when you bring them closer together”
Not necessarily DREMT, there has to be sunlight involved with only added reflected sunlight when they are brought closer together same as in your sock example.
An example in everyday experience, the amount of reflected sunlight varies as the objects are brought closer together thereby with increased warming:
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/young-woman-holds-a-polished-sun-reflector-shield-to-news-photo/613500592?adppopup=true
Ball4, the way you twist and turn it’s difficult to even follow where you’re going, but…
…are you now admitting that, without reflection being involved (so, for example, with "blackbody socks" or "blackbody cubes"), the passive objects don’t warm up when you bring them closer together, in sunlight?
If that’s the case, you’ve wasted an enormous amount of time being in complete agreement with me whilst frantically trying to suggest I’m wrong at the same time…
“Ultimately, unless the energy from the other cube combines with energy from the Sun, in some way, the temperature of the cube will not rise.”
False.
You claimed to understand the argument. Clearly you do not.
If input-output > 0, as in this case, because the output is reduced while the input stays constant, then the body must gain energy and warm. Which is a simple statement of 1LOT.
It takes herculean effort to not understand this simple math. But you manage it.
And of course just above you accepted this same principle at work for the heated Oven when the door is closed
When heat output from the oven dropped, while the input stayed constant you had no problem with the undeniable fact that the oven would warm
“I
t actually doesnt matter how you dress it upwhether you say there is less heat loss from the cube because of the presence of the other cube or whether you say the cube gains energy from the other cube more directly, is really immaterial”
No, because the latter cannot happen, as you agreed!
And, Im not deferring to Clint Rs authority. I have been at pains to point out that neither Clint Rs view nor Tims view has been supported by any reference. Its just that Clint Rs view aligns with experience
"If input-output > 0, as in this case, because the output is reduced while the input stays constant, then the body must gain energy and warm. Which is a simple statement of 1LOT."
You’re talking about heat output from the cubes. How do you believe "heat output" from a cube is reduced if not by receiving energy from the other cube, Nate? It wasn’t receiving energy from the other cube when they were separated, and now they’re much closer together, it is.
So, it does mean that, "ultimately, unless the energy from the other cube combines with energy from the Sun, in some way, the temperature of the cube will not rise".
As usual, I’m correct, and taking a whole load of attitude and nonsense from people for being correct.
DREMT 2:27 pm, your passive sock objects do warm up by 1LOT and 2LOT when you bring them closer together, in sunlight, I understand your difficulty separating that from a greenhouse. Tim didn’t have any difficulty understanding but those who don’t apply 1LOT and 2LOT often & correctly will encounter that difficulty.
That’s it, Ball4…totally evade the question.
“Youre talking about heat output from the cubes. How do you believe “heat output” from a cube is reduced if not by receiving energy from the other cube, Nate?”
You are thinking about the two-way energy flow description of radiative heat transfer.
But the observable fact is that there is no heat flow between objects at the same temperature. You have already conceded this fact.
No heat flow means no net transfer of energy. So no contribution to internal energy can occur.
More "word games" from Nate.
According to your view:
Without the energy from the other cube, the cube temperature is at a temperature set by the Sun (T1).
With the energy from the other cube, as well, the cube temperature is higher than T1.
It doesn’t matter what way you want to "dress it up", Nate. You ultimately have energy from the other cube combining with energy from the Sun, to produce the higher temperature.
That’s not possible according to Clint R’s view of photon absorp.tion, and is possible according to Tim’s view of it.
And, Clint R’s view and Tim’s view on photon absorp.tion is ultimately what this entire thread is about. Sorry for trying to keep you on topic.
Ball4 says:
”Bill writes 10:26 am: Radiation within the atmosphere is not an ”isolated system”.
No system within our universe is isolated, Bill. Yet the 1LOT can still be made to apply within our universe.”
————————-
You guys are a bunch of amateurs that don’t even understand what a system is.
System: ”A system is set of things that are interconnected in ways that result in the generation of identifiable behavioral patterns over time.”
Thus radiative heat transfer between planets and to undefined space is an isolated system of radiation and the 1lot can be applied.
But a 1lot does not apply to a system of purely radiant energy that has conduction and convection colliding with the same molecules where you are trying to conserve energy, like the surface exposed to backradiation.
But you can apply 1lot within the atmosphere if you ”properly” account for conduction and convection in addition to radiation.
That should be obvious to a smart high school physics student.
S&O demonstrates this by showing non-radiative gases conserve energy in the same way that radiation conserves energy. Thus the unique characteristics that you constantly argue for GHG isn’t unique at all and is not responsible for the GHE.
What is responsible for the GHE is water. It is water that changes the lapse rate from adiabatic to relatively dry and to relatively moist in accordance with M&W theory based on observations.
”The adiabatic process for air has a characteristic temperature-pressure curve, so the process determines the lapse rate. When the air contains little water, this lapse rate is known as the dry adiabatic lapse rate.”
“Without the energy from the other cube, the cube temperature is at a temperature set by the Sun (T1).
With the energy from the other cube, as well, the cube temperature is higher than T1.”
Sure, and the first cube sends its energy to the other cube.
Even swap, and no net gain in either block.
Sorry, the gain in energy can only come from the heat source.
And I don’t why this such a problem for you?
The heat source is producing the same amount of energy throughout. The only difference, before and after moving the cubes closer together, is the energy each cube receives from the other. Thus, no matter what way you look at it, unless the energy from the other cube combines with the energy from the Sun, the cube temperature will not increase. I’m not sure why you’re disputing this, Nate, as even Tim agreed it was the case, further up-thread:
“Let’s use a simple concrete situation with simple concrete numbers to make this easier for you. Initially “A” and “B” are far apart in the depths of space. Each is receiving 1000 W of power from the sun, and emitting 1000 W of power to space.
Now bring A and B close together so that 10% of the photons leaving A hit B, and 10% of the photons leaving B hit A. A is receiving 1000 W from the sun and 10% of 1000 W = 100 W from B, but only losing 1000 W. The same is true for B. Both will warm up because they are receiving more than they emit.
Eventually A will become warm enough to emit 1111 W. B receives 10% = 111 W, with the remaining 90% = 1000 W emitted to space. Both A and B are balanced for energy flows. Both A and B are warmer and emitting more photons than originally.“
So, Tim’s example only works if the energy from the other cube adds to the energy from the Sun.
Bill: “Thus radiative heat transfer between planets…”
Bill 7:20 pm, you should know EMR is NOT heat.
Nor is your “between planets” system isolated. Yes, you can apply 1LOT and 2LOT within a planetary atm.
Bill again argues against himself invoking S&O results that Bill earlier correctly noted “doesn’t matter” for the atm.
M&W theory also shows added atm. water (increase in troposphere relative humidity) also increases the surface equilibrium temperature so by invoking M&W Bill also agrees with that physics (see Fig. 11 in their 1967 paper). M&W also discuss effects of added water in the stratosphere e.g. added from supersonic transport aircraft.
“The heat source is producing the same amount of energy throughout. The only difference, before and after moving the cubes closer together, is the energy each cube receives from the other. ”
False. After, the heat lost to space is reduced. And that is what produces the warming.
Why do you always ignore this?
Again, as Tim agrees, input-output > 0. The blocks must warm
Tim’s description doesn’t mention the initial change in heat loss to space in that quote, but he did mention it later:
“If the power is kept constant, but they are placed back to back close to each other. Each has less ability to lose heat, so both will get warmer than before.
Its really not complicated or controversial.”
Gill continues to pontificate with a definition of system from the Mailman School of Public Health.
LOLOLOLO!
Perhaps he could try a thermo textbook? Heres a very simple definition:
https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/notes.pdf
Sky Dragon cranks sure like to overcomplicate things.
“A is receiving 1000 W from the sun and 10% of 1000 W = 100 W from B, but only losing 1000 W. The same is true for B. Both will warm up because they are receiving more than they emit.“
What does the word “and” mean, Nate?
Ball4 says:
Bill: Thus radiative heat transfer between planets
Bill 7:20 pm, you should know EMR is NOT heat.
—————————-
Ball4 is getting desperate here making pointless points. Now he suggests that an object emitting EMR doesn’t lose any heat. One only need to look around at this mo-r-ons posts to see what a liar he is.
Ball4 says:
Nor is your between planets system isolated. Yes, you can apply 1LOT and 2LOT within a planetary atm.
——————–
Again without any point Ball4 now suggests that planets exchange energy via something other than EMR.
Ball4 says:
Bill again argues against himself invoking S&O results that Bill earlier correctly noted doesnt matter for the atm.
—————
Again Ball4 lies and says I said something I never said.
Ball4 says:
M&W theory also shows added atm. water (increase in troposphere relative humidity) also increases the surface equilibrium temperature so by invoking M&W Bill also agrees with that physics (see Fig. 11 in their 1967 paper). M&W also discuss effects of added water in the stratosphere e.g. added from supersonic transport aircraft.
——————–
Yes but M&W theory completely lacks a mechanism for how CO2 does puts water vapor into the sky. Manabe said so that he just used claimed popular science and mathematically demonstrated how to codify that into climate models that don’t work. And of course your handlers showered him with awards and pretend that his codes show how water vapor gets into the atmosphere in the first place.
After all Ball4 you believe that to be a given.
My opinion is that job is done by solar constant variation as the sun does its variable dynamo thing and other celestial objects screw with earth’s orbit around the sun (which is not nor did Milankovitch ever claim was a steady annual change to orbit eccentricity, a bunch of self-serving mo-r-ons made up that part). I have a mechanism you don’t. But we are diverting from what the S$O experiment demonstrates about energy transfer within an atmosphere. . .something so obviously distasteful for you . . .your only argument is a lying claim I also denied the science S&O demonstrated. You are truly a POS.
Nate says:
”Its really not complicated or controversial.”
then why not demonstrate it?
Probably because you would get laughed out of town when folks realized that this doesn’t work in the atmosphere.
“Now he suggests that an object emitting EMR doesn’t lose any heat.”
It doesnt! The object’s total measure of thermodynamic internal energy reduces in magnitude as EMR is emitted and increases in magnitude as EMR is absorbed. There is no change to the object’s thermodynamic energy when the incident EMR is transmitted or reflected.
Planets do exchange energy via EMR Bill, whatever made you write otherwise?
Bill now claims to have not written 12:25 pm about S&O experiment wherein “The optical path doesn’t matter ..” however the internet blog never forgets so Bill is thus easily proven wrong. There is no denying the S&O experiment conformed to 1LOT and 2LOT as does a planetary atm.
“A is receiving 1000 W from the sun and 10% of 1000 W = 100 W from B, but only losing 1000 W. The same is true for B. Both will warm up because they are receiving more than they emit.”
Are you now deferring to Tim’s authority?
If so than you need to quote him saying the reduction in heat loss is what matters.
What he is describing is the mechanism, the 2-way exchange of energy, that accounts for how 0 radiative heat flow occurs between bodies at the same T.
This describes the transaction that accounts for the NET energy transfer, in this case it is 0.
Its like discussing that you bought
a burger that cost $8.85 with a $20 bill, and got $11.15 back in change.
No you did not GAIN $11.15 in that exchange, did you?
Nor did either block GAIN energy from their exchange that resulted in 0 Net.
The key result of bringing them together is the reduction of heat loss to space.
That resulted in a gain in energy from the sun.
Unless the energy from the other cube combines with the energy from the Sun, the cube will not warm. Argue as much semantics as you want, Nate, your “word games” cannot possibly change that reality.
If Tim’s model of photon absorp.tion is correct, the cubes will warm when moved closer together. If Clint R’s model of photon absorp.tion is correct, the cubes will not warm when moved closer together.
Surely you at least understand that? You know…the entire point of this thread…
…please don’t bother coming back with another comment about heat loss being reduced! It is understood, but irrelevant. You don’t have to keep repeating yourself.
Ball4 says:
Now he suggests that an object emitting EMR doesnt lose any heat.
It doesnt! The objects total measure of thermodynamic internal energy reduces in magnitude as EMR is emitted.
—————
So you are arguing that an object doesn’t cool by emitting EMR? You are such a deceiver and liar at the same time you are a POS!
Ball4 says:
Planets do exchange energy via EMR Bill, whatever made you write otherwise?
———————-
Again you lie. I never any such thing. The exchange of energy between planets can be considered an ”isolated system” where you can apply 1lot for the system of EMR exchange because there is not other means of exchanging energy. Again all you are proving here is what a POS you are.
Ball4 says:
”Bill now claims to have not written 12:25 pm about S&O experiment wherein The optical path doesnt matter .. however the internet blog never forgets so Bill is thus easily proven wrong. There is no denying the S&O experiment conformed to 1LOT and 2LOT as does a planetary atm.”
S&O proved the optical path didn’t matter in the exchange of energy between the aluminum plate and the exterior of the box because the energy was transferred by convection when the optical path was blocked by CO2. No significant difference was found in total retained energy by the aluminum plate. so it didn’t matter. Why are you playing so dumb? Is it because you are dumb?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”If Tims model of photon absorp.tion is correct, the cubes will warm when moved closer together. If Clint Rs model of photon absorp.tion is correct, the cubes will not warm when moved closer together.
Surely you at least understand that? You knowthe entire point of this thread”
He will continue to prevaricate on this point because he hasn’t the gumption to demonstrate this as a fact despite a false claim that it isn’t controversial or complicated.
All he does is listen to his daddy without any real understanding or knowledge even of what his daddy is saying.
There is no reason whatsoever to listen to Nate parrot and/or extrapolate from what his Daddy has said all the while failing to produce any substantial evidence.
None of us should ever listen to this rot. Two of the leading atmospheric physicists in the world testified that:
”Our amicus brief found that the Endangerment Findings should be rescinded immediately because they were based on:
1. Speculative theories and not on the scientific method
2. False science based on consensus, fabricated material, and models that dont work
3. Government opinion, not real science
4. Censorship of any science that contradicted their notion of man-made catastrophic warming
In addition, we found that net zero will disastrously reduce food worldwide and eliminate the major source of low-cost energy for the US and people worldwide. ”
And yet Nate continues his parrot act of alleged consensus science that isn’t unanimous.
I am afraid the science community out of greed is rapidly burning through any credibility their predecessors worked so hard to earn for them. Thats a real shame.
“So you are arguing that an object doesn’t cool by emitting EMR?”
The object’s total measure of thermodynamic internal energy reducing in magnitude as EMR is emitted DOES mean the object cools, Bill. Find & read thoroughly a 1st course thermo. book to catch up; I suggest the memoirs by R. Clausius would be a good start. I realize this will take some time.
“I never any such thing.”
Bill can’t write complete sentences as Bill 12:59 pm is so irritated by being shown wrong e.g. writing: “that planets exchange energy via something other than EMR.” Those in quotes are Bill’s written words, not mine.
“S&O proved the optical path didnt matter”
Physically, multiple scattering increases photon path lengths, and the longer the path, the greater the chance of absorp_tion.
So, Bill should never again bring up S&O when discussing Earth’s atm. where the clear sky avg. ~100 km optical path is long enough to matter. Talk about dumb, I bet Bill yet again brings up S&O in discussing our atm. when he already has at least twice now claimed S&O experimental path length “doesnt matter.” Let’s see how long Bill can contain himself.
Gill quotes Dick and Will, two of the biggest daddies of luckwarmers, whom incidentally believe in the greenhouse effect.
ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!
“Unless the energy from the other cube combines with the energy from the Sun, the cube will not warm. Argue as much semantics as you want, Nate”
So the cubes will warm then?
We agree.
Yes, Bill, Nate and Ball4 aren’t to be taken too seriously. Nate stalks me everywhere I comment, apparently desperate to talk to me, then when I finally give him a thread where I agree to respond to his comments, he doesn’t listen to a word I’m saying!
As for Ball4, he’s one of the worst trolls on the blog.
Argue as much semantics as you want, Nate, your word games cannot possibly change that reality.
If Tims model of photon absorp.tion is correct, the cubes will warm when moved closer together. If Clint Rs model of photon absorp.tion is correct, the cubes will not warm when moved closer together.”
So if Clint Rs model is correct exactly what do you think happens when the cubes are together?
Do they still lose heat to the other cube at the same temperature, or not?
Because you already agreed that heat transfer between the cubes at the same temperature IS ZERO.
And if so then there is no change in the results that I can see.
Explain how this leads to them NOT
Not warm.
“So if Clint Rs model is correct exactly what do you think happens when the cubes are together?“
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1676138
Exactly, Nate.
Gill, who bragged for so long about having worked insulating buildings, could help Graham D. Warner understand the difference between heating a cottage and a row house.
But no, he prefers to keep that silly argument going.
> The exchange of energy between planets can be considered an “isolated system”
Gill insists on fumbling the simplest concept. LOL!
The exchange of energy is *not* the proper system to analyze here!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1676159
Ball4 says:
” ”So you are arguing that an object doesnt cool by emitting EMR?”
The objects total measure of thermodynamic internal energy reducing in magnitude as EMR is emitted DOES mean the object cools, Bill. Find & read thoroughly a 1st course thermo. book to catch up; I suggest the memoirs by R. Clausius would be a good start. I realize this will take some time.”
————————
So now Ball4 admits he was lying and now admits he knew all along that EMR was capable of transferring heat and was just lying in order to distract attention away from his own ignorance of thermodynamic systems that have multiple means of transferring heat like earth’s atmosphere.
Ball4 says:
I never any such thing.
Bill cant write complete sentences as Bill 12:59 pm is so irritated by being shown wrong e.g. writing: that planets exchange energy via something other than EMR. Those in quotes are Bills written words, not mine.
S&O proved the optical path didnt matter
——————–
So here again Ball4 admits to lying that I: ” agreed the S&O experiment doesnt matter!
He just lies and lies and only admits he was wrong when somebody catches him red handed. Either that or he is pitifully bad at logic and doesn’t understand anything.
Ball4 says:
Physically, multiple scattering increases photon path lengths, and the longer the path, the greater the chance of absorp_tion.
So, Bill should never again bring up S&O when discussing Earths atm. where the clear sky avg. ~100 km optical path is long enough to matter.
————–
No Ball4 a long optical path produces the same results as a 1 meter optical path when its CO2 coming up with the short optical path as seen in the S&O experiment which means 1) the S&O experiment matters; and 2) the CO2 short optical path does not matter.
Nate can’t seem to bring himself to address the central point here.
”Tim describes one way of looking at it, Clint R describes another.”
He obviously has no way of knowing which is correct or he would not have made 3 dozen posts attempting to avoid the central point.
Probably time for him to shut up.
Gill trusts his daddy Graham to recognize what’s Ze point.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzololzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
He kinda forgets that one description fits in thermo textbooks, whereas Sky Dragon cranks’ have yet to write one single paper.
Willard says:
”Gill trusts his daddy Graham to recognize whats Ze point.”
Oops, Willard lets his German socialist accent pop out into the wild.
Gill believes that Inspecteur Clouseau is German.
loul
Does that make him a germaphobe like teh Donald?
The phonetics sounds a lot more like Gestapo Major Wolfgang Hochstetter of Hogan’s Heroes than Peter Sellers.
If this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1674101
could be found in a “thermo textbook”, I’m sure someone would have linked to it by now.
I already showed DREMT how to link to many such books, even free ones. Such books were of no use to DREMT as they were simply ignored.
—–
Once again Bill writes for the S&O experiment: “the CO2 short optical path does not matter.” Correct for the S&O experiment with an immaterial path length that “doesn’t matter” for an atm.
Because physically, multiple scattering increases photon path lengths, and the longer the path such as in the atm., the greater the chance of absorp_tion thus much higher well mixed CO2 emissivity. The S&O experiment is not in any way physically applicable to CO2 emissivity for a planetary atmosphere, Bill et. al. can justifiably stop referring to S&O.
It’s not my job to find support for your team’s claims, Ball4. Either link to a passage from a text that supports what Tim said about photon absorp.tion, or stop responding. That’s the stage we’re at, now.
“please dont bother coming back with another comment about heat loss being reduced! It is understood, but irrelevant”
Another point understood, GOOD.
But declared irrelevant.
How can it be irrelevant that input-output becomes > 0 if heat loss is reduced?
Standard DREMT, after a long discussion begrudgingly ‘understand’ key points being made by an opponent, then declatre that they don’t matter!
Of course offering no logical rationale.
-Are you denying that solar energy INPUT is the same for blocks apart and brought together?
-Are you denying that when far apart, input – output = 0, for each block?
-Are you denying that if heat loss to space is reduced, that input – output becomes > 0.
-Are you denying that if input-output is > 0 then the blocks gain energy?
– Are you denying that a gain in energy of a block results in it warming?
Give a sound rationale for any denials.
“How can it be irrelevant that input-output becomes > 0 if heat loss is reduced?“
It’s irrelevant what way you “dress it up”, is what I meant, Nate.
“Ultimately, unless the energy from the other cube combines with energy from the Sun, in some way, the temperature of the cube will not rise. It actually doesn’t matter how you “dress it up”…whether you say there is less heat loss from the cube because of the presence of the other cube or whether you say the cube gains energy from the other cube more directly, is really immaterial.”
If you’d been paying attention, you would know that, of course.
This discussion is not about you endlessly reiterating your understanding. It is about whether Tim, or Clint R, is correct about photon absorp.tion.
Surely by now, after being asked countless times, Clint or his supporters would have linked to a textbook source, or any source that agrees with this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1676138
But no.
In contrast, many people have liked to sources that explain and confirm the actual laws of physics, such as Kirchhoff’s Law, and 1LOT, that thoroughly contradict Clint’s made-up physics.
All that promoters of Clint’s fake physics are showing is they cannot tell the difference between real and fake physics.
That should make them pause and think, Why am I arguing about physics with people who don’t have this disability?
But they don’t.
As I’ve said many times, neither Clint R nor Tim have supported their account of photon absorp.tion. Nobody from Team Closed Mind has supported Tim, despite frequent requests. It’s not just this discussion, though…it’s never been supported, as far as I’m aware. Either way.
The difference is that Clint R’s account aligns with experience. Passive objects do not warm up when you bring them closer together, in Sunlight.
I’m sure that Graham D. Warner would have found engineering lecture notes somewhere that he could misinterpret as saying that arriving photons cool a surface or that introducing photons to a surface does not warm it by now.
Sky Dragon cranks are not what they use to be.
I’ve got the entire world’s history of experience on my side, Little Willy. You’ve got Tim’s word.
Two ways for Team Closed Mind to settle the issue:
1) Link to a reference that supports Tim’s account on photon absorp.tion.
2) Conduct an experiment showing that passive objects get warmer when you bring them closer together, in Sunlight.
Otherwise, begone.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”If this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1674101
could be found in a thermo textbook, Im sure someone would have linked to it by now.”
Yep their theory can neither be demonstrated nor can they give a science explanation. They always have missing links. And for all experiments conducted they ignore the fact that 1lot and 2lot also applies to oxygen and nitrogen via conduction of heat being absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface.
Thus they cannot use 1lot and 2lot as a criticism of experiments in gas atmospheres that fail to produce the results they mistakenly expect. . .period. They only do so in complete 100% ignorance.
DREMT 9:38 am now believes “the entire world’s history of experience” shows the 1LOT is wrong & thus as used by Tim is wrong. No, it is DREMT that is wrong.
I’ve already shown DREMT how to link to a reference of DREMT’s choosing that supports Tim’s account on photon absorp.tion but DREMT chooses to ignore all those textbooks.
I’ve also linked to an experiment that DREMT can easily replicate showing that passive objects get warmer when you bring them closer together, in Sunlight. DREMT ignored that too.
Not the blog’s job to educate DREMT; the blog commenters can & do point out where DREMT is wrong about basic science.
Ball4 claims to have posted links that ”supports” his ideas-whatever that means. But I suppose he can’t find any of them now.
Ball4 says:
Now he suggests that an object emitting EMR doesnt lose any heat.
It doesnt!
——————–
Still waiting for a link on this too. Thats 3 links minimum Ball4 you claim exist but you haven’t produced in this thread yet you participate here.
“Ultimately, unless the energy from the other cube combines with energy from the Sun, in some way, the temperature of the cube will not rise.”
You are simply ignoring the plain and simple alternative, that is supported by facts and logic that you cannot explain away.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1676490
I dont think you get the difference between established facts and logic, and pure assertion, which is what this is.
Pure assertion that ignores contradictory facts and logic is not evidence of anything!
Nobody from Team Closed Mind has supported Tim, despite frequent requests. Its not just this discussion, thoughits never been supported, as far as Im aware”
Its like all your other missing experiences, you must not have been paying attention throughout all the discussions of Kirchhoffs law and. 1LOT, and their implications!
Tim assumed that by now, you all would know these laws!
And throughout all the many debunking of Clint’s photon nonsense, you must not have paid attention.
Gill and Graham has the entire world’s history of experience about photons on their side… As Innus would say, ROFL!
Sky Dragon cranks say the darnedest things.
Bill is “Still waiting for a link” that an object emitting EMR doesn’t lose any heat.
Waiting? Poor Bill 10:11 am should realize that one I have not yet shown how to find a link for in this sub-thread; search google string: clausius 1st memoir
Nate says:
You are simply ignoring the plain and simple alternative, that is supported by facts and logic that you cannot explain away.
I dont think you get the difference between established facts and logic, and pure assertion, which is what this is.
Pure assertion that ignores contradictory facts and logic is not evidence of anything!
————————-
I agree that Clint’s belief is only an assertion.
But DREMT has been waiting for you to present a link to the facts that supports your logic that Clint is wrong.
You stomping your feet and claiming such facts exist without producing explicit evidence of Clint being wrong simply doesn’t wash just because you think your logic is solid. Logic is like computer models. Garbage in, Garbage out. The logic may be solid but thats completely conditional upon the fact you believe to exist being solid. So give us the link.
We gave you S&O where 15microns backradiation was measured and it didn’t have the impact you claim it has. So we are patiently waiting for you to produce your facts. The fact you don’t have such facts are clear or you would not be relying on false claims of violations of 1lot and 2lot in the S&O experiment. And the really sad part of this even if you could prove Tim was right you haven’t moved any closer to proving the cause of the GHE.
Ball4 isn’t doing an iota better than you. He is arguing that S&O’s optical pathway out of the box wasn’t long enough, but he has not built a bigger box to see if the error increases. After all the slight warming detected by S&O was within the room temperature variation during the experiment. Build a box with a much longer pathway, repeat the experiment keeping the room variation the same and see if the difference increases. But still patiently waiting on that too.
Poor Bill now requests a box 1m long be built alongside a box 100 km long for Bill to “see if the difference increases.” Many (most?) of Bill’s 3rd graders can determine that without building anything, but we’ll let Bill build them for himself & inspect to determine how much longer one is than the other for Bill’s enlightenment.
“You are simply ignoring the plain and simple alternative…”
No, Nate. Whether you describe it as a reduction in heat loss, or describe it directly as the energy from the other cube combining with the energy from the Sun (as Tim did), that cube temperature is not going to increase unless the energy from the other cube adds to the energy from the Sun! It’s like talking to a brick wall.
Little Willy, I made it clear what I meant, here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1676159
Don’t twist my words.
Ball4…your dishonesty has reached fever pitch.
These people are just disgusting.
As to all the rest of Nate’s nonsense, in this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1676519
Provide a link to support Tim’s claims on photon absorp.tion, do the experiment on passive objects being brought closer together, or begone.
It just gets so boring.
Already provided DREMT the link to “the experiment on passive objects being brought closer together” supporting “Tim’s claims on photon absorp.tion” but DREMT ignores it & won’t do the experiment to learn for himself. Right, it is boring repeatedly reading DREMT is stuck.
What, the suntan reflector thing? So, what are the two objects, the suntan reflector and the person’s face? And bringing them closer together causes both “objects” to warm up via a process that doesn’t involve reflection, does it!?
You’re a filthy, dishonest sack of human garbage, Ball4.
Graham D. Warner clarifies what he means by experience: not having ever seen P.
Step 1 – Pure Denial.
Step 2 – Sammich Request.
Sky Dragon cranks always play these semantic games.
Nobody has ever seen P in human history. You all gaslight by trying to suggest it is commonplace or something, whilst shifting the goalposts constantly as to what P is. I have been perfectly clear throughout.
DREMT 2:25 pm your socks are sunlight reflectors, too. Upon being moved closer together, your socks dry faster with more absorbed sunlight reflection as in the link I provided.
I already told you that if reflection is the cause of any warming, then it’s not the effect we are looking for. The effect we are looking for is as a result of absorp.tion/emission only, and not reflection. So what do you do? You keep mentioning reflection!
Since you’re a filthy, dishonest sack of human garbage who’s intent is only, and always, to irritate.
DREMT is on record “looking for” & demanding: “experience dictates that there will be no difference in drying time. If you think there will be…demonstrate it!”
The link I provided does “demonstrate it” since can’t physically restrict drying time to eliminate sunlight reflection in your own real example as written, DREMT.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1675939
“That cube temperature is not going to increase unless the energy from the other cube adds to the energy from the Sun! Its like talking to a brick wall.”
Where is the logic of that?
Why do you get to completely ignore the OUTPUT, knowing full well that the energy input minus output determines the gain or loss of energy of an object?
A is receiving 1000 W from the sun and 10% of 1000 W = 100 W from B, but only losing 1000 W. The same is true for B. Both will warm up because they are receiving more than they emit.
Yes you can think of it this way. But because “the same is true for B” the blocks are symmetric, there can be NET energy gain or loss from this equal exchange between the blocks.
Because as we know very well: There can be no heat flow between blacks at the same temperature.
Then what has changed? Each block is now only losing 900 W of heat to space.
Because 100 W each is now being sent to
the other block.
The total heat loss to space is reduced to 1800 W.
However you think of it, this must be the result.
.You seem to be suggesting that because of some other commenters photon model, this does not happen.
But that makes no sense. Because no heat is allowed to flow between the blocks as you agreed.
Correction
“there can be no NET energy gain or loss from this equal exchange between the blocks”
Nate says, “where’s the logic?” and then demonstrates it for himself that whatever way you look at it, energy from the other cube has to combine with energy from the Sun!
You couldn’t make it up.
In case there was any doubt, here’s the moment from his own version of events where Nate reveals that what I’m saying has been correct all along:
“Because 100 W each is now being sent to the other block.”
Will he acknowledge that all his accusations were false? Of course not!
I clearly said that is one way to look at it.
The part you always fail to grasp, is that no NET energy flows between the blocks.
I dont why you have trouble understanding that with no NET energy flow between the blocks that NO ENERGY GAIN can result from it!
ZERO is 0!
The only change in NET energy flow was in the heat loss of both blocks to space
The total heat loss to space from both blocks is reduced from 2000 W to 1800 W.
I dont see any logic to denying this.
The part you always confuses you, is that no NET energy flows between the blocks, before or after bringing them together.
The blocks far apart no net energy flows between the blocks, but 100 more Watts is emitted from each block to space.
Bringing them together, the emitted 100 W is now sent to the other block, which RETURNS the favor!
Hence no NET transfer, ie no HEAT flow between them ever occurs.
So no internal energy is gained by this.
1lOT states that internal energy will ONLY increase with HEAT input or work. No work done here.
.
Nate still does not get it! Read what I quoted again, Nate.
So as a result this premise you keep making
“energy from the other cube has to combine with energy from the Sun!”
can never happen.
But its a red herring, because what can happen is the reduction in heat output to space.
IMO, the easiest way to think of what the nearby block does, is to block the emission of heat to space.
This is the same as standing near an open freezer, feeling cold because you are losing heat to it.
Then close the freezer door. Your skin now warms..because the room temperature door has blocked your heat loss to the freezer.
This is an experience that we all have had.
This quote, Nate:
“Because 100 W each is now being sent to the other block.”
It’s from the section of your comment when you were describing the “reduction in heat loss” account for the twentieth time. Obviously, without the energy that is “sent to the other block” combining with the energy from the Sun, the other block will not warm.
Now, please…repeat yourself some more.
You want me to read again what I have already addressed multiple times and agreed is one way to look at it?
The problem, as always is that you always fail to address what is the NET RESULT either way you look at it:
The total heat loss to space from both blocks is reduced from 2000 W to 1800 W.
The total heat gain from the sun to both continues to be 2000 W.
This is an imbalance of 200 W. And results in warming.
No photon models are needed.
When are you going to address this?
“You want me to read again what I have already addressed multiple times and agreed is one way to look at…”
Incorrect. See my previous comment.
“Obviously, without the energy that is sent to the other block”
Yes the other block intercepts it, preventing it from going to space!
But the other block also emits energy that is intercepted by the first
Net exchange 0.
So 0 energy
“combining with the energy from the Sun”
changes nothing, in ordinary math!
The only change is energy has been ‘preventing it from going to space!’
The heat loss has changed.
What would happen in your “heat loss reduction” account if each cube was not receiving energy from the other?
That receipt of energy is occurring alongside receipt of energy from the Sun. Ultimately, unless that energy combines at the cube’s surface, it will not warm.
I cannot make it any clearer.
Ball4 says:
”Poor Bill now requests a box 1m long be built alongside a box 100 km long for Bill to see if the difference increases. Many (most?) of Bills 3rd graders can determine that without building anything, but well let Bill build them for himself & inspect to determine how much longer one is than the other for Bills enlightenment.”
Yep you are at the 3rd grade level Ball4 its good you recognize that.
Extrapolation isn’t science if you think that CO2 traps heat in a way that it can force the surface you need to clearly demonstrate that.
the CO2 chamber was .7 meters long and if the hanging of your hat is on the short length of the cabinet instead of the CO2 concentration as stated by modtran and which you are disputing you have gone entirely into another realm.
A realm in fact held by many skeptics that the GHE increases by size of the total atmosphere not by CO2 concentration. Venus has a surface pressure 93 times that of earth meaning it has a much longer optical path so apparently you have become a skeptic and you just don’t know it yet.
Nate continues to pound the table with stuff he has extrapolated from his very limited science education and can’t link us to any scientific evidence of the claims he is making.
And now Gill pretends that Ned’s crap is the prevalent view among contrarians. Yet even amongst cranks he holds a minority viewpoint.
LOL!
No Willard. I didn’t express the ridiculous idea that skeptics had a unified view.
You need to brush up on your reading comprehension Willard. Contrarians are only people that don’t go along with the ”popular” view. One cannot even say your view is the popular view considering so many ascribe to your viewpoint simply because they are joiners and really are doing it to be a loyal party member but still drive fossil fueled vehicles.
Any way I don’t even know who Ned is.
And now Gill backtracks – when he said “many skeptics,” he was only referring to more than one. Yet he’s still trying to include the cranks among contrarians.
ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Willard’s reading comprehension continues to plague him.
Technically, many can be two. But some think 2 is a couple, few is about 3, and many more than a few. With Willard trying to read between the lines to say something he thinks is relevant appears to be getting the the level of desperation.
Technically, Gill shrunk his previous bandwagon to a handful of cranks. Perhaps not know who Ned is makes him unfit to be the official crank counter.
LOL!
Bill 9:19 am now abandons the S&O ~1m path length since: “Extrapolation isn’t science if you think that CO2 traps heat in a way that it can force the surface you need to clearly demonstrate that.”
That was clearly demonstrated in 1860 in the lab, reported in 1861, and confirmed for our atm. few decades ago. Bill remains at the 3rd grader level in doing his homework researching library archives. Venus’ atm. was actually in situ measured in the last millennium confirming measurements in the lab, in the wild, & basic theory.
Sure we know from over a century ago that CO2 absorbs EMR. Traps? Well seems likely for at least a microsecond give or take some. What wasn’t part of those experiments or any other you are aware of is where that energy goes next or how long it takes to get there.
I realize at your level of physics that doesn’t matter to you but it does matter to a real scientist.
Ill just repeat the point that debunks your false narrative:
“So 0 energy combining with the energy from the Sun changes nothing, in ordinary math!”
because you keep ignoring it.
“What would happen in your heat loss reduction account if each cube was not receiving energy from the other?”
That energy is clearly intercepted by the other cube and prevented from being lost to space.
The other block, being the same temperature, is shielding the first block from the cold of space, just as the freezer door shields a person from the cold of the freezer.
“That energy is clearly intercepted by the other cube…”
…along with energy from the Sun. Unless the energy combines at the cube surface, the cube will not warm.
Nate is the most stubborn commenter on the planet.
Before the cubes are brought closer together, each cube emits energy from all six sides. After being brought closer together, each cube emits energy from all six sides.
This is not about energy emission.
This is about energy received.
Hence it is a question of which photon absorp.tion model is appropriate.
It doesn’t even need to be quite as “extreme” as Clint R’s model. Just something where the energy from the other cube lacks the frequencies to raise the temperature of the cube beyond what the Sun can raise it to.
It will still match what we experience in real life, where bringing passive objects closer together in Sunlight does not make those objects warm up.
… when the 1LOT, 2LOT, and experimental evidence to the contrary is ignored.
…lies Ball4.
No, all the science evidence has been provided to DREMT who ignores it for political purposes.
…said Ball4, blatantly lying again.
Ball4 says:
” when the 1LOT, 2LOT, and experimental evidence to the contrary is ignored.”
Ball4 resorts back to lying is going to make the invalid 1LOT claim that he knows is invalid using radiation as the sole means of energy transfer in a complex non-thermodynamically isolated system.
And he also knows experiments show exactly the opposite of what he is claiming where the aluminum plate (nice replacement for a cube) intercepts IR but doesn’t warm.
And he has no experiment to prove the disposition of the energy intercepted by the co2 in Tyndall’s experiment as heat.
All Tyndall proved was some energy did not continue to travel in a straight line to the end of his tube. . .which of course is actually a no brainer if you put an opaque object in the path of photons. . .but these guys feel they can then extrapolate that the cubes will warm in all circumstances and have no measurements of that being true.
Bill, you may not have noticed, there is radiative, conductive, and convective energy transfer operating all the time as DREMT’s socks are in motion. Only radiative energy transfer increases as the sock view of sunlight reflection increases and DREMT makes no mention of air temperature increase. Once the socks are moved together, they are warmer by 1LOT & as required by 2LOT. The experimental evidence is available in this thread. Bill also chooses to ignore it for political reasons.
There is no hope for Bill’s described reasoning on the aluminum plate not warming (nor cooling) in the process to be correct as that violates 2LOT as would the socks not warming. Experiment shows Bill is wrong.
Bill writing “And he has no experiment to prove the disposition of the energy intercepted by the co2 in Tyndall’s experiment as heat.” is not even wrong; once Bill gets irritated when shown wrong, Bill can’t write complete sentences. Tyndall’s thermometer temperature increased due to added gas IR opacity illuminated in his tube.
Bill doesn’t understand Tyndall’s setup since there is no “opaque object in the path of photons” employed so Bill is wrong there too.
Bill goes out on called strikes.
Gill claims that “we know from over a century ago that CO2 absorbs EMR.” Perhaps he should tell Sky Dragon cranks the good news.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLLL
Ball4 is still talking about reflection! Talk about missing the point…
…and Little Willy apparently believes there is anyone who argues that CO2 doesn’t absorb EMR!
Two of the worst on the blog.
Reflection is THE only change in energy transfer in your example DREMT, conductive and convective transfer have nil change. The socks warm from more sunlight upon being moved closer together just as in the experiment I linked with nil change in the other two modes.
Now DREMT 12:33 pm agrees there is earthen 33K because DREMT agrees CO2 and thus H2O “absorb EMR” as the path length is long enough over S&O as Bill has just learned.
“Reflection is THE only change in energy transfer in your example DREMT…”
Great, we’re in agreement then. No change due to absorp.tion/emission, only reflection means Tim’s model of photon absorp.tion is wrong, and Clint R’s (or something similar) is right.
I will ignore the rest of your trolling.
“This is not about energy emission.”
And never has been. From my side it has always been about HEAT emission.
In Tim’s scenario, the blocks emit 2000 W of heat to space and 0 to each other when far apart.
And when together, the blocks emit only 1800 W of heat to space, and still 0 to each other.
And in both instances 2000 W input from the sun.
How can that obvious reduction in heat emitted to space be irrelevant?
Speaking of ‘experience’ have you ever felt cold when surrounded by a cold environment?
The get shielded from that environment by a room temp surface?
Most of us have, and experienced the warming effect of that.
It is plainly obviously that replacing any part of cold surroundings with not cold surroundings will have a warming effect.
In my experience.
Photons emitted from the cubes don’t “know” whether they represent a transfer of “heat” or merely “EMR”, Nate.
Before the cubes are brought closer together, all six sides of the cubes emit.
After the cubes are brought closer together, all six sides of the cubes still emit.
There is no change in emission of energy (EMR)
The only change can possibly be through receipt of energy (EMR).
So, regardless of how obsessively you continue to try to dress it up, Nate, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, over and over and over again…unless the energy received from the other cube combines with the energy received from the Sun, the cube will not warm.
“It is plainly obviously that replacing any part of cold surroundings with not cold surroundings will have a warming effect.”
Space is pretty much a vacuum, Nate.
Want to relate things to real life experiences? Conduct the experiment to show passive objects warming as you bring them closer together, in sunlight (no mirrors allowed, obviously).
Or, provide a link supporting Tim’s model of photon absorp.tion.
Or, please stop trolling.
Ball4 says:
Bill, you may not have noticed, there is radiative, conductive, and convective energy transfer operating all the time as DREMTs socks are in motion.
————————-
Wrong! No need for the air or socks to be in motion. Molecules are constantly in motion.
Ball4 says:
Only radiative energy transfer increases as the sock view of sunlight reflection increases and DREMT makes no mention of air temperature increase.
————–
Wrong! There is no energy transfer between the socks when they are at the same temperature, i.e. the temperature of their environment.
Ball4 says:
Once the socks are moved together, they are warmer by 1LOT & as required by 2LOT.
———————-
The socks are presumed to be the same temperature your wrong statement above leads you astray here too.
There is no 1LOT or 2LOT issue here at all and you have not fully accounted for the thermodynamic system essentially by not even beginning to describe the thermodynamic much less quantifying it.
Run a real experiment, as opposed to the one you imagine, and come back with as comprehensive of measurements as S&O did and show us where exactly you claim S&O got the wrong results and what you did differently to prove that.
Then and only then will you get my attention. But you have zero credibility. we know nothing about you or Nate. You may as well be an anonymous political activist source with no resume.
You need to come up with the evidence not speculative results.
Thats especially true when you have leading and highly esteemed atmospheric scientists saying in sworn testimony:
”Our amicus brief found that the Endangerment Findings should be rescinded immediately because they were based on:
1. Speculative theories and not on the scientific method
2. False science based on consensus, fabricated material, and models that dont work
3. Government opinion, not real science
4. Censorship of any science that contradicted their notion of man-made catastrophic warming
In addition, we found that net zero will disastrously reduce food worldwide and eliminate the major source of low-cost energy for the US and people worldwide. ”
What do you have to refute what these guys spent a lifetime living while rising to the highest levels in understanding?
Answer is obviously nothing as DREMT pointed out above.
Lets talk sensibly here. You suggest this effect that you think is sustainable. Tyndall only proved that the light was intercepted and didn’t run in a single direction unimpeded. We all agree on that.
Its the disposition of the energy that is important to warm the earth system a single CO2 molecule in intercepting some photons and having say an energy count of 1 unit of energy per molecule must warm thousands, if not millions, of times the number of molecules before a single one of these photons are lost to space in order to produce modtran surface results they project. That of course is completely absurd even if cold stuff can force warmer stuff to warm.
So you guys incessantly argue that this is going to be the result without a single demonstration or experiment that shows the typical disposition of the energy of any photons moving between socks or the atmosphere and the surface or anything even remotely like that.
In other words Dr. Happer’s and Dr. Lindzen’s amicus brief is spot on. And you, Nate, Tim and the others are all hacks.
DREMT 1:02 pm makes yet another mistake: “No change due to absorp.tion/emission, only reflection”
No, DREMT can’t parse correctly. Nil change in conductive and convective energy transfer as the socks are moved while the incident added reflected sunlight means added radiative sunlight energy transfer so the socks absorb EMR & warm by 1LOT, 2LOT, and the experiment linked above that DREMT ignores.
I will correct the rest of DREMT’s comments when needed.
DREMT 1:49 pm demands: “provide a link supporting Tim’s model of photon absorp.tion.”
Already showed DREMT how to do so for supporting Tim’s model.
—–
Bill claims 1:57 pm: “No need for the air or socks to be in motion…The socks are presumed to be the same temperature…Run a real experiment” when DREMT put the socks in motion, presumed no such thing as same temperature in his socks thought experiment, and I’ve already linked DREMT to the experimental evidence.
Bill is really hopelessly lost: DREMT’s socks in motion are not an “endangerment” to anyone. Bill, though, IS an endangerment to 1LOT, 2LOT, and experimental evidence.
Good 2:10 pm, we all agree about the earthen 33K since it’s now agreed “the light was intercepted and didn’t run in a single direction unimpeded.” (Bill’s confirming words). Nice.
No, Ball4, you misunderstood. Do you ever pay any attention to what other people are discussing, or are you just triggered by keywords that you scan for like some sort of bot?
The entire point of the “passive objects being moved closer together in sunlight” example is that according to Tim, and Nate, they are supposed to each warm due to EMR being absorbed that has not been reflected, but simply emitted, by the nearby object, in combination with energy from the Sun. So, it is the addition of radiation from the now closer object, plus the radiation from the Sun, that is supposed to combine to warm each object above the temperature it would be at just due to the Sun alone.
Nothing to do with each object absorbing additional reflected sunlight. OK?
“Already showed DREMT how to do so for supporting Tim’s model.”
You just said to Google for a textbook on radiation, Ball4. That sort of hand waving doesn’t even impress Little Willy. It just makes me more convinced than ever that you’ve got nothing.
5:38 PM: OK?
No, of course not, Tim did not write “has not been reflected”, DREMT did & only imagines that Tim did.
What Tim DID write: “So when warm B (say sock on left warmed by sunlight) is brought close to heated A (say sock on right in sunlight), A’s surroundings get warmer, so A gets warmer.” and thus, as Tim points out (from textbook 1LOT, 2LOT and experiments) the socks are warmer and dry faster when DREMT does this: “put them close together in the centre of the line.”
Did DREMT pay any attention & go back research what other people are actually discussing? Use quotes.
5:47 pm: Pick any textbook of your choice (the free one(s)?) from the list, DREMT, they will all educate you the same about 1LOT, 2LOT and experimental evidence: the socks will warm by increased radiative energy transfer as Tim effectively points out when you “put them close together in the centre of the line.” since convective and conductive changes in energy transfer are nil (and radiative energy transfer is not nil) for DREMT’s expressed situation.
Let’s talk sensibly here. When Gill mentions the “disposition of the energy,” it’s obvious he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Unless he knows what’s a disposition concept?
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Ball4 says:
when DREMT put the socks in motion, presumed no such thing as same temperature in his socks thought experiment, and Ive already linked DREMT to the experimental evidence.
———————-
No you didn’t the only like I saw was to Tyndall and he didn’t prove that. All you are doing is lying. If you want to claim otherwise prove it.
Gill goes for the usual switcheroo. Let’s make him learn how silly it is by doing-
He’s a unicorn. If he disagrees, let him prove otherwise.
Right here, Ball4:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1674528
Pay closer attention, next time. It has nothing to do with reflected light from the Sun.
Ball4’s words were quite clear:
“Reflection is THE only change in energy transfer in your example DREMT…”
With those words, he conceded the entire debate. Whether he realises that, or not.
Thanks, Ball4.
“Photons emitted from the cubes dont know whether they represent a transfer of heat or merely EMR, Nate.”
Warming of the cubes is only dependent on Heat gain.
All the furniture in the room are emitting. None are gaining heat, and thus none are warming.
Because they are all at the same temperature. They are in equibrium.
So EMR emission by itself tells you nothing.
Only T differences drive heat flow.
Sorry, Captain Repetitive, Ball4 has conceded the entire debate. It’s over.
“It is plainly obviously that replacing any part of cold surroundings with not cold surroundings will have a warming effect.
Space is pretty much a vacuum, Nate.”
So what. You and I everybody have been relying on the fact that objects in space can cool, lose heat to space.
Whereas objects cannot cool by losing heat to another object at the same temperature!
And that is precisely the change that occurs when the blocks come together, that produces a reduction in heat loss.
It’s quite basic. What’s so difficult?
“Ball4 has conceded the entire debate. Its over.”
Oh? He was appointed as the judge?
Riiiight…
This is how simple it is, Captain Repetitive:
There is absolutely no change in the amount of EMR emitted.
Thus any changes in “heat” must be a result of changes in EMR received.
Thus it is a question of which photon absorp.tion model is correct.
Ball4 has since conceded the entire debate.
It’s over.
In DREMT’s link 12:10 am, again Tim did not write “has not been reflected” so DREMT demonstrates with his own link being wrong at 5:38 pm.
For an obvious reason DREMT leaves out of his 12:40 am clip as I and Tim point out: “The socks warm from more sunlight upon being moved closer together just as in the experiment I linked with nil change in the other two modes.” of energy transfer being convective and conductive.
DREMT simply imagines any concession. The 1LOT, 2LOT, and experimental evidence being all provided prove DREMT is wrong in ignoring them.
DREMT’s socks warm with added radiative transfer of sunlight when moved “close together in the centre of the line” given nil change in conduction and convection.
He didn’t have to actually write the words “has not been reflected”, Ball4. The fact is, if you read the comment I linked to, it is exactly as I explained to you. It is the addition of radiation from the now closer object, plus the radiation from the Sun, that is supposed to combine to warm each object above the temperature it would be at just due to the Sun alone. Nothing to do with each object absorbing additional reflected sunlight. If he had meant the example to be about each object absorbing additional reflected sunlight, he would have said so. He didn’t.
Your words are a concession because if “reflection is THE only change in energy transfer” in the example then you’re admitting there is no change due to the addition of (not reflected) IR radiation from the now closer object. Thus Clint R’s model of photon absorp.tion must be the correct one.
It’s OK, you won’t understand. Certainly nobody expects any honesty from you.
DREMT now concludes (as Tim writes) the addition of radiation (radiative energy transfer with nil convective and conductive energy transfer) from the now closer object which consists of both reflected sunlight and emitted LW from the now closer socks.
The emitted long wave is exchanged between socks at the same temperature when moved “close together in the centre of the line” so there can be no warming from that part of the radiative transfer process due to 1LOT but the 2LOT is satisfied because each isolated LW exchange process produces entropy.
All this is explained by the 1LOT, 2LOT textbooks (some for free) I showed DREMT how to find and the experiment to which I linked. DREMT simply continues ignoring all the evidence.
I et. al. wouldn’t have to keep explaining all this in detail to DREMT if DREMT would take time (or had taken time in the past) to learn from the evidence provided.
DREMT’s socks warm with added radiative transfer of sunlight when moved “close together in the centre of the line” given nil change in conductive and convective energy transfer.
“The emitted long wave is exchanged between socks at the same temperature when moved “close together in the centre of the line” so there can be no warming from that part of the radiative transfer process due to 1LOT”
Ball4 now concedes the argument even more directly. That is precisely the part that Tim et al claim to be the cause of all the warming they believe would occur. The exchanged emitted LW radiation combined with the (not reflected) radiation from the Sun.
Though Ball4 is still mentioning reflected sunlight when it is not, and has never been, intended to be part of the example.
Oh well.
Ball4 participates in a completely disorganized retreat while clinging desperately to NIL change in conduction and convection.
This is a ridiculous conversation interspersed with unaccounted for and impossible premises. Quite simply in our climate system you can’t warm something without a convection response and Ball4 wants to drive this by putting the cart before the horse. A pretty good explanation why ”popular” government is far inferior to the scientific method and capitalists who are risking their own money.
Meanwhile we have Nate bragging about how much more wind and solar energy is being produced while ignoring the bags of cash of our money the government is handing out and buying loyalty from the recipients and ignoring the inflation effects on the population.
The only thing we are dealing with regards to CO2 realistically is rampant corruption. And the real scientists Roy, Richard, and William whose opinions on this all agree and they all are far more qualified than the blabbermouths on this blog.
Gill rants about accountability whence his fence sitting on the greenhouse effect amounts to double accounting.
LOL!
Tim’s point is quite simple:
Six photons in total. None reflected. All absorbed.
Graham D. Warner is the scummiest scum of the Earth.
So support it with a reference.
Or, do the experiment.
It’s OK that Graham D. Warner plays dumb.
Certainly nobody expects any honesty from him.
“(LW) is precisely the part that Tim et al claim to be the cause of all the warming they believe would occur.”
DREMT 9:41 am still gets it wrong yet again by not quoting Tim.
Tim 3:00 pm explicitly wrote above there is no cause of LW warming: “By getting absorbed (say from the sock on the right), those photons add energy to the object (say sock on the left), and those photons cease to exist. The object (on the left) independently emits new thermal IR photons based on its (sock on left) own temperature. Two separate processes.”
Same temperature objects (sock on right and sock on left) can’t warm each other by 1LOT in radiative transfer thru their own LW, they simply exchange the energy producing entropy in the real process consistent with 2LOT.
DREMT’s socks still warm with added radiative transfer of sunlight when moved “close together in the centre of the line” given nil change in conductive and convective energy transfer.
I et. al. wouldn’t have to keep explaining all this in detail to DREMT if DREMT would take time (or had taken time in the past) to learn from the evidence provided.
Bill 9:46 am tries telling a whopper: “Quite simply in our climate system you can’t warm something without a convection response..”
Bill should learn why his statement is wrong from the earthen stratosphere where there is nil convection while the air there is warmed to a constant temperature (higher than space) from above by sunlight.
“There is absolutely no change in the amount of EMR emitted.
Thus any changes in heat must be a result of changes in EMR received”
Sure, it is the Net of EMR emitted and received from surroundings that determines heat emitted (loss).
But your mistake is thinking that surroundings are a heat source, that is providing the heat to the blocks.
If surroundings are colder or the same temperature they cannot be a heat source, by 2LOT.
All the surroundings can do, by changing from, cold to equal T, is reduce the loss of heat.
The heat flow is NEVER reversed. But you always try to promote that strawman.
Don’t try and turn that around on me, Little Willy. Ball4’s prolonged dishonesty display on this thread has been unbelievable.
Nate, the cube won’t warm unless EMR from the other cube combines with the EMR from the Sun. I’ve explained that now in enough ways, and in enough detail, that it’s impossible for you to be genuinely not understanding.
In which case, our discussion is through.
Ball4 repeats his concession. Nothing new.
Graham D. Warner could have acknowledged that B4 was right about Tim’s point. No, he has to bait with his silly sammich request. As if “all of humanity” had any direct experience with what happens with six photons. And in parallel he’s trying to sidestep Nate’s point it is the NET amount that matters with some silly if-by-whiskey “unless EMR from the other cube combines with the EMR from the Sun,” as if the anything else than the only energy source in the thought experiment could produce energy…
What a scumbag!
Just to prove I’ve been correct in everything I’ve said, and Ball4 has been incorrect, here is part of the comment from Tim that I linked to:
“Let’s use a simple concrete situation with simple concrete numbers to make this easier for you. Initially “A” and “B” are far apart in the depths of space. Each is receiving 1000 W of power from the sun, and emitting 1000 W of power to space.
Now bring A and B close together so that 10% of the photons leaving A hit B, and 10% of the photons leaving B hit A. A is receiving 1000 W from the sun and 10% of 1000 W = 100 W from B, but only losing 1000 W. The same is true for B. Both will warm up because they are receiving more than they emit.”
No mention of reflected sunlight. He argued that the exchange of LW radiation between A and B, coupled with the direct (not reflected) radiation from the Sun, would cause the objects to warm.
“As if “all of humanity” had any direct experience with what happens with six photons.“
I never said they did, Little Willy. Try to debate honestly, or don’t bother debating at all. Your other lies fall apart in light of my last comment.
DREMT 12:34 pm is not correct since I already showed DREMT that Tim did not write “has not been reflected” so, in nature, of Tim’s 10% of the photons leaving A (sock on right) hit B (sock on left) about 5% are reflected sunlight and 95% emitted LW. “Both will warm up” contrary to DREMT’s position which is shown to be wrong by 1LOT, 2LOT and experiment.
DREMT would know this if DREMT had not ignored ALL of the textbooks to which I pointed him and ignoring the experiment to which I linked.
Graham D. Warner has the nerve to quote “Each is receiving 1000 W of power from the sun, and emitting 1000 W of power to space,” which defeats whatever point he might think he had against Nate.
And I already showed that he is a dishonest scumbag.
A scumbag!
Ball4:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1677280
Little Willy, the sentence you have quoted defeats nothing, since all are in agreement up to that point. You really are funny.
Also note that Ball4 clearly said, “reflection is THE only change in energy transfer…” yet now writes that it’s 5% reflected sunlight and 95% emitted LW.
Hilariously dishonest.
May Little Willy’s and Ball4’s dishonesty display continue long into the night.
unless EMR from the other cube combines with the EMR from the Sun, as if the anything else than the only energy source in the thought experiment could produce energy
What a scumbag!”
Yep. And one that thinks combining a number with 0 changes the number, somehow.
It’s not zero LW EMR received by each individual cube, Nate. Each individual cube receives a non-zero amount of LW EMR from the other cube, and a non-zero amount of EMR from the Sun, and unless those two amounts add at the receiving cube, it will not warm.
You’re all so funny tonight! Please continue.
It can only get better. Now Graham D. Warner quotes:
“Now bring A and B close together so that 10% of the photons leaving A hit B, and 10% of the photons leaving B hit A.”
What happens when a photo leaves a surface?
B4 was right all along.
That scumbag can’t concede anything.
Little Willy says nothing of any consequence, then dishonestly pretends that it means Ball4 was right all along!
Anyone defending the way Ball4 has behaved on this thread is completely beyond redemption.
You won’t even see Nate defending Ball4’s actions on this thread. That’s how low you’d have to be.
Long may the dishonesty display continue!
“reflection is THE only change in energy transfer…”
is correct, DREMT, and you would know that by not ignoring the textbooks and the experiment I linked.
As I already explained (at least twice) of Tim’s 10% incident light, ~95% LW of it transfers between the socks at the same temperature which cannot be a warming effect; of the 10% incident light only Tim’s ~5% SW reflected sunlight can have a warming effect.
DREMT is so repeatedly wrong, it’s funny! Please continue falling down for our humor & please don’t read the provided textbooks or learn from the linked experiment.
Graham D. Warner is a gift that keeps on giving. He then quotes:
“A is receiving 1000 W from the sun and 10% of 1000 W = 100 W from B, but only losing 1000 W. The same is true for B. Both will warm up because they are receiving more than they emit.”
This clearly shows that adding details like reflection (what does he think that 10% is?) does not change the overall accounting.
What a little scumbag!
"As I already explained (at least twice) of Tim’s 10% incident light, ~95% LW of it transfers between the socks at the same temperature which cannot be a warming effect; of the 10% incident light only Tim’s ~5% SW reflected sunlight can have a warming effect."
Lol, but Tim is arguing that it’s the LW that is responsible for the warming effect, and nobody who argues against a GHE would deny that reflected sunlight could have a warming effect…
…Ball4 repeats his concession of the entire argument.
"(what does he think that 10% is?)"
It’s the proportion of the photons leaving A that hit B, and the proportion of the photons leaving B that hit A, once they’ve been moved closer together.
Lol.
Little Willy cannot follow this discussion. It is way, way too technical for him.
Graham D. Warner keeps revealing the little scumbag that he is:
“It’s the proportion of the photons leaving A that hit B”
He’s trying really hard not to name the process by which photons leave a surface.
Just as he’s trying really hard to confuse himself as to where these photons come from in the first place.
The little scumbag!
“Emission”, in this case, Little Willy. Photons could also leave a surface due to “reflection”, but Tim never gave any indication that “reflection” entered into it.
Our little scumbag still resists:
“Emissions”
he says, which must be natural for surfaces to do, as natural as Graham D. Warner can be a little scumbag for a whole week over a fairly basic thought experiment.
Surfaces emit photons. That’s what they do. Turn off all the suns in the world and they would still emit photons.
What a little scumbag!
If you say so, Little Willy. I would ask you to get to the point, but we both know you don’t really have one.
Funny DREMT using Tim as a support prop when Tim pointed out DREMT is wrong.
Tim has studied the textbooks & experiments DREMT ignores so Tim knows surfaces reflect, transmit, and emit light which shouldn’t have to be stated, except for DREMT.
Funny, Ball4 has conceded the entire argument…yet he’s still here, dribbling away in the corner, hanging around like a bad smell. Knowing Ball4, he’ll never leave.
Willard says:
”Six photons in total. None reflected. All absorbed.”
But you haven’t accounted for the thousands of collisions with the air molecules that are occurring simultaneously.
Photon is absorbed by surface molecule where it immediately jumps from cube to air molecule train to TOA where it dutifully emits to space.
So at best the quantum of energy represented by a photon simply languishes for a nanosecond before that energy is picked off by a collision with a cooler air molecule.
You need an experiment not a thought experiment that pretends that like radiation it only cools when the environment is cooler.
Convection rotates molecules like a conveyor belt or tracks of tank. The lapse rate is highly variable and responsive to any surface warming. ”The lapse rate of nonrising aircommonly referred to as the normal, or environmental, lapse rateis highly variable, being affected by radiation, convection, and condensation; it averages about 6.5 C per kilometre (18.8 F per mile) in the lower atmosphere (troposphere).”
so when somebody suggests changes in it are nil while they suggest that changes in heat loss via radiation are occurring its the simple case they have no idea about which they are talking. That fits Ball4 and Nate to a Tee. And of course you Willard are far worse than that.
Quick, quick! Gill needs to squirrel his way out of a simple thought experiment:
“But you havent accounted for the thousands”
If Gill can’t account for one action of seven photons, why would anyone trust him as the Action Counter for Team Dragon Cranks?
LOloLOLlOOOl
Bill writes 4:13 pm: “changes in heat loss via radiation” so Bill doesn’t even understand EMR is NOT heat; talk about having no idea about which Bill is writing.
More specifically Bill, the earthen atm. lapse rate averages about 6.5 C/km in the lower atmosphere only for the midlatitude humid tropics far away from surfaces.
“Its not zero LW EMR received by each individual cube, Nate.”
None of the furniture in my room temperature room are receiving zero EMR from the surroundings. And yet they aren’t warming!
So that is a deep red herring.
“Each individual cube receives a non-zero amount of LW EMR from the other cube, and a non-zero amount of EMR from the Sun, and unless those two amounts add at the receiving cube, it will not warm.”
ZERO heat input from the other cube and NON-ZERO heat input from the sun.
Therfore only the sun can warm the block.
You will never grasp that only HEAT transfer makes a cube warm, it seems.
Suppose an isolated cube is receiving 1200 W of heat input from the sun. Then I think you’ll agree that it is losing 200 W of heat from each side to space.
Now with a second cube up close, one side is emitting 0 W of heat to the other cube.
So that is change from 1200 W of heat loss to 1000 W of heat loss.
It seems you want to describe that change as a gain in heat.
That makes no sense to me.
However you want to describe it, the block now has an imbalance of +200 W.
It must warm.
There is no getting around that.
there we go. Ball4 corrects Hunter for using an expression that implies EMR can result in heat loss. I guess Ball4 is conceding that CO2 can’t possibly limit heat loss ever.
Guess we are done here.
Funny, Gill has conceded Team Science’s entire argument…yet he’s still here, dribbling away in the corner, hanging around like a bad smell. Knowing Gill, he’ll never leave.
ROFL
There’s no way Nate’s genuine. How can he still be repeating himself? How can he still not understand that the way he chooses to “dress it up” is irrelevant?
Nate has no clue what he is talking about. He waxes about a cube being bathed by a 1200w/m2 point source and actually believes every surface of the cube will be the same temperature. Its obvious he has never even worked with cubes and just spouting stuff through his hat.
Willard says:
Funny, Gill has conceded Team Sciences entire argument
———————-
No I haven’t. I have said I am not interested in arguments about radiative exchanges between cubes on a clothes line in outer space. . .and merely point out what happens out there doesn’t matter inside the atmosphere. Of course you don’t understand any of that so you are forgiven.
“It seems you want to describe that change as a gain in heat.”
I’m not even talking about heat, Nate.
Read my lips:
Unless the EMR (not heat) from the other cube combines with the EMR from the Sun, the cube will not warm.
That is the bottom line.
So, it is about which photon absorp.tion model is correct.
“way he chooses to dress it up is irrelevant?”
As usual, DREMT thinks unsupported
dismissals of facts are just as good as having a science rebuttal.
The are not.
It seems he will forever reject 1LOT, which only cares about HEAT flows and work.
He refuses to address heat losses and continues to weirdly declare that they are not relevant for determining temperature of a body!
Nate continues to fail to correctly apply 1lot.
To claim a 1lot violation on quantum energy packet one must ensure the photon wasn’t reflected into space. We know photons can be reflected but don’t have the access to any experiment that establishes limits on that reflection.
If Nate could come up with an experiment that ensures the photon didn’t bounce around at the speed of light until it found an escape avenue from the empty space between the two cubes of alleged same temperature on all faces, then we would be getting somewhere. That could also explain the S&O result you keep claiming was a violation of 1LOT except in this case the energy could have been carried away by conduction and convection in addition to reflection.
You claimed a 1Lot violation on the actual results of the S&O experiment which only goes to show how inculcated you are and how you refuse to accept that the S&O experiment showed no difference between pure CO2 and common air. As pointed out above there are at least two explanations for the S&O results and neither violates 1LOT.
And the mind experiment is poorly described in the first place as the only way every surface would be the same temperature would be for the cube to be uniformly illuminated like the pile of bricks in the middle of a room of all the same temperature. If that were the case moving bricks closer together would change how much those converging surfaces would receive in the first place and thus again not be a violation of 1lot.
So there is no way to solve the problem and DREMT properly points out the correct answer would be completely dependent on whether Tim was right or Clint was right. And all of us on the outside with half a brain watching you guys argue know that’s correct.
Nothing ever gives them pause for thought. A little while ago they were passionately defending the idea of an object warming when separated from another one. Now it’s both objects warming when brought closer together! At no point does even the slightest doubt enter their heads.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Tim describes one way of looking at it, Clint R describes another.
—————————
This is pretty basic. We could artificially reduce Clint’s and Tim’s conflict.
Lets say Tim makes the hypothesis that the same number photons of the same wavelengths emitted by one cube as the other don’t reflect but are absorbed. (”combines with the sunlight being received”) and as usual the sycophants in here demand we disprove that hypothesis.
But Clint counters with the hypothesis that the same number photons of the same wavelengths emitted by one cube as the other do reflect and are not absorbed. (”doesn’t combine with the sunlight being received”) and following the same tactic as the sycophants in here we demand you disprove that hypothesis.
Sounds like a Mexican standoff. You need some proof to push your belief system into the realm of true science.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
”Nothing ever gives them pause for thought. A little while ago they were passionately defending the idea of an object warming when separated from another one. Now its both objects warming when brought closer together! At no point does even the slightest doubt enter their heads.”
Empty headed sychophancy. . .the refuge of the lazy.
And now Gill denies having conceded Team Science’s point by acknowledging that CO2 absorbs radiation, all why repeating his silly talking points.
OMEGALUL
Does anyone except Sky Dragon cranks take him seriously anymore?
Everyone accepts that CO2 absorbs radiation, Little Willy. This is why nobody takes you seriously any more. You don’t listen, and can’t learn.
Bill, it’s as I’ve been saying all along. Neither Tim nor Clint R supported their take on photon absorp.tion. Nobody has supported either take, since.
In fact, I don’t recall anyone ever supporting anything they say about photon absorp.tion, on either side of the debate.
As I said, the difference is that Clint R’s version aligns with experience, in that passive objects don’t warm up when you bring them closer together, in sunlight.
So, what we’ve had, is some of them denying that experience altogether, and acting like it’s commonplace for objects to warm up when you bring them closer together. Partly by mentioning examples that don’t apply, for one reason or another, or simply by acting like, "of course it would happen", like I’m being crazy for suggesting otherwise.
Then we’ve had Nate, who for about two weeks has been attempting to "win" the argument by simply repeating his understanding of heat transfer over and over again. Never once realising that if Clint R’s version of photon absorp.tion (or something similar) is correct, then the objects will not warm, regardless of his understanding of heat transfer.
All the while, you’ve been trying to point out that even if Tim’s version were correct, there’s other things to consider than just radiative transfer anyway, in the atmosphere.
But, nobody is interested in listening.
Graham D. Warner tells another lie:
“Everybody believes that CO2 absorb radiation”
Puffman and Mr. Asshat don’t, and Graham D. Warner himself holds that the effect is insignificant. As for what Gill believes, it doesn’t matter much. He’s just being a twat.
That kind of motte-and-bailey is why everybody believes he’s a scumbag.
I’m not lying, Little Willy. Gordon and Clint R agree that CO2 absorbs IR. They question whether what’s emitted by CO2 is absorbed by the surface. Why am I wasting my time teaching you, again? You won’t listen, and can’t learn.
Willard says:
”And now Gill denies having conceded Team Sciences point by acknowledging that CO2 absorbs radiation, all why repeating his silly talking points.”
I have forgiven you for not understanding what I have said in this regard Willard.
But I am a patient man so I will point out: I have clearly stated that CO2 absorbs radiation, when its colder than the radiation from the surface. I haven’t said that it absorbs radiation from the surface when the CO2 is warmer than the surface.
And I have said in case of an inversion layer where the air is hotter than the ground that it could warm the surface some. There are several ways that can occur and I believe it does occur some at all latitudes but a lot more at higher latitudes in the winter.
But cold stuff doesn’t warm warmer stuff thats the essence of 2LOT.
Can cold CO2 limit cooling? Maybe. We have to find an answer to Tim and Clint’s differences to know that. You pretend you know the answer but you can’t provide any proof of it as cannot Nate or Ball4 or Tim.
We know a greenhouse can warm something but is it solely by contact and restricting convection. Kind of appears so based on S&O, Woods, and Pratt
We know and have agreed that the cubes emit a constant EMR. What happens to that EMR when the cubes are the same temperature is unknown. If they are absorbed they could cause the cubes to warm some if the cubes are moved closer together. If reflected as we know many photons are reflected at the speed of light they could find a route to escape.
We know you can amplify low frequency vibrations to warm something like food in a microwave by increasing the amplitude of the vibrations. Do photons have an amplitude? this is what google AI says:
”Yes, photons have amplitude, which is associated with the likelihood of detecting a photon at a specific location and time. The amplitude and phases of a light pulse’s frequency components determine its shape. Higher-energy photons have larger amplitudes and higher frequencies, and they take up less space.”
Sounds kind of funky as does all electromagnetics considering how much we know about them but thats not saying that lower energy photons can cause a warmer object to warm more. But we do know you can amplify light with a magnifying glass or mirrors and use that knowledge to build stuff like CO2 lasers that uses technology and knowledge of the above to amplify the low frequency CO2 emissions.
But to say that occurs naturally as a rule is way over the top.
There is the argument that throwing a blanket over a dead body causes the body to warm. And that can happen for several reasons. one being the core of the body being warmer for many hours that the surface of the body, its not really getting warmer just the surface is getting warmer at the expense of the energy in the core. And of course bacterial growth can cause a dead body to warm up also and a thick blanket can certainly aid in the retention of heat. But attributing all this to photons hasn’t been established. There are lots of ways to heat things but nobody has demonstrated photons doing it that were emitted by a colder object. I have also said I don’t have a preferred answer to this question and am simply waiting for a proof of concept.
Gill writes another wall of words to evade the fact that adding energy to a surface does not cool it.
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Little Willy writes a short comment expressing his blind acceptance of everything Tim says as “fact”, to avoid admitting he was wrong.
Not only is he a Tim sycophant, his reply to me says he doesn’t know the difference between abs-orp-tion and reflection.
“Now its both objects warming when brought closer together! At no point does even the slightest doubt enter their heads.”
Because the physics involved here is extremely simple.
No ‘photon models’ change the fact that when heat flow in > heat flow out, an object must warm.
No ‘photon models’ are needed to know with certainty that no heat flows between objects at the same temperature.
If physics can’t relied upon in such simple situations then it must be all wrong.
But clearly it isnt.
And you guys offer no evidence that it is.
“Then weve had Nate, who for about two weeks has been attempting to “win” the argument by simply repeating his understanding of heat transfer over and over again.”
Look in the mirror my friend. That is exactly what you have been. Endlessly repeating the same debunked non-sequitur that 0 combined with a number makes the number bigger!
“Never once realising that if Clint Rs version of photon absorp.tion (or something similar) is correct, then the objects will not warm, regardless of his understanding of heat transfer.”
And never once did DREMT connect the dots to show how any ‘photon model’ changes the principles that I used.
1. No heat flows between equal temperature objects. Already agreed to.
2. Replacing a cold surroundings with equal temperature surroundings reduces heat loss (because 1)
3. Warming results if heat input is contant – and heat output is reduced. 1LOT.
Notice NO photon models are involved!
Oh well!
3.
1) There is no change in emission of EMR from the cubes, prior to moving them closer together, compared to after.
2) As you assert there is a change in heat flow, and heat flow would be the difference between what is received and what is emitted by the cubes, any difference in heat flow must be the result of a change in what is received. Thus, any proposed warming of the cubes would have to be a result of what is received by the cubes.
3) There is no change in the receipt of energy from the Sun, prior to moving the cubes closer together, compared to after.
4) Ultimately then, that only leaves energy received from the other cube to be the cause of any proposed warming in each cube.
If you can fault that logic, Nate, be my guest.
Nate says:
”If physics cant relied upon in such simple situations then it must be all wrong.”
——————–
You haven’t given us a reference demonstrating the truth of this Nate. Do you actually expect that we just take your word for it?
What I see in the outerspace Green plate experiment is two plates one blue and one green on a clothes line that are the same temperature.
You move one behind the other creating a shadow on the green plate and it cools and the blue plate warms.
But the mean temperature of this ”system” of two plates does not change. But you maintain that if they are cubes they change just by moving them closer and they both warm.
I am afraid that since you blew the GPE and hadn’t thought it out correctly you are making the same mistake here.
“If you can fault that logic, Nate, be my guest.”
OK.
You try first:
“1. No heat flows between equal temperature objects. Already agreed to.
2. Replacing a cold surroundings with equal temperature surroundings reduces heat loss (because 1)
3. Warming results if heat input is contant and heat output is reduced. 1LOT.
Notice NO photon models are involved”
And simply repeating talking points is not sufficient.
Already have, a week ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1676175
Your turn.
Nope. You need to address whether any of these points 1-3, in order, are wrong, and why. You have not done that.
Yup. As explained in the comment I linked to, and ignored by you at the time (and again here), there is no "reduction in heat loss" (your point 2) unless the energy from the other cube combines with the energy from the Sun at the cube’s surface. As I’ve been saying consistently, and correctly, from the beginning.
The energy from the other cube, like it or not, is ultimately the cause for your "reduction in heat loss"…since the energy from the Sun doesn’t change, and the emitted EMR output from the cubes doesn’t change. It is, quite literally, the only thing that changes.
Simply put, the logic in my 1) – 4) refutes the logic in your 1) – 3). Which is why you refuse to address my 1) – 4), and are desperately trying to focus on your 1) – 3).
Fail. You are unable to refute the points 1-3. All you are doing is returning to your own talking points.
So let me try for you:
1. No heat flows between equal temperature objects. Already agreed to.
-Nope. You already agreed to this observable fact. And no photon theory can undo it!
2. Replacing a cold surroundings with equal temperature surroundings reduces heat loss (because 1).
Well with cold surrounds there is
radiative heat loss.
When cold surrounds are replaced with equal temperature surrounds, to which there cab no heat loss, then obviously that reduces heat loss. No getting around
that one
And NO, a change from heat loss to zero heat loss is NOT a reversal of heat flow from surrounds to the block!
There is no NET energy transfer from surrounds to the block!
3. 1LOT speaks for itself. Warming must result. There is no way to refute thid.
3. Warming results if heat input is contant and heat output is reduced. 1LOT.
1. No heat flows between equal temperature objects. Already agreed to.
2. Replacing a cold surroundings with equal temperature surroundings reduces heat loss (because 1)
3. Warming results if heat input is contant and heat output is reduced. 1LOT.
“And NO, a change from heat loss to zero heat loss is NOT a reversal of heat flow from surrounds to the block! There is no NET energy transfer from surrounds to the block!“
I didn’t say there was, Nate. What I said, correctly, is that without the transfer of EMR from the other cube to that cube, you have no “reduction in heat loss” from that cube. In order for your 2) to work, EMR from the other cube has to combine with EMR from the Sun.
this. As to yours:
“) There is no change in emission of EMR from the cubes, prior to moving them closer together, compared to after.
As I already indicated, this is the theory of radiative heat transfer, the 2-way energy flow. No complaints, since it does account for the NET transfer which is the heat flow (which is observable).
2) As you assert there is a change in heat
flow, and heat flow would be the difference between what is received and what is emitted by the cubes, any difference in heat flow must be the result of a change in what is received. Thus, any proposed warming of the cubes would have to be a result of what is received by the cubes.
No quite. Any warming is the result of NET energy transfer. Since the NET, ie heat flow between the blocks must be 0 as you agreed, no warming can occur. Sorry!
AS YOU KNOW, the difference is that ther WAS heat loss in the direction of the other block, and now that is ZERO.
That is NOT a reversal of heat flow!
3) There is no change in the receipt of energy from the Sun, prior to moving the cubes closer together, compared to after.
True. But no matter because heat loss is reduced.
4) Ultimately then, that only leaves energy received from the other cube to be the cause of any proposed warming in each
cube.
No sequitur. A reduction in heat flow is NOT a reversal of heat flow!
Look when you describe those individual energy flows, that is a ThEORY of radiative heat transfer, and only the NET of those is the observable as heat flow.
In case that is the theory that you hope to shoot down with a wacky photon theory, so it makes no sense for you to try to make those flows facts, that you then vanquish.
The observable are the heat flows. That is why I discuss only them.
“I didnt say there was, Nate. What I said, correctly, is that without the transfer of EMR from the other cube to that cube, you have no reduction in heat loss from that cube.”
That I can accept, because it acknowledges that there is reduction in heat loss.
“In order for your 2) to work, EMR from the other cube has to combine with EMR from the Sun.
Not quite. The energy has to cancel the outflow to space, producing 0 NET output (loss).
“The energy has to cancel the outflow to space, producing 0 NET output (loss).”
Which it can only do if it’s absorbed by the cube, and adds to its internal energy. Thus, as I’ve said all along, it depends which photon absorp.tion model is correct.
Jesus wept.
“Which it can only do if its absorbed by the cube, and adds to its internal energy.Thus, as Ive said all along, it depends which photon absorp.tion model is correct.”
False. It is an observable fact that the net energy transfer (heat loss) between blocks at the same temperature must be 0.
The energy emitted by one block must be returned to it by the other blocks emission.
This is how the emissions from the furniture in my room do not cause them to cool.
So no ‘photon theory’ can undo this experimental fact.
And this fact is all that we need to show that heat loss is reduced when blocks together, as you agreed.
Again sorry.
I’m sorry that you can’t follow even the most basic logic, Nate, but it’s not really my problem.
Nate continues to dance a jig around the unknowns of his photon model. The photon model he has is fine as it is but it doesn’t provide the details you need to arrive at his conclusion.
He extends his model because he wants to and can’t imagine photon reflection due to a photon of one vibrational frequency colliding with molecules of a higher vibrational frequency.
he has his horse blinders on and dang if he isn’t going to follow the instructions given to him no matter whether its actually within the scope of current knowledge. The rest of science has moved on to the M&W model and instead argues that CO2 by the lack of its radiation abilities (its a very weak radiator) it will change the lapse rate and suppress convection. But Nate is mired in old myths spread around the internet just a decade and half ago, that’s completely disappeared from any official channel and tries incessantly to pound it home.
But of course the problem with M&W is coming up with how the actual warming occurs that causes the surface to warm more than that of a planet without an atmosphere. S&O shows how both common air and CO2 warms to the same temperature and that the surface thats warming it apparently has some effect that slows cooling. . .which of course should be the atmosphere acting as a heat sink combined with being a poor radiator. . .even with CO2. But at least CO2 can be blamed for cooling the upper atmosphere. Not nearly as much as does water at the top of the troposphere, and not in the stratosphere because ozone absorbs more sunlight than co2 can send off to the next level at least. But CO2 finally comes into its own in the mesosphere and thats where we see the bottom of the barrel in CO2 effects in outgoing radiation. Until it gets there its mostly reabsorbed or reflected by water.
I just threw out one scenario that Nate has no answer to. He has avoided it like the plague because his handlers haven’t given him an answer to the problem. He can’t see why a photon with its low frequency emissions have can’t excite a hot object that has a high degree of vibration.
So what might happen with this photon instead of being absorbed. Its like Roberto Duran walking into a punching flurry of Ray Leonard. Duran the harder puncher just gets pummeled and retreats.
But Nate without a shred of evidence will believe to his dying day that the photon will be absorbed, Duran will land his legendary knockout blow. . .but instead Duran withdraws and pleads ”no mas”
So we have an escaped photon frequency now bouncing between two cube at crazy angles until one of those angles misses the other cube and flies off into space. Can I prove this? No! Can Nate disprove it by waving his cartoon depiction of a photon model? Equally no.
He needs evidence to show that these photons are being mutually absorbed at a greater rate than they were before they were moved closer together. . .and DREMT has repeated asked for the evidence that these photons combine with those of the sun to make the cubes warmer rather than simply bounce a few times at unpredictable angles spanning a 180 degree hemisphere of directions until they miss the other cube.
Yet Nate isn’t willing to either entertain this idea nor is he willing to discuss it because he has no answer for it. He just keeps plowing straight ahead with no real science like a mindless D9 Cat bulldozer being driven by a handler who is on a crusade to reshape the world to his own imagination. You just have to study the history of the father of global warming to see this. The wayward son of the grandfather who actually was a real scientist.
“Im sorry that you cant follow even the most basic logic,”
Which is plainly not a science rebuttal to this..
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1677922
Clearly you have none. That’s ok, none was expected.
"This is how the emissions from the furniture in my room do not cause them to cool."
Nate, the emissions from the cubes towards each other don’t cause them to cool, because each cube is still receiving the same amount of energy from the Sun. There’s no possibility here of each cube cooling (as in, their temperature dropping). If the energy from the other block is not absorbed or does not add to the internal energy of the receiving block, then it still won’t cool (drop in temperature), because it’s still getting that same amount of energy from the Sun as it was before the cubes were moved closer together. What could happen, if the energy from the other cube combines with the energy from the Sun, is that the receiving cube warms…but only if Tim’s photon absorp.tion model is correct.
How many times do I have to explain the same thing to you? I almost gave up on the last comment, but you drag me back in with your condescending remarks. So here we are. The interminable back and forth continues. Nate refusing to see sense.
uly 6, 2024 at 1:08 PM
“This is how the emissions from the furniture in my room do not cause them to cool.”
Nate, the emissions from the cubes towards each other dont cause them to cool, because each cube is still receiving the same amount of energy from the Sun.”
Then explain why my furniture doesn’t cool. No sun involved. No where else for emissions to go other than to other objects in the enclosed room which have no choice but to abs.orb it.
Do you imagine the emissions get indefinitely reflected, building up to infinite energy levels?
Brilliant! And no.
nate, first reflection is but one of an infinite number of possibilities. there is a limited variety of things we can predict about photons.
for example spooky action at a distance which you believe in is still subject of research to pin down what it is and what it is capable of. you need experimental evidence to predict anything about them. you don’t have it in this case or you would have produced it.
"Then explain why my furniture doesn’t cool. No sun involved. No where else for emissions to go other than to other objects in the enclosed room which have no choice but to abs.orb it."
According to Clint R’s model:
"Five photon “frequencies” are absorbed by a surface, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The average frequency is 8. Now, let a sixth photon, with frequency 7, be absorbed. The average frequency is then 7.83. Another photon was added, yet the average frequency DROPPED…
…short and sweet, that’s why a 15μ photon can NOT raise the temperature of a 288K surface. The “added energy” MUST have frequency higher than the average of the surface."
If all the furniture and the room generally (and even the air) is at the same temperature then the photon "frequencies" absorbed are all going to be much the same, on average. No reason for the temperature of the furniture to rise, or fall.
With the cube scenario, the energy from the Sun will set the temperature of the cubes, whilst the energy from the other cube will not have the right "frequencies" to raise the temperature of the cube further.
“If all the furniture and the room generally (and even the air) is at the same temperature then the photon “frequencies” absorbed are all going to be much the same, on average. No reason for the temperature of the furniture to rise, or fall.”
Fine.
“With the cube scenario, the energy from the Sun will set the temperature of the cubes, whilst the energy from the other cube will not have the right “frequencies” to raise the temperature of the cube further.”
Nonsense, the cubes are at the same temperature. Same goes for them as for the furniture. There is no net energy transfer or ‘raising temperatures’ required.
I explained where the logic of Clint R’s photon absorp.tion model leads, Nate. Just saying “nonsense” won’t cut it, I’m afraid.
“I explained where the logic of Clint Rs photon absorp.tion model leads”
Which turned out to be illogical and self-contradictory, as usual.
Now you’ve run out of excuses.
No worries, because Clint’s model disagrees with established physics. Specifically Kirchhoffs law: which requires that efficient emitters are equally efficient absorbers.
https://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/satmet/modules/3_em_radiation/emr-4.html
"Which turned out to be illogical and self-contradictory, as usual."
Incorrect. Stop lying, Nate. At least to yourself.
"Specifically Kirchhoffs law: which requires that efficient emitters are equally efficient absorbers."
All of the photons in Clint R’s example were absorbed.
Where’s the contradiction of Kirchhoff’s Law?
Nate, physics is about observed physical relationships. Extrapolation of cartoon models need not apply.
Show us how your cubes work or accept that you might be wrong.
You were clearly wrong about the S&O relationship which should be telling you something about CO2 and the atmosphere and what you believe to be true to be dead wrong.
Still to test is a demonstration of the the M&W hypothesized ability of something other than pressure or moisture to change the lapse rate.
Until then you guys have nothing to add or promote.
“All of the photons in Clint Rs example were ab.so.rbed.”
Ok. That’s a plus. But his claim that added photons lower the energy or temperature of body made absolutely no sense. After that I didn’t pay attention to it anymore.
In any case, then for whichever photon model, as you agree, the blocks at the same temperature transfer no NET energy (heat) to each other.
Nor do they need to. I have never ever claimed, as you do, that energy transferred from the surroundings, to a block, needs to add to the suns input, in order for it to warm!
Because, for the 47th time, the blocks only action is to block energy loss to space.
Thus with steady solar input, and reduced heat loss, they must warm.
It could not be any simpler!
an experiment is needed to settle this issue.
I agree, Bill…although it shouldn’t need an experiment to settle the issue that if Clint R’s photon absorp.tion model is correct then the cubes won’t warm, but if Tim’s is correct it will. That issue should have been conceded by Nate well over a week ago now. It will need an experiment to settle who is right overall, Tim or Clint R, though.
“if Clint Rs photon absorp.tion model is correct then the cubes wont warm, but if Tims is correct it will.”
False. You suggest a mechanism that is totally illogical, (0 added to a number makes the number bigger) then knock it down.
Classic strawman.
I have explain definitively how the one fact I need is one you already agreed to, and does not change due to any photon model.
You keep ignoring this reality.
No one can fix such naked denialism.
All wrong, Nate. Scroll up, re-read, concede.
Nate continues to beat his head against the wall. He doesn’t understand that in electromagnetics every different scenario has to be tested.
He flunked the Seim and Olson experiment because he imagines in his head that CO2 will warm stuff that common air won’t. Even with multiple experiments that demonstrate he is wrong he continues to insist the experiment is flawed and violates laws of physics. But he can’t explain how they are flawed.
Now here we are in a situation with nobody around here being able to find an experiment to demonstrate the results of Nate’s mathematical extrapolations moving into different territories.
If this were an applicable problem to anybody living on the surface of the earth, engineering tables would be available to avoid having to calculate every scenario.
No doubt if an experiment were conducted on this and Clint’s model is proven correct Nate would continue to blindly soldier on in obedience to his Daddies and claim the experiment was flawed.
He is hopeless inculcated into Al Gore’s doomsday predictions and in his panic logic has left him and he is groping around for extrapolations that fit his fears.
So I am still mystified why this is of any importance to know. I am sure that if it was somebody would have done an experiment.
Bill 7:50 am, CO2 will not “warm stuff that common air won’t” in S&O experiment because the path length is ~1m, not long enough. A planetary atm. path length is more than long enough so that added “CO2 will warm stuff that common air won’t.”
That’s been tested and found valid in the lab and in the wild.
Thats an interesting claim Ball4. What is your source for this demonstration?
Bill! See his quote: “Sure we know from over a century ago that CO2 absorbs EMR.”
Bill then knows how to find the experimental lab research. Confirmed in the wild as early as ERBE data in early 1970s and subsequent reports on clear-sky LW radiation measured at the satellite orbit for atmospheres including CO2 et. al. trace gases.
Ball4 says:
Bill! See his quote: Sure we know from over a century ago that CO2 absorbs EMR.
————————-
Indeed Ball4. The CO2 in the Seim and Olson experiment also absorbed EMR. . .but didn’t warm the heated aluminum plate anymore than common air did.
So the Tyndall or ERBE experiments tell us nothing about the results of the Seim and Olson experiment.
So you were lying when you said you had proof that the Seim and Olson experiment was too small. Typical Ball4 BS. You are really gaining a reputation for that.
Very good Bill! Yes, the S&O experiments tell us nothing about the atm. because their path length is so miniscule. ERBE looked through the entire atm. and Tyndall looked through order of ~3x the path length and even at higher pressure than S&O 1 atm.
The emissivity of air in S&O 1 atm. measured would be under 0.2 where in the atm. air emissivity is ~0.95 humid tropics and ~0.65 arid polar regions for about 4x or more higher global avg. of ~0.8.
you are just lying ball4. post a link and where to find this demonstration where they measured a change in the hotter or equal in temperature surface as compared to the ordinary environment. your lies are not desired at all.
I’m not aware of a link, but maybe Bill can find one to start his studies.
I went to the local college library to asked the librarian to dig out a copy of S. Clough and M. Iacono’s work; starting with their 1995 paper that shows calculations of added outgoing radiation “in close agreement” to observed measured ERBE results for “this demonstration where they measured a change in the hotter or equal in temperature surface as compared to the ordinary environment.” due to trace gases such as CO2, O3, CH4 and 5 other gases.
Subsequently their work was expanded upon and other authors confirmed “this demonstration where they measured a change in the hotter or equal in temperature surface as compared to the ordinary environment.” using post-ERBE observations. The college librarian will be happy to assist Bill in the further studies of an “interesting” field, at least according to Bill.
Ball4 obviously your researchers didn’t swap out atmospheres to confirm the effect was from greenhouse gases as specified as did Seim and Olson.
Additionally if this were correct the models would accurately predict the warming trend and they don’t. Full obituary.
Bill, that’s really funny, but not for which you asked. The S&O experiment is not a “demonstration” of planetary atmospheres.
Ball4 says:
”The S&O experiment is not a demonstration of planetary atmospheres.”
Of course not Ball4. Its a demonstration of atmospheres in a box with a heated surface warming those atmospheres where the atmospheres are switched between CO2 and common air.
No significant difference in warming was obtained in accordance with accepted equations of how much more heat is absorbed by CO2 in comparison to common air.
In other words a complete fail of the 3rd grader radiation model and of the GPE thought experiment applied to a real atmosphere.
That no doubt explains why you never hear anymore about the 3rd grader model from credible sources. That was silently removed by credible sources from the websites over the past couple of decades. Only those not keeping up with science still cling to it.
Now there is no mention as to what the thermodynamic process applicable to CO2 in the Manabe and Wetherald model actually is.
All they are doing is showering it with awards without explaining what the thermodynamic process is that allows CO2 to change the lapse rate like we know water can do.
Bill, had you bothered to pull the paper I noted, you could have corrected yourself & learned added ppm CO2 does not “change the lapse rate” only the slope of the lapse curve since added CO2 “is a primary contributor to stratospheric radiative cooling .. while at the same time increasing the downward (radiation) at the surface”.
Bill remains way behind in learning the basics of atm. physics & needs further study time.
Ball4 says:
Bill, had you bothered to pull the paper I noted, you could have corrected yourself & learned added ppm CO2 does not change the lapse rate only the slope of the lapse curve since added CO2 is a primary contributor to stratospheric radiative cooling .. while at the same time increasing the downward (radiation) at the surface.
Bill remains way behind in learning the basics of atm. physics & needs further study time.
——————–
Wrong! At least I have had some university level meteorology courses and understand that changing ”the slope of the lapse curve” is what must happen if you change the lapse rate.
Apparently you have no idea of what a lapse rate is.
It is the temperature change for each unit of elevation.
Since the lapse rate is usually displayed on graphs with elevation on the x-axis and temperature on the y-axis, obviously changing the slope of that line increases or decreases the temperature for each unit of elevation.
You might consider taking a ”101” college course in meteorology or buying a book like ”Meteorology for Dummies” so as to learn that.
Bill, the dry (no condensing) adiabatic lapse rate is about 9.8C/km (=g/Cp). That rate doesn’t change with increasing ppm CO2. The endpoints change with added ppm CO2: lower T near the tropopause since added ppm CO2 “is a primary contributor to stratospheric radiative cooling” and higher T near the surface: “while at the same time increasing the downward (radiation) at the surface”. Notably the area under the P(z) vs T(z) curve must be held constant because there is no total system increase in thermodynamic internal energy due added ppm CO2.
You could have learned that in your “university level meteorology courses.” Please pull the paper and add to your knowledge base.
Ball4 says:
Bill, the dry (no condensing) adiabatic lapse rate is about 9.8C/km (=g/Cp). That rate doesnt change with increasing ppm CO2.
—————–
we agree.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ball4 says:
”The endpoints change with added ppm CO2: lower T near the tropopause since added ppm CO2 is a primary contributor to stratospheric radiative cooling and higher T near the surface”
———————
Too vague to verify. This is like Nate’s cubes on a clothesline BS. Fact is almost all radiation intercepted by CO2 in the troposphere ends up in water vapor and that water vapor carries latent heat that is many times that of the sensible heat. CO2 isn’t the primary contributor of anything. Water vapor is the primary contributor.
What starves the stratosphere, imo, is losses of ozone that absorb incoming UV. Of course if you actually had any facts around your claims you might have a chance to change my mind, but its clear you don’t. You seem to be locked solid into models that hold convection as either non-changing or impotent. i.e. the big flaw in AGW theory.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ball4 says:
”while at the same time increasing the downward (radiation) at the surface”.
No doubt the output of undocumented models.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ball4 says:
Notably the area under the P(z) vs T(z) curve must be held constant because there is no total system increase in thermodynamic internal energy due added ppm CO2.
————————
Not disagreeing here. No lapse rate change from added CO2.
Its nominal if anything. Its not nominal if you add 15% water vapor from increased insolation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ball4 says:
You could have learned that in your university level meteorology courses. Please pull the paper and add to your knowledge base.
—————————
Well if you took one and found them feeding you that line it must be after the fix was in.
“Too vague to verify.”
No. Please pull the paper, as others have done to verify nothing vague, and add to your knowledge base.
“No doubt the output of undocumented models.”
No. Please pull the paper, verify no model is undocumented, results in “close agreement” with ERBE observation, and add to your knowledge base.
Sure, the change from currently added ppm CO2 is nominal, globally on order of 0.015C per year, give or take. There is no fix. Please pull the paper, verify no fix, and add to your knowledge base.
You are talking about an observational study with no control. Sure its been warming but you can’t just say CO2 can change the lapse rate and build a theory on something that has never been tested.
I realize you actually believe CO2 doesn’t change the lapse rate but everything you say is happening is a change in lapse rate.
I believe water vapor feedback fits the M&W theory and it has been proven that water vapor can change the lapse rate.
Thus all you are looking for is a fractional cause depending upon the feedback factor that is either an increase in solar insolation or one that puts water vapor into the atmosphere some other way, say a volcano. I am not going to look for a paper that you can’t give a sensible explanation for how it was established that it works. If you can’t explain that you simply don’t know what the paper really says. You probably only read the abstract.
And if you want a means of increasing insolation other than internal solar variation that increases the temperature of the sun, you can add in relatively short term Milankovitch processes that change the path of the earth’s orbit.
Bill, I see you didn’t pull the paper. You can just say CO2 can change the lapse rate ends T and build a theory on something that has been tested and found in “close agreement”.
Read the paper so you aren’t stumbling around in the dark anymore.
Ball4:
with added ppm CO2: lower T near the tropopause since added ppm CO2 is a primary contributor to stratospheric radiative cooling and higher T near the surface.
You just said that CO2 changes the lapse rate after saying above it didn’t. Make up your mind and when you do describe exactly how we know what you think you know. I don’t read papers recommended by people who can’t get their story straight.
I’m just toying with you Ball4. Let me help you out. By changing the lapse rate I mean in the style recognized by M&W.
That would be by ultra-stabilizing the lapse rate and creating a hot spot in the upper troposphere. An ultra-stabilized lapse rate is recognized as one that can suppress convection by making it a lesser reduction in temperature for each unit of elevation.
You are describing CO2 as destabilizing the lapse rate by cooling the upper troposphere more than it cools the surface. That actually encourages more convection.
To begin with very little cooling occurs via CO2 in the mid troposphere as almost all of the energy it intercepts is transferred to other molecules via collisions and a small amount by emissions that are intercepted Ghgs in higher in troposphere, stratosphere or mesosphere. Which according to the lame theories of AGW would have to warm the CO2 in the troposphere but instead according to your source its in fact getting colder and doing nothing at all of importance.
Of course folks did think they know this must be occurring in the troposphere because otherwise how would the 3rd grader radiation model warm the surface.
But that’s a bunny trail. CO2 by your own admission and paper sources say clearly that CO2 destabilizes the atmosphere and encourages convection.
You might want to join this thread with Swanson as Swanson once again falls on the same sword he fell on a few years ago when he wrote a paper criticizing UAH for under estimating the warming in the Arctic summers when in fact they are over estimating it. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2024-0-80-deg-c/#comment-1678530
Bill 3:11, read the paper, find the quotes I used, there is nothing about: “CO2 changes the lapse rate after saying above it didn’t”.
Bill is confusing nature’s measured lapse rate in the paper with the approximate constant adiabatic lapse rate; no process in nature is adiabatic (that’s against 2LOT), every real process is diabatic.
Bill then wrongly writes “according to your source its in fact getting colder” in the troposphere which shows Bill hasn’t yet read the paper since I wrote quoting the paper for added ppm CO2 cooling the stratosphere: “while at the same time increasing the downward (radiation) at the surface”.
Again, get to the library, read & understand the paper so Bill isn’t making so many physical errors & stumbling around in the dark anymore.
Ball4 resorts to strawmen in order to advance his lies.
By now you should know full well that I recognize that all GHGs destabilize the lapse rate.
As to your claim that it also warms the surface I have acknowledged that GHG’s that are not saturated will warm the surface. But I have pointed out that our continental surface station networks to not measure the temperature of the surface but instead measure the near surface air temperature.
GHG’s do not warm the near surface atmosphere ever if they are in destabilizing mode which they are most of the time. But they can in the cases of inversions, areas where either cold air has be pushed under warmer air or warmer air carried over cooler air via convection and air currents. This would represent a fraction of the amount of heat absorbed in all layers of the atmosphere.
And for the case of the surface, it is acknowledged that virtually all wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 is absorbed within a few meters of the surface. As a result any additional warming from that is nominal and not even worth talking about.
Realizing all the above was true science turned to an untested theory by M&W that is observed in the atmosphere in the form of a hotspot that is created by water vapor condensation to liquid water and deposition to ice both releasing latent heat that has not been diminished by the lapse rate.
M&W theory claims that CO2 super stabilizes (i.e. warms the upper atmosphere above and beyond the adiabatic lapse rate that applies at the moment of the warming) the atmosphere. I see no mechanism for CO2 to do that. But we know that water has a mechanism that does that that is lacking in CO2.
So all the strawmen you just built to argue your case were in fact all ad hominems designed to misrepresent my position. That of course means I won the argument and we are done here since obviously you have no science upon which to hang your hat. Therefore you decided your only recourse was to discredit the messenger and as such you chose to go the ad hominem route instead.
“..all the strawmen you just built to argue your case..”
The paper used for the “case” that Bill avoids reading (& quoting from) is not a strawman. Learning from the paper will further Bill’s understanding of effects on planetary temperature from added ppm CO2 (and selected other IR active trace gases) to the earthen atm.
Ball4 says:
Bill, I see you didnt pull the paper. You can just say CO2 can change the lapse rate ends T and build a theory on something that has been tested and found in close agreement.
Read the paper so you arent stumbling around in the dark anymore.
——————-
only after you tell me what was wrong with my corrections of your strawmen. one does not need to create strawmen when they know what they are talking about.
I corrected Bill to direct quotes from the paper used for the “case” that Bill avoids reading (& quoting from) so there was no strawman needed to “create”.
Bill’s comment needed correcting to observation thus was not in “close agreement” with experiment as is the paper.
Read the paper, Bill.
What experiment and by whom and what did it test?
ERBE observations, reporting authors, & references. Tested the radiation from CO2 and selected other trace atm. gases & found in “close agreement” with theoretical (LBLRTM) results.
Bill wouldn’t need to ask if had read the paper. Read the paper, Bill.
Ball4 says:
”ERBE observations, reporting authors, & references. Tested the radiation from CO2 and selected other trace atm. gases & found in ”close agreement” with theoretical (LBLRTM) results.”
———————–
Seim and Olson also measured the additional radiation from CO2 but it didn’t warm the heated plate any more than contact with the common air. Having all that you have above falls short of proof because S&O failed to produce any warming with CO2.
I don’t understand why you can’t understand the implications of S&O with regards to what we have done to suggest CO2 operates like the 3rd grader radiation model. It’s clear from S&O that the strong back radiation from a gas cooler cooler than the heated plate does nothing additional in comparison to a weakly radiating gas. End of story for the 3rd grader radiation model and GPE models, and cubes or socks on clotheslines being moved near and all other such thought experiments. Perhaps in a different environment they might work.
And since it doesn’t per S&O’s boxed atmosphere what unique characteristic does the atmosphere have that would allow it to be variable, along with a clear explanation of why it would so as to allow a test of that hypothesis.
Obviously you can’t explain it and just as obviously the mysterious paper you are going on about doesn’t either.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ball4 says:
”Bill wouldnt need to ask if had read the paper. Read the paper, Bill.”
—————————
You haven’t given me a reason. I already have all I need in terms of downlooking ERBE data. I am interested in a database of uplooking IR scans from various locations and times of day.
LBLRTM datatables for various cloud covers, humidities, and CO2 levels affecting the surface would be far more interesting than what is affecting outerspace.
I might travel across town for something like that. Roy posted some interesting backyard observations on that years ago which was very interesting as to how much clouds affected outgoing IR. Would love to see a lot more of that kind of data.
Obviously 17watts, or whatever it was, from CO2 in a box is obviously less than pitiful.
Variations in water species to an extent that one could interpolate its relative effects against surface temperature effects and given backdrops of CO2 would be very interesting. There are many other items on my want list as its fascinating why everybody got so excited about all this, ultimately my interest is piqued by exactly what motivates people.
Adding insights for Bill who could gain them from reading the paper: Seim and Olson also measured the additional radiation from CO2 but it didnt warm the heated plate any more than contact with the common air because the path length is too miniscule compared to an atm. Having all that the paper Bill ignores above is proof because it’s observed & calculated through the entire atm. path length. S&O failed to produce any warming with CO2 over their short path length since CO2 emissivity is nil different than air in their experiment. More path length = more chance of emission.
Bill doesn’t understand the implications of S&O because Bill ignores path length effects.
Bill can find “a clear explanation of why it would so as to allow a test of that hypothesis” by reading the given paper.
How can Bill possibly know the paper “doesnt either” when Bill hasn’t yet read the given paper? Being so obviously uniformed about atm. radiation gives Bill a reason to read the paper since “ultimately (Bill’s) interest is piqued by exactly what motivates people.” Bill at least skimmed the S&O paper or relies on others who have.
Read the given paper, Bill. You wouldn’t need to ask me all this if Bill had done so.
You ought to send a copy of the paper to the If it Bleeds It Leads mainstream press Ball4.
At least Bill has “had some university level meteorology courses” so professes to be able to understand & learn from the given paper unlike many in the mainstream press to which the paper has been available for ~30 years.
oh you should have said that. thats the paper that argued we aren’t at all like venus because venus has a 90times thicker atmosphere. since james hansen was claiming that we were like venus he got the ippc to adopt the ppm model we still use today.
The given paper reports observations from ERBE instruments in orbit about Earth not Venus, Bill. The atm. constituent radiative physics proven in the paper can be applied to Venus though. Someone did that and reported results fairly close to Venus global mean surface temperature prior to in situ measurements.
Bill should go over to the college library & read the paper not incorrectly guess what it contains; hey it contains colorful graphs, worth the trip.
excellent then we have nothing to worry about earth becoming venus or runaway warming as claimed by james hansen if we had to emit enough co2 to multiply the earths atmosphere to 90 times the surface pressure of the earth. doubling co2 will only increase the atmosphere path length by miniscule fraction over the next 165 years
The global warming cargo cult is another governmental war upon reality- similar to war on drugs. But also like war in Afghanistan, or Ukraine. These wars the government can not win and never wins.
The governments of world have not lowered global CO2 level, but waste trillions of dollar in wealth engaged in various kinds of governmental corruption.
Typically, it’s said wars are caused by the industrial military complex which actually means involvement to endless kinds of governmental corruption related military and industry related to it.
NASA has something similar- it’s a jobs program, politician want space dollars spend in their district or state. And the result is SLS- +40 billions spent on a rocket that doesn’t fly- doesn’t win the war of space exploration, it actually prevents the winning. Decades of not having a rocket which can not go to the Moon [or Mars}.
And SLS was sold as being the cheapest rocket to do this, and it’s solid boosters were related to national security- supporting industry of making solid boosters {and it doesn’t actually do this- but it part of the sales pitch}. One could also say it was about continuing the funding of Space Shuttle {a program which was very costly, and had no hope of lower launch cost nor even be safe to send crew into orbit]. Of course space cadets wanted things like flyback booster- but there no sense in flying back a solid booster. But main thing was a government shouldn’t build rockets- nor should it build cars or anything.
“But main thing was a government shouldnt build rockets- nor should it build cars or anything.”
Nor have they ever..wasn’t it always contractors?
Personally, I believe their unmanned exploration program has been very successful, and much cheaper.
gbaikie says:
”The global warming cargo cult is another governmental war upon reality- similar to war on drugs. But also like war in Afghanistan, or Ukraine. These wars the government can not win and never wins.”
they don’t want to win. They are too happy with the cargo being delivered daily into the bank accounts. Kill the Goose that lays the golden egg? LMAO! Yeh they want to do that for sure.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
A severe heatwave continues to wreak havoc in India as the eastern state of Odisha on Monday reported eight deaths within a 72-hour period.
Official figures released in May suggested 60 people died between March and May across India due to heat-related illnesses.
But the number is likely to be much higher as heat-related deaths go under-reported in rural areas.
Officials say India is in the middle of the longest heatwave it has seen since records began. Temperatures have crossed 50C in some areas recently.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz77jkk420lo
Emphasis on the relevant bit, to make sure that Sky Dragon cranks like Mr. Asshat do not miss it.
BBC news…alarmist propaganda central.
It’s weather, move on folks, nothing to see here.
Mr. Asshat ignores the bit emphasized.
Shocking!
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
YouTube has demonetized the Heartland institute channel for “content that focuses on controversial issues and that is harmful to viewers.” The Heartland institute is a fuel lobby group.
It amazes me how basic physics like climate change has turned into a political issue. One side has anger, hate and fear, while the other has logic, compassion, and science.
Thanks for acknowledging your “anger, hate, and fear”, Ark.
If you could get away from your cult indoctrination, you might be able to learn some science. But, we know that ain’t going to happen….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why did you admit being powered by anger, hear, and hate?
Willard, don’t be an idiot
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares to tell you good morning.
Good to hear.
Arkady Ivanovich says:
”YouTube has demonetized the Heartland institute channel for content that focuses on controversial issues and that is harmful to viewers. The Heartland institute is a fuel lobby group.”
Thats a lie. Arkady just believes what he is told doesn’t even bother to verify the information which is a matter of public record.
They are a 501(c)(3) and cannot spend a significant amount of their funds on lobbying. Further Heartland is not a private foundation either like many of the NGOS are. Instead receives its funding from diverse interests interested in a benefit to the public.
They do get some of their money from oil interests but thats not unusual for virtually all public interest qualifying entities to receive donations for the good they do from entities promoting that good.
Their mission: To discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. If you aren’t promoting free market solutions you are not promoting freedom but instead promoting despotism which is the 180 degree opposite of freedom. . .like you are a fascist or communist or royalist or socialist. Real simple stuff here.
Gill almost denies that the Heartland Institute is connected to the Koch bros (singular nowadays), directly or through ALEC:
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute#Ties_to_the_Koch_Brothers
ROFL!
Willard says:
”Gill almost denies”
LMAO! Willard agrees I didn’t deny anything. Why in the world would you think you are better than the Koch Brothers?
Gill agrees that he didn’t really say anything either. He hushered sweet nothings, that’s for sure. But saying anything of relevance that would look like something useful, truthful or sincere? LMAO!
That’s not Gill’s way.
Willard seems to believe there is a difference in rights between conservatives and liberals because he sure as heck isn’t trying to take down liberal NGOs funded by liberal billionaires and their bequeathed foundations run by their heirs.
When you see such attitudes one can be certain that the motivation is political and/or out of personal pecuniary interests.
So what is your motivation Willard to take this down to your personal opinion bias? Do you imagine yourself as an ”ecowarrior”?
Gill seems to believe that mind probes to punch hippies will get him somewhere.
ROFL!
GCMs Cannot Predict Climate
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/15/gcms-cannot-predict-climate/
…
“Many years ago, a well-known climate scientist told me they didnt know the mechanisms that caused periods like the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) or the Little Ice Age (LIA), so they could not code them into the climate models. My paper says that they can now put in the MWP/LIA pattern without knowing the mechanisms.
The paper ends up arguing that a GCM calculates weather at each time step and this is then amalgamated into a final prediction of climate, but a realistic long term climate model would instead calculate climate and then weather would be deduced from the climate.”
Well a serious climate change is an ice free arctic sea ice during summer, though Ice free polar sea ice in winter is better.
What does ice free polar sea ice in summer do to weather?
Not much.
The most significant effect is it allows shorter ocean transport routes.
gb…”Many years ago, a well-known climate scientist told me they didnt know the mechanisms that caused periods like the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) or the Little Ice Age (LIA), so they could not code them into the climate models”.
***
In the climategate emails, they told a different story. They found the LIA and MWP inconvenient, since they ruined the straightness of the hockey stick shaft. One of Mann’s team suggested it would be better if they could find a way to remove them, which they did.
Besides, why would they need to code them. The tree proxies should have indicated them as they did all other inferences in the record. The LIA and MWP are prominent in other proxy series.
> they told a different story.
Funny how Mr. Asshat never cites these emails.
He never really read them.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Anyone can predict what teh Donald will do when elected:
https://newrepublic.com/article/181973/trump-media-attacks-media-dangerous-turn
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nobody cares about your emulation of Graham D. Warner‘s PSTering.
You do, and that makes me happy.
No one cares if you’re happy, Mike, in fact no one cares if you’re unhappy, which you obviously are.
I’m glad you care.
Nobody cares about your silly gaslighting, Mike.
Good to know.
Sleep well, Mike.
Thanks for your concern.
No one cares about your anti American Marxist views about Trump
You obviously care enough to leave a comment.
Kennui agrees with Greg Gutfeld, who has said two days in a row that Americans won’t accept the results of the election if Biden wins. Fox News as a whole has been pushing this for weeks teh Donald is going to try to declare victory even if he loses the the 2024 election.
Troglodytes’ swan song.
Donald Trump continues to deny the outcome of the last election, claiming widespread election fraud significant enough to alter its results. It’s clear he has a strong desire for authoritarian control.
Trump is right, the last election was fraudulent. The Democrats continue the fraud by holding a kangaroo court in NY to convict Trump, in a sleazy attempt to remove him from the next election.
When the Nazi came to power in Europe, they were elected by naive Germans who held similar views to you. The US Democrats may not have the evil intent of the Nazis but they are evil. They are pushing an undemocratic take over of the US that includes the attempted prevention of a candidate to run for office. Fascism is fascism, whether it is the evil Nazi version or the evil Democrat version.
Gordon Robertson
Why do you believe the 2020 US election was fraudulent?
There were several recounts and multiple court cases. None of these were sufficient to overturn the outcome. Just because liars (that you support) claim (without evidence) that an election is fraud you believe them. You are drawn to the liars of this world because you are a fraud with your pretend knowledge of Chemistry. You hate the truth and accept all lies. You believe the liar and dishonest Putin , the evil Lanka (who if enough gullible people like you believe his lies, many children will again face illness and death from diseases that had been greatly reduced).
Any crackpot out there you blindly believe (like Shula) and all the other scientists (who actually do hard work to seek the Truth) you consider frauds and dishonest. You live in a very distorted reality . You believe lies are truth and truth are lies. No one here has been able to break your cycle of lies. Bindidon tries but it seems it will not help you.
Norman, I think Gordon is psychologically disturbed. He claims to be an engineer, but his consistently incoherent and inaccurate word salads make that very difficult to believe. This pattern of behavior has gone on for many years. It could be rooted in either extreme escapism or deliberate manipulation of social dynamics. Either way, it is deeply troubling.
John W,
Ooooooooh! “Either way, it is deeply troubling.”!
I’m pretty sure you can’t actually name anyone who gives a toss whether you are “deeply troubled” or not.
Feel free to be as “deeply troubled” as you wish, secure in the knowledge it makes precisely no difference to a single physical fact. I’m “deeply troubled” that you refuse to describe the GHE!
Do you care? No? Why am I not surprised?
john…”Norman, I think Gordon is psychologically disturbed. He claims to be an engineer, but his consistently incoherent and inaccurate word salads make that very difficult to believe”.
***
It would be helpful if you gave an example of my alleged ‘inaccurate words’. But that would mean exposing your lack of ability in physics and math. Like your inept alarmist kin, you resort to ad homs and insults.
All of us are psychologically disturbed (neurotic) to one extent or another but some of us have worked at becoming aware of such a condition, hence doing something about it. It appears you have yet to receive insight into your psychological state.
> It would be helpful if you gave an example of my alleged inaccurate words.
If I name 50, Mr. Asshat, how much would I win?
Willard says:
”Fox News as a whole has been pushing this for weeks teh Donald is going to try to declare victory even if he loses the the 2024 election.”
Willard is having a wet dream nightmare over Trump pursuing legal recourse through the courts wrt to election honesty.
Are you worried he might find something?
All these years Gill pretended he was some kind of libertarian, but as soon as he sees jackboots he rushes to lick them.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yep. . .ecowarrior.
Gill comes out of the fascist closet: LOLOLO!
It’s about time someone went after the fake new media.
Mr. Asshat earns his nickname once again.
He might also like:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/15/trump-white-house-leaker-execution
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Brainless bobby,
You wrote –
“And according to those theories all light emission from bodies has to be due to transitions from one energy level to another”. Complete nonsense. Light comprises all frequencies.
You just have no idea, do you?
You idiot, matter at 1K emits light – photons. No “transitions from one energy level to another”
there!
You compound your idiocy by waffling –
“The greenhouse effect is the abbysomething of specific wavelengths of infrared by gaseous CO2 and other polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere reducing the rate of cooling of the Earths surface to space, which causes an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.”
Not over the last four and a half billion years, it hasnt. The Earth has cooled, not heated up. You even accepted that the Earth has cooled. Reducing the rate of cooling just means slower cooling. At the moment the Earth is cooling very, very, slowly – as it should.
You are such a delusional nong that you are even refusing to believe yourself!
Carry on with the comedy routine.
Swenson,
“Complete nonsense. Light comprises all frequencies.”
Nope, light only comes in frequencies that are integer multiples of Planck’s constant.
This is what Planck said about the subject.
“to interpret UN [the vibrational energy of N oscillators] not as a continuous, infinitely divisible quantity, but as a discrete quantity composed of an integral number of finite equal parts. Let us call each such part the energy element ε;”
Planck, On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum
“You idiot, matter at 1K emits light photons. No transitions from one energy level to another
there!”
Yes, transitions are required to emit light, and there are transitions available in a body of matter at 1K, very low frequency light.
“At the moment the Earth is cooling very, very, slowly as it should.”
Nope, the Earth’s surface has been warming lately.
https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Temperature_graph_showing_data_from_four_independent_research_institutions.jpeg?w=1280&format=webp
Baffled bobby,
Light comes in all frequencies. You cannot specify a frequency that light cannot have, because you don’t know what you are talking about. The energy possessed by a photon is the product of its frequency multiplied by Planck’s constant. The frequency can be anything at all.
You don’t specify what you mean by transitions, but no matter. What transitions do you believe occur in raising the simplest atom, hydrogen, from 1 K to 1.0000000000000000001 K? I suppose you believe some temperatures cannot exist – because of Planck’s constant!
The Earth is cooling, losing about energy at a rate of about 44TW, sunlight notwithstanding.
You remain a confused and fanatical GHE cultist, who lies about producing a description of the GHE for a payment of “50 bucks”.
I hope your fraudulent attempt sell something you don’t possess is not based on your following idiotic attempt to mislead –
“The greenhouse effect is the abbysomething of specific wavelengths of infrared by gaseous CO2 and other polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere reducing the rate of cooling of the Earths surface to space, which causes an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.”
Cooling? And you are claiming the Earth is warming? No wonder you refuse to provide a description of the GHE which mentions “warming”. Cooling does not increase the temperature of anything – that’s why it’s called cooling, you fool.
Carry on.
Swenson,
I am just referring to the work of Max Planck, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics.
“What transitions do you believe occur in raising the simplest atom, hydrogen, from 1 K to 1.0000000000000000001 K? I suppose you believe some temperatures cannot exist because of Plancks constant!”
An atom of Hydrogen does not have a temperature, temperature is the average kinetic energy of a group of atoms.
“The Earth is cooling, losing about energy at a rate of about 44TW, sunlight notwithstanding.”
Which is 170,000 worth of sunlight heating.
“Cooling? And you are claiming the Earth is warming? No wonder you refuse to provide a description of the GHE which mentions warming. Cooling does not increase the temperature of anything thats why its called cooling, you fool.”
Yes, the Earth is warmed by the Sun and cools by emitting infrared radiation to space.
It is warming and cooling at the same time, what part of that do you not understand?
And it is warming faster than it is cooling, so the temperature is going up, not down.
Bobdroege, you dimwitted gongbeater, you wrote –
“An atom of Hydrogen does not have a temperature, temperature is the average kinetic energy of a group of atoms.”
Hydrogen is matter. All matter above absolute zero emits IR. All matter emits radiation at wavelengths dependent on its temperature. Which statement do you wish to dispute to demonstrate your confusion? Are you saying that your “transitions” cannot occur when only one atom is present? Are you mad?
You say about the Earth “It is warming and cooling at the same time, what part of that do you not understand?”
The Earth has cooled from the molten state to its present temperature, as you agree. If you say it warmed at the same time as it cooled, you are right – I don’t understand at all. Who can understand the contradictory ravings of a lunatic? Not me, I confess.
You obviously refuse to divulge your description of the GHE because it involves the Earth simultaneously warming and cooling as it cools, which is a completely useless statement.
Keep on being an ignorant fool.
I’ll keep laughing at you.
Swenson,
“Hydrogen is matter. All matter above absolute zero emits IR. All matter emits radiation at wavelengths dependent on its temperature.”
I was referring to the temperature of an individual atom of hydrogen, which does not have a temperature, which you failed to address. And you are stuck in 19th century physics, try a modern text.
Two things can happen at the same time, the Earth is emitting infrared and abzorbing UV, visible, and infrared at the same time.
If the emitting is greater than the abzorbing, the Earth cools, if the abzorbing is greater than the emitting, which is what is happening now, the Earth warms.
You don’t seem to be able to understand the greenhouse effect, so it does no good to keep trying to explain it to you, which I have done numerous times.
Did you ever study chemistry or physics in high school, did you even graduate from high school or whatever is equivalent in your penal colony?
Bobdroege, you dimwitted gongbeater, you wrote
An atom of Hydrogen does not have a temperature, temperature is the average kinetic energy of a group of atoms.
Hydrogen is matter. All matter above absolute zero emits IR. All matter emits radiation at wavelengths dependent on its temperature. Which statement do you wish to dispute to demonstrate your confusion? Are you saying that your transitions cannot occur when only one atom is present? Are you mad?
You say about the Earth It is warming and cooling at the same time, what part of that do you not understand?
The Earth has cooled from the molten state to its present temperature, as you agree. If you say it warmed at the same time as it cooled, you are right I dont understand at all. Who can understand the contradictory ravings of a lunatic? Not me, I confess.
You obviously refuse to divulge your description of the GHE because it involves the Earth simultaneously warming and cooling as it cools, which is a completely useless statement.
Keep on being an ignorant fool.
Ill keep laughing at you.
Swenson,
You never cease to amuse me.
“Hydrogen is matter. All matter above absolute zero emits IR. All matter emits radiation at wavelengths dependent on its temperature. Which statement do you wish to dispute to demonstrate your confusion? Are you saying that your transitions cannot occur when only one atom is present? Are you mad?”
Yes, Hydrogen is matter, never said otherwise.
All matter above absolute zero emits IR, well Quantum Electrodynamics disagrees with you, you have heard of that, right?
Yes, that’s Bohr, that one atom can emit and receive radiation,
one hydrogen atom at 1K does not have the orbital transition available to emit a photon of IR.
And I believe what Planck said, that atoms can only emit light in integer multiples of his constant.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
ark…”YouTube has demonetized the Heartland institute channel for content that focuses on controversial issues and that is harmful to viewers. The Heartland institute is a fuel lobby group”.
***
This is why I have issues with your mindless alarmist propaganda. You come on Roy’s site, who is featured at Heartland, and offer your scumbag assault on Roy.
Are you suggesting that Roy, or any of the learned scientists featured at Heartland are in the pockets of the oil companies? If so, beggar off you scumbag.
Youtube is not an entity which takes part in alarmists opinions. Why don’t you name the fellow scumbag who uses Youtube to spread alarmist propaganda? Or are you the scumbag?
Stop pretending that you have Roy’s best interests at heart. You don’t.
John W,
And you think this because . . . ?
You are a presumptions idiot. Can you name someone who is willing to admit that they value your opinion?
[chortling at fool]
Why would I not defend Roy? He’s a decent guy with integrity who is also a damned good scientist. Why should I sit back and watch a scumbag attack him through a vile attempt to connect him to oil money.
Patrick Michaels was tarred with the same brush and desmogblog specializes in assassinating the reputations of good scientists through inference. That’s all you alarmists have. Michaels took money from Western Oil and he justified it since his nemesis, James Hansen of GISS was being funded by the government. Al Gore was his good buddy.
I see no issues with scientists accepting funding from Big Oil as long as they maintain their integrity and report the science objectively.
I don’t care what Heartland represents in private, they are giving a platform for skeptical scientists to air their view. The mainstream fake news outlets, on the other hand, ignore them and feature only alarmist views.
Mr. Asshat tries to deflect from the fact that Roy himself would want him gone.
“Mr. Asshat tries to deflect from the fact that Roy himself would want him gone.”
Would want him gone? Now you not only read minds, you read future minds!
Oh dear, Willard, you have definitely lost it.
Have you thought of trying to get Dr Spencer to do what you want, or are you just being a complete loser?
The world wonders!
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you already forgot:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/08/is-your-comment-here-not-appearing/#comment-1518969
If wishes were fishes, no-one would starve.
Thank you for your concern.
Nobody cares about your lack of concerns for what wishes Roy, the owner of this website.
Not even Roy.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I repeat:
It amazes me how basic physics like climate change has turned into a political issue. One side has anger, hate and fear, while the other has logic, compassion, and science.
Arkady,
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Not science, arithmetic which can be done by any reasonably competent 12 year old.
You refuse to even describe the GHE, that’s how scientific you think the GHE is!
You are a fanatical GHE cultist, banging on about something you refuse to describe.
No science at all.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Your myopic views make your statement humourous. Any political issues are pushed by alarmists since their sole interest is not science but forcing the public in a climate of fear through propaganda.
So why does your side have so much anger, hate and fear?
For the same reasons you keep punching hippies, Mr. Asshat:
https://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-robert-morris-confesses-to-moral-failure.html
Robert is the spiritual advisor of teh Donald.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Norman…”Any energy absorbed will slow the cooling (the surface constantly radiates away energy). This will allow the solar heated surface to reach a higher temperature.
***
This theory is nonsense. The surface cools at the instant the radiation is emitted. Therefore, the rate of cooling is unaffected by absorbing radiation by GHGs at a later time.
Surface cooling is covered by Newton’s Law of Cooling. It states that the rate of heat dissipation at a surface is proportional to the difference in temperature between the surface and its environment. The temperature of the environment is controhled by N2 and O2 which make up 99% of the atmosphere.
Gordon,
“The surface cools at the instant the radiation is emitted.”
Pretty much – that’s why the surface cools at night.
No mythical GHE. Slow cooling is still cooling – more energy out than in.
Any body without internal heating cools as you have pointed out before. The rate of cooling governed by the difference in temperature between the body and its environment. Nothing to do with trace gases per se.
Gordon, and Swenson
“The rate of cooling governed by the difference in temperature between the body and its environment.”
And by the amount of matter which impedes heat loss between the source of the heat and the environment.
In the case of the Earth’s interior, there are mega tons of rock resisting that heat loss.
The atmosphere is what impedes the heat loss from the surface, not the source of the internal heat of the Earth, to space. The surface is heated far more from the Sun than from the escape of heat from Earth’s interior.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“The atmosphere is what impedes the heat loss from the surface, not the source of the internal heat of the Earth, to space. The surface is heated far more from the Sun than from the escape of heat from Earths interior.”
You are obviously trying to say something relevant, but having some difficulty.
You mean to say that the Earth is cooling? It’s generally accepted that the atmosphere is part of the Earth.
If you are trying to say that the planet is warming, I would have to laugh in your face.
The Earth loses about 44TW. That’s called cooling. Geophysicists (real scientists) vary slightly on the rate of cooling, but between one and four millionths of a Kelvin per annum seems to encompass the range.
What bizarre reason do you have for thinking that the planet is warming?
Swenson,
The Earth get 170,000 TW from the Sun.
Which number is more bigger?
44 or 170,000?
One Trick Pony, what ever I say, you respond with some version of the Earth is cooling.
Chill Out Man!
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“Swenson,
The Earth get 170,000 TW from the Sun.
Which number is more bigger?
44 or 170,000?
One Trick Pony, what ever I say, you respond with some version of the Earth is cooling.
Chill Out Man!”
“Which number is more bigger?” Are you really more stupider?
After four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the Earth has cooled – the surface is no longer molten. During the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, whether you like or not.
You even agreed the surface is no longer molten! Are you dumb, or dumber?
There is no GHE.
Swenson,
170,000 minus 44 equals 169,956.
Which means warming.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
troubleshooting.
norman…”You believe … dishonest Putin ,
***
Norman…your post is so full of banned words that I cannot quote it entirely. Why don’t you grow up and reply without the ad homs and insults.
I have never claimed to believe Putin, I know hardly anything about him. I am basing my opinions on the arrogance of the West, who put us all in peril of a nuclear war by spreading bs about him and his intentions.
The West has claimed his sole interest is taking over the Ukraine and other countries that border Russia. Thus far, he has done exactly what he said he’d do: get rid of the Nazi Azov battalion and claim the Donbas region on behave of the residents there. Meantime, Western propaganda has all European nations believing Putin is about to invade their countries.
Gordon Robertson
So that is why he sent a miles long column of tanks toward Kiev in the beginning of the war?
Putin lies constantly and if you don’t know anything about him, why do you comment about him?
Have you checked images of the towns and cities he has been shelling? He is a terrible human with no remorse for the deaths of his own or others. Just a power mad fanatic that will tell you anything he believes people like you will believe. You are not so much for truth but you like lies, you are attracted to them for some reason.
Since you won’t do your own research I will do it for you.
https://www.businessinsider.com/before-and-after-images-show-destruction-of-ukraines-bakhmut-2023-5
This is what Russia is doing in Ukraine!
Based on the evidence, he is telling the truth and the West with their fake news outlets have been the liars.
Your angst against Lanka is confusing. He discovered the first virus in the ocean. His crime, according to you, is researching viral theory and finding glaring errors in it. He has put his money where his mouth is by offering 100,000 Euros to anyone who can prove scientifically, based on the written evidence, that the measles virus has been isolated.
One snotty-nosed scientist tried and an incompetent lower court in Germany offered him the prize. Upon appeal to a higher court their decision was overturned. The higher court brought in their own scientific specialist and he agreed with Lanka that insufficient evidence was available in the literature to confirm the measles virus has been isolated.
Lanka argued that the methods used in labs to claim a virus lacked a control. The inference was that a suspected viral source when applied to live cells was confirmed if the cells died. Lanka proved to the higher court that such cells would die on their own due to methods used preparing them. Such a simple control would have revealed that but no virus claim has had such a control in place.
This is the point Lanka is trying to make, the ID of various viruses has been based on incompetent assump.tions and not actual research.
You bad-mouth Shula whose only crime, as far as you see it, is claiming conduction/convection of heat from the surface is 260 times better than radiation alone. He proved it using the Pirani gauge and your only comeback was that emissivity from the gauge filament is inadequate to make such an assump.tion.
Shula hs a degree in physics and broad experience in the field with the Piraani gauge but Norman ad hom him as a crackpot.
Your claim only reveals your inability to do real science. The emissivity of a thin filament has nothing to do with the fact that radiation is a poor heat dissipator, therefore your objection is a red-herring argument.
Shula points out the real science. A surface has 10^27 atoms that can transfer heat to air molecules directly. Surface radiation depends on the transitions of electrons in the material and apparently that process is 260 times less efficient than direct heating of air molecules by a surface.
Gordon Robertson
You are not being honest about the Lanka case at all. The ruling of the higher court was NOT that the measles virus did not exist. It was that the stipulation for the award was that it had to be done with one paper and not numerous. They stated the person who made the award had the right to determine the winning criteria. The rest you posted is just some lie you got from some blog that you blindly believe.
https://fullfact.org/health/stefan-lanka-measles-german-court/
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “The emissivity of a thin filament has nothing to do with the fact that radiation is a poor heat dissipator, therefore your objection is a red-herring argument.”
It has everything to do with it! What science did you claim to study? You don’t believe the Stefan-Boltzmann Law works at room temperature. I have linked you to experiments that prove your belief wrong but you ignore it all.
Have you ever seen the Stefan-Boltzmann Law???
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
Gordon, when you are so illiterate on real science it seems hopeless to attempt to correct you.
Look at the equation posted in the link. Do some of your own work instead of accepting a crackpot like Shula.
https://byjus.com/stefan-boltzmann-law-calculator/
In this calculator put in 1 for the emissivity set the temp at 300 K then calculate how much energy is radiated. Around 459 W/m^2. Now put in 0.05 in the emissivity and at the same temperature the radiated energy is reduced to 23 W/m^2. But you claim emissivity has nothing to with with radiant energy loss.
The sad thing about you Gordon is that you do not know how poor you science is. You think Shula is valid even though this logic is terrible.
Again with your lack of reason. Why does the Moon only reach a peak temperature in the Sun for 2 weeks with 1360 W/m^2 of incoming solar influx. It is because the Moon surface is radiating away this amount of energy in the IR band! You can also look at graphs of the Moon cooling. It follows an exponential path not a linear one. It cools rather quickly at first then cooling rate slows down.
June 15, 2024 by Matt Williams
Don’t Get Your Hopes Up for Finding Liquid Water on Mars
https://www.universetoday.com/
And:
Posted on June 15, 2024 by Mark Thompson
Fish Could Turn Regolith into Fertile Soil on Mars
https://www.universetoday.com/
As I have, Mars is only habitable if it has mineable water.
And I define mars mineable water as being able to mine a million tons of water within 1 year.
But it’s not a one off, one has have a reasonable expectation that one could in the future mine more billion tons of water per year.
Or simply, one needs to be able to buy Mars water at $1 per kg or $1000 per ton. And as compared to Earth this is very expensive water.
One of course has other costs of things, such as electrical power and say the amount a kg/ton of CO2 costs.
But my point is if can’t mine 1 million ton or 1 billion dollars of water within a year, Mars is not habitable.
The Moon also needs cheap water and CO2, but it can be more more expensive, but is use is related to making lunar rocket.
But the Moon is mostly rocket fuel as surface mass is more than 40% oxygen, also lunar surface is implanted by the Sun with Hydrogen and Helium. So you could mine iron and from Iron Oxide get oxygen. It takes less energy than oxides of Aluminum and other metals.
Anyways on the Moon you not mining water for drinking water, you doing it to make rocket fuel and to be able to use reuseable rockets to get to Moon and leave the Moon.
Mars also has lot’s rocket fuel, CO2 can be made into rocket fuel, and water on Mars is about water for drinking water, also farming, also radiation shielding, water to process waste, and water to give pressure to live in. If in water on Mars, you don’t need a spacesuit- spacesuits are also called pressure suits. Scuba gear could be useful and hold your breath under water.
Domes on a Mars land surface has problems with the pressure they, dome under water on Mars, has less problems- and cheaper.
Mars caves is also helpful, in this regard- and of course it’s possible deep caves could have liquid water in them and/or frozen water in them.
NASA slogan is find water on Mars-but that related to finding life on Mars. And NASA should looking for water to prove their claim- that Mars is most habitable planet {other than Earth}.
gb…I was hoping to find Mars bars at various locations lying around to be retrieved.
My personal interest is for NASA to explore space.
NASA has said it’s very eager to send crew to Mars to explore it,
and has been wanting to do this for more than 4 decades.
All the people involved with Mars robotic exploration claim we need crew exploration of Mars. And the decades of sending robotic missions [costing tens of billion of dollars] proves there needs to be humans on Mars.
I think we need human and a lot more cheaper robotic mission to Mars- crew will make cheaper and better mars robotic mission and robotic mission will make the crew exploration far more successful {and safer}. It seems NASA is starting to realize it should focus more on crew and more Mars robotic mission.
But to date, all robotic Mars mission have not found any mineable mars water. And same can said about lunar polar region.
I hope, is the crewed lunar missions will make all the orbital mission better at finding lunar mineable water. Or ground truth will prove and disprove orbital measurement and it’s various speculations.
And this could greatly help with finding mineable water on Mars.
The other part of NASA sending crew to the lunar polar region, is a test of whether NASA has any chance of successfully exploring Mars.
Or if NASA can’t be effective, exploring the Moon, it can’t explore Mars, which harder to do. It harder in many ways, but one aspect is the polar polar region is a tiny area as compared to entire planet of Mars.
But NASA is saying “going to the Moon, to stay”.
NASA shouldn’t want to stay on the Moon, and doesn’t even want to stay a long time on Mars. It’s task is to go the the Moon and then go to Mars.
NASA staying on the Moon is a failure of the test of whether NASA can explore Mars.
norman…”Clint R…I have asked you to provide a video of you moving a can around a center one. The can you are moving around you keep the same face pointed to the center can”.
***
The motion of the can and the motion of the Moon are entirely different. The Moon has it’s own linear momentum that is bent into a curvilinear orbit by Earth’s gravitational field. No other forces are acting on it and it cannot rotate on a local axis if it keeps the same face pointed at Earth.
The can has no momentum other than what you give it by your hand and to move it into a curvilinear orbit, you must turn it with your hand.
A much better example is a ball on a string or a car circling an oval. The ball cannot turn on a local axis while attached to the string and the car cannot do it without its tires losing grip on the track.
How about a locomotive on an oval track? It keeps the same face pointed to the inside of the track and it cannot rotate around its COG without being lifted by a crane or sitting on a turntable.
Mr. Asshat works extra hard to resurrect an issue on which he might be the only person in the world to hold the position that he does.
It is indeed gratifying to see the level of your concern. I hope it brings you great solace in these difficult times.
On the other hand, maybe you are just an idiotic troll.
[derisive snort]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your snot.
You are representing the feelings of nobody, are you?
[witless troll]
oh, no, me and Isaac Newton agree on a lot of things. We don’t see eye to eye with Albert, however. In fact, when I channeled Isaac the other night, he claimed Albert is a twit.
Mr. Asshat is so big in his own head that he thinks he knows Isaac better than everybody else, including Isaac himself, whom clearly states that a lunar day is more or less equal to a lunar month.
Mr, Asshat usually then switches to ranting about the translators of Isaac Newton, forgetting that he has been given the Latin text a few times already.
he claimed Albert is a twit.
He makes no mention of this in the Principia.
Gordon,
Hearing voices is a symptom of schizophrenia, perhaps you should make sure you are taking your meds.
“A much better example is a ball on a string or a car circling an oval. The ball cannot turn on a local axis while attached to the string and the car cannot do it without its tires losing grip on the track.”
The problem is that the car does NOT accurately model the moon’s motion. A car keeps one face (the “front” or “nose” of the car) moving straight ahead on the ellipse. The moon does not; the ‘nose’ of the moon wobbles back and forth. This means that the car does not give the correct libration.
And we all know that one of the hallmarks of science is that if a theory does not match actual observations, the thoery must be discarded in favor of a better theory.
“And we all know that one of the hallmarks of science is that if a theory does not match actual observations, the thoery must be discarded in favor of a better theory.”
Not quite.
As Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You may think that a mythical GHE is responsible for hotter thermometers, for example. Complete nonsense, but some people will believe anything.
If you cant even propose a reproducible experiment to support your speculations, you dont understand the phenomenon at all – youre dreaming.
As is the case for anybody who dreams of a GHE!
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your Dick quotes.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
wee willy…could you refrain from polluting the blog with pseudo-science from a Cwazy Wabbitt?
“They are indeed, as Wood showed, dominated by convective constraint. On the other hand, the same underlying change in energy flux is there in both cases you are reducing convective energy flow from the sunlit ground into the high atmosphere in the glass greenhouse, and reducing radiative energy flow from the ground to the high atmosphere with greenhouse gases”.
***
Halpern, aka Eli Rabbett, has a degree in physics and still he spews pseudo-scientific nonsense. He is trying desperately to justify an anachronism dating back to the mid-19th century that trace gases like CO2 can catastrophically warm the planet. Unfortunately, he reveals an inherent lack of awareness of what he is trying to do. People will suffer if plans to reduce CO2 by restricting fossil fuels in allowed.
In the statement above he hides behind the word energy, as energy fluxes, claiming that blocking heated molecules of air by the glass in a greenhouse is equivalent to the partial blocking of surface IR by GHGs. By doing this, he is claiming heat and infrared are one and the same energy.
Heat and IR are to different energies. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules and can be blocked, hence trapped, by glass, which can trap atomic particles. What Eli fails to grasp is basic quantum theory, which explains the fundamental relationship between radiation and electrons in atoms and how both are drastically different.
Not only that, The KE representing heat in electrons is lost instantly when radiation is produced. That is the basis of Bohr’s theory, that excited electrons in atomic orbitals, lose KE when dropping to a lower orbital level and the lost energy is transformed to electromagnetic radiation and emitted as quanta of EM.
He should also get it as a physicist that EM does not appear out of a black box in the atom. It is comprised of an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field and it has a frequency. What else has those properties?..the electron. It has an electric charge which can create an associated magnetic field, at right angles, and it has an angular frequency.
Therefore as a surface cools, it loses KE and the lost KE is converted to EM. That clearly means that heat is lost as the EM is produced. Therefore, trapping part of the EM by GHGs has no effect on the surface cooling.
Gordon Robertson
You even get the basics wrong!
YOU: “Not only that, The KE representing heat in electrons is lost instantly when radiation is produced. That is the basis of Bohrs theory, that excited electrons in atomic orbitals, lose KE when dropping to a lower orbital level and the lost energy is transformed to electromagnetic radiation and emitted as quanta of EM.”
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/ChemPRIME_(Moore_et_al.)/05%3A_The_Electronic_Structure_of_Atoms/5.12%3A_Electron_Density_and_Potential_Energy
The Kinetic energy is reduced in a higher orbital but the potential energy increases. Not sure where you got the idea kinetic energy increases but it is not based upon any real science. I think you just made it up because it seemed logical to you but you had no supporting evidence or math to justify your belief.
Gordon,
The Rabbett is qualified to teach Quantum Mechanics, and you have not even attempted to take such a course.
And electrons have binding energy, not kinetic energy, and do not orbit the nucleus.
I think the term too stoopid for school applies to you, I don’t think you could meet the prerequisites to enroll in a course of Quantum Mechanics.
Baffled bobby,
Maybe you don’t realise it, but “quantum mechanics” is a very broad description, and quite meaningless without further explanation.
You say that Eli Rabbett (Joshua Halpern) is qualified to teach “Quantum Mechanics”.
I surmise that you are just making stuff up again, and you will claim that you meant to say something else, or that you were attempting to ridicule someone, or something of that nature.
It doesnt really matter – there is no GHE.
Your completely bizarre description –
“The greenhouse effect is the abbysomething of specific wavelengths of infrared by gaseous CO2 and other polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere reducing the rate of cooling of the Earths surface to space, which causes an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.”
makes absolutely no sense. Cooling, is a decrease in temperature, not an increase.
The Earth has cooled. You say you accept the fact, but you still don’t believe it, do you?
That’s cultism for you. Prepared to be seen as stupid and gullible for no good reason at all.
Swenson,
I should not need to tell you where the Rabbett taught Quantum Mechanics, you should be able to find that, but if you are really that incompetent or unable to feed yourself, I will tell you. Get the free of charge deal before it expires.
So did the Earth cool by emitting infrared ever since it was molten?
“Maybe you dont realise it, but quantum mechanics is a very broad description, and quite meaningless without further explanation.”
No, it’s not very broad, it deals with very tiny things.
OK, quantum mechanics describe the way infrared light interacts with gaseous CO2 molecules.
You can’t understand it, so what good is it to describe it to you?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
wee willy…”Former White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin has disclosed that [teh Donald] repeatedly mused out loud about executing people…”
***
Sounds like a hissy fit. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Who among us has never wished another harmed in a moment of stress? Talking about executing someone and actually doing it are two different things. Of course, the scumbag fake news jumps all over such innuendo to damage Trump.
And we willy is enough of an ijit not to understand the difference.
Mr. Asshat might try to minimize this too:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/16/trump-gets-name-of-his-doctor-wrong-as-he-challenges-biden-to-cognitive-test
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Kenya produces 90% of its electricity from renewables. But:
Despite Africa having an estimated 40% of the worlds renewable energy resources, only $60bn or 2% of $3tn renewable energy investments in the last decade have come to Africa, read the declaration.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/25/our-contribution-to-a-cleaner-world-how-kenya-found-an-extraordinary-power-source-beneath-its-feet#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20Kenya%20sources%20up%20to%2091%25%20of%20its%20energy%20from%20renewables%3A%2047%25%20geothermal%2C%2030%25%20hydro%2C%2012%25%20wind%20and%202%25%20solar.
Elliott,
Presumably, you have a point which you are refusing to divulge.
Well, that will have everybody kneeling at your feet, waiting for you to dispense hidden knowledge!
Only joking of course, you are just another fanatical GHE cultist trying to look clever, aren’t you?
Still refusing to provide a valid description of the GHE, are you?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your presumptions, for they are like as silly as all your other speech acts,
Thank you.
I probably won’t get much done on the plugin today. Just a “hello, world” version. I’ll put it up on the Chrome plugins repo when it can do a basic filter to hide certain names. No commitment to when it will be up, but I will do it.
Once we have a plugin, there are a lot of things one could do to enhance the site. For instance, one could add button to open and close each thread, or sort and filter threads by various criteria. I’d be interested to hear any opinions about what people would find useful.
Elliott,
“I’d be interested to hear any opinions about what people would find useful.”
– Reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Stop breathing.
– Accept reality.
– Admit that you can’t actually produce a valid description of the GHE.
Would you like some more?
Or are you not really interested in my opinions? Have you already decided what people would find useful?
What a guy!
Thank you for your contribution, Elliot.
John W,
His “contribution” is as mythical as the GHE so far.
Words to live by this Father’s Day 2024: Spend less time with the kids.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
For the cheap seats:
Definition of the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.
How it Works
Absorbtion: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor [sic], absorb some of this radiation.
Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.
Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.
Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.
Importance of the Greenhouse Effect
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life. The natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining a stable climate, allowing life to flourish on our planet.
Human Impact
However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and contributing to global warming. This enhanced greenhouse effect is known as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.
Key Takeaway
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun. While it is essential for life, human activities have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming.
Text produce by the Googol AI, which anyone can retrieve in seconds. So don’t believe anyone lying that it can’t be defined.
Elliot, everyone accepts that CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared. Some of that re-emission goes to space, unlike what your AI states — “…preventing it from escaping into space”. But the portion that returns to Earth’s surface (15μ photons), can NOT warm the 288K surface.
Your cult does not understand radiative physics or thermodynamics. They continually confuse things like “heat”, “flux”, and “energy”. They believe that all infrared is “heat”. They believe all parts of the GHE nonsense without understanding any of the relevant physics.
If you can’t show how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface, then you’ve got NOTHING. Also, don’t be confused by the “atmosphere effect”, which is Earth’s REAL “natural process” of insulating the surface from space temperatures.
Clint R 9:40 am is just playing dumb sarcastically to generate laughter since Clint has already proven with actual numbers how 15μ photons can warm a 288K surface and ice cubes can boil water backed up by Dr. Spencer’s relevant experiments some years ago.
“Elliot, everyone accepts that CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared.”
Everyone accepts that CO2 gas is a very transparent gas and absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation.
And that all transparent gases absorbs and re-emit infrared.
And when you have a mixture of different gases, CO2 is regarded as a weak greenhouse gas.
What is claimed is that higher levels of CO2 on Earth, cause a higher amount of water vapor to occur in Earth atmosphere- and water vapor is called a strong greenhouse gas.
If one were concerned about higher global air temperature when you are in an Icehouse global climate {and have been for 39.9 million years], then the explanation of how more CO2 in the atmosphere could cause more water vapor in the atmosphere to occur when one is a Ice Age, is required.
Or as everyone knows, doubling of CO2 level without it causing more water vapor, can only be a very small amount of warming. Or doesn’t prevent Earth from returning to another glacial max.
The amount water vapor in Earth atmosphere is more than 3% in the tropical ocean area, but globally the average is less than 1%.
Or most of greenhouse effect is over the tropical ocean.
CO2 is roughly equally distributed, globally, and it is well below
.1 % and globally Water vapor doesn’t get below .1 %.
So in tropics, CO2 is far less than .1% and water vapor is 3% [or more}. Tropics has most amount of greenhouse gases.
And without including any radiant effect of all greenhouse gases, but rather the location of tropics and that 80% of tropics is ocean area
allows the tropics to absorb most to sunlight reaching the entire Earth surface.
Or the transparent tropical ocean absorbs most of energy the sunlight is called the heat engine of the world {it adds warmth to the cold polar regions, as well as everywhere else].
So absorbs the most sunlight AND has the most greenhouse gases.
And where paradise is said to be, is on tropical islands.
Ball4 has NOTHING, so he has to make up crap. Typical cult tactic.
gb, if all that is supposed to mean CO2 cannot warm the surface, then you’re correct.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
How long will you hide your atmosphere-shooting-cold-rays-because-of-greenhouse-gases theory?
That’d make your silly tap dancing around what “everyone accepts” more explicit.
More funny sarcasm from Clint R 11:43 am; nothing made up since Clint actually informed the blog the “15μ photon has 0.083 meV” of energy to add when absorbed thereby warming the 288K surface a bit.
“gb, if all that is supposed to mean CO2 cannot warm the surface, then youre correct.”
Sunlight warms a sandy dry surface to about 70 C and warms ocean surface to about 30 C.
Sunlight warms the surface of solar pond to about 30 C. If solar pond can remain still [rain does fall on it nor wind blow across it, 1 meter below the surface of solar pond, can reach 80 C.
The tropical ocean is basically a well mixed [due to constant waves- though also has wind and rain] solar pond.
Ball4 and silly willy have teamed up to defend their bogus GHE. There’s barely enough coherence in Ball4’s comment to figure out where he’s confused. It’s with his not understanding the relation of energy to temperature. Same old, same old….
But poor silly willy sounds like a babbling 5 year-old — makes no sense at all.
With little wind and rain, Solar pond also work on Mars.
Other than making hot water a meter below the surface, solar pond can turn saltwater into freshwater.
There could be a lot briny water on Mars.
I also have mentioned the “trick” of making ocean settlements {with freshwater lakes within them] is very cheap floating breakwaters.
And the very cheap floating breakwater can make very good place to surf the waves.
So, the surfers should unite and make their surfing areas- and could live there, and make a living there, also.
None of that has anything to do with what Elliott said, gb.
Please cut it out.
This is not.
A place for your logorrheas, yes
Willard, please stop trolling.
“None of that has anything to do with what Elliott said, gb.
Please cut it out.”
This is Elliott, thread
Willard might be an idiot, but at least he is stupid.
He can’t even get himself banned, let alone anyone else!
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your white knighting of gb’s gibberish.
Willard might be an idiot, but at least he is stupid.
He cant even get himself banned, let alone anyone else!
Really, Mike, nobody cares about your white knighting of gb’s gibberish.
Thank you for your support.
Nobody is going to Mars.
Some people might be happy to go to an orbit of Mars.
Orbiting Venus and/or Mars might be better than going around the Moon.
At the moment, and perhaps forever, Dear Moon has been cancelled. The guy thought he might do it in 2023, but in 2024, realized probably not going to happen in 2024, and perhaps even thought it doubtful in 2025.
Artemis 2 is presently scheduled for Sept 2025, and NASA crew are going around the Moon with the Artemis 2 mission. This will use SLS, which has already flown a crewed vehicle [without having the crew} with Artemis 1, which worked as far as landing back on Earth without any major problems {though they learned things and will correct some things}. Anyhow, if Artemis 2 works per planned, then Artemis 3 will go to lunar orbit, crew will leave crewed vehicle, and board Starship which will land and allow crew to leave the Moon, and return to back to the crew vehicle which gets them back to Earth surface.
So for crew to land on Moon, it’s related to getting Starship operating and/or New Glenn rocket, operating.
A plan for New Glenn rocket is for it launch robotic mission to Mars
before the end of 2024. And if this happen, recovery of it’s rocket stages will be attempted.
Right now, SpaceX is working towards recovery of it’s first stage rocket, which might lead to a recovery of it’s second stage rocket before the end of 2024.
Or there is a chance, either or both Starship and New Glenn will recover and reuse, the first and second stages of the rockets {never done before, in terms of second stage, other with space planes like Shuttle and also various other space planes {the Chinese has one, and US military has had one- for quite a long time]. But the dragon capsule is also reused and expendable capsules have constantly used for all space stations over many decades.
Anyhow recovering the 33 raptor engine which have price tag of about 2 million dollars each is important step in the Starship development, and long term goal is rapid reuse of launch pad and the entire
rocket. And the Blue Origin, New Glenn rocket has similar goal.
And Chinese and other nations are also working towards this.
Anyways, near term hope of orbiting Mars and/or Venus, is probably related to development of Starship and/or New Glenn reusable rocket.
Venus is closest planet to reach from Earth and would/could have lower radiation effect upon crew.
With trajectory which require least amount rocket power, Earth to Mars: Total DV: 5.5937 km/sec and Trip Time: 0.7087 Years
Venus: Total DV 5.2022 km/sec and Trip Time 0.3999 Years
https://www.clowder.net/hop/railroad/sched.html
One can get to either faster by using more rocket power {delta-v [DV}}. Musk wants to get crew to Mars in .5 years- 6 months.
Using above link the next planetary trajectory window for least and longest travel time, for Earth to Venus is:
2024.9766 12 {Dec} 22 {day} 2024
Venus to Earth is:
2025.0566 1 20 2025
But you probably can’t get there before Jan 26 2025, or assuming you use least delta-v, the next window from Venus back to Earth is:
2026.6552 8 26 2026
What happens if want to go from Venus to Mars:
2025.8711 11 14 2025
And it’s travel time and delta-v:
Total DV: 10.5315 km/sec and Trip Time 0.5954 Years
[that’s from Low Venus orbit and since Venus has no van Allen radiation belts, one could have highly elliptical orbit- one could spend short period of time within 200 km of Venus surface. Ie, 200 by 20,000 km orbit {that would a bad idea to do that with crew around Earth- one would get a lot radiation from Van Allen belts}.
The Russia sort of GEO orbit is called Molniya orbit:
“A satellite in a Molniya orbit is better suited to communications in these regions, because it looks more directly down on them during large portions of its orbit. With an apogee altitude as high as 40,000 kilometres (25,000 mi) and an apogee sub-satellite point of 63.4 degrees north, it spends a considerable portion of its orbit with excellent visibility in the northern hemisphere, from Russia as well as from northern Europe, Greenland and Canada.”
So, that orbital period time is about 12 hours and spend 10 of the 12 hours in the higher part of orbit.
So you spend some of time close to Venus, but spend most of time pretty far from Venus. And it could be something like 200 by 100,000 km orbit, instead, requiring longer time not being close to Venus.
Mars robotic mission tend to start with 200 by 40,000 km orbit, and areobrake to a more circular orbit. But wouldn’t areobrake with crew, and use that orbital energy to leave Venus.
The Starship is rocket designed to go to Mars.
The Starship has been and continues to be a rapidly tested rocket.
One could say the raptor engine is a fully tested rocket engine- other than Musk wants to make Raptor a better rocket engine.
To make Starship a space shuttle to Mars, it has to develop orbital refueling. Orbital refueling is a market for rocket fuel in orbit.
If one can sell LOX {liquid oxygen- a major part of rocket fuel] for $1 million dollars per ton {or much less} it would be important in sending anyone to anyone to the Moon or Mars [or Venus]. There is in terms of mass, 6 part LOX to 1 part liquid Hydrogen- though in terms tankage volume there is more volume of LH2 vs LOX.
But keep it simple, if can get LOX in Earth orbit, you making the capability of any rocket launched from Earth far more capable sending any payload to higher orbits and the Moon and etc.
So, with New Glenn and much smaller rocket than Starship, getting LOX in orbit, making the New Glenn rocket far more capable. Of course Blue Origin plan is to also planning to make rocket depot in LEO, though if available, it could or might simply buy LOX in LEO.
Of course better if LOX could be bought for say $200 per kg [$200,000 per ton]. Of course it would be better to buy rocket fuel in more places than in Low Earth orbit, such as lunar orbit {and/or Venus orbit}. Buying LOX at $2 million per ton in lunar orbit, is better price, than $1 million dollar per ton in LEO. Though buying water at 1 million per ton at lunar orbit, is as good a price, as LOX at $2 million per ton, though if also buy CO2 at 1 million per ton at lunar orbit, that makes the water more valuable or better deal, as it lowers cost of making rocket from from the water- as it’s not easy to make Liquid Hydrogen as compared to Liquid methane.
Another aspect of Starship and New Glenn is orbital capture- something not done before. Orbital capture is coming back from the Moon to Earth, and instead of going to Earth surface, you go to LEO- hit Earth atmosphere, lose enough velocity to so you can stay in a low Earth orbit.
Or for Musk to get to Mars in 6 months of time, he needs to do something very similar to an orbital capture.
It seems to me, a good place to test orbital capture is with Venus. Or I don’t think it’s good idea to try to do a orbital capture, by testing it, with Earth. Or failing with Venus, has less consequences.
Though failing with Mars, likewise has less potential consequences.
With Venus one could get to Venus from Earth, in about 2 months- if you could be successful with doing an orbital capture.
And from Mars to Earth, if one do can orbital capture, you can return to Earth, quicker.
Anyways we done lots of aerobraking, but haven’t done capture.
Though Artemis 2 did do a skip- bleeding off velocity before the final surface landing entry. Perhaps just doing a lot more skips could lead to doing a capture orbit,
The supremely dimwitted Elliott Bignell tries to foist his AI definition on the gullible and the ignorant –
“Definition of the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.”
Elliott has claimed that a definition is the same as a description, much like he claims cooling is warming, but no matter.
Firstly, no gases trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. Sunlight interacts with objects on the surface, increasing their temperature. When the sunlight decreases (say at nighttime), objects on the surface cool, losing all the heat of the day. The planet has cooled from the molten surface state, and four and a half billion years of sunlight didn’t stop it, Elliott Bignell is in fantasy land if he believes otherwise.
Nothing prevents radiation emitted by the surface escaping into space. That’s why the surface cools. Elliott Bignell is away with the fairies again.
Surface temperatures on Earth due to the Sun vary between about +90 C and -90 C. If Elliott Bignell believes that this temperature range is due to greenhouse gases trapping heat from the Sun and warming the planet, he is quite obviously insane.
There is no GHE. Every experiment carried out shows clearly that increasing the amount of insulation between a heat source (like the Sun) and an object (like a thermometer on the Earth’s surface), reduces the amount of radiation reaching the thermometer, lowering its temperature.
Elliott Bignell is obviously in denial of reality. Denial of reality is an obvious sign of insanity, probably some form of delusional psychosis, which seems to be shared by some fanatical GHE cultists.
All good fun. No facts were harmed in the writing of this comment.
Reduces?
Not in Tyndall’s experiments wherein: “On filling the tube the thermometric columns rose, on exhausting it they sank, the range between the maximum and minimum amounting in the case of air to +5 degrees FAHR.”
Swenson gets the sign wrong yet again. Swenson always harms the facts. Pity.
Ball4 is confused, and referring to something irrelevant.
Anybody who is interested can read Tyndall’s experiments for themselves, in “Heat – a mode of motion”, John Tyndall. Published in 1863, but extensively revised, the 5th edition was published in 1905.
They can see for themselves that Ball4 has fooled himself into believing that something impossible has occurred! Tyndall writes about Ball4’s “miracle” – “The heat
generated by the air on its entrance is communicated to the vapour, which thus becomes a temporary source of radiant heat,”. He goes on to write “In both cases, however, the action is transient; the vapour soon loses the heat communicated to it, and soon gains the heat which it has lost, and matters then take their normal course.”
No GHE.
Anyone placing a thermometer in sunlight, can promptly reduce its temperature by shading it from the Sun – insulating it – reducing the amount of the Sun’s radiation reaching the thermometer.
The meteorological Stevenson screen serves the same purpose, trying to shield the thermometer from the Sun’s rays in an attempt to measure “air” temperature.
Ball4 refuses to disclose his imaginary description of the GHE, not wishing to look more ignorant and gullible than he does presently. I don’t blame him.
The closest he managed was writing “There is a GHE once greenhouses were built. Obviously Swenson is the commenter dreaming there is no GHE.”
I think Ball4 is quite mad, but others may have different opinions.
Swenson always harms the facts.
It seems to be a compulsion. Or possibly a hobby.
Some dimwit wrote –
“Swenson always harms the facts.
Pity he can’t explain what he means. What a dummy!
Probably a deranged GHE cultist.
elliott as quoted by Swenson…”Definition of the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space”.
***
The old heat trapping lie. GHGs do not trap heat, they trap no more than 10% of radiation from the surface. That radiation was formed at the surface at the expense of heat which was dissipated at the instant the radiation was emitted.
Basic quantum theory from Bohr in 1913, yet alarmists apparently are not aware of it. Heat is not transferred with the radiation, which is electromagnetic energy with no mass and no heat. However, the IR can be converted back to heat if absorbed by GHG molecules. That is new heat, not heat trapped from the surface.
The statement above from Elliott is somewhat sacrilegious since it admits that the same GHGs are heated by the Sun. However, solar energy is broadband EM and if it heats GHGs it must heat all air molecules. That means that the entire atmosphere is heated by solar energy during the day.
That atmospheric warming is ignored in the alarmist pseudo-science.
GHGs do not trap heat, they trap no more than 10% of radiation from the surface.
Which is a contradiction. And I might add that 10% is more than enough to constitute a greenhouse effect. It it were 100%, we’d be in a state worse than Venus.
That means that the entire atmosphere is heated by solar energy during the day.
Of course it is.
EB,
“And I might add that 10% is more than enough to constitute a greenhouse effect. It it were 100%, wed be in a state worse than Venus.”
Which “greenhouse effect” would that be? The one described as “not cooling, slower cooling” (sounds ridiculous, I know), or some other greenhouse effect?
One that depends on the mythical phenomenon of “trapping heat”, perhaps?
Are you merely ignorant and gullible, or stupid?
The world wonders!
For the cheap seats:
Definition of the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.
How it Works
Absorbtion: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor [sic], absorb some of this radiation.
Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.
Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.
Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.
Importance of the Greenhouse Effect
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life. The natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining a stable climate, allowing life to flourish on our planet.
Human Impact
However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and contributing to global warming. This enhanced greenhouse effect is known as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.
Key Takeaway
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun. While it is essential for life, human activities have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1673848
bob d (from Swenson)…”Bobdroege, you dimwitted gongbeater, you wrote
An atom of Hydrogen does not have a temperature, temperature is the average kinetic energy of a group of atoms.
***
That’s like saying a mass is a collection of atoms but individual atoms don’t have mass. I get what you are saying, that it’s ridiculous to single out a single atom and claim it has a temperature, but it must have a temperature, no matter how small.
There are different definitions of temperature. Anders Celsius defined the centigrade scale in 1742. He defined the Celsius scale as 100 divisions between the boiling point and freezing points of water. Fahrenheit invented the Fahrenheit scale is 1724. The Kelvin scale was invented in 1848.
It was not till 1859 that Maxwell suggested a statistical version of the kinetic theory of gases, after Clausius had started the theory earlier in that decade. Then Boltzmann got in on the act in 1871 leading to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. This led to the idea of temperature being the average kinetic energy of a gas but it dos not apply to solids.
I think Maxwell and Boltzmann led science down a wrong path when they introduced statistical theory. I understand it at the time because the relationship between atoms and heat had not been well-established at the time, and even Clausius had little insight to the actuality. However, with the discovery of Bohr in 1913, which gave a definite relationship between electrons in atoms, heat, and radiation, the old theories re statistical mechanics went out the window.
It is simply not possible to calculate the average KE of a solid of significant size. And let’s face it, when an average KE is claimed for a gas, it is a calculation, not a measurement. No thermometer is capable of measuring the actual kinetic energy of molecules in a space nor in a solid or liquid.
In a boiling liquid like water, the overall temperature is likely to be close to 100C, but in a 10′ x 12′ room subjected to other influences, it is hardly likely that a thermometer hung on one wall can give the room temperature to an accuracy of less than +/- 1C.
If a temperature is an average of kinetic energies, then each data point must exist. That means each atom must have a temperature to contribute to the average.
To be clear, we are measuring heat, the relative level of heat energy. If a mass has a temperature higher than another mass, it means the mass has more heat energy than the other. Since each atom in either mass is contributing to the total heat, then each must have a temperature, or relative amount of heat.
gordon, please stop clogging the blog with your incorrect interpretations of science.
It’s YOUR fault you couldn’t make it through engineering.
Get some professional help, before you hurt yourself.
For once, I agree with Clint.
no surprise, your just like Clint.
Gordon,
Remember that temperature is average kinetic energy plus the energy of any excited states, so a single atom does not have an average kinetic energy, so it does not have a temperature.
In a group of atoms/molecules each one adds its kinetic energy not its temperature.
And anyway, we weren’t discussing heat, we were discussing the emission of light from a hydrogen atom.
Baffled bobby,
All matter above absolute zero emits infrared light (EMR or photons if you prefer).
A single hydrogen atom is matter.
Don’t blame me if you cannot understand plain English.
Do you agree that a single hydrogen atom above absolute zero is emitting IR light?
Simple question – can you provide a simple answer, or do you intend to demonstrate a mental defect by waffling about something irrelevant at this point?
How hard can it be?
All matter above absolute zero emits infrared light
Therefore all matter above absolute zero absorbs infrared light. This follows from Kirchhoffs Law. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Do you agree that a single hydrogen atom above absolute zero is emitting IR light?
Therefore, it is losing energy and thus cooling towards absolute zero. How, therefore, can a container of gas avoid cooling to absolute zero except by absorbing EM from warmer molecules?
EB,
“Therefore all matter above absolute zero absorbs infrared light. This follows from Kirchhoffs Law. Quod erat demonstrandum”. And water is wet. Whats your point?
I wrote –
Do you agree that a single hydrogen atom above absolute zero is emitting IR light?
You waffled –
“Therefore, it is losing energy and thus cooling towards absolute zero. How, therefore, can a container of gas avoid cooling to absolute zero except by absorbing EM from warmer molecules?”
What has a container to do with anything? If the container absorbs EM from a warmer object, it will get hotter – unless, of course, it is emitting more energy it receives, in which case it will cool.
An example is the surface at night receiving energy from a hotter atmosphere (low level inversion), but the surface still cools. Dimwitted GHE cultists simply ignore reality, and try playing silly semantic games – which they eventually lose.
There is no GHE. You refuse to provide a valid description of the GHE – one which acknowledges the fact that the Earth has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight!
Are you a fool, believing in something that you cant even describe?
That would appear to be impossible, but show everyone how clever you are, if you like.
bob d…”Remember that temperature is average kinetic energy…”
***
I tried to explain that average KE is the theory related to gases. It’s a hypothetical definition based on statistical inference. There are other definitions of temperature.
The kinetic energy of a real gas is the total energy of all molecules in the gas, since all of them are moving. Since KE = 1/2mv^2 then 1 molecule will have that energy. If you sum the molecular energies you should et a series like…
KE(avg) = 1/2(m1v1^2 + m2v2^2 +…mivi^2)/n
where n = number of molecules
However, we don’t know the actual velocities of each molecule. That’s why we need to estimate an average velocity. All the same, knowing the temperature and knowing its the average KE, there’s no reason why the same average cannot be applied to determine the velocity of 1 molecule. It follows that the temperature contributed by each molecule should be possible.
People have complicated this out of all proportion. Temperature is only a relative measure of heat, even though, as with all energies, we have no idea what it is. If it makes you feel better to obfuscate it, fill your boots. Universities are full of people with fancy equations for which they have no idea what they mean.
Swenson,
You are relying on a generalization you found on the internet.
It’s based on 19th century physics, the modern description is more complicated.
The emission of light by matter requires that electrons drop from one orbital to another, and that energy drop is what determines the wavelength of light.
Your mind is not open enough to learn modern physics.
Swenson,
“All matter above absolute zero emits infrared light (EMR or photons if you prefer).”
Look at the spectrum of a black light.
Do you see any IR light being emitted?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp#/media/File:Fluorescent_Black-Light_spectrum_with_peaks_labelled.gif
Bumbling bobby,
“The emission of light by matter requires that electrons drop from one orbital to another, and that energy drop is what determines the wavelength of light.”
Complete nonsense. Light is EMR. Any and all frequencies.
You are thinking about the phenomenon of excitation, which requires minimum photon energies to achieve. The Aurora Borealis is a rare example of naturally occurring excitation.
All matter above absolute zero emits IR radiation (light), wavelengths proportional to absolute temperature.
Look it up if you don’t believe me.
In your typical diversionary fashion you ask –
“Look at the spectrum of a black light.
Do you see any IR light being emitted?”
Is “black light” matter? No? What are you babbling about?
Go on, tell everybody about some type of matter above absolute zero which does not emit IR! Of course you can’t. You are just trying to avoid looking like more of an idiot than you look at the moment.
Listen to Ball4 – all matter above absolute zero emits IR.
Listen to Elliott Bignell – radiation from cooler objects does not raise the temperature of hotter ones.
Accept reality.
Might be worth pointing out at this juncture that the key observation that led to the formulation of quantum physics is that electrons orbiting around an atom do not, most of the time, emit any EMR at all.
Elliot,
Yes, and an electron which is being accelerated emits synchrotron radiation.
Since electrons in orbitals do not continuously emit radiation, they are not accelerating, which means they are not orbiting like little planets in a solar system or like a ball on a string.
Swenson,
“Is black light matter? No? What are you babbling about?”
I said a black light, which is made of matter.
Not “black light”
Whatever that is.
Yes, bobby, and all matter above zero K emits IR.
As usual, you are refusing to believe that gas has a temperature (emitting IR), or that the gas container has a temperature!
An excited gas can emit other frequencies due to excitation – as well as IR due to temperature.
You really enjoy looking stupid, don’t you?
Yes, “orbiting” is a metaphor. It’s actually a probability distribution. I stand corrected.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
yet again, Clint reveals his abject ignorance of science. He is unable to objectively offer a criticism, thus he reverts to ad homs and insults.
Pawthetic!!!
A few lines is better than your usual 50-100, gordon.
But you’re still making stuff up. You seem unable to face reality.
That’s why you need professional help.
You are still running, afraid to stand and debate. You lack the scientific understanding to do that, so you dodge and weave, evading a scientific discussion.
I supported you on the Moon debate and I still feel that I can. You made sense with that argument. However, the nonsense you spout about heat, entropy, flux and the direction of electron flow in a copper conductor is straight out of a pseudo-science manual.
gordon, you should have learned that false accusations bounce off me like low frequency photons bounce off 2000K surfaces.
But, you can’t learn….
And your “support” with the Moon issue was a joke. You invented your “rotating coins” nonsense, which didn’t impress anyone. You were so ignorant of orbital motions you didn’t understand what causes lunar phases.
You don’t understand science, and you can’t learn. Sick people go around claiming they’re electrical engineers when they don’t even understand conventional current flow.
Quit clogging this blog, and seek professional help.
Heres the idiotic bobdroege, ducking and weaving –
Swenson,
“You still haven’t explained how you get water to absorb the photons from CO2 in the form of dry ice.”
Thats too easy, all matter in solid or liquid state emits and abzorbs all IR light, as you have repeatedly stated.
“Maybe you could explain how to get window glass to absorb the photons from the things you are looking at through the glass.”
Window glass is not 100% transparent, maybe you have tried looking through multiple panes of glass, and noted that it transmits green better than other colors, or maybe not.
“Go on, you got my fifty bucks. Where’s the GHE description you promised?”
I have already given you a description of the GHE, but you have not paid up.
in order –
– “Thats too easy, all matter in solid or liquid state emits and abzorbs all IR light, as you have repeatedly stated.” Well, no, bobby, it doesnt, and I havent, and your silly statement makes no sense all. Dry ice will not warm water.
– “Window glass is not 100% transparent, maybe you have tried looking through multiple panes of glass, and noted that it transmits green better than other colors, or maybe not.” You admit photons can travel through glass, in spite of previously saying that they couldn’t – that photons could only be absorbed or reflected.
– “I have already given you a description of the GHE, but you have not paid up.” bobby, I paid with fantasy “bucks” for a non-existent fantasy description. I distinctly remember counting “One. two , three . . .”, hoping to get something better than your latest useless description –
“The greenhouse effect is the abbysomething of specific wavelengths of infrared by gaseous CO2 and other polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere reducing the rate of cooling of the Earths surface to space, which causes an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.”, and yes, Im ridiculing you.
bobby, cooling does not result in an increase in temperature. The four and a half billion year cooling of the earth has not increased its temperature.
You are obviously cracked, nutty, insane. You havent the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Carry on – I await your next farrago of nonsense.
Thats too easy, all matter in solid or liquid state emits and abzorbs all IR light
Therefore any claim that 15μm photons cannot be absorbed by any matter in solid or liquid state is false. This follows from Kirchhoff’s Law.
Elliott Bignell,
“Thats too easy, all matter in solid or liquid state emits and abzorbs all IR light”
Are you mad enough to believe any nonsense bobdroege dribbles?
What do you think he means by “all iR light”? Don’t know? Can’t say? Go on, be really stupid, and tell everyone what bumbling bobby means. Dry ice emits all frequencies? Regardless of temperature? I don’t think so, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Or maybe he means absorbs all frequencies? Well no, not if the absorber is hotter than the emitter! That would just be silly – some idiot might claim that he could warm water with dry ice!
Go on, be really witless, and claim that the radiation from dry ice can be used to make water warmer.
You wrote –
“Therefore any claim that 15μm photons cannot be absorbed by any matter in solid or liquid state is false. This follows from Kirchhoffs Law.”
You are waffling. Dry ice emits 15um photons. You imply that water absorbs 15um photons. What difference do you think it makes to the temperature of the water? None?
What are you babbling about? An undetectable interaction? Water absorbs 15um photons but precisely nothing changes? You have been taking too many stupid pills, but keep the humour coming.
Swenson,
“Or maybe he means absorbs all frequencies? Well no, not if the absorber is hotter than the emitter! That would just be silly some idiot might claim that he could warm water with dry ice!”
Well, no, the claim that you can warm water with dry ice is not supported, even though water does abzorb the radiation from dry ice, the fact is that the dry ice would be abzorbing more radiation from the water thus would be warmed by the water and the water would be cooling.
bob, the reason ice can not warm water is the same reason CO2’s 15μ photons can not warm a 288K surface.
15μ photons can not warm a 288K surface
CO2^s 15μ photons can quite happily cut steel at 288K.
the fact is that the dry ice would be absorbing more radiation from the water thus would be warmed by the water and the water would be cooling.
Precisely. I’ve explained this to these clowns any number of times.
Sorry Elliott, but a CO2 laser does NOT apply to natural situations. This has been explained before, but you can’t learn. Your need to keep using such a distraction is evidence you have NOTHING.
Clint,
You can’t tell a photon from a natural source from a photon from a laser.
They both can be abzorbed by a 288K surface according to the abzorbativity of that surface.
bob, do nails drive themselves into a wall?
(Cultists won’t understand this because it involves “entropy”.)
Clint,
What does that crap on the wall have to do with anything>
You just detected a 15 um photon, how do you tell what emitted it?
Bumbling bobby wrote –
“Clint,
What does that crap on the wall have to do with anything>
You just detected a 15 um photon, how do you tell what emitted it?”
Who cares? What’s your point? Are you boasting about making stupid irrelevant comments?
Finally –
“the fact is that the dry ice would be absorbing more radiation from the water thus would be warmed by the water and the water would be cooling.
Precisely. Ive explained this to these clowns any number of times.”
No argument there. A cooler atmosphere cannot warm a warmer surface. Hopefully the GHE which you refuse to describe doesnt say anything so silly.
Well done – all this nonsense about absorption of photons is just that – nonsense, having no effect at all! Colder bodies do not raise the temperature of warmer ones.
The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so!
No greenhouse effect at all.
At last, some sanity prevails.
The surface has demonstrably cooled since it was molten.
Imbecιle.
a CO2 laser does NOT apply to natural situations.
Ah, yes. More of those magically-swerving photons, I see.
So let’s deflect one in your direction. What property of the photon tells you whether it comes from a laser or a CO2 molecule?
Don’t forget to specify whether it’s a CO2 molecule arising in a natural situation or one from anthropogenic sources, by the way.
Elliott the idiot writes –
“So lets deflect one in your direction. What property of the photon tells you whether it comes from a laser or a CO2 molecule?”
Ah, a deflection is it? What difference does it make?
Are you now going to claim that the photons emitted by frozen CO2 can warm water after all?
How does water know where photons come from? Please explain why some 15 um photons can heat water (from a CO2 laser), but the same wavelengths from dry ice cannot.
You’re just an ignorant cultist who can’t answer your own gotchas. How pathetic is that?
You also disagree that the Earth’s surface has cooled from a molten state, or maybe you just write “imbecile” for no reason at all. Which is it?
You’re not exactly the brightest GHE cultist, are you? Still claiming that the GHE has warmed the Earth by trapping sunlight over the past four and a half billion years? Or refusing to say what you think?
There is no GHE, dimwit. You’re dreaming.
How does water know where photons come from? Please explain why some 15 um photons can heat water (from a CO2 laser), but the same wavelengths from dry ice cannot.
That’s your drivel to explain.
Swenson,
“Colder bodies do not raise the temperature of warmer ones.”
That’s just nonsense.
Of course they can, I have done exactly that.
Elliott,
So you cant explain why the 15 um photons from dry ice cannot warm water?
That’s why you say “Thats your drivel to explain.”, is it?
Oh well, if you think that physical laws are “drivel”, that probably explains your fanatical GHE cultist beliefs.
Maybe you could just say “imbecile” and reject reality.
[chortle]
Swenson,
“Who cares? Whats your point? Are you boasting about making stupid irrelevant comments?”
Are you having trouble following the conversation?
Elliott,
So you cant explain why the 15 um photons from dry ice cannot warm water?
Thats why you say Thats your drivel to explain., is it?
Oh well, if you think that physical laws are drivel, that probably explains your fanatical GHE cultist beliefs.
Maybe you could just say imbecile and reject reality.
You are no doubt referring to bobdroege. I agree.
[chortle]
–Earth’s Core Seems to Be Wrapped in an Ancient, Unexpected Structure
Nature
15 June 2024 By David Nield —
https://www.sciencealert.com/earths-core-seems-to-be-wrapped-in-an-ancient-unexpected-structure
“The most high-resolution map yet of the underlying geology beneath Earth’s Southern Hemisphere revealed something we previously never knew about: an ancient ocean floor that may wrap around the core.”
Linked from: https://instapundit.com
June 17, 2024 7:51 a.m. CDT
Muslim pilgrims used the early morning hours Monday to perform the second day of the symbolic stoning of the devil, as noontime summer heat caused heatstroke among thousands wrapping up the Hajj pilgrimage.
More than 2,760 pilgrims suffered from sunstroke and heat stress on Sunday alone at the start of the first round of stoning, according to the Health Ministry. Jordan announced Sunday that 14 Jordanian pilgrims had died from heatstroke.
More than 1.83 million Muslims performed the Hajj in 2024, slightly less than last year’s 1.84 million, according to data released by the Saudi Hajj and Umra Ministry. This year’s figures included more than 1.6 million pilgrims from 22 countries, and around 222,000 Saudi citizens and residents.
“Religion is a kind of opium…”
That should be “a FALSE religion is a kind of opium”.
A FALSE religion, aka “cult”, is like the anti-science group believing in the GHE nonsense. (Even Dr. Lindzen has stated as much.)
Even Dr. Lindzen
Arf.
I’m in the same camp with the 97.1% to 99.99% of climate scientists – defined as researchers publishing in peer-reviewed journals – who understand the natural processes of the GHE.
You on the other hand deny the GHE, period.
As Dr Spencer wrote:
Where’s your quantitative model?
Ark, the “vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere” is simply the “lapse rate”.
But your need to constantly hide behind Dr. Spencer reveals how weak your beliefs really are. He’s a “Lukewarmer”!
You’ve got NOTHING.
Clint,
The lapse rate changes with the amount of greenhouse gases in the column of air.
How do you explain that?
your need to constantly hide behind Dr. Lindzen reveals how weak your beliefs really are.
Here Dr Spencer asks What if there was no Greenhouse effect?
Answer: there would be no weather on Earth without the greenhouse effect.
So, by denying the existence of the GHE you’re denying the existence of weather and by extension, climate.
Ark, Elliott, and bob, you keep moving the goalposts. You just throw more and more crap against the wall. That’s why we need you to state exactly what you believe the bogus GHE is. What is ONE description you will live with, and not change? You can’t say. You have no viable description of your GHE, because it’s bogus.
You can’t come up with a viable description to support your beliefs, because your beliefs ain’t science.
I thought Elliott did a bang-up job here. Just because you can’t understand it, doesn’t mean if doesn’t exist.
Clint,
I just provided you with a fact, I moved no goalposts.
It’s like if you asked a hundred art critics for a description of the Mona Lisa, you would get a hundred different answers.
Your whiney bitch complaint is rejected.
“Answer: there would be no weather on Earth without the greenhouse effect”
Wrong. There is no greenhouse effect, and weather exists.
The planet has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, and weather has existed.
Appeals to authority are only appeals.
You refuse to describe this supposed “greenhouse effect”. Cultism, obviously. Secret, arcane knowledge not to be imparted to unbelievers!
What a joke!
“Its like if you asked a hundred art critics for a description of the Mona Lisa, you would get a hundred different answers.”
Why would you ask an art critic for a description of the GHE? Because GHE cultists refuse to divulge a valid description?
How stupid would that be!
The very weird and confused bobdroege continues to pose stupid gotchas.
His latest –
“Clint,
The lapse rate changes with the amount of greenhouse gases in the column of air.
How do you explain that?”
The lapse rate is just the rate at which temperature generally falls with altitude under certain circumstances. This partially depends on the density and composition of the air, and can be negative.
You seem quite ignorant – don’t you understand things like the lapse rate? Are you appealing to the authority of Clint R?
What are “greenhouse gases”, and what is their relevance to the lapse rate?
You are a funny chap – trying to appear clever, but not succeeding terribly well.
Carry on.
Clint R
I do not think Dr. Lindzen would agree with your science denial.
Here is what he claims:
“warming are based on what is essentially the assumption that
variations in water vapor, clouds, and so on act to amplify rather
than oppose the impact of CO₂; in other words, they are assumed
to be positive rather than negative feedbacks. It is on the egregiousness of these assumptions rather than on the greenhouse effect itself, that most sceptics (including myself) have focused.”
From this paper:
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/09/Lindzen-global-warming-narrative.pdf
Clint R
You are a science denier like Gordon Robertson and Swenson. You just state endless opinions on your personal beliefs about what you think is science but reject any and all real science informtion.
Case of point. The averaged Earth surface emission is around 390 W/m^2. This is based upon using real measured values and then applying statistical analysis and weighing functions to derive an average (much greater at equator much less at poles).
You can question the methods used to get the average. That would be valid skepticism. But just denying it is not science or skepticism. That would be cult minded (which you are yet you accuse everyone on the blog of what you actually are).
“I do not think Dr. Lindzen would agree with your science denial.”
A couple of points. What is “science denial”? Science exists, by definition. Who denies that it does? Are you just being stupid for no reason?
What reason do you have for thinking anyone of sound mind values your opinion? Who cares what someone agrees with, if it happens to be wrong?
You are quite mad, trying to avoid the fact that you refuse to even describe the mythical GHE!
Keep trying – I await your next essay into silliness with almost bated breath!
Norman,
You wrote (in your typical idiotic fashion) –
“You are a science denier like Gordon Robertson and Swenson.” You need to get a refund from your mindreading school. Science definitely exists, and I dont deny it. You can’t name anybody who does, can you? You just can’t use English to what you really want to, so you talk nonsense.
You are a gullible and ignorant cultist, who seems to believe in a GHE which you refuse to describe, and won’t even say what you believe the GHE does!
Feel free to demonstrate that Im wrong, otherwise you will look like a deranged fool.
Carry on.
Swenson
Aside from your mindless rambling. I have described to you what the GHE is and how it works. If you are a real human than you have zero memory. If you are a poorly programmed bot that someone launched on this blog, than it would be pointless to describe anything to you.
Either way you keep asking for the GHE, others satisfy this request. You are unable to process the information or quickly forget or are just a word scramble bot that takes posts, scrambles some words in a mindless word salad and posts it.
Norman, you nitwit,
You wrote –
“Aside from your mindless rambling. I have described to you what the GHE is and how it works. If”.
Maybe you are referring to the following nonsense, which you wrote earlier?
“The GHE works like insulation but of radiant energy not conduction. With the GHE the sky will not warm the ground at night but will slow the cooling rate. When you claim I am wrong at least attempt to follow my line of logic.
No description of the GHE there – unless you are implying that the GHE is “insulation”, but are refusing to say so. Are you worried about looking like a fool, given that the Earth has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunshine?
Or are you refusing to say that the GHE heats nothing at all, and is another name for “slow cooling”?
You are definitely away with the fairies – there is no GHE. Insulation? Slow cooling? Already known, no need to rename them.
Swenson,
If I explain something to you, are you going to do some research and see if I am actually wrong.
That would help you know.
“The lapse rate is just the rate at which temperature generally falls with altitude under certain circumstances. This partially depends on the density and composition of the air, and can be negative.”
Yes they are due to the composition of the air, more greenhouse gases means a lower lapse rate.
“What are greenhouse gases, and what is their relevance to the lapse rate?”
Like I have told you before, greenhouse gases are polyatomic gaseous molecules in the atmosphere.
Swenson
What part of this statement is beyond your understanding?
Slowing the cooling rate of a heated object will cause the object temperature to increase.
Let me know what confuses you on this point.
Insulation will increase the temperature of a heated object. Even you can test this to determine if true.
If you can’t understand insulation and how it will increase the temperature of a heated object, than quit asking me to explain things you can’t grasp or understand.
So far the three stooges (You, Clint R, and Gordon Robertson) can’t understand how insulation will increase the temperature of a heated object. No amount of evidence will convince any of the stooges of anything. So set are they all in their own deluded reality.
Norman,
You wrote –
“Slowing the cooling rate of a heated object will cause the object temperature to increase.”
Don’t be stupid. Insulation (and you claim the GHE “works like insulation”) just slows the transmission of heat – put some heated soup in an insulated container, and its temperature will drop, not increase.
Just like the Earth. It has cooled, and continues to do so, losing about 44 TW, according to real scientists called geophysicists.
No GHE. Slower cooling is cooling, not heating. You are confused, ignorant, and gullible if you believe otherwise.
Carry on.
What is ONE description you will live with, and not change? You cant say.
For the liars:
Definition of the greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that occurs when certain gases in the Earths atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap heat from the Sun, warming the planet. These gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. This process maintains a habitable temperature on Earth, making it possible for life to thrive.
How it Works
Absorbtion: Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor [sic], absorb some of this radiation.
Trapping Heat: The re-emitted radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, preventing it from escaping into space.
Re-emission: The absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions, including back towards the Earths surface.
Warming: The trapped heat warms the Earths surface, maintaining a habitable temperature.
Importance of the Greenhouse Effect
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earths average temperature would be around -18C (-0.4F), making it inhospitable for life. The natural greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining a stable climate, allowing life to flourish on our planet.
Human Impact
However, human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and contributing to global warming. This enhanced greenhouse effect is known as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.
Key Takeaway
The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun. While it is essential for life, human activities have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to an enhanced greenhouse effect and global warming.
Text produce by the Googol AI, which anyone can retrieve in seconds. So dont believe anyone lying that it cant be defined.
“The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earths surface by trapping heat from the Sun”
It doesn’t seem to have worked for four and a half billion years of sunlight.
When did it start?
That should be a FALSE religion is a kind of opium
All religions are false. At most, some are sporadically useful.
Swenson
If you want to communicate you have to select similar definitions for words.
You claim heated soup wrapped in insulation will cool. I would say hot soup wrapped in insulation will cool but when I am using the word heated I mean it is still receiving energy (verb form not in past tense). If you choose to use the term in the past tense that the soup, at some point, had energy added to it and its temperature went up but now it is removed from the energy source then I would not call that heating an object.
If you want to tell me I am dumb then at least use the same understanding I am using for words. I have explained what I mean when I put the word “heated”. An object (soup) would still be on a burner or the Earth’s surface is still receiving energy from the sun.
Norman,
OK, put your insulated hot soup in sunlight. Leave for 24 hours. Still cools. Just like the Earth.
I’ll just point out that after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the Earth has cooled significantly. Your “insulation” didn’t work, did it?
Over to you.
Swenson,
“Why would you ask an art critic for a description of the GHE? Because GHE cultists refuse to divulge a valid description?”
Did I suggest asking an art critic for a description of the GHE?
Perhaps this will help
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_and_Jane#/media/File:Dick_and_Jane.jpg
Bumbling bobby,
“Did I suggest asking an art critic for a description of the GHE?”
Did I say you did?
Swenson,
“Why would you ask an art critic for a description of the GHE?”
Yes.
Bumbling bobby,
Why would you ask an art critic for a description of the GHE?
Can you provide any reason, or do you agree it would be silly?
I certainly didnt suggest you ask an art critic for a description of the GHE. That would be as silly as asking a “climate scientist”!
Swenson,
Would it help if I quoted you doing just that?
“Would you ask an art critic for a description of the GHE?”
See what I did there?
Bumbling bobby,
Why would you ask an art critic for a description of the GHE?
Can you provide any reason, or do you agree it would be silly?
I certainly didn’t suggest you ask an art critic for a description of the GHE. That would be as silly as asking a “climate scientist”!
Why do you insist on looking stupid?
Swenson,
You are looking silly, carry on.
Bumbling bobby,
Why would you ask an art critic for a description of the GHE?
Can you provide any reason, or do you agree it would be silly?
I certainly didn’t suggest you ask an art critic for a description of the GHE. That would be as silly as asking a “climate scientist”!
Why do you insist on looking stupid?
It’s fairly cold here, being in hottest region of world and summer is starting. Not so cold as I need to turn in the heater, and it should get a lot warmer as summer continue. [It’s not close to killing lemon tree or not like winter at all.]
It always seems to me, if cold here, it’s warmer, elsewhere, or I would guess June will probably continue to have higher global temperature.
Atlantic has good chance hurricane:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc
A 70% chance of cyclone formation in southern part of gulf of Mexico and far more eastward, another one with 10% chance within 48 hours.
My side doesn’t have anything yet.
Boca Chica is 80 F or warmer night and day, going to rain and lightening- and maybe, eventually get a hurricane.
California has no drought anywhere, and very drought in rest of US.
I would guess years before we get any serious drought conditions.
But if look at Starbase live:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg
It looks dry, unaware of any doom coming- though a bit gloomy.
LOL! Politico Thinks They Have a Bad Post-Verdict Poll for Trump. They Dont.
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/06/17/lol-politico-thinks-theyve-found-a-bad-post-verdict-poll-for-trump-n4929938
“Its only been a few weeks since the sham verdict of Trumps trial came out, and Democrats are still waiting for the polls to show that Trump is in trouble. So far, we havent seen any proof.”
The election is months away, forever, in terms of politics.
The editors seems to think America can’t survive four more year of Biden.
I tend to think the dem party can’t survive it. Joe has been worse for Dem party than Obama.
A glimmer of hope for dem party,is that old age will get rid a lot of them.
The corporate news could have wall to wall funerals- and perhaps they will garner a huge amount of public sympathy.
And it should help, immensely, with the rating of corporate news.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In the Former Eastern Bloc, They’re Terrified of a [Donald] Presidency
For Americans, authoritarian rule is theoretical. But in Eastern Europe, reminders of it are everywhere, as is dread of a partial return to those days.
https://newrepublic.com/article/182170/former-eastern-bloc-terrified-trump-presidency
Willard, its illegal to interfere with an election.
Your leftist roots are showing.
Kennui, it may be legal to pretend you know more about totalitarian regimes than those who lived under one. But that would be silly.
So why do you still fall for it?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you’re &c.
Thanks for that, meaningless as it may be.
Nobody cares when you’re &c, Mike.
OK, Willard.
Nobody &c., Mike.
Thanks.
Nobody, Mike.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“CO2^s 15μ photons can quite happily cut steel at 288K.”
Yes, if produced by converting sufficient electricity to coherent high intensity light.
However, as you admit, 15um photons emitted by dry ice cannot cut steel, no matter how much you try to concentrate them. They won’t even warm water.
All irrelevant anyway, the Earth has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere, and exposure to photons of all sorts of energies,
No wonder you refuse to describe a GHE which reflects reality.
Its impossible. The GHE is a myth.
Swenson
YOU: “All irrelevant anyway, the Earth has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere, and exposure to photons of all sorts of energies,:
The Earth overall (core included) has cooled some. The surface has not cooled. You still are unable to grasp Earth surface and Earth as a whole. The Surface is solar heated and will warm and cool considerably depending upon location and season. You really are a bore with your endless nonsense points. Can you get your brain examined, if human. You seem to have severe dementia where you cannot remember more than a few moments previous. If not a human but a mindless bot, can you have your programmer update your primary program?
Norman,
You wrote –
“The surface has not cooled. You still are unable to grasp Earth surface and Earth as a whole”
The surface is no longer molten. It has cooled.
If you don’t want to accept reality, that is your choice.
There is no GHE.
Your silliness “The GHE works like insulation but of radiant energy not conduction. With the GHE the sky will not warm the ground at night but will slow the cooling rate.” Is quite meaningless. Slow cooling is cooling, you fool, not warming.
Swenson
YOU: “The surface is no longer molten. It has cooled.”
Note your statement “it has”.
I don’t think anyone disagrees that it has cooled from a molten state to a solid state (for land). That does not suggest it is still cooling!
You can easily test it is not continuing to cool when summer months approach. If you live in Australia than you are in the Winter cycle and the surface is cooling. But wait a few months and put a thermometer on the ground and record the temperature for both night and day. You will find the ground (surface) is warming as you go into summer months. This series of measurements will falsify your statement that the surface continues to cool.
Norman,
At least you wrote “I dont think anyone disagrees that it has cooled from a molten state to a solid state (for land). That does not suggest it is still cooling.”
It is no surprise you refuse to describe the GHE, as the four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, atmosphere containing all the mythical “greenhouse gases” – nothing at all stopped the planet cooling as you acknowledge happened.
It looks like any supposed GHE is a recent phenomenon. When did it start, and why?
Bear in mind, the Earth is still losing energy at a rate of around 44 TW, and during the night the surface loses all the heat of the day to outer space, plus a little internal heat. Fairly obvious, otherwise the Earth would not have cooled to its present temperature. Still cooling, according to measurements by geophysicists. Even Fourier had measurements which showed the planet was cooling, and Lord Kelvin and others used these measurements to calculate the age of the Earth.
Yes, the Earth loses more energy than it receives. That’s called cooling, but you may call it getting hotter if you like. I’ll keep laughing, of course.
If you refuse to divulge your valid GHE description, I wouldn’t blame you. It will be hard to say why your ” insulation” didn’t seem to work for four and a half billion years, then started at some time you can’t quite work out, doing something quite impossible.
Try anyway, if you think you can.
Swenson
Why is it impossible for you not understand the difference between the whole Earth and the surface. In the summer the surface is much warmer even at night than in winter months! The surface warms in summer months and cools in winter months on a yearly cycle. Currently all measurements of Earth global SURFACE indicate it is warming not cooling. If you are so able provide evidence that the surface of the Earth is cooling.
Norman,
“Currently all measurements of Earth global SURFACE indicate it is warming not cooling. If you are so able provide evidence that the surface of the Earth is cooling”
No, thermometers above some parts of the land surface are being affected by anthropogenic heat, showing higher temperatures.
The 44 TW or so of energy that the Earth is losing is being lost to space by being emitted by the crust – as it must. That’s why the interior is still glowing hot, but a thin crust has “frozen”.
Most heat loss (cooling) occurs from the oceans, due to the crust being thinner under the oceans in general, as well as some 70% of the surface being underwater. The heat from the interior heats the ocean water, which rises as a consequence, and then radiates the energy to space.
There are papers dealing with the various mechanisms involved, which include measurements.
Maybe you can describe a GHE which includes some previously unknown physical laws which only emerged recently , but I doubt it. When did this “surface warming” start? NASA says “Global warming is the long-term heating of Earth’s surface observed since the pre-industrial period (between 1850 and 1900) . . .”. After four and a half billion years of cooling, do you believe that the Earth stopped cooling, and started heating again, a century ago? I don’t.
No valid description of the GHE, and contradicting the work of real scientists like geologists, and geophysicists. Even Fourier, prior to 1824 had access to measurements of heat loss, sufficient to be able to estimate how old the Earth was, by extrapolating backwards, the maximum depth at which the Sun’s influence became unnoticeable and so on.
You have faith in something which you refuse to describe in any meaningful way.
Still no GHE, is there?
Bobdroege starts to accept reality –
“Well, no, the claim that you can warm water with dry ice is not supported, even though water does abzorb the radiation from dry ice, the fact is that the dry ice would be abzorbing more radiation from the water thus would be warmed by the water and the water would be cooling.”
Bumbling bobby does not understand the mechanism, but that does not matter. He accepts that dry ice, emitting 15 um photons, will not warm water at all, which is a start.
He is refusing to say whether the photons emitted by water ice can warm water, but hopefully he will accept that reality as well.
All the argy-bargy about hotter objects “absorbing” photons is irrelevant, if the supposed “absorption” has no warming effect! No temperature increase of the hotter object. No GHE.
I await bumbling Bobbys declaration that photons from colder objects can be absorbed by hotter objects, raising the temperature of the hotter object, but refusing to say how this miracle might occur!
Swenson,
“He is refusing to say whether the photons emitted by water ice can warm water, but hopefully he will accept that reality as well.”
Of course I am, because whether or not the water gets heated depends on the abxorbtion of the photons from ice and other factors.
If it is just water and ice exchanging photons, then the ice will warm and the water will cool.
Anyway the greenhouse effect is between gases and the surface, not between water and ice, so no greenhouse effect there, try looking elsewhere, as I have told you before.
Bobby,
You wrote –
“Anyway the greenhouse effect is between gases and the surface, not between water and ice, so no greenhouse effect there, try looking elsewhere, as I have told you before.”
OK, but the surface cools at night, and overall the planet has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Are you sure the greenhouse effect only involves “gases and the surface”? If the “gases” are colder than the “surface”, won’t the surface just cool? Just like the real world?
Rather like putting a pot of almost boiling water in the Sun. The air is cooler than the water, so the water cools. If you are worried about “conduction”, then suspend the bowl with a very thin non-conductive filament.
Why would the bowl of water cool, but the surface get hotter? Seems a bit strange.
Swenson,
“Are you sure the greenhouse effect only involves gases and the surface? If the gases are colder than the surface, wont the surface just cool? Just like the real world?”
In the real world the GHE slows the cooling, by transferring energy from the atmosphere to the surface.
You change my experiments in an irrelevant way shows how little you understand.
Keep it up, and I’ll award you Captain of the Clown car.
Bobby,
You wrote –
“In the real world the GHE slows the cooling, by transferring energy from the atmosphere to the surface.”
Slow cooling is not heating. Energy does not “transfer” itself from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface. That’s just being delusional.
Step outside at night, or accept the fact that the Earth’s surface has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. No heating to be seen.
You also babbled “You change my experiments in an irrelevant way shows how little you understand.
Keep it up, and Ill award you Captain of the Clown car.”
You have obviously lost it. That’s possibly because you are a loser. Still no GHE – cooling is not heating, no matter how much you screw your eyes up, and concentrate really, really, hard.
Accept reality.
Swenson,
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/global-warming-day-night-cloud-wildlife/
All your base belong to us!
Baffled bobby,
Providing another pointless and irrelevant link which doesn’t describe the GHE doesn’t make you look very clever, does it?
About as clever as saying something stupid like “All your base belong to us!”
Carry on. Your ducking and weaving is good for a laugh, anyway.
Swenson,
I was responding to this:
“Step outside at night, or accept the fact that the Earths surface has cooled over the past four and a half billion years. No heating to be seen.”
Not another request for a description of the GHE, which I have provided time and time again.
But the reference also showed evidence that it is now warming, there is nice graph.
Nights are getting warmer, not cooler.
Yes all your base belong to us, and you have been pwnd.
The surface cools at night, you idiot.
You don’t have to believe it.
Keep dreaming – no GHE!
Nights are actually warming faster than days. That’s a central line of evidence for the enhanced greenhouse effect.
EB,
You wrote –
“Nights are actually warming faster than days. Thats a central line of evidence for the enhanced greenhouse effect.” – which you refuse to describe, of course.
Greenhouse effect, enhanced greenhouse effect, super greenhouse effect – none of them exist.
The Earth is now cooler than it was four and a half billion years ago, and continues to cool, losing energy at a rate of some 44TW. No GHE. You are dreaming.
You are obviously confused about the fact that thermometers respond to additional anthropogenic heat production by getting hotter!
How are you getting along with your trivial “blocking” program, Blockhead? Given up? Why am I not surprised – you are pretty clueless when faced with physical reality.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you’re not suprised.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Bobdroege still attempts to divert –
I asked “What are greenhouse gases, and what is their relevance to the lapse rate?
Bumbling bob replied –
“Like I have told you before, greenhouse gases are polyatomic gaseous molecules in the atmosphere.”, with of course no response to about their relevance to the lapse rate, nor any idea of the relevance of the lapse rate to anything at all!
Not only that, but bobby has decided to call polyatomic molecules like O2 and N2 “greenhouse gases”. Who can say why? Not even bobby, who refuses to say what these supposed “greenhouse gases” are supposed to do!
What a complete reality denying nutter bobby is. He agrees the Earth’s surface has cooled, but claims it is getting hotter at the same time!
These fanatical GHE cultists lurch from crisis to catastrophe, refusing to divulge a valid GHE description – and not even able to state clearly what the GHE is supposed to do, when it started, and why it resulted in cooling for four and a half billion years.
Good for a laugh, at least.
Swenson,
Poly means more than two, atomic means made of atoms.
So N2 and O2 are not polyatomic and I do not consider them greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases trap heat and make the surface air temperature warmer, as measured by thermometers 6 feet above the surface.
Bumbling bobby,
“Greenhouse gases trap heat and make the surface air temperature warmer, as measured by thermometers 6 feet above the surface.”
Complete nonsense. The surface cooled for four and a half billion years. No amount of polyatomic gases stopped the cooling.
If you some other process started recently, which started warming thermometers 6 feet above the surface, why are you refusing to say what it is?
There is no GHE, bob.
You wrote –
“The greenhouse effect is the abbysomething of specific wavelengths of infrared by gaseous CO2 and other polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere reducing the rate of cooling of the Earths surface to space, which causes an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.”
– which didn’t work in the past. Why do you think it suddenly changed?
Maybe you should consider changing your GHE description to include fact – or just refuse, as usual.
No valid description, no GHE.
Swenson,
My description of the GHE is supported by facts and data.
The observed spectrum of gaseous CO2 and the measurements of downwelling IR at the wavelengths that CO2 emits.
“Complete nonsense. The surface cooled for four and a half billion years. No amount of polyatomic gases stopped the cooling.”
So what?
Greenhouse gases in the Earth’s early atmosphere certainly affected the rate of cooling, it’s not necessary to stop the cooling.
” which didnt work in the past. Why do you think it suddenly changed?”
It didn’t change.
Bobby,
You wrote –
“Greenhouse gases in the Earths early atmosphere certainly affected the rate of cooling, its not necessary to stop the cooling.”
Exactly. The Earth is still cooling. Millionths of a Kelvin per annum, losing energy at a rate of 44TW or so.
You haven’t mentioned how a slow rate of cooling becomes heating – after four and a half billion years. Keep waffling and evading. No GHE. just anthropogenic heat production by eight billion humans, trying to produce and use as much energy as they can.
Feel free to demonstrate that thermometers do not respond to anthropogenic heat, if you wish.
Swenson,
The Earth is currently warming about 0.15 C per decade.
Because of the 170,000 TW from the Sun, against a paltry 44 TW from the Earth’s interior or Man’s waste heat, I can’t remember which one you are referring to.
“Feel free to demonstrate that thermometers do not respond to anthropogenic heat, if you wish.”
Yes they do, locally, but the total is 0.04 watts/meter^2 for the whole Earth.
“The Earth is currently warming about 0.15 C per decade.
Because of the 170,000 TW from the Sun, against a paltry 44 TW from the Earths interior or Mans waste heat, I cant remember which one you are referring to.”
It just managed to cool for four and a half billion years, but you can’t quite say why, is it?
Don’t forget that during the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day. Accept reality.
No GHE. I suppose you are refusing to provide a description of the mythical GHE which refers to the Sun, are you? You’d look pretty stupid trying to explain four and a half billion years of cooling, nothing changing, and suddenly heating starts!
Are you insane, or just pretending, for some reason you refuse to divulge?
Swenson,
“It just managed to cool for four and a half billion years, but you cant quite say why, is it?”
Well, no it didn’t, there were periods of warming during the last 4 1/2 billion years, recoveries from glaciations during that period, as well as massive periods of volcanic activity that also caused warming.
It just managed to cool for four and a half billion years, but you can’t quite say why, is that it?
According to you –
“The Earth is currently warming about 0.15 C per decade.
Because of the 170,000 TW from the Sun, against a paltry 44 TW from the Earths interior or Mans waste heat, I cant remember which one you are referring to.”
It’s colder now than it was four and a half billion years ago. That’s called cooling.
You babble “Well, no it didnt, there were periods of warming during the last 4 1/2 billion years, recoveries from glaciations during that period, as well as massive periods of volcanic activity that also caused warming.”
You can’t quite say why the planet would heat up after cooling, then, is that it?
Massive volcanic activity? That would be heat from the interior, would it? That heat is quickly lost to space, resulting in – cooling!
You still can’t these “periods of warming” can you? Any more than “periods of cooling” – which had to precede them!
You are really being a fantasizing fool now. Try and accept reality. You still can’t quite say why the planet would start to heat – after cooling for four and a half billion years (or some shorter period, ha ha), can you?
Oh dear. Missing word – my bad.
Replace “You still can’t these “periods of warming” can you? Any more than “periods of cooling” which had to precede them!”
With “You still can’t explain these “periods of warming” can you? Any more than “periods of cooling” which had to precede them!”
Luckily, Wee Willy Wanker will support me by declaring that nobody cares whether I leave out a word from time to time.
Swenson,
Here is evidence of heating and cooling periods in Earth’s history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
Bumbling bobby,
“Here is evidence of heating and cooling periods in Earths history.”
No it isnt, you dummy.
The planet doesn’t miraculously cool down and heat up without reason.
You need to actually read your links – no planetary cooling or heating mentioned.
Carry on dreaming.
Swenson,
Reading comprehension again.
“You cant quite say why the planet would heat up after cooling, then, is that it?”
No, it’s not, actually just before that I posted
“as well as massive periods of volcanic activity that also caused warming.
What grade level do you read at?
3rd grade or worse?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
For fans of Richard Lindzen, here are some snatches of text from a piece on the GWPF site:
To be sure, changes in greenhouse forcing may play
some role, but with respect to the glaciation cycles, changes due
to orbital variations provide changes in insolation of the order of 100 W/m2 in the Arctic in summer, which is the relevant factor in the Milankovitch theory (Roe, 2006), while changes in CO₂ contribute about 1.5 W/m2
One negative feedback for which there is substantial
evidence is the so-called iris effect, wherein upper-level thin cirrus clouds (which are powerful greenhouse substances) reduce their coverage as surface temperature increases
If you are reduced to citing Lindzen, therefore, might I urge you to keep away from denials of the GHE. He clearly acknowledges that the GHE exists and that CO₂ is a forcing.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/09/Lindzen-global-warming-narrative.pdf?mc_cid=d5f95de4d7&mc_eid=7679c5335e
Same source: the view that atmospheric water vapour will increase with global warming … amplifying surface warming, since water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas … is long established.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/09/Lindzen-global-warming-narrative.pdf?mc_cid=d5f95de4d7&mc_eid=7679c5335e
Also from Lindzen. Again, no indication of any doubt that the GHE exists:
The next measure is how the observed change compares with what we might expect frombgreenhouse warming. Now, CO2 is not the only anthropogenic greenhouse gas. When all of them are included, the IPCC finds that we are just about at the greenhouse forcing of climate that one expects from a doubling of CO2, and the temperature increase has been about 0.8C. ―Sensitivity, by convention, generally refers to the temperature increase produced by a doubling of CO2 when the system reaches equilibrium. If mans emissions are responsible for all of the temperature change over that past sixty years, this still points to a lower sensitivity than is produced by the least sensitive models (which claim to have sensitivities of from 1.5 to 4.5C for a doubling of
CO2). And the lower sensitivities are understood to be
unproblematic. However, the IPCC only claims man is responsible for most of the warming. The sensitivity might then be much lower. Of course, the situation is not quite so simple, but calculations do show that for higher sensitivities one has to cancel some (and often quite a lot) of the greenhouse forcing with what was assumed
to be unknown aerosol cooling in order for the models to remain consistent with past observations
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/115153/12129_2017_9669_ReferencePDF.pdf
observations.
Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer are lukewarmer, As am I.
But these later days, everyone seems to be a lukewarmer.
But these later days, everyone seems to be a lukewarmer.
Tourists in Greece might beg to differ.
Well a long time ago, a lukewarmer would be someone who thought the most amount global warming for doubling global CO2 level was 2 to 3 C.
Which was regarded as blasphemous.
Of course the actual increase in global CO2 level has not caused anywhere near this amount of warming.
And it’s doubtful global CO2 levels will double.
And if burning a lot coal would cause it, China has already burnt a vast amount of coal.
{Though it seems China’s master plan is dig even deeper for coal- which kind of interesting question, how much mineable coal is there in the world, if one is willing and able to dig that deep.}
China average yearly temperature is about 8 C, it seems no matter how much coal China burns, it not going to make it, much warmer.
Though one could mention that the depth that they are digging coal does have a higher average temperature.
Maybe it’s actually a housing plan.
The range of estimates for sensitivity varies around a median of 2.8K, and has for some considerable time. As the years have passed the range has narrowed.
We may, indeed, avoid a doubling of CO2. That should not surprise anyone, as the Paris goals envisage keeping warming to 1.5C, way below the consensus figure for sensitivity. A doubling would represent a massive policy failure. And I wouldn’t be so cynical as to foresee one of those.
EB,
“The range of estimates for sensitivity varies around a median of 2.8K, and has for some considerable time. As the years have passed the range has narrowed.”
Complete nonsense. CO2 concentration has no quantifiable effect on weather. Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations.
You are dreaming – there is no GHE.
… except in a greenhouse.
There is no such thing as greenhouse forcing. There is no GHE.
You write – “He clearly acknowledges that the GHE exists and that CO₂ is a forcing.”
Oh dear, yet another dreamer. As Richard Feynman said “doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Smart fellow, agrees with me. No experiment, just dreams.
Your problem, aside from denying that Lindzen clearly agrees with the science, is that you don’t have anything remotely like a theory.
Elliott,
You wrote –
“Your problem, aside from denying that Lindzen clearly agrees with the science, is that you dont have anything remotely like a theory.”
What a stupid thing to say! Anybody who uses “science” in the way you did, is using the word incorrectly. Lindzen may agree with whom he likes, but of course he has never described the GHE, either.
Lindzen has no theory, not even a hypothesis to explain a previously unknown phenomenon.
It makes Feynman’s observation “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong” relevant.
Speculations are just that – one is as good as another, provided that they agree with reality.
The Earth’s surface is cooler than it was after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight. You still refuse to divulge a GHE description which reflects this fairly obvious fact.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you act as if you ignored that the other Dick indeed described the greenhouse effect.
Good to know. Thanks.
This is a test
You failed. That makes you a loser.
Only joking – you’re a loser anyway, believing in a mythical GHE.
The very POWERFUL the Solar Irradiated planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon ( N*cp )^1/16
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Join the brightest minds in climate, energy and policy for Los Alamos National Lab “Climate Security” Symposium, in collaboration with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine at the Santa Fe Convention Center in New Mexico from June 26-27, 2024.
With half of June now behind us, and it shaping up to be the hottest June on record, when one focuses on the physics of AGW and totally ignores its biological/ ecological consequences, as the hopium crowd does, what difference does another symposium make?
‘and it shaping up to be the hottest June on record’
Sources needed. Even the graph at the top of this website is showing only the average. Its not recording highest and lowest temperatures; just the deviation of the average from the normal.
Earlier, bumbling bobdroege wrote –
“Swenson,
“Colder bodies do not raise the temperature of warmer ones.”
Thats just nonsense.
Of course they can, I have done exactly that.”
A miracle! Either that, or bobby is about to unleash another spectacularly unsuccessful semantic zinger – which turns into the usual damp squib.
The atmosphere does not raise the temperature of the surface – not even when the atmosphere is warmer than the surface, strangely enough. Any meteorologist will confirm that a low level inversion at night does not stop the surface from cooling.
Phenomena such as pyroclastic flows are not relevant to the mythical GHE, so I have not included them.
Bobby is thrashing about, trying to avoid admitting that the laws of thermodynamics apply to “climate science”. At least he admits that 15um photons emitted by frozen CO2 do not warm water even a tiny, weensy, bit. The water ignores the 15um photons totally- as it should.
No GHE – just strident cultists claiming it exists, while refusing to provide any valid description of the mythical object of their devotion!
Swenson,
“A miracle!”
Nope, just normal physics and thermodynamics.
A miracle would be you repeating the experiments I have proposed and finding out you have been wrong all this time.
“A miracle would be you repeating the experiments I have proposed and finding out you have been wrong all this time.”
Ah, I see. You refuse to do “experiments”, but you want others to waste their time at your behest.
No, it won’t work. The Earth has cooled, continues to cool, and you still refuse to describe the GHE in any meaningful way.
Just saying something like “The greenhouse effect is the abbysomething of specific wavelengths of infrared by gaseous CO2 and other polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere reducing the rate of cooling of the Earths surface to space, which causes an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.” won’t help. The surface temperature has dropped for four and a half billion years. It also does so every night.
Go on, do an “experiment” which demonstrates otherwise, fool. You are quite mad.
Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
[laughing derisively at delusional “experimenter”]
Swenson,
Do you understand what the word repeat means?
I have done experiments that show you can cause something to increase in temperature by adding something colder.
You said that couldn’t happen, your theory is thus wrong because it does not agree with experiment.
Also I have done an experiment that show if you reduce the rate at which something is cooling while being heated, then the something increases in temperature. Something you have also said is not possible. Again your theory is wrong because an experiment shows otherwise.
Sounds like you were working the concession stand on graduation day.
“I have done experiments that show you can cause something to increase in temperature by adding something colder.”
No you can’t. You are just playing with words, and trying to be clever.
That’s why you refuse to even describe your “experiment”. In any case, you refuse to describe the GHE in any way that reflects reality, so any experiment is impossible.
The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and continues to do so.
The atmosphere does not heat the surface.
There is no GHE.
You are delusional.
Demonstrate otherwise if you think you can.
You said that couldnt happen, your theory is thus wrong because it does not agree with experiment.
Nice to see that svensdottir is at least consistent in one respect.
Elliott Idiot,
You wrote –
“You said that couldn’t happen, your theory is thus wrong because it does not agree with experiment.”
Nice to see that svensdottir is at least consistent in one respect.”
What are you babbling about? Are you quoting bobdroege and putting his words in my mouth, or are you just being an idiotic troll for no reason at all?
You really are a strange fellow.
Swenson,
When pwnd, you result to lying.
“Thats why you refuse to even describe your experiment. In any case, you refuse to describe the GHE in any way that reflects reality, so any experiment is impossible.”
I have not refused to even describe these experiments.
I have described them, read this thread for proof of that.
Bumbling bobby,
“I have not refused to even describe these experiments.”
Of course you have – they don’t exist.
Except in your convoluted fantasies!
Swenson,
‘
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the GHE occurs on other planets, not just the Earth.
So your claim that the Earth has cooled from an initial molten blob is irrelevant.
By the way, that was an assumption of Lord Kelvin for his age of the Earth calculations.
Whether or not that is actually a fact is debatable.
Your grasp of science is not.
Bumbling bobby,
You wrote –
“You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the GHE occurs on other planets, not just the Earth.”
This is the GHE which you jokingly described as –
“greenhouse effect is the abbysomething of specific wavelengths of infrared by gaseous CO2 and other polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere reducing the rate of cooling of the Earths surface to space, which causes an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.”, is it?
Or are you refusing to divulge a GHE description which mentions any other planets?
Are you denying that the Earth’s surface was once molten, now? Good for you!
Gee, at least you can change your mind. Nobody can accuse you of saying anything definite can they? That’s because you are a fanatical GHE cultist – refusing to commit to anything that can be held against you!
Carry on being a fool.
Swenson,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
You have to read the sources we provide for you.
Planet and planetary are in the first paragraph.
And there is this
https://astro.sitehost.iu.edu/ala/PlanetTemp/index.html
Bumbling bobby,
Changed your description of the GHE again?
Are you now saying “The greenhouse effect occurs when greenhouse gases in a planet’s atmosphere insulate the planet from losing heat to space, raising its surface temperature.”?
Well, that’s nonsensical, isn’t it? Nothing at all is stopping the Earth from losing heat to space – about 44 TW currently.
The Earth’s surface temperature has dropped – now lower than it was four and a half billion years ago.
Try again, bumbling bobby. Try for something that reflects reality.
[what a wobbly, lurching, nitwit is bobdroege]
Swenson,
Not much of a change, is the Earth a planet?
If the Earth is losing 44 TW, but gaining 170,000 TW from the Sun, it is cooling or heating?
What’s the temperature of a blackbody the size of the Earth giving off 44 TW?
How does that compare to 288K?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Julie Interviews Hollywood Writer, Jeff Astrof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUfCFCn6QH8
Jeff makes case for more older Jews working in Hollywood.
It’s easy enough to see that the Three Stooges‘ version of thermodynamics is hopelessly garbled if you just put a jacket on in Winter. Although the jacket remains cooler than your body, your body surface is warmed. Or look at a fireplace as the fire is dying down: The top of the fire is white ash, but down deep at the sides the fire is still red hot. The cooler walls of the fireplace keep the fire warmer at the points where they are closer. Equally, you could hold your hand close to a hot plate and image it with a thermal camera: Your hand would leave a hotter imprint on the plate when removed.
All very simple stuff.
Elliott,
Put a jacket on a corpse in the Sun. You are definitely simple if you think the corpse will warm up. The jacket probably will.
Maybe you should keep looking stupid about your refusal to describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality.
Don’t accidentally forget to include some laughable nonsense about the Earth cooling for four and a half billion years while simultaneously getting hotter!
Maybe you could ask a computer AI program to “describe” the GHE or you? Only joking, you did that already, didn’t you? How did that work out for you?
Oh dear, slow cooling is warming, is that it? Maybe the whole planet alternately cools and heats, depending on the whims of the fearsome fire-breathing Sky Dragon?
You’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
[sniggering]
Try putting a corpse in a greenhouse in the Sun.
“Try putting a corpse in a greenhouse in the Sun.”
With or without a jacket, dummy?
You really are an idiot, aren’t you?
Just put a clear, plastic sheet over it. It will warm up, something that your gibberish about thermodynamics cannot cope with.
EB,
What are you on about? Put an object in the Sun, and you are amazed it warms up? I hope not.
Try it at night – greenhouse, jacket, clear plastic (whatever the significance is supposed to be), anything inert – cooling results.
For exactly the same reasons that the Earth (surface and all) is cooler now than when it was molten!
Are you trying to imply the existence of some miraculous recent planet heating mechanism? Maybe you could refuse to divulge this amazing new physical phenomenon! Or is it simply magic? Heating by cooling, or something similar.
Oh well, if you refuse to say anything definite, nobody can possibly prove you wrong, can they?
Clever, very clever – not.
Carry on.
I don’t have to be amazed. I’m not the one denying an entire science. You should be amazed that a body warms up more in the Sun when you put a transparent jacket over it, because your chimpanzee version of thermodynamics denies that it is possible.
With apologies to the chimpanzees.
“You should be amazed that a body warms up more in the Sun when you put a transparent jacket over”
I would be totally amazed, unless there was a wind blowing, and the transparent covering prevented convective heat loss. You are dreaming.
You sound like one of those silly people who dont understand how greenhouses operate, but refuse to commit themselves to anything definite.
I’ll help you out. Interposing anything between the Sun and a thermometer reduces the amount of radiation reaching it, resulting in lower temperatures. An example is the Earth’s atmosphere, which prevents about 35% of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface, resulting in lower maximum temperatures than those occurring on the Moon, after identical exposure times.
If you were slightly more intelligent than a chimpanzee, you would divulge the reasons for believing that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter! But you won’t – indicating that you don’t understand what you are implying.
What a dummy you are! Go back to your pathetic attempts at “blocking”, BlockHead.
Carry on.
Poor chimpanzee doesn’t understand that its garbled account of thermodynamics rules out a greenhouse working by hindering convention just the same as by radiation.
“You should be amazed that a body warms up more in the Sun when you put a transparent jacket over”
I would be totally amazed, unless there was a wind blowing, and the transparent covering prevented convective heat loss. You are dreaming.
You sound like one of those silly people who dont understand how greenhouses operate, but refuse to commit themselves to anything definite.
I’ll help you out. Interposing anything between the Sun and a thermometer reduces the amount of radiation reaching it, resulting in lower temperatures. An example is the Earths atmosphere, which prevents about 35% of the Suns radiation reaching the surface, resulting in lower maximum temperatures than those occurring on the Moon, after identical exposure times.
If you were slightly more intelligent than a chimpanzee, you would divulge the reasons for believing that reducing the amount of radiation reaching a thermometer makes it hotter! But you wont indicating that you dont understand what you are implying.
What a dummy you are! Go back to your pathetic attempts at “blocking”, BlockHead.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you’re amazed, just like nobody cared when you were Amazed…
“The cooler walls of the fireplace keep the fire warmer at the points where they are closer.”
And the polar ice cap keeps the ocean ‘warmer’ than it would be without it.
Are you willing to assert that the ice cap warms the ocean?
Ludicrous..
Slower cooling is not warming.. it is cooling..
Slower cooling combined with a constant source of heat results in warming. Again, this is REALLY, REALLY SIMPLE.
Hello Elliott,
So then you agree that the polar ice cap (which slows the cooling of the ocean) warms the ocean.
Very well, let’s move on.
2 pts:
Replacing o2 with co2 and h20 increases the rate at which the atmosphere cools
The solar input to the oceans is not constant but fluctuates due to many variables.
The amount of uvb being absorbed is just one of them. For some 40 years now increased uvb isolation of the oceans has raised the ocean surface temperatures.
Elliott Bignell,
You wrote –
“Slower cooling combined with a constant source of heat results in warming. Again, this is REALLY, REALLY SIMPLE.”
The Earth has had a constant source of heat (the Sun) for four and a half billion years. It doesn’t seem to have resulted in warming. Cooling, yes. Warming, no.
Maybe you are just REALLY, REALLY, SIMPLE. Or in complete denial of reality. Either would explain why you refuse to describe the GHE in any way reflecting reality.
No GHE. Surrounding a thermometer with CO2 does not make it hotter.
You can probably write a trivial computer program to assist you to reject reality. Good luck.
“And the polar ice cap keeps the ocean warmer than it would be without it.”
Not really.
You still haven’t thought about how the two cases differ, Phil?
“Not really.”
What does that mean? It does, or it doesn’t.
Do you mean not, or not?
Are you not really a complete idiot? Just an almost complete idiot, perhaps?
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares when you are playing dumb past your bed time.
Hello Willard,
“You still havent thought about how the two cases differ, Phil?”
What two cases are you referring to?
Elliott said:
“Slower cooling combined with a constant source of heat results in warming”
The polar ice cap slows the cooling of the ocean considerably being an excellent insulator
The ocean has a (relatively) constant heat input.
That would seem to fit the description given.
Ergo the polar ice cap warms the ocean
> What two cases are you referring to?
Playing dumb, Phil?
An atmosphere isn’t an ice sheet.
“Playing dumb, Phil?
An atmosphere isnt an ice sheet.”
Not at all Willard.
I’m just following the logical path that follows from this statement:
“Slower cooling combined with a constant source of heat results in warming. Again, this is REALLY, REALLY SIMPLE.”
Now you could argue that the atmosphere is a much worse insulator than an ice sheet, and I would agree!
Which means that the ICE (ice cap effect) is magnitudes greater than the ‘GHE’
You’re not following any logical path, Phil.
You’re not following any physical path either.
You’re more into analogies.
Hello Willard,
“Youre not following any logical path, Phil.”
Given that Slower cooling is warming,
How am I not?
“Youre not following any physical path either.”
Well true enough, as the silliness of ‘Slower cooling is warming’ is exposed.
Warming requires heat. Slower cooling is still cooling..
Phil,
The answer to your silly question is because the atmosphere is not an ice sheet.
The very first thing I told you.
“The polar ice cap” has nothing whatsoever to do with the atmospheric GHE. Obfuscation.
”
Slower cooling combined with a constant source of heat results in warming is valid physics, Phil.
Explain why not.
Hello Nate,
”
Slower cooling combined with a constant source of heat results in warming is valid physics, Phil.”
Then you would agree that the polar ice cap ‘warms’ the ocean?
Ice is a great insulator (much better than the atmosphere) and prevents almost all heat loss from the ocean beneath it
But of course claiming it (or the atmosphere) warms the ocean beneath it is of course ludicrous.
For the reverse is true, the warmer ocean warms the colder ice and atmosphere..
Obviously you have no answers PhilJ are just playing games.
Interesting fact, if you are one a submarine, you can tell if there is ice above you just by reading the temperature of a seawater intake temperature gauge.
28 F you are under some ice
29 or greater, you are not under ice.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
I’m really looking forward to blocking Svensdottir.
Good for you! Rational people would not bother reading comments they didnt want to. Have you no self control at all?
How is your blocking proceeding, BlockMeister? Or would you prefer BlockHead?
You’re a bit slow, aren’t you? How hard can it be for a brilliant programmer like yourself?
Maybe you could spend less time writing pointless comments, and apply yourself to a trivial bit of programming. You’ve had a week or so – what else have you been wasting your time on?
Block away, laddie, block away.
[laughing]
More than 550 hajjis have died as temperatures in KSA exceed 50C.
Very sad.
According to a paper in The Lancet, cold kills about 9 times as many people as heat, globally.
You knew that, didn’t you?
Did you know?
For every study in The Lancet cranks pay lip service to, two come from The Washington Post.
Good to know. Thanks.
I’m gone for a couple of days and the cult kids are out-on-control.
Ellottttt and bob remain confused about a CO2 laser. (They should try their laser without plugging it in.) Norman remains confused about his attempt to describe the bogus GHE, not realizing he didn’t do it. (What he described was Earth’s natural “atmospheric effect”, where N2 and O2 play the leading roles.)
It’s like someone once said — “You can’t help stooopid”.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
What leading role does N2 and O2 play: do you still hold that they shoot cold rays on the ground?
Clint R
The only confused person is you. Goofy as you are you are you deny science and think this makes you smart. N2 and O2 will not reduce the surface radiant energy to space. It is established via measurements, that you deny, the surface emits considerable more IR than the TOA. Since you deny facts and measured values it is not possible to engage in intelligent discussion. You are correct that your stooped opinions and endless insults are not fixable.
See Norman, there you go again.
You can’t describe your bogus GHE, so you’re babbling nonsense like “the surface emits considerable more IR than the TOA”. DUH!
Of course the surface emits more than TOA. You have really ran out of ways to pervert reality. Now you’re trying to use irrelevant distractions.
You’re getting as bad a silly willy. Next you be using his baby-talk, like “teh”, “moar”, “sock puppet”, and “riddle me this”. You’re that close to the bottom….
You’ve got NOTHING.
… except basic theory proven by experiment.
Except a stack of research papers so deep that the lower levels are turning into coal.
“Except a stack of research papers so deep that the lower levels are turning into coal.”
And not a single one contains experimental support.
Why are you refusing to provide details of any of these papers? Scared?
Ellottttt and bob remain confused about a CO2 laser.
Yes, I thought the laser would have you panicking.
Elliott,
You have some peculiar thoughts. Why would anybody be panicking about a CO2 laser?
Is it about to fall on their foot, perhaps? Do you normally panic at the sight of a CO2 laser?
Are you stupid or just ignorant?
The world wonders!
Clint R
I m correct. Intelligent discussion is not possible with you. You cannot understand simple thermodynamics that insulating an object that is heated by an external energy source (Sun heating Earth’s surface) will lead to a higher temperature. Since you acknowledge the TOA emits much less IR than the surface you don’t see how that acts as a radiant barrier? It is not a distraction. You are the one who distracts.
Sorry Norman, but “emission” is NOT the same as “transmission”.
Norman,
You are a donkey. Insulate a bowl of water from the Sun. Put it in the sun. See it not get as hot as an uninsulated bowl.
That’s why the Moon gets hotter – more radiation strikes the surface.
Trying to impose your will on reality doesn’t work.
Carry on.
Don’t feed the tr oll.
Bumbelbee nests failing due to warming:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/04/bumblebees-overheating-threat-global-heating-temperatures-aoe
Elliott, please stop trolling.
US weather fatalities for 2023 show heat-related deaths to be by far the largest cohort, 20 times the number for cold:
https://www.weather.gov/hazstat/
Elliott.
Good to know. And the 95% of people who don’t reside in the US?
You wouldn’t be trying to suggest the planet is getting hotter would you? After four and half billion years of cooling, you’d need a good reason, which you don’t have, or are refusing to divulge.
How clever would that be?
Elliotttt, thanks for sharing your finds on the internet.
Just more verification of the HTE.
(Don’t worry, the effect will go away long before your cult understands science.)
Science works by falsification, not by confirmation. Just thought you ought to know. You’re going on the list for the first public version of my scum-blocker, by the way.
Elliot,
“Science works by falsification, not by confirmation”.
Agreed. Rather a pity that you cant provide a GHE description that can be falsified.
No science there.
Swenson,
That’s not how falsification works.
The theory of the GHE is not falsified, if it were possible to falsify the GHE it would not be a valid theory.
So far, your meager attempts to falsify the GHE have not panned out.
bob, there is no “GHE theory” to falsify. Your cult doesn’t have one. All you’ve got is a bunch of hand-waving and false beliefs.
That ain’t science.
Clint,
You are just a wanna be Swenson.
I can understand why you’d say that, bob. Swenson and I are a lot alike. We both try to hold you cultists to science and reality.
Got a viable description of the bogus GHE, yet?
Got a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, yet?
Still got NOTHING, huh?
Clint,
Of course I don’t have a viable description of the bogus GHE, because it is not bogus.
And you don’t have a viable model of orbit without spin either, because everything is spinning.
You have less than nothing, so I have more than you.
That’s all nonsense bob, as usual.
Thanks for being such a good example of brain-dead.
Clint,
Calling it nonsense is not evidence, nor is it proof.
See you have nothing but insults, all hat and no cattle.
Don’t you still owe me a proof that the Moon does not spin?
Buffoonish bobby,
“Calling it nonsense is not evidence, nor is it proof.”
Proof? Are you mad?
How might one prove that something you refuse to describe does not exist?
Simply by pointing out that you refuse to describe the GHE in any way that agrees with reality. Just complete nonsense – a figment of your imagination.
Can you prove otherwise? Of course not, because you are just another fanatical GHE cultist, more ignorant and gullible than most.
Carry on.
Swenson,
That would be easy, I’ll give you several options.
Prove there is no gaseous CO2 in the atmosphere.
Prove gaseous CO2 emits and absorbs all frequencies of infrared light, instead of only selective ones as Quantum Electrodynamics tells us.
Prove that the Earth cooled since it’s formation.
Prove the only way the surface of the earth can cool is by radiation.
And on another topic, maybe you can provide the proof that the Moon does not spin, which is what Clint promised me but never delivered.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
This is not going to end well.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
New Delhi just recorded its hottest night on record, 35.2 C at the Safdarjung Observatory (data since 1901).
New Delhi has hit 40 C or greater for 37 consecutive days now.
Life imitating art…
A,
Still refusing to divulge the reason for the high temperatures?
Why is that?
Sure, but first answer me this. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer shits little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?
A,
Still refusing to divulge the reason for the high temperatures?
Why is that?.
Stupidity, ignorance or just refusing to be helpful?
Writing “Sure, but first answer me this. . . .” just shows how unhelpful you are trying to be.
Other opinions may differ, of course.
“Still refusing to divulge the reason for the high temperatures?
Why is that?.
Stupidity, ignorance or just refusing to be helpful?
Writing “Sure, but first answer me this. . . .” just shows how unhelpful you are trying to be.
Other opinions may differ, of course.”
Sure, but first answer me this. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer shits little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?
A,
You wrote –
“Sure, but first answer me this. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff grass. Yet a deer shits little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?”
Why do you want to know? Can’t you work it out for yourself?
You must be more stupid than I thought.
So, Swenson now wants someone to tell him “the reason for the high temperatures.”
Does he not have the means and intelligence to conduct this research on his own?
Does he not possess a set of heuristics that could guide him in this research?
Or is he just a buffoon asking irrelevant questions?
Inquiring minds want to know.
A,
Still refusing to divulge the reason for the high temperatures?
That’s your decision. Whatever reason you give will be in denial of reality, which is why you steadfastly keep avoiding saying anything which can be objectively examined.
It’s fairly obvious that babbling nonsense like “Sure, but first answer me this. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff grass. Yet a deer shits little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?” is just avoiding acknowledging that you refuse to give any reason for thermometers getting hotter.
Obviously, claiming that CO2 somehow has magical heating powers sounds stupid even to you, so I don’t blame you for not saying that. You refuse to say much of anything, except diversionary nonsense, by the look of it.
If you are trying to show how smart you are, you are succeeding.
Carry on.
The latter.
Well, that’s certainly informative – or not, as the case might be.
My message seems to have disappeared, but the short version is that my plugin is now working in a very basic form. I’ll put it on the repo after some tidying up.
EB,
Presumably, your plugin is to assist those without the mental capacity to either not read comments by particular people, or, having read them, form an opinion as to whether they represented valuable information.
Is that about right?
I suppose those of limited intellectual capacity need protection from the real world.
I wish you every success. Those less gifted need all the help they can get.
The First Conclusions
Conclusions:
1). The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results. The theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean) are almost identical with the measured by satellites (Tsat.mean).
Planet….Te…..Te.correct…..Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury..440 K….364 K…….325,83 K…340 K
Earth….255 K….210 K…….287,74 K…288 K
Moon…270,4 K….224 K…….223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars….210 K…..174 K…….213,11 K…210 K
2). The 288 K – 255 K = 33C difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses. The Earths atmosphere is very thin.
There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The mean temperatures for the Earth and Moon are 68K apart, both according to your Tsat.mean and your Tmean. Both bodies are at the same distance from the Sun. What is your explanation for this?
EB,
“What is your explanation for this?”
Why do you ask? What does your vast knowledge of the mythical GHE suggest the temperatures should be?
Are you just posing a silly gotcha trying to make somebody look stupid?
2). The 288 K – 255 K = 33C difference does not exist in the real world for a planet like Earth when ignoring the IR opacity of its 1bar atm.
Christos’ calculations are off by 33C from actual measurements of Earth with atm.
Just as a matter o& curiosity. Christos wrote –
“Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earths mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.”
Christos says his calculations agree with measurements. You say they don’t.
Who should I believe?
“The theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean)”… was missed by Swenson. Typical.
NB: Christos can just adjust Φ to make his “theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean)” exact to measurements so Christos’ calculations can look even better to Swenson. Even though they are off by ~33C concluding: “There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.”
Thank you, Elliott, for your response.
“The mean temperatures for the Earth and Moon are 68K apart, both according to your Tsat.mean and your Tmean. Both bodies are at the same distance from the Sun. What is your explanation for this?”
(emphasis added)
Also, not to forget, Moon receives +28% more solar EM energy per sqr.meter than Earth, because Earth has a higher than Moon Albedo (0,306 vs 0,11).
–
For more detailed explanation, please visit my site:
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
–
–
BTW, Elliott, what is your explanation?
Christos, no, our moon receives just as much solar energy as Earth; the albedo difference causes a difference in ASR between the two celestial objects.
For a more detailed explanation, dig into a first course text book in college level meteorology.
“Christos, no, our moon receives just as much solar energy as Earth; the albedo difference causes a difference in ASR between the two celestial objects.”
Well no, the Moon’s surface receives more solar energy.
From NASA – “Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.” Of roughly 1366 W/m2 available to the Moon’s surface, only about 1000 W/m2 reaches the Earth’s surface (max ever recorded 1050 W/m2).
Still no GHE. The atmosphere insulates the surface somewhat from the Sun’s rays, luckily for humans. Otherwise, we’d literally boil in temperatures over 125 C, just like on the Moon.
Accept reality.
Of roughly 1366 W/m2 solar available to the Moon’s surface and also the Earth system.
Swenson then goes on to describe in part the Earthen atm. ~288K – 255K = 33K measurements fairly well for once.
Thank you, Ball4, for your response.
“Christos can just adjust Φ to make his theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean) exact to measurements so Christos calculations can look even better to Swenson.”
–
Interesting, Ball4, what exactly have I adjusted?
Quite the opposite – I have not adjusted anything.
–
–
Ball4, why do you think the theoretical calculations should be exact with the satellite measurements?
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Because Christos ignores the ever changing IR opacity of Earth’s atm. (thus is off by ~33C) & has simply adjusted his Φ to almost match measured thermometer results; a further small adjustment to Φ will make Christos’ “theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean)” exact to thermometer based measurements (288K=288K) impressing Swenson even more.
Thank you, Ball4,
“has simply adjusted his Φ to almost match measured thermometer results;”
(emphasis added)
Please explain, how could anyone “adjust” Φ =0,47 for six smooth surface planets and moons altogether for all six of them, if there is not the real physics reason – all of them have a strong specular reflection constituent.
Those planets and moons are:
Mercury
Earth
Moon
Mars
Europa
Ganymede
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Just use a unique Φ’ for each celestial object to exactly match observed results (when available) which already include the natural specular reflection for the object & publish each Φ’. THAT will really impress Swenson when Christos’ calculations exactly match observed results.
Ball4,
“Just use a unique Φ’ for each celestial object to exactly match observed results (when available) which already include the natural specular reflection for the object & publish each Φ’.”
–
Ball4, where shall I find the unique Φ’ for each celestial object?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The exact same way Christos found Φ. Just substitute the observed results for each celestial object that has been measured (like you did for Earth) and find each specific Φ’ & to enough digits to be exact instead of rounding.
What’s the rationale for omitting Venus?
Thank you, Elliott,
“Whats the rationale for omitting Venus?”
Venus is not omitted. Please visit the respective page in my site. There I have explained about Venus.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446393385/446364348
Ball4,
“The exact same way Christos found Φ. Just substitute the observed results for each celestial object that has been measured (like you did for Earth) and find each specific Φ & to enough digits to be exact instead of rounding.”
(emphasis added)
–
What I did for Earth? Please demonstrate what I did for Earth.
Here it is, Earth’s measured average surface temperature
Tmean = ~ 288 K.
Ball4, what I did for Earth to have the Φ = 0,47 ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You set your planet mean surface temperature 1LOT equation to equal near surface thermometer derived 288K and solved for the one unknown which finds your Φ, rounded, in one eqn., one unknown:
Tmean = 288K = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Your Φ is necessary in the 1LOT when the Earth’s atm. IR opacity is ignored. Not ignoring the Earth’s atm. IR opacity eliminates the need for Φ and allows the surface temperature result to change with changing atm. IR opacity.
Ball4,
“You set your planet mean surface temperature 1LOT equation to equal near surface thermometer derived 288K and solved for the one unknown which finds your Φ, rounded, in one eqn., one unknown:”
(emphasis added)
–
No. of course not.
Please demonstrate how it could be the same Φ = 0,47 for the six planets and moons with smooth surface.
For Moon the Tmean = 223,35 Κ and the Tsat = 220 Κ
the temperatures are almost identical, there is
the same Φ = 0,47 though.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s the same because you choose Tsat numbers for our moon that are close to the result you need & also use rocky celestial object numbers that are close to the result you need. You simply ignore the celestial objects that don’t fit your required result. Ignoring the atm. IR opacity works for rocky celestial objects and will be close for Mars with a thin opacity atm.
Ball4,
“Its the same because you choose Tsat numbers for our moon that are close to the result you need & also use rocky celestial object numbers that are close to the result you need”
The same procedure is used by “climate scientists” who claim the Earth “should be” 33 K colder, and to support similarly bizarre flights of fancy.
Both are equally invalid in my opinion, and for the same reasons. At least Christos is polite, and does not try to ram his ideas down my throat. I will be happy to engage with Christos in the future if he desires, but not at present.
I assume you are arguing with Christos to divert attention away from your refusal to describe the GHE in any meaningful way, but correct me if you have another rational reason.
Carry on.
Ball4,
“Its the same because you choose Tsat numbers for our moon that are close to the result you need & also use rocky celestial object numbers that are close to the result you need.”
Of course not. I do not choose Tsat numbers for our Moon.
Surface temp… min…. mean… max
equator…….. 100 K.. 220 K
85N[3]…….. 70 K… 130 K.. 230 K
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Now, about Φ -factor:
We have Φ for different planets’ surfaces varying
0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1
For ideal smooth planet surface the Φ = 0,47
And for the a planet with a very rough surface, which surface doesn’t excibit specular reflection, (which is also idealistic)
the Φ = 1.
Planets with a smooth surface have Φ -factor very close to
Φ =0,47.
And planets with rough surface have Φ -factor very close to
Φ = 1.
Only Triton has Φ -factor somewhere in between, thus it is not possible for us to estimate its value.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you have confused the mean non-equilibrium brightness temperature of the moon equator at 220K with Tsat.mean. You can’t physically use equatorial 220K for Tsat.mean. Your Φ for the moon cannot be 0.47 unless you do so thus your whole 8:18 am theory falls apart for that reason.
Christos can’t find Triton’s Te because Christos has no way to find its Φ’ when ignoring the IR opacity of Tritons optically thick atm. Others have used the atm. physics Christos ignores to estimate Triton’s Te.
Ball4,
“You cant physically use equatorial 220K for Tsat.mean.”
Yes we can. And here it is why:
There are two basic physics planetary AXIOMS
They are two very simple, but nevertheless very important basic physics planetary axioms.
1. The planet’s equatorial mean surface temperature (Tmean.equatorial) is always higher than the entire planet’s the global mean surface temperature (Tmean.global).
and
2. The faster a planet rotates, the bigger is the difference
Δt = Tmean.equatorial – Tmean.global
and, likewise, the slower a planet rotates, the smaller is the difference
Δt = Tmean.equatorial – Tmean.global.
–
*******
These two simple axioms led us to the following very important conclusions:
1. No matter how fast a planet rotates, planet surface never approaches a uniform surface temperature (Tmean.uniform).
and
2. For a very slow rotating planet the
Δt = Tmean.equatorial – Tmean.global
the difference “Δt” is very small, and for the entire planet surface, the global mean surface temperature (Tmean.global) is very close to the equatorial mean surface temperature value (Tmean.equatorial).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ok, then Christos needs to recalculate lunar Φ using Tmean global 200K instead of Tmean equatorial 220K (or 240K equilibrium) since Christos now admits lunar Φ cannot be 0.47 since for a very slow rotating Moon the wiki data shows:
Δt = Tmean.equatorial Tmean.global
which is around 20K for lunar non-equilibrium brightness temperature and 40K using equilibrium thermometer temperature.
Ball4,
“Ok, then Christos needs to recalculate lunar Φ using Tmean global 200K instead of Tmean equatorial 220K (or 240K equilibrium)…”
–
Of course not. I don’t need to recalculate anything.
You see, Ball4, NASA has already measured planets and moons average surface temperature Tsat very much accuratelly and very much preciselly.
We know now what the planets and moons the average surface temperatures are.
The method I use is “the planets and moons the satellite measured average surface temperatures comparison”.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sure, Christos does need to recalculate lunar Φ. As Christos’ notes, NASA missions have measured brightness Tmean global ~200K for our moon and Tmean equatorial 220K brightness (or 240K equilibrium thermometer).
Christos can find that data reported by the referenced authors in his own wiki link 8:18am. On a quick look, Christos’ lunar Φ really is more like 0.43 or so depending on measured data source.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Here’s the message I lost. I just posted it in the April blog. Duh.
I have the first draught of my Chrome extension running. I am now officially retard-free. Ill tidy it up and put a bare-bones version on the repository ASAP, probably Sunday. It will be really bare-bones to start with: Just a couple of hard-coded names. The following cautions apply:
1. Youll have to actually add it to your browser, and for now itll have to be a Chromium-based browser. That includes Chrome, Brave, Edge etc.
2. Its ONLY client-side. Les nuls will still be able to spam your posts with worthless replies, and visitors will still see them.
3. Its really easy to cheat. Les nuls can just keep changing their user name every post. I cant stop that on the client-side.
Excellent. Does that mean I don’t have to put up with your witless trolling? Or do I have to waste time installing another browser, then waste more time installing your plugin, in order to laugh at your posts?
I can do that already, without wasting any more time.
Thanks.
Mike Flynn,
Elliott does not care about your ankle biting, more so when your response shows you have not read what you’re responding to.
Cheers.
Good to know. Thanks.
Regarding your third point, Elliot, you could ask the individuals you want to participate to create new email addresses. This way, you can share the extension with them privately without worrying about unintended recipients. They can delete the email addresses afterward. Just an idea.
Excellent idea.
The more people who apply blinkers to themselves the better. It means I won’t have to respond to commenters talking nonsense, if I understand the situation correctly.
I applaud his efforts.
Hi John. That’s an idea, but if the extension is accepted by Googol then I think there will be the opportunity to provide feedback on the Chrome Web Store. I think I’d go that way. It remains to be seen whether anyone but me will use it. I can’t describe the feeling of power that having a mute button on this page gives me. though. 🙂
The possibilities are pretty endless now that I have access to the blog’s DOM. I could replace that smiley with a real GIF, for instance. But only people using the extension would see it, and there’s only so much time I can commit. This could be a long-term thing, with a little increment here and there every few months.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Earth Care Farm and Regenerative Agriculture
Many farmers view improving soil health as a way to improve their quality of life by reducing their dependence on AgroChemical companies’ products and advice.
Farmers are really looking to get off that treadmill of high-input, high yield commodity agriculture. That treadmill keeps farmers in debt, year to year. Buy xx tons of fertilizer, xx tons of pesticide, xx tons of herbicide, and be sure to purchase your Monsanto seeds at exorbitant prices. Spend thousand, or tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, and “the market” will adjust prices to allow you to pay off your debt at the end of the year – and maybe have some spending money left over.
Small scale gardeners and farmers have proven that it isn’t necessary to use all of that expensive nonsense. Building soil takes centuries, when left to Mother Nature. Shortcuts will require that biomass be brought in from somewhere. Thankfully, there are mulch farms cropping up, specializing in producing mulch from common consumer waste and industrial waste.
A,
“Farmers are really looking to get off that treadmill of high-input, high yield commodity agriculture.”
Like everyone else, farmers want maximum output for minimum input. Unfortunately, farming is often dependent on weather. Not an easy life. Believe me or not, as you wish.
You wrote –
“Thankfully, there are mulch farms cropping up, specializing in producing mulch from common consumer waste and industrial waste.” Mulch farms? You sound confused. What do you really mean?
What has any of this to do with a mythical GHE which you refuse to describe?
Get real.
Today, June 20 is the official first day of northern astronomical summer for 2024 – Summer Solstice. Officially it will occur at 20:51 GMT.
Shortly after which, the traditional “Straming of the Blages” will occur, under the ministrations of the Clintistorit of Wintistering.
Just thought you’d like to know.
Ark and Elliott are really motivated to keep pushing their false religion. They may know the end is near. It’s all political at this point. The public is losing interest. The cult doesn’t even try to speak about the science. They still don’t have a viable description of their precious GHE.
It’s like with the Moon issue, where they have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
They’ve got NOTHING.
… except basic theory proven by proper experiment.
Ball4 doesn’t even believe his own nonsense. If he had anything, he would be plastering it all over the blog.
He’s got NOTHING.
I don’t believe in nonsense, Clint R, only the basic theory proven by proper experiment which is easily found “plastered” all over this blog already.
As stated, Ball4 doesn’t even believe his own nonsense. If he had anything, he would be plastering it all over the blog.
He’s got NOTHING.
… of anything to do with nonsense.
Ball4 wrote –
” except basic theory proven by proper experiment.”, showing that his idea of science is completely back to front according to me, and people who agree with me, like Albert Einstein who wrote “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Ball4 refuses to describe the GHE in any way which accepts reality.
The closest he has come to describing the GHE is when he wrote –
“There is a GHE once greenhouses were built. Obviously Swenson is the commenter dreaming there is no GHE.”, which looks very like the product of a severely disturbed mind.
Ball4 is just another fanatical GHE cultist, demonstrating both ignorance and gullibility in large degree.
There is no GHE. It’s a myth, like phlogiston and fairies.
So poor Swenson can’t even find any greenhouses. Pity. They are all over the place in farming areas with winter climates showing a profitable GHE exists.
“So poor Swenson cant even find any greenhouses”
Nope, no green houses here. Plenty of green grass, green trees, green vegetation.
Obviously, humanity needs more CO2 to make even more green plants.
There you go – should rename the green house effect to the green plant effect, and demand that the climate be changed to encourage more green plants around the world.
Maximise CO2 and H2O production for the benefit of humanity.
You can’t possibly oppose growing more food, can you?
[laughing at deranged and delusional nutter]
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Climate The Movie “the cold truth” debunked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQlEAL6N80g
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Interesting new paper…
Diurnally asymmetric cloud cover trends amplify greenhouse warming.
Science Advances. 19 Jun 2024. Vol 10, Issue 25.
Cloud patterns are changing in ways that amplify global warming. Cloud cover is changing asymmetrically, decreasing more during the day than at night. This asymmetry means that the cooling effect of clouds is decreasing during the day and their warming effect is increasing at night, adding to global warming.
During the day, clouds reflect sunlight back into space, cooling the Earth’s surface. At night, on the other hand, they act like a blanket, trapping in the heat, which keeps the surface of the Earth warm.
As cloud cover decreases more during the day than at night on a global scale, this leads to a decrease in the short-wave albedo effect during the day and an increase in the long-wave GHE at night.
The asymmetry of how cloud cover changes is an important newly discovered factor. The study described in this paper shows that this asymmetry causes a positive feedback loop that amplifies global warming.
Ark is REALLY getting desperate to support his false science —
“During the day, clouds reflect sunlight back into space, cooling the Earths surface. At night, on the other hand, they act like a blanket, trapping in the heat, which keeps the surface of the Earth warm.”
No disagreement with the physics.
The phenomenon helps explain why the surface of the Moon has more extreme temperatures than the Earth, both hotter and colder. No atmosphere, and no clouds. More radiation reaching the surface, and faster dissipation in the absence of sunlight.
“The study described in this paper shows that this asymmetry causes a positive feedback loop that amplifies global warming” – complete and utter nonsense, of course. There is no “global warming”, and no “positive feedback loop”! Just more delusions and dreams.
Earlier, bobdroege wrote –
“Swenson,
Thats not how falsification works.
The theory of the GHE is not falsified, if it were possible to falsify the GHE it would not be a valid theory.
So far, your meager attempts to falsify the GHE have not panned out.”
You refuse to say what the GHE theory is, which is not surprising, because you also refuse to describe the GHE in any way which could give rise to any theory at all!
Here’s your “description” of the GHE –
“The greenhouse effect is the abbysomething of specific wavelengths of infrared by gaseous CO2 and other polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere reducing the rate of cooling of the Earths surface to space, which causes an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth.”
No wonder you refuse to provide a “theory” for this particular piece of nonsense!
Richard Feynman agrees with me “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.”. In your case, you refuse to provide any theory at all!
Keep babbling.
Swenson,
Just calling it nonsense is not a falsification, nor is it a rebuttal.
In fact, it’s just a nothing burger.
Your clan does not have the technology to understand the GHE.
So just keep building airplanes out of sticks and leaves in hopes the sky people will come back with some cargo.
Bumbling bobby,
There is nothing to falsify or rebut.
You refuse to describe the GHE, and you can’t have a theory for something that you refuse to describe. As you say, all you have is a nothing-burger.
The GHE is a myth, nonsense. You wouldnt refuse to describe it if you had a description which agreed with reality. Would you?
Just saying “The greenhouse effect is the abbysomething of specific wavelengths of infrared by gaseous CO2 and other polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere reducing the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface to space, which causes an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth” is a nonsensical nothing-burger!
Keep babbling evasive nonsense while I keep laughing at you.
Swenson,
Your clan doesn’t have the technology to understand the GHE.
So keep building those airplanes out of sticks and leaves in hopes the cargo will come.
Bumbling bobby,
There is nothing to falsify or rebut.
You refuse to describe the GHE, and you cant have a theory for something that you refuse to describe. As you say, all you have is a nothing-burger.
The GHE is a myth, nonsense. You wouldnt refuse to describe it if you had a description which agreed with reality. Would you?
Just saying “The greenhouse effect is the abbysomething of specific wavelengths of infrared by gaseous CO2 and other polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere reducing the rate of cooling of the Earths surface to space, which causes an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth” is a nonsensical nothing-burger!
A bizarre meaningless word-salad.
Keep babbling evasive nonsense while I keep laughing at you.
Swenson,
I see you just double down on the nonsense.
You are not intellectually advanced enough to understand any description of the GHE.
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Hajj deaths have topped 1,000. Temperatures in Mecca have reached 52C, with the region warming at 0.4C per decade.
Muslim eschatology foresees the destruction of the Ka’Ba before the return of Jesus and the final battle. At this rate they’ll have to stop visiting Mecca before that happens.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/20/more-than-1000-hajj-pilgrims-die-in-mecca-as-temperatures-hit-high-of-51c
Elliott, please stop trolling.
<a href="Graham D. Warner “>Graham D. Warner always ends up PSTering.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
I’ve started the process of adding my extension to the Google store. There are quite a few boxes to check, so it might take a day or two to finish up. I’ve added a “mute” button next to the user-name for each post to make the usage more obvious. The extension will be called “tarderase”.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner always ends up PSTering.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Does anyone recall the pictures of clear skies following 9/11. No contrail or conhaze as I now call it for a week because jet traffic was suspended. How can people not feel the change in daytime temps and especially night time temps from these artificial clouds. Its pollution!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkRWMpDTZ4A
AA used to be a leading airline, one of the best. In 40 years, they have “lost altitude”. Going full WOKE, they have ended up with that “ignorant slut” (thank you SNL), who understands NO science or knowledge of aviation. Contrails are reflecting solar, which would have a cooling effect. “Control Towers” don’t handle high altitude flights. That’s done by ARTCC.
Okay, submitted for review. If the extension is accepted, it will appear in the Chrome Web Store under . It has a little red “mute” icon which I still need to tidy up, and if you click the icon an editable list of named mutees drops down. There is also a “mute” button next to the names in the blog. Disable or remove the extension to see the blog raw. Reload after each mute to see the retard-free blog.
Under “tarderase”, that should read.
Excellent.
Ordinary (normal) people can just decide for themselves.
Elliott brings some new cult id10cy to the blog. He believes science is advanced by closing off science!
Typical cultism….
Clint R,
I have to smile.
It’s obvious to some that they have the self control and intelligence to believe what they want.
Others need to be told what to believe.
Fanatical GHE cultists are gullible and ignorant. They believe whatever they are told by cult leaders. Most people prefer to believe what they are told, without thinking for themselves.
Hence things like wars, religions, cults, politics, and so on.
That is the human condition, as they say. All part of life, for better or for worse.
No GHE. Facts dont depend on belief.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares if you smile.
Thanks for that.
For the hands-on types, and in case Googol don’t accept the extension, I have put the code up on a public GitHub repo:
https://github.com/ElliottBignell/extension
You can fork the code and do what you want with it or I can add you as a collaborator if you have some good ideas.
And I should have added: You can download the code and use it directly in your browser in developer mode if you want, rather than wait for Googol to okay me.
EB,
Do you have a particular reason for writing Googol instead of Google?
Are you trying to appear different – more intelligent than people who use “Google”, perhaps?
You can refuse to say, if you like.
Okay, we havin’ fun now. On my browser at home I see the blog with a nice, sans-serif font and the images you link to appear as images embedded in the text.
I’d love to add site previews, but I haven’t found a free previewing service.
Now that you have finished wasting all that time, I’ll let you know that a commenter called WizGeek already made something along these lines, to block out the people that he found troubling to his own personal belief system. As far as I know, nobody used it. Perhaps you will have more success, but probably not.
DREMPT,
If people are so terrified of words, they should just give up reading or listening to people talking.
No self control at all.
A pack of scared little children, believing in SkyDragons, fairy tales, and worried that the sky will fall at any moment!
Oh dear, reality is definitely something they hope will go away and leave them to their comfortable fantasies.
Graham D. Warner, always serviceable.
It interesting that the guy with a high number of posts complaining about other people, with a lot of back and forth, wants to mute them to improve the quality of the site. Have you considered that it is precisely this sort of tit for tat that is the problem?
Tim S,
If people need help to ignore something with which they disagree, they obviously lack self control.
All a bit strange, as it has no effect on blog comments, as far as I know.
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your lack of self-control, just like nobody cares about TS’ Very Intelligent NO U.
Good to know. Many thanks.
“Break glass” moment: FEMA should recognize extreme heat and wildfire smoke as “major disasters.”
The nation’s top emergency response agency has long been a lifeline for cities and states struggling with disaster. Yet for all its assistance, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s official definition of a “major disaster” does not include extreme heat and wildfire smoke. It’s time to change that.
The Stafford Act -FEMA’s animating statute- should be amended to include extreme heat and wildfire smoke in its regulations.
Doing so would unlock crucial disaster relief funding that would allow local governments to invest in cooling centers and air filtration systems, work toward resilient energy solutions such as community solar and storage, and better prepare for emergencies.
Year after year, extreme heat and wildfire smoke emergencies consistently exceed the economic and technical capabilities of state and local governments to manage them, adapt to them, and mitigate further harm.
Although the Stafford Act’s current definition of major disasters is already broad enough to include heat and wildfire smoke, FEMA officials have historically been hesitant to provide aid in those situations, because property damage and other material outcomes can be harder to define.
Extreme heat is already taking a considerable toll on U.S. citizens, and its effects are only expected to worsen in the coming years as climate change and other factors drive global temperatures even higher.
Also; the July temperature outlook just dropped from the NOAA CPC. Don’t die of heat stroke next month?
How does heat kill?
Heat kills in three main ways.
1/ The usual first suspect is heatstroke – critical increases in body temperature that cause organs to fail.
When inner body temperature gets too hot, the body redirects blood flow toward the skin to cool down. But that diverts blood and oxygen away from the stomach and intestines which can allow toxins normally confined to the gut area to leak into circulation. That sets off a cascade of effects, clotting around the body, multiple organ failure and, ultimately, death.
2/ But the bigger killer in heat is the strain on the heart. It again starts with blood rushing to the skin to help shed core heat. That causes blood pressure to drop. The heart responds by trying to pump more blood to keep you from passing out. You’re asking the heart to do a lot more work than it usually has to do.
3/ The third main way is dangerous dehydration. As people sweat, they lose liquids to a point that can severely stress kidneys. Dehydration can progress into shock, causing organs to shut down from lack of blood, oxygen and nutrients, leading to seizures and death. Dehydration also reduces blood flow and magnifies cardiac problems.
One of the classic definitions of heatstroke is a core body temperature of 104 degrees coupled with cognitive dysfunction.
It was thought that a wet-bulb reading of 95 degrees was the point when the body started having trouble. The new figure for young healthy people is 87 degrees, 82 for older people.
Heatstroke is an emergency. It is called the silent killer because it’s not this kind of visually dramatic event. It’s hidden.
It’s important to always keep an ample supply of tequila, salt, and lime on hand.
You can’t be too careful….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Have you ever wondered why you had hangovers?
Responsible adults don’t have hangovers, child.
Dehydration, Puffman. Alcohol dehydrates.
Keep your low-level IT job.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner can’t resist being disruptive.
Little Doxer, please stop trolling.
Nobody knowz how the Sun works
https://youtu.be/IxnqrEBxmm4
I was wondering if coronal holes could sweep the solar system with fast moving solar wind- and thereby increase the cosmic rays reaching Earth and Mars distance from the Sun.
It seems GCR are lower at Venus distance, and I don’t know how much, but it seems these fast winds would have less effect at Venus distance upon GCR levels, and likewise at Mercury distance.
Earth has average surface air temperature of about 15 C.
{which is a cold air temperature].
And it’s this average temperature because Earth has cold ocean, average temperature of about 3.5 C.
If Earth has ocean with average of 5 C, it would be much warmer.
Most of Earth history has had ocean of 5 C or warmer.
Much of Earth’s history has had ocean with average temperature of 10 C or more.
If our Moon had ocean with an average temperature of 5 C, it could have a higher average temperature. And same applies to Mars.
An issue with an ocean on the Moon or Mars, is water would evaporate, and end up at the colder polar region.
One way to solve this, is polar regions are small region and only finite amount of ice could be stacked up in either of their polar region.
Another way is to prevent water vapor from reaching the polar region- one build wall around the polar region or build a wall around the ocean of water. And limit how high wall you need, one could have wall that lower water vapor transported by some amount, like inhibit 80% of water vapor from reaching the polar region or leaving walled ocean.
With my idea for Mars, you roughly just mine a lot water, and just “like” having it snow at 100 km radius from the Lake.
You like it, because it’s profitable to allow this to happen.
The “Tarderase” extension has gone live on the Chrome Web Store. You should all be able to try it out now on Chromium-based browsers. Let me know if anyone has problems with it.
I’ll take a look at building one for Firefox in due course. At the moment I’m having fun with the one I have. I like the feature I have at home where pictures appear embedded in the text, and I’d like to add a couple of other features: Opening and closing threads, filtering the blog by users and some usage statistics, for instance. The “high number of posts” for each user would appear at the bottom pf the blog in a little histogram for that last item, for instance, and would be turned off by default to save processor time.
Yes, Tim, the constant tit-for-tat is the real problem. Unfortunately, I lack the self-control to not respond to the constant barrage of abuse while I can see it. But I have the technology to not see it. Now two of us can carry on a conversation undisturbed, and I will waste less time on worthless deniers. Not the perfect solution, but it’s been a good exercise for a full-stack engineer who had not built an extension before now.
Elliott’s effort will mean that I can point out that he has NOTHING, and he won’t respond with insults and false accusations.
I hope all of the cult uses this….
EB,
Oh, you poor dear!
Why do you allow yourself to feel abused? As you said “Unfortunately, I lack the self-control . . . “. Do you also feel bullied, annoyed, offended, and all the test? More lack of self control?
Your “feelings” are in control of you, rather than the opposite, which is how it should be. Grow a pair. Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up.
Only joking, you are such a precious petal, sensitive and easily hurt, that you need to avoid facing the reality of unfeeling people like me! I dont blame you, reality is often hard to accept.
At least, you will save me the effort of sniggering at your pathetic efforts to convince others that a GHE was responsible for the Earth cooling over four and a half billion years. Are you still going to bother commenting, when you know that others can see my responses to your nonsense, but you won’t?
Pardon me having a chortle at your expense (only joking, Im not begging your pardon at all), but it looks like you have put your foot in your mouth, then shot yourself in the foot – so to speak! It’s the funniest attempt at avoiding criticism that I’ve seen for some time.
Carry on – I hope the rest of the fanatical GHE cultists purposely deny themselves the right of reply to any silly thing that might be said about them. Can you really envisage an idiotic troll like Willard purposely not seeing my comments?
It’s a good thing you won’t even see this comment, isn’t it? Otherwise, you might have experienced hurt “feelings” – and you wouldnt be able to cope!
Got a nice little histogram at the bottom now showing the number of posts per user, the bars for les nuls blockees in red. I bet you can’t guess which bar is longest…
I’ll add filtering options to the histogram to make it easier to filter the blog for particular users and exchanges, and then I’ll add the capacity to open and collapse threads. Then it’s off to Reggio Emilia for an aperol spritz.
EB,
You wrote –
“Then its off to Reggio Emilia for an aperol spritz.”
Drowning your sorrows, are you?
[laughter ensued]
Mike Flynn,
Nobody cares about your silly jokes.
Good thought. Thank you for your concern.
It’s good to be able make willtard disappear , but can this be used to get rid of spiders in the house ???
That’ll be Version 3.0.0.
To carry out such a pointless and time-consuming exercise, a narcissistic, feeble-thinking, flim-flam man is required. Congratulations on the new job. Can you somehow find a way to filter yourself out of all websites? And ditto for Appel and Ark, who could well be related?
Thanks for reminding me of your pointless existence. Muted.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner exhibits poor sportsmanship.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
It’s way too early to predict June’s Global, so just some things to be aware of:
ENSO seems to be stuck in neutral.
The Polar Vortex has finally recovered and looks very healthy, after being weak the first half of June. Maybe the HTE has finally ended. It was quite a show.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3__gv7wmNJo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgufXq6zkgM
Protesting the Climate
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
If you know any American of voting age who is not familiar with “Project 2025”, please share this video. 🇺🇸 Thank you.
https://youtu.be/gYwqpx6lp_s?si=fraFk2DTPnw9Yj5X
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner butts in where he does not belong.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Global
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2024/06/23/uah-mean-and-median-global-for-may-2024/
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2024/06/23/uah-mean-and-median-tropics-for-may-2024/
My climate model sez severe weather with 1 inch hail possible
https://i.postimg.cc/fLj0WDVn/Clipboard011.jpg
June shaping up to be the hottest June on record. Could be +0.80 +/- 0.05 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean on the UAH LT anomaly. Scorchio! ☼
Your guess might be a little low Ark, if the HTE is still a player.
The surface is trying to cool, as seen in ocean temperatures. But the HTE has been interfering with that energy moving to space. Remember, UAH measures atmosphere, not the surface.
The HTE has done what CO2 cannot do. That’s why it’s so interesting. The HTE interferes with Earth surface temperatures being cooled. In “climate science”, it’s called “trapping heat”. But the HTE is “trapping” the entire spectrum from the 288K surface, while CO2 is “trapping” only the 15μ photons. The difference in photon energy is why the HTE works, but CO2 doesn’t. And, that is also why the GHE is bogus.
SpaceXs new $100 million Starfactory aims to build one rocket daily
https://supercarblondie.com/spacex-new-100-million-starfactory-aims-to-build-one-rocket-daily/
What happens if SpaceX’s Starfactory does built one starship per day?
It’s not clear if that is enough starship to make Mars civilization- you might need more Starfactories, somewhere else, other than this small part of Texas.
Or making one starship a day, might happen before we even explore Mars.
So, what does it mean?
It mean we have access to space, launch cost goes down, and we can lift big things into space.
For example, it’s hard to go to Mercury, because it requires a lot delta-v. So with one starship a day, one can get a lot delta-v. So can something huge to Mercury, and Mercury becomes the closest Planet to Earth, 104.5 day with simple hohmann transfer. Probably some huge Ion engine rocket, but using chemical rocket to get there in 104 days or less.
Now one can get to Venus in 60 days, but you have to hit the atmosphere fairly fast- though rather than using atmosphere to slow you down, you also use huge Ion engine so don’t have hit Venus atmosphere fast to slow down.
Another overlooked positive feedback.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad2c23/pdf
One feedback which is overlooked in current climate change dialogues is the loop connecting drought, soil desiccation and carbon dioxide emission.
Soil contains 80% of the terrestrial carbon. This study postulates that under conditions of drought and soil surface cracking or desiccation, this carbon is exposed to oxidation thereby increasing the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.
Healthy soils are potent carbon sinks. Practices like cover cropping, reduced tillage, and organic farming increase soil organic matter content, enhancing its ability to store carbon
Yes Ark, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is definitely a “positive”. Just notice the improved fruits and vegetables. All good.
See, reality isn’t so scary, is it?
A positive feedback, but also an opportunity. We’ve been hearing for years about biochar, rewilding and restoration of wetlands. Restoration of soils generally could offset much if not all of our emissions to date.
Arkady, Elliott, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
Why should anybody stop trоlling when Robertson, Clint R, Flynnson and yourself never stop doing that all the time on this blog (and, by the way, nowhere else) ?
PST is trxlling.
One should respect Dr Roy and not evade his auto censors.
Bindidon, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Graham D. Warner knows that TYSON, Elliott, Bob, and Binny are doing something right.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Oh no. Small fields cause convection.
Convection good. It’s when an entire region warms and the convection threshold rises that we’re in trouble.
Large areas cause convection also.
Top story in today’s Houston Chronicle – Front page above the fold!
It’s all climate, all the time. This is a taste of the future.
Most people don’t understand what a 100-year event means. It means that there is a 1% chance it will occur each year.
A more useful metric may be the probability of occurrence during a 30-year mortgage.
So, for a 100-year event, this is 26% (1 in 4). For a 500-year event, this is 6% (1 in 16).
Last time I was in deep South, the alligator-tail appetizers were awesome.
Will gators increase if Earth warms?
We can only hope….
Alligators seem to think humans are good eating too.
“Its all climate, all the time. This is a taste of the future.”
No, climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. Past observations do not predict the future.
The insurance industry is designed to make money for the insurance industry. Actuarial crystal balls are no better than your friendly neighbourhood fortune teller’s.
“This, combined with the impact of the change in unrealized gains, contributed capital, other surplus gains, and a significant amount of stockholder dividends at $108.0 billion, has resulted in industry surplus increasing to $1.0 trillion at year-end 2023.. Trade magazine.
Surplus of $1 trillion? Not doing too badly.
Surely you can come up with other, more creative, aphorisms about the weather and climate, no? But I digress.
The issue is not the financial health of the insurance provider but rather the insured. Try to keep up!
How do you format the blockquote, Ark?
{blockquote}text{/blockquote}
where {} =
where {} =
Let’s see if this works:
Yeehar. Thanks.
where {} = Less-Than Sign Greater-Than Sign
Testing:
{A block quote..}
John, it’s the same syntax as bold and italic: The keyword “blockquote” in angle-brackets.
Porting to Firefox should be no biggie. There is some minor coding for a compatibility layer and the rest of the code is portable. I’ll do it in the next round.
New version is online in the Chrome Web Store. It includes embedded images and a histogram of user activity.
Elliott, please stop trolling.
Taking the nickname “down under” to a whole new level.
This Australian town of 1,500 people is a place where its residents live underground to escape the extreme heat.
Coober Pedy is a small town north of Adelaide where harsh desert temperatures can often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit during the summer. It gets so hot there that birds have been known to fall from the sky and some electronics need to be kept in the fridge to stop them from overheating. Coober Pedy is loosely translated from an indigenous Australian term meaning “white man in a hole.”
Because of the severe hot temperatures, many locals prefer to live in caves dug into the hillsides, which are known as dugouts. In some neighborhoods, the only sign of life are the home ventilation shafts poking up out of the ground.
A standard three-bedroom cave house complete with a living room, kitchen and bathroom can be excavated for a similar price to building a home above ground. But these underground houses keep a cooler temperature so there is no need for air conditioning.
However, underground homes do come with their own risks as one resident spoke to the BBC about how his house collapsed. “It doesn’t happen very often,” the local said. “It was on bad ground.”
Time to get a shovel?
Q: How do you confuse a denier?
A. Give him three shovels and tell him to take his pick.
Arkady, Elliott, please stop trolling.
Just had some weather a bit closer to home. Apocalyptic rain just hit Mesocco in Graubnden. A section of the A13 motorway is washed away, 200 buildings have been damaged in a mudslide and people are still missing.
I have travelled that route at least 50 times in the last 30 years, mostly on the way to Italy, with car or bus. It’s just the other side of the Alps from me. Nowhere is safe any more.
“Nowhere is safe any more.”
Sounds like something Greta would say….
I’ve been reading newspaper stories like this since I was a child.
Nowhere is safe. The only thing to do about it is to avoid living in places that are at risk when the inevitable severe weather event occurs.
No building on flood plains prone to flooding or in forests prone to burning or on the sides of hills prone to sliding.
There is nothing different going on in the climate. You can find stories like this every year since God made little green apples.
Perhaps one day Kennui will get that it’s the frequency and the intensity that matters on the time scale relevant to climate.
On that front he’s not that different from Mr. Asshat.
1 in 500 year event is still a 1 in 500 year event.
Your Marxist views on Math don’t alter facts.
Ten 1/500 events every year is more than one 1/500 event every decade.
Perhaps Kennui should stick to political slogans.
The problem is you have no evidence to support your claim.
Perhaps you should stick to participating in Hamas protests.
The problem is that Kennui tries to deflect by going to
Step Two – Sammich Request
The problem is you have no evidence to support your claim.
No peanut butter sammich for you.
The problem is that Kennui pretends I made a claim I did not make.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Simple dynamics.
1/ Feedbacks and tipping points are emergent properties in the climate system.
2/ Emergent properties are characteristics of the system that arise from the interactions and relationships among its components, which are not predictable from the properties of the individual components alone.
3/ Feedbacks include clouds, precipitation, forest greening and browning, ice albedo, water vapor, the Planck feedback, and drought-soil desiccation-carbon dioxide emission.
4/ Tipping points include ocean circulation, ice loss, and rapid release of methane.
5/ Feedbacks and tipping points are not programmed into climate models. They emerge from the interactions between the various components of the climate system.
So called tipping points and feedbacks are all theories that have no supporting empirical evidence. Tipping points and Feedbacks are found only in climate models and the models are profoundly wrong.
Says the voice of blind faith.
Eric, Ginger, Steve, and Ric said none of that.
Elliott, bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Called it!
A win for information over disinformation.
It makes sense. You don’t have the right to lie to people en masse on social media for the same ‘riot act’ reasons it’s illegal to falsely yell ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater.
Could this be a tipping point in fighting back the tsunami of bullshit we see on social media about everything from COVID to elections, and climate change?
This is a disaster because government should never be the arbiter of what is ‘misinformation’.
Truth matters, and laws like this obfuscate truth.
“Truth matters”
says the guy who wrote: “So called tipping points and feedbacks are all theories that have no supporting empirical evidence.”
You have no credibility.
Neither should the authors of misinformation.
Fortunately, there’s a tried-and-tested resolution to the dilemma. It’s called “peer review”.
You have no evidence to support your claims.
Peer Review isn’t a reliable standard.
There is a major replication crisis in science and particularly in climate science.
See Peter Ridd for details.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/peter-ridd-the-replication-crisis/
“You have no evidence to support your claims.”
I understand your assertion to mean that you have never studied Paleoclimatology. I have, and I have worked with many excellent Paleoclimatologists.
Paleoclimatology provides critical insights into the behavior of Earth’s climate system, demonstrating the existence of feedback mechanisms and tipping points that have led to significant and sometimes abrupt changes in climate. By understanding these past events, Paleoclimatologists can better predict and prepare for future climate dynamics, emphasizing the importance of mitigating anthropogenic impacts on the climate.
Ark and EB remain ignorant of the problem. “Peer review” within a cult is worthless. All you will get is cult beliefs. The GHE nonsense is easily debunked from First Principles. That’s why none of the cult can provide a viable description of their precious GHE.
Science is about REALITY, not beliefs. Until the cult adheres to science, they’ve got NOTHING.
It’s the same standards by which Ken needs to abide. If he can’t come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”, then he will have to accept Moon is NOT spinning.
… as viewed from Earth.
See Peter Ridd indeed:
https://www.thegwpf.org/peter-ridd-joins-gwpfs-academic-advisory-council/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Tipping points in climate might be evident in paleoclimate data. I would suggest the drivers would be major geologic and cosmic events such as an unusual volcano or changes to the earth sun magnetosphere. Nowhere will you find paleoclimatic data showing human activity drove climate to a ‘tipping point’.
However, most of the climate alarmist narrative is stating that human activity is causing tipping points and there is feedback. There is no evidence to support the claim that CO2 emissions are going to cause a tipping point and there certainly is no evidence of CO2 causing feedback in the climate.
“Nowhere will you find paleoclimatic data showing human activity drove climate to a ‘tipping point’.”
Now you’re just being silly.
However, in the event you’re truly interested, I recommend getting a copy of Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary by Raymond S. Bradley. It’s a kind of Owner’s Manual for Earthlings.
“Now youre just being silly.”
How so? All of the climate alarmism narrative including discussion about imminent ‘tipping points’ has no basis in fact.
So what does paleoclimate information about tipping points, all of which are broadly speculative (derived entirely from geological reconstructions) and usually based on disasters such as asteroid strikes, have to do with CO2 emissions and the climate narrative postulated by alarmists?
“All of the climate alarmism narrative including discussion about imminent tipping points has no basis in fact.”
Note that you’re moving the goalpost by introducing the qualifier “imminent“, you deceitful rascal.
But I digress.
Your personal opinion is not supported by the substantial body of scientific evidence on climate change, though I suspect you already know that.
Let’s not forget that your initial assertion was that “So called tipping points and feedbacks are all theories that have no supporting empirical evidence.”
Now, you not only tacitly acknowledge their existence, but you also say that they are not “imminent.”
Engaging you in discussion has been a major waste of my time. Au revoir.
The only ‘tipping point’ event in human experience that I am aware of is the myth of Noah’s flood.
Lots of evidence of major flooding events in earth’s past but no evidence that there was a global flood of biblical proportions. So even if the myth is an exact account, the paleoclimate observations don’t support it.
So no evidence of ‘tipping points’ since the start of the Holocene at least. The start of the Holocene is probably a ‘tipping point’ event probably driven by Milankovitch cycles.
Kennui spends a week on a silly talking point without bothering to read one single thing on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system
All these examples already happened.
And yeah, the PETM was kinda bigger than what Noah could ever had anticipated.
Your wiki article postulates several ‘tipping point’ scenarios but does not provide any actual examples of tipping points being reached.
Its all climate alarmism based on speculating what might happen if this event threshold occurs. Complete BS.
No peanut butter sammich for you.
The only ‘tipping point’ that we realistically should be concerned about is the inevitable end to the Holocene where the ice advances once again and reaches mile high thickness over major cities.
Kennui seems to forget that once upon a time there was no ice sheet in Antartica:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/17/antarctica-tropical-climate-co2-research
Once West Antarctica sinks, it’ll be gone for a very long while. Sure, it may come back. Human beans might not see it again.
That is what is meant by a tipping point.
I’m in favor of ice free Antarctic.
Its too cold here in Canada. Global warming (as if) would be the best thing that could happen here.
Sea level rising by 80 meters would mean I get to own beachfront property.
Kennui is in favor of a climate that would submerge the Victoria island where he retired a long while ago.
Perhaps he owns shares of NCLH?
> Victoria
Erm. Vancouver island.
I doubt Kennui would like to spend his winters on Victoria Island!
If earth warmed enough for Antarctic ice to melt then Victoria Island would be Shangri la.
I didn’t know that Shangri la had so much water:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X22002192?via%3Dihub
Do you live 700 feet above sea level, Kennui?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“His recent interest is improving the Quality Assurance processes for science used to make public policy.”
I like his recommendation that government does quality assurance through an independent office of science that answers only to the auditor general. AG understands ‘independent’.
Quality Assurance is lacking as no level of government has done any due diligence regarding the climate change narrative. Too many people think climate change is an issue and so every vote pandering political hack runs their campaign agreeing with the climate narrative without ever doing the homework.
Of course Kennui will like anything that can float the contrarian boat. Alas, it is sinking:
https://australiancoralreefsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Ridd-questionable-claims-statement.pdf
That’s where we can recognize a truly independent mind.
No Peanut Butter sammich for you.
Kennui confuses who’s requesting sammiches here, and who’s dispensing them:
https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231202117
Just about anything is good to fuel the denial machine.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Decoding the Language of Alarm
https://youtu.be/CAHUc08mUKQ?t=747
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The Cant Get No Satisfaction Algorithm
It is obvious that Latimer cant ever get no satisfaction. He can follow the thread of the conversation, but this task does not seem obvious to him. And to top it all, Latimer is acting like a pest.
This leads to an interesting Procrustean game :
Step 1. Ask questions in the most annoying manner.
Step 2. Until you receive an answer, act like a pest.
Step 3. If you do receive an answer, tell (interlocutor) youre not satisfied, then go to 1.
Let’s call it the Can’t Get No Satisfaction algorithm. This algorithm is self-fulfilling. It accomplishes absolutely nothing, except state after state of lack of satisfaction.
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/33362796798
Latimer is obviously not alone in implementing this algorithm.
If you want satisfaction try peanut butter.
Pray tell more about your bad and lazy habits, Kennui.
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
Under the subject of Climate driven by solar activity.
Ozone depletion after very large solar proton events
{https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/handle/11250/3135156?locale-attribute=en}
https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/handle/11250/3135156?locale-attribute=en
Past climates are our main source of information about the workings of the real system.
From a risk-management perspective it is prudent to expect that the climate-system is becoming more sensitive than it was in the pre-industrial past, and more sensitive than indicated by the climate-prediction models with their artificial constraints. The risks and uncertainties from ill-understood factors increase as the system moves further and further away from its best known states, those of the past several hundred millennia. And increases in sensitivity can lead to tipping points.
1/ The natural range of atmospheric CO2 is about 100 ppmv. That is the value against which present and future atmospheric CO2 changes should be compared.
2/ In round numbers the natural range of variation of atmospheric CO2, across the last five glacial-interglacial cycles, is of the order of 100 ppmv.
3/ Today’s CO2 value is well over 400 ppmv, which is more than 200 ppmv above the minimum values found in glacial times, when CO2 was less than 200 ppmv.
4/ Atmospheric CO2 has now increased by more than twice its natural range.
P.s.: >a href=https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2024-0-90-deg-c/#comment-1675875>Related.
Pss: Related
Ark, is there anything you’re not afraid of?
Make sure your tin-foil hat is secured around your head at night.
I know you’re sτμpid, I know you’re worthless trash incapable of what is generally considered human thought, but sincerely, you have to be able to understand the implications of what I wrote.
Feeble and child-brained though you may be, you cannot not understand the implications.
Ark, I understand well that you are an extreme cultist, devoid of the basics of science. You can’t even provide a viable description of the bogus GHE you’re so afraid of.
OMG, not the “natural range” nonsense! Based on the last million years rather than the previous 500 million years.
Another dose of pseudo-scientific bafflegab from Ark, an established leader in such.
Meanwhile, hordes of contented polar bears are a common sight up here in the frozen Arctic. Some are even obese (migrants from the States?)
Plant life would die off at 150 ppm. Your postulate that natural range is 100 ppm is not based in fact.
Funny you mention that, Kennui, for The Great Walrus does not seem to realize that the first permanent ice sheet in Antarctica dates back to the end of the Priabonian, which was “only” 37M years ago. There was enough CO2 to make everyone happy:
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/12/439/2016/cp-12-439-2016-f03.pdf
Yet somehow it did not prevent mass extinctions.
“Plant life would die off at 150 ppm. Your postulate that natural range is 100 ppm is not based in fact.”
You have (again) misread something I wrote.
I am happy to explain the reasoning behind my post if you disagree, but please read my post again, and respond to what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
You’re not pointing out errors, you’re making them.
“rather than the previous 500 million years.”
There were no warm-blooded animals (endotherms) on Earth 500 million years ago.
“There was enough CO2 to make everyone happy:
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/12/439/2016/cp-12-439-2016-f03.pdf
Yet somehow it did not prevent mass extinctions.”
Just goes to show that CO2 level doesn’t drive or prevent mass extinctions (unless its at critically low levels)
Very low levels:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265911945_The_Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum_How_much_carbon_is_enough
What’s 500-600 ppm between troglodyte friends?
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“From a risk-management perspective it is prudent to expect that the climate-system is becoming more sensitive than it was in the pre-industrial past, and more sensitive than indicated by the climate-prediction models with their artificial constraints”
No its not prudent. It’d cost trillions of dollars spent on curbing imaginary threats from climate that have no basis in reality.
“ It’d cost trillions of dollars spent on curbing imaginary threats from climate that have no basis in reality.”
How’s this for reality…
That’s some very costly “imaginary threats” with “ no basis in reality” IMHO.
Insurance costs are going up because of a housing bubble that has caused land prices to skyrocket, not because there are more events.
Besides which most of the fires of which you refer to are arson, not natural fire events.
Too, the policy of fighting fires for the past 100 years has resulted in forests full of rubbish that would have been burned off naturally years ago; now it can’t be put out once it gets started.
You can’t separate out fires as ‘natural’ events any more. There is no way you can attribute fires to climate change.
Bloedel fire 1938
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/scv/scv871.pdf
Reality:
The IPCC has not detected or attributed fire occurrence or area burned to human-caused climate change
Globally, emissions from wildfires has decreased globally over recent decades, as well as in many regions
Canada the focus of extensive fire activity this week polluting the air in the eastern U.S. and elsewhere has not seen an increase in fire activity in recent decades
Source:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-783
You have (again) misread something I wrote.
I am happy to explain the reasoning behind my post if you disagree, but please read my post again, and respond to what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
You’re not pointing out errors, you’re making them.
“Besides which most of the fires of which you refer to are arson, not natural fire events.”
Two things.
1/ I did not “refer” to any fires.
2/ Space lasers, drones, weather control, eco-terrorism, state-driven arson…
Not lightning hitting tinder dry areas?
Regardless of the cause of ignition, dry wood burns and wet wood doesn’t, boy scouts 101.
‘dry wood burns and wet wood doesnt’
Rain went south this past winter. California Reservoirs are full to overflowing.
See ‘atmospheric river’.
Jet Stream variability isn’t climate change; its just climate. Climate Science 101.
Junior has a knack to be economical with the truth:
https://www.metlink.org/resource/ipcc-2021-wildfire/
Little Willy, please stop trolling.
“I know youre sτμpid, I know youre worthless trash incapable of what is generally considered human thought, but sincerely, you have to be able to understand the implications of what I wrote.
Feeble and child-brained though you may be, you cannot not understand the implications.”
Yep!
You noticed Ark’s meltdown, John. Fun to watch, huh?
All I have to do is shine some reality on them, and they eventually explode.
Ark wasn’t the first, and won’t be the last….
Spoken like a true tro+ll.
Reality is starting to sting a little, huh John?
It only gets worse….
“Yep!”
The same goes for all those who prefer to attack personalities and imaginary grievances rather than stick to the science.
It is not a question of agreeing with me because I’m neither a researcher in this field nor a Paleoclimatologist, so none of these conclusions are my own. I am simply explaining what the science says.
Ark claims: “I am simply explaining what the science says.”
Unfortunately Ark, you are explaining what your cult believes. Beliefs ain’t science.
Your cult has you indoctrinated to the point you live in fear. When I point out how irrational your fears are, you go “postal”.
Your cult has lied to you, and you’re trying to blame me! Learn some science and blame the ones that keep you living in fear.
So this is the famous Italian football they talk about!
Spain spared them a reality check by “only” winning 1-0.
Serie A is doomed.
Flibbertigibbet
gbaikie’s regular solar reports seem to have gone AWOL.
There appears to be a pattern to their appearance and disappearance, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.
Update: Zharkova + 39%
And for those who refer to the 22-year cycle, there seems to be a problem.
The North appears to have peaked a year ago, the SAME hemisphere which peaked early last cycle. (Albeit 4 months later than last cycle, 15% stronger, and not falling away anywhere near as quickly.)
The South is still rising, as it was doing this time last cycle.
There has been no switcharoo of the timing of the peaks.
absorbs
absorber